From the government? No. From corrupt charities and extremists within the country maybe but this whole "Saudi Arabia sponsored 9/11" was proven to be bs by the 9/11 commission.
Religion of peace--seriously?
- Thread starter GOHOX69
- Start date
I'm not saying there wouldn't be terrorists. But there would probably be a lot less.
Because this is what they see from America where they live and many of them harbor the same resentments towards the west that you are displaying towards Islam here.
And drone bombings are just the latest phase in a long standing interference from the west in the ME. We supported the Shah in Iran for political reasons for example.
Most Muslims actually don't live in the middle east for example. But have you ever wondered why nearly all Muslim terrorists are from there? Why don't you see more from like Turkey?
I'm just saying you're pretty pissed at Hounded for saying he could consider an attack on innocents if his children were murdered, but that's no different - frankly, not nearly as bad - as those t-shirts.
As for you last sentence, it's wrong in every aspect.
LOL...what the hell does that have to do with my post. OBL was opposed to the govt because the govt funds Wahhabism and tries to channel that outward. OBL simply pointed their own state-supported ideology right back at them so they booted him. THEY created OBL and his followers.
BTW, the Liberals on this board also love to slam Israel as a terrorist State that has no basis for existence. Listen to the podcast regarding the founding of Israel on History Unplugged, available on Spotify. Really opened my eyes to the History of the region an how that country was founded.
BTW, this is a fantastic podcast put out by a fellow Iowan. The best I have found after Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.
BTW, this is a fantastic podcast put out by a fellow Iowan. The best I have found after Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.
No more so than the US "creates" antifa, the kkk etc... Look I'm not going to die on the defending SA hill, no thank you to that country's policies, but the myth that gets perpetuated that SA was responsible for 9/11 is frankly irresponsible and mainly fueled by politics.
Somewhere @HoundedHawk is like, wtf how did I get pulled into this bullshit...
I'm not pissed at anyone but @Hoosierhawkeye did take a giant leap into the stupid pool with his first post.
Christianity had St. Thomas Aquinas. Islam Kills off the possibility of permanent meaningful reform, as there are no other prophets allowed after Muhammed, it is in the Koran.
*sigh* You already died on that hill. That Wahhabism owes it's very existence to SA is indisputable. That the govt mandates Wahhabism and supports it is indisputable. That Wahhabism fuels nearly all the radical Islamic thought out there is...once again...indisputable. OBL embraced it and then realized the SA govt that based it's existence on those teachings didn't come close to following it's practices - primarily in their allowing "infidel" US troops to create bases in the country but also in their rather opulent lifestyles. He became a thorn in the side of the royals so they booted him out. That is indis...well, you already know. To try to claim that SA isn't the PRIMARY driver for radical Islam around the world is willful blindness. To try to conflate it with radicals here in the US is idiotic.
Mary was 12 when she had Jesus. Let that sink in. All Christians worship a pedo.
What are you trying to say here? Yes that should be the focus if there are demographics supporting it. I don’t read anyone advocating that we have a “white male” problem because it is the predominant characteristic of serial killers.
Isn’t that happening with Muslims if we know all those terrorist organization religions? That’s why I don’t get the OP. Is he suggesting I should be afraid of Muslims? That we should ban them? That they’re rights should be in anyway limited due to their religions affiliation with terror? That we should work to “stomp out” the Muslim religion?
1. I don't think that "Islam is the problem". Not at all. I think that radical Islam...a sect of Islam, is a problem. And I think that people who say that only 8 or 10 percent of Islamists are radical, as a way of downplaying the danger, is a terrible argument. Do you agree with any of this? If so, how so?
2. You just described the Boston Marathon Bombers. Their life experiences were hanging out smoking pot here in America. And they were radicalized by a maniac in a mosque thousands of miles away from the travesties they claimed they were getting revenge for. If Islam was absent from their lives, they never would have bombed a bunch of innocent civilians. Same goes with the Pulse Nightclub shooter and his wife.
We just saw an attack on Christian Churches in Sri Lanka as revenge for a Mosque shooting in New Zealand. What did the New Zealand Mosque shooting have to do with any of those people who decided to kill those 300 people in Sri Lanka? And before you answer, be sure remember that there will most likely be NO ONE acting in the name of Jesus Christ that will be attacking them in response to that horrifying event. The reality is those churches that blew up had the exact same effect on me and other Christians here, as the New Zealand Mosque shooting did on those who carried out the Sri Lanka bombings. And yet, neither me nor anyone else here is thinking about how we can plot our revenge for what happened in Sri Lanka. If you refuse to see and understand that, I can't help you.
3. What are the last terrible acts that the Bible was used as a catalyst for that ended up in as many causalities as 9/11 or Sri Lanka?
We just had 300 people killed in Sri Lanka by people claiming revenge for something that happened to people in New Zealand nowhere near them. WTF does what happens to people in New Zealand have to do with any of those ass holes in Sri Lanka? Not a goddamned thing and certainly no more than the Sri Lanka bombings now have to do with any Christian here. Except we know that there wont be thousands of crazy Christians plotting their revenge for that.
The whole "I understand why they do these things" schtick is such a copout for being an apologist for radical, insane behavior that some are too chicken shit to call out for whatever dumb reasons they have.
I think there's a lot you're correct about here, but Christianity wouldn't exist if only the old testament existed. The vast majority of Christian beliefs are taken from the New Testament (not that the old testament is to be discounted).
That all got wiped out with JC.
When did a pacifist leader take over as the primamry charecter/teacher in Islam?
Is that from historians that decided that 12 was the marrying age then in that culture? And mostly like in other cultures then and now. BTW, Jesus is worshiped not Joseph. He did not give birth to himself. And Mary is not worshipped by Catholics, but "venerated." Whatever. Yes, Mohammed did marry some pretty young girls. I wonder if the ancients even had a concept of pedofils. Maybe all females were fair game for males then.
It is a terrible argument that is deployed against the terrible argument - which you acknowledge - that Islam is to blame for terrorism.
So you're saying that absent Islam the travesties they claimed to be avenging would never have occurred? Could you explain that?
What did anything have to do with the NZ shooter going into those mosques and killing all those people? Was he motivated by Islam or a hatred of Islam? Are there "Christians" who fuel that hatred? How many people have been motivated to attack gays thanks to the rhetoric of "Christians" like those who attend Westboro Baptist? I'm not arguing that the scale is the same but the thinking that leads to these kinds of things exists everywhere and could be tapped into even if Islam didn't exist.
No idea. Don't care. The question is whether or not it COULD be used to provoke something like that.
Suppose it is 100 million (which I think is too high), that would be about 5% of the total Muslins world wide. The problem is that if you start treating the other 95% like the 5%, that 5% number is going to get bigger and bigger. We need to focus on polices/attitudes that will decrease that number, not increase it.
These two are perfect.
1. The Westboro pieces of crap go to funerals (ironically for many of those killed by Muslims) and hold up signs. This is opposed to the Muslims who hate gays and go into their night club and shoot them all to death. Or those nations who simply order them to death by law.
2. Of course you don't care because you've already proven and admitted that you are comparing hypothetical stuff on one (Christianity) side with reality stuff on the other side (radical Muslim). You even say that "it COULD" happen as if that helps your argument against things that HAVE happened many times over.
And make no mistake about it, IF a radical Christian goes off the rails and does something bad, they will get universally denounced by EVERY other Christian on earth. Something that NEVER happens when things like Sri Lanka occur.
I don't disagree for one second. The problem is that within that 95% you still have a lot of people having a hard time coming down on the 5% in fear that it will taint the entire religion somehow. That's a major component of it. They don't hear the word "radical" all the time and think aspersions are being cast at the entire thing.
How many innocent people have been killed by US airstrikes? By US led sanctions? See...they look at THAT shit as terrorism. And they see a nation that many US leaders claim is a Christian nation...founded on the principles of Christianity...and they then have the same disdain for those who claim Christianity is a religion of peace as those who go after Islam. So...when was the last time large numbers were killed in the name of Christ...to them, that's recent history. You ready to call out the "radical, insane behavior" that's being carried out in your name?
Yes...they are idiots. Again...the Boston Marathon Bombers lived here. Smoked pot. Had good lives. Went to a mosque and Boom. Terrorist on the front of Rolling Stones Magazine.
But keep trying to pretend that military air strikes are jihads for Jesus and tantamount to killing thousands of civilians going to work on a Tuesday. Good grief.
So why do they still cite Leviticus when denouncing homosexuality?
BTW, it wasn't JC who turned Christianity...it was Martin Luther taking power away from the Catholic Church...which did some pretty horrific stuff in the name of Christianity.
I'm not "pretending" anything. If the Saudi govt dropped a bomb that blew up your family gathered for a wedding celebration would you just smile and accept it when they said "Oops, our bad!" Would you "turn the other cheek"? That would be the Christian thing to do. Over and over and over again. How many cheeks would you turn?
Right, forgot about the virgin birth(,Joseph was VERY understanding) but that would not be the same as a physical impregnation, would it. But you did not answer my question. Why 12?
You would need to ask Yahweh why he picked a 12 year old. I imagine it likely wasn’t a problem for the people who wrote the stories at the time. The point being that all those who get worked up over Mohamed having sex with a little girl conveniently forget the fact that they worship a God who used a little girl for procreation. Both religions have a pedo problem if we are going to judge them by modern standards.
That’s where it becomes interesting. Today we think having sex with young girls is wrong. But the religious traditions teach that the god Yahweh is cool with it. Secular morality appears to be superior to religious morality in this case.
Last edited:
You're a good troll.
But I love how you accept certain things as "fact" and suggest other historical evidence BS.
Anyway, I've always said you and your single issue don't jive with Islam, but you'll eventually figure it out.
The Washington Post, on Sept. 18, 2001, published an article that claimed "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river."
The Associated Press, on Sept. 17, 2001, described "rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City. But the same report said those rumors were "unfounded."
https://www.nj.com/news/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html
The Associated Press, on Sept. 17, 2001, described "rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City. But the same report said those rumors were "unfounded."
https://www.nj.com/news/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html
I’m no fan of Islam either and have made that case here multiple times.
Why don't you address what I've brought up in every post? The problem for you here is that the effing lunatics admitted that the Sri Lanka bombings were a direct result of a mosque shooting that had nothing to do with them.
The scenario you keep wanting to paint has NOTHING to do with what just happened in Sri Lanka. A maniac went into a mosque in New Zealand and shot it up. So, Muslims in Sri Lanka attacked 6 Christian churches and killed 300 people. None of those terrorists had anyone they knew harmed in the NZ mosque. None. In fact the NZ attack had nothing to do with Christianity for that matter. Yet you keep wanting to give these monsters an "I get why they do it" pass and explain a scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with their situation.
So, to answer your question about what I would do...
...I wouldn't attack Mosques in this country in the name of my religion because "people over there who don't share my religion did shot up a church." Never. Not once would I do that. I also would never for a minute think that an attack on a church in New Zealand, that had no one in there that I knew, had any affect on me whatsoever.
you're equating the morality of the united states with the saudis. that's a non starter. kind of like a criminal blaming the cop for their arrest. There is a right side an a wrong one. Do we make mistakes yes But you need to remember that many islamic problems are in parts of the world that we aren't really involved in.
If over 50% of the islamic world is ok with sharia law, that religion is a problem.
