What's new
By:

Terrorism in Charleston, SC

framer said:
Don't know much about Italy, but the "tolerant' Moorish rulers in Spain (who obtained that rule via conquest) were overthrown and expelled by the indigenous population after their leadership became more radicalized (destroying the previous leadership) in the Moslem faith during the twelfth century. The Almohad Caliphate was not made up of fuzzy warm people and deserved the beating they received. Every once in a while I fire up Crusader Kings 2 and throw their ***** off the Iberian peninsula myself. Also, you need to note that the Almohads declared Jihad and advanced on the Christian rulers of Castille, Aragorn, Portugal and Navarre FIRST. Had they not done that there is probably little chance that the four kingdoms could have ever worked together to expel the Moors from Spain.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Cool anecdote-- but understand that it both doesn't answer my question, nor does it apply to what I said.

How many Moors are left in Spain from that era? What happened to them? How many leftover mosques can be found in Spain from that era, that weren't converted into cathedrals? Compare that to church numbers in the Middle East.

Which religion is more cruel to non-believers again? Cuz this is what Howard's point was.
 
dalamon said:
If you bothered to contextually analyze the Quran you would understand why this simply isn't true, and why Christian and Jewish minorities have lived next-door to Muslim families in the Middle East for 2000 years. Can Christian European nations make the same claim? What happened to the massive Muslim populations of Italy and Spain?
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how minority religions are treated in the majority of countries where Islam is the predominant religion? It's not exactly pretty, and certainly not peaceful.

As for context, I've seen many verses calling for the death or punishment of unbelievers, with no context given towards whether the aggressor matters or not. You know more though, so teach.
 
Howard said:
Do you have any idea how minority religions are treated in the majority of countries where Islam is the predominant religion? It's not exactly pretty, and certainly not peaceful.

As for context, I've seen many verses calling for the death or punishment of unbelievers, with no context given towards whether the aggressor matters or not. You know more though, so teach.
Click to expand...

I don't even need to teach-- facts talk. Why can you still find Christians in the Middle East? Why can you still find churches in the Middle East if what you say is true?

If Christianity is more peaceful, why did the entire Muslim population of Spain get wiped out? Is Christianity inherently violent to non-believers? I guess it must be.
 
Side note: the historical Islamic empire being seen as a beacon of freedom (as interpreted by some) to practice religion isn't wholly correct-- primarily for members of non-Abrahamic faiths. Jews and Christians were treated incredibly well, relative to the flip side in every region of the world for millennia.

Still, they treated "nonbeliever" pagans and Zoroastrians quite cruelly. However, this notion of Islam being uniquely cruel to "nonbelievers" is categorically false, and hilariously ironic coming from a Christian.
 
♪alt13 said:
Personally I'm not looking forward to gas attacks, bombings
Click to expand...

I'm curious to why there are way more shootings than there are bombings and gas attacks.
Could it be that guns are much easier to use, much more efficient in getting the job done and much easier to get?

I think if guns were banned we would not just see there be way more bombings and gas attacks. I think the simplicity and effectiveness of guns is part of the reason for so many homicides
 
Howard said:
I mean, nobody can deny this kid was racist, right? Even Bill O'Reilly called this a racist hate crime.
Click to expand...
I vote yes that the dude was racist
 
Hey dala, is this true?

Howard said:
As for context, I've seen many verses calling for the death or punishment of non believers
Click to expand...



 
Dala, I want to start out by saying I think you're a great guy. I have no issue with you, I just struggle with certain ideologies of the Muslim faith.

1) How can you tell me what I'm saying isn't true because of context, and then refuse to give me the context? That doesn't make sense.

2) I have several close friends who either are, or have been missionaries in the Middle East. To be more specific, Turkey. They made some great friends there. It was and is a terrifying time for them. They aren't allowed to outright say what they're doing, or they get deported. They have to be incredibly careful even talking about their religion for fear of attack. Their friends who have converted, they've been ostracized from their families, and in many cases beaten for their beliefs. My friends don't know whether they will be alive the next day, just because of what they believe and the country they are in. Based on those facts, I just cannot accept what you're saying.
 
And just to clarify, this is about the people, it's about the teaching. You don't see Jesus teaching to kill unbelievers. Muhammad you do.
 
Both Islam and Christianity have been cruel to unbelievers. Who cares which one had been worse? Jeez.

But for the record, Christianity had been worse. :p
 
Siro said:
Both Islam and Christianity have been cruel to unbelievers. Who cares which one had been worse? Jeez.

But for the record, Christianity had been worse. :p
Click to expand...

I would agree that people who claim to follow each religion have been cruel. People are, and always will be cruel. I was more trying to talk about the ideology of both and how they do, or should impact their followers.
 
Howard said:
I would agree that people who claim to follow each religion have been cruel. People are, and always will be cruel. I was more trying to talk about the ideology of both and how they do, or should impact their followers.
Click to expand...

Ideology of religion is a dynamic and ever changing thing. Historically speaking, Christianity had been crueler than Islam. Muslims were generally tolerant of Jews and Christians (not in today's standards of course), and conducted themselves more honorably in war. They avoided needless slaughter of civilians, allowed safe passage to defeated armies, never institutionalized torture, etc.

But in today's state of affairs, Christianity is generally a lot better than Islam. There is nothing worse for me than spending time with my "moderate" Muslim relatives.
 
dalamon said:
Cool anecdote-- but understand that it both doesn't answer my question, nor does it apply to what I said.

How many Moors are left in Spain from that era? What happened to them? How many leftover mosques can be found in Spain from that era, that weren't converted into cathedrals? Compare that to church numbers in the Middle East.

Which religion is more cruel to non-believers again? Cuz this is what Howard's point was.
Click to expand...

Anecdote? That is history. OF course it applies to what you said. The Moors called Jihad on the indigenous Christians remaining in Spain. They threw them the Hell out once they had the advantage militarily. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Jihad under the Almohad empire. It was "convert or die." The Christians went with option 3, "kick your *** back to Morocco." That is why there aren't Moors in Spain. It wasn't an evil plot hatched by Christians to deny religious freedom to the Moslems, it was self preservation. YOUR anecdote is completely invalid. You wondered what happened to the Moslem kingdom in Spain, I told you. It just wasn't the Howard Zinn bull**** you wanted to hear.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Let's lighten things up with some good ol Dutchrudder neg rep:

The rebel flag is not a symbol of racism. learn your history BRO. if any the slave ship had the stripes and stars. the rebel flag was on none of the slave ships
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There certainly were no slaves ships that flew either the U.S. flag or the flag of the Confederacy because the importation of slaves from Africa was abolished by Congress in 1807, and most of the ships importing African slaves prior to that time were either Dutch or British.
 
Siro said:
Ideology of religion is a dynamic and ever changing thing. Historically speaking, Christianity had been crueler than Islam. Muslims were generally tolerant of Jews and Christians (not in today's standards of course), and conducted themselves more honorably in war. They avoided needless slaughter of civilians, allowed safe passage to defeated armies, never institutionalized torture, etc.

But in today's state of affairs, Christianity is generally a lot better than Islam. There is nothing worse for me than spending time with my "moderate" Muslim relatives.
Click to expand...

Siro, you can't just block divide Christians and Moslems historically. Both had their good actors and bad actors. Not all of Moslem history was ruled by Saladin. Saladin's forces took power by force, and his faction later lost power by force to people with crueler intentions. Christianity was coopted by the Roman Empire. Christianity didn't cause the Roman Empire to do what it did, the Roman Empire did what the Roman Empire always did, just carrying a cross instead of an Eagle. Other countries using Christianity as a sword were generally trying to summon the legitimacy of the old Roman Empire more than they were following the precepts of Christianity. Once the people were actually able to understand scripture in their own language with their own Bible the religion reformed itself. The verses of invading the infidel and the torture of unbelievers didn't make it out of the Latin, apparently. . .
 
framer said:
Siro, you can't just block divide Christians and Moslems historically. Both had their good actors and bad actors. Not all of Moslem history was ruled by Saladin. Saladin's forces took power by force, and his faction later lost power by force to people with crueler intentions. Christianity was coopted by the Roman Empire. Christianity didn't cause the Roman Empire to do what it did, the Roman Empire did what the Roman Empire always did, just carrying a cross instead of an Eagle. Other countries using Christianity as a sword were generally trying to summon the legitimacy of the old Roman Empire more than they were following the precepts of Christianity. Once the people were actually able to understand scripture in their own language with their own Bible the religion reformed itself. The verses of invading the infidel and the torture of unbelievers didn't make it out of the Latin, apparently. . .
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. I am generalizing. If you look at the behavior of Christendom vs Muslim Caliphate over the centuries, you'll see that the former conducted themselves far worse.

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame Christianity for the collapse of the Roman Empire, nor do I think that the collapse of that horrible empire is even a bad thing. I don't think the Crusades are black and white with Muslims being the innocent receivers of European villainy. I don't even think that the "Dark Ages" ever existed in any meaningful sense. Hell, when push comes to shove, the invention of Christianity has probably been one of the best things to happen to mankind, as it allowed Western culture to emerge and spread!

I am not apologetic in my views, and I don't care who gets offended or appeased. I am just expressing my thoughts on the matter in the fairest way possible.
 
dalamon said:
If you bothered to contextually analyze the Quran you would understand why this simply isn't true, and why Christian and Jewish minorities have lived next-door to Muslim families in the Middle East for 2000 years. Can Christian European nations make the same claim? What happened to the massive Muslim populations of Italy and Spain?
Click to expand...

If you don't see that modern Islam has a problem with extremism to an extent that christianity just simply doesn't than you are blinded by your own biases. I have no interest in arguing for the virtues of Christianity, but there is no modern equivalent within Christianity for ISIS. I know, "they're not real Muslims" but they commit unspeakable acts in the name of the Quran. Find a modern equivalent to ISIS that does that in the name of the Bible or face the facts. Islam has a problem that Christianity doesn't to the same degree.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Link to his "manifesto":

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-The-Charleston-killers-racist-manifesto.html
Click to expand...

Goodness! thanks for the link, interesting article - - I think it's interesting that he says he was radicalized by George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin - - the Ferguson, MO situation must have really been the nail in the coffin for this kid's reasoning skills.

Whether or not this is actually considered an act of terrorism, I do think the current climate of religious fanatacism and the acts of terrorism advocated and perpetrated by ISIS and other radicals certainly played a role in this by virtue of the way it legitimizes this type of action as a means to an end.

I don't necessarily agree that it's the media glorifying these actions that perpetuates them - - but I do think that the media plays a role in helping the radicalized elements (at home and abroad) reach a wider audience, and even though this young man did not use his radicalization to join ISIS and take his fight to Syrira - he was still brainwashed by the same propaganda that ISIS is using to recruit in the U.S.

some links that might be of interest:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/17/how-to-stop-isis-from-recruiting-american-teens/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/jun/19/charleston-bradford-athens-common-youth-alienation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top