Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 13
    Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 3 months ago
    All right, help me out here.

    Some piece of garbage walks into a Wednesday night prayer meeting at a predominately black church prayer meeting and shoots the place up, killing 9 and wounding others. Everyone from the President on down busts a gut to get on TV to slam presumably everyone south of Pennsylvania, and I can't go into Wal-Mart and buy a Dukes of Hazzard Hot Wheels car because it has (GASP!) a Confederate battle flag on it.

    Fast forward: Some islamist suck hole shoots up two recruiting centers, killing four and wounding several others. The White House and the media seem oddly reluctant to condemn anyone. Why isn't there an outcry to remove Islamic banners and signs from everywhere? Why aren't leftist groups howling for mohammadeans to repent their evil ways? What about the centuries of hate from them against westerners being thrown up in everyone's face ad nauseum? After all, they've been targeting Americans since the days of the Barbary Pirates!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
      The answer is quite simple. It has nothing to do with the South, Confederate Flag, Blacks or Whites. For that matter, it really doesn't even have much to do with Islam. The issue is Progressive politics - these are people, starting with their president, who simply hate America. If any issue can be turned to damage the U.S., they're on board supporting it. If it does not damage the U.S., they ignore it. This may be hard to understand for someone, as it seems against all logic, but if you follow the facts and place all issues in two bins - damage America, not damage America, you will see that the Progressives are fully committed to the first bin only.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 4 years, 3 months ago
    Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim. I cannot say all because of fanatics like Roof and McVeigh who try to initiate race wars or rail against the government. Granted, the government is out of control but you have to admit that they have bigger, better and more guns than we have. They have also proven to do do stupid things, like Waco and Ruby Ridge along with other things in our history. This administration is bending over backwards, trying to do the limbo under the pole of political correctness. In their minds, they cannot be doing wrong so therefore the standard US Citizen is wrong. We are in the right and it pains them to think that they are not really smarter than we are and we try to stymie them in their new world order. I am not a conspiracy theorist but sometimes the government does something so stupid it is painful for me to watch. For those that don't know, I served in the US Navy for 21 years from 1980 to 2001 and I took seriously the oath of enlistment to preserve and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Most veterans do the same and have called out this and former administrations for their unjust laws and regulations. I tend to favor the Israeli method of spotting potential terrorists and they have a good record of doing it. Of course, in our system, it would be a cause to sue someone for something.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 4 years, 3 months ago
      Actually, while the government may have more guns than us, they have far fewer capable shooters under their control, which is exactly the way it should be. And don't forget how many times that same government (at least, local police forces) has claimed that the "civilians" are better armed than they. I would like to keep it that way.

      Remember that the Constitution specifies that if our government ever gets too "big for its britches", that it's up to the citizenry to replace it, if necessary. The only way to do this will be for us to remain better armed than the government. After all, our government should both fear and respect us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 4 years, 3 months ago
    It is my opinion that the really deadly types are conditioned to be soldiers of God in their church. This can be a Christian or a Muslim that has taken up the challenge to do God's work by self sacrifice and ridding the world of sinners and non-believers. Each sees their actions as a means to heaven and everlasting life. Unfortunately, this message is presented a little more strongly in Islamic teachings. Moderates of all faiths seek to persuade others to do the right thing and resist the command to commit physical acts to punish them. Unfortunately, the stronger the underlying belief that they should do so, the easier it is to trigger them into action. ISIS understands that they can use social media in addition to face to face means to inspire acts of terrorism in young people that are prone to extreme emotions and they are very good at doing so. Even in cases of racial violence church leaders are in front telling their flock about the morally corrupt blacks or the slave raping white devils. I see far more hate than love for fellow men coming from religious leaders of all faiths. We are so busy being politically correct that we are blind to the threats that lay dormant all around us.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      t compare radical Islam to the teachings of Chrstiainity is to engage in the worst kind of moral relativism. In what islamic country does true western freedom and liberty exist? Answer: none.

      There is no modern example of Christian armies slaughtering innocents. Quite the contrary, Chrsitians advocate for the preservation of life. radical Islam has declared war on us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by coaldigger 4 years, 3 months ago
        Anyone that bases their actions on emotion rather than reason is a crisis away from being a mortal threat to innocent bystanders. Philosophies based on faith are emotional reactions to fear of the unknown where a mystical explanation is provided as a substitute for knowledge. The stronger the faith, the more danger lurks beneath the surface. Christianity is undoubtedly a mellower cousin of Islam that can be compared in their moderate states and in there extreme stated. Comparing the extreme of one to the middle of the other is unfair.
        There are plenty modern examples of Christians killing innocents under the cover of their definition of war. Drones get the passers by as well as the alleged, unconvicted terrorist leader. Villages were wiped out in Vietnam due to suspected enemies. bombs were dropped on cities during WW II killing thousands of women and children. What is the difference between a political war and a holy war? I do not say any of this because I believe I have the answer but until we look at this subject fro mall angles we will never reach a solution.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          Please provide examples of modern Christian armies slaughteringn innocents. That's a patently false assertion.

          And Christianity is not a fellow traveler of Islam. To begin with, Muhammad was a warrior and Christ preached peace. Muhammad was a child rapist. Islam does not allow for other religions and preaches jihad. Chrstiainity teaches to love their neighbor and forgive your enemies.

          Again, this is an attempt at moral relativism and unravels immediately for lack of factual accuracy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by IndianaGary 4 years, 3 months ago
            Christianity and Islam share the same disdain for man's life on earth. They both preach rules to be followed to gain access to an afterlife in heaven, wherever the hell that is. Objectivism is life affirming; that is, life on earth. Christianity and Islam are both anti-life, only one of them is , currently, more explicitly so.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 years, 3 months ago
              In reality, in a 'Conscious' understanding of Christianity, it is quite the opposite. Although it speaks bicamerally, it documents mankind journey into conscious awareness and points out the tools provided by the consequences of creation and how best to engage it; [regardless of how one supposes it was created.] Once you understand that mankind was not always 'aware' and understand some rudimentary findings in quantum physics you begin to get the big picture. It's not mystical at all, it's self evident...but only to the 'Conscious' mind but sadly requires confidence by the bicameral brain only crowd...sadly, this crowd still exist today and it only confounds the issue further. Islam by contrast is a pure pagan bicameral barbarian view that in effect keeps it's believers from achieving even rudimentary states of awareness.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by IndianaGary 4 years, 3 months ago
                I have rarely read such an incomprehensible statement. It's clear that we do not share the same frame of reference. I need a translator. You might as well be writing in Greek.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 3 months ago
                  He's obviously a fan of "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" a 1976 book by Julian Jaynes. It hypothesizes that until about 3000 years ago our brains hemispheres were functionally separate and one 'talked' to the other providing the 'voice of God'.

                  An interesting hypothesis and probably one of the coolest book titles ever.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
            Christians killed more Christians during the Crusades than Muslims. Christians ran the inquisition. ?The War Between the States was Christians killing; Christians. World War I was a war primarily betwen Christians. World War II was primarily a war between Christians and Christians ran the death camps, the gas chambers and the ovens. Christianity as a whole has failed to honor the Prince of Peace. Nothing pointing fingers elsewhere will change facts. Play pretend is not the same as atonement. if you are relying on manufactured history to support your point you are sadly mistaken, certainly no objectivist and have failed. Not that non-Christians were pikers. Stalin killed 20 million of his own citizens. The followers of gentle Bhudda did the same,

            The only real difference is the Islamic fanatics are willingly violating their prohibition of committing suicide just as Christians have violated thou shalt not commit murder

            As for your last statement it may preach it but that's only on Sunday. What it teaches tells me they are not followers of Jesus Christ but play pretends secure in a belief of last second redemption as an excuse for the other six days Just another version of Mohammeds Paradise for those who commit suicide and call it martyrdom.. The two have a lot in common. Now follow your own request and procide examples to the contrary.

            Where were your jumps?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
              Before making an accusation like this about Christians, you really should have done some historical research.
              Christians ran Nazi death camps??? Had you actually studied Hitler/Nazi's you would know, that Hitler outlawed Christianity and had a preternatural hatred for it. Your assertion is as wrong as wrong can be.
              I defy you to find a call to arms/advocacy for war anywhere by Jesus.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
                Now it's Hitler and not the German Army after all. Do try and stay focused. Christian armies like all others generall have more than a roster of one
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  The Nazis were NOT Christian. I'm not sure where you learned this, but is laughably wrong.
                  Again, you're unable to provide examples of Christian armies committing jihadist atrocities, because the don't exist.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 3 months ago
                    That is absurd, AG. Christian armies are full of human people, who behave as well or as poorly as humans do under various circumstances. You have asked for an example - the massacre of the city of Magdeburg in 1631 provides an excellent example (per Wiki "Sack of Magdeburg"):

                    "After the city fell, the Imperial soldiers went out of control and started to massacre the inhabitants and set fire to the city. The invading soldiers had not received payment for their service and took the chance to loot everything in sight; they demanded valuables from every household that they encountered. Otto von Guericke, an inhabitant of Magdeburg, claimed that when civilians ran out of things to give the soldiers, "the misery really began. For then the soldiers began to beat, frighten, and threaten to shoot, skewer, hang, etc., the people." [7] It took only one day for all of this destruction and death to transpire. Of the 30,000 citizens, only 5,000 survived. For fourteen days, charred bodies were carried to the Elbe River to be dumped to prevent disease.

                    In a letter, Pappenheim wrote of the Sack:

                    I believe that over twenty thousand souls were lost. It is certain that no more terrible work and divine punishment has been seen since the Destruction of Jerusalem. All of our soldiers became rich. God with us.[8]

                    And history is full of such examples. I know of no major religion that is exempt. This does not make a religion right or wrong, it just makes it human.

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                      An example from 1631 is your idea of Christian armies in modernity marching to slaughter innocents??? You've just proven my point for me.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 3 months ago
                        I beg your pardon? I found an example of modern (at least by my definition - printing press, gunpowder, banking) Christian armies committing wasteful slaughter. If you are going to definitionally eliminate the information I find, I will end this discussion.

                        Jan
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                          So gunpowder and the printing press are examples of Christian armies committing wasteful slaughter??? When in the last 100, or even 200, years have Christian armies gone to war to slaughter innocents?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 3 months ago
                        Radical Christians accepted modernity faster than radical Muslims. We can award little gold stars to the religion that modernized first. Not only do I see no constructive purpose in this, pitting the religions of the world against one another is fuel for extremists.

                        If the extremists have any intelligence, they're keen to make the narrative about outsiders vs in-group rather than law and modernity vs mideval barbarism. Setting up a pointless contest of which religion has the most barbarians in modern times helps the extremist narrative.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                          It's not just that Islam is stuck 900 years ago and wants the rest of the world there, too. Islam hasn't experienced a reformation and joined modernity, because it can't.
                          There's a reason why there aren't examples of Christian armies slaughtering innocents. It's because it's antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
                          By contrast, jihad is a core principle of Islam.
                          Attempting to establish a moral equivelance argument is dangerously naive.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 years, 3 months ago
              I'd review unrevised history if I were you. You'll be surprised how different it is by reading the works of the time, not a hashed up purposed abortion created by bicameral liberal progressives.
              I took this journey myself, just to see what was there and was properly shocked.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
              Exactly why, some years ago, I stopped using the terms Christian or Muslim or whatever and began to refer to Fundamentalist Islamists and their counterparts in other religions.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                What counterpart does a Muslim jihadist have in Christianity???
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Too Easy. George Soros whoops wrong religion. Hillary Clinton? Except for the part about suicide - especially if it's political. Salvadore Allende? Juan Peron, Lyndon Baynes Johnson. Not sure if Rachel Carson was Christian or not. Sybionese Liberation Army, Weatherman Maybe not. Charles Manson. i think he claimed to be Christ. I see you ae narrowing the focus. I'm going to widen it. Anyone who voted for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act with it's anti Bill of Rights provision. Choosing the lesser of two evils only makes the chooser one who has chosen evil. the rest is relative. Therefore it follows the jihadist or terrorist is found by looking in the mirror for those who have chosen evil and blanket condemnations or blanket denials of fact is a form of evil. Good enough for a secular progressive or the run of the mill left wing fascist or the Government Party not good enough for the standards in the gulch.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    You've officially jumped the shark, and it's become obvious that you would rather play at moral relativism than recognize the nature of our enemy. A quick study of history would teach you that the Chamberlain approach never works.
                    It will require those of us to who do understand the world we live in to make it safe for you.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
        AG, there are reports that say that Islamists are waging their war against the West in part because of the way "not-modern Christians" treated THEM hundreds of years ago, so to ask for examples of "modern Christian armies slaughtering innocents" is a lousy argument.

        Many say that Christianity 'matured' in the past hundreds of years, while Islam hasn't. Your comparison request is irrelevant at best.

        A better question might be to inquire as to what inspires CURRENT Imams and their followers to join the War Against The West and what might be able to be done to reverse the trend.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          We know what inspires them. They (Islamists) hate the west because of our culture, our freedom, our non-conformity to their beliefs.
          And, my question is absolutely relevant. The rebuttal of Crusades is absurd. Christianity had its reformation hundreds of years ago. When will Islam join the 21st century?
          The question is, why do up to 25% of Muslims support violent jihad?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
            Nothing you've posted is evidence that you really want to know "Why?" Just state the position you believe.

            In spite of that, fundamentally why anyone supports violent jihad is because they believe they are right and others are wrong...just as you believe your beliefs are superior to theirs. A man's life is not valued for what it is, rather its value is determined by the jihadist's belief. That belief, like any other, is a crisis away from establishing its position of superiority with force...which is the ultimate way to win an argument when reason and existence have been abandoned.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
              You must not be actually reading my responses or assertions of the terrorists themselves. The Quran commands them to commit jihad, to kill in the name of Islam, etc. islam as espoused by Muhammad and written in the Quran is incompatible with other religions or freedom and liberty generally.
              Western civilization, which is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, is fundamentally antithetical to their beliefs.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
                You make my point. Your beliefs are better by the standard of your beliefs. (logical error alert)

                So, if you're 'pushed' by the others, God will be on your 'side'. Your justification doesn't originate from the natural rights of man, it comes from your subjective beliefs...just as the jihadist.

                You may not like the equivalence of your beliefs, stripped of their particulars, but at that level the jihadist justification is equal to yours.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  No, because there is objective right and wrong. Your position would have us believe that George Washington and Bin Laden were both freedom fighters, based on a subjective set of values, which is patent nonsense.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Your presumption about my position is the crux of your logical error. Your "objective right and wrong" comes from your subjective Judeo-Christian beliefs; my morality is derived from the nature of man's life as man.

                    The two of us may find ourselves on similar sides of an issue, but I don't think beliefs are a valid defense of war, even in cases where military action is warranted.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                      We may very well net out on the same side of this and/or other issues. You say "don't think beliefs are a valid defense...", but you're employing your own beliefs to arrive at that conclusion. All thinking humans have beliefs, but not all are correct.

                      The unfortunate flaw is that an understanding of right and wrong can be achieved without a moral compass. The understanding of man's natural rights came as a result of his understanding that they (natural rights) were endowed by his Creator. It was this realization/understanding that formed the bedrock on which western civilization was built.

                      Freedom and liberty are inextricably tethered to morality (particularly Judeo-Christian principles), and it provides the ability to objectively discern what's morally/fundamentally right and wrong behavior.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
                        Nice dance, AG. Your ideas are clear in your replies.

                        However, I arrived at my "conclusion" via reason and rational thought, not beliefs endowed by anyone.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                          If your conclusion is the result of recognizing natural rights and observing civilization and the world around you, they're the result of Judeo-Christian principles, whether you acknowledge that fact or not. They're the bedrock of western civilization.

                          Denying that fact is akin to denying gravity. You can personally choose not to believe it exists, but it's not dependent on your acceptance.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
            But the assertion that they hate our culture, freedom, etc., does not address the question of WHY do they hate us for that.

            When will Islam join the 21st Century? How old is Christianity versus how old is Islam?? It may take another couple hundred years and some bloody wars before 'they' grow up.

            And a 25% number might depend on who's asked and where they live?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 3 months ago
    "What's not clear — to counterterrorism investigators and to neighbors and former classmates — is what set him on the path to violence that ended with him being gunned down by police."

    It is ISLAM. Everything he did is outlined in the Koran. It is indeed an act of war by Islam. Muhammad required Muslims to war with non-Muslims.

    Not all Muslims are terrorists/warriors/Jihadi but Islam REQUIRES it of all Muslims. There are no Radical Muslims only religious Muslims carrying out what is required of them to achieve eternal reward.

    The US (and literally Obama) is bowing to the Saudis, who fund terrorists at war with us, to minimize mention to Islam in exchange for Saudi allegiance and oil.

    ISLAM IS THE ENEMY. There is no placating it. It has been at war with the world since the 7th century and always will be unless it is completely reformed or defeated utterly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
      Radical, fundamentalist Islam.

      And the PC patrols who look at the "what's not clear" question and can't see the forest OR the trees of intolerance and violence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 3 months ago
    While radical Islam is a clear and present danger, if you really want to answer the question, you have to think more widely. Left wing terrorism died with the Weather Underground in the 1970s, but remember that President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist. The Wall Street Bombing of September 16, 1920, killed 30 people. You would have to include today's radical labor movement in that also, which continues a much lower but persistent campaign of force. Then, look on the far right. Citizen militias and sovereign citizens, Aryans, and fundamentalist Christians show up here, just as potential terrorists of the left - Anti WTO, for example - associate with socialists and liberals who disavow and denounce them.

    What do they have in common? Eric Hoffer's The True Believer gave a good summary of the character traits of the terrorist. Of course, admittedly, very few joiners and followers of political movements engage in actual violence towards others. That may leave the question unanswered.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 3 months ago
    In the book, Confederates in the Attic (about Civil War reinactors), the author comments on Confederate creep: the counties at the margins of the Confederate area, which were once strongly Union, now have a 'we were/are Confederate' culture. Why is this happening? Because it is 'neat' to be the Rebel and because various media portrayals romanticized the modern Southern Rebel.

    So some counter-propaganda is not unwelcome. Perhaps we will get Confederate-ebb as the marginal counties now recall that they were once proudly Union.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 years, 3 months ago
    It seems to me that one thing in common is that after the fact we find that the "authorities" should have had the perp on the radar screen. With all the spying and monitoring that is conducted, they always seem to miss that oh, they recently traveled to a mid-east or muslim country or oh, they were posting bizarre ideologue positions on facebook.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 3 months ago
    This is asking what defines terrorism. It's about as clear as what defines hate crime. In theory, it means violence intending to intimidate an entire group. That definition would include many state military actions.

    So the words end up meaning any violence worthy of dividing people into groups, ignoring our laws, and increasing gov't power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years, 3 months ago
      A better definition of terrorism is anything that would be an act of war, except that it's deliberately conducted against non-combatant targets.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 3 months ago
        We should define the elements of that definition:
        1. Act of War - What is the difference between an act of war and an ordinary crime. Clearly a kook who "declares war" obstructing traffic in front a gov't building would not count. Clear, IMHO, a military action in a foreign country without a declaration of war by Congress would be an act of war (not terrorism unless civilians are deliberately targeted). So my question is what makes it war.
        2. Deliberate non-combatant targets - What if the intended target is civilian infrastructure, like roads, power, and phones, with no intentional civilian deaths? What if the attackers target infrastructure that they know will lead to shortages of food or medical supplies, which may lead to deaths, hoping to draw the gov't to the bargaining table? What if the attackers impose a curfew with the policy that even non-combatants who violate it will be shot on sight?

        I ask these questions b/c it's easy for any use of force to become "terrorism" by some definitions. My thought is it's just a epithet of condemnation with no meaning. I appreciate hearing other thoughts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 3 months ago
          War, as is used by the media, is defined as by a state or nation with clearly marked uniforms. Terrorists are non state actors.

          But that is not accurate. Holy war is declared by Islam, on the world. It's soldiers come from all countries and they are uniform in their belief and intent.
          We call the Crusades, declared by the Pope, a war not terrorism. Every violent act of "terror" (in the tens of thousands since 2001) by Muslims is a skirmish in the war on the world of non Muslims. So yes it is an act of war. But the "Leaders" and the media are brainwashed by their own Religion of "Tolerance".

          Islam is strengthened by their weakness. Every victory encourages them to do more harm. If they are defeated they stop. In their minds everything is the will of Allah. Victory means Allah is saying go defeat means stop.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
          All war is ultimately a contest of ideals: of which ideology is "right". The problem that Western society has is that it has fooled itself into believing in the Geneva Convention which mandates a certain number of "rules" on what constitutes "war" vs what is "terrorism".

          In my mind, there has never been a time in the history of mankind I am aware of where there has not been a contest of ideologies. The real question is whether or not any particular ideology espouses a restraint on the promulgation of its philosophies to strictly the voluntary exchange of ideas. Bloodshed happens when an ideology attempts to use force to "convert" people to their way of thinking.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            You're correct in your assertion that war is often the result of a conflict of ideology.
            However, there are objectively right and wrong ideologies. While Christianity does seek to bring others to Christ, it does not seek this at this tip of the spear, but rather by voluntarily coming to Christ.
            Muhammad himself was a warrior (and child rapist), who commanded followers of Islam force conversion, death, or absurd tax on non-believers.
            We know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, the freedom fighters and the terrorists.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
              And thus the crux of war is ideology itself. The only way to eliminate physical war is to eliminate differences of opinion that people are willing to coerce others into believing.

              There are many ideologies (I include both religious and secular) which are willing to confine their differences to strictly persuasive verbal communications. Most are like this including Christianity. Islam is, however, not an ideology willing to confine itself to non-violent means. I have read the Qu'ran and had it explained to me by followers of Islam that the Qu'ran itself advocates for the spread of Islam regardless of the tactics used - including violence. That sets it apart from most others with the exception of military dictatorships and juntas, fascism and communism.

              And yes, I agree that there is a significant difference (being not only the end itself but the means by which it is achieved) between freedom fighters and terrorists.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
          Same thing as a civilian target. Refer you to Carlos Marighella and the Cycle of Repression. Season Six I believe of 24 rapidly showed the system in action by the fast changing targets making it difficult to protect everything all of the time. When applied by a government the Cycle of Repression (for example the economic cycle of the left) is even more effective than when applied by some small underfunded revolutionary group. The target and methods in both cases are the same. Terrorize innocent bystanders with a purpose of showing they are not being protected thus inviting more and more - permanently temporary -suspensions of civil liberties. Prime Example today the Patriot Act.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dutchmanii 4 years, 3 months ago
    One thing we have to do is to understand Islam and the goals of it. Here is a great spot to start and is from a man that has studied this very subject and I feel has the handle on the subject, Please view this site and watch the video. You don't have to pay anything but a bit of time. You can fast forward through the advertisements by clicking a bit forward on the track line. Here is to learning something, http://www.gofundme.com/RandallTerry
    There is an associated web site with other good info on it here https://www.voiceofresistance.org/
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
      I liked the first video... forwarded it to a large number of friends and acquaintances... and then forwarded the second link with a comment that 'the second link cancelled out my support for the first one.'

      Thanks for the links.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
    What they don't have in common is the suicide disguised as martyrdom switch.
    What they do have in common is the Cycle of Repression system (Carlos Marighella circa 1960's first used by Uruguay's Tupamaro revolution.)

    Which in part states never use the same tactic,technique or target more than once in a row

    The entire concept is based on a defending government never knows what to defend.

    What Marighella never envisioned was the use of his strategy bya government against it's own people.

    But then after 9/11 the instant experts took over...and the terrorists won that round.

    It matters not if they are religious or secular, goverenment or anti-govenment the purpose of terrorism is to create fear and terror. not glib little cliches suitable for thirty second sound bites.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      It absolutely matters if they're radical Islam, or the 15-25% of personally non-violent Muslims that still support that activities of the violent.

      They (radical Islam) have declared war on the West, and we ignore that fact at our own peril.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by UncommonSense 4 years, 3 months ago
        Whenever I've heard "radical" islam over the years, it always implied that there are types, kinds or various levels of islam that a muslim can follow.

        That said, can you provide me some clear differences between "radical" islam versus, say islam-lite? Or, beginners islam and "mainstream" islam? "Regular" islam and "islamic conservative"? Do you have any verses in either the koran, sura or the hadiths that can clearly point the differences?

        Finally, do you think mohommad would give his coerced followers options of which one to accept outside of what he said and did?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
          Ah, I have seen too much evidence that nearly all Big Religious Groups have some kind of 'distribution' comprising 'gentle, mainstream and fanatics' other than MAYBE Sikhs... While Buddhists don't tend to attack others, the ones I call 'extremists' tend to torch themselves.. at least they don't try to damage innocents or bystanders.

          Christians? Jews? Yep... some extremists in just about any mainstream group. Muslims? It seems that out of a billion or so of them on earth, a small percentage of them are the fucking loons that like death more than life, but even a small percentage of a billion people can be a major threat to the rest of us.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            The problem is, it's not just a few Muslims. 15-25%, depending on the poll, support the actions violent jihadists.
            Yes, their may be the lunatic claiming to be a Christian, but that truly is an anomaly. When 150-250 million support violent killing of non-Muslims, that's a BIG problem.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
              and there are charts that draw the conclusion that Muslims are NOT a problem until their percentage of an overall population exceeds some number, and I don't think that number is anywhere near 25% or so.

              Which Polls?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                It's baffling the cirque du soleil contortions the left is willing to go through to deny reality... "Don't believe your lyin' eyes".
                You really need to do more research, and you'll recognize the inaccuracy of your assertions.
                The fact that 15-25% of Muslims are ok with violent jihad is a problem (Pew, Gallup, and multiple other studies have demonstrated this).
                It only took 10% of Germans to support Hitler's actions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                  So what if the actual number is 1%, 5%, 10%, 20% or any other number?

                  I see the problem as 'here's a belief system that recruits people into itself with the goal of making Everyone In The World One of "us" and exterminating anyone who refuses.

                  Screw the polls. The number is NOT the problem. The culture, ethics and morals 'is the problem.'

                  So, how would one go about changing such 'minds'?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    To start, we DESTROY Isis. We allow Israel free reign. We announce to Iran that if they continue those that harm America or our allies, we will crush them.
                    We defeat them just as we did the Nazis and the Japanese. We don't want war, because it's awful and runs counter to our beliefs, but if evil will not not surrender, it must be vanished.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Fine, but the liberal, progressive pussies in the US WILL NOT see that this is a New Kind Of War and that boots on the ground will NOT be the best strategy for combat.

                      What heartens me is that, despite the wussiness of so many Americans, it appears that the leaders of Other Nations, for whatever reasons, are beginning to react to the attacks and danger BY DOING Something about it.

                      Maybe our 'esteemed Leader' will lead from behind and follow those other countries... so he can blame others for his failures Again.

                      And sorry, Israel is not The Problem. People (Islamist Fundamentalists) who clearly announce that they want to kill all the Jews and destroy Israel have just about the exact same goals as any jihadist we might complain about here. Same goals, slightly different strategy, but at the core, the same hatred.

                      Been to Israel lately? I have.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by UncommonSense 4 years, 3 months ago
            I'm rather well-versed in the New Testament. NOWHERE does JC endorse violence by those who follow Him onto others ~ anybody, even those who commit violence against them. JC does not condemn those who defend themselves ~ duh, self-preservation, but He does not endorse any sort of violence towards anyone that's considered revenge, anger or malice.

            Any jack arse who claims violence in the name of Christianity is an IMPOSTER, an INFILTRATOR of any given church whose job is to twist the word of Jesus, confuse those who don't know anything or very little about the Bible & thus, turn them away from learning the truth about the message JC gave to everyone.

            Those POS are not to be trusted or viewed as Christians, they are not. They are no different than the Luciferians who call themselves Jews and they are not: Revelations, Chapter 2, Verse 9. Do not be deceived!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
              And US, don't a lot of 'defenders' say exactly the same thing about Islam?!
              A LOT of the Bible was written and rewritten LONG after JC departed this mortal coil, and the Koran was dictated by an illiterate to scribes who could have written down anything they wanted yet parroted back similar words if Mohammed asked for a 'playback.'

              So there are imposters on both (or all) sides....
              That's not an argument for WHY they exist or why so many people follow them!

              Unless you try to make THAT the subject of this 'discussion,' and that certainly is not MY goal.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                Why is the overwhelming terrorism committed today coming from radical Islam??? You not see to coming from Judeo-Christians against Islam, period.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                  A few hundred extra years of maturity? I have NO idea, but a few guesses.

                  I tend to believe that poverty is one driving force... when a lot of people have no hope of achieving a comfortable and secure, safe life, they react by hating people they can blame for their own lack or shortcomings.

                  Then comes power and control, so leaders take advantage of that jealousy and turn it into anger and hatred, as opposed to helping the 'needy' do what's needed to change their situation in some positive way. Witness the anger of black religious leaders in the US.

                  Redistribution of wealth will never be a cure for lack of education and development of marketable skills, though lots of people seem to believe that in their hearts, if not their heads.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
        So has our own government and a lot of it is using any convenient crisis as an excuse. As I said the terrorists won that go round. I didn't specify which variety.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          Our government has used phantom crisis to erode our liberty and rights.

          That said, you indicated that right wing and Christian terrorists also pose a threat. Can you provide examples of these groups threatening America?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years, 3 months ago
            KKK, skinheads, neo-nazis, sovereign citizens, Branch Davidians, etc. These groups are riddled with self described Christians who espouse race hatred and/or violence. I think it's fair to say they pose a threat. That being said, I agree that the most immediate threat is posed by "inspired" devout muslims. Aside from collectivism and religious belief these groups have little in common.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 3 months ago
              A true fundamental Christian cannot, doctrinally, espouse hatred. Hence, your examples are oxymorons. (Much like saying Naval Intelligence...it might exist, but I never saw any.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years, 3 months ago
                The "no true scotsman" fallacy emerges again! By the way, muslims use the same false argument. Haven't you heard, "Islam is a religion of peace"?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 3 months ago
                  I have read the Qur'an, but I certainly don't profess to be an expert on it. However, the evidence of my own eyes tell me that Islam is not, nor ever has been a religion of peace despite claims to the contrary. That being said, I am quite a bit more familiar with Christianity and can say with certainty that the New Testament is diametrically opposed to the aims and tenets of the Klan, neo nazis, skinheads, etc. If you can find a passage in the New Testament that supports the aforementioned organizations I'd certainly like to see it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                    It looks like you're narrowing the 'acceptable sources of reference' to exclude anything that might disprove your point.

                    Many biblical passages, Old or New Testament belie your assertion, as do passages in the Quran.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Please point them out in the New Testament. The teachings of Jesus are completely antithetical to violence, whereas Muhammad was a warrior.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
                        That was Jesus then - not Christians now. That was Mohammed then not Islamics now. etc. etc. etc. But you can keep ducking. It's almost time for you to pull the built in escape hatch so let's pull the parachute and see if it works. WHAT is your definition of modern?

                        Quack Quack Quack. if it'talks leftist and walks leftist and ducks leftist......it isn't an apple. Especially if it follow the secular progessives manual of non debate.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                          You made the assertion about modern Christian armies committing atrocities just like jihadists. I've demonstrated you're wrong, but you continue to assert. Provide examples more current than the Crusade.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
                            You have demonstrated nothing. You have ignored all the other examples. You have only repeated the same fairy tale. Radical Reasoning.- obvious conclusion? Secular Progressive with a Patriot Act style name. Go Tell George and the Grinch you failed. Goodbye Comrade. I dont serve the partyi.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 3 months ago
                          Just so I understand...you are willing to accept the New Testament literally, exactly as written?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                            Interesting question to pose to a self-described atheist, wouldn't you say?
                            I was just offering Googled references to indicate that both 'testaments' have similar content... :)

                            So, to answer your question, "of course not!"
                            Next Question?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 3 months ago
                              Then why are you asserting that you Bible references are correct and true? Either you're citing something that you believe is true, in which case we have a basis for discussion, or the Bible is false, in which case your citations could be from Moby Dick, and would carry the same weight. Please try to be consistent
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                                Salty, I sit falsely accused. Cut it out...
                                I offered references to sources that refute sources referenced by others... I did not profess belief that either side is Right or Wrong.

                                I'm an atheist. My beliefs on the subject are orthogonal to most others' beliefs and irrelevant to this discussion... just ask any Believer... :)
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 3 months ago
    In the hours after this horror, I was sitting in an Infragard meeting. The special agent who opened the presentation outlined some of the commonalities among American terrorists who were associated with foreign causes. (They are different from domestic terrorists on the right, and, I add, apparently different from those on the American left, also.) The SA also did not mention this. Neither did any of the 50 other people in the room, though by this time, the attack was news.

    + They talk about their beliefs in social media.
    + They denounce the United States.
    + They often live at home with their parents.
    + They are self-radicalized. They view al Qaeda USA (now branded as "Inspire" media), YouTube videos, etc., and are not radicalized by co-religionists here in America.
    + They are copycat criminals, admiring the previous works of others and imitating them.

    However, among the small sample set (about twenty in all), some outliers remain. Before this attack, the previous perpetrator had no religious convictions before adopting Islam. (Often, these people move from one faith to another.) Although most attacks involve guns or bombs, one was carried out with a hatchet. (Zale Thompson, Oct. 24, 2014).


    In this case, the criminal was in no way socially isolated, an outcast, a loner, or misfit. He seems to have been a regular guy. However, it is clear that his trip to Kuwait last year brought change. Whether that took place before he went there is not clear. None of his co-religionists or other social circle know of any radicalization here. At least, those are the common news reports in the first 24 hours.

    Another commonality that the FBI special agent did not mention - in fact, as I recall, ruled out in profiling - was occupation. Engineers are disproportionately represented among jihadi not in the USA. This case put the perpetrator within that set. More on that later.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 3 months ago
    They are willing to die for their beliefs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      And Muhammad seems to be a quite common name...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 3 months ago
        If this guy wasn't even on the radar as some have said then why are we spending so much money and giving up so much freedom? I guess we know the answer.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
          we need to control you. I am amazed at the number of people I talk with who like that idea :)
          I posted a video (from my town of Colo Spgs) this small woman, handcuffed but admittedly somewhat combative get body slammed face down-the cop was twice her size. all sorts of people agreed with the cop. they thought she knocked him in the nuts. he showed no signs of impairment. I can tell you honestly, if I am ever arrested, I will not go meekly
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 3 months ago
            I used to almost automatically defend the Police but I have seen too many situations like that. I think people support it because they feel safer and figure they aren't doing anything wrong so they have nothing to worry about. They don't know it is about control and if need be the powers that be will invent something they did wrong.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
              The incidents of police being the bad guys is infinitesimally small, despite what the media would have us believe. Bottom line, if you resist arrest, you're going to get hurt.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
                see-you and I are always on opposite sides. why is that? you are a law and order R aren't you?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  You say law and order like it's a bad thing. The sky-rocketing violent crime in major cities across the country are proof positive of that happens when the police are made to be the bad guys instead of the actual criminals.

                  America is a nation of laws to be adjudicated blindly. Without the guardrails of the law to keep us safe, there is anarchy.

                  Do I think the government has FAR exceeded its Constitutional bounds? Absolutely. But, to say the cops are the bad guys is akin to saying the Marines are the bad guys. Are there bad apples? Of course. In any group, there will be a small percentage of bad people.

                  That said, try living in city of significant size without police and see what happens.

                  What's your solution?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
                    "America is a nation of laws to be adjudicated blindly. Without the guardrails of the law to keep us safe, there is anarchy."

                    I am not for anarchy. I am firmly for all property rights to be enforced. I lived in Colorado Springs for 15 years. The only time I need the police were when soldiers from Fort Carson robbed me. 3 times. Maybe alot was happening while I was sleeping. They did come to the house one time while we were backpacking. Kira had a party. They lined everyone up on the couch. I found out about it 3 days later. No one was arrested. I lived in Broadmoor. If you don't understand that, it means we try not to arrest any homeowners or their children from Broadmoor. It's a dumb rule-the rule should be-we go out of our way not to arrest ANYONE who has not committed a violent crime.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                      If you've had a bad experience with police, it's by far the exception rather than the rule. Try talking to law-abiding, productive residents of NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, and ask them if police are necessary for safety and the ability to actually safely engage in commerce.

                      Property rights are mission critical (couldn't agree more), but your property will be gone, along with your life without law enforcement.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
                        lived in St. Louis, Chicago, Kansas City, Colorado Springs. I have an idea of how police work. Also, several friends on the Force. Two beta test readers for Trails of Injustice were lifeers on Seattle's force. I have a clue
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 3 months ago
                I haven't seen any statistics one way or the other. I don't mind drug dealers getting smacked around but I think cops need to do a better job maintaining calm and order rather than being the aggressor. I am also worried about some of the equipment being purchased by Police these days. What are they getting prepared for?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Get all the statistics you want from CATO institute they are the only one's that keep them up toi date.
                  Summation. 1% of police commit crimes at the rate of one percent for all categories of crimes . 1% of the general population commite crimes at the rate of 1 percent average for all classes of crimes.

                  What are they getting prepared for? Let's se the city let's me use a 9mm popgun while the criminals are are sporting .357's with armor piercing rounds. As a guess i would say survival.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Your statistics are not quite right, in fact they're way off the mark. A more recent study shows:

                    "However, while the number of Americans carrying firearms has soared, murder rates have fallen by a full 25%, from 5.6 down to 4.2 per 100,000 people, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center study.
                    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/guns...

                    Of course, advocates of gun control such as Obama and the Violence Policy Center never advocate that agents of government be disarmed. However, maybe they should due to the fact that the recent study also shows that average citizens who possess carry permits commit crime at a far lower rate than police officers do.
                    According to Edward Stringham, although official statistics have historically been scant, we now know that police killed 1,100 Americans in 2014 and 476 Americans in the first five months of 2015. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.
                    That means that police kill more than 30 times that of the average citizen
                    .
                    In Florida and Texas, for example, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies one-sixth as often as police are, despite how rarely violent police actually get prosecuted for the crimes they commit."

                    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/guns...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...

    "After President Barack Obama delivered brief remarks in response to the shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that claimed the lives of four Marines, conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer said he noticed a pattern.

    The Fox News contributor said the attack on military personnel is an “example of radical Islam at work” and slammed the president for suggesting it was an isolated incident.

    “The general issue is radical Islam,” he stated. “And unless we have a president who immediately says ‘this is a lone gunman,’ how does he know?” "

    "After President Barack Obama delivered brief remarks in response to the shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that claimed the lives of four Marines, conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer said he noticed a pattern.

    The Fox News contributor said the attack on military personnel is an “example of radical Islam at work” and slammed the president for suggesting it was an isolated incident.

    “The general issue is radical Islam,” he stated. “And unless we have a president who immediately says ‘this is a lone gunman,’ how does he know?”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
      He followed the Warren Commission Example minus the parts that didn't support the conclusion

      Except. This time the only commission was some magical gift the rest of us don't possess. Perhaps one of the Wicked Witches of the left did a Magic Potion #51?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
    What about the modern Christian army of Germany murdering millions of innocents---often with the help the Catholic church in Germany?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
      The S.P.'s decided to change the question in mid denial and focus one one individual. Standard tactic from the Grinch's (formerly Yoda but we thought the naming demeaning to the real Yoda) book Frame The Debate. the Grinch stole the idea from the middle east method of negotiation. Nothing of value unless you are interested in the 2005 assault on Christmas or a student of ACLU tactics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
        I don't know what "S.P.'s" are. And, I am unaware of an assault on Christmas, in 2005 or any other time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
          Secular Progressives. A part of using carefully selected court cases to cause change in the Constitution with Amendments by, primarily, the ACLU. (Example is the Massachusetts suit that pointed out the state had not defined marriage as between man and women to a very liberal Judge - then spread to other states and recently the same sex marriage controversy in Tennessee.) 2005 was the year of court cases against Christmas displays or use of the word in a number of jurisdictions nation wide. Proponent funders George Soros and offshore based billionaire investment banker and Peter Lewis the billionaire CEO of Progressive Insrance and George Lakoff (knows as the Yoda of the SP movement a Berkely UC California Professor though we thought it insulting to Yoda so changed his name to Grinch.)

          Together they fund and guide MoveOn, Open Society Institute and the ACLU - the left wing extremists. You will see some posts here from time to time from their adherents all in the same pattern dictated by the Lakoff book Frame The Debate. Easy to spot by refusal to answer questions and constantly changing the question and the constant hammering of the same theme. Their right to legally buy elections through targeting areas and campaigns with soft money came out as I have the right without explanation to all take all of your rights without exception.

          The non-existent right was countered by listing five or six existing rights at which point the SP disappeared and has never returned - at least under that name. They do not handle direct confrontation nor facts well and rely on the Big Lie technique more often that not.... Two of their acolytes are Comrade Nancy Pelosillyni promoter of the tax on embedded tax VAT system and Comrade Wicked Witch of the Left Hillary Clinton with her enhanced tax system and most of the left wing of the leftist Government Party. (Democrats and cave in a second bi-partisan members of the Republican Party.) Soros stated goal is forced confiscation of wealth in excess of 50 million except for his own which is kept in an offshore bank. That is the start point.

          (I personally define the left as those who believe in and practice government control of citizens as opposed to citizen control of government and consider the Republicans to be the right wing OF the left. A manufactured condition by moving the signpost marked Center to the center of the left as opposed to it's proper position as the center of USA political thought the Constitution. Easier to understand what they really do in Washington DC as opposed to what they say or said they were going to do. i do not accept their twisted definitions nor their propaganda but consider left and right to be those who support government control of citizens and citizen control of governments as the two opposing factions.As far as Soros, Lewis, and Lakoff I would define them as enemies domestic in my personal opinion.)


          Short version to your question.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
            My, I can see you are very emotional about all this. Now I know what an SP is, but all that took was two words. What about the "2005 assault on Christmas" that I also never heard about. What was this assault and where?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
              Sorry....I would have said dedicated but I'll except your evaluation.

              You must have been out of the country when all those law suits against christmas trees, school pageants, anything that looked like a cross or a menorah were in the headlines. The ACLU lost but they did force by fear a lot of changes at the local levels and most easily in the schools.

              And all it would have taken was providng the 25th for one celebration, and following the good sense of hte Brits Boxing Day for the children. along with standing up to the left wing fascists.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                I only heard the suits were to enforce a wall of separation between church and state. I do not want my tax money, taken at the point of a gun, to pay for any sort of religious crap and no government owned or operated property should be permitted to display such pre-historic drivel.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Actually, a firewalled separation of church and state was never the intention of the Founding Fathers, despite the rantings of modern liberals and activists judges.
                  And, you think celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, the most consequential being to ever walk the Earth is drivel? You are aware that what you refer to as "crap" is the foundational bedrock of freedom and liberty, that all men are created equal, and western civilization is based on his teachings, right?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Keeping god out of government was so important to the founding fathers that the only oath of office in the Constitution is for president, and it does not mention a god. Plus, the writings of the founders make it clear they did want a separation of church and state.

                    The alleged pregnancy of Jesus was supposedly god (the holy trinity are all one, right?), who had sex with another man’s fiancee and she covered it up by claiming (as did many during that time period) it was a virgin conception. Of course, the virgin idea did not hit upon the Christians myth writers for more than two centuries. Before that the preacher was never referred to as the child of a virgin. The virgin physical problem is this: Jesus was male. Where did the X chromosome come from? If she got pregnant from a god, the sperm came from his balls.

                    Besides, how does this relate to the Christian army?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                      First, you're entirely wrong about the separation of church and state. The First Amendment expressly stated Congress shall make no law. That was quite intentional, as the Founding Fathers fully expected the states to have observed religions as they did at the time of the signing. Church services were actually held in the Capitol for years, including during Jefferson's tenure as President.
                      The "separation of church and state" reference in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was intended to recognize their right to congregate and was in no way, shape, or form intended to extend across the entire government (this is widely recognized among Constitutional scholars).
                      As for your disdain for Christianity that another matter entirely. The irony is that the freedom and liberty you have to write such drivel is the direct result of Judeo-Christian principles that founded the foundation of Western Civilization, and the freedom which you now enjoy.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                        All the arguments you raise are dealt with in many places and the error explained by so many great thinkers, I will not attempt to do so here. If you are more interested in truth than in defending your Christian beliefs, you have ample opportunity to seek out the explanations.

                        In the meantime, the best I can do is recommend you listen to the “Basic Principles of Objectivism” course or buy the transcript. In Lecture Four, Branden says: “To discuss a belief which, at least since the time he emerged from the cave, has been singularly unbecoming to man. That the belief in god has not disappeared along with the belief in witches and demons, as it should have centuries ago, and the disastrous consequences of this belief are such as to necessitate our discussing the issue tonight.

                        “This is an analysis of an error, with the analysis of a belief that is not true. This analysis is necessary. I shall demonstrate that the faith in god implies and necessitates the invalidation and the undercutting of man’s consciousness.”

                        In Lecture Four, he presents an analysis of the error of a belief in a god, in a simple, non-technical manner.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                          I'm well versed in Objectivism. It seems you're not well versed in Western Civilization and the origins of freedom and liberty.

                          Further, it's richly ironic that you carp on Christians for the understanding of this principle, while you yourself cling to your personal religion of Objectivism.

                          While Brandon makes good points, to place his intellect above those of the greatest thinkers in human history is a bit of a stretch.

                          Additionally, you continually fail to rebut historical facts with anything other than brooming them as inconsequential. The basis for Western Civilization is not an inconsequential kink in your theory.

                          Furthermore, if there was not Creator, how were we created? By your own philosophy of Objectivism,, we must have had a creator. The mere presence of raw materials doesn't spontaneously make things happen. Would the Empire State Building have magically appeared given enough time simply because the materials were here? Would throwing the components of a watch into a bag and shaking it result in a functioning watch.

                          You argument may be stimulating in the faculty lounge, but it unravels quickly when mugged by reality.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                            Look, we were not discussing Western Civilization. We were discussing an army of Christians murdering millions as recently as 70 years ago. That was the subject, and to which I have constantly attempted to keep you focused upon.

                            I agree there are some Objectivists who are cultists, but I am not one of them.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                              Christianity and Western Civilization are inextricably linked, and they highlight a fundamental reason why the terrorists are Islamic and not Christian.

                              Yet again, you bring up Christian armies on the march to slaughter innocents when NO such thing has happened, in particular not in modern history (even if you consider that the last 200 years). You've still not provided an example. When reality doesn't match your assumptions, it's time you reevaluate your assumptions.

                              You can want A to equal B all day long, but that doesn't make it so.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      What modern Christian army of Germany are you referencing?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
        And you seem to imply that "Modern" excludes anything and everything that happened in the past hundred or so years, right?

        Name the date range you consider "modern," ok?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          In the last hundred years, what Christian army set out to slaughter non-Christians? Or any peace-loving group for that matter.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
            The implied generalization is that, unless the pope himself led the charges, it wasn't a "Christian Army."

            The assertions here are that a large percentage of the armies who were led by Hitler and others WERE Christians. The 'conclusion' should be "why didn't they all leave the army or refuse to follow orders?"

            Stop dancing away from the points.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
        History Books are a wonderful thing if you read them. Maybe not your kind of Christian but Christian none the less. I don't hold much with what Esceptico writes but ....in this case he's 100 % accurate.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          History books are wonderful things, and I highly recommend you read some to gain accuracy in your assertions if you believe Christian armies have led the charge to slaughter innocents.
          To assert that Hitler's army was Christian is to be dangerously uninformed.
          No one making in the string making the accusation of such Christian armies has provided a single example in modern times (and by modern, I mean since the Crusades, so allows for a pretty good sweep of time).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncommonSense 4 years, 3 months ago
      The German Army, Navy & Air Force were not Christians ~ they were tools of Nazi regime and of the Bankster's dictator - A. Hitler. (Pop Quiz question: how many lawyers and bankers who financed the war and passed the laws to kill off the invalids, the elderly and the non-politically connected Jews in the camps were prosecuted during the Nuremburg trials? If you can name ONE, please tell me)

      Hitler effectively muzzled the Church and killed those who opposed him. Furthermore, Hitler was a fan of H. P Blavatsky (occultist) and of jackarse Darwin. (evolutionist). (Got Aryan Race?)

      If you can point to me a speech in which Hitler gives New Testament chapters & verses that provide validation on why he motivates the country's industry for war, I would greatly appreciate it, so I can do further research.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
        Hitler said he was Catholic. You don't have to dig any further than Wikipedia to learn the Catholic church was the #1 church in Nazis Germany and figure out the soldiers were Christian. The church (all the way up to archbishop) helped to murder the Jews and the German government collected a tax on behalf of the Vatican and paid the Vatican what was collected. For this I point you to the book "God's Bankers."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          If Wiki is the depth of your knowledge of history, that explains most of your assertions.
          You really need to study actual historical documents regarding Hitler and the Nazis. If you did that, you would learn very quickly that Hilter although he was raised Catholic, he grew to despise Christianity. In his rise to power, he banned Christian worship from the public square in favor of worship for the self and the collective/government (much in common with modern liberalism).
          Hitler did, however, create alliances with leaders of Islam, which is also thoroughly documented.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
            I am happy to have a civil discussion, but not one in which you change inquiry into advocacy and attack. I also suggest you remain on the topic: Christian armies who commit mass murder. Nazi soldiers

            What I said was, if you will ever so kind as to read it again, is "You don't have to dig any further than Wikipedia to learn the Catholic church was the #1 church in Nazis Germany"---I did not say that was the extent of my studies.

            "Civility is not not saying negative or harsh things. It is not the absence of critical analysis. It is the manner in which we are sharing this territorial freedom of political discussion. If our discourse is yelled and screamed and interrupted and patronized, that's uncivil. ~~Richard Dreyfuss
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
              As I said, if you believe that Nazism in any way, shape, or form espoused Christianity, you're grossly misinformed. Voluminous data shows catalogues the contrary. In fact, Christian songs were actually rewritten for school children replacing Jesus/Christianity with Hitler and the state.
              This is not a debatable point but a mater of historical record.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                And your point is? You have not directed your attention to the religion of German soldiers who murdered Jews by the millions.

                I am constantly amazed at the number of people who are willing to fight to the death for their imaginary gods they heard about in a book or books written by people who thought the earth was flat and did not know where the sun went at night. Fortunately, Festinger explained the psychological issue in his 1954 book on cognitive dissonance. Love your little god, that is fine. Just don't initiate force against others who don't believe as do you. All too many Christians (and others of the Abrahamic faiths have).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  You would be well served to read Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and other great minds of science to learn of how science puts us closer to God rather than your little Festinger.
                  The religion of the Nazis was Nazism. Hitler banned Christianity from the public square and had an intense hatred for it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Other than you naked assertion, what evidence do you have to support the primary topic about Germany having a Christian army? They did have Christian chaplains, just like the US, in the army. Right?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                      I highly recommend you take time to read the history of the Nazis and any number of bios on Hilter. You'll will find voluminous data demonstrating Hitler's hatred for Christianity, it's expulsion from the public square, and certainly more than enough information to confirm WWII german army was not a Christian army on the march to create a Christian empire.

                      I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone would even make such an assertion.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
                        I said the German army was Christian, you have added to that. what does godsmacked mean?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 3 months ago
                          Gobsmacked means completely and utterly stunned.

                          The German Army had some assorted Christians in it (Klaus von Stauffenberg for one...and today is the anniversary of the July 20 plot), but the Wehrmacht and the SS were decidedly Nazi, and anything but Christian. And Nazism was a complete anathema to ANY organized religion, let alone Christianity.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                          They were not a Christian army. Might there have been some soldiers that were Christian, in spite of its outlaw by Hitler, yes, but the Nazis were not a Christian army.
                          Gobsmacked means astonished, utterly astonished, flabbergasted, etc.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by UncommonSense 4 years, 3 months ago
                That is absolutely true: Read Education For Death, by Gregor Ziemer ~ a first hand account of what Nazi (State) education (indoctrination) was for boys and girls. Written in 1941.

                If you truly believe Hitler was a Catholic, simply because he said so, well I guess you also believe that Al Gore Jr invented the internet, simply because he said so too. Hitler was a puppet of his bankster masters, a politician and a most masterful liar. Are you among those who are deceived? Anyways, what does Hitler and his National Zionists have in common with today's terrorists? Hate.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  I think you're confusing my post with another who actually thought Hitler was a catholic. I know he was NOT. I'm well aware of Hitler's disdain for Christianity and his abolition of it from the public square.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
        Absolutely correct. The first thing tyrants do is remove religion, particularly Judeo-Christian, from society...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 3 months ago
          What about Bolivia? The president gave the pope guy a present of an art piece showing a cross with the ususal communist symbol. Looks to me like, once again, faith and force out to destroy civilization.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
          So, list the number of wars attacking 'believers' that have been started in "MODERN TIMES" by atheists...?
          LOL.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            Well, let's see, Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people, then their was Mao, then there was Hitler, then there was Kim Jong Il/Un... it's a rather long list.
            The short list is Judeo-Christian countries that attack innocents with the mandate convert or die.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
              Yes, that list is short, but may I also claim that the beliefs of Hitler, Kim Jongs, Mao and others had a LOT in common with the characteristics of Religion?

              Or Cults, for which I find lots of similarities, too.
              :) Even Mao had HIS own little Good Book, though it had a red cover, right?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                So now you're changing the goal posts again to impy atheism is a religion, too, like Christianity???
                The first thing one should when in a hole is stop digging.
                Your quedtion to me has been answered and your assertion proven incorrect.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Who moved the goal posts, AG? I 'merely' stated that a LOT of mass movements in history have relied on the writings of Esteemed Leader or "ultimate source of Right and Knowledge" whether it's attributed to Jesus or Mao or whomever.

                  As an atheist, I guess it's a bit difficult for me to consider atheism as a 'religion' since I've never seen any "Good Book" cited as The Source Everyone Must Derive Their Ethics and Morals From, while most acknowledged 'religions' do...

                  What I have seen is a lot of 'religionists' make up definitions for atheism that could portray atheism as a 'religion,' but only if those narrow definitions are used, and usually only applicable to 'defining atheism as a religion.'

                  Atheists tend to start with 'prove it' and religionists tend to answer with "My Holy Book says it's true, and that's all the proof I need."... which is a pretty crappy 'proof' from any other viewpoint.
                  :)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Except Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong, and countless other atheists are responsible for millions more deaths than Judeo-Christians.
                    The reason is simple... it's antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Don't ever consider that it's not the Atheism that's the driving force, it's the desire for power and control over other people, and atheism is antithetical to THAT urge. Unless you're a Believer and desire to use that kind of 'logic' to tar any and all atheists with it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo