Terrorism in Charleston, SC

[♪alt13]

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

I don't think so. Look at countries that have had or still have a lot of bombings. Those populations certainly don't have more resources than Americans. Making a bomb is actually frighteningly easy. Further banning guns will not eliminate guns it will just make them illegal.

 

[Siro]

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.

Dalamon often makes the argument that Islam doesn't have to be the way it is now. That's why he brings up Islam's relatively tolerant history. But I never understood that argument. Of course we are we are because of the forces of history. That's almost a truism. Everything is the way it is because of where history has led us. Nothing HAS TO BE anything. Christianity didn't have to be cruel in the middle ages, but historical situation made it so. Germany didn't have to turn to Nazism, but that's where forces of history took it. It's a meaningless argument. Who cares what Islam can be? What matter is what it currently is, and what to do about it.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

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.

Oh i know, I think this line is what made me laugh:

The rebel flag is not a symbol of racism. learn your history BRO.

The rest is correct, although irrelevant.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

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

I think a good lesson to learn here is that this stuff does not occur in a vacuum. These things build on each other and create more and more violence and hatred.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I don't think so. Look at countries that have had or still have a lot of bombings. Those populations certainly don't have more resources than Americans. Making a bomb is actually frighteningly easy. Further banning guns will not eliminate guns it will just make them illegal.

While it is easy to make a "bomb". Pulling off a bombing takes way for time, effort, smarts, luck, and often ones own life. Getting a gun and opening fire is so much easier than pulling off a bomb or gas attack. Sure, they may increase if someone is really that desperate to kill people. But killing people with a gun is way easier. They're made for convenience.

 

[fishonjazz]

Making a bomb is actually frighteningly easy.

Not as easy as picking up a gun and pulling the trigger imo.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

Are you going to answer my questions? How many mosques left in Spain from the Middle ages? If you conduct this argument in a legitimate manner, then I will as well. Islam in certain parts of the world is being dominated by an extremist interpretation of its texts, resulting in very very oppressive regimes. It is to be condemned, and I do so on a very regular basis.

However, for you to imply that Islam is innately more evil to non-believers than Christianity, when the past two-thousand years strongly suggest otherwise is quite frankly stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, and I really like you as a poster/human-- I just think it's a very fundamentally incorrect assumption to make.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is as opposed to was.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Hey dala, is this true?

The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. When the prophet Muhammad was receiving revelations from God at that point in time, he was being told about plans by the 'nonbeliever' (Pagan) regimes that dominated the area of Mecca at the time to murder him, his followers, and the messages he was trying to preach. He constructed the first Islamic village in Medina, northern modern-day Saudi Arabia, erecting the first mosque-- because he was booted out of his hometown, and there were nonstop excursions trying to murder him and his subjects. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Mecca and to emigrate to Medina. When the people of Medina had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Meccans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight:
{And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

All religious revelations are contextual. The very tenet of Islam to avoid the consumption of alcohol itself was contextual-- as the revelations from God to Muhammad continued, the strictness surrounding the avoidance of its consumption strengthened.


Even the translation "nonbeliever" is translated more commonly to "Pagan", cuz that's technically more correct. Here's the entire verse surrounding the "slay the unbeliever"-- remember, this was revealed in the middle of the conflict between the two.

9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.


--

In other words, if they stop, they were to tell them of the message of God, and escorted to their own lands, and left to do as they please. This is why context is so important, and why buzzwords are so harmful to discussion.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Dalamon often makes the argument that Islam doesn't have to be the way it is now. That's why he brings up Islam's relatively tolerant history. But I never understood that argument. Of course we are we are because of the forces of history. That's almost a truism. Everything is the way it is because of where history has led us. Nothing HAS TO BE anything. Christianity didn't have to be cruel in the middle ages, but historical situation made it so. Germany didn't have to turn to Nazism, but that's where forces of history took it. It's a meaningless argument. Who cares what Islam can be? What matter is what it currently is, and what to do about it.

A very intelligent, and accurate post. All I'm saying is that a nation's interpretation and implementation of Islam is reflective of the social situation of the given country. Religion is what you bring into it. My arguments strongly clamour for the understanding for the dynamic nature of Islam, because many assume the past 50 years of affairs are representative of their entire history-- you have people like framer simply making inaccurate posts (literally every single scholar acknowledges that the cruelty of Christendom >>>>> Islam, hilarious to argue otherwise), which simply needs to be addressed.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

don't let framer read this tho.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

Of course it does-- but that's because people living in Islamic nations have a problem unique to their own regions, and unfortunately they problems are addressed by very powerful regional powers who use their extremist interpretations of Islam to try and provide 'solutions' to their suffering (that the United States bolsters, mind you). These things don't exist in a vacuum-- they're incredibly nuanced and multifactorial, and simply blaming "Islam" for the emergence of extremist post-colonial Islamic insurgence is intellectually lazy, and unsophisticated. What has the United States ever done to slow down the Wahhabist movement? What roles did colonialism play in the Middle East's now dislike for the West? In what way is it easiest to mobilize the masses of the Middle East in order to suit your political interests? Why religion, of course.

In terms of massacres being committed by other people in the name of their faiths, they certainly exist. Look at the Buddhists in Myanmar; look at the Christians treatment of homosexuals in Uganda (https://www.thenation.com/blog/1791...a-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa)-- which, by the way, was an Americans fault. I'm sure there are plenty more. Practices like female genital mutilation (which are often conflated as an "islamic practice") are rampant in Christian-majority nations like Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Long story short: blaming ISIS on Islam, and not blaming it on decades of foreign policy measures by the United States and United Kingdom is simply void of sophistication, and void of intelligence.

 

[Deleted member 848]

In terms of me saying "they are not real Muslims" for the practicers of ISIS, I have no right to say that. A muslim is a muslim if he says he's a muslim. Just because he doesn't practice my interpretation of Islam, it doesn't mean that he isn't "muslim" himself. The definition of what a "true muslim" is, or a "true christian" is, is all subjective.

What I do know is that we've both read the same texts, yet have come to two different conclusions. Why is that? How can the same text make sense to a left-wing Canadian who loves the plural nature of societal cultures, languages, and faiths-- also make sense to an extremist believer dead-set on establishing a new caliphate, and a skewed pan-Islamic nation?

This is where socioculturoeconomic context comes into play, and where explanations get complex-- unfortunately, it's also a field that the media, that talking-heads, and politicians never bother diving into.

Simply saying "Islam is evil" makes no ****ing sense-- otherwise all 1.5 billion Muslims in this world would be ****ing killing people.

 

[fishonjazz]

The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. When the prophet Muhammad was receiving revelations from God at that point in time, he was being told about plans by the 'nonbeliever' (Pagan) regimes that dominated the area of Mecca at the time to murder him, his followers, and the messages he was trying to preach. He constructed the first Islamic village in Medina, northern modern-day Saudi Arabia, erecting the first mosque-- because he was booted out of his hometown, and there were nonstop excursions trying to murder him and his subjects. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Mecca and to emigrate to Medina. When the people of Medina had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Meccans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight:
{And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

All religious revelations are contextual. The very tenet of Islam to avoid the consumption of alcohol itself was contextual-- as the revelations from God to Muhammad continued, the strictness surrounding the avoidance of its consumption strengthened.


Even the translation "nonbeliever" is translated more commonly to "Pagan", cuz that's technically more correct. Here's the entire verse surrounding the "slay the unbeliever"-- remember, this was revealed in the middle of the conflict between the two.

9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.


--

In other words, if they stop, they were to tell them of the message of God, and escorted to their own lands, and left to do as they please. This is why context is so important, and why buzzwords are so harmful to discussion.

Not bad. Very interesting too. Thanks for the info.
Sounds like basically preaching self defense

 

[framer]

A very intelligent, and accurate post. All I'm saying is that a nation's interpretation and implementation of Islam is reflective of the social situation of the given country. Religion is what you bring into it. My arguments strongly clamour for the understanding for the dynamic nature of Islam, because many assume the past 50 years of affairs are representative of their entire history-- you have people like framer simply making inaccurate posts (literally every single scholar acknowledges that the cruelty of Christendom >>>>> Islam, hilarious to argue otherwise), which simply needs to be addressed.

You asked why there are no middle age mosques in Spain. I told you. The Moors, who were Moroccan, and had been halfway decent people after they conquered their territories, became decidedly less decent, tried to take the rest of what would become Spain, lost, and were sent back to Morocco. Once you declare Jihad on your neighbors, you begin to look like poor isthmusmates. You can reach for instances where Nations professing to be Christian were bad. What happened in Spain is just not a very good example for those who actually are literate in history.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You asked why there are no middle age mosques in Spain. I told you. The Moors, who were Moroccan, and had been halfway decent people after they conquered their territories, became decidedly less decent, tried to take the rest of what would become Spain, lost, and were sent back to Morocco. Once you declare Jihad on your neighbors, you begin to look like poor isthmusmates. You can reach for instances where Nations professing to be Christian were bad. What happened in Spain is just not a very good example for those who actually are literate in history.

News-flash, o historically-literate: a ruler change from one ideology, or religion, to another does not excuse a country assassinating and evicting every person practicing that ideology or religion.

When Islam rampaged over the Arabian peninsula, it took over the lands that used to be ruled by non-Muslim leaders, including Christians and Muslims. Did they launch a Christian and Jewish inquisition like the Spaniards did?

Lol at "reaching"-- full of irony, seeing as <1% of credible historians will make the argument that the history of Islam is more violent than that of Christianity.

 

[♪alt13]

Of course it does-- but that's because people living in Islamic nations have a problem unique to their own regions, and unfortunately they problems are addressed by very powerful regional powers who use their extremist interpretations of Islam to try and provide 'solutions' to their suffering (that the United States bolsters, mind you). These things don't exist in a vacuum-- they're incredibly nuanced and multifactorial, and simply blaming "Islam" for the emergence of extremist post-colonial Islamic insurgence is intellectually lazy, and unsophisticated. What has the United States ever done to slow down the Wahhabist movement? What roles did colonialism play in the Middle East's now dislike for the West? In what way is it easiest to mobilize the masses of the Middle East in order to suit your political interests? Why religion, of course.

In terms of massacres being committed by other people in the name of their faiths, they certainly exist. Look at the Buddhists in Myanmar; look at the Christians treatment of homosexuals in Uganda (https://www.thenation.com/blog/1791...a-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa)-- which, by the way, was an Americans fault. I'm sure there are plenty more. Practices like female genital mutilation (which are often conflated as an "islamic practice") are rampant in Christian-majority nations like Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Long story short: blaming ISIS on Islam, and not blaming it on decades of foreign policy measures by the United States and United Kingdom is simply void of sophistication, and void of intelligence.

I agree about the US foreign policy stuff and I don't believe I ever laid the full blame for ISIS on Islam. It is disingenuous and frankly intellectually dishonest to pretend that Islam and the Quran does not share in the blame. You seem to have no problem pointing to Christian atrocities and recognizing the role their religion played in it. I'm certain you recognize that the bible has horrific passages that people use to justify violence. So, why don't you seem to recognize that the Quran does the same thing?
I'll be honest. I find the holy books of the Abrahamic religions to be absolutely terrifying. Like I said I feel no need to argue on behalf of Christianity, but Christians tend to live in much more secularized societies, that's really the biggest thing that separates them from Muslims. Their religion(thank jesus) has increasingly taken a back seat, whilst Islam has become more central in Islamic nations.
I doubt that even in the most secular Muslim nations it would be a good idea for me to walk around in a T-shirt that blasphemes Islam or to tell people that I don't believe in god. I however feel perfectly safe walking around in one of the most religious states in America in my Heavy Metal Shop T that has 666 plastered across the front of it. I feel perfectly safe when asked by a Christian about my religious views to tell them that I am an atheist and when pressed that I think that their religion is a myth.
Do I think Islam is evil? Yeah I do. It needs to be neutered by the same force that neutered Christianity, secularism.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I agree about the US foreign policy stuff and I don't believe I ever laid the full blame for ISIS on Islam. It is disingenuous and frankly intellectually dishonest to pretend that Islam and the Quran does not share in the blame. You seem to have no problem pointing to Christian atrocities and recognizing the role their religion played in it. I'm certain you recognize that the bible has horrific passages that people use to justify violence. So, why don't you seem to recognize that the Quran does the same thing?
I'll be honest. I find the holy books of the Abrahamic religions to be absolutely terrifying. Like I said I feel no need to argue on behalf of Christianity, but Christians tend to live in much more secularized societies, that's really the biggest thing that separates them from Muslims. Their religion(thank jesus) has increasingly taken a back seat, whilst Islam has become more central in Islamic nations.
I doubt that even in the most secular Muslim nations it would be a good idea for me to walk around in a T-shirt that blasphemes Islam or to tell people that I don't believe in god. I however feel perfectly safe walking around in one of the most religious states in America in my Heavy Metal Shop T that has 666 plastered across the front of it. I feel perfectly safe when asked by a Christian about my religious views to tell them that I am an atheist and when pressed that I think that their religion is a myth.
Do I think Islam is evil? Yeah I do. It needs to be neutered by the same force that neutered Christianity, secularism.

You are fundamentally ignoring the backdrop in which atrocities are committed in the name of religion-- which is unfortunate, because as long as we do this as a civilization, these atrocities will perpetually continue.

Religion merely provides one (of many) vehicle that evil/powerful people utilize as a means to whatever they decide their ends to be. When looking at how foreign policy blunders from the UK and US have devastated the region of the Middle East politically, economically, socially, and culturally-- it's fundamental to understand that they would later be used as scapegoats by later rulers; if the Middle East happened to be completely secular, they would justify their violence against the West on nationalistic grounds. If not on nationalistic grounds, they'd find a way to justify it on politically ideological grounds. This is literally the same recipe for every oppressive regime in modern history. This is what you, along with so many others, seem to be missing. Islamic extremism is widely considered among more sophisticated-circles to be a retaliatory phenomenon, with the retaliation largely stemming from the foreign policy decisions of the developed western world, coupled with those in favour of the extremism being unfortunately blessed with sudden hoards of wealth, and incestuous relations with the US and UK. It's comical that you slander religion venomously, yet you don't perceive the societal constructs of nationalism and political ideology with such derision (despite their creation of death tolls in the millions as well). The intelligent answer is that it'd be unintelligent to hate or generalize any one of them, because all can be used for good or for bad, depending on the ruler or the context.


Side note: you seem to also be fundamentally misunderstanding why I'm bringing up the historic atrocities carried about by Christian-dominant regimes in the first place. I'm not trying to elevate Islam above Christianity-- I am simply using the standard by which some judge Islam as violent to Christianity as well, to point out the irony. A Christian characterizing Islam as an intrinsically violent religion when more atrocities have been committed in the sake of Christendom is literally the definition of irony. My point isn't that Christianity is violent, or that it's intrinsically more violent than Islam-- that's simply a misunderstanding on your part. All of my posts surrounding the vehicular nature of religion apply to many major faiths all over the globe.

 

[♪alt13]

You are fundamentally ignoring the backdrop in which atrocities are committed in the name of religion-- which is unfortunate, because as long as we do this as a civilization, these atrocities will perpetually continue.

Religion merely provides one (of many) vehicle that evil/powerful people utilize as a means to whatever they decide their ends to be. When looking at how foreign policy blunders from the UK and US have devastated the region of the Middle East politically, economically, socially, and culturally-- it's fundamental to understand that they would later be used as scapegoats by later rulers; if the Middle East happened to be completely secular, they would justify their violence against the West on nationalistic grounds. If not on nationalistic grounds, they'd find a way to justify it on politically ideological grounds. This is literally the same recipe for every oppressive regime in modern history. This is what you, along with so many others, seem to be missing. Islamic extremism is widely considered among more sophisticated-circles to be a retaliatory phenomenon, with the retaliation largely stemming from the foreign policy decisions of the developed western world, coupled with those in favour of the extremism being unfortunately blessed with sudden hoards of wealth, and incestuous relations with the US and UK. It's comical that you slander religion venomously, yet you don't perceive the societal constructs of nationalism and political ideology with such derision (despite their creation of death tolls in the millions as well). The intelligent answer is that it'd be unintelligent to hate or generalize any one of them, because all can be used for good or for bad, depending on the ruler or the context.


Side note: you seem to also be fundamentally misunderstanding why I'm bringing up the historic atrocities carried about by Christian-dominant regimes in the first place. I'm not trying to elevate Islam above Christianity-- I am simply using the standard by which some judge Islam as violent to Christianity as well, to point out the irony. A Christian characterizing Islam as an intrinsically violent religion when more atrocities have been committed in the sake of Christendom is literally the definition of irony. My point isn't that Christianity is violent, or that it's intrinsically more violent than Islam-- that's simply a misunderstanding on your part. All of my posts surrounding the vehicular nature of religion apply to many major faiths all over the globe.

When did I say that Nationalism wasn't evil? I have twice now conceded the role of foreign policy. I also think that the US foreign policy towards the middle east is evil.

The Muslims of the same sect that are being brutally murdered for not living up to the Quran is evil. The Quran says evil ****: Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"


Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

One evil does not pardon another. No matter how much you want it to.

 

[Deleted member 848]

When did I say that Nationalism wasn't evil? I have twice now conceded the role of foreign policy. I also think that the US foreign policy towards the middle east is evil.

So if nationalism is conclusively evil, are we to banish this social construct into the abyss, and wipe out national borders across the planet?

The Muslims of the same sect that are being brutally murdered for not living up to the Quran is evil.

In other news, sky is blue.

The Quran says evil ****: Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Yaa, God will punish the Unbelievers who are rampantly trying to kill Muhammad and his followers. How evil of Him.

Here's a Sura in response to yours:

2:61

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

Those who believe [in you, i.e. Muslims], and those who are Jewish, and Christian, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the last day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

The handling of prisoners of war/war-ethics by the Prophet Muhammad in his era was far morally superior w.r.t. today's standards than any other regime of that era, bar-none.

One evil does not pardon another. No matter how much you want it to.

Seeing as political ideologies, nationalism, and religion all bring forth intrinsic evil in your eyes, are we to simply cast them away?