Your comment and Nitro's response made me think of another point. That of war what is reported as far as the casualities depends on who is President. When a Republican is president then the war stories, the numbers killed, etc. abound as do the protestors but we seldom hear a report when a liberal is commander in chief. 

[quote

]From there it's a small step to the Muslim conviction that as Bernard Lewis writes in Muslim Discovery of Europe, "The Islamic state [is] the only truly legitimate power on earth and the Islamic community the sole repository of truth and enlightenment, surrounded on all sides by an outer darkness of barbarism and unbelief." [/quote]

This is a matter of individual choice.

As Prof Bernard Lewis himself state in severl of his works, Islam arose at a time when 3 empires were located at the fringes of the Arabian Peninsula--the Sasanian Empire in Persia, the Byzantine Empire and the decaying Roman Empire. There is a recent book covering all this well: Pocock's Barbarism and Religion vol iii. So warfare was necessary right from the very beginning and left its imprint on the prectice of Islamic statecraft. In anycase even in the worst excesses ofIslam, and there were a few, there is nothing compared to the excesses of the West marching under the "civilised" banner of Christianity. The Holocaust is only the most recent. If you tote up the nember of human being being killed everday by US and their NATO allies the number is staggering around 90-100. Let us not demonise Islam because it serves our political purposes

Nitro Cruiser, I asked for links to your assertions that the media makes about Muslims

I have seen the media in Canada show that all Islam are not terrorists and I have also seen that the KKK does not represent all Christians and not all Jews are Zionists. Sounds reasonable to me. You can't lump the actions of a few to the whole group. That would make every cop a thug and every priest a pedo and every human being a greedy sadistic psychopath.

Wow, do you actually read what you type? I guess you're not horrifying them enough yet.
I do agree with you somewhat here. That is the exact reason the Americans made it law about filming soldiers coffins because if dead soldiers are not on American TV, Americans believe that no Americans die. In Canada, every station turned to the "Highway of Heros" when our fallen returned and most Canadians stopped what they were doing and paid their respects. We don't need brainwashing.

Enough about the Frickin' Crusades, already.  Deal with present reality, Bahu, instead of rehashing bullshit justifications & excuses for barbarism.  Which will never go away, BTW - history is history.  I, for one, prefer the 21st century to the 12th.

[quote]Enough about the Frickin' Crusades, already. Deal with present reality, Bahu, instead of rehashing bullshit justifications & excuses for barbarism. Which will never go away, BTW - history is history. I, for one, prefer the 21st century to the 12th.[/quo

I have not referred to the Crusades at all. I am referring to the people who are getting killed by NATO/US bombs everyday. If killing Iraqis in large numbers as the US has done and now the Libyans will it not provoke a backlash. You cannot escape from the burden of history try as you maight.

And I will also say that the Norwegian example will become more contageous.

First, I'm not sure what the number of civilian deaths in wars have to do with what I was talking about. But I guess you just like bringing that subject up, obviously hoping that people keep falling for the old trick of referring to victims as "civilians". Personally, I don't care if a victim is a civilian or not. I care if the victim was an aggressive combatant or a defending combatant or a non-combatant.

The worst category are aggressive combatant dressing up as civilians.

Note that many many "civilian" deaths in war zones are really combatants illegally dressed as civilians.

But none of that has anything to do with how the media report about Islam.

Incidentally, "hundreds of thousands" implies at least TWO hundred thousand. I doubt that that many died at western hands in all of those war zones (What is "Palestine"? Do you mean Israel? Do you also call Jordan "Palestine" since it was created out of the same British territory named thus?). There is also a perfectly easy way to avoid deaths: stop attacking Israel or the US. It's amazing that that has never occured to those people. But then I guess if one's ideology dictates that all Jews must die and all American be punished, it's not a choice easily picked.

As for how the media describe Islam and the situation of women in Islam, let's see. I just typed "cnn islam" into Bing and the first hit was this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/09/28/Islam.explainer/

This is how the articles describes Islam:

I'll leave it to you to find out what the media say about Islam and women.

But the fact that you confuse killing enemies with "tarring and feathering" a religion tell me that you are a very confused individual who most likely won't understand my point here anyway.

We had an empire?

Define "empire".

When Al-Qaeda kills tens of thousands of Iraqis, the US is to blame. That's easy.

"Not all Jews are Zionists"? Because Zionism is comparable to terrorism or the KKK?

I see a difference.

Christians are only evil when they behave like the KKK. Muslims are only evil when they are terrorists. But Jews are evil already if they merely believe that the Jewish people has the same rights as other peoples.

Being Jewish always adds one evil point to what one does.

An Arab nationalist is only evil when he is a terrorist, if at all.

But a Jewish nationalist is already evil because he is Jewish. Isn't that true?

True.

When Al-Qaeda kills Iraqis and a Republican is president of the US, the numbers are much higher and the US is much more responsible for Al-Qaeda's murders than one would think at first.

Al-Qaeda has killed A LOT more Iraqis than the US, but oddly enough the backlash is still against America.

Well, that's not even true. The Iraqis did ultimately team up with the US and removed Al-Qaeada from Iraq.

However, if you check out the site our friend referred to about the Iraqi war victims and read the cases they counted, you will find the results a bit odd. Click on "latest incidents".

I picked the latest dozen or so. Let's see what those deaths actually are and whether they are really Iraqis killed by the US as you and our friend above are claiming:

I guess it's possible that the US bombed a petrol station. Two for you.

 I guess it's possible that the US shot someone at a checkpoint. Two for you.

Did US soldiers murder someone near Mosul?

 Do the US use car bombs? Why?

 I don't know how much you know about Iraq, Bahu (I know that my other friend above knows nothing). The "Awakening Council" are the tribal leaders allied with the US. Do you think the US killed four of their allies?

 Another US car bomb?

 There are no Americans stationed anywhere near Dahuk (it's at the Turkish border).

 The US do not make it a habit to shoot security officers and guards, who are allied with the US.

 Could have been US forces. One more.

 The Shabak are Kurds. If he was shot dead near Mosul that would strike me as being part of the Arab-Kurdish conflict around Mosul.

 The US sent a bomb to a concrete factory? Why?

 Kirkuk is another Kurdish-Arab hotspot. Do we believe that the US went there to shoot a few tribals?

American motorcycle bombs?

Could be an American plan to shoot students, I guess.

All joking aside, it seems to me that the deaths reported by Iraqi Body Count are most often the results of terrorist activity, not American activity.

But perhaps the site doesn't report victims of US aggression? (Or perhaps there is no US aggression? Who knows?)

It's likely that it will.

For years we have learned that terrorism works and that terrorists are "freedom fighters".

I would have preferred some disproportionate violence against the guy, i.e. shoot him before he hit his first victim. Saves time.

AMEN!  It is apparent that bahu uses the crusades to justify every atrocity by non-Christians today.  Maybe he is bucking to replace Osama as he is doing a better job at justification.

But why stop at 1000 years ago.  Should we not use the roman atrocities as justification for killing Italians?  How about Genghis Khan's to justify killing Mongols and Chinese?  Attila's for Killing all Slavic people!  Shazaam!  We just use history to make Bahu the next Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin/Mao!  He can justify killing anyone!

Bahu posts"

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

In the context of my argument I used the word "empire" here because Bahu used it.

Between you and me, instead of "empire" it should be "nation".

Anders Breivik is/was a Freemason who belonged to a militant anti-Jihadist lodge founded in London in 2002.  The Masons themselves have admitted it.  Click the link below and keep reading:

http://masonictimes.blogspot.com/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-freemason-that.html

Bahu,

Regarding your fictions, let's reason from facts in evidence. 

2,000 + years ago, Christ came and established the one true Christian Faith and founded what has been known as the Catholic Church since 107AD. Anti-Semitism is not rooted in Christianity and never was nor ever will be sanctioned by the Catholic Faith. (And I don't know for sure but I think not by Lutheranism either.)  "Anti-Semitism" is a word created in 1870 by a German, Wilelm Marr referring to hatred of Jews becasue of certain ineradicable biological characteristics.  After Hitler, "anti-Semitism" got a different meaning. Today any criticism or anything derogatory of Isreal or of Jews is labeled as anti-Semitic.

No, no, no the entire philosophy behind the Holocaust was NOT rooted in Christianity. The entire philosophy behind the Holocaust was rooted in Evolution Theory. Do you know that in his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler makes it crystal clear that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was the basis for his belief in Arian superiority and a justification for what would be his mass murder of 6 million Jews as well as mass murder of 6 million others (which I'll get back to later)? 

He wrote, "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, whe wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; becasue in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the exorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumpth and that they have the right to endure.He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist."

Hitler used Evolution as the philosophical basis for his racism. Hitler believed in Darwin's "survival of the fittest". If we evolved from survival of the fittest, then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. If humans evolved up from some ape-like creature, then some people have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.

This is the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his super, Aryan race, and to justify killing 6 million Jews. Godless evolution ideology providing the rationale for racism.

The Holocaust--the Shoah was evil. The Holocaust came into existence through the perverse mentality of Adolf Hitler whose Nazi claim assumed racial superiority. There is no religious foundation whatsoever. 

By the time it was over, an estimated 12 million innocent people were murdered. Of the 11 million, 6 million were Polish ... of these,  3 million were Polish Jews and 3 million were Polish Catholics. 

So, please learn something from this. Do the research and stop repeating the lie. 

I made no assertions about Muslims. I included links to back what I had to say, since some need sources, less comments be dismissed.

Not even close. The compassion showed to enemy civilians is unprecedented in history. Sorry your sensibilities can't grasp that. What I find horrifying is that some find obvious targeting errors as somehow diminishing honorable actions laughable. Perhaps it wouldn't be as lmao funny if a suspected killer of a family member or loved one was the intended target. Maybe I just don't get Canadian humor. Sorry if that's it.

You have only to read the History of Christianity to know how wrong you are. As far as the True Church is concerned I am willing to accept that as a matter of faith. I believe in Christ as a Saviour but I am not a Christian. I worship Him as the Son Of God, but I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestan. So I admit what you say as a matter of faith and will not argure about how true or how nottrue He was. It is possible to beleive in Christ the Saviour without any belief in the totalitarian institution called th Church.

But we are getting ahead of the argument. As far as the perception of most of the world goes, the fact is that Islam is seen as a terrorist tinged faith. I contset this by saying that all revealed religions have had their tryst with extreme violece because God and History is seen as acting through ther Prophet.

Another point. A phenomenon can exist before it is ever named. Bacteia was discvovered only in the 19th century and it is no one's case that it did not exist earlier. As for anti smitism there is a deadly embrace of christian fundamental doctrines and the guilt that theJewish people were charged withas being responsible for the desth of Christ.

I guess that explains why the American Christian Community so strongly supports Israel's right to exist, sometimes more, it seems, than the American Jewish Community.

That fits better, yes.:-)

Bahu #18

We can do with it what we may, but we can't make historic truth unhistoric.

What's the historic truth? Were the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Christ when the deed was done by Romans?

Jesus was tried in court by the Jewish religious authorities---the Sanhedrin--presided over by Caiphas, the high priest who conducted a travesty of a trial. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and for that He was found guilty of "blasphemy" and condemned to death by Caiphas. Even though Jesus had won the love of the multitudes, these Jewish leaders hated Him and gave the death cry, Away with Him; Crucify Him. It was they who gave Jesus over to the civil authorities, the Romans, to be put to death. We must remember that while the Jews maintained their own courts of law, being under the civil yoke of Rome, they didn't have the power to pronounce the death sentence.

Crucifixion was a Roman method of putting malefactors to death; the Jewish method was by stoning.

There is no historic doubt that the physical execution of Jesus was performed by the Roman soldiers. Therefore, they were the agents who executed the dire need for which the Jewish court was morally responsible.

Nobody can rightfully say that it is hatred of Jews that prompts Catholics to insist upon this historic fact. ANd no one can rightly claim that this Gospel and historic truth turns Catholic love for Christ into hatred of Jews.

Jews as a whole, of that time and of today are NOT held guilty of the act of the Sanhedrin in condemning Jesus to death. They are guilty only in so far as they will not recognize Jesus as He proved Himself to be..the Messias.

Pope Benedict XVI dedicates a chapter in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, to explain this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/02/pope-book-jesus.html

Rather Catholics hold themselves individually responsible for morally crucifying Jesus every time they sin.

Here is an interesting explanation. 

http://michaelcaputo.tripod.com/whoreallykilledjesuschrist/

Bahu,

You know Catholics might feel honored to have their Church singled out as the one and only totalitarian Church were the term not used in the derogatory sense, though the term "authoritative" is preferable.

Keeping in mind what you said above, follow me on this will you?

There is an exercise of total power to which no reasonable objection can be raised as it furthers liberty and human dignity. It is the totalitarianism of the one and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, as the Lord God is omnipotent. This totalitarian principle that abides in its fullness in God has been delegated by God to certain persons, particularly His priests.

The Mosaic Law, for example, which is God proclaimed Law, was in the keeping of the priestly sons of Levi. (Deut.31:9) and the judges who exercised the authority "to show thee the truth of the judgment" that the Jews were compelled to obey or die. (Deut.17:8-12.). The exercise of this delegated power ceased with the institution of a more perfect priesthood that displaced the Levitical priesthood, fainall caused Simichah, the solemn act of ordination, to cease being administered in Jewry.

Now, to delegate total power to oneself as in to declare "I am the State", may rightly be resented as it would be a usurpation of power. But who save ignorant anti-Catholics or blasphemous persons would queston the right of Christ to say, as He did, "I am the way, and the truth and the life"?

Who can reasonably question the right of Christ to set aside the and to enlarge upon the pronouncements of Moses, the Lawgiver to declare as He did in the Sermon of the Mount....You have heard it said of old....But I say"? Who is this "I"?

None of the prophets of Israel ever employed the pronoun of the first person to express his views and teachings. The "I" of the prophets is God. Christ was condemned, suffered and died for assuming to be the "I" according to the Mosaic Law.

Catholics concluded that if God the Father, could delegate His authority to the Levitical priesthood, then Christ, Who is one with the Father, could delegate His authority to teach, judge, and govern in matters of faith and morals and to command us "to hear the Church" or to suffer condemnation for not doing so.

When Christ established His Church which was made up in the beginning of His Apostles, in which Peter, Christ's Vicar was the earthly authority. To designate that exercise of Christ delegated power by the bishops of the CC, who are successors of the Apostles and the priests as "totalitarian" in the derogatory sense of the term is to give offense to the Giver of that power, Jesus Christ our Lord. This is an offense that only invincible ignorance can excuse.

That Catholicism itself is anti-Semitic and helped cause the Jewish holocaust are baseless attacks as is the big lie that the Pope was a Nazi sympathizer and did little to help the Jews suffering under Nazi rule.

I can't speak for or against the Protestant churches...I simply do not know. I can assure you that during WW II, anti-Semitism was not tolerated by the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius XII was not silent, and his courageous acts are incontestable. The Vatican Archives were opened in 2003 for the period of 1922-1939 for all the media to see. The material confirms that all accusations against him are baseless and affirms that he was a champion for peace, freedom and human dignity and that he encouraged all Catholics to look on Jews as our fellow brothers and sisters. Private letters, editorials and other documents reveal that he saved hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians from death in concentration camps. His contribution to his love of all humanity during the Holocaust is incontrovertible.

Check history. The Pope did what he could to prevent WWII and then rescue nearly 1 million Jews. Chruchill and FDR knew the location of the death camps, the railroads, and didn't bomb them. They turned Jewish refugees back, while the Pope took them in.

Churchill and FDR took Stalin in though and in the end "Uncle Joe--the Red Hitler--- Stalinism took over Eastern Europe...Russia spread its errors and the slaughter continued ...millions were marched into the Gulag and never returned. 100 million dead and no holocaust museaum for them. Who were these 100 million people who were slaughered under Godless communism?

Try googling books such as "Christ in Dachau" by Rev. John M. Lenz who writes an account of his personal experiences in the concentration camp, "of the 2,700 clergy who were interned in Dachau, 1034 died as opponents to the Nazi pseudo-religion."

"The Forgotten Holocaust" by Richard C. Lukas is about the genecide of 6 million people other than the Jews.

"The Myth of Hitler's Pope" and "The Pius War" both written by a Jewish Rabbi, David G. Dalin, who demolishes the myth that Hitler was in cahoots with the Pope and the Church. He also writes that there was a cleric in league with Hitler: the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. So as Pius worked to save the Jews, Hitler's cleric advised and assisted the Nazi's in carrying out Hitler's Final Solution.

Bottom line:

I won't deny that Christians have tolerated anti-Semiticism. However, it was never, ever a mandate from the Church or from the teachings of Christ. These ill-conceived acts bring odium upon the guilty individuals rather than the Church or Christianity.