GMTom wrote:American's are aware of Muslim Terrorism, so we should not investigate it?
and I had to read the above twice:

but maybe Muslim terrorism isn't as big a threat as it was 10 years ago, or even 5 ?

excuse me? I just looked at 2010 and terrorism by Islamic groups outnumbered all others about 2:1
I started going through 2009 and it was about 3:1 when I stopped the rather obvious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_2010

Now, in all fairness, maybe 5-10 years ago this was 5:1 and your claim might be correct?
but if you simply want to claim, 2or3:1 is no big deal, then I think we have a disconnect with reality to think it's not a problem and not worth investigating.

I was thinking of the US and Europe, but fair enough i didn't say that. I was just thinking that maybe (hopefully) after the large, high impact attacks (9/11, Bali, Madrid, London) law enforcment and intelliegence work payed off and we dismantled the big terror networks capable of actually pulling off these kinds of attacks.
That's why we see lone shooter kind of attacks. In turn that would mean that the threat of muslim terrorism has been reduced, at least in many parts of the world.
If that is indeed the case then it would make sense that our politicans don't talk about it all the time, it's just not that important right now.

Doctor Fate wrote:This is an oft-trotted out canard. Islam today does not exist in the Middle Ages. It exists today. That the religion is 500+ years younger than Christianity does not change the world in which it exists. For example, Hinduism is not given a pass on violence, is it? Yet, it is older than most religions (allegedly).

I don't believe in giving anyone a pass on violent behavior, doesn't mean i can't try to understand why Muslim imigrants have bigger problems integrating and assimilating than people from other cultures.

Doctor Fate wrote:Fundamentalist Islam delights in being mired in the Dark Ages. It decries virtually anything modern and believes violence is THE solution. Comparisons to the Crusades, etc., miss the point: no other religion has remained so violent for so long. Islam was founded by a warrior and it has always maintained his spirit.

That makes the assumption that there's just 1 kind of Islam, that's about as accurate as saying there's just one flavor of Christianity.
That's the funny thing about religions. There's just one holy book and yet so many people take away completely different things from it as "important".
Islamic nations were for a time more advanced in basically every way than euro/christan ones. That changed and i honestly don't see why Islam shouldn't make a similar transformation, at least in some parts of the world.

Faxmonkey wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't believe in giving anyone a pass on violent behavior, doesn't mean i can't try to understand why Muslim imigrants have bigger problems integrating and assimilating than people from other cultures.

Okay then, understand all you want. However, the "Middle Ages" argument is weak. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait--both are affluent, both are Islamic. Where would you rather live? Neither is ideal, but neither is stuck in the 16th Century in terms of technology.

Why do some Saudis participate in terror?

Doctor Fate wrote:Fundamentalist Islam delights in being mired in the Dark Ages. It decries virtually anything modern and believes violence is THE solution. Comparisons to the Crusades, etc., miss the point: no other religion has remained so violent for so long. Islam was founded by a warrior and it has always maintained his spirit.

That makes the assumption that there's just 1 kind of Islam, that's about as accurate as saying there's just one flavor of Christianity.

No, it assumes there is one founder of Islam--which is undeniable.

Islamic nations were for a time more advanced in basically every way than euro/christan ones.

Thanks for negating your own argument. If Islamic nations were ahead, then they have no excuse for their modern barbarism.

That changed and i honestly don't see why Islam shouldn't make a similar transformation, at least in some parts of the world.

I hope you're right. In the meantime, Islam remains the single biggest reason for organized violence against innocents on the planet.

Tom, here's a case of blood curdling domestic terrorism that doesn't involve Muslims.

If Muslims are so dangerous than why are YOU arming them to the teeth and training them to fly on US soil?

Last December, amid the holiday rush, the US air force quietly announced that it had selected Mountain Home Air Force Base as the preferred location for the long-term training of a contingent of pilots and flight crews from the Saudi Royal Air Force as part of a $60bn arms deal between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced that autumn.

Under the mammoth military package, Saudi Arabia is set to receive 84 new F-15E Strike Eagles - advanced fighter aircraft designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions. Capable of flying day or night in all weather conditions and reaching speeds in excess of twice the speed of sound, each F-15, packing missiles, bombs and a 20mm cannon, is a formidable weapon.

Under the air force's proposal, Saudi pilots will learn how to fly the advanced fighters at Mountain Home Air Force Base for five years, from 2014 to 2019, with the possibility of a longer commitment left open.

"Facilitating the modernisation of Royal Saudi Air Force aircraft, as well as providing enhanced air crew and maintenance training, would build partner capacity and contribute to the stability of the [Middle East] region," said Heidi Grant, the deputy undersecretary of the air force for international affairs.

While the arrangement has yet to be finalised - the local community, including the Shoshone-Paiute tribes, have yet to weigh in and an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out - the rough plan is for the first Saudis to arrive in the US in late 2013, with their ranks growing over the next year.

At present, plans call for the Saudi squadron to be composed of roughly 12 aircraft with 50 pilots and 100 to 200 maintenance personnel, some of whom will be accompanied by their families.

"The permanent party would consist primarily of enlisted members and a small cadre of officers," according to an air force spokesperson. "Potential living arrangements for the Saudi personnel are yet to be finalised, but we expect that unaccompanied and accompanied housing both on and off base would be considered by the [Royal Saudi Air Force]."

In a statement put out by the Idaho delegation, Crapo, Simpson and Risch all offered words of support for the project and none backed the criticisms levelled against the training mission by those they supported in opposing the Islamic cultural centre in Manhattan.

"Mountain Home already hosts a similar training mission for Singapore's air force, and the base's abundant ramp space, desert location and premiere training ranges make it the ideal location to host another international partner and ensure interoperability between US forces and our allies," said Risch in the press release.

Tom

And I also mentioned the FBI data many many times, what part of that do you not understand?
I clearly stated the NUMBER does not equal the INTENSITY of the attack.
Let me say this one more time so you can understand
Lighting a bag of dog crap on ones doorstep does not equal shooting up a military base. Your minor arsons and such simply do not equal the violence and intensity of radical islamists. I also clearly asked you to list some examples of your greater number of terrorist attacks/plots and listed only 3 extremist Islamic attacks/plots. Let me hear how awful these others really are, they simply are not in the same league regardless of how many more there are. The greatest threat is from radical islam not from jews or antiabortionists.

Well, if I worked at a family planning clinic I'd be more worried about anti-abortionists. And frankly, if I worked or went to school at most places in the US I'm more likely to be shot up by a mentally ill person conveniently armed with several semi-automatic weapons than be the victim of any terrorists.

I don't understand whether you actually accept the numbers to be an honest reportage of terrorist activity in the US or not.
If you actually feel that the difference is that its the "intensity of the violence". then why did you list three events: two of which resulted in nothing? (Padilla and the Times Square Bomber).
Here's three domestic terror incidents to compare: Do these sound like dog poop bags?

April 4, 2003

Planned Murder Plots against Federal Judge, AUSA, and IRS Agent
Grangeville, Idaho
(Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism)

On April 4, 2003, the FBI arrested David Roland Hinkson, a constitutionalist and tax protestor, for attempting to arrange the murders of a federal judge, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and an IRS Agent whom he blamed for his legal problems regarding a tax evasion case against him. Between December 2002 and March 2003, Hinkson offered two individuals $10,000 for committing all three murders. On January 27, 2005, Hinkson was found guilty on three counts of solicitation to commit murder after a three week jury trial in Boise, Idaho. On June 3, 2005, Hinkson was sentenced to 43 years in federal prison.

April 10, 2003

Planned Cyanide Attack
Tyler, Texas
(Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism)

On April 10, 2003, the FBI arrested William Joseph Krar for fraud-related charges stemming from his attempt to deliver numerous false identification badges—including a United Nations Observer Badges, Defense Intelligence Agency identification, and a Federal Concealed Weapons Permit—to Edward Feltus, a member of the New Jersey Militia. Krar had also been identified as a potential weapons supplier associated with extremist militia activities. In a search of Krar’s Texas residence at the time of his arrest, FBI investigators found firearms, explosives, blasting caps, machine guns, over 100,000 rounds of ammunition, approximately 800 grams of sodium cyanide, and plans to weaponize the sodium cyanide. Krar and a co-conspirator, Judith Bruey, pled guilty to federal weapons charges, and in May 2004 were sentenced to 135 months and 57 months in federal custody, respectively. Feltus pled guilty to aiding and abetting the transportation of false IDs, and was sentenced in May 2004 to 18 months probation and fined $1,500.

June 9, 2003

Planned Bombing of a U.S. Coast Guard Facility
Bellingham, Washington
(Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism)

On June 9, 2003, the FBI arrested Paul Douglas Revak for plotting to bomb a U.S. Coast Guard facility in Bellingham, Washington. Revak, who had previously declared himself to be an anarchist, was reportedly attempting to precipitate a revolution in the United States and had discussed the targeting of several nearby military installations. Revak was arrested when he negotiated with an undercover FBI employee for the purchase of explosive device components. Under a plea agreement, Revak was charged with threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and sentenced to five years’ probation

Or maybe you think that eco terrorists used bags of poop?

The subjects of the Backfire investigation are suspected of having committed a series of arsons in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Wyoming, and California on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. Among the most significant of these actions were the October 19, 1998, Vail Ski Resort arson in Vail, Colorado, that resulted in an estimated $26 million in damage, and the May 21, 2001, destruction by arson of the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture, that resulted in an estimated $3 million in damage. Other targets included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, BLM wild-horse facilities, meat-processing companies, lumber companies, and a high-tension power line.

The most horrendous act of terrorism commited on the US were by Muslims on 9/11, but they were commited by foreigners not American citizens or landed immigrants.The second most deadly was committed by right wing extremists who were Americans.
The ostensible purpose of Kings hearings are to suss out the extent of "radicalization" in American Muslims. What if he held a hearing to suss out the "radicalization" of the ecocological advocates to determine the level of radicalization in them?
Or if he held a hearing to determine the radicalization amongst "constitutionalists" becasue of acts like those committed by Donald Hickson?
Go through the ist the FBI produced and you'll see deaths and injuries and extensive property damage on all the sucessful bombings. But we've never had hearing on "radicalization" in any of the groups that any of those groups might have claimed to be "representing": That King went after Muslims, wihout attempting to contextualize the threat Islmaic terrorists represent within the entire scope of domestic terorism is his abuse of a perogative of his position.
He held the hearings to try and make his prejudged position, not investigate anything. That he didn't make any real progess in demonizing the Muslim community is up the testimony of Ellison and the LA sherrif. (Democratic witnesses 2 of 7)
That King was incompetent is not the point. That he was malevolent is the point.

Ricky,I have been more than clear, these reports in no way show your claim that non-Muslim terrorists are in any way equal. I posted only the first three I looked up. If you wish me to post more to more than offset your incidents (that are not likely the first three you found) I can do so. Your claim that they amounted to nothing, then posting your examples of what amounted to nothing, huh? So YOU can claim plots when non-Muslim are valid, but Muslim extremist,Plots are not accepted?

You show two that are equal to the three I posted, and none of yours were carried out at all, one of mine was actually carried out. You really want to believe your position is right, you have not shown it yet. You got close but in your searching, you failed (still)

But since you posted two that compare somewhat
here's some more for you, you have a ways to catch up...

Lackawanna Six. Nearly a year after September 11, six Yemeni-American childhood friends from a Buffalo, NY, suburb were arrested in what was a "showpiece for the Bush administration's war on terror" (NYT), and one of the first examples of preemptive justice on terrorism. They attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Kandahar in the spring of 2001, which some in the group claim was motivated by curiosity. All six plead guilty to providing material support for a terrorist organization and were sentenced to seven to nine years in prison. Some have been released, and three will be granted aliases by the U.S. government upon their release for testifying against al-Qaeda.

Fort Dix Plot. Six foreign-born Muslims--including four ethnic Albanians from Macedonia and Kosovo who illegally immigrated, a Palestinian from Jordan turned U.S. citizen, and a legal Turkish immigrant--were arrested in 2007 for a plot targeting the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey. The arrests were made after a store clerk turned in a video showing them shooting guns and calling for jihad. The group had no apparent connection with any international terror organizations. Five of the six received life prison sentences from a federal court in late 2008.

The Portland Seven. This diverse group of American Muslims in Portland, OR, was charged with attempting to join al-Qaeda and levy war against the United States in a 2002 and 2003 fifteen-count federal indictment aided by the Patriot Act. One fugitive of the group joined al-Qaeda and was killed by Pakistani forces in Afghanistan. The remaining six are serving, or have served, prison time.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud. Somali-born, naturalized U.S. citizen Mohamud penned several articles for the online magazine Jihad Recollections in 2009, and U.S. authorities allege he attempted to connect with terrorists in Pakistan. In November 2010, police arrested Mohamud in Portland, OR, for trying to detonate what he believed to be a car bomb during a Christmas-tree lighting ceremony. The bomb was actually a fake planted by the FBI, and some question whether the sting operation represented entrapment (NYT).

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well, first off, I have never seen those particular quotes. Further, read my response to Ricky. I have have more then half a brain cell and particularly low opinions of television journalism and the current Administration staff. Therefore, I put as much weight on them as I do on my cat's opinion. So quite you snide snarky crap. I am pretty sure everybody on this board has said that King was not the guy to be running the hearings.

Except that some said that the hearings were ok, despite the fact that they are King's baby.

My point was not that you are a rube, just that we hear stuff in the news all the time, but it doesn't make it true. We hear all about Muslim terrorism, because it's the big thing. we don't hear so much about plots by others, yet it appears from the links to the FBI (kindly furnished by ricky) that there are all kinds of people who want to cause mayhem for a variety of reasons.

It's easy to make a blanket claim that 'most' terrorists in the USA are Islamists, but when presented with possible contrary evidence, Tom moves the goalposts (it's not numbers it's intensity).

And here's my problem with the whole remit and scope of the Congressional hearings - it was all set up with the assumption that Islamic terrorism of a home-grown nature is the main problem, by a guy who a few years ago made statements that suggest he already made his mind up (and you may not have seen them before, but they are on King's wikipedia page, and will have formed a part of the wider media narrative, even if they were not blindingly obvious). I can understand the worry - it's something that we have to worry about here in the UK. But I'm not convinced that having a hoopla in Congress is the right way (any more than I'd be sanguine about a jumped up MP holding Parliamentary Select Committee sessions with the same kind of remit - although it's far less likely that they would).

And step one is actually working out what actually is the extent of the problem. Seems that King (and to a lesser extent, Tom, Steve and even yourself) have skipped that bit of analysis.

nice try to move the goalposts, your claim that they are moved is a movement in itself. Our greatest threat comes from what one group? Who ever claimed anything different? The greatest threat is Muslim Extremists, nobody said the most number of attacks or plots, but rather the greatest threat, You sir are moving goalposts trying to detract from what we have claimed all along and Ricky's postings have not proven otherwise, he truly is comparing bags of dog poop to more violent terror attacks and plans. Let him prove otherwise, I'm still waiting to hear how much more dangerous these other groups are (and I'm allowing him to combine all the other groups into one "other")

Doctor Fate wrote:This is an oft-trotted out canard. Islam today does not exist in the Middle Ages. It exists today. That the religion is 500+ years younger than Christianity does not change the world in which it exists. For example, Hinduism is not given a pass on violence, is it? Yet, it is older than most religions (allegedly).

Fundamentalist Islam delights in being mired in the Dark Ages. It decries virtually anything modern and believes violence is THE solution. Comparisons to the Crusades, etc., miss the point: no other religion has remained so violent for so long. Islam was founded by a warrior and it has always maintained his spirit.

You do realize that the "Dark Ages" is just a nicer way of saying "Catholic Europe"? Islam today absolutely existed in the Middle Ages. It was called Christianity. And conversely, Christianity today more closely resembles Medieval Islam than anything else.

As with anything, religious fervor tends, on a broad generational scale, to be more economically motivated than anything. Medieval Islam was tolerant and supportive of the sciences; in a word, it was a rather progressive society and that is because it was a prosperous society. The most glorious and tolerant place in Europe between the birth of Christ and, lets say, 1945, was Cordoba in the 14th and 15th centuries. A Muslim stronghold. Christian Europe was financially, culturally, and politically a stagnant backwater; it's easy to channel the impotence and rage felt because of those factors into religion, and highlight the more negative aspects of religion by merely feeding negative emotions in. It was only upon the economic and cultural revival upon discovery of the New World that religion began to fade in importance and secular humanism began to take hold. Islam merely acted in the reverse fashion.

I find it difficult to criticize violent Islamic extremists when it was only sixty six years ago that (and lets not deceive ourselves) Christian fundamentalists were exterminating Jews and other Christian sects. They called themselves National Socialists, but in their bigotry and their methods they were pure medieval Catholics. I believe its largely the residual horror, shame and guilt the Christian world feels for that atrocity that has allowed us to move past many of our traditional hatreds. And Jews don't get a pass either. Despite its completely fabricated nature, one of the most glorious moments in Jewish history, and certainly the pinnacle of Jewish political power, was divine-mandated genocide. Or ethnocide, at least.

So we can all point fingers, because Muslim society at large deserves a marginal amount of blame for allowing extremists to foster, but lets not forget an equally enabling generation is only just beginning to pass away.

Ozymandias wrote:You do realize that the "Dark Ages" is just a nicer way of saying "Catholic Europe"? Islam today absolutely existed in the Middle Ages. It was called Christianity.

No, really, I promise, it was called "Islam." Islam and Christianity are different religions. Really.

And conversely, Christianity today more closely resembles Medieval Islam than anything else.

Don't write a thesis. You're heading for a cliff.

Your premise is that Islam has regressed and Christianity has progressed? If that's not your premise, then please untangle whatever it is you are trying to say.

As with anything, religious fervor tends, on a broad generational scale, to be more economically motivated than anything.

Again, this is bunk. True believers, of any religion, are not out for money. Sure, there are charlatans, but they only imitate religious fervor.

Medieval Islam was tolerant and supportive of the sciences; in a word, it was a rather progressive society and that is because it was a prosperous society. The most glorious and tolerant place in Europe between the birth of Christ and, lets say, 1945, was Cordoba in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Yeah. After they conquered most of the known world, there was amazing peace and tranquility. How many millions died for that?

Islam merely acted in the reverse fashion

.

So,the modern day Islamist movement is based on poverty? Like the impoverished Osama Bin Laden?

I find it difficult to criticize violent Islamic extremists when it was only sixty six years ago that (and lets not deceive ourselves) Christian fundamentalists were exterminating Jews and other Christian sects. They called themselves National Socialists, but in their bigotry and their methods they were pure medieval Catholics.

This is absolutely bonkers. Have you studied the period? I don't mean "Have you read liberal summations of the period," but "Have you studied what was going on in the German church?" Hitler had the cross replaced. He jailed those who would actually preach the Bible. You want to know what it was like, read one of the many biographies of Bonhoeffer. From the wiki article on him:

Although not large, the Confessing Church did represent a major source of Christian opposition to the Nazi government. The Barmen Declaration, drafted by Barth and adopted by the Confessing Church, insisted that Christ, not the Führer, was the head of the church. However, the reorganized Protestant churches and the newly established Nazi-submissive German Evangelical Church — being influenced by nationalism and their traditional obedience to state authority as state churches (until 1918) — acquiesced to Nazification of the churches. In September 1933, the national church synod at Wittenberg approved the Aryan paragraph prohibiting non-Aryans from taking parish posts. When Bonhoeffer was offered a parish post in eastern Berlin, he refused it in protest of the racist policy.

Question: What kind of a "Christian" church allows Hitler to be its head?

Answer: one that doesn't follow the Bible and is not, therefore, "Christian." It would be akin to a Muslim movement pushing Mohammed out of the way in favor of OBL.

And Jews don't get a pass either. Despite its completely fabricated nature, one of the most glorious moments in Jewish history, and certainly the pinnacle of Jewish political power, was divine-mandated genocide. Or ethnocide, at least.

What "ethnocide" are you referring to?

Hitler was not the head of a religion and his Jewish extermination was for non-religious reasons, Islamist extremists are however instructed to Jihad by religious leaders for religious reasons. To even attempt to link Hitler to Christianity is insensitive, repulsive and quite stupid. You just crossed a line that can not be explained away.

I'm sorry... is anti-Semitism an entirely Christian invention and conceit, or not?

And before you answer, it is. I don't claim Hitler was a prophet or a cult leader. Merely that his hatreds and bigotry were steeped in the venerable, millenia-old traditions of Catholicism.

Doctor Fate wrote:Don't write a thesis. You're heading for a cliff.

Your premise is that Islam has regressed and Christianity has progressed? If that's not your premise, then please untangle whatever it is you are trying to say.

I'm saying that, as with most things in life, religions go through life cycles. Christianity spent over a 1000 years being violent, brutal, bigoted and provided the justification for slaughter in the name of God. For a great deal of that period, Islam was comparatively peaceful, especially when you don't consider the margins and think about their tolerance and policy within firmly controlled areas.

Again, this is bunk. True believers, of any religion, are not out for money. Sure, there are charlatans, but they only imitate religious fervor.

Its impossible to quantify the level or sincerity of religious fervor. It is absolutely possible to quantify the level of material gain from supposed religious fervor. And it seems to me, that in many religions which stress the godliness of poverty, or at least decry the trappings of wealth, that the highest up theocrats tend to live very, very well.

Yeah. After they conquered most of the known world, there was amazing peace and tranquility. How many millions died for that?

Is modern Christianity any different? After we sanitized most of the New World, we had peace... at the price of exterminating everyone who lived here first.

So,the modern day Islamist movement is based on poverty? Like the impoverished Osama Bin Laden?

I think, and it seems as thought he vast majority of opinion supports this in some form or another, that modern Islamic radicalism is born out of poverty and the associated frustration, anger, and jealousy that comes with it. Osama may be insane, or he may be power hungry, or he may just actually be full of religious fervor... but he's not the one blowing himself up. Those are the poor and hungry peasants.

This is absolutely bonkers. Have you studied the period? I don't mean "Have you read liberal summations of the period," but "Have you studied what was going on in the German church?" Hitler had the cross replaced. He jailed those who would actually preach the Bible. You want to know what it was like, read one of the many biographies of Bonhoeffer. From the wiki article on him:

At the risk of repeating what I opened with - whatever Hitler's thought's on Christianity as an organization to demand loyalty and resources from his people, he made extensive use of, and seemed to have believed in, its underlying bigotries and hatreds. Hitler and the Holocaust don't exist without 2000 years of Christian indoctrination that Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc... are lesser people.

And Jews don't get a pass either. Despite its completely fabricated nature, one of the most glorious moments in Jewish history, and certainly the pinnacle of Jewish political power, was divine-mandated genocide. Or ethnocide, at least.

What "ethnocide" are you referring to?[/quote]

While it would be difficult to list all of the tribes and peoples involved without having more time or a much more in depth knowledge, I will direct you to Joshua 6:8, where the Lord instructs Joshua to exterminate and proscribe every inhabitant of Jericho (except one). He also instructs the Israelites to disposses by force every inhabitant of Israel. That counts as genocide to me. I forget if there is a passage explicitly saying to kill them, or just remove them somewhere else... but if we accept the Armenian expulsion from Turkey as genocide, which we generally do, than this has to qualify as well, even if its the less violent version.

Ozymandias wrote:I'm sorry... is anti-Semitism an entirely Christian invention and conceit, or not?

And before you answer, it is.

Well, thanks for your answer, but it happens to be wrong. Anti-Jewish fervor predates Christianity and has more to do with the Law of Moses, which tended to divide Israel from her neighbors (especially that "no gods before Me" thing).

I don't claim Hitler was a prophet or a cult leader. Merely that his hatreds and bigotry were steeped in the venerable, millenia-old traditions of Catholicism.

Thus, demonstrating your ignorance of the truth on at least two fronts: 1) Hitler insinuated himself as the leader of the German church. There was nothing recognizably "Christian" about the nazified church; 2) in the 1930's, the "Catholic Church" had not completed her second millennium. So, it would have been quite difficult for it to have "millenia-old traditions."

I can't wait for what will surely follow--some anti-Semitic Luther quotes.

I am willing to grant that there have been anti-Semitic ideas in Christians. However, I categorically deny there is anything in Christianity that is anti-Semitic. As the old bumper sticker says: "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter."

I'm saying that, as with most things in life, religions go through life cycles. Christianity spent over a 1000 years being violent, brutal, bigoted and provided the justification for slaughter in the name of God.

Your error: confusing the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity.

For a great deal of that period, Islam was comparatively peaceful, especially when you don't consider the margins and think about their tolerance and policy within firmly controlled areas.

Okay, read this brief history of Islam. Note well how all the rulers begin--with conquest! Two battles stopped Islam from completely overrunning Europe, so please stop with this "religion of peace" nonsense.

And it seems to me, that in many religions which stress the godliness of poverty, or at least decry the trappings of wealth, that the highest up theocrats tend to live very, very well.

Take out the upper echelons of the RCC and televangelists and the story is something altogether different. Most congregations keep their pastors humble by forcibly impoverishing them.

Is modern Christianity any different? After we sanitized most of the New World, we had peace... at the price of exterminating everyone who lived here first.

Depends on multiple issues. First, what is "modern Christianity?" You are going back a few hundred years. I don't think that's very "modern." Second, Christianity cannot be spread on the point of a sword (a la Islam) because one must believe in his/her heart (Rom. 10:9). Only the RCC would allow such rubbish.

I think, and it seems as thought he vast majority of opinion supports this in some form or another, that modern Islamic radicalism is born out of poverty and the associated frustration, anger, and jealousy that comes with it. Osama may be insane, or he may be power hungry, or he may just actually be full of religious fervor... but he's not the one blowing himself up. Those are the poor and hungry peasants.

This would make sense if the objective of Islamism was financial gain. Instead, it is the belief that killing infidels brings glory in the afterlife. Some may believe it has to do with poverty--that doesn't make it so. There are innumerable examples beyond OBL.

At the risk of repeating what I opened with - whatever Hitler's thought's on Christianity as an organization to demand loyalty and resources from his people, he made extensive use of, and seemed to have believed in, its underlying bigotries and hatreds. Hitler and the Holocaust don't exist without 2000 years of Christian indoctrination that Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc... are lesser people.

You have just explained your anti-Christian bigotry in a concise and cohesive manner. Thank you.

While it would be difficult to list all of the tribes and peoples involved without having more time or a much more in depth knowledge, I will direct you to Joshua 6:8, where the Lord instructs Joshua to exterminate and proscribe every inhabitant of Jericho (except one). He also instructs the Israelites to disposses by force every inhabitant of Israel. That counts as genocide to me. I forget if there is a passage explicitly saying to kill them, or just remove them somewhere else... but if we accept the Armenian expulsion from Turkey as genocide, which we generally do, than this has to qualify as well, even if its the less violent version.

So, do you accept the OT as historically accurate, or only when it coincides with your prejudice against the God of the Bible?

Steve

Your error: confusing the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity.

You always seem very able to finely parse the adherents to Christianity and exclude those who've not been ideal Christians. There seem to be very few. At some points in history I wonder if for you and your sense of Christian purity there really existed a Christian church? Ifthe Catholic Church doesn't qualify as the standard bearer for Christianity in Europe for hundreds of years then for you was there really Christianity?
Why are you unable to provide the same context to adherents to Muhommed? There are as many versions of fidelity to the Quran within the Islamic umbrealla as there are versions of adherence to Christ within the Christian community.