This place had become poisonous. It used to be a place for civil argument. Now it's just another place where people rant at each other. It's a damned shame.

http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-conte ... ndence.pdf

In case someone is interested: that's the sick @#$! manifest

You'll remember that shortly before a Spanish General Election a few years ago a bomb went off in Madrid. The incumbent (who had led Spain into the war in Iraq) immediately pounced on it as a muslim extremist inspired attack and thus vindication of his hard line policy. Pretty soon it became clear that it was actually ETA who were responsible and the electorate, unamused and disgusted by such a sloppy attempt to score political points in response to the tragedy, kicked him out of office.

This is actually the exact opposite of what happened. The Spanish government immediately announced that it was ETA who were responsible before the evidence was in. This was in large part because Spanish involvement in Iraq was incredibly unpopular with the electorate and they wanted to do everything they could to avoid the impression that Spain had become a target for Islamic terrorism due to being in Iraq.

But anyway, Steve seems to be getting woprked up over nothing here. Yes, it's silly to treat Rumsfeld as a potential terrorist, but I'm sure the man himself is fully aware of the publicity value in demonstrating that security procedures apply to all citizens equally. Racial profiling almost certainly does take place in practice, but it would be needlessly provocative to publicly acknowledge that fact, and would probably do more harm than good.

Faxmonkey wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Let's see how the info comes out. My guess is he's going to be a "Christian" because he doesn't fall into any other group--kind of like the "Christians" involved in ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Again, in almost all of these situations, the info the government first releases turns out to be misleading or just wrong.

I'm highly confident that you'll be able to rationalize it away even if it turns out he was a violent Christian nutjob. Your personal worldview is very resilient to what i like to call reality intruding upon it.

Right backatcha.

Go ahead. Make the case that he's a Christian. So far, the only thing that identifies him as a Christian is his Facebook page. I just watched his video. He did use a Knight Templar in it--does that make him a Christian? For the most part, he seems like a radical anti-Muslim. I didn't see anything "Christian" in the video. Putting a cross on one's uniform does not make one a Christian. He has a twisted worldview to be sure. Calling him a Christian is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah sorry Sass, I got the two sides mixed up - my apologies. Was a long time ago and I should have checked my facts better before posting. Hardly alone in making that mistake on this forum. However the point I was trying to make is still valid - that seizing upon a tragic event to try to score political points is often viewed as offensive by the electorate.

Steve, the guy calls himself a Christian and you're questioning his claims there. It is a reasonable viewpoint since his actions hardly fit with the teachings of Christ. Don't want to try to debate that, we could go on for hours and it's not strictly relevent.

What is relevent is that if you're going to state that the man isn't Christian even though he claims to be then the question must be asked: are the many "Islamic" terrorists out there actually Muslims just because they claim to be? Fact is that a lot of Muslims think that they aren't due to their violent and extreme ideology, or wish they weren't due to the damage they are doing to the reputation of Islam.

Sorry, but you have to be logically consistent here: if he's not a Christian despite his claims to be one, then the burden of proof shifts to you that other terrorists are truly the Muslims they claim to be.

Javelin wrote:What is relevent is that if you're going to state that the man isn't Christian even though he claims to be then the question must be asked: are the many "Islamic" terrorists out there actually Muslims just because they claim to be? Fact is that a lot of Muslims think that they aren't due to their violent and extreme ideology, or wish they weren't due to the damage they are doing to the reputation of Islam.

Sorry, but you have to be logically consistent here: if he's not a Christian despite his claims to be one, then the burden of proof shifts to you that other terrorists are truly the Muslims they claim to be.

As soon as he uses the words of Christ to justify his actions, you'll have a point. Not a great point, but a point. When Christians fail to object to his ideology and actions, you'll have a point.

Let me put it another way: do you believe that I, or anyone who believes as I do, would have failed to turn this guy in if I'd known what he was going to do? Or that I would fail to tell the cops where he was if he'd escaped and I knew?

Now, compare that to the actions of the Muslim world at large.

With no fear for my life, I will state the obvious: Christ killed no one. Mohammed was a warrior.

Christianity was (initially) spread by the blood of its martyrs. Islam was spread by the blood of its victims.

When Christianity has strayed from the teachings and practices of Christ (think Catholicism, the Crusades, and the Jesuits), violence has ensued. Even the Crusades were a response (albeit a wrong one) not to Islamic prosyletization and Islam winning the battle of ideas, but to Islamic forces conquering much of the world and "converting" people at the point of a sword.

When Islam strayed from the teachings and practices of Mohammed, peace has ensued.

Btw, after watching that video, I had to change my avatar. Apologies to anyone whose current avatar I'm encroaching upon.

Could we address the Norwegian attacks in a different thread?