Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[tomaszjot]

I am sorry if other peoples views don't coincide with yours and this frustrates you, but that is what real freedom of speech is about.

No, your views do not frustrate me. Your views are the views you will see wherever you will find news about Muslims. Some will call it PC bullshit. Your views are safe, neutral and pleasing.

This sort of argumentation is omnipresent. To every "Muslims upset by Christmas" article you will see online or in newspaper you will see Nickster-like comments to.

You did very little with your freedom of speech...

And as for your Christians kill today too links- thank for that, I feel much better now about killings in France...

 

[tomaszjot]

In Europe, much more recent than 500 years ago.

Specifically 1992 - 1995, when the Christian Serbs started massacring the Bosnian muslims.

100,000 died in that event. Including a really sickening episode where 8000 Bosnian muslim males were herded into a football stadium in Srebrenica and systematically slaughtered. And the worst part of it was there were Dutch UN peacekeepers in barracks just around the corner from that stadium but they stayed within barracks as "they had orders not to intervene".

I'm convinced that was the episode that set this current cycle off. Because the west ummed and ahhed and it took forever for Clinton to decide on airstrikes. Volunteers from the muslim world poured in to help though, and I think it was in Bosnia that they got the idea that they were doing something noble and that the west was evil and the veterans from that fight got a taste for it and it just went from there.

First of all I was referring to all idiots around who quote Crusades and Inquisition as a argument about how equally bad Christians and Muslims are. Most of this people do not know about Bosnia though I doubt you understand dynamics of this conflict either.

 

[teatree]

I know a bit about Bosnia because it was the first international conflict I became aware of.

It was an all-european affair - the Bosnian muslims are Europeans who converted to islam during the ottoman empire. And watching the Serbian Christians massacring them were other Europeans - the Dutch peacekeepers.

Here's a quote from one of the witnesses at the Hague:

The Serbs began at a certain point to take girls and young women out of the group of refugees. They were raped. The rapes often took place under the eyes of others and sometimes even under the eyes of the children of the mother. A Dutch soldier stood by and he simply looked around with a Walkman on his head. He did not react at all to what was happening. It did not happen just before my eyes, for I saw that personally, but also before the eyes of us all. The Dutch soldiers walked around everywhere. It is impossible that they did not see it.

There was a woman with a small baby a few months old. A Chetnik told the mother that the child must stop crying. When the child did not stop crying, he snatched the child away and cut its throat. Then he laughed. There was a Dutch soldier there who was watching. He did not react at all.

I saw yet more frightful things. For example, there was a girl, she must have been about nine years old. At a certain moment some Chetniks recommended to her brother that he rape the girl. He did not do it and I also think that he could not have done it for he was still just a child. Then they murdered that young boy. I have personally seen all that. I really want to emphasize that all this happened in the immediate vicinity of the base. In the same way I also saw other people who were murdered. Some of them had their throats cut. Others were beheaded.

Notice the beheading. This is where that practice started and it wasn't muslims doing it.

Bosnia is what turned the muslim world against the west. Prior to that they were best buddies. Read "Charlie Wilson's war" about the Americans and the Afghan jihadis fighting what they both thought was the common evil, the Russians. You get a clear sense from that book that they really liked and admired each other.

If Bosnia hadn't happened, I think 9/11 and other stuff wouldn't have happened either. It was Bosnia that made muslims think that the west hated them and wanted to massacre them all.

Just like the Israelis went from passive victims in WW2 to what they are now, the muslim jihadis seem to have decided that aggression is the best policy.

I blame the Dutch for doing such a shoddy peace-keeping job. And Clinton for being so reluctant to even do airstrikes (though eventually he caved). And of course the bloody Serbs.

 

[Fatbat]

I know a bit about Bosnia because it was the first international conflict I became aware of.

It was an all-european affair - the Bosnian muslims are Europeans who converted to islam during the ottoman empire. And watching the Serbian Christians massacring them were other Europeans - the Dutch peacekeepers.

Weren't the Serbs killing Croats too, who are primarily Catholic? And wasn't this whole affair essentially the result of a 600 year old grudge this whole lot has with each other? This conflict would be better expressed as the "Yugoslav Wars" and not just Bosnia, and there has been conflict on and off in that region since WWII (and before that of course). I really don't see then how you can make the stretch that the Bosnian War was somehow the catalyst for everything that's happening now in the Muslim world that's directed at the west (9/11 and beyond). That's pretty far fetched IMO. It really has been going on for centuries.

 

[tomaszjot]

you quote here

It's interesting but I doubt you can attach such a complex problem to one event only or even to the set of events in Bosnia.

Look at WW1 - it officially started with assassination but in fact there were many things going on in the background.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I'm having trouble understanding why people are pointing out fucked up things that have been done by Christians. It's almost as if you think that is relevant. But it's not. Nobody is saying Christians are angels and have never done fucked up shit to others.

We're talking about the actual theology and what is in the actual texts of these religions.

Did the Serbs claim that they were killing Bosnians due to something in their religious text? No - So how is that an indictment of their religion? Seems like religion is irrelevant in that case, right?

The issue isn't that Muslims are bad, or Muslims are evil or whatever. The issue is that the Muslims who are choosing to behead motherfuckers and kill innocent people are doing so with the full sanction of their religious text.

So when a Christian beheads someone and says they did it because Jesus commanded it, we can simply say "No, you're just crazy". But when a Muslim does the same thing we have to acknowledge that yes, the Quran does sanction that behavior so maybe he's crazy, but he is following his religion. A Christian can not find anything in the New Testament that sanctions that type of behavior.

That's the difference.

 

[teatree]

Weren't the Serbs killing Croats too, who are primarily Catholic?

17% of the Bosnians were ethnic Croat catholics, yes. But the main brunt of the killing was directed at the muslims.

The crux of the problem were the peacekeepers. I think the Bosnians and the muslim world expected the Serbs to behave the way they did. But the peacekeepers were "the West" and were supposed to be the good guys. Imagine how relieved they must have felt when they heard that the UN were sending guards, and then their shock at the way those guards were absolutely disinterested in helping them (in other words tacitly supporting the Serbs).

This wasn't the UN's fault, and I think pretty much any other peacekeepers would have intervened and kept the peace. I can't imagine a British, French or American soldier just standing by while someone got their throat cut. The Dutch on the other hand... They have form in looking the other way and not wanting to get their hands dirty. During WW2, the French managed to save 80% of their jews by hiding them in safe houses in the countryside (which is why they still have the largest Jewish population in Europe). The Dutch on the other hand just stood and watched as all theirs went to the ovens, even Ann Frank was betrayed at the end, there were very few survivors.

But back to Bosnia, the end result is that a conclusion was drawn that "the west" wanted to kill all muslims.

 

[jamesc32]

This is not Christians killing people despite of the religion, it is papal sanctioned murder IN THE NAME of the religion.

You're confusing Catholicism with Christianity as a whole. Christianity as a whole does not recognize any "papal authority". In fact, many people of the Christian faith see Catholicism as a bastardization of the religion. Same goes for various off-shoots such as mormonism.

If you're going to argue a point, at least make it match up with the basis for your argument.

 

[jamesc32]

But back to Bosnia, the end result is that a conclusion was drawn that "the west" wanted to kill all muslims.

That is an extremely narrow and ignorant view that completely ignores all other political and culture issues that played a LARGE role in everything that happened during that war.

Feel free to draw that conclusion if you like, but it makes you look like an idiot who doesn't understand the full scope of that particular war/event/situation.

 

[nickster]

You're confusing Catholicism with Christianity as a whole. Christianity as a whole does not recognize any "papal authority". In fact, many people of the Christian faith see Catholicism as a bastardization of the religion. Same goes for various off-shoots such as mormonism.

If you're going to argue a point, at least make it match up with the basis for your argument.

I am not confusing anything, I am pointing out that using the word of their gods they commit murder/genocide. I don't care which branch of Christianity, Islam, Judaism it is, the words in the old testament are pretty damn clear and no matter what Unarmed Gunman says/thinks the new testament does not override the laws of the old testament, at least that is according to a hell of a lot of theologians (which UG admits he is not) and I also showed something that Jesus said himself on the matter (supposedly).

Your argument can be said the same of Islam, whereas everyone lumps all Muslims together when they talk about specific terrorist attacks, but the majority are Sunnis, but we just say Muslims did it.

And one more thing UG gets wrong is he goes from the assumption that he knows whats in the Koran and that his interpretation is correct, however there is a MASSIVE number of Muslims who believe that killing people and violence is absolutely not sanctioned by the Quran. So, for them at least, its not so clear cut. Does he know more than they do about the teachings of the Koran?

 

[jamesc32]

I am not confusing anything, I am pointing out that using the word of their gods they commit murder/genocide. I don't care which branch of Christianity, Islam, Judaism it is, the words in the old testament are pretty damn clear and no matter what Unarmed Gunman says/thinks the new testament does not override the laws of the old testament, at least that is according to a hell of a lot of theologians (which UG admits he is not) and I also showed something that Jesus said himself on the matter (supposedly).

Your argument can be said the same of Islam, whereas everyone lumps all Muslims together when they talk about specific terrorist attacks, but the majority are Sunnis, but we just say Muslims did it.

And one more thing UG gets wrong is he goes from the assumption that he knows whats in the Koran and that his interpretation is correct, however there is a MASSIVE number of Muslims who believe that killing people and violence is absolutely not sanctioned by the Quran. So, for them at least, its not so clear cut. Does he know more than they do about the teachings of the Koran?

You said papal decree. Which means it is one authority over a segment of "Christianity". The Catholic "bible" is also much different from the Bible of many other Christian movements. The Koran/Quran however is the same across all movements and simply interpreted differently. What many muslims "believe" and what is actually and explicitly presented in their "holy" book are two very different things.

I know you believe you were comparing apples to apples, but you in no way are.

You're a bit confused about your Christian and religious history, the varying sects, the varying texts between the different Christian sects and the fact that an authority for one sect has no authority over any other sect. The pope holds no authority over the protestant/baptist/mormon/etc... Catholics were not the only "Christians" at the time of the crusades and they already followed different teachings and odd practices that violated (and still violate) many tenets of Christianity. Which is why there was what was called the great schism between Eastern Christianity and Western/Roman Catholic Christianity.

Regardless, I really shouldn't be bothering with a history lesson for you.

Please continue your idiocy and poorly supported arguments. I'm happy to bow out from the lunacy of arguing on the internet for the day.

 

[nickster]

You said papal decree. Which means it is one authority over a segment of "Christianity". The Catholic "bible" is also much different from the Bible of many other Christian movements. The Koran/Quran however is the same across all movements and simply interpreted differently. What many muslims "believe" and what is actually and explicitly presented in their "holy" book are two very different things.

I know you believe you were comparing apples to apples, but you in no way are.

You're a bit confused about your Christian and religious history, the varying sects, the varying texts between the different Christian sects and the fact that an authority for one sect has no authority over any other sect. The pope holds no authority over the protestant/baptist/mormon/etc... Catholics were not the only "Christians" at the time of the crusades and they already followed different teachings and odd practices that violated (and still violate) many tenets of Christianity. Which is why there was what was called the great schism between Eastern Christianity and Western/Roman Catholic Christianity.

Regardless, I really shouldn't be bothering with a history lesson for you.

Please continue your idiocy and poorly supported arguments. I'm happy to bow out from the lunacy of arguing on the internet for the day.

I didn't mean or say papal decree for all christian murder in history. Maybe I should have been clearer but it doesn't make my argument poorly supported.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

no matter what Unarmed Gunman says/thinks the new testament does not override the laws of the old testament, at least that is according to a hell of a lot of theologians (which UG admits he is not) and I also showed something that Jesus said himself on the matter (supposedly).

According to their theology, Jesus sacrifice was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial laws. The quote that you posted actually speaks directly to that, at least according to most interpretations I've ever read. He also made pronouncements on dietary law, which is why Christians are free to eat pork. So yes, lots of things changed after Jesus - at least in the eyes of Christians. That's kinda why they built the whole religion around his teachings. If nothing changed, what the fuck would they need their NEW Testament for?

Your argument can be said the same of Islam, whereas everyone lumps all Muslims together when they talk about specific terrorist attacks, but the majority are Sunnis, but we just say Muslims did it.

And one more thing UG gets wrong is he goes from the assumption that he knows whats in the Koran and that his interpretation is correct, however there is a MASSIVE number of Muslims who believe that killing people and violence is absolutely not sanctioned by the Quran. So, for them at least, its not so clear cut. Does he know more than they do about the teachings of the Koran?

I have read the Quran twice, and while I don't claim to be some kind of Islamic scholar, I am satisfied that I know its contents well enough to speak to. I could post a ton of verses sanctioning the shitshow that we're seeing if you'd like, or you can just Google them.

And since the Quran is the ultimate text to Muslims and is not superseded or modified by any other text, then its word is law. That's the difference between Muslims and Christians. The Old Testament is not the final authority on Christianity, but the Quran is certainly the final authority to Muslims. So violence in the Old Testament is looked at under a completely different light than it is in the Quran.

 

[nickster]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jx2oHgkDQ[/ame]

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Maher Takes On Evangelical Minister: Bible Clearly 'Hates Fags, - YouTube

Yes, Christianity is definitely opposed to homosexuality.

Islam is also opposed to homosexuality.

So is Judaism.

Are you surprised to learn this, or just getting frustrated that your attempts to equate the violence in Islam with the Crusades is missing the mark?

 

[nickster]

Yes, Christianity is definitely opposed to homosexuality.

Islam is also opposed to homosexuality.

So is Judaism.

Are you surprised to learn this, or just getting frustrated that your attempts to equate the violence in Islam with the Crusades is missing the mark?

Did you watch the video?

 

[nickster]

Jesus never mentioned the homosexuals in the new testament anyway so where does Christianity get this? Yup that's right, it is taking this from the old Mosaic laws.

I am not sure if you are aware but not all Christians believe that the new covenant meant the old covenant is completely overwritten. Some interpret it that way, but a lot do not. One of the reasons is from what Jesus said that I quoted above.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Jesus never mentioned the homosexuals in the new testament anyway so where does Christianity get this? Yup that's right, it is taking this from the old Mosaic laws.

Romans 1:26-27 is one of a few passages in the New Testament that speak to homosexuality, and are pretty clear in the condemnation of it. That didn't come from Jesus, but is in the New Testament and part of Christianity. Jesus himself was all about being non-judgemental and treating all people well, which kinda goes back to the key difference between Islam and Christianity though doesn't it? That's why you can't find examples of Christians using their religion to justify beheading people and other foul shit like we see in Islam.

And the New Testament doesn't "completely overwrite" the Old Testament. You're not understanding Christian theology if that's what you think. As I said before, as a non-religious person maybe I'm not the best person to explain it, but basically Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. When he said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Once he was sacrificed, that was the fulfilment.

 

[nickster]

Romans 1:26-27 is one of a few passages in the New Testament that speak to homosexuality, and are pretty clear in the condemnation of it.

And the New Testament doesn't "completely overwrite" the Old Testament. You're not understanding Christian theology if that's what you think. As I said before, as a non-religious person maybe I'm not the best person to explain it, but basically Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. When he said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Once he was sacrificed, that was the fulfilment.

But you are putting your own interpretation on things. Firstly Romans 1:26-27 cannot be said to be clear at all on this as this shows: Homosexuality and Romans 1 & 2 - all viewpoints

Secondly you are saying "once he was sacrificed, that was the fulfilment", but others would say he was talking about the rapture not his death.

Either way your interpretation of the new testament is irrelevant, as is mine.

Fundamentalists Christians kill people, fundamentalist Jews kill people, fundamentalist Muslims kill people. And they are doing this from their literal interpretation of their own bibles to be the will of their God. This is just a fact you cannot ignore. And this is the point I am trying to make. I am not seeing how you can see, for example, how Muslims are more justified in killing people than Jews are from their holy books. Jews were told to kill people by their god as well and for similar reasons.

Anyway this argument is going no where so lets call it a day. My opinion stands, and I am sure yours does too.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Either way your interpretation of the new testament is irrelevant, as is mine.

Sure, but you have to admit that there is nothing in it that sanctions killing non-believers, so your attempt to say all religions are just as violent as Islam based on their holy text is just incorrect.

I am not seeing how you can see, for example, how Muslims are more justified in killing people than Jews are from their holy books. Jews were told to kill people by their god as well and for similar reasons.

Because the Quran very clearly calls for it, and the Quran is the final authority on Islamic matters. As far as why Jews aren't as violent as the Old testament would lead you to think they should be, I suppose that has to do with the Talmud. Although I've never studied Talmudic texts so I'm out of my depth there.