Doesn't have to be Christians. I posted that to show you terrorist attacks that are not rooted in fundamentalist Islam tend to be underreported by the media. It can be Nazis for all we know, the point was to show Islam is not the greatest threat to human life in the way you are hyping it to be.
By the way, where's the proof, I'm still waiting on you to back up your statements.
Nice try with twisting my argument, I never stated that Islam was the greatest threat to human life. I'm merely making a case that it's one of the more dangerous religions around.
As for your proof, need I really prove that ISIS exists? It seems like the burden is on you to find worse abuses among other religions both in terms of scale and individual acts.
Most of these discussions tend to be revolved around the EU and US, and you mentioned EU- and US-centric examples, and b. For an example and for your convenience. I did not need to provide that because you had yet to, and still have not, provided proof that nearly all of these attacks were not comparable in scale to Islamic terrorism.
You have literally just asked me to prove a negative which is logically impossible and your question is poorly worded to boot.
I've mentioned examples from all regions Dragon, or are you again ignore that my examples were 9/11, attacks in France, and ISIS and not just the first two. Even ignoring the smaller scale attacks that are commonplace in certain regions you must now show that any other single religion has taken as many lives in the past 20 years as Islam has. Good luck.
[quote[The Middle East and Africa are their own messes, that are of course mired in various religious conflicts because these regions are so destabilized. You can't include these as a comparison to attacks like in Nice and 9/11 because the violence in the Middle East and Africa goes far beyond terrorism, into tribal and sectarian warfare.[/quote]
Except that you can compare them because the attackers who caused 9/11 and Nice came from those regions or were radicalized by somebody who does come from those regions. Your leaps in logic to try to shift the goalposts to a smaller area of this discussion are pathetic and I'll stop responding to you entirely if you don't cease them at once.
Even granting your comparison any equivalent weight, these unstable environments are not the result of Islam alone, and many reasons for them are independent of religion altogether. ISIS was after all created because of a power vacuum that just happened to be seized by al-Baghdadi, proclaiming himself to be the Caliph as his mandate. Your claiming that Islam is the main primary cause of this without equally significant primary causes is madness.
No event occurs in a vacuum Dragon, except in your sad mind. Give me a clear and concise reason why are crimes committed by Islamic extremists any more excusable than a crime committed by a person who has lost everything due to US internal policy? Will you argue that Timothy McVeigh was radicalized by the US intervention at Waco and thus is less culpable for his actions or is that too close to home for your dishonest ass to touch?
Oh, so we're going to use religiously influenced events from centuries ago in this argument too? Okay, let me remind you that Christian men slaughtered populations during the Crusades, that the Inquisition was a bastion of repression, and Western conquerors slew uncountable numbers of Native Americans as part of their motto of
God, gold, and glory.
Please, don't look at me. You're the one who chose to open this door.
Humans are shitty, details at 11.
You can't claim one group are simple victims without ignoring the history between the groups. You ask me to do this when looking at the current ME but fail to do this when looking at the colonialism that caused the current situation. Why is this?
Yes, put it on the various denizens of such countries we've meddled in to topple regimes backed with US resources and military capabilities. People who are also rampantly being droned in US strikes that often do not actually hurt real terrorists or cause so much collateral damage as to be a pyrrhic victory ... if you consider innocent human lives in these countries to be at all valuable ... should "take the higher road". They should just learn to live with it and wait for a better day!
It's their best way to stop the attacks. Logic dictates that if these people were willing to ditch their religion and westernize these attacks would stop whereas joining a terrorist cell and fighting the US will only prolong the suffering. Is any part of this unclear to you?
Why is it, too, that Russia gets to have the supposed mitigating factor that "it's a smokescreen", while (any) fundamentalist Islamic regime must be entirely attributed to Islam? After all, the Orthodox Christians are still having their policies signed into law. In effect, it still becomes a theocracy via the proxy of its dictator.
Perhaps because these states have a history of Islamic law and Russia, at least to the same extent, does not. There are also the details of how each rise in religious power has occured and what groups specifically are being targeted. You know nuanced views that show that Russia =/= Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
And honestly, I don't give a shit about your opinions now because you won't even consider the possibility that Western influences fucked these regions significantly enough to cause people to want revenge,
independently of religion. I condemn their violent attacks, but I'm not going to forget we pushed our titanic weight around enough to destabilize these regions. No, it has to be primarily because of Islam!
Give me a yes or no answer to this question Dragon, is or is not Islam being used to motivate these people and fan the flames of revenge?
In
what way have I said we should take a nihilistic approach? Where have I espoused the strategy of "ignore Islamic terrorism completely"? Why are you mentioning ISIS and Iran as if
the whole of Islam believes in their specific ideologies? I have so many questions to this. I'm literally just telling you that most of the billions of Muslims around the planet have no interest in harming me or my country's government in the name of their religion.
Where have I argued that most Muslims are out to harm us; go ahead and quote me if you can.
I haven't, in fact, I've argued that extremism aside, Islam and Christianity are pretty similar and that I dislike both of them. Or did you miss where I posted this:
Jub" wrote:If Christianity was in the news for the same scale of organized violence that ISIS has been known for I'm sure he would talk about that. He's not making the same arguments for each is justified by the fact that followers of one system are engaged in acts that followers of the other are not.
Your argument is like complaining that reviews of two packages for the same car aren't the same when one package is known to catch fire and the other is simply an uncomfortable noisy fuel guzzler. The second set of points may apply to the first package in equal or greater measure, but one can be forgiven for instead focusing on the fact that it catches fire.
I directly compare Christianity and Islam with the care package example, but you choose to cherry pick my reply ignoring my full argument. Now kindly fuck off and stop trying to put words into my mouth.
