Mumbai

[CGM]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

[Trainer Monkey]

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

[CGM]

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

That's hardly modern society is it? We've learned a few things since then. I would say that going to war in the name of religion has long since stopped being a characteristic of "Western Society". Besides, the Crusades could hardly be described as deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians. For the most part it was between opposing armies.

[Trainer Monkey]

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

That's hardly modern society is it? We've learned a few things since then. I would say that going to war in the name of religion has long since stopped being a characteristic of "Western Society". Besides, the Crusades could hardly be described as deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians. For the most part it was between opposing armies.

Sabbra and Shatilla happened in the early eighties,the Jewish brigades surrounded the refugee camps,and the Lebanese CHRISTIAN MILITIA walked in and shot every woman child and elderly person they could find.
Oklahoma City and Atlanta happened in the 90's

[CGM]

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

That's hardly modern society is it? We've learned a few things since then. I would say that going to war in the name of religion has long since stopped being a characteristic of "Western Society". Besides, the Crusades could hardly be described as deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians. For the most part it was between opposing armies.

Sabbra and Shatilla happened in the early eighties,the Jewish brigades surrounded the refugee camps,and the Lebanese CHRISTIAN MILITIA walked in and shot every woman child and elderly person they could find.
Oklahoma City and Atlanta happened in the 90's

Yes, I remember the massacres in the Palestine camps in the 80s. Wrong yes. But I wouldn't say they were done in the name of christianity. Rather they were an extreme and over the top reaction to terrorism, because a lot of the terrorists were supoosedly based in the camps. And things got out of hand. There was also a civil war going on at the time.

[Trainer Monkey]

That's hardly modern society is it? We've learned a few things since then. I would say that going to war in the name of religion has long since stopped being a characteristic of "Western Society". Besides, the Crusades could hardly be described as deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians. For the most part it was between opposing armies.

Sabbra and Shatilla happened in the early eighties,the Jewish brigades surrounded the refugee camps,and the Lebanese CHRISTIAN MILITIA walked in and shot every woman child and elderly person they could find.
Oklahoma City and Atlanta happened in the 90's

Yes, I remember the massacres in the Palestine camps in the 80s. Wrong yes. But I wouldn't say they were done in the name of christianity. Rather they were an extreme and over the top reaction to terrorism, because a lot of the terrorists were supoosedly based in the camps. And things got out of hand. There was also a civil war going on at the time.

No,it was a cold blooded massacre,and it was religous in nature,the Palestinian combatants had allready left the camp under Jewish supervision.
The "terrorists"(ha ha) werent there,and the Jews had allready confirmed that,they supervised the removal

[CGM]

Sabbra and Shatilla happened in the early eighties,the Jewish brigades surrounded the refugee camps,and the Lebanese CHRISTIAN MILITIA walked in and shot every woman child and elderly person they could find.
Oklahoma City and Atlanta happened in the 90's

Yes, I remember the massacres in the Palestine camps in the 80s. Wrong yes. But I wouldn't say they were done in the name of christianity. Rather they were an extreme and over the top reaction to terrorism, because a lot of the terrorists were supoosedly based in the camps. And things got out of hand. There was also a civil war going on at the time.

No,it was a cold blooded massacre,and it was religous in nature,the Palestinian combatants had allready left the camp under Jewish supervision.
The "terrorists"(ha ha) werent there,and the Jews had allready confirmed that,they supervised the removal

point taken, that was over 30 years ago. End of this part of the thread.

[Kirkland Laing]

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

[CGM]

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.


OK here's an edit. Say what you want about the US and it's bombing these days, it aint like the terrorism I speak of. Because if the States did want to kill lots of civilians, then by golly you'd see far far more dead civilians.

[Kirkland Laing]

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

[CGM]

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

I don't accept that those four out of five countries that border Iraq that are supposedly "propped up" by the Americans, are ruled by dictatorships that repress their own people, to anywhere near the extent that Hussein repressed his.

Are you referring to presently propped up or in the past?

[Kirkland Laing]

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

I don't accept that those four out of five countries that border Iraq that are supposedly "propped up" by the Americans, are ruled by dictatorships that repress their own people, to anywhere near the extent that Hussein repressed his.

Are you referring to presently propped up or in the past?

We used to prop Saddam up too till he invaded another country where we prop up the ruilng family. Just because the other guys aren't as repressive as Sadders was (bloodthirsty dictators would quite happily be benevolent dictators, but this was impossible in Iraq due to the situation the Brits left the minority Sunni group to deal with when we pulled out in the fifties. Saddam was facing twin Shiite/Kurdish insurgencies and when you consider the number of people he killed in three decades of counterinsurgency compared to how many we killed in four years, Saddam was a humanitarian compared to what we just did.) doesn't mean that people aren't repressed quite violently living there.

We currently prop up Saudi Arabia, kuwait, the UAE and Jordan. Jordan in particular has a very nasty and repressive secret police regime that disappears thousands of Jordanians. They also torture terrorist suspects that the US have captured and sent to them in their spare time. Jordan is a majority Palestinian country. How keen would the Israelis be for a democratic election in a majority Palestinian country that borders the West Bank?

When we do see an outbreak of democracy in the region, as with Hamas's election victory recently, if it's somebody we don't like (like Hamas, peace be upon then) we ignore the will of the people and treat the government like a bunch of terrorists.

Here's Saudi Arabia :

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...piece-art.html

[CGM]

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

I don't accept that those four out of five countries that border Iraq that are supposedly "propped up" by the Americans, are ruled by dictatorships that repress their own people, to anywhere near the extent that Hussein repressed his.

Are you referring to presently propped up or in the past?

We used to prop Saddam up too till he invaded another country where we prop up the ruilng family. Just because the other guys aren't as repressive as Sadders was (bloodthirsty dictators would quite happily be benevolent dictators, but this was impossible in Iraq due to the situation the Brits left the minority Sunni group to deal with when we pulled out in the fifties. Saddam was facing twin Shiite/Kurdish insurgencies and when you consider the number of people he killed in three decades of counterinsurgency compared to how many we killed in four years, Saddam was a humanitarian compared to what we just did.) doesn't mean that people aren't repressed quite violently living there.

We currently prop up Saudi Arabia, kuwait, the UAE and Jordan. Jordan in particular has a very nasty and repressive secret police regime that disappears thousands of Jordanians. They also torture terrorist suspects that the US have captured and sent to them in their spare time. Jordan is a majority Palestinian country. How keen would the Israelis be for a democratic election in a majority Palestinian country that borders the West Bank?

When we do see an outbreak of democracy in the region, as with Hamas's election victory recently, if it's somebody we don't like (like Hamas, peace be upon then) we ignore the will of the people and treat the government like a bunch of terrorists.

Here's Saudi Arabia :

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...piece-art.html

OK Bud, food for thought, I'm gonna leave it at that, maybe check in here sometime down the road. cheers.