US back fighting in Iraq

August 9th, 2014 at 10:05 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

US warplanes have bombed Islamist fighters marching on ’s Kurdish capital after President Barack Obama said Washington must act to prevent ”genocide”.

Islamic State fighters, who have beheaded and crucified captives in their drive to eradicate unbelievers, have advanced to within a half hour’s drive of Arbil, capital of Iraq’s Kurdish region and a hub for US oil companies.

They have also seized control of Iraq’s biggest dam, Kurdish authorities confirmed on Friday, which could allow them to flood cities and cut off vital water and electricity supplies.

A Pentagon spokesman said two F/A-18 aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf had dropped laser-guided 500-pound bombs on a mobile artillery piece used by the fighters to shell Kurdish forces defending Arbil.

Obama authorised the first US air strikes on Iraq since he pulled all troops out in 2011, arguing action was needed to halt the Islamist advance, protect Americans and safeguard hundreds of thousands of Christians and members of other religious minorities who have fled for their lives.

The lesson here is that it is easier to invade a country, than leave it. The US action in this regard is necessary to stop the slaughter.

In Baghdad, where politicians have been paralysed by infighting while the state falls apart, the top Shi’ite cleric all but demanded Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki quit, a bold intervention that could bring the veteran ruler down.

Which is necessary. Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.

 

Tags:

147 Responses to “US back fighting in Iraq”

  1. metcalph (1,419 comments) says:

    Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.

    He is responsible for its rise in Iraq. For the rise of the ISIS, one really has to point the finger at Assad.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,207 comments) says:

    This is the outcome of weakness.

    The west is weak as piss because it is dominated by Progressives.

    You don’t win hearts, you kill the enemy. As many of them as you can with as little loss to your own forces as possible.

    Making US soldiers fight on the ground in Iraq with restrictive rules of engagement dreamed up by pathetic liberals in the armed forces and the Bush and Obama administration is why we have the situation we have today.

    You see these savages killing, raping, beheading? You’re going to “win their hearts”?

    FFS, they’re barbarians who will only be controlled by fear, and when they fear the West, then we will have peace in Iraq.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    Obummer,too little too late.

    He’s only doing this to prevent the fall of the Kurds. There is a masquarade of protecting the other minorities,the Christians and the Yazedis. Irbil has US personnel there that’s another reason why Obummers doing this.

    This useless President must be in a real dilemma. On the hand he and the west have armed (indirectly) but funded the spawning of ISIS to overthrow Assad but on the other hand ISIS have moved fronts and attacked Iraq.

    So Obummer won’t wipe them out in Iraq ,even though he can and should ,as that would strengthen Assad at home.

    It would have been very easy for the US and British airforces to take out the ISIS vehcle columns months ago.En masse.Why didn’t they.

    Useless.They have assited a modern genocide by their early failure to act.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    According to Reddy it seems the main failure of the US in Iraq was that not enough Iraqis were killed.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Yoza (1,745 comments) says:

    Which is necessary. Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.

    The rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq is the direct consequence of the US invasion of Iraq, the US were backing ISIS in Syria when it was fighting Assad.
    This is the fruits of the US’s glorious victory turning to ashes in their mouth. I know people are going to come out spinning like tops, but there is no getting away from the reality that the disaster that is Iraq is a disaster of the US’s making.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tom hunter (4,639 comments) says:

    Muhahahahahhahahah.

    I’m looking forward to completing your training.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. berend (1,690 comments) says:

    Yoza: he rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq is the direct consequence of the US invasion of Iraq

    It’s not. Here’s Joe Biden in 2010, bragging about their achievements in Iraq: “One Of The Great Achievements Of This Administration”. So what did change? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc

    What I suggest changed is that Maliki was propped up, despite clearly turning into a tyrant. And Obama leaving Iraq.

    In perhaps a deeper sense I may agree with you. George W. Bush clearly believed that only if the tyrants/dictators were removed, the Muslims would make democracy and peace loving neighbours. On the other hand, it seems the muslims are a bit busy right now killing each other, so the “fight ‘m there so we don’t have to fight them at home” as worked so far.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (8,207 comments) says:

    “According to Reddy it seems the main failure of the US in Iraq was that not enough Iraqis were killed.”

    The main reason barbarianism is in ascendancy all over the globe is because progs like you Milky have so white anted the West the barbarians know they won’t be stopped.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. edward_l (13 comments) says:

    Not to mention the $2 billion in cash ISIS ran off with when they raided Mosul.
    ISIS really can buy serious hardware.

    As an aside look up Archibald Hamilton, a kiwi engineer who built a strategic road from Arbil in northern Iraq to Iran.
    His book describes the constant war between factions. He hoped the road would unite the region.
    It is still called the Hamilton Road, today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tom hunter (4,639 comments) says:

    Actually what I’m really, really looking forward to is the appearance of Stephieboy on this thread as he spins like a top into an even tighter fetal position that enables him to crawl even further up Obama’s rectum, and explains how this all just completely different to Syria and what President Palin and the Teabaggers and FoxNews 8O would be doing – and other deep thoughts lifted directly fromMediamatters.

    I’m also hoping Yoza sticks around to explain things to Stephieboy. I’ve got the popcorn ready.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SGA (978 comments) says:

    Redbaiter at 10:14 am

    Making US soldiers fight on the ground in Iraq with restrictive rules of engagement dreamed up by pathetic liberals in the armed forces and the Bush and Obama administration is why we have the situation we have today.

    That’s a little unfair. The main objective was to neutralise Iraq’s arsenal of WMDs, and in that regard the mission was a qualified success.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (8,207 comments) says:

    “The main objective was to neutralise Iraq’s arsenal of WMDs,”

    Ah, a victim of the liberal MSM speaks out.

    Actually there were many justifications for the Iraqi war but being a liberal media suckhole you probably think that was the only one.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dime (9,774 comments) says:

    So, the great warlord Obama is bombing brown people again! Lol

    I agree with red. The fuckers respond to fear and nothing else.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Which is necessary. Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.

    Indeed, Maliki is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last, leader propped up, armed, and supported politically and militarily by the US, only to then become the proverbial “greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.” Such was Saddam’s fate. So too was it the fate of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. And it seems now that Maliki, like countless other would-be US puppets who suddenly discovered their own national interests, has magically become the center of evil in Iraq and the region.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-strange-case-of-iraqs-prime-minister-nouri-al-maliki-against-the-backdrop-of-the-war-against-the-islamic-state-is

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. SGA (978 comments) says:

    Redbaiter at 10:41 am

    Actually there were many justifications for the Iraqi war but being a liberal media suckhole you probably think that was the only one.

    Never said it was the only one – just that that was the main one – but perhaps I’m misremembering. What was the main one?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Other_Andy (2,548 comments) says:

    Too little, too late.

    Now don’t bother the ‘best president evah’ anymore.
    Obama is going on holiday this weekend for two weeks to Martha’s Vineyard.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I’m fascinated by Reddy’s statements. What should a red-blooded, non-progressive US have done differently in Iraq since 2003?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. All_on_Red (1,527 comments) says:

    Obama shouldn’t have messed with the “Status of Forces” agreement and pulled the US out to early. Romney was right.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (8,207 comments) says:

    “What was the main one?”

    The main objective was to establish a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East with the additional outlook that such an event would lead to more peace and stability within the region and therefore globally.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Gulag1917 (848 comments) says:

    Iraq was reasonably stable until the 19th of March 2003. The American leadership lied to their own troops about how easy the invasion would be and lied about WMD. Since then a it has been a complete mess. Troops I have spoken who fought alongside the Americans would not want a repeat of the experience because of the US attitudes. Spreading democracy in the Middle East what a failed cause and deluded idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Andrei (2,533 comments) says:

    The most scary thing you can hear – The USA is going to bring “democracy” to your nation – this inevitably means years of bloodshed ending in anarchy and the strategic resources of your nation firmly in the control of American Oligarchs

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SGA (978 comments) says:

    Redbaiter at 10:57 am

    The main objective was to establish a beach head for democracy in the Middle East with the additional outcome that such an event would lead to more peace and stability within the region.

    See my memory is playing tricks – I’ve little recollection of that being the main justification/objective at the time. Getting older, I suppose. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You don’t introduce democracy by invading a country and killing its people in large numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Scott1 (495 comments) says:

    The mistake the US made is that not every enemy of your enemy is your friend. And sometimes the big guy who may be using chemical weapons on his own people is actually not the most evil guy in the room.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. All_on_Red (1,527 comments) says:

    No Mikey, that’s how you introduce a Theocracy

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Gulag1917 (848 comments) says:

    The US compulsive obsessive war machine; Ukraine next?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Huevon (212 comments) says:

    The primary responsibility for the rise of ISIS is the religion of Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. big bruv (13,647 comments) says:

    “Islamic State fighters, who have beheaded and crucified captives in their drive to eradicate unbelievers”

    Once again the real problem here is religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Andrei (2,533 comments) says:

    Samantha Power has said in the UN that if Russia supplies humanitarian aid to the cities of Lugansk and Donetsk, cities that have been under aerial and artillery bombardment for months and that have had their essential infrastructure destroyed, that this will be an act of war.

    And yet her own country is performing a “humanitarian mission in Iraq by bombing the crap out of people.

    Says it all

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I think you need to dig a little deeper Huevon and look for the root causes for the rise of Islamic militant fundamentalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rufus (648 comments) says:

    DPF: “Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.”

    1. Who is responsible for Maliki? The US of A
    2. Who has been supporting ISIS? The US of A
    3. Ever wonder how and where ISIS got their weapons, their expertise (they have engineers and other specialists FFS), and how they feed themselves? It takes considerable resource and organisation to organize and support an army.

    To think that ISIS somehow came into being spontaneously, abiogenesis-like, without some serious backing stretches the bounds of credulity.

    To think that ISIS somehow trained, armed and organized themselves covertly, without any of the world’s intelligence services being aware of them during this early phase, is also beyond belief.

    Metcalph “He is responsible for its rise in Iraq. For the rise of the ISIS, one really has to point the finger at Assad.”

    What the hell did Assad do? Who’s been arming ISIS in Syria? (Fill in the blanks – the US of ___?)

    If ISIS at any time feel a bit threatened by the US bombing them, they could up and move sticks across the Syrian borders and they’ll be celebrated by the same US of A as “freedom fighters”.

    Team America (World Police) – F*ck Yeah!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. All_on_Red (1,527 comments) says:

    What do you think they would be Mikey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. stephieboy (2,611 comments) says:

    Andrei, like in Chechnya .?

    America in control by Oligarchs.?

    Russia too.? LOL

    Yoza out there .? There is absolutely no evidence that the US provided arms to the Al Qaeda /ISIS rebel factions in Syria unless you choose to believe R T, Global Research ,Infowars etc.They for example refused to supply Stingers and other anti aircraft weaponry least the fall into their hands and helps to explain why Assad has militarily the upper hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rufus (648 comments) says:

    DPF: “Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.”

    Metcalph “He is responsible for its rise in Iraq. For the rise of the ISIS, one really has to point the finger at Assad.”

    By that logic, it is the government of Kiev that is responsible for the rebels in East Ukraine – right?

    Why then do you blame Putin?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    This is an almost direct repeating of history that mirrors the U.S win in Vietnam (yes, they did actually win), the withdrawal of U.S troops (because of leftie liberal protests) and the creation of the Khmer Rouge/boat people tragedy. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The U.S effectively won, but troops were withdrawn by Obama so he could keep a political promise and without thought for the consequences. Now we have the same thing: a terror group on the rise and people being slaughtered en mass. ISIS is even taking pictures and posting them online of the slaughter, beheading, and crucifixion of Iraqis.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719991/Horrific-new-photographs-ISIS-atrocities-prompted-Obama-act.html?%3Fito%3Dsocial-twitter=_mailonline

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    AoR
    I’m just saying that it’s likely to be a bit more complicated than saying “that’s Islam for you”. You might instead want to look at the circumstances that have arisen in the various regions where militant Islamist groups have been fighting or have come to power. There is no single unifying factor.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Fletch
    That’s quite a grab-bag of fantastical assertions, even by your standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    The entire map of the Middle East has been transformed into a 21st century version of the European Bloodlands. But the most remarkable thing is this catastrophe was enabled in a fit of moral superiority. Roger Kimball, speaking to an audience in Sydney observed that most striking property of modern political correctness was narcissism. For the ultimate source of leftist legitimacy is the view that they are better simply persons than the rest; able to make moral judgments no one else can. Their self-regard is almost erotic. They’re in love with themselves. Or to paraphrase one the president’s campaign lines: ‘we are the people the world has been waiting for.’

    We’re ready for our moral close-ups.

    Something of this present tragedy was foreshadowed in the casual way with which the Left regarded the exodus of the boat people from Vietnam and the Cambodian Killing Fields as collateral damage; something ironic in an anti-war movement that finishes up empowering the greatest seaborne exodus in the history of the world and the massacre of millions.

    But if there’s irony it escapes them. After all, ‘how could we have known,’ they ask, ‘that the people we supported were murderers? We meant well.’

    We meant well. And to make up for the sins of the past, the world is sentencing two two doddering officials of the Khmer Rouge regime (that’s ‘Red Khmer’ to those of us who can’t read French) convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’ to life. And maybe 50 years from now they’ll round up some former ISIS fighters in wheelchairs and walkers and sentence them to life as well. As for the Yahzidis, they’ve been sentenced to death.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/08/07/the-last-of-the-yezhidis/

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Gulag1917 (848 comments) says:

    ISIS have been in the ascendancy for some time now, why has Obama left it for so long to do something to stop the massacres?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. stephieboy (2,611 comments) says:

    Tom hunter, yet another who believes in Global Research, Paul Craig Roberts ,RT and Infowars etc.?
    Unbelievable you now tow their line which is not dissimilar to Queen Palin and Foxie News etc.Weren’t you more recently bagging Obama for leaving Iraq to early even though it was in accordance with the GWB and the Malik’s government timeline and support ?
    I repeat there is no evidence that the Obama administration
    sent military aid to the Al Qaeda / ISSIS faction in Syria.
    That is a lie like Benghazi lie peddled by you and elements of the Republican right,

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. All_on_Red (1,527 comments) says:

    Mikey
    Sure, I know that. I’d like to think I’m reasonably well read on Iraq et al. Just wanting you to put a little effort in instead of your usual 2 sentences. You know, maybe share with the “group” instead of coming across like a troll. Just sayin

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Reid (16,169 comments) says:

    there is no getting away from the reality that the disaster that is Iraq is a disaster of the US’s making.

    As I’ve been saying for several years, the strategic objective in Iraq by the US/Israel coalition of evil has always been since 2003 to split the country into 3: Sunni, Shite and Kurd. ISIS is simply the vehicle to achieve that.

    Of course this has to be carried out in a way to further the wider objective of sparking a war between the Christian world and the Muslim world. Which means the tame Western MSM pumps out its propaganda to the useful idiots along the lines of ISIS is a grassroots spontaneous group which springs up out of nowhere and simply does what Muslims always do if they’re allowed to.

    What never occurs of course to said useful idiots is to ask themselves how this happens. Spontaneous grassroots uprisings never ever happen, they are always organised and funded and trained and equipped by someone and ISIS is no different at all from any other like group be they from SE Asia or Central America or anywhere.

    And to get a clue as to whom is really behind them all you need to do if you’re not a useful idiot is to ask yourself cui bono: who benefits?

    Well, let’s see.

    The Kurds sit on most of the Iraqi oil fields. Ahhhhhhhhhhh.

    Well then, which state has been chumming up to the Kurds since 2003?

    Israel.

    OK. What prompted this latest US intervention?

    Why it is because ISIS were approaching Kurdish territory. Where the US have diplomatic missions in place.

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    But to the useful idiot, 1+1 does not equal 2, because to them, the US would never do anything like that.

    Notwithstanding that ISIS has Brzezhinsky’s architectural paw prints all over it, the neocons have been directing US foreign policy all through Obama’s term, Brez was Obama’s senior FP advisor in the last election, the Ukraine issue sprang up from the neocons, all of this makes no difference to the useful idiot.

    Because they don’t understand how the world works.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    AoR
    Sorry for trying to be succinct. What is it that you would like explained in more detail?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,855 comments) says:

    SGA

    The destruction of WMDs was the justification.

    The main mission was to suck Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq from all over the world and kill them. The mission was an unqualified success in that regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    ISIS have been in the ascendancy for some time now, why has Obama left it for so long to do something to stop the massacres?

    Because he didn’t see them as a threat.

    Here he is talking about them to the New Yorker magazine in January this year:

    “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama told The New Yorker, speaking of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

    By The way, “jayvee” means Junior Varsity; in other words, he thought ISIS were the equivalent of a high school team compared to the ‘All Blacks’ of Al Qaeda. Another bad judgment in a history of bad judgments.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tom hunter (4,639 comments) says:

    @Stephieboy

    Dear god, you’re so dumb you don’t even read what other posters say and like D4J simply conflate one poster with another! There’s no point in even satirising your response as I did because you just go right ahead and mindless blurt exactly what I thought you would.

    Never mind. You’ll be glad to know that this “Bush Warmonger” is completely leading from behind your hero on this – just not as intimately as you.

    Idiot :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rufus (648 comments) says:

    RE: Iraq and who’s responsible…

    You break it, you own it.

    Team America. F*ck yeah?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Rufus (648 comments) says:

    Wonder if this latest round of bombing another country will affect Obama’s chances of another Nobel Peace Prize? The first was so well-earned…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tom hunter (4,639 comments) says:

    BTW Stephieboy, I was about to say that I also fully supported you’re 11:12 comment – even gave you an uptick – before you beat me to it with contrasting idiocy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    Gulag1917
    August 9th, 2014 at 11:06 am
    The US compulsive obsessive war machine; Ukraine next?

    Gulag1917
    August 9th, 2014 at 11:22 am
    ISIS have been in the ascendancy for some time now, why has Obama left it for so long to do something to stop the massacres?

    Er…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Southern Raider (1,773 comments) says:

    Reality is apart from Israel all of the middle eastern countries and North Africa can only ever be safe and stable under some form of military rule. Even Turkey has become a basket case since the military was sidelined

    The left may not like it but what has been achieved by spreading democracy?

    Let’s round it up
    – Hamas in Gaza
    – ISIS in Syria
    – ISIS and every other faction in Iraq
    – Libya about to blow up

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    Once again the real problem here is not religion ,but Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SGA (978 comments) says:

    Adolf Fiinkensein at 11:30 am

    The main mission was to suck Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq from all over the world and kill them. The mission was an unqualified success in that regard.

    Really? The US delibrately attacked the people of Iraq, who to best of my knowledge had no involvement in 9/11, in order to attract and kill people who might be associated with those responsible for 9/11?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Why is not every Islamic country consumed by violence then kowtow?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. iMP (2,347 comments) says:

    I support America’s action, this is Rwanda waiting to happen, and without this airborne ‘check’ then thousands will be dead and the Leftist PC hand-wringers would be crying blue murder (too late).

    But of course, where are the other countries? Where are the wealthy Arab States? Why just the United States?

    And of course, when Barack Obama does it, it’s “peace-making” and “humanitarian.”

    When George Bush does it, it’s “war mongering” and “war crimes.” That is how the Left talks – with factional semantic propaganda,.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    “Once again the real problem here is not religion ,but Islam

    History shows us otherwise. History shows us hundreds of years of persecution, massacres and torture committed by Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    “Jayvee” hahaha

    I was at a lecture given by an British visiting Anglican on the disappearance of Christians in the Holy Land.

    In answer to a question about Hamas or Hezbollah (I forget which),he likened them to an “organisation such as Young Labour.”

    Deluded progs!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. iMP (2,347 comments) says:

    Meanwhile in the empty White House…

    “We have won the war in Iraq. The war is over. The Taleban is on the run.” Yeah right. Go on a Talk Show Obama.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    History shows us hundreds of years of persecution, massacres and torture committed by……. just about everyone,at one stage or another.

    It just suits you anti Christian bigots to highlight it when westerners/Christians do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    OK ,which Muslim countries are not consumed by violence?

    Any genuine democracies?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    It just suits you anti Christian bigots to highlight it when westerners/Christians do it.

    This is just an ungracious way of conceding my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. tom hunter (4,639 comments) says:

    You don’t introduce democracy by invading a country and killing its people in large numbers.

    Except for Germany and Japan. Strictly speaking of course, the US did not invade the latter, though it surely killed people in large numbers.

    One of the claims made by people who criticised the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that broad-brush historic comparisons don’t work well as a rule. I assume that was one of your beliefs as well?

    I think you need to dig a little deeper Huevon and look for the root causes for the rise of Islamic militant fundamentalism.

    After scratching off the top two inches of soil mikenmild has glimpsed a flash of red, white and blue below and is mildly excited.

    Yoza is overjoyed!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Redbaiter (8,207 comments) says:

    “History shows us otherwise. History shows us hundreds of years of persecution, massacres and torture committed by Christians.”

    And by atheists like you.

    What’s your point you obsessive little pointy headed clown?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    OK ,which Muslim countries are not consumed by violence?

    Most of them, actually.

    Any genuine democracies?

    Again, you make an entirely invalid comparison. You are comparing secular Western countries with theocratic Muslim ones. The correct comparison, for your purpose, is to compare Christian and Muslim theocracies.

    And, as we agreed, the history of Christian theocracies is no better than today’s Muslim theocracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dad4justice (8,013 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter – intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.

    I am happy that New Zealand was founded on Christian values wat dabney are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Reid (16,169 comments) says:

    Let’s round it up
    – Hamas in Gaza
    – ISIS in Syria
    – ISIS and every other faction in Iraq
    – Libya about to blow up

    Libya and Syria were and are both merely pieces in the wider puzzle I described above. Gaza was just a distraction to let ISIS gain some ground while the useful idiots were occupied for a few critical days. But on Libya and Syria, once again the useful idiots are sucked in to the fantasy that both those conflicts are spontaneous grassroots uprisings when in reality both of them have been directed to give birth to ISIS.

    They’ve been re-drawing the geostrategic boundaries of the ME for over a decade now and they’re only halfway through. Their main objective has always been to take down Iran but they know that that is the final action because that is the spark to the Muslim-Christian conflict because as soon as they attack Iran they know the entire ME is going to erupt and turn its attention to Israel.

    Given that Israel with the US are the architects and the primary executors of this plan along with their tame ME satraps like Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, the interesting question is: is this, as I’ve always said, the planned take-down of Israel with all that ensues thereafter? And are the Israeli leaders on board with that, or are they simply wanting to re-draw the ME, establish greater Israel and rule over it like feudal land owners? And if that is their intention, is this part of satan’s deception? Is satan just playing them like a violin the same way he plays everyone else? What is Israel going to do with its nukes as this rolls out? That’s the joker in the pack. Because there’s no point in ruling over an irradiated land. I think actually with the technology they have now, they’ll just use neutron bombs and mini-nukes.

    But all that of course doesn’t bring Ukraine into play. And there, my view is that is just typical neocon insanity at work. As per usual the fools miscalculate because at the end of the day they’re arrogant fanatics who get carried away with their plans because they think just because they have billions of useful idiots in the bag that everyone is a useful idiot and they forget there are people in high places who know exactly what they’re doing and who can play chess just as well as they can. We’ll see.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Scott (1,759 comments) says:

    I agree kowtow, the problem is Islam.
    I agreed with the war in Iraq, America had to fight Al Qaeda and Bush made the decision to fight them over there (Baghdad) as opposed to over here (Boston).

    The mistake was when Obama pulled all forces out of Iraq rather than leading a residual force to support the local government and army. Normally America would leave a residual force,some examples being Germany after World War 2 and South Korea following the Korean war.
    The power vacuum has led to the collapse of Iraqi forces in the face of ISIS which I understand to be well funded by Iran.

    The air strikes are a welcome move as Christians and other minorities are being slaughtered by the Muslims in huge numbers.

    But I lay the blame at Obama for the US foreign policy failure. When he came into office Iraq was stable.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    Let’s round it up
    – Hamas in Gaza
    – ISIS in Syria
    – ISIS and every other faction in Iraq
    – Libya about to blow up

    And while this is all going on, Obama is about to vacation again in Martha’s Vineyard.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719697/Obama-interrupting-summer-vacation-trip-DC.html

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Because he didn’t see them as a threat.

    Just like the Zionists didn’t see tunnels as being a threat when they’ve got about 20 ground penetrating radar companies there are were warned about active tunnels in the Lebanon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    wat

    I’m not making jack shit ,I’m asking mildmuslimike to give examples.

    History is history,lots of shit happens .

    Western democracies ,founded on Christian principles are the wealthiest, most stable and desireable countries in the world.Why does the world’s poor and unwashed want to live in them?

    Britain,the US, canada,Aus,NZ and a few others.

    The fundamental principle of Christianity is “love your neighbour”, what is the fundamental principle of Islam (rhetorical).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    The history of Christian theocracies, which ones?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    That’s the joker in the pack. Because there’s no point in ruling over an irradiated land. I think actually with the technology they have now, they’ll just use neutron bombs and mini-nukes.

    Remember how the embassies were all closed when the question of what happened to flight MH370 was news? Possibly the closure was in order to get staff out of the way when they shipped the nukes in, since it would give theme more leverage internationally.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    Here’s a shining example of a succesful “secular” Muslim country……………not.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/11022632/Turkish-PM-tells-female-reporter-to-know-your-place.html

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    WTF? A Muslim ordering the bombing of fellow Muslims? Outrageous!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The fundamental principle of Christianity is “love your neighbour”, what is the fundamental principle of Islam (rhetorical).

    That’s Pauline Christianity for you.

    Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    This is the first and great commandment.
    And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
    Matthew 22:36-40

    The fundamental principle of Islam is peace, or the perfection of the contract.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ronnie (2 comments) says:

    Such spin from Obama on this one. To convince the American public, he is pretending that the airstrikes are to protect the Yazidi people in the Sinjar Mountains. This is not true. There have been airdrops to the Yazidi, but all airstrikes have been to protect Erbil, which is 250km away. There are significant US interests in Erbil, mainly related to the oil industry.

    Sure, you should protect Erbil, but don’t lie about protecting the Yazidi. Help them with airstrikes too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Help them with airstrikes too.

    Because US interventionism has worked so well in the past. /sarc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The fundamental principle of Islam is peace, or the perfection of the contract.

    The joke of the year century.

    Islam is the most barbaric and backward-looking of all religions. It is a violent cult that teach its gullible followers to treat women as chattels and to hate infidels. Made of savages unable to think for themselves, people who never left the 7th century.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The joke of the year century.

    No really. That’s what the word means.

    Islam is the most barbaric and backward-looking of all religions.

    Like I’ve said before, liars and airheads. The most backward-looking of all religions is atheism. Are far as barbarity goes, the atheism of communist Russia takes a lot to match.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    While he may in my opinion be too fond of overstatement I don’t think Redbaiter is wrong. The decision to draw back from Iraq, combined with Obama’s dithering on supporting the original rebels in Syria is the primary problem. Obama is weak. He second guesses everything on the international front.

    The original Syrian rebels, who were not extremists, cried out for help from the US and the West, and were ignored, primarily by Obama. So naturally they wen’t looking elsewhere, and far less savory elements were glad to step in. That combined with an overly hasty reduction in US troops in Iraq, and ISIS is the result.

    Obama has been a disaster for the US, both domestically and on foreign policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “And, as we agreed, the history of Christian theocracies is no better than today’s Muslim theocracies.”

    As far as I am aware, the only Christian theocracy was Geneva under Calvin.

    But then facts and historical accuracy have never been Wat’s strong points.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Viking2 (11,331 comments) says:

    It is true – and terrible – that Israel has killed many Palestinian civilians. But why has this happened? Israeli carelessness – or callousness – might not be the only factor. You might think that if a militarily inferior force (Hamas) fires rockets at its powerful neighbour (Israel), and digs tunnels so that its fighters can pop out and murder or kidnap that neighbour’s citizens, it is asking for trouble. Being a democracy, Israel won’t stand idly by when its demos – its people – are attacked.

    You might also think that if that militarily inferior force attacks from densely populated areas – occupying hospitals, schools and mosques, sheltering beside hotels and hiding in people’s flats, it must actually want civilian martyrs. Certainly, if you watch Hamas propagandists on Al Jazeera, they praise women and children for sacrificing their homes, their blood and their body parts, as if this were all an intended part of the struggle.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/11021663/The-West-is-ignoring-the-practitioners-of-disproportionate-violence.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    max Hastings’ take on it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2720403/MAX-HASTINGS-Barbarians-genocide-terrifying-lack-Western-leadership.html

    shawn

    Scotland under Knox.They even used to nail people’s tongues down!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Kowtow,

    ah yes, Knox was one of Calvin’s disciples.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. stephieboy (2,611 comments) says:

    Ronnie , The U S does not have significant oil interests in Iraq. That privilege belongs to China who reaped the benefists of an Iraqi oil boom post invasion and withdrawal winning all the major oils concessions and contracts from the Malik gkverment.The US only imports about 15 % of it’s oil requirements from the Middke East.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    Western democracies, founded on Christian principles are the wealthiest, most stable and desireable countries in the world.

    Of course your term ‘founded on Christian principles’ is a complete canard.

    Western societies were truly ‘founded on Christian principles’ back in the theocratic days, when they behaved every bit as brutally and cruelly as any Muslim theocracy.

    Here, for example, is a picture of one Christian being burned alive by some other Christians for being the wrong sort of Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists#mediaviewer/File:Witch-scene4.JPG

    The essential point about the West today – and what makes it as attractive as you say – is that it is secular: Christians no longer have the power to burn alive other Christians, or anyone else.

    “The fundamental principle of Christianity is “love your neighbour”

    No it isn’t. The fundamental principle of Christianity is that if you don’t worship this particular deity he will consign you to an eternity of suffering. Everything else is just window-dressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Of course your term ‘founded on Christian principles’ is a complete canard.”

    Nope. It’s historically accurate.

    “Western societies were truly ‘founded on Christian principles’ back in the theocratic days, ”

    There were no “theocratic days.” Beyond two or three brief examples, such as Geneva under Calvin, there were no Christian theocracies.

    “No it isn’t. The fundamental principle of Christianity is that if you don’t worship this particular deity he will consign you to an eternity of suffering. Everything else is just window-dressing.”

    Wrong again. Your good at being wrong wat. :)

    The fundamental principle of Christianity IS love God and love your neighbor. Salvation does not arise from whether or not people worship God, as Jesus makes very clear (“Not all who call me Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven”). Worshiping God arises from ALREADY being saved, and as Jesus makes clear, in the same passage about those who call Him Lord (those who worship with their lips bit not their hearts) that is deeply tied up with whether or not people love their neighbor.

    “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    Matthew 25:31-46

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    IT should be noted as well that the “secular” West includes the Soviet Union, the most militant tip of the secular spear, and the Soviet Union makes even militant Islam look like armatures when it comes to mass murder.

    Militant, anti-religious secularism is not the answer. If it was, the Soviet Union would have been a paradise of peace and justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Reid (16,169 comments) says:

    Remember how the embassies were all closed when the question of what happened to flight MH370 was news? Possibly the closure was in order to get staff out of the way when they shipped the nukes in, since it would give theme more leverage internationally.

    I’m not sure it’s that imminent UT. I was talking about them in the context of Israel being besieged by the entire ME and that’s not close, yet. But they’ve been using them for awhile now in various operations as you’ve for ages been attempting to explain to the useful idiots, so who knows, they could have been putting something in place. Certainly the MH370 incident didn’t justify that action, did it. So why did they do that…

    The fundamental principle of Christianity is that if you don’t worship this particular deity he will consign you to an eternity of suffering.

    The love part kowtow comes in by the fact that Christianity forbids the use of force or coercion in spreading the word. The mere fact you have that choice put before you is not Christianity’s fault, God is the one who has designed it like that, and so why do you hallucinate that merely explaining the fact that that choice is the existent reality, that one is at one and the same time being in any way coercive? I recognise you and many others do believe that that is what we do, but you are wrong and you always have been.

    The reason BTW God designed it like that is another question entirely and similarly foolish and illogical thinkers hallucinate that this makes God evil, but that conclusion is yet another mistake on their part, for the answer is really quite simple. The presence of evil on this Earth is not God’s design, it’s through mankind’s choice. We’re the ones who enabled evil to exist through the original sin. It’s our fault it’s here at all and it’s everyone’s job to rectify the situation by turning to God and away from sin.

    Of course foolish and illogical people don’t like being told they’re responsible for that either, so they continue to bray their hallucination that the great I AM is in fact an evil and not a good God to all the other childish and immature thinkers in the world who are so foolish they don’t even want to take responsibility for their own actions.

    So when they’re held to account like that they act like you. Note kowtow that just because I’ve explained the choice you have does not make me responsible for it, I’m simply explaining the reality of the situation, I know you don’t like it but there we are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Salvation does not arise from whether or not people worship God

    It is one of the factors.

    But YHWH, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.
    2 Kings 17:36

    as Jesus makes very clear (“Not all who call me Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven”).

    This is taken out of context. The actual context is about doing the will of the Father, for example 2 Kings 17:36

    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Matthew 7:21

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Remember how the embassies were all closed when the question of what happened to flight MH370 was news? Possibly the closure was in order to get staff out of the way when they shipped the nukes in, since it would give theme more leverage internationally.”

    I’m not sure it’s that imminent UT. I was talking about them in the context of Israel being besieged by the entire ME and that’s not close, yet.

    Call it being prepared, then. Unusual activity at the embassies in the context of Zionist aggression would be more likely to ring alarm bells than in the relative calm that existed before ISIS/ISIL and Gaza.

    But they’ve been using them for awhile now in various operations as you’ve for ages been attempting to explain to the useful idiots, so who knows, they could have been putting something in place. Certainly the MH370 incident didn’t justify that action, did it. So why did they do that…

    My theory is that they knew that geopolitical forces were in play which would result in them being involved in direct military conflict – in order words they knew that the situation in Gaza would develop and that fingers would be pointed, so they made their play while the window of opportunity was still open. As I’ve attempted to point out before the idea that the Zionist were truly surprised by the tunnels is fantasyland – they had the relevant technology (ground penetrating radar) and they knew that tunneling was active in the Lebanon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    ‘Christianity forbids the use of force or coercion in spreading the word’
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    That statement is correct Mike. Whenever it force has been used it is contrary to the Gospel and the teaching of Jesus.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    ShawnLH,

    “…there were no Christian theocracies.”

    An attempt at legalistic sophistry.

    When the state is joined at the hip with the Church, passes laws making weekly attendance at state-approved church compulsory, and persecutes and murders you for being one sort of Christian rather than another sort of Christian, you are effectively living in a theocracy.

    So the point remains: history shows in all their barbarity just what those Christian theocracies were like. No different from Islamic ones. (In fact, Christians probably favoured burning people alive rather more than those terrible Muslims.)

    “The fundamental principle of Christianity is that if you don’t worship this particular deity he will consign you to an eternity of suffering. Everything else is just window-dressing.”

    To be more precise: The fundamental principle of Christianity is that if you don’t accept this particular deity as your saviour he will consign you to an eternity of suffering. Everything else is just window-dressing.

    It is the ‘fundamental principle of Christianity’ since it is the very issue which brought about Protestantism. Everything else is simply feel-good hippy fluff and propaganda with absolutely no significance or weight.
    (But as for the selective message about being nice to other people, this is hardly unique and certainly not something you need a barbaric, racist, murderous, child-killing magic pixie to tell you.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Scott (1,759 comments) says:

    Ugly truth says that peace is the fundamental principle of Islam. Well two responses to that – yes Muslims do want peace but peace comes through submission. Submission is the fundamental principle of Islam, there will be peace when we all submit to Allah as prescribed in the Koran. Until then Islam prescribes jihad till all submit to Allah.

    The second response is “by their fruit you shall know them”. 20,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims since 911 is proof that Islam is a religion of war.

    Your other point about the same murderous nature of the Soviet Union (not a religious country) is well made :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Scott (1,759 comments) says:

    Wat me old China you are raving now. The subject of this post is what the Muslims are doing in Iraq and the American response. How you began raving about Christian theocracies and the relevance to the subject at hand is beyond me?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “An attempt at legalistic sophistry.”

    No a statement of fact.

    “When the state is joined at the hip with the Church”

    A far more historically accurate statement would be that the State and the Church were separate powers which sometimes agreed and sometimes were in conflict. In fact more often than not there was conflict.

    “To be more precise: The fundamental principle of Christianity is that if you don’t accept this particular deity as your saviour he will consign you to an eternity of suffering. Everything else is just window-dressing.”

    That is not more precise, it’s totally wrong, as I proved above.

    “It is the ‘fundamental principle of Christianity’ since it is the very issue which brought about Protestantism. ”

    LOL. Er…..no. But that was funny.

    “Everything else is simply feel-good hippy fluff and propaganda with absolutely no significance or weight.”

    Oh dear. This statement can reasonably be said to be irrational prejudice.

    Hundreds of thousands, even millions of Christians actually give great weight in their daily lives and values to what you call window dressing. That fact alone is proof that your not interested in facts and accuracy, just mindless bigotry.

    But, it is fun to watch an atheist make himself look like a total fruitloop. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Anyway, I have, again, exposed wat’s hysteria driven fantasies for what they are. The topic is ISIS and the US’s response.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    Scott,

    The second response is “by their fruit you shall know them”. 20,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims since 911 is proof that Islam is a religion of war.

    Then by the same token, history irrefutably shows that Christianity is a religion of persecution and barbarous atrocity. By their fruit you shall know them.

    How you began raving about Christian theocracies and the relevance to the subject at hand is beyond me?

    I’m not sure I was raving, but my initial post was in response to kowtow’s thoroughly dishonest propaganda: trying to make out this this issue is about Islam when in fact all of history shows that Christianity is no different when the boot is on the other foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly truth says that peace is the fundamental principle of Islam. Well two responses to that – yes Muslims do want peace but peace comes through submission. Submission is the fundamental principle of Islam,

    Submission to Allah, not submission to Muslims. As well as peace, the semitic root word refers the the perfected contract, which is more applicable to secular affairs. This idea is expressed in the Quran as the imperative to honour your treaties.

    there will be peace when we all submit to Allah as prescribed in the Koran. Until then Islam prescribes jihad till all submit to Allah.

    In the Quran jihad is only meaningful within the context of the cause of Allah (and his messenger).

    Say, [O Muhammad], “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.”
    Surah 9:24

    O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth, having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah , your Lord. If you have come out for jihad in My cause and seeking means to My approval, [take them not as friends]. You confide to them affection, but I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever does it among you has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way.
    Surah 60:1

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    ShawnLH,

    You are obviously not a member of one of the Protestant sects, for which salvation through faith alone is the central issue of their belief system. Perhaps you are a Catholic, in which case you can just make up whatever magical thinking you like of course.

    Wars were fought and countless people died and were brutally persecuted for this very point. But you seem to know nothing of it.

    That’s what it means to be a “Christian” today, folks. Some feel-good hippy shit which make you feel superior to everyone else, and which you can totally ignore in practise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “By their fruit you shall know them.”

    True. Now how many millions did atheist/secular regimes kill in the 20th century?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

    Oops! :)

    Give the hysterical ranting a rest wat, or take it to the GD thread, and let others debate and discuss the actual thread topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Andrei (2,533 comments) says:

    I think the bombing of Belgrade was a terrorist attack myself – a crime against humanity committed by an adulterer.

    What’s the difference between 9/11 and the bombing of Belgrade? They are both terrorism

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Gulag1917 (848 comments) says:

    Wat- Where in the Western world nowadays does Christianity persecute people of a different belief/unbelief?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    Then by the same token, history irrefutably shows that Christianity is a religion of persecution and barbarous atrocity. By their fruit you shall know them.

    Actually, the Crusades were a repsonse to Muslim atrocities. If it weren’t for the Crusades, the world would be Muslim now. Here’s a handy-dandy timeline –

    The Timeline

    630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting ‘agreements’ from northern tribes. They could enjoy the ‘privilege’ of living under Islamic ‘protection’ (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

    This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

    632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

    633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today’s Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).

    634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: ‘The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.’ To this Khalid retorts: ‘How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many’ (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: ‘[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists’ (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem’s; the second mine).

    634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

    635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

    636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

    637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

    638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

    638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

    639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

    641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

    643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

    644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

    644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

    656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

    656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.

    657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

    661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

    661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

    673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

    680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

    691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.

    705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

    710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

    711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

    719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

    732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

    749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

    756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

    762 Foundation of Baghdad

    785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

    789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

    800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

    807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

    809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

    813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

    831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

    850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

    855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

    837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

    869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

    909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

    928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

    937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

    937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

    960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

    966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

    969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

    c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

    973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

    1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

    1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

    1012 Beginning of al—Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

    1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

    1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

    1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

    1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

    1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

    1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

    1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

    1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

    1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

    1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

    1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

    1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

    1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

    1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

    1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

    1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

    So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “You are obviously not a member of one of the Protestant sects,”

    Anglican.

    “for which salvation through faith alone is the central issue of their belief system.”

    Sola Fide is however a different issue to the issue of worship being the means to salvation, which is not correct.

    “Wars were fought and countless people died and were brutally persecuted for this very point. But you seem to know nothing of it.”

    No they missed that subject when I was studying Christian Thought and History at Otago. :)

    Of course I am aware of it, but that and your claim about worship are not the same thing. There were also purely political issues that fed into those wars.

    “That’s what it means to be a “Christian” today, folks. ”

    Your fantasies are a hoot! :)

    Thanks for the entertainment wat. :)

    I’ll see you on the GD thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “What’s the difference between 9/11 and the bombing of Belgrade? They are both terrorism”

    Hardly. The bombing of Belgrade was a response to the Serbian’s engaging in mass murder, attempted genocide, and the use of horrific concentration camps to oppress, torture and slaughter non-Serbs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    ShawnLH,

    By ‘hysterical ranting’ you mean ‘calmly pointing out the fact that history shows Christianity to be no different from radical Islam when put in a position of power over people.’

    As for your attempt to link atheism and communism, I am an atheist and at the opposite end of the spectrum from communism. In other words, communist atrocities were the result of communism, not atheism. But of course, if you were capable of reason and logic you wouldn’t be here spouting lies about child-killing magical pixies, would you. Nobody ever said religion is the only evil in the world.

    To you and kowtow etc: if you don’t want the vileness and well-documented evils of Christianity to be discussed then don’t use every thread as an opportunity for lying propaganda. There must be Christian web-sites you can go to where you can post your comments about how Yahweh’s dick is bigger than Zeus’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    Oh Christ, Fletch has chimed in with his complete misrepresentation of the Crusades.

    If it weren’t for the Crusades, the world would be Muslim now.

    What utter crap. When the plundering/raping/murdering Crusaders arrived in the Levant the Muslims there and in Syria/Iraq were not particularly observant and were certainly not militant. What fighting there was was purely local wars amongst the fractured city states.

    It was precisely the intervention of the Crusaders which awakened jihad and resulted in something approaching their unification.

    Without the Crusades, Constantinople might have remained a Christian city/state. As it was it was weakened (read brutally sacked) by the Crusaders and left facing a transformed, unified and vengeful Islam.

    And as I believe we have already discussed, the Crusaders were notably mostly for their barbarity and the atrocities they carried out. So yet again we see that Christians are no different from Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    So the crusaders get the blame for Muslims invading the Holy Land way back in 637 AD.

    How does that work?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. kowtow (8,082 comments) says:

    Constantinople was in danger ever since the Turks won the battle of Manzikert in 1071 AD. The process took a few hundred years and then they even got to Vienna in the 17 th C.We can thank the Catholic Poles for breaking that seige possibly one of the most significant battles in the history of western civilisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. tom hunter (4,639 comments) says:

    Look like it was a good thing that Congress ignored the following Obama Administration request:

    “We believe a more appropriate and timely action for Congress to take is the repeal of the outdated 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” read a July 25 letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) from White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

    July 25, just two weeks ago. That’s Smart Power – from the Smartest President Evah and his Supersmart minions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. lurcher1948 (151 comments) says:

    Thanks redbaiter for educating me….
    You see these savages killing, raping, beheading? You’re going to “win their hearts”?

    FFS, they’re barbarians who will only be controlled by fear, and when they fear the West, then we will have peace in Iraq

    Red baiter will you be posting clips of you raping sunni (chose sex) or goats and hurting their children,The cry will go up when redbaiter goes to punish ISIS, they will shout(the old fart with the tinny cock is coming to rape and scare us DONT LAUGH) he posts on kiwiblog and thinks hes important

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Harriet (4,715 comments) says:

    “……trying to make out this this issue is about Islam when in fact all of history shows that Christianity is no different when the boot is on the other foot…..”

    Wat ya twat.

    Now tell us what the Christians have been defending for over 2000yrs, and what Islam has been defending for over 1300yrs.

    Oxford Uni started around 1250 – thanks to Christians. How many Muslims have recieved a Nobel Prize in that time Wat? Can you see now what Christians have been defending Wat – civil societies down through the ages!

    What exactly are Muslims defending Wat?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. wat dabney (3,745 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    Can you see now what Christians have been defending Wat – civil societies down through the ages!

    And by “defending civil society” you mean persecuting, torturing and murdering those deemed heretics (which, at different times, could mean Catholics, Protestants, Anabaptists, Quakers etc.)

    Because let’s be clear, at different times your own beliefs would have got you tortured to death by your fellow Christians. Hell, you could even be murdered for having a Bible written in English.

    Yet here you are, from a position of complete safety thanks to secularism (and with complete indifference to the appalling human suffering), blithely and dishonestly declaring how wonderful Christians have been down the ages and how different they are from those awful Muslims.

    Oxford Uni started around 1250 – thanks to Christians. How many Muslims have recieved a Nobel Prize in that time Wat?

    Er, the Nobel Prize was instigated around the year 1900, long after Europe became secularised. The Christian Church, by contrast, banned books such as Kepler’s and Copernicus’ which contradicted its teachings.

    Your profound mistake (which is also kowtow’s mistake) is in comparing Islam with today’s ersatz “Christianity”, when the only valid comparison is with Christianity before secularism: back when it had the power to burn heretics alive.

    As for your Oxford University boast: The University of al-Qarawiyyin or al-Karaouine is a university located in Fes, Morocco. The al-Qarawiyyin mosque-university was founded by Fatima al-Fihri in 859 with an associated school…It is the oldest existing and continually operating educational institution in the world according to UNESCO and Guinness World Records and is sometimes referred to as the oldest university.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_al-Qarawiyyin

    The point being that, again, you are being selective in your comparison. During the Dark and Middle Ages it was Islam which was more cultured and scientifically advanced. And, of course, true Christians maintain even today, in the face of all reason and evidence, that the Earth was created in 7 days about 6000 years ago and that evolution does not exist. Do you imagine they are going to get a Nobel Prize for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Yet here you are, from a position of complete safety thanks to secularism”

    I’m sure the thousands of Christians slaughtered by secular atheist states would beg to differ. Talk about being selective.

    “blithely and dishonestly declaring how wonderful Christians have been down the ages ”

    Because generally speaking that is true. You can cheery pick history to say otherwise, but it is cherry picking.

    “Your profound mistake (which is also kowtow’s mistake) is in comparing Islam with today’s ersatz “Christianity””

    Your profound mistake is your laughable claim that today’s Christianity is somehow not the real deal, but this is simply not true, and it is based on your caricature and proven ignorance concerning what Christianity is at it’s heart.

    “During the Dark and Middle Ages ”

    Serious historian no longer use the term “Dark Ages” and for good reason.

    “it was Islam which was more cultured and scientifically advanced.”

    Myth. In reality they were comparable, and more to the point, Islam’s supposed golden age was the result of invading other peoples and appropriating their cultures, including the more advanced Christian culture of Byzantium, which was far more advanced than Arab culture.

    “And, of course, true Christians maintain even today, in the face of all reason and evidence, that the Earth was created in 7 days about 6000 years ago and that evolution does not exist.”

    In fact only a minority of Christians hold this position, and your definition of them being “true” is simply a lie.

    If you read the early Church Fathers from the first to the fourth centuries, the majority did not hold to a literal understanding of Genesis.

    Your ignorance of history, your cherry picking of history, and your profound misconceptions about what the Christian Faith teaches are not a good example of “secular reason” but a good example of why militant secularists ignore reason and facts when they do not suit their belief system.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Faith versus reason. I’m still going to go with reason as providing the best hope for humanity’s future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Atheist Governments of the 20th Century: The Death Toll of Godless Goodness.

    Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
    Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
    Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
    Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
    Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
    Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
    Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
    Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
    Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
    Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered

    The Worldviews of Destruction in the 20th Century

    “The 20th Century is history. It is a history of incredible advances in many areas (inventions, computer chips, medical science, technologies, transportation, communications, expansion of the Christian Gospel), living standards, free states), but devolution in other areas (dictatorships, poverty, illegal drugs, pornography, homosexuality, venereal diseases, AIDS, lawlessness, immorality, teenage pregnancy, abortions). But most important for our study it is a century of mass murders and killings unheard of in human history. The 20th Century is the century of slaughter. More human beings have been killed in the 20th Century than in all previous centuries combined.

    When we put the human cost of war and genocide together, says Rummel, “Power has killed over 203 million people in this century.”[4] And this figure does not include the slaughter of the innocent (abortion) — a foundation stone of the Secular Humanist worldview.

    These millions died, not because of James Orr’s Christian worldview. Most of these millions died at the hands of the three men and one woman whose worldviews were inflicted on the world (and in many ways continue to be so).

    The three men are Benito Mussolini (b. 1883), Adolph Hitler (b. 1889) and Joseph Stalin (b. 1879). The woman is Margaret Sanger (b. 1879).

    Mussolini and Hitler represent the 20th Century’s Fascist/Nazi worldviews. Stalin represents the Marxist/Leninist worldview. Margaret Sanger represents the Secular Humanist worldview.

    These are the worldviews primarily responsible for the millions of human beings slaughtered on the altars of atheism, naturalism, dialectical materialism, ethical relativism, beyond good and evil, libertinism, class morality, biological evolution, social darwinianism, euthanasia, sterilization, infanticide, eugenics, abortion, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, new Fascist man, new Aryan man, new Soviet man, new Humanist man, new international child of the future, new social order, new world order, socialism (national and international), positive law or sociological jurisprudence and other ideas “chemically and physically” exploding from the fevered brows of the intelligentsia.

    Whoever said ideas have consequences summarized the 20th Century. The ideas that moved across and out of the 19th Century were fleshed out in the 20th Century and the results are obvious for all to see — death, destruction, devastation, heartache, misery — all words and nuances that portray a century ripe for a judgement grade.

    As we begin Century 21 we have yet to admit a deep, dark secret — the ideas that brought us a century of terror and slaughter are still being taught in our public institutions of higher education. Ironically, the only worldview not responsible for the slaughter is the only worldview proscribed viz., Biblical Christianity. All other worldviews have their voices and defenders in our colleges and universities.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/03/atheist-governments-of-the-20th-century-the-death-toll-of-godless-goodness/

    http://www.summit.org/resources/essays/the-worldviews-of-destruction-in-the-20th-century/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Faith versus reason. I’m still going to go with reason as providing the best hope for humanity’s future.”

    I prefer faith AND reason. One without the other is problematic, and reason alone has a terrible track record in the 20th century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. cha (3,913 comments) says:

    Yikes, it’s because Beelzebublians!.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. SGA (978 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (3,924 comments) says:
    August 9th, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    These are the worldviews primarily responsible for the millions of human beings slaughtered on the altars of atheism, naturalism, dialectical materialism, ethical relativism, beyond good and evil, libertinism, class morality, biological evolution, social darwinianism, euthanasia, sterilization, infanticide, eugenics, abortion, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, new Fascist man, new Aryan man, new Soviet man, new Humanist man, new international child of the future, new social order, new world order, socialism (national and international), positive law or sociological jurisprudence and other ideas “chemically and physically” exploding from the fevered brows of the intelligentsia.

    Shawn – you buy this hyperbole? That’s who you are? “altars of atheism” and the rest – really?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Shawn
    You might like to pin responsibility for the murderous dictatorships down to their godlessness. How does that explain other countries that became essentially secular without the violence. Maybe the two things are not connected at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Judith (8,526 comments) says:

    Where in the bible does it say its okay to kill providing the people you are killing are ‘godless’, and/or don’t agree with you?
    Does anyone have a reference, I’d like to read it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Well Jehovah sure was fond of smiting folks.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Johnboy (15,858 comments) says:

    “Faith versus reason. I’m still going to go with reason as providing the best hope for humanity’s future.”

    Faith worked well for you guys last Sunday Milkey! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    @ Judith 7:18pm

    Exodus 22:18
    Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

    or Do not allow a sorceress to live

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Johnboy (15,858 comments) says:

    Nor her cat Maggy! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Judith (8,526 comments) says:

    @ Maggy Wassilieff (279 comments) says:
    August 9th, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Okay, so the witch and the sorceress gets it, (sense something distinctly sexist in that) but what about all the others that aren’t witches, that get killed – does the bible allow killing of the ‘godless’ (other than the aforementioned)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Gulag1917 (848 comments) says:

    From my understanding of the Bible there is no passage in the Bible that you may be killed for being godless.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Well, here was just one of Jehovah’s orders. You didn’t need to be godless to be in the firing line:
    ‘Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Johnboy (15,858 comments) says:

    From my understanding most folks exclaim “O God” as the incoming hits them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Johnboy (15,858 comments) says:

    Specially if they wear Green and Black Milkey! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. SGA (978 comments) says:

    Johnboy at 7:41 pm

    From my understanding most folks exclaim “O God” as the incoming hits them.

    You’ve typo-ed an “in” in there accidentally.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Judith (8,526 comments) says:

    mikenmild (10,910 comments) says:
    August 9th, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    hmmm, so the commandment ‘thou shalt no kill’, comes with conditions then?
    I wonder if any of the other commandments have ‘conditions’?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    @ Mikenmild

    “You might like to pin responsibility for the murderous dictatorships down to their godlessness. How does that explain other countries that became essentially secular without the violence. Maybe the two things are not connected at all.”

    You will note that most of the time I use the term “militant” secularism.

    Those softer forms have not been murderous because they are not fundamentalist about it, and because those societies generally have culturally Christian civil societies.

    This is where I think wat is being selective in his understanding of secularism, and conveniently glossing over the mass murder of militant forms.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Johnboy (15,858 comments) says:

    Good God. I’ve just realised Minus is absent! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Judith (8,526 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (15,128 comments) says:
    August 9th, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    Sshhhh… don’t wake him/her/it/them

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Shawn – you buy this hyperbole? That’s who you are? “altars of atheism” and the rest – really?”

    I don’t think it is hyperbole at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Gulag1917 (848 comments) says:

    Fischer in the video oversimplifies and goes to the extreme re the issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    A few more mass killings permitted by him upstairs….

    Joshua 6:17 (but remember to spare Rahib the prostitute)

    Deuteronomy 20: 16-17

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    My argument is that a healthy society needs a balance of both secular neutrality and religious civil society.

    Those societies that are real theocracies (as opposed to Wat’s pseudo-historical definition) can be dangerous, ironically to the very faith they claim to represent, as well as to those of other faiths or no faith. But, it is also true that militantly secular states can also be dangerous, as the 20th century shows, and with some examples vastly more dangerous.

    It’s about balance, about finding, to use a very Anglican idea, the Via Media between extremes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SGA (978 comments) says:

    ShawnLH at 7:49 pm

    I don’t think it is hyperbole at all.

    Oh dear, never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Johnboy (15,858 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    A few more mass killings permitted by him upstairs….

    Joshua 6:17 (but remember to spare Rahib the prostitute)

    Deuteronomy 20: 16-17

    From the curse of Canaan, related to Sodom and its destruction.

    ‘Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’

    Descendants of Esau/Edom (the hated)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    re: God, killing, and the Ten Commandments. These are just thoughts off the top of my head.

    The Ten Commandments were given by God to His people Israel for them to obey. We also have laws in our society (Western, such as NZ) that we shouldn’t murder anyone. However, that does not preclude us from going to war against other societies when those societies (who do not follow the same laws as we do) threaten our existence.

    For instance, America also has laws that say you must not murder, yet they (and us, as part of the Allies) went and bombed Germany and Japan in WWII. Was that right or wrong? The casualties were not even proportional.

    Around 600,000 German civilians died during the allies’ wartime raids on Germany, including 76,000 German children…

    Against that toll of 600,000 Germans (or 430,000 according to other sources):

    Number of American civilians who died in German bombings of the US: zero.

    Number of British civilians who died in German bombings of Britain: 60,000.

    Or how about this “disproportionate” response?

    Number of American civilians killed in Japanese bombings of the US: fewer than 70

    Number of Japanese civilians killed in American bombings of Japan: 337,000

    So what if we’d had reporters with cameras in WWII going around crowing about “disproportionate numbers”?
    If it was alright for the US/UK forces to obliterate their enemies in WWII, why is it not OK for God to use his people to destroy evil enemies? (It is known that the people of Moab, for instance, sacrificed their babies by placing them into the red hot hands of a heated statue of their god).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Fletch (6,222 comments) says:

    By the way, if you’re a Christian, then you believe that everyone is created by God. Is it not the right of the creator to destroy what He Himself creates if he sees it is defective or evil? To add to that, we are immortal, and our time here is temporary. We will be judged in the afterlife. It may seem awful when a child is killed – that his or her time here on Earth is shortened – but that child’s soul is also immortal. They just leave this life slightly earlier than most others.

    That is not to say that life is not precious – all life is precious – but God gives and takes as He sees fit. Or perhaps He allows circumstances that lead to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    However, that does not preclude us from going to war against other societies when those societies (who do not follow the same laws as we do) threaten our existence.

    Generally it isn’t societies that wage war but rather states who wage war. The ethical considerations are twofold: the relationship between society and the state, and the nature of the conflict between warring states themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.