Religion of Peace Strikes Again: 500 Nigerian Christians Slaughtered

[TGGRV]

My father came to this country without a freaking high school diploma. You have to look at the reasons why they want to come here, and this is true for all regions of the world, they come to achieve the "American Dream."


The Us vs Them mentality is very dangerous. And it is what I've seen throughout your posts in this thread.

I have a few questions for you.
1)What is the sacred law to you - the US constitution or Shari'a?
2)Do you denounce all the evil acts Muhammed did, from being a warlord to slavery, to rape and paedophilia?
3)Do you believe that Muslims have a right under the US constitution to leave Islam or should they be stoned to death as apostates?
4)Why did the Mufti of Jerusalem was so tight with Hitler and a lot of Muslims had that saying with Hitler on Earth, Allah in heaven? It was before US imperialism and they weren't in Europe forced into ghettos.
5)Why is Islam the sole common denominator to all these atrocities from Sudan to Somalia to the Phillipines to Pakistan to Nigeria to Egypt to etc?
6)Do you see all religions as equal status? Why is the least religious freedom in Islamic countries?

 

[TGGRV]

Yes Abe, I'm sure that now people grow slower and that then a 9 years old looked like a 25 years old now. lol

And do you know what Hagia Sophia is? Since you like bringing up irrelevant shit. Also, the KLA(spare me the poor little innocent Muslims and your yellow journalism, I actually live in the area and I know people who lived over there too) vs Serb Army war is overstated(I mean, why were Serbs in 1945 30% of the population there and only 5-10% in 1999 - smells like ethnic cleansing to me). But again, you're clueless about history so I don't see why you'd get it. That territory was Serbian land before and after the Ottoman occupation. By the way, the Albanians right now are killing off the Serbs in Kosovo. 10% of the churches were demolished as soon as the Serb army retreated from Kosovo - another nice fact.

 

[someperson]

Collectivism in action, once again. Assigning motive or characteristics to any given collection of individuals, who have likely been pressured to adopt group identity by family, state, or peers, is irrational, and serves only to promote collectivism. This philosophy is at the root of why individuals accept and facilitate these destructive acts.

How It Happens:
1. Individuals coexist, each serving their respective self-interests in a given geographic area
2. They are convinced to adopt group identity
3. A local group dichotomy is manufactured within the region
4. Each collection accepts a label to identify with "their group"
5. They grow emotionally attached to their label and group
6. Group supremacy and group strength come to override the well-being of the individual
7. Self-destructive, irrational behavior in defense of the group, and aggression against other groups is promoted
8. Conflict is instigated between the groups, often by a well-positioned third party
9. Glorified mass-murder of individuals for the greater good of the collective group (otherwise known as war) is rationalized as beneficial and justified
10. Abhorrent incidents like the one mentioned in the OP occur

Throughout time, individuals have been convinced to adopt collectivist group identity for a myriad of reasons, including religious, geographical, and tribal. The groups themselves are irrelevant, as history demonstrates. Individuals who share most religious values have found reasons to war with each other by adopting group identity (Franks and Britons, Catholics and Protestants, Shiites and Sunnis, WWI). Individuals who share most superficial physical characteristics have found reasons to war with each other by adopting group identity (Germanic Wars of Europe, African conflicts, WWII era conflicts worldwide). I could go on forever with examples of individuals taking on self-destructive causes for the greater good of "their group."

It is this concept of collectivist group identity that underlies all of these conflicts. Until this is realized, obscene incidents like the one mentioned in the OP will persist. The groups involved may change over time, however, the victim will always be the individual.

 

[TGGRV]

Abe, you have to realize that I'm not the one subscribing to the middle ages Mein Kampf. Also, you have to enslave people in order to free them, so you just said that he was a slave trader. And I doubt they volunteered into slavery.

 

[phill4paul]

The groups involved may change over time, however, the victim will always be the individual.

Lesson: If you want to survive don't be an individual. Parents teach this to their children to this day. Thus conflict forever. Amen.

 

[Fozz]

So you are part of team Jlhad Watch and Atlas 5hrugs I assume, as opposed to Kristol/Kagan.

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are neocons as well.

 

[Fozz]

...

 

[Fozz]

Where the hell do you think that? The nazis were dumbasses that deserved to have been throughly discredited.

No ethnic group or religion deserves to be massacred or slaugtered . My prayer is for Islam to undergo an Enlightenment or Reformation that regards Jihad as being incompatible with God.

I am very disappointed you would place such a blatant lie about me. I am absolutely offended by that, especially considering my own grandfather fled due to the Nazis.

Do you know what the word "Jihad" means?

 

[disorderlyvision]

I have a few questions for you.
1)What is the sacred law to you - the US constitution or Shari'a?
2)Do you denounce all the evil acts Muhammed did, from being a warlord to slavery, to rape and paedophilia?
3)Do you believe that Muslims have a right under the US constitution to leave Islam or should they be stoned to death as apostates?
4)Why did the Mufti of Jerusalem was so tight with Hitler and a lot of Muslims had that saying with Hitler on Earth, Allah in heaven? It was before US imperialism and they weren't in Europe forced into ghettos.
5)Why is Islam the sole common denominator to all these atrocities from Sudan to Somalia to the Phillipines to Pakistan to Nigeria to Egypt to etc?
6)Do you see all religions as equal status? Why is the least religious freedom in Islamic countries?

1. the constitution IS NOT sacred law
2. Do you denounce all evil acts the christian profits did, including the ones you mentioned and more?
3. The constitution does not grant rights
4. we were imperialists before hitler.
5. Christianity is responsible for just as many, if not more, atrocities
6. Try being an athiest and then bitch about religious freedom

 

[TGGRV]

1. the constitution IS NOT sacred law
2. Do you denounce all evil acts the christian profits did, including the ones you mentioned and more?
3. The constitution does not grant rights
4. we were imperialists before hitler.
5. Christianity is responsible for just as many, if not more, atrocities
6. Try being an athiest and then bitch about religious freedom

I guess you are the epitome of devalued education.
1)sacred = worthy of respect or dedication
2)yes, I'm an atheist so I denounce all atrocities did in the name of religion. I wouldn't mind a complete ban on all religions - and since it's just collectivist thinking, I guess you people should support it.

 

[TGGRV]

Do you know what the word "Jihad" means?

Actually, I do. Within an Islamic logic framework, it falls under the concept of duality(unlike unitary logic which is the foundation of rational thinking and science). Jihad means both inner struggle and holy war. Sadly, most of the times when it is mentioned in Islam, it means the latter(over 9 out of 10 cases).

 

[angelatc]

American Muslims are more assimilated because most of them coming here are (usually) better educated than the ones coming into Europe.

What are you on? Muslims have lived here longer than my family has, and apparently longer than yours, if your grandfather was fleeing the Nazis. American Muslims predate the Constitution.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Another violent religion: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

 

[TortoiseDream]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100309/ts_afp/nigeriaunrest

I am tired of the PC that Islamic is not violent or intolerant. They attack where-ever they are a sizable minority. European Atheists, African Christians, Thai Buddhists, and Filipino Catholics are all far from being "imperialists", yet these people have been attacked and killed for simply existing. I realize our foreign policy instigates them more, however, there is definitely a violent and extremely intolerant wing to Islam that needs to be identified. I hate PC.

Islam doesn't kill people. No religion kills people. People kill people.

I think religion is more like a personal set of beliefs for the individual, and if the individual commits murder we shouldn't put his beliefs on trial. Does that mean we ignore motivation? No of course not, but my point is that it's more complicated than simply saying religion A is violent. The person was violent, and the reason can be found in the individual's personal life and living conditions, not the religion alone.

 

[Light]

Another violent religion: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

I don't get how people here can attack Christians and Jews, and never get called out for it. Also, I apologize for making this thread.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The only religion I can think of which has not killed people is Buddhism. The rest all have their mass murders or warriors.

 

[FrankRep]

The only religion I can think of which has not killed people is Buddhism. The rest all have their mass murders or warriors.

Jesus/Christianity never promoted killing or murder. The religious establishment did.

Jesus said turn the other cheek.

 

[orafi]

This is a response to operation ajax:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/03/turban-and-swastika.html#readfurther

Why do they attack Thailand Buddhists, and why have over 170K Catholic Filipinos been killed since the 1970's?

I do not believe in engaging aggressive wars or installing democracy, however, I don't think we should deny the reality that some cultures in the world are incompatible with Western secularism. That is something that does not deal with neconservative aggression, or liberal rejection of reality.

I think that it is foolish for any western country to allow muslims to continue to immigrate to them.

Multiculuralism is a tool of the elite. I see it for what it is. I am a realist.

Haha yeah you and Hitler, pal. ; )

 

[Light]

Haha yeah you and Hitler, pal. ; )

The main tactic used by the left with people who disagree with them is "racist" or "facsist." I see that you do the same.

Anyway, I already realize that I should not have said things that I did, and I apologize for them. However, I am severely disappointed that most forum posters here attack similary to leftists on other political sites.

 

[orafi]

The main tactic used by the left with people who disagree with them is "racist" or "facsist." I see that you do the same.

Anyway, I already realize that I should not have said things that I did, and I apologize for them. However, I am severely disappointed that most forum posters here attack similary to leftists on other political sites.

But in most cases for the Left is that they aren't really relevant. Multiculturalism is only a tool of the elite when it becomes a political tool and manifests into a government program or two. The reverse of that, either ethnic purity or restricting the growth of another culture is just as bad and reflective of a very confused society.

In a truly free society, where there is a true free market, multiculturalism is only natural. People of oppressed nations will naturally want to travel to a free land (check out America in the 19th and early twentieth century, and even modern times). So there will be a diverse populace. But they will always be bonded by one thing, the idea of freedom and the opportunities it brings with it.