British Memorial Is Vandalized by Muslims (because it honored defenders of Armenians)

nytimes.com ^ | September 24, 2003 | AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

[AppyPappy]

Paul Hill was ONE person.

[AppyPappy]

McVeigh was not a Christian. He converted before his execution.

[Cronos]

In Lebanon the Muslim % is about 50% -- there are many Druze who aren't quite Muslim. Lebanon was originally created by the French for the Maronite Christians. The problem is that hte Maronites got a bit greedy and wanted the new country to hold the resource rich Muslim parts as well. A big mistake. however, it does reiterate my point that slamics act as wounded sheep whenever they're in minority but when they are in a Majority they persecute other religions, as in Lebanon.

[Cronos]

I must admit I don't have much information on west Africe below Morrocco so can't comment on Senegal, Gambia, Mali etc.

[Phsstpok]

unless you're one of those Christians who thinks it's your purpose to prosselytize the world, Islam is not the enemy; Islamism is

I'm afraid you're making a distinction without a difference. There are plenty of perfectly nice people who say they follow Islam and want to live in peace with their neighbors. They are not, however, fullfilling the requirements of Islam, as written in the Koran.

The Koran requires that all of the "faithful" spread their faith and gain control over the entire world, converting or killing any who believe otherwise. Those who oppose that world view, and the actions taken to further it, are not "Christians who thinks it's (our) purpose to prosselytize the world." We are human beings who do not wish to be conquered and subjegated by an evil force bent on world domination.

It's like trying to argue that Nazi's are fine, but Nasism is the real problem. I'm sure there were people who loved their mothers and were kind to all of their neighbors who belonged to the Nazi party. Doesn't help.

I agree with your point about militantism, in general, but disagree when you say that militant Islamists don't represent Islam. They are performing the tasks required of them by their prophet. To defeat them you have to admit that their prophet was wrong and was preaching hate and murder. By definition that sets all "reasonable Islamic people" against you, as they can never accept that simple fact. Again, it's like trying to say the SS is wrong, but Hitler spoke the truth and his message shoule be respected.

[TBP]

The Koran requires that all of the "faithful" spread their faith and gain control over the entire world, converting or killing any who believe otherwise.

So what is the difference between spreading the Islamic faith all over the world and Christian missionary work? Same thing, it seems to me. If you want to argue that there is something wrong with Islam trying to spread the faith, then you must also argue that missionary work is wrong.

And Christendom has itself used violent means occasionally.

Terrorism is not approved by any religion. There are sections of the Bible that seem to approve of violence and there are large sections that teach peaceful action. The same thing happens with the Koran. You simply choose to emphasize different sections.

[Cronos]

Well, the Vatican doesn't allow missionaries, but that's all. But you forget that there are plenty of majority-Muslim countries where other faiths are accepted and welcomed.

But, how does one explain the fact that in most of the slamic countries they persecute anyone for converting from slam?

[Cronos]

The Koran requires that all of the "faithful" spread their faith and gain control over the entire world, converting or killing any who believe otherwise.
So what is the difference between spreading the Islamic faith all over the world and Christian missionary work?

If you can't see the difference, well...

Islam is a defunct, murderous cult created by a guy who made a mishmash of all the prevailing thoughts in his region and used it to become a master pirate. Even the 'facts' quoted in the koran are incorrect, like saying that Ishmael was to be sacrificed instead of Isaac. Terrorism is approved by the Krn as it says to attack those not following the faith and to destroy them.

[Cronos]

Also, Christendom last used violent means oh, when?? the 16th century? Islam is regressing, rejecting it's moderate forms like sufism etc. and promoting it's intolerant, original lunacies in the form of wahaabism

[Cronos]

True, the decent, law abiding, Muslimsaren't following the evil preached by theirreligion.

[TBP]

Cronos defines a cult: "Any religion I don't like."

[TBP]

Cronos defines a cult: "Any religion I don't like."

[TBP]

Cronos defines a cult: "Any religion I don't like."

[TBP]

Cronos defines a cult: "Any religion I don't like."

[GunnyHartman]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Phsstpok]

So what is the difference between spreading the Islamic faith all over the world and Christian missionary work?

Christian's are not instructed by their Holy Book to kill those that do not agree to convert. The Koran does, explicitely. The only reason not to kill the infidel is for the purpose of fooling him into inaction while the "faithful" build up their strength.

Same thing, it seems to me. If you want to argue that there is something wrong with Islam trying to spread the faith, then you must also argue that missionary work is wrong.

Spreading Christianity by the sword has been universally condemned in the Christian world. Spreading Islam by the sword is the accepted norm. It is praised daily in almost every Mosque. Christian missionaries (who have any claim to the title Christian) teach peace and love. Islamic missioinaries teach hatred, murder and intolerance of all other ways of life as being "against Allah." Big difference.

And Christendom has itself used violent means occasionally.

Yep. Sometimes in legitimate defense of innocent lives. Sometimes in misguided wars of conquest and greed, masquerading as "Christian" movements. Christian's are human and as such are not perfect. Muslims are also human and not perfect. Today, however, Muslims have embraced the murder of others as right in the name of God. If you condemn it when Christians used force in the past to advance their cause (but now reject that) then you must condemn the modern Islamic world for embracing force to advance theirs.

Terrorism is not approved by any religion.

In fact, both in their scripture and in absolute practice today, the Islamic world revels and wallows in terrorism as a "holy" act.

There are sections of the Bible that seem to approve of violence and there are large sections that teach peaceful action.

More than "seem to" approve of violence. Parts of the Bible, at least the Old Testament, explicitely calls for violence. "Smite them. Kill Them. Drive them from the Earth!" Not exactly sweetness and light. Christ came to deliver a new message. Not the strictly pacifist message that is often touted, but a more mature, more human, way of addressing these issues.

The same thing happens with the Koran. You simply choose to emphasize different sections.

I've read both the Bible and the Koran, as well as the books of several of "great religions" and I can categorically tell you, it's not the same. I will not get into a quote by quote argument with you. I understand your point, and it's the very popular, highly promoted multicultural "all cultures are equal" position. I simply disagree. I don't think I'll convince you and I don't think you'll convince me. I merely put forward my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Cronos]

Re: Cronos defines a cult: "Any religion I don't like". Well, I don't consider mainstream Christian groups as cults, neither do I consider Buddhist sects, Hindu sects, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Judaism, Shintoism, Shamanism as cults. These are religions, not a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Plus, it contradicts itself, in the Koran it claims that the Jewish and Christian holy books are given by God, then it puts forth different "facts" such as Ishmael substitued for Isaac, the Virgin Mary giving birth in the desert, in short a manglign of the Christian boosk, a total mish mash put together by Mo to fool his gullible followers (check Deepak Chopra for a similar amount of mishmash)

[Cronos]

True, the CIA site lists muslims as being 70% but includes Druze as Muslims while most Muslims don't