Leftist Loons Insist "Christian Terrorism" Exists . . . When It Clearly Does Not

Is it just me or are people totally unhinged on the subject of Christianity?  Leftist loons seem to be all over the place condemning “Christian terrorism”–a thing that does not exist.  First of all, “Christian terrorism” means that the terrorism is conducted because of the terrorist’s Christian faith, just as Muslim terrorism means that the terrorism is conducted because of the terrorist’s Muslim faith.  The examples of non-existent “Christian terrorism”?  Tim McVeigh and . . . um, that’s it.  The thing is that while Tim McVeigh was a Christian, he did not blow up the Murrah building in the name of Christianity, nor did he do it in the name of Jesus Christ or of God.  Motivation matters when labeling (unless you’re on the left and wish to pretend that Islam is not a motivation for Muslim terrorists).

McVeigh did what he did because he was a freaking lunatic who was lashing out at the government.  Period.  That he was a (presumably lapsed) Catholic is incidental, even to him.  Let’s compare that with the Fort Hood terrorist and every other actual terrorist who is motivated by and (in their minds, at least) doing the work of Allah.  Shouting “Allah Akbar” is a clue.  Sending video tapes saying that they are working for Allah is another clue.  Writing emails and posting to radical Islamic websites are also clues. Carefully explaining to arresting agents that they are devout Muslims driven by their religion to kill non-Muslims (and even other Muslims who happen to break some Sharia law . . . like talking to a Hindu man.).

But this idea that Christianity is just as violent as Islam has firm hold on the left.  Their evidence?  The Crusades.  Does it matter that those took place between 1095 and 1291 (that’s over 700 years ago for the Napolitano group who can’t do simple math).  SEVEN HUNDRED years ago.  But yeah, we Christians are a blood-thirsty bunch.  Just look at all the contemporary incidents of Christians killing in the name of Christ or of God.  There are literally zero such incidents.  The horror!

One of my liberal friends and I were having this discussion a few weeks ago, and she reminded me that Christians burned witches in Salem in the name of Christ/God/religion.  Well, mostly they hanged them, but point taken.  That was certainly a religious deal, compounded apparently by tainted wheat.  Again, though, how many years ago was that?  Let’s see that was in 1692, so subtracting that very carefully from 2010 we get 318 years.  We can add or subtract one for Nappy and still be relatively serene in stating that the Salem witch trials happened over 300 years ago.  Again, hardly convincing evidence that Christian terror and violence is an imminent threat.

More recently, in the 1980’s, a handful of absolute loons bombed abortion clinics . . . supposedly in our Christian God’s name.  They were reviled, rebuked, and denounced by every Christian group, church, and individual (including myself).  Where is similar outcry and denunciation from Muslims?  We don’t hear much about it, do we?  Instead, we keep learning of more and more violence against Christians from Muslims (in the name of Allah, of course), and we hear more and more of violence against Muslim women (most recently about the star of the Harry Potter movies, linked above).  Muslims are blowing themselves up in efforts to kill anyone and everyone in range, and they are doing it not only in America but in leftist loon havens like Sweden (probably because of President Bush, right? No matter that the guy was screaming “Allah Akbar” and that he sent emails about his desire for jihad–this is not, by the way, a fluffy search for self-fulfillment as explained by this truly and dangerously incompetent administration.  The truth of what jihad means to jihadis is evidenced by this jihadi blowing himself up in an attempt to take as many people with him as possible.  Unless he found that act peaceful and personally enlightening?).  Muslims are vocal and insistent that we, westerners and Christians and Jews, must all die.  Die bloody.  What is hard to understand about this?  They are not incidentally Muslim, their religion drives them.  We know this because they tell us so.  But we keep hearing idiots like Alan Colmes make insane and demonstrably untrue statements about how many “more terror plots are hatched by non-Muslims.”  His evidence?  Tim McVeigh.  And around we go again.

.
.

.

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Leftist Loons Insist "Christian Terrorism" Exists . . . When It Clearly Does Not

  1. Now Fuzzy, Once again you're bending your own rules to fit your needs. You say that there is no Christian terrorism, then admit that maybe some of the abortion clinic bombings were and then disqualify it by saying there was Christian outcry against it. You offer a sudden excuse. That's unfair.

    Once again, you lump all Muslims together as a single, evil, terrorist group. As I have said before, if all 1.57+ billion Muslims in the world were really engaged in a war with the West, there would be violence on a scale unimaginable today. But you still insist that all Muslims are culpable, you still push for a simplistic binary opposition that is both unfair, and would be devastating if actually enacted.

    You say there is no Christian terrorism. That's ridiculous. In Russia, There's the Russian National Unity whose manifesto states that they demand a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church. What about the Irish Republican Army? Were they not Christian? What about the Protestant paramilitary groups there? Have you forgotten about the Christian militias roaming about Beirut not so long ago?

    In India there are Christian terror groups, The National Liberation Front of Tripura probably the most well-known. In Africa there are Christian terror groups such as Uganda's The Lord's Resistance Army. There Christian separatists in Indonesia that have used violence to promote their cause. And there are more.

    There are plenty of instances of 20th Century violence perpetrated by Christians, Fuzzy. Don't try to create a divide between people by artificially creating a binary opposition, then sanitizing your chosen side and demonizing the other.

  2. Hi Yukio! 🙂 Actually, the only “Christian terrorists” that I could think of were the abortion bombers, and it is absolutely valid to point out that Christians were NOT dancing in the streets and celebrating (as we saw in the Middle East from so many hundreds of “moderate” Muslims after 9/11). If “Christian terrorism” were a real threat, then we'd see more than a handful of bombings thirty years ago, no? How is that not relevant?

    The fact, as I state in this post, that there are Christians who are terrorists is completely different than terrorists creating terror in the name of Christianity. Do you not see the distinction? The IRA wanted / wants Irish independence/sovereignty, they weren't seeking religious dominance and killing anyone who wasn't a Christian to further their goal for global dominance.

    Christians outnumber Muslims at least 2 to 1, and Christian nations are the ones with massive economic and military strength. The only unimaginable violence that an all-out uprising would result in would . . . well, not go well for Muslims. This is why many Muslims seek non-violent means to attain the goal of Islam. As to the rest about Islam, I've already said that I won't bother discussing that with you; I do understand your viewpoint as I've long held it myself. But no amount of reason would have made me change my mind, nor will it change yours.

  3. The real Christian terrorists are the competing shoppers in the malls at this time of year.

    However, to your point:

    WHO found a cottage industry in blowing up innocent people on airplanes? Christians/Muslims (pick one)

    Islam has a basic tenant: Convert or Die. In Ireland there were two christian groups fighting over political control of a region and yes, the weaker one resorted to guerilla tactics. The difference here is Christ's message and Mohammad's.

    Christ taught love, tolerance, kindness and that is the Christian standard.

    The Islamic standard as taught by Mohammad has been precisely the opposite.

  4. @ Fuzzy

    “If 'Christian terrorism' were a real threat, then we'd see more than a handful of bombings thirty years ago, no?”

    Christian terrorism is a real threat– or do you simply mean a threat to Americans?

    “The fact, as I state in this post, that there are Christians who are terrorists is completely different than terrorists creating terror in the name of Christianity. Do you not see the distinction?”

    There may be a distinction, but attacks on civilian targets to create social change through violence and intimidation is the same no matter how you wish to define it. The defintion of terrorism has nothing directly to do with “seeking religious dominance” nor killing everyone who is not of the same religious faith. So you wish to redefine terrorism, twisting the definition to make it fit into something that only Muslims commit? That's an academic Leftist strategy.

    Besides, do you believe Al Qaeda is trying to convert Americans to Islam? Was that the point of 9/11? Is that the point of blowing up embassies, etc.? What do you think Al Qaeda's goals are, if they are not political? Do you feel there's no difference between Osama bin Laden and that moron who was trying to blow up people in Portland? Morons like that guy are fodder for these bin Laden et al's agendas. They're not direct reflections of the leadership. If that were the case bin Laden would've blown himself up long ago.

    Why address only the IRA? Why not address the Ugandan group? The other groups in Africa? The Indonesian separtists? The Indian separatists?

    “This is why many Muslims seek non-violent means to attain the goal of Islam.”

    Many? Or the HUGELY VAST MAJORITY? Do you define this as terrorism? Do you wish to oppose this “non-violent means to attain the goal of Islam” violently?

    My main issue is that you create a false binary opposition (Christian/Muslim), and then paint one as lily white and the other as abject evil. You accomplish this by selectively picking what you wish to present from the world around us. As I said, this is a page right out of the Left's playbook.

  5. Many Libs fly to the “fundamentalist” label used to label both Christians and Muslims, as if this word makes both groups alike. Libs are more offended by a couple of so-called “fundamentalist” Christians showing up at their door with a free pamphlet than by a so-called “fundamentalist” Muslim wack-job showing up at their neighbor's door with a bomb. Because, don't you know, as is reported after every terrorist attack in a Western country, the neighbors are reportly shocked because “He was such a nice guy. Very polite.” They should make the Lib's national anthem, “It can't happen here.”

  6. @ LL

    You wrote:

    “Islam has a basic tenant: Convert or Die. In Ireland there were two christian groups fighting over political control of a region and yes, the weaker one resorted to guerilla tactics. The difference here is Christ's message and Mohammad's.

    “Christ taught love, tolerance, kindness and that is the Christian standard.”

    Your argument stems from the basic idea that Christianity is, by its nature, a peaceful religion promoting love, tolerance, kindness, etc.

    Do I really need to make a list of Christian atrocities committed throughout history? If Christianity's nature is love, tolerance, kindness, etc., why did Christianity not prevent these acts of violence? Why did Christianity, in fact, commit these violent acts against other religions and against itself?

    I'm not trying to make moral equivalencies, nor paint Islamic terrorists in a sympathetic light. Fuzzy says there are no Christian terrorists. This is a false statement.

    You imply Christianity is, by definition, a religion of peace due to a Christian standard. There is little historical evidence of this.

    Clearly there is more at work regarding this issue then mere religious differences.

  7. “Do I really need to make a list of Christian atrocities committed throughout history?”

    isn't this exactly what fuzzy was talking about in her blog, or did we read two different blog posts?

  8. @Yukio, So, reconcile this for me please. Let's say a group of 'moderate Muslims' gain polititical power to the point that they have a political majority. They are well on the way to doing in England to the point that the Church said a couple years ago that “they expect England to be under Sharia law in 30 years”.

    Then let's ask: that once 'moderate' Muslims have political majority, how would you stop Radical Muslims from rising through the ranks?

    My point is that 'Moderate' Muslims are even more dangerous than Radical Muslims, since no one seems to think moderate Muslims are a threat when in fact they are a much greater threat than terrorism. Terrorism Never won the war.

    As far as McVeigh, there is evidence that puts McVeigh and his pal together with Arabs as the whole series of events took place.

    And trying to compare Christians on equal footing with Muslims is absurd. Show me a group of Christians or any Christian who state that their purpose and religious goal in life is to cause the rest of the world to either submit to Christianity or die. ABSURD !

    Maybe you'll find a whackjob or two out there. Compare that to MILLIONS who cheer and dance in the streets in the Middle East Nations EVERY anniversary of 9-11.

    Jeeesh.
    Get a grip.

  9. @LL, well said! 🙂

    @Yukio, I really need you to be more polite to my friends (Kerry is my friend, btw) when you are on my blog.

    You honestly believe that there is nothing about Islamic terrorism that is unique to Islamic terrorism? You really think that it's just the same as what the IRA did? Truly? You think that Bill Ayers blowing up some government building for the Weather Underground is the same thing as Tim McVeigh blowing up a government building because he was one screwed up jerk is the same as al Queda and its affiliates flying planes into buildings, attempting to blow up planes, attempting to bomb crowded shopping areas? If so, you are wrong. Period. And for all the reasons I've written in this post and the other people have stated and for many more that a moment's reflection would clarify for you. You are drawing parallels that do not exist for reasons that I cannot fathom but that I do understand are rooted in our overly-politically correct culture that has conditioned us not to appreciate or even acknowledge that the peoples of this planet are NOT all the same, and that all religions (to the extent that Islam is a religion) are not the same (just insert your favorite God's name and voila! it's all the same). I do not believe this, and I do not think that you do . . . except when it comes to discussions of Islam and terror. Odd, don't you think?

    @Kerry, I'm so sorry for Yukio's rudeness to you. *hugs*

    @QR, yes, this blanket application of the term “fundamentalism” is a problem when talking about Islam, as is the insistence of so many that Islam is only and solely a religion (and thus classifiable as having a “fundamentalist” branch). It is not. It is a political, economic, socio-cultural totalitarian ideology. We know this.

    @Kid, exactly. No comparisons can be drawn, but it's typical of the left to demonize Christianity at every chance (when they aren't trying to stamp out all evidence of it, that is). Isn't it always fun when leftists all us terrorists but bend over backwards to accommodate the actual terrorists?

  10. @ The_Kid

    So moderate Muslims are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists who run jets into skyscrapers (killing thousands), attempt to blow up and poison civilians, and cut the heads off of reporters… Is that basically what you said?

    @ Fuzzy

    Exactly how was I impolite to kerry? Seriously. How?

    You wrote:

    “You honestly believe that there is nothing about Islamic terrorism that is unique to Islamic terrorism? You really think that it's just the same as what the IRA did? Truly? You think that Bill Ayers blowing up some government building for the Weather Underground is the same thing as Tim McVeigh blowing up a government building because he was one screwed up jerk is the same as al Queda and its affiliates flying planes into buildings, attempting to blow up planes, attempting to bomb crowded shopping areas? If so, you are wrong. Period.”

    The only time I mentioned the IRA was when I was using it as an example of Christian terrorists in mys first comment. That was it. Oh, I did ask why you brought up the IRA again. But that's been it.

    And Fuzzy exactly when did I mention Tim McVeigh and Bill Ayers? When did I say that all three of them are the same as Islamic terrorists? You are taking people I did not mention, stating that I believe that they are all equivalent with Islamic terrorism, and then claiming that I am wrong for doing so.

    I have said that Islamic terrorism has a political agenda. Are you claiming it does not and that is what separates them from the IRA, McVeigh, and Ayers? This seems odd considering you claim Islam isn't really a religion (a discussion we probably both don't want to get involved in ;)).

    You wrote:

    “And for all the reasons I've written in this post and the other people have stated and for many more that a moment's reflection would clarify for you.”

    A moment's reflection would clarify this for me? Yet, I am the one accused of being rude, and presumably dismissive? 🙂

    “You are drawing parallels that do not exist for reasons that I cannot fathom but that I do understand are rooted in our overly-politically correct culture that has conditioned us not to appreciate or even acknowledge that the peoples of this planet are NOT all the same, and that all religions (to the extent that Islam is a religion) are not the same (just insert your favorite God's name and voila! it's all the same). I do not believe this, and I do not think that you do . . . except when it comes to discussions of Islam and terror. Odd, don't you think?”

    I am not drawing the parellels. As I said, you are drawing parallels, then saying that I am doing so and that I'm wrong for doing it.

    The only thing I have said that could be considered a parallel is that “attacks on civilian targets to create social [and political] change through violence and intimidation” are all acts of terrorism– irregardless of the religion of the attackers and attacked. And that Islamic terrorists have a political motive– this is not to say that religion plays no part in their motives and agendas.

    Exactly when have you known me, either in this discussion or elsewhere, to be politically correct? I'm being politically correct because I disagree with you (and apparently every other commenter on this blog) on this issue? When did I suggest that all people in this world are the same? When did I say that all religions are the same?

  11. Yukio, you and I have agreed to disagree about this before, and I think that's the best course. You know my views, I know yours. Is anything I say really going to change your mind? Or vice versa?

  12. What's a moderate Muslim ? I haven't seen one. Is it moderate not to speak out against Muslim violence.

    I myself would prefer that Muslims stay in their part of the world and enjoy their 13th century life style and beliefs.

  13. @Odie — Absolutely. It's not up to the rest of the world to devolve back to 13th century Bedouin life style and beliefs, enhanced with the products of infidel labor, like air conditioning and cell phones.

  14. @Odie and QR, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and Muslim imams have said this. Often. Yep, they are more than welcome to their 13th century (or 7th century, perhaps) barbaric lifestyle and beliefs, but not here in America. Period.

  15. @ Fuzzy

    It is fine for us to disagree, as we often do– especially regarding this subject. However, it would be nice for you to acknowledge that you have put words into my mouth, accused me of being impolite (when I was not), and that you have refused to answer my questions (incl. what I said to kerry that was impolite) throughout this exchange.

    You have ignored most of what I have brought up (Christian terrorists in foreign countries [aside from the IRA], the strategy of redefining words to fit your agendas, that Muslim terrorists have a political agenda), and then misconstrued an awful lot of what I said, forcing this discussion specifically into a subject that you don't want to talk about with me.

    That's fine if you don't want to discuss this subject, and you're absolutely right when you say that we're not going to change each other's minds on this topic (I guess I just refuse to take that “moment's reflection to clarify” my beliefs) :).

  16. @ Odie

    In early September of this year, following an attack on two Christians (one a minister) in Bekasi, Indonesia (an incident widely reported on by American bloggers), there was a massive rally for religious freedom attended mainly by Indonesian Muslims (a rally that was ignored by the same American bloggers). I would suggest that you look at Indonesian papers such as the Jarkata Globe or the Jarkata Post for these stories.

    Apparently those attending that rally are not moderate Muslims– which do not exist. Or they are moderate, but are more dangerous than al Qaeda according to The_Kid.

  17. Yukio, you are right, I have ignored your comments. It is the eve of the eve of Christmas, and I am not (and I repeat NOT) going to ruin my Christmas getting into yet another days-long and ultimately utterly fruitless discussion with you about this (as I have told you many many times before). You can accept that or not (if not, simply read our previous discussions on the subject both here and at Potluck, my views have not changed). And either way, Merry Christmas to you, my friend.

  18. Fuzzy, you have not been ignoring my comments, but aspects of my comments that have little to do with our differing views on Muslims. You have also put words in my mouth that I did not say, nor would say…

    But you're right, it is close to Christmas, and Congress and Obama (and now Sebelius) are giving us enough distractions of immediate importance.

    And of course I warmly wish you a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to you as well, my friend.

  19. Fuzzy,

    Thanks for continuing to stop by The Born Aagin Americans. As Bro said we will be back with a renewed vigor after the first of the year!

    God Bless You and have a very Merry Christmas and a safe and Happy New Year!

    Lock & Load!!!
    Sons & Daughters of Liberty Unite!!!

    PS: I was not about to join in the battle between you and yukio because Mother Dear taught us, “If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!”

  20. Happy Christmas, Fuzzy. I stopped by, intrigued, from somewhere else. Certainly there was once Christian violence in the name of Christianity, but that was long ago. When considering the history of Western Christianity, it seems that the same culture founded by Christianity was responsible for the civilizing of Christians. The ideas were: personal responsibility for one's own sins, a sense that the work of a human being is the work of bettering oneself, and a sense that the world is an orderly place with fixed laws that can be understood, and a respect for the Rule of Law. Although I can say with confidence that Christianity inherited these ideas as much from my people as from the Greeks, it is undeniable that it was the rise of Christianity in the West, combined with Greek thought during the Renaissance, that led to the respect for the life of each individual and his liberty that is the hallmark of the West. And while undoubtedly one can find a few examples of Christians who do murder in the name of Christ, they are few and far between, and almost universally denounced by other Christians.

    Again, Happy Christmas! As a non-celebrator, I still enjoy the lights, the energy, and the happiness that my friends and neighbors work so hard to spread this time each year!

  21. @Fuzzy. Yes, it's fascinating as Mr Spock would say. Frankly, I don't think I've got this one figured out. Stockholm syndrome doesn't fit since they aren't confined and stressed enough. But how those who profess rights for everyone, let alone women, find it acceptable to embrace a culture that abuses not only women but humankind the most of all cultures on the planet is a bit baffling.

    @Yukio. Absolutely this is what I'm saying. On all levels. The Church of England has stated that they believe Muslims will breed them out and England will be under Sharia law in 30 years as of a few years ago. Once that happens, the Islamics have won the war. Is that not more significant that killing 3,000 people in New York? Hitler killed many when he terrorized England but England survived and ended up being stronger. Not in this case if we come to agreement with the Church of England and recognize what we see happening there.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=church+of+england+sharia+law&hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw

  22. @Yukio. Sorry, screwed up the link. I'll try again.
    They (Muslims) speak for themselves

    And I'll add… Ignore their threats like America Ignored Obama telling America what he was going to do ..at your own peril.

    Terrorism is mis-direction in the subject of the Islamic takeover plan. Just like a magician's mis-direction when performing slight of hand. Look “here”, and miss what is happening over there – until it is too late then they'll let you see.

    The Islamic infiltration is the main thrust of their plan. Just as Infiltration was/is the main thrust of the Communists.

    Have you seen this video?

    I don't know if you live in America or not. But if America falls, we/you all do. As Ronald Reagan said – America is mankind's last best hope for freedom.

  23. @L, thanks for stopping by; I think about you guys often and wish you the merriest of Christmases and all the very best in the New Year. 🙂

    @Elisheva, I'm so glad you stopped by 🙂 Yes, Christianity certainly contributed to the civilization of Christians, but our debt to Jewish beliefs is immense. This is why I prefer to think of a Judeo-Christian bedrock rather than simply a Christian one: there are Jews without Christians but no Christians without Jews.

    I think that the distinction between terrorism in the name of religion and terrorism perpetrated by those who happen to be a certain religion is an important one (thus this post): goals and motivation matter.

    Thank you for your lovey warm wishes, and I hope that you stop by again.

    @Kid, it's all mixed up with white guilt, which in its turn is all mixed up with post-colonialism. It's racist at heart, actually, but built on precepts associated with economics (the big bad white westerners deserve whatever they get for centuries of exploitation of third world–nonwhite–peoples and resources. Or something.). This twisted and illogical thinking is why leftist American “feminists” (femisogynists) ignore the violence against women that is part of Islamic teaching … even when it occurs here in America. Another reason for the over-accommodation of Islam is simply fear: fear of seeming intolerant (only when it comes to certain peoples and religion, of course, they are rabidly and proudly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian) and even fear of violent repercussions for taking a stand. Islam calls for the death of anyone who “insults Islam” (this can be anything or nothing), and countries like Great Britain mistakenly imagined that if they welcomed and allowed Islam to flourish that they'd be spared. Silly, of course, given the tenets of Islam, but that's really what they thought. And what we think? The Brits are getting a clue, slowly slowly, and we are seeing them begin to clamp down a bit more on radical jihadis. Too little, too late? Evidence suggests yes (look at the recent reports that fully 1/3 of British Muslims support killing for Islam).

  24. I may not be a scholar in such matters, but the Crusades, (which seems to be the standard example of Christian atrocities), were not carried out solely in the name of Christ. In fact, I would say that it was just a secondary, almost coincidental, motivation, behind greed for wealth and power.

  25. Hey Dudge 🙂 Well, that's certainly one take on the Crusades, and it's hard to deny that the Catholic church obtained both in great measure. Not incidental to this post/discussion, I've always understood them to have been prompted by the Muslims capturing Jerusalem and building a triumphal mosque there and their subsequent attempts to do something similar in parts of Europe (as they'd done decades before in Cordoba, the namesake–not incidentally–of the 9/11 triumphal mosque project). Islamic aggression (their still-dominant belief that and desire to rule the world) was certainly a main cause of the Crusades, but not, perhaps, the only one.

  26. @ The_Kid

    Would you care to explain to me how England (and I assume you mean the entire UK) was stronger after WWII? So the British divesting themselves of their empire was a sign of increased strength, was it?

    “The Church of England has stated that they believe Muslims will breed them out and England will be under Sharia law in 30 years as of a few years ago. Once that happens, the Islamics have won the war.”

    So, let me see if I can get this straight… Terrorism is all a massive distraction by “extremists,” and actually a part of an intricate and universal (and apparently centralized– but where?) Muslim plot to outbreed Europeans. Is that really what you're suggesting?

  27. @Yogio, England/The UK was much stronger after WWII, as was the United States. Germany and Japan were much weaker. That England gave up it's colonies, such as in India are not consequential. They had no real business there anyway and they knew it.

    Terrorism is a massive distraction yes. You need to study Islam. This war against non-Islamics has been going on a couple thousand years. Americans think of war in terms of 5 or 6 years. Beat the enemy into submission, get a peace treaty signed and call it good.
    Islam is in it for the long war. The reason 9-11 happened in 2001 was because bin laden and his Billions of followers believe in the return of the Caliphate after one thousand years which put the date at 2001. Do you not know this?

    Look at references for the Quran, the Calipahte, the return of the Caliphate after 1000 years. Take note of how Islam regards Infidels, and how the Quran explains a multitude of deceitful strategies to defeat the Infidels. Central to their plan for Islam taking over the world is moving into countries and breeding them out, infiltrating their political systems etc.

    If you're not aware of these aspects of Islam, I'm afraid your working from a much disadvantaged position in this discussion.

    I say again, Violence will never defeat a nation. If they got to be a big enough pain with their violence, eventually, an administration would be in power that would be willing to show them the violence and destruction the USA can dish out. For example, if obama's puppet master wasn't running things, and the Islamics actually managed to set off an atomic bomb in a US city, there would be massive destruction in the Middle East. A sad day indeed for many life forms would be punished that had nothing to do with it.

    Use Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Tokyo as an example. These things were done to ultimately save lives. Japan would have fought to the last man. There is no doubt about this if you know the history, and without the A-bombs, Japan would no longer exist as a culture.

    Personally, I think the same thing needs to happen in the Middle East, or how much humiliation and degradation of the quality of life are we (Americans) willing to put up with. I'll give it another year before the ignorant and supremely incompetent DHS and TSA start doing body cavity searches while everyone int he middle east splits their side open laughing as they have been doing for 8 years or so now.

    Yes, infiltration is their main strategy and terrorism is a mis-direction beside keeping the mindless hateful drones occupied.

  28. @ The_Kid

    “England/The UK was much stronger after WWII, as was the United States. Germany and Japan were much weaker. That England gave up it's colonies, such as in India are not consequential. They had no real business there anyway and they knew it.”

    Britain was bankrupt after WWII, and was only kept from insolvency by a $3.5 billion loan from the US in 1946 (this predates the Marshall Plan). Again, a sign of the great strength the UK gained from WWII… But, you're right the British Empire folded because the British just
    didn't feel like having it anymore. White guilt on an Imperial scale, I guess.

    “You need to study Islam. This war against non-Islamics has been going on a couple thousand years.”

    You know, according to Islam Mohammad was revealed the Quran in 610 AD. If this “war” has “been going on a couple of thousand years” then it pre-dates Islam– and Christianity for that matter. But then maybe the Muslims are lying to us about the date to make us think that a war with them hasn't been going on for thousands of years.

    And then again, I'm afraid I'm working from a much disadvantaged position in this discussion.

    “I say again, Violence will never defeat a nation.”

    Well, the Myceneans, Minoans, Hitites, Philistines, Carthaginians, Parthians, etc. can all breathe a sigh of relief since violence can never defeat a nation.

    “Use Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Tokyo as an example. These things were done to ultimately save lives. Japan would have fought to the last man. There is no doubt about this if you know the history, and without the A-bombs, Japan would no longer exist as a culture.

    “Personally, I think the same thing needs to happen in the Middle East, or how much humiliation and degradation of the quality of life are we (Americans) willing to put up with. I'll give it another year before the ignorant and supremely incompetent DHS and TSA start doing body cavity searches while everyone int he middle east splits their side open laughing as they have been doing for 8 years or so now.”

    So the US should nuke or fire bomb Muslim cities or else the DHS and TSA will start doing body cavity searches and then the Middle East will find that very funny… Let me guess, you teach International Relations, right?

    “Yes, infiltration is their main strategy and terrorism is a mis-direction beside keeping the mindless hateful drones occupied.”

    Who is the “they” exactly? I mean who's been secretly controlling all Muslims for “been going on a couple thousand years” and has been working to mis-direct us with terrorist violence as they implement their nefarious breeding programs (looking for the Kwisatz Haderach, no doubt)? Is it the Bene Gesserit? The Muslim Illuminati, or their version of Free Masons? Or is it the Bene Tleilaxu?

  29. Yeah, England was stronger, they had the inventions inspired during WWII, their people were victorious over Germany, it became a new era for them, just as it did for the USA. Who cares whether they had to borrow some money ?

    But, staying on subject…

    “Most Westerners do not know that a century before the Crusades were initiated (1095), Rome, the religious capital of Europe, had been besieged by Islam. They do not equate the four-hundred-fifty-year siege of Constantinople, the political capital of Christendom, with the Catholic response. Nor are most aware that Christians had been ruthlessly persecuted in the Holy Land and their churches had been burned by the Muslims who occupied the region. Further, the Crusaders were about the business of returning Jerusalem to the Byzantines who had the Holy Land stolen from them by Muslim mujahideen.”

    http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_1000-Year_Crusade.Islam

    Muslims have been around along time. Let’s remember that muslim/islam is the religion of Deceit. In fact, In my opinion, Islam isn’t a religion at all. The Koran is a blueprint for conquest of the world, sadism and mental and physical abuse and enslavement of women – for starters.

    Further, 1000 AD was the Muslim Apogee. 2000 is the 1000 year anniversary of that and which inspired the drown rat looking madman bin laden to dream of the new Caliphate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B3rdoba,_Spain

    Note that the Muslim bastard that wants to build the Muslm celebration center on the 9-11 site wants to call it the Cordoba Mosque/Community Centre/whatever. It is planned to be built in the same way the monuments to all of their other mass murder sites have been built.

    Violence never brought down a nation. Yukio – We’ve been discussing Terrorist Violence. To try to bring war into it to argue against my statement is dishonest.

    We’re also talking in the present when it comes to violence. Let’s stay on point instead of running through fake ‘gotcha’ facts and figures that are outside of the context of this discussion.

    As far as how Islam intends to take over the world, it is through breeding out and political and social infiltration. You can see it happening around the world, Well, most of us can. How else would they do it ? They don’t have the firepower to do it any other way. Maybe Iran will have a couple nukes in a year or two. Will they actually use them? It would be a big mistake on their part. The world is not going to sit around and be nuked by what is essentially a thug street gang with one bomb here and one bomb there.

    Well, I’d hate to see anyone get nuked, but I would nuke Tehran and every other Islam city before I’d submit to them. And personally, violence to the point of cultural extinction is the only thing they would understand in my opinion.

    Who are “They'” You can’t be serious. Again, it is the Billions of muslims around the world who have no objection to the agenda of Islam.

    http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/islam-is-not-a-religion-it-is-foreign-law Here are their faces

    And yes, there are Millions of these activist murderers.

    Try to stay on subject. You’re trying to float the idea that Christianity is on par with Islam. That is way beyond absurd.

  30. @ The_Kid

    “Yeah, England was stronger, they had the inventions inspired during WWII, their people were victorious over Germany, it became a new era for them, just as it did for the USA. Who cares whether they had to borrow some money ?”

    So let's see now… The British were inflicted with crippling amounts of casualties during WWII, many of their cities were devastated (including London), they lost their empire, and were in economic ruins and chaos and had to borrow billions (in 1940s dollars) to avoid insolvency. After which the UK has basically been just America's ally in world affairs– a new era indeed, and quite different from when Britain was the preeminent nation in the world. But still, they were stronger then they were before because they invented stuff– which I guess they didn't do before WWII. Uh, okay…

    “Let’s stay on point instead of running through fake ‘gotcha’ facts and figures that are outside of the context of this discussion.”

    There's nothing fake about any of these “gotcha” facts. They're simply historical facts you either are unaware of or actively ignore. Except for the stuff you quote, the timelines you use are often off by centuries. But I guess I should just ignore all that and look at the “big picture.”

    “As far as how Islam intends to take over the world, it is through breeding out and political and social infiltration. You can see it happening around the world, Well, most of us can.” […] “Who are 'They' You can’t be serious. Again, it is the Billions of muslims around the world who have no objection to the agenda of Islam.”

    Yes, yes. You keep saying this, but you keep refusing to say who is running everything– despite my repeated requests that you reveal this. Who is the central Muslim authority who is masterfully manipulating this war of breeding that you know so much about? Is there no central authority? Are Muslims all part of some collective consciousness (some transcendental soul perhaps?) working together for specific goals– to infiltrate the West and outbreed Europeans? Do the Chinese know about this? Are they engaged in the same war of breeding? I mean do you know much you sound like Noam Chomsky?

  31. @ The_Kid (cont.)

    “Well, I’d hate to see anyone get nuked, but I would nuke Tehran and every other Islam city before I’d submit to them. And personally, violence to the point of cultural extinction is the only thing they would understand in my opinion.”

    So how exactly can Tehran and all the Muslim cities avoid getting nuked in your war? If the Muslims stop breeding so much? And if not, we'll have to cull their numbers– for their own good no doubt, like Japan– by nuking and firebombing Muslim cities. So, I guess all Muslims need to pack up and leave or else Muslim cities will perish in nuclear fire. Is this not what you're essentially saying?

    “Try to stay on subject. You’re trying to float the idea that Christianity is on par with Islam. That is way beyond absurd.”

    Don't try to tell me to stay on subject. Read through these comments again and then tell me again that I'm the one wandering off subject. I see no where in any of my comments with you where I even mention Christianity, except to say that your timeline has Muslims battling Christians before there were either Muslims or Christians.

    What is really absurd is the idea that a billion+ people are involved in a secret infiltration/breeding war that's been going on for some unspecified amount of time. A war that is intricately planned, but has no central authority to plan it, nor to implement it, nor adapt to any complications and variations within it. A war in which billions (according to you) of soldiers covertly (and very successfully according to you) do their duties with no guidance, nor overseeing authority, nor any deviation. A plan that is perfect for today's world and conditions, but seems to be a blueprint from a book that's 1400+ years old.

    I could ask once more for details, but what would be the point? You just refuse to answer (a common response). And even if you did, people can give a long litany of “facts” regarding the Free Masons taking over the world, Area 51, UFOs, Black Helicopters, the Illuminati, the Templars running the banking systems and waiting to avenge themselves on Phillip the Fair, etc. And then disproving these “facts” takes more time and effort and garners no pay off except an exercise in researching skills and some mild amusement.

  32. Yugio. Well, I thought you had more maturity and intellectual breadth. I see I was wrong.

    You don't mention Christianity?? Go up and read the first comment. It is by you and chock full of your absurd claims about Christianity. Maybe a doctor could help you…

    See the links, plenty of facts, dates and figures. Argue with them if you don't like the information provided.

    The muslims have been on a universal mission of conquest for 2000 years. If you don't want to believe it then don't.

    I note that in your two responses you failed again to even mention the subject of this post and your original incorrect statement that Christianity is on a par with Islam and the muslims. With each post, you insult and make even more rabidly absurd claims.

    See you around. Last word to you.

  33. Solid comments, I love your ability to articulate your points of emphasis beyond just simple passion, which is what I see demonstrated by most conservatives, their fear & hatred drives their passion, and often it clouds the highlights of their message! I would add that the KKK were essentially Christian terrorists as they radically leveraged the Old Testament of the King James Version of the Bible to justify the murder of non-whites and Jews. They called themselves Christians, but that doesn’t mean they actually were, nor does it mean non-Christians can paint a broad brush and accuse ALL Christians of being terrorists in a self-righteous & fear driven effort. We should be careful of accusing entire religions of malice towards others. Just because most Christians don’t consider the KKK Christians but simply racists groups, doesn’t mean that they didn’t see themselves as so, and their twisted perception shouldn’t cause harm to those who are true Christians. The same holds true for Islam, those who aren’t terrorists or extremists should be left out of the “I hate Muslims and they’re ALL bad for America” rhetoric! Lets keep the politics & partisanship out, we accuse Washington of this then we as people turn around and do the same thing, which in turn drives the politicians we send to Washington!

    • Thanks so much Ron!

      I honestly don’t know much about the history of the KKK and have always understood that their motivation was racial (white) supremacy; sure, they tried to justify it with a twisted view of Christianity, but that’s not really any different than the New Black Panthers who want racial (black) supremacy and call for the slaughter of white people, including “cracker babies.” They, too, claim to be Christians, of course, but I wouldn’t call the NBPP “terrorists,” either, and certainly not “Christian terrorists.” Even if they actually started acting on their stated desires to kill white people in the streets–as the KKK did to blacks, I just don’t think that’s “Christian terrorism.” The KKK and NBPP are racial supremacist nutters who are so twisted with hate and fear that they commit vile acts to further their racial supremacist goals . . . pointing wildly to random Bible verses for justification. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist, the Weather Underground were (are?) terrorists . . . their supposed Christianity (though in the case of the SDS/Weather Underground, I believe they were atheists as all true communists are) is incidental.

      Again, I do know I’m making a fine distinction, but it’s an important one if we are to understand–much less counter–Islamic terrorism. For them, Islam is not incidental, an after-the-fact justification for some other motivation or cause. The Koran is very clear about Islam conquering–by sword and other means–the entire world, and the slaughter or dhimmitude of all non-Muslims is a key part of that “plan.” This includes killing other Muslims, those who do not follow the “correct” (i.e. what we call terrorist/extremist/violent/radical) path. Allah, they believe, wants them to kill people; indeed, NOT killing in the name of Allah/Islam is a serious offense to their Prophet. Again, not all Muslims may act on this, but it’s there, and it’s absolutely what Muslim terrorists believe, what they use to recruit in mosques around the globe, including mosques right here in America. You’d be hard-pressed to find a Christian church recruiting members to go out and commit acts of terror in the name of God.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s