So, would you call all the Christians who went to Iraq, and bombed and shot innocent women and children, extremists as well? After all, they didn't just stand around and watch, they were willing participants who actually killed.
Upvote
0
Hillary Clinton: 'Muslims Have Nothing to Do With Terrorism'
- Thread starter Yeshuas_My_Freedom
- Start date
So, would you call all the Christians who went to Iraq, and bombed and shot innocent women and children, extremists as well? After all, they didn't just stand around and watch, they were willing participants who actually killed.
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 23,848
- 25,780
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
As long as we have the world's highest incarceration rate of any modern, developed country, we should stop with the whole, "Land O' the Free" thing.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,708
- 14,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Sorry, I edited my post after your reply...here's the part I added:
...so if people on the left have no problem labeling people like Santorum or Kim Davis as 'extreme', they should be consistent in their application of the labels 'extreme' and 'moderate'.
For Christians, to get the label of 'moderate' from the left, they have to be pro-choice, pro-ssm, anti-gun, pro-universal health care, regard the OT as strictly allegorical, pro-evolution, acknowledge climate change, and oppose capital punishment.
For Muslims, to get the label of 'moderate' from the left, they simply have to not be the one actually carrying out an execution or act of terror and they're golden.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...in terms of your question, if that's the bar you're setting as terrorist, then every soldier involved in a conflict where there were casualties would technically fit that description by your account.
Upvote
0
No worries, I've done the same thing myself.
I would disagree with this assertion. And you didn't answer the question.
We weren't talking about "terrorists", we were talking about "extremists". And I fail to see the difference between people who have no recognized government fighting for their freedom, and people who have a recognized government fighting for their freedom.
So, all we have to do is refuse to grant a group a representative government, and they are never allowed to fight for their freedom? And then we can justify stealing their land and murdering their wives and children? That is completely immoral in my books.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He didn't deny the charges in the video I linked.
The Bible I read states there is only one who is good. Also there is a huge difference between subjective morality ( I feel this is wrong) and objective morality (Truth, it doesn't matter how you feel it's still wrong).
Plus I'm communicating with you even though I never saw you... The Bible doesn't teach God is invisible when someone is in His direct present.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Good, because he has tried to weasel out of taking responsibility for his actions.
That's nice, but this is the wrong forum and thread topic to be debating relative vs. subjective morality..
Upvote
0
OK, I'll try to remember where it was.
EDIT: Googled D'Souza conspiracy and got a lot of hits. On the first page:
(Salon magazine) Dinesh D'Souza's pathetic persecution complex no he isn’t the victim of a government conspiracy!
"The government’s “effort to put me out of business” had failed, D’Souza told Kelly. “My own country tried to put me away and the court said no.”
There are youtube videos of him saying this and similar nonsense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Even from a source in your link has this statement: " His lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, released a statement Tuesday morning saying that D’Souza has “agreed to accept responsibility” for the illegal donation made in the names of two close associates."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0921ea-e030-11e3-8dcc-d6b7fede081a_story.html
No where did I read he didn't take responsibility for his actions.
Now you seem to back track from your original point which I agree with you on. Even gave you an example. There are others even reporters who claimed in the past our government has ways of keeping someone quiet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0921ea-e030-11e3-8dcc-d6b7fede081a_story.html
What did you expect when you Google "Dinesh D,Souza's conspiracy"?
No where did I read he didn't take responsibility for his actions.
Now you seem to back track from your original point which I agree with you on. Even gave you an example. There are others even reporters who claimed in the past our government has ways of keeping someone quiet.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry, what don't you understand about D'Souza saying: (Salon magazine)
"The government’s “effort to put me out of business” had failed, D’Souza told Kelly. “My own country tried to put me away and the court said no.”
That is trying to weasel out of accepting responsibility for his actions (by claiming there was a conspiracy against him), exactly as I said. It doesn't matter if he, or his lawyer, later issued a statement.
I googled "D'Souza Conspiracy" because as you can see above, D'Souza himself claimed there was a conspiracy. Are you being obtuse?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No it's not. What do you mean "later issued a statement?" later than what? The statement he accept responsibility was before the court decision.
I don't want to be wrongful jailed either if judges let others off without jail time.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,708
- 14,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You would disagree with that as in, that's not your particular take on what should be considered "moderate", or you disagree with the concept that that's how many on the left label it?
In terms of the latter of the two, Clinton's video shows her saying that the majority of Muslims are tolerant (we have dozens of threads here on CF with people on the left making the same proclamation)...we have video footage from Muslim regions showing the whole town showing up to watch/cheer an execution...and in westernized civilizations, we have piles of polling data showing that over half of Muslims are in favor of criminalizing the act of insulting their faith (or their prophet).
...so that only leaves us with a couple conclusions
1.) People like Clinton clearly have a different definition of the world 'tolerant' than I do
2.) They're simply unaware of the aforementioned videos and polling data I was referring to
3.) There's a clear double standard at play where they're evaluating Christians under a higher level of scrutiny than they use to evaluate Islam.
And to clarify on #3...I'm not even implying that the double-standard is intentional in all cases. In the US, a person is much more likely to be exposed to instances of Christian theocratic thinking/action than they would instances of Islamic theocratic thinking/action...and it's natural for people to target what they're exposed to the most and what they're most familiar with.
Knowing that more than half of westernized Muslims want the prohibition of "insulting Islam" codified in law, I don't see how someone could say "most Muslims are tolerant/moderates", but in the same turn suggest that Kim Davis is "extreme" for refusing to issue a marriage license.
If a person is genuinely saying/thinking that, then the only logical explanation is that they're not aware of the first part.
It depends on who they're targeting I would suppose. I don't doubt that there's unfortunate collateral damage during official military action...that's been true in every military conflict in modern times. However, what ISIS is doing is clearly happening a greater severity...during the Iraq conflict we had, there weren't tens of thousand of non-combatants attempting to flee to all parts of the globe to get away like they're doing in response to ISIS.
If you look at these scenes:
You simply don't see scenes like this of ISIS interacting with locals.
Now, I'll openly admit, there were a few instances (like the Haditha incident) in which US troops acted in a way that could absolutely be considered "extreme", however, that doesn't represent the majority in terms of how US troops handled themselves.
Another thing that's fair to point out, is that the civilian casualty counts were reported in a manner that was "creative" in efforts to tack a higher body count on US forces. Many media outlets around the world linked deaths as a result of indirect action to the US forces. For example...if the US hit a tactical target, and as a result, made the enemy mad, and the enemy decided to exact revenge killings on the Iraqi civilians...those deaths were labeled as "deaths caused by US-led intervention". Sort of like "I make Joe mad, so he goes home and punches his wife", and then people claim that it's technically my fault for making Joe mad.
...but, even with that being said, I did (and still do) oppose what happened in Iraq and thought that going in on false pretenses was a mistake and should have never happened.
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 20,878
- 17,229
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Setting aside the Islam statement, do you disagree with the rest of her comments?
Upvote
0
That's hilarious. In the UK you can be arrested for saying "offense things". I remember one where a guy was given a shakedown by the police because he sang "Everybody was kung fu fighting" and some Chinese were in the crowd.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Well no, in atheism nothing really is good or evil, only thinking makes it so. There is no ultimate authority beyond man. Under the atheistic worldview Planned Parenthood or the guys running Dachau could be "just as good" as Saint Francis or abolitionist Republicans. or something
Upvote
0
There really should be no questioning this by now. It's well known that the left/pc are open minded about everything in the with only one exception: stuff they disagree with. If you want to see what they wish for the USA, take a look at universities and their draconian speech codes. They have "safe spaces", where you can be kept safe from scary, differing ideas that you don't like to hear.
Upvote
0
If you don't believe in invisible friends, Leprechauns, Sasquatches, Loch Ness monsters, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., what other authority would or could there be?
And under the Christian point of view all Hitler had to do was ask Jesus to forgive, and he was good with God. I'll take atheistic guilt, and a trial if they're alive, every time.
Upvote
0
And their press is far superior, and has much more freedom. Oh, and they don't lead the world in locking people up. Now there is a true measure of freedom.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
- Poll
