• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamentalism

Are there any differences between the christian right and islamic radicals?


  • Total voters
    50

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
16,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

galenrox said:
Alright, I haven't read the above yet, but I feel I probably don't need to.
Heh. Are you serious?

We did not decide to start killing Iraqis based on their religion. For one, if we're gonna attack a nation just for being muslim, why didn't we attack Indonesia, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Lebanon, or Syria, or any of the other nations that are hugely muslim?
I'm going to let you in on a secret. You don't know why we starting killing Iraqis. Unless you can provide evidence that you do know the real reasons behind those in power's decision. You cannot.

Even if you've managed to prove that religion played a role in our decision making, which I doubt, you absolutely have not proven that that is the reason we went to war (namely due to the fact that that is impossible).
I don't need to, because that was not my claim. it was derived from Calm2Chaos's post about bush and his christian morals, it was a logical extension. No, I happen to not think religion was a "primary" motive for the war.

Say what you will about Iraq, but for the love of God use some sense. If you honestly believe what you've said, then you're quite firmly in the tin foil hat club. Right or wrong, Bush went into Iraq because he legitimately believed it was the right thing to do in the interest of our nation's security.

What? You mean like NOT reading a post, then responding to it? Come on, somone has sense here and I think, based on the evidence, it's me :p

-Mach
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
16,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Calm2Chaos said:
Incorrect - I don't recall the president ever saying that he is killing anyone in the name of christianity or god. I don't recall him ever saying anything concerning pushing his religion or religious beliefs on Iraq, as the reason for the attack.

So, you're writing to say you believe this:

A politician involved in something that would not be popular, or perhaps even ethical, or illegal, will describe their actions, and motives for doing so, voluntarily, to the public.

You have got to get a new hobby if you really think that's a healthy statement.


Untrue. If this dumb fu.cking statement was true we would be carpet bombing mecca. This sounds like more anti-US anti-bush babble of made up facts. If this country wanted to just wipe tem out because of the religion we would be able to do it without ever putting a soldier in harms way. And we would be targeting a much larger area, like the whoile ME. Then follow it up with the large population in this country of muslims. Sorry but another assanine statement, im betting there more

Yes, but that's just derived from your statements!

cam2chaos said:
He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions.
...Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq for no apparent reason with the full knowledge that many Iraqi civilians would be killed by American forces.

That's your claim, not mine. In fact, I don't think there is much evidence (or any?) that religion was a primary motive for Bush's war with muslims...err...Iraq. Seriously.

The Americans are not the ones doing the killing, the vast majority of deaths in this country are from terrorist and Iraqi's.
Bush probably told you this one too, right?

Point in fact, no one has clear death numbers, or their cause, not our government, by admission, not Iraq's government, by admission.


Calm2Chaos said:
I don't remeber the last time any war was ever waged against the citizens of a country.
JUST ONCE!!!!! ONE TIME PLZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Instances of ethnic cleansinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
[edit] Early instances
The St. Brice's Day massacre of all Danes living in England on the orders of the Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred the Unready.
The Edict of Expulsion, given by Edward I of England in 1290, exiled the Jews from England for 350 years. [11]
The Alhambra decree, issued by Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Spain and its territories and possessions by July 31, 1492. [12]
Spain's large Muslim minority, inherited from that country's former Islamic kingdoms, was expelled in 1502, while Muslim converts to Christianity, called Moriscos, were expelled between 1609 and 1614.[13]

[edit] Colonial period
Expulsion of Acadians by British between 1755 and 1763.
The invasion of Gibraltar by Britain in 1704 led to an ethnic cleansing of the local Andalusian population, who were expelled from the territory in 1704[14]
In the United States in the 19th century there were numerous instances of relocation of Native American peoples from their traditional areas to often remote reservations elsewhere in the country, particularly in the Indian Removal policy of the 1830s. The Trail of Tears, which led to the deaths of about 2,000 to 8,000 Cherokees from disease, and the Long Walk of the Navajo are well-known examples. [15] [16][Quote from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source]
Expulsion of Turkish, Muslim, and Jewish populations from Balkans following the independence of Balkan countries (e.g., Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria) from Ottoman Empire from early 1800s to early 1900.[17]
Expulsion of Muslim populations in Northern Caucasus by imperial Russia throughout 19th century. Particularly, expulsion of Circassians to Anatolia in 1864.[18] (see Muhajir (Caucasus) for more details)

[edit] 20th century
The Armenian Genocide and the Pontian Greek Genocide perpetrated by the Young Turks during 1914–1922.[19]
The Assyrian genocide also perpetrated by the Young Turks in collaboration with the Kurdish people between 1915 and 1918.
The persecutions and expulsions of Jews in Germany, Austria and other Nazi-controlled areas prior to the initiation of mass genocide in 1941.[20]
Nazi Germany wiped out entire populations of Jews, Roma people and Sinti ("Gypsies") during World War II (see also the Holocaust).[21] [22]
Genocide and ethnic cleansing by Hungarian, German and Croatian Axis troops against Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians in Vojvodina province of Serbia between 1941 and 1944 (See: Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina, 1941-1944).
Killings by Yugoslav communist partizans against ethnic Hungarians and Germans in Vojvodina province of Serbia in 1944-1945 (See: 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka).
Direct Action Day, in which Hindus were massacred as part of the Muslim League's demands for an independent Pakistan.
Mass expulsions of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan to India. This was to create an Islamic state in an area which was historically related to the origins of Hinduism and Sikhism. The controversy surrounding this move resulted in the killings of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in riots. This was known as the partition of British India in 1947.[23]
The mass deportation of ethnic minorities from their homelands, including East Timor and Papua, by the Indonesian government, beginning with Indonesian independence in 1949 (and subsequent occupation and annexation of Papua until the present day and of East Timor until 1999).[24][25]
Displacement of Kashmiri Hindus living in Kashmir due to the ongoing and anti-Indian insurgency. Some 500,000 Hindus have been internally displaced from Kashmir due to the violence. [26]
The removal of the entire population of the Chagos Archipelago (including Diego Garcia) by the United Kingdom and United States in the 1960s and 1970s. [27][28]
Forced removals of non-white populations in South Africa under Apartheid.[29][30]
The mass expulsions of Greek Cypriots from northern Cyprus and of Turkish Cypriots from southern Cyprus in 1974-1975.[31]
Massacre of 3000 tamils and diaspora of over half a million in Sri Lanka
The widespread ethnic cleansing accompanying the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1999, of which the most significant examples occurred in eastern Croatia and Krajina (1991-1995), in most of Bosnia (1992-1995), and in the Albanian-dominated breakaway Kosovo province (of Serbia) (1999). Large numbers of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians were forced to flee their homes and expelled.[32]
The forced displacement of some 200,000 Georgians and other non-Abkhazians from Abkhazia in 1993. [33]
The 1994 massacres of Tutsis by Hutus, known as the Rwandan Genocide [34]

[edit] 21st century
Attacks by the Janjaweed Arabs, Muslim militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region of western Sudan. [35][36]

Now, I woudn't expect anyone to know most of these, but come on, unless you live under a rock you have heard about:

Darfur
Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia
WWII Nazis

-Mach
 
Last edited:

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Mach said:
So, you're writing to say you believe this:

A politician involved in something that would not be popular, or perhaps even ethical, or illegal, will describe their actions, and motives for doing so, voluntarily, to the public.

I said no such thing. I am not actually sure where you go tthis or how you got off into this tangent. I said what I said, and you tried to infer that the President was killing in the name of his religion. You were wrong and you tried to twist things to be more favorable to you
Mach said:
You have got to get a new hobby if you really think that's a healthy statement.

You made the statement not me.. maybe you should not try to put words in peoples mouths. Your trying to twist meanings to give some small sense of credence to the dribble you posted earlier

Mach said:
Yes, but that's just derived from your statements!

First:
You posted I said this
Originally Posted by cam2chaos
He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions.


You edited my post then put it up as a quote. Please have enough integrity to not alter what I said to try and make it fit into your pathetic argument

And your full of ****. You stated were killing people because of there religion. Please don't try and lie or distort what you said.

Originally Posted by Mach
2. America chose to kill them based on their religion (from above)?


Your statement... Thank You.. You can move on

Mach said:
...Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq for no apparent reason with the full knowledge that many Iraqi civilians would be killed by American forces.
Again thats your opinion on why he went to war. I think he thought he had a justifiable reason(s) to do so. Wether you or I agree with his reasons are another story, but anything else is assumption

As does happen in any war or conflict. He did not however go to war against the population of this country as was explained earlier. If you choose to ignore what I wrote thats fine.
Mach said:
That's your claim, not mine. In fact, I don't think there is much evidence (or any?) that religion was a primary motive for Bush's war with muslims...err...Iraq. Seriously.

Please show me exactly were I said this. I already showed you were you said it. Again it seems like your trying to twist meaning, words and sentences

Mach said:
2. America chose to kill them based on their religion (from above)?

I never said it had anything to do with religion whatsoever ... If I recall your the one that said that

Mach said:
Bush probably told you this one too, right?

Point in fact, no one has clear death numbers, or their cause, not our government, by admission, not Iraq's government, by admission.

Your so transparent it's almost funny. You have no proof whatsoever to anything you say. You outright made up lies and used assumptions. Then you try to cover it up by twisting the meaning of words, statements, and sentences. Your agenda is pretty clear to anyone with a few brain cells to rub together. Bush didn't tell me anything, we haven't spoken for some time.

Mach said:
Darfur
Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia
WWII Nazis

-Mach

Your now talking about ethnic cleansing which is:

the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration

This is not warring against an entire population. It is the genocide of a specific portion of a population.

WWII was not ethnic cleansing, it was partly the result of it but that was not what it was about.

You are trying to equate the expulsion of the jews (Ethnic cleansing) to a nation going to war aginst the entire population of another nation. I don't see the correlation

You stated
Originally Posted by Mach
Iraqis as a population were not terrorising anyone, but now american is clearly killing them.


What your trying to say is that the US is attempting to perform genocide. And you are comparing the US to Nazi's. Both statements are ludicrous
 
Last edited:

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
58,536
Reaction score
25,857
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Calm2Chaos said:
Course its about Bush bashing. It's what you do and all you seem to do. He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions. None of this is out of the ordinary. It's when you start strapping bombs to your chest, hijacking planes, blowing up busses, planes, trains, cars, bikes, skateboards and any other form of public transportation, when you target your own people and innocent ones. when you decide that everyone must belive in what you do or die. When you belive God has given you the right to dictate who should live and die. Not a single person but a group, a large group or faction with in that religion believes and supports the out right murder of innocent men woman and children.... I know you don't see the difference... I wouldn't expect you to

I would think a man sending 140,000 soldiers to war because of his religious beliefs would be the equivalent of one man strapping c4 to his chest because of his religious beliefs. Semantics if you will. Killing 5-6 kids with a bomb thrown from a plane because some guy's god told you it was the right thing to do is exactly the same as another guy strapping c4 to his chest and killing 5-6 other kids because his god told him to. If you dont understand the similiraties, I think it's you who has the intelligence defficit.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
16,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Calm2Chaos said:
I said no such thing. I am not actually sure where you go tthis or how you got off into this tangent. I said what I said, and you tried to infer that the President was killing in the name of his religion. You were wrong and you tried to twist things to be more favorable to you

I twisted nothing, I'm showing you what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Incorrect - I don't recall the president ever saying that he is killing anyone in the name of christianity or god. I don't recall him ever saying anything concerning pushing his religion or religious beliefs on Iraq, as the reason for the attack.

I'm serious when I write, that if you don't understand that defense you're using (Bush didn't say it therefore [x]), I'm trying to help you understand it. And my opinion is that it's too insane for you to actually mean it.




And your full of ****. You stated were killing people because of there religion. Please don't try and lie or distort what you said.

Once again, read my quotes, they are logical extensions of what you wrote. If you don't agree, show why, or where. If you can't, then I cannot help you.

Again thats your opinion on why he went to war. I think he thought he had a justifiable reason(s) to do so. Wether you or I agree with his reasons are another story, but anything else is assumption. As does happen in any war or conflict. He did not however go to war against the population of this country as was explained earlier. If you choose to ignore what I wrote thats fine.

You don't seem to understand that using military force, a ground invasion with air support, to destroy a government and then fight a civil war, NECESSARILY MEANS YOU WILL KILL INNOCENTS. You can deny it all you like. Bush doesn't deny it, he has the sense not to, I cannot fathom why you are.


Please show me exactly were I said this. I already showed you were you said it. Again it seems like your trying to twist meaning, words and sentences

I'm glad you agree that you disagree with yourself, that's why I'm showing you:

#1
10-26-06 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by cam2chaos
He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions.

Fact:
Bush (and the Bush administration) made the decision to go to war with Iraq.

Fact:
Bush (and the Bush admin) were, and are, aware that this necessarily means civilians in Iraq will die as a direct result of their actions.

There is no need to introduce a strawman that I claim they are intentionally attacking civilians. While I am certain, elements in the U.S. military have intentionally killed Iraqi's (There are always ongoing trials for this), I also think that's fairly well controlled in the U.S. military, and as long as they were low ranking, I think they will be harshly punished (serious jail time).

I never said it had anything to do with religion whatsoever ... If I recall your the one that said that

No, you specifically claimed that bush uses his religion to based decisions on. Going to war was a decision. Please retract it if you don't agree (that's the only reason I brought it up, because I too don't agree).


Your now talking about ethnic cleansing which is:
the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration
This is not warring against an entire population. It is the genocide of a specific portion of a population.

Yes, and the moon is made of cheese.

WWII was not ethnic cleansing, it was partly the result of it but that was not what it was about.

The holocaust didn't happen? You're one of those are you?

You are trying to equate the expulsion of the jews (Ethnic cleansing) to a nation going to war aginst the entire population of another nation. I don't see the correlation

A government using it's military in an effort to kill an entire population is not a military trying to kill an entire population? What??
You stated
Originally Posted by Mach
Iraqis as a population were not terrorising anyone, but now american is clearly killing them.

What your trying to say is that the US is attempting to perform genocide. And you are comparing the US to Nazi's. Both statements are ludicrous

I'm most certainly not "trying" to say that. What I wrote is correct and states my position. I do NOT think the u.s. military is on a mission of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or anything else so obviously without benefit.

-Mach
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,631
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Without the exxagerated tree limb lunging of some of the prior posts in this thread:

Radical Islam (Fundamental) is a brutal movement that strives to re-capture the glory of centuries ago. It is a religious movement that assumes the superiority to prescribe how others may lead their lives. Sound familiar? Both fundamental cultures have chosen to live by a stern code (conservatism) in accordance to the wishes of "God" and believes that infidels or "unbelievers" are out of favor with God. In striving to maintain a "pure" following of God, both groups can travel into the realm of terror and justification (Christianity has had it's dark times.)


However, there are factors that make the differences between Radical Christianity and Radical Islamism that negate the unfair grouping of the two in today's time period. One of those being our robust civilization. Our civilizations in the west have grown tolerant and in America, especially, we have made it a role to humanize religion. It is because of our robust blending of religions and cultures, they we see so extremely few religious crimes. Another factor is the religious book of choice. The New Testament, with it's Gospels of love, forgiveness, and peace have trumped the brutalities of the Old Testament. Where is the trumping section in the Qu'ran? Another is the environment. In civilizations where the young have no future and have only "God" to turn to as defined by evil men in holy robes, any Radical religious serving can be seen as the "answer" to all failures and any attrocity can be exhonerated and justified.

All religions grow in societies that face forward with regards to social progress. It will probably be in America where we see the first real liberalization of Islam in the world. Men like Bin Ladden are the extreme definition of religious conservatism. Other men are: John Brown of America's Harper's Ferry (Christianity), Thomas Muntzer of Germany (Protistanism), and Phillip II of Spain (Roman Catholicism). These are all men that sought (seek) to use their religions to oppress and murder and stagnate their societies and civilizations in extreme conservatism.

Of course Radical Christianity can and has historically been in comparison to Radical Islamism. The same can be said for every single major religion on earth. This isn't what is important. What is important is where the religions are today - and where they aren't.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

tecoyah said:
George Bush is a Christian Conservative......does this point to State Sponsored Killing? And, if so, Does it not denote Christians are indeed.....Killing People?

"In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.



Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml


That said....there is a profound difference between one man deciding to inflict death in Warfare.....and an entire sect of religion doing so as individuals.
Both the White House and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who was also present at the meeting, deny that Bush ever made such a statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabil_Shaath

It is very interesting, my no-friend, you can trust one Palestinian, but you would not trust another Palestinian, and of course you would have no trust to US White House, and you would not even imagine to trust to an American President, and I am afraid even suggest what would you feel if the President is a christian.
You would rather trust Nabil_Shaath , but not to the ones below:

29 Warren G. Harding Baptist

30 Calvin Coolidge Congregationalist

31 Herbert Hoover Quaker

32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Episcopalian

33 Harry S. Truman Southern Baptist

34 Dwight D. Eisenhower River Brethren; Jehovah's Witnesses; Presbyterian

35 John F. Kennedy Catholic

36 Lyndon B. Johnson Disciples of Christ

37 Richard M. Nixon Quaker

38 Gerald Ford Episcopalian

39 Jimmy Carter Baptist (former Southern Baptist)

40 Ronald Reagan Disciples of Christ; Presbyterian

41 George H. W. Bush Episcopalian

42 William Jefferson Clinton Baptist

43 George W. Bush Methodist (former Episcopalian)

You certainly find that an Islamist is more trustworthy ...

BTW George W. Bush is a Methodist (former Episcopalian), not a Christian Conservative. None of the American presidents was a Christian Conservative, not even William Jefferson Clinton.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
16,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
more on america targeting civilians intentionally

Calm2Chaos.

Just reading about WWII today, wouldn't you know it:

WWII allied fire bombing directly targeting civilian population with incendiary and HE bombs. Some estimates show the firebombing of cities like Tokyo caused more deaths than the also intentional civilian targets of the atomic bombs. That's like half of LA or NY being obliterated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0310-01.htm

To debate why, was it justified, or was it a crime, is one thing. To deny it happened or to argue it didn't, for shame.

-Mach
 

Jim

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
72
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What a silly poll.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Hatuey said:
I would think a man sending 140,000 soldiers to war because of his religious beliefs would be the equivalent of one man strapping c4 to his chest because of his religious beliefs. Semantics if you will. Killing 5-6 kids with a bomb thrown from a plane because some guy's god told you it was the right thing to do is exactly the same as another guy strapping c4 to his chest and killing 5-6 other kids because his god told him to. If you dont understand the similiraties, I think it's you who has the intelligence defficit.


That would make you an idiot then. Please show me were he says that he is fighting this war for god, or in the name of christianity, or to further chritianity? I don't knowmaybe he did say this, and I missed it, If He did then I apologize. If he didn't then it isn't simantics, your just plain wrong. I'll wait for the inevitable quote
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Mach said:
Once again, read my quotes, they are logical extensions of what you wrote.
What you wite and quote are distortions, you should at least find a solid argument you can stand behind instead of trying to edit other peopl
es responses to fit yours

Mach said:
There is no need to introduce a strawman that I claim they are intentionally attacking civilians.
-Mach
LOL... You made this very aqusation

Ive opted not to respond to the lies and distortion you again wrote. You lied again, and I am not going waste time showing you everytime you contradict yourself, which seems to be over and over again. You don't seem actually capable of having your own thoughts. You make statements, then you take responses and twist them or edit them to make your argument.

Sorry ... You have nothing
 
Last edited:

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: more on america targeting civilians intentionally

Mach said:
Calm2Chaos.

Just reading about WWII today, wouldn't you know it:

WWII allied fire bombing directly targeting civilian population with incendiary and HE bombs. Some estimates show the firebombing of cities like Tokyo caused more deaths than the also intentional civilian targets of the atomic bombs. That's like half of LA or NY being obliterated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0310-01.htm

To debate why, was it justified, or was it a crime, is one thing. To deny it happened or to argue it didn't, for shame.

-Mach

Carpet bombing was standard practice in the day to destroy infrastructure. Destruction of infrastructure reduces your enemies ability to resuply, rearm and continue to mobilize a warring state. People died in these attacks, thats obvious, this does not however point to the premise you set forth of warring against the population of a country. It is somethign that today is not really accepted. Target selection and destruction is more selective, designed to minimize civilian casualties. The shame os your attempt and manipulationg yet again something I said.

Lets just say that we are defining things differently. I am seperating civilian deaths in a war unless targeted specifically as collateral damage. You seem to be of the mind that if a civilian is killed in wartime we are targeting them and we are at war with the civilian population. War is going to have civilian deaths, there is just no way of getting around it. I just see the difference between minimizing destruction with tactical stikes using smart munitions, and screaming genocide when a civilian is killed.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me ask you Gunny, maybe I am completely off base on this:

DO we fight wars against the entire population of a country or against the government , ideas and ideals of our enemy.

Do we now or did we target civilians when we bombed cities in WWII, or were we looking to destroy infrastructure to reduce our enemies effectiveness. Or would it be acceptable IYO that by doing this we were trying to wpe out as mush of the civilian population as possible?
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
16,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: more on america targeting civilians intentionally

Calm2Chaos said:
Carpet bombing was standard practice in the day to destroy infrastructure. Destruction of infrastructure reduces your enemies ability to resuply, rearm and continue to mobilize a warring state. People died in these attacks, thats obvious, this does not however point to the premise you set forth of warring against the population of a country
Lets just say that we are defining things differently. I am seperating civilian deaths in a war unless targeted specifically as collateral damage..

Please read up on the subject. Yes, the fire storms were specifically deisgned to take out as many civilians in large cities as possible to break the morale of the population. Terrorism, just with a heck of a lot more deaths.

America, and other countries (Britain, for example), learned from the experience that not only is it unethical, but has the reverse effect in most cases, the opposition is even more determined because of the horror inflicted on their population. In that respect, they are even more justified to resist.

There is no confusion on definitions. America, Britain, Germany, Russia, have all particpated in targeting civilian populations specifically for the horror it inflicts. I'm not even debating if it was justified, it's simply a FACT.

-Mach
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
16,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Calm2Chaos said:
Mach said:
What you wite and quote are distortions, you should at least find a solid argument you can stand behind instead of trying to edit other peopl
es responses to fit yours[/COLOR]
You make statements, then you take responses and twist them or edit them to make your argument.
Sorry ... You have nothing

I believe anyone can read the quotes and make a decision for themselves on why your argument is flawed. I realize you don't believe it is, I can't really do much more to change that.

-Mach
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,631
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Calm2Chaos said:
Let me ask you Gunny, maybe I am completely off base on this:

DO we fight wars against the entire population of a country or against the government , ideas and ideals of our enemy.

We fight other governments and militaries. Today, we fight those in uniform and those out of uniform that fight for terror or ideal. Our enemies may be an entire civilization (Radical element who cater to martyrs and raise terrorists), but we fight only those that pick up the gun.

Our moral fiber is what gives our current enemies their certain advantage. Our enemies only need to drop their weapons to become that helpless, defensless civilian the media parades around.

Calm2Chaos said:
Do we now or did we target civilians when we bombed cities in WWII, or were we looking to destroy infrastructure to reduce our enemies effectiveness. Or would it be acceptable IYO that by doing this we were trying to wpe out as mush of the civilian population as possible?

We do not target civillians. We target infrastructure and structures that our enemies use (and may use) to cause harm to us and we allow him no safe harbor or ambush sites. Civilians caught in the fray are unfortunate and impossible to miss, but they are not the target.

There are many despicable things in war that are very much "acceptable." Our enemies in Germany and in Japan surrendered, because they were convinced of their defeat. We didn't drop a few precise bombs and tell them they lost. We reduced them to total destruction and broke their will to fight. Today, we are to busy looking for the morality in war where it doesn't belong. In the long run, we will have killed more and sufferred more than we will have to, because we have simply forgotten how to fight wars and prolonged the inevitable. The nature of war hasn't changed since the begining of time. It is always the goal to kill the enemy. Today, we look for ways to defeat a determined enemy by not shedding his blood for the media cameras.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
We fight other governments and militaries. Today, we fight those in uniform and those out of uniform that fight for terror or ideal. Our enemies may be an entire civilization (Radical element who cater to martyrs and raise terrorists), but we fight only those that pick up the gun.

Our moral fiber is what gives our current enemies their certain advantage. Our enemies only need to drop their weapons to become that helpless, defensless civilian the media parades around.



We do not target civillians. We target infrastructure and structures that our enemies use (and may use) to cause harm to us and we allow him no safe harbor or ambush sites. Civilians caught in the fray are unfortunate and impossible to miss, but they are not the target.

There are many despicable things in war that are very much "acceptable." Our enemies in Germany and in Japan surrendered, because they were convinced of their defeat. We didn't drop a few precise bombs and tell them they lost. We reduced them to total destruction and broke their will to fight. Today, we are to busy looking for the morality in war where it doesn't belong. In the long run, we will have killed more and sufferred more than we will have to, because we have simply forgotten how to fight wars and prolonged the inevitable. The nature of war hasn't changed since the begining of time. It is always the goal to kill the enemy. Today, we look for ways to defeat a determined enemy by not shedding his blood for the media cameras.

Thats pretty much what I have been saying, just wanted to see if I was off base completely
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Mach said:
Calm2Chaos said:
I believe anyone can read the quotes and make a decision for themselves on why your argument is flawed. I realize you don't believe it is, I can't really do much more to change that.

-Mach

Please show me my flawed argument. I want to see any of my quotes, in there entirelty not edited like you like to do. Taken in context not out of context like you like to do. And show me were the flaws are, other then the ones you made up by twisting what I said.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: more on america targeting civilians intentionally

Mach said:
Please read up on the subject. Yes, the fire storms were specifically deisgned to take out as many civilians in large cities as possible to break the morale of the population. Terrorism, just with a heck of a lot more deaths.

America, and other countries (Britain, for example), learned from the experience that not only is it unethical, but has the reverse effect in most cases, the opposition is even more determined because of the horror inflicted on their population. In that respect, they are even more justified to resist.

There is no confusion on definitions. America, Britain, Germany, Russia, have all particpated in targeting civilian populations specifically for the horror it inflicts. I'm not even debating if it was justified, it's simply a FACT.

-Mach

I'll leave that to you. The article you posted did not say anything of the sort. So until you have something official stating we were trying to wipe out as many civilians as possible I can't reconsider my position.
 

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,792
Reaction score
1,475
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I suppose the answer really comes down to how broadly or narrowly you define each catagory. Yes, there are some nut job Christians that bomb abortion clinics and such. Yes there are some fundementalist Muslims that don't engage in or support terrorist tactics, but both are in the minority. Broadly speaking, both want to enforce certain values on their respective populations, but their methods and scope are vastly different.

Most Christian conservatives oppose abortion, gay marriage, and obscenity. They may favor censorship and breaking down some of the barriers between church and state. They do not attempt to impose a strict following of Judeao-Christian values on the general population. They do not wish to establis a national religion or create a theocracy. Fundementalist Muslim nations have based their entire legal code around the Koran. In Iran, the Muslim clerics rule the nation. They desire to make society completely obediant to the teachings of Muhammad - or at least their interpretation of his teachings.

Methods are different too. Most Christian conservatives use legal methods to bring about their desired changes. They moblize around candidates that support their views (and are often one of them). They utilize the court system to address or defend their views. They may not practice politics of inclusion or compromise, but they recognize they need to win a majority of the voting public to enact their desired changes. They do not resort to force or violence to further their cause. Many conservative Christians would say such actions violate their beliefs. Fundementalist Muslims on the other hand, often have no qualms about using violence and war to spread or enforce their beliefs and agenda.

Any reasonable person can see these critical differences and recognizes that any attempt to link the two as they exist today is a disengenious smear attack on conservative Christians. If you oppose some or all of the Religious Right's agenda, do so with logical argument. Don't engage is silly name calling.
 

FreeThinker

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

First, you screwed up the title of the thread by asking if a group of people were an ideology. If you want people to take what you say seriously you should probably take 5 seconds to word your title correctly.

Second:

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn'də-mĕn'tl-ĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.


Not all Christian conservatives are fundamentalists, just like not all Islamic conservatives are fundamentalists.

You tried to make a generalizing statement in the question posed by the topic. Luckily I am here, and such lies can be laid bare to the blinding holy light of truthyness. What the hell am I talking about. Help. I can't stop being a selfricheous prick. edit edit eidt eladsflaskj
 

Vincent

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
140
Reaction score
27
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The main difference between Chrisitians and Muslims is that the Bible does not command you to go conquer the world and kill the infidels.
Now, I do admit, most Muslims are peaceful, good citizens. Nearly 80 percent are nice people. But that means you have roughly 79 million Muslims who are mean and see you and me as infidels.
This is an interesting page on Islam.
www.masada2000.org/islam.html
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
58,536
Reaction score
25,857
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

That would make you an idiot then. Please show me were he says that he is fighting this war for god, or in the name of christianity, or to further chritianity? I don't knowmaybe he did say this, and I missed it, If He did then I apologize. If he didn't then it isn't simantics, your just plain wrong. I'll wait for the inevitable quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, Arab leaders say / Palestinian officials confirm comments from documentary

Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq

God told him to do it.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

As the Face of the United States, Bush has placed us into the realms of Fanaticism by pretty much proclaiming his own Jihad. We can use whatever words we want to explain what this "War on Terror" is, but pretending its not a War on Islamic Fundamentalism will not change the reality of it. Many here complain that Those Guys want us all dead, and hope to take over the world (yes this is an exageration to an extent), but if you are a muslim in say...Iran, what perception will you have of America in the light of President Bushs' statements, and actions.

To the average Muslim.....we are no better than what we fight.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,231
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

As the Face of the United States, Bush has placed us into the realms of Fanaticism by pretty much proclaiming his own Jihad. We can use whatever words we want to explain what this "War on Terror" is, but pretending its not a War on Islamic Fundamentalism will not change the reality of it. Many here complain that Those Guys want us all dead, and hope to take over the world (yes this is an exageration to an extent), but if you are a muslim in say...Iran, what perception will you have of America in the light of President Bushs' statements, and actions.

To the average Muslim.....we are no better than what we fight.
The WoT is without doubt a battle against radical Islam. I don't judge all Iranians on the statements and actions of Ahmadinejad. Are ordinary Iranians less sensible than I?
 
Top Bottom