US Army disinvites Franklin Graham

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I posted my little blurb about Michael Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation in the hopes that those who were clearly unfamiliar with both would go do a little research, and see just what all is happening and what all is at stake, and to see how there is no difference whatsoever in the realities and tactics of radical fundamentalist Islamic Muslims and of radical fundamentalist evangelical Christians.

No difference whatsoever in realities or tactics?
Maybe I'm missing something or just misinformed; there don't seem to be very many instances of radical evangelical Christians sending their teenage children into crowded markets to blow themselves up, nor have they beheaded their kidnap victims on the internet, flown planeloads of people into buildings. or released poison gas into subway systems.

Instead, we get people who try to dismiss and even marginalize Weinstein by using out of context quotes for the propaganda of misdirection and denial, under the outrageous and intellectually insulting premise of "further enlightenment"...

I'd like to see the context that makes this Weinstein quote acceptable in civil discourse:
"The biggest crime I accuse the religious right of and it's a blood libel, a crime against humanity is torturing that concept, by bludgeoning it and assaulting it, so that what it comes out as "tolerance for diversity' equals "intolerance for us in the majority.' My response is: F*** you. F*** you. How dare you?"
I'm also curious about the context of his other quotes, but this one kind of sticks out.

I'm also not saying that there aren't Christian radicals and nut cases in the military, just as they are present in society at large. I'm just saying the problem is being blown out of proportion by Weinstein to further his agnostic agenda. I'm in agreement with JJ - I never saw any religious harassment when I was in the Army, and never heard of any. I also know several guys that are on active duty right now and they've never mentioned it either - and they're not Bible-thumpers by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe there's pockets of this stuff in certain branches of the service. Layout - I believe you have a son recently back from Afghanistan; did he say anything about religious harassment?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Mmm, cough a 3 cough cough sneeze hack 30 years ago is when I ETSed (Estimated Time of Separation)
LOL :D .... I thought that might be the case .... but I wasn't gonna go there ;)

I just wanted some context to understand your experience, in terms of the time frame that it occurred in.

That could explain it.
Yup - seems like religious fanaticism is on the rise in all sorts of places ... I don't know how rampant this is in terms of the various branches of the armed forces - it may well be more of a problem in one branch than another ...

Thank-you
You're quite welcome.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Rlent, Jim
Wasn't there always some sort of issue with religion in the military?

I remember reading a lot about the Jews and the problems they had leading up to and during both world wars.

I remember one of my father's friends telling me about the hassles he went through in boot and in Korea because of his religion.

So I can understand two parts of the reasoning behind a decision like this, we wouldn't want a Neo-Nazi to speak at any government sponsored event because that would offend a number of people in the military and in the public, while at the same time we suffer from a serious problem with our intelligence within the military on the exact subject of Arab languages and culture which means we don't have enough people who can relate to Muslim/Arab issues on the ground. So way do we strive to offend them and push our other religions on them with the Jesus saves and all that?

The latter is also a serious problem with our culture and our difficulties embracing education on different cultures and religions. Being one or another shouldn't matter, but being closed minded and using self-medicated ignorance is another matter altogether. If we as a nation want to get ahead of these issues, not to actually change our culture to fit what other countries want us to be but actually be ahead of the curve, we must rethink this English only stuff and how we approach language and cultural education.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
There will be those who I'm sure take great exception to the source of the following video - and will no doubt try to impugn the story being told on that basis. I tend be somewhat less interested in the particular politics of sources - whether left or right - but more concerned with the actual story.

There exist people all over the spectrum of humanity who raise valid concerns - no matter political affiliation they have, no matter religion they are, and no matter what creed they hold.

To discount these voices on any basis - without even bothering to look or to hear what is being said - is, inherently, intellectually dishonest.

With that in mind, this particular video contains several things - some context for some of Michael Weinstein's comments (that Pilgrim claims to be curious about) .... an overview and a bit of history on how and why what is happening in the military came to occur ..... and clear evidence of an unmistakable attempt on the part of some radical, evangelical Christian religious fanatics (aka nut-jobs) in the military to avoid complying with, and, in fact, covertly subvert, a legal order and policy of the armed forces - which was specifically designed and intended to avoid further inflaming what is undeniably an incendiary situation which we have gotten ourselves into .....

The Crusade for a Christian Military

BTW, nowhere in this video do I see any evidence whatsoever of a "spoiled brat teenager who hates his parents" ...... but don't simply take my word for it - look for yourself - and let your own conscience be the judge ......
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
No difference whatsoever in realities or tactics?
Maybe I'm missing something or just misinformed; there don't seem to be very many instances of radical evangelical Christians sending their teenage children into crowded markets to blow themselves up, nor have they beheaded their kidnap victims on the internet, flown planeloads of people into buildings. or released poison gas into subway systems.
An utterly predictable response, I have to say. No, not really, there are no differences. It's all just a matter of degrees of wacko. Evangelicals don't do suicide bombings, but they do bomb abortion clinics. They don't behead people on the Internet, but they do walk into gay bars in Roanoke and mow down patrons. They don't fly planeloads of people into buildings, but they do fly planeloads of weapons to people who will use them to kill people they want killed. They don't release poison gas into subways, but they do fire bullets into shopping malls. Times and methods have changed for both sides of wacko. A greater or lesser degree of abhorrence is still abhorrent. It's actually very disturbing just how few differences there are between Christianity and Islam.

Just as the Qur'an gets misinterpreted, the Old and New Testament scriptures have been misinterpreted by Christians, causing the Christian religion to become an imperialistic war-mongering religion, whose adherents have believed that they were instructed by God to invade the homelands of non-Christian peoples, take possession of their lands and resources, annihilate many of the indigenous inhabitants as well as subjugate and exploit the remaining innocent indigenous peoples.

A majority of Euro-American Christians, evangelicals in particular, believe that God has chosen them to lead the rest of the world into the light, and with the United States being primarily a nation of Christians, permits the United States to employ massive military might in achieving that mandate. The Bush-Cheney doctrine, for example, permits and the United States to unilaterally attack any nation with massive force or to attack any target within any nation, regardless of civilian casualties. It is a result of what defines this nation, the Christian superiority.

Those that initiated the invasion and occupation of Iraq were the United States, Britain & Spain. What a shocker. In the past 500 years, these predominately Christian nations are the world's leading imperialists and colonialist nations. Essentially, they have been the world's architects of the policies of dehumanization, fueled by greed and and entitled by God to trample over the lands, bodies and rights of peoples worldwide.


For centuries Christian nations have been brutally terrorizing one Muslim nation after another. In the Middle Ages we came to Muslim countries as crusaders, much like we are doing at the moment. They colonized many Muslim countries and tried to destroy their cultures and religion. The French Christians killed about a million Muslims in Algeria because they wanted independence from their white European Christian colonist oppressors. How dare they want liberty and freedom. Our blessed Christian nation has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim Iraqis. Christian Serbs killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and raped thousands of women in Bosnia and Kosovo. Israel has been for half a century destroying the Palestinian Muslim people with the help of arms as well as financial and moral support provided by our blessed Christian nation.

All Christians have to do is take an honest look at their own history. Anti-anything-not-Christian is endemic to the Christian tradition and has been the legacy for Christians for 2000 years, and as such the legacy of the United States. Christian history is one of the greatest scandals of the human race. Contrary to popular propaganda, Christianity has NOT been a religion of love, peace and justice. It sounds good, and looks good on paper, but it ain't workin'.

The context is the answer to 'What is he referring to when he says "torturing that concept,"' correct? RLENT actually provided the context, the preceding paragraph of his statement that provides the necessary context:

"People say this is a Christian country founded on Christian principles," he says. "The real essential aspect of this country, woven into the tapestry of the embroidery of how beautiful this country is, is one concept above all others, which is tolerance of diversity."

So he's talking about tolerance of diversity, of which the religious right has shown time and time again to have none.
I'm also not saying that there aren't Christian radicals and nut cases in the military, just as they are present in society at large. I'm just saying the problem is being blown out of proportion by Weinstein to further his agnostic agenda.
I call BS on that one. That statement presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted, and is in fact incorrect (to further his agnostic agenda), and contains loaded language (also known as high-interference language or emotive language). It's an informal fallacy of which the stated premise fails to support the conclusion.

While not exactly a wacko-type Orthodox Jew, Weinstein is still devoutly religious. He has never been one to have an agnostic agenda, not now and not when he was hand-picked by Reagan to serve in the West Wing. If you want to label him, the correct label would be a Constitutional Libertarian. His problem is not with religion being present within the military, it's when one religion begins to be favored over another and people are harassed because they don't have the correct flavor of religion.

The problems we are having in the military with this crap is indeed a relatively recent phenomenon, and it's growing. It began not too long after the more recent engagements with Muslims, terrorism, and with the growing hatred of Muslims in the country. It has spilled over into the military, and has naturally evolved into a hatred off all things not Christian. Religion, primarily that of Christianity, has always been a part of the military, but it wasn't until recently that non-Christians began to be singled out and harassed and intimidated. When officers are condoning it, and sometimes initiating it, it becomes a serious problem.

Proselytizing can be really annoying under the best of circumstances, but when you have people proselytizing who are trained to be aggressive and violent, and who are backed up by their superior officers, you have a recipe for what my cousin calls a a cancer within the military, as those who are harassed and intimidated will fight back, completely destroying the camaraderie and cohesiveness so critical of any fighting unit.

Just out of curiosity, how many people need to be intimidated, harassed, assaulted or killed for you to not consider it to be blown out of proportion? A hundred? A thousand? A million?
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Well said ..... a very good analysis of the big picture in the wider context ..... my admiration to you for having the ability to honestly look and see it ..... and my hats off to ya for having the guts to say it ...... :D

It's actually very disturbing just how few differences there are between Christianity and Islam.
.... between radical Christianity and radical Islam ..... (IMHO) ;)
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Wasn't there always some sort of issue with religion in the military? I remember reading a lot about the Jews and the problems they had leading up to and during both world wars. I remember one of my father's friends telling me about the hassles he went through in boot and in Korea because of his religion.
Greg, I don't know much about the above as you describe it - it is largely outside of my current knowledge, and the personal experiences of anyone I know directly, at least that I have been told about.

Given how religious fanaticism (in any religion) can and does occur within specific subsets of any population (or any religion), it seems entirely reasonable (indeed, likely) that this type of thing has occurred before (but likely not as widespread) .... and is therefore likely that the Armed Forces have had to deal with it, at least to some extent .....

The real problem comes about when, in addition to the remainder of the ranks, a significant number of those at, or near, the top - who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the services remain true to their Constitutional mandate, and indeed ...... to the very oath that each member swore to protect and defend - then decide that they instead have a higher calling, and answer to a higher power that supersedes such mere earthly things as sworn oaths .....

In the case of the willful and knowing subversion by the officers in the last video I posted, I don't consider these jokers to be much different than the case of radical Muslims who we often hear so much about in these parts - the ones that would "lie to an infidel", in furtherance of their own religious agenda ...

Clearly, the officers - although claiming to be Christian - are completely and utterly dishonest - by covertly and intentionally seeking to avoid complying with a legal military order/policy - an order/ policy whose purpose should be plainly evident to anyone who isn't a complete and total retard. (So much for submission to worldly authority ......)

The dishonesty alone should make any self-respecting, devout Christian immediately disavow these insubordinate morons' actions ...
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So I can understand two parts of the reasoning behind a decision like this, we wouldn't want a Neo-Nazi to speak at any government sponsored event because that would offend a number of people in the military and in the public, while at the same time we suffer from a serious problem with our intelligence within the military on the exact subject of Arab languages and culture which means we don't have enough people who can relate to Muslim/Arab issues on the ground.
Exactly true ..... if you want to win a war (of any type), probably the smart thing to do ........ would be to not do those things that would drive away any potential allies in that fight .....

Of course, one should never underestimate the utter arrogance and stupidity of man as a species ...... particularly the American version of it ....

Franklin Graham has repeatedly demonstrated that he is so blinded by his faith that he is absolutely incapable of observing and understanding the wider context, the bigger picture ...... the actual strat(egy) one would employ to win a war ....

Wars can be fought and won without ever firing a shot ..... indeed, at times without any real violence whatsoever ..... for the real war is always the war that is fought with ideas ..... it is always the battle for hearts and minds .......

Hearts and minds are never really won thru the use of force .... look around the world for those that have tried and failed .... the Soviets, China, North Korea ........ the list goes on and on .....

Hearts and minds are always won by rationality, logic, moral suasion and those things which comprise the better and higher qualities of man .... specifically the uncompromising devotion to individual liberty, personal freedom ..... and respect for others to same degree that you yourself would be prefer to be respected ......

Ideas, inherently, are, and will always be, superior to force ......
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well I don't think the military lumps like people together. Unlike one of our enemies - the Germans - our military does some sort of diversified training (meaning they put everyone together regardless of race, creed or color) and allow people to be replaced within units as needed. The Germans used to place everyone who was going to be infantry in the same group and then they would go from basic all the way to the field to fight together. The cohesion within those groups were really strong and the belief was that because we didn't have that cohesion, we would not be a strong fighting force - which by the way was proven wrong.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Greg said:
The Germans used to place everyone who was going to be infantry in the same group and then they would go from basic all the way to the field to fight together
Last I heard the British still do that. About the only way to get transfered from the unit was by a promotion.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Say what????
Well, the data at the following link (below) is just a total of all Iraqi violent civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion - and it does not include any of the Iraqi armed forces deaths since 2003 ...

Nor does it include any of deaths (civilian or armed forces) that occurred as a consequence of the First Gulf War ....

Nor does it include any Iraqi deaths (civilian or armed forces) that occurred in the Iran - Iraq War (remember ... back when Saddam was our buddy, and we were supporting and arming him ?):

Iraqi Bodycount (<--- click here)

rummy2.jpg


SaddamRumsfeld.jpg
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
And oh yeah .... that little thing about Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" ..... well, if you were wondering where he got some of them:

On May 25 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Sen. Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

"U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."


.... ya think ? :cool:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.

Source Info (below):

How Iraq built its weapons programs ...... with a little help from its friends.

The Riegle Report

Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
An utterly predictable response, I have to say. No, not really, there are no differences. It's all just a matter of degrees of wacko.

Eureka! - a blinding glimpse of the obvious. The fact that there is a huge difference in the degree of wacko makes all the difference in the world. The percentage of muslims that ascribe to radicalism and jihadism is far greater than the percentage of wacko militant Christianity; their raw numbers are also greater. Also, Evangelicals can not be compared to jihadists - simply not apples and oranges there.

Evangelicals don't do suicide bombings, but they do bomb abortion clinics.

This is an absurd comparison, based on a false premise - that of equating evangelicals with jihadists or islamofascists. The sheer numbers make the point; in 2008 alone there were 658 suicide bombings around the world - most in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"More than four-fifths of the suicide bombings over that period have occurred in the past seven years, the data show. The bombings have spread to dozens of countries on five continents, killed more than 21,350 people and injured about 50,000 since 1983, when a landmark attack blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut."

Since 2001, a Dramatic Increase in Suicide Bombings - washingtonpost.com

On the other hand, the number of deaths attributed to acts of violence (not necessarily bombings) against abortion clinics from 1997 to 2009 total THREE (3). The acts of violence (not necessarily bombings) against abortion clinics in the last several years were: 2009 - one; '08 - none; '07 - two; '06 - none; '05 - two; '04 - two; the trend is obvious and the stats are here:

National Abortion Federation: Extreme Clinic Violence

The idea that the threat of radical islamic jihadism can be compared to that of Christian religious wackos (who may or may not be evangelicals) is laughable. Fortunately, the Christians and Jews who have been attacked repeatedly by suicide bombers at funerals, crowded markets, etc. have not responded in kind with equal numbers of retaliatory suicide bombings against muslim targets such as mosques at prayer time.

They don't behead people on the Internet, but they do walk into gay bars in Roanoke and mow down patrons... They don't release poison gas into subways, but they do fire bullets into shopping malls.

Can't get a firm number of beheadings on the internet, but it's safe to say it's far greater than the number of gay bars in Roanoke or anywhere else that have been shot up by religious wackos.


Just as the Qur'an gets misinterpreted, the Old and New Testament scriptures have been misinterpreted by Christians, causing the Christian religion to become an imperialistic war-mongering religion, whose adherents have believed that they were instructed by God to invade the homelands of non-Christian peoples, take possession of their lands and resources, annihilate many of the indigenous inhabitants as well as subjugate and exploit the remaining innocent indigenous peoples.

I believe the Crusades lasted from about 1096 to 1272. British imperialism came to an end shortly after WW2.

A majority of Euro-American Christians, evangelicals in particular, believe that God has chosen them to lead the rest of the world into the light, and with the United States being primarily a nation of Christians, permits the United States to employ massive military might in achieving that mandate. The Bush-Cheney doctrine, for example, permits and the United States to unilaterally attack any nation with massive force or to attack any target within any nation, regardless of civilian casualties. It is a result of what defines this nation, the Christian superiority.

Another statement that has no basis in fact. True, there are many Christian organizations that believe their mission on earth is to spread the Gospel far and wide through missionary efforts in the world's pestholes.

Regarding the Bush Doctrine, it was formulated to deal pre-emptively with terrorism and nations that would host terrorists - it has NOTHING to do with "Christian superiority".
For those with short memories, here is the essence of the Bush Doctrine as stated by President Bush to a joint session of congress on 9/27/2001:

"We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network...We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice. We're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

Of course this was formulated in response to the attacks of 911 in particular, and the other previous terrorist attacks that had gone ignored during the Clinton presidency.
Had the Europeans, particularly the British formulated a pre-emptive policy similar to this in the mid 1930s against Nazi Germany, WW2 could have been avoided. Hitler and his goons could have been quashed before crossing into the Rhineland. Instead the French and the Brits lead by Neville Chamberlain engaged in the tactics of appeasement, negotiations and sanctions (sound familiar?) and we all know what happened consequently.

To claim our recent military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on our sense of Christian superiority is without merit. However, those who agree with this viewpoint should be happy with the policies of the current resident of the Oval Office. He started with his apology tour, and he is now in the process of righting all of his predecessors' past wrongdoings. We'll see how this works out, especially in his future dealings with the Iranians.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Realizing that first had experience accounts for little, I can honestly say that in my 20 years of military and intell service I saw NO religious bias. Shoot, I even had a Jewish guy playing guitar in my Catholic guitar mass in Japan. Kinda funny hearing him sing that oldie but goody, "They will know we are Christians by our love"!! By the way, unless they have changed laws, every chapel on every base is non-denominational and can and is used for services by any religion. (not sure about devil worship or witchcraft)

We had many of the world's religions in our military. I, my self, first hand, never saw any problems and was never taught, by the military, any kind of religious teachings.

My son and nephew say the same, they are in now.

Of course, I, and they, are not at every base in the world at all times everyday, so many stories are 2nd and 3rd hand. Sound like normal to me. Most of what EVERYBODY writes in here is 2nd or 3rd hand. Since, NO ONE is at every base at all times every day. We all just recount what little we saw first hand, and everything else is 2nd, 3rd or who know how many hands back?

That goes for most of what everybody writes in here as well. We all recount our first hand experiences and everything else is based on others thoughts, ideas and experiences. When you learn something from a "trusted source" you are only learning what THEY learned, often second or third hand. You can quote this source or that source but it is NOT first hand experience. That IS how the human race learns and passes on what they learn.

The less first hand experience one has on any particular subject the less likely they are to understand the problem. That is why I don't go to a doctor to get my truck worked on. That is why I hardly EVER as a politician for advice or answers to ANY problem!
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim buddy, it was a really nice try ..... truly a valiant effort .... I gotta give ya credit for trying .... but I'm afraid you're coming up way, way short .... :rolleyes:

Because you attempt to selectively address what was said as though it were merely a battle of numbers with respect to certain, specific types of acts (largely along a suicide bombers vs abortion clinic bombings vs beheadings vs shooting in gay bars sorta line), you absolutely and utterly fail to address the following in the larger context, which goes to exactly what motivates these people (meaning the current crop of terrorists) - while also completely failing to understand what motivates us - to wit:

"causing the Christian religion to become an imperialistic war-mongering religion, whose adherents have believed that they were instructed by God to invade the homelands of non-Christian peoples, take possession of their lands and resources, annihilate many of the indigenous inhabitants as well as subjugate and exploit the remaining innocent indigenous peoples."

The reason why you didn't bother to address the above substantively, is because you really can't - at least from any type of moral high ground - therefore you must avoid it.

Oh, if pressed, you will attempt to justify it, on the basis of the "terrorists" being really "bad", "horrible", "evil" ...... and all other manner of highly pejorative adjectives - largely because of the strategy, tactics, and methods that they use - while purposely ignoring the fact that they are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of the resources available to them - all the while failing to consider the magnitude of both the economic and military weapons deployed against them - as well as also either ignoring, or (worse yet) attempting to justify, the actions of our nation and military, and the deaths that we cause ..... ahem .... as a supposedly "Christian" nation ..... my, my ... how terribly convenient .....:rolleyes:

You seem to feel that similar acts, when done by, or in the name of, a state (ours, most particularly) are somehow inherently different ....... more righteous, more virtuous ..... indeed, may I say .... more holy ? ...... than when small groups of non-state actors (who interestingly happen to be a different religion than yourself) commit them.

I can assure you, that by and large, the tactics, strategy, and ultimate final product (death and destruction) are largely the same for both groups ..... however, the ultimate order of magnitude is far, far different ..... a fact that I'm fairly sure that you really incapable of taking an honest look at .......

You feel that our delivery of death and destruction is good, wholesome, righteous and inherently moral - while theirs is fundamentally, at it's core, bad, uncivilized, immoral, and, of course, inherently evil ...

Your premise is largely based on a "we-are-right-they-are-wrong" computation ... while such mental admonitions to oneself are, for the moment, quite personally reassuring I'm sure, they in no way allow one to escape the ultimate reckoning that comes from from making them .....

Personally, I say: both are wrong ......

The fact that there is a huge difference in the degree of wacko makes all the difference in the world.
Not really ..... all you have to do to understand how true that isn't, is talk to someone whose friend or family member was murdered by someone who was "less whacko" .....

In either case, such victims are always still quite dead .....

The percentage of muslims that ascribe to radicalism and jihadism is far greater than the percentage of wacko militant Christianity; their raw numbers are also greater.
Hmmmm ..... what do you base that on ?

Gotta a link ?

The problem with such a claim is that you assume (wrongly of course) - likely defining the term in your own mind - that "wacko militant Christianity" means a small number of single individuals, primarily operating alone, in violation of the law, in isolated incidents ... outside of the mainstream .....

I think the point that was being made (above, by Turtle) has a far, far wider application and context than you would, no doubt, prefer to confine it to .....

One might say, that thru the heady wine of militarism and nationalism, we .... as a largely Christian nation and culture have - certainly in the last 50 years - been seduced and subscribed wholesale to radicalism and jihadism ..... against all advices by the Founders to the contrary ....

Do we not engage in (supposedly) defensive military conflicts all over the globe against those we perceive to be military threats, or who threaten our "interests" ?

Have not other "Christian nations" done similar within the last 200 years ?

So .... you miss the point entirely ....

Also, Evangelicals can not be compared to jihadists - simply not apples and oranges there.
Well, you're only 50% correct there - yes, they are not apples and oranges - they are both (often) nuts ......

(imagine you got a little excited right up there - as evidenced by the inadvertent second inclusion of the word "not") ......

And yes, some evangelicals (at least the radicalized, whacked out ones) certainly can be easily compared - it was just done earlier in this thread.

I can certainly understand your disagreement with doing so, and your vehement protests over it - particularly if you are, yourself, an evangelical ..... but also as well, even if you are only part of the broader portion of the Christian religion.

And your own personal taste for war, militarism, strident nationalism, and foreign adventurism are a fairly well-recorded matter on these forums .... so I guess it's no surprise really ....

How one squares those positions with the Christian faith has always escaped me personally ...... it is certainly not my understanding of it .... but then many seem to ascribe to a similar view ...... mass delusion perhaps ..... ?

This is an absurd comparison, based on a false premise - that of equating evangelicals with jihadists or islamofascists.
I'm sure that the above is always true when considered from the perspective of an evangelical (with Jesus as my co-pilot ....), mostly true from the perspective of a non-evangelical Christian (if there is such a thing), maybe somewhat true from the perspective of some Muslims ..... and absolutely never true from the perspective of what you are calling jihadists or islamofascists ....

Further I think that someone who is an honest broker (doesn't have a dog in the fight - ie. of neither religion) would probably not find the comparison entirely absurd at all .....

The sheer numbers make the point
Indeed they do ...... as we will see very shortly ....

On the other hand, the number of deaths attributed to acts of violence (not necessarily bombings) against abortion clinics from 1997 to 2009 total THREE (3). The acts of violence (not necessarily bombings) against abortion clinics in the last several years were: 2009 - one; '08 - none; '07 - two; '06 - none; '05 - two; '04 - two; the trend is obvious and the stats are here:
.... the trend is possibly what it is because the greater Christian community has had their attention turned to a new boogeyman .....

As to stats, I'll have some additional stats for ya here in a few moments after we deal with this abortion thing .....

BTW,what do you think has been the percentage change in coverage of abortion vs the "War on Terror" on Christian media since 9/11 ?

Also if you would have bothered to click on the link the NAF page you cited that was marked (complete) "Violence Statistics" you could have found out the following:

"According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers."

and

"According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")."

Of course, that wouldn't fit with the agenda of minimizing things ....

BTW, if ever ya want a little more insight on the anti-abortion movement we could sit and talk sometime .... while we listen to my autographed CD that Randall Terry personally gave me of his music ....

In 2008 alone there were 658 suicide bombings around the world - most in Afghanistan and Iraq ...... The bombings have spread to dozens of countries on five continents, killed more than 21,350 people and injured about 50,000 since 1983 ....
Ok .... I'll accept that as true and accurate .... tell ya what ..... why don't you add up all the "terrorist" attacks and consequent deaths (by radical jihadist/islamofacist only, if that's what really frys your bacon) .... that have occurred over the last ..... oh, I dunno, say .... 50 years ?

And then you tell me how that stacks up against the following:

All the non-US deaths (civilian and combatants) in the Vietnam war and,

All the non-US deaths in First Gulf War and,

All the non-US deaths that have resulted as a consequence of the current military engagements in both Iraq and Afghanistan ....

and then toss the following little tidbits in for good measure:

"The ICRC estimates that in Laos alone, 9 to 27 million unexploded submunitions remain, and some 11,000 people have been killed or injured, more than 30 percent of them children." [The above remaining munitions are still killing at the rate of 300 deaths per year]

"An estimate based on US military databases states that 9,500 sorties in Cambodia delivered up to 87,000 air-dropped cluster munitions." [amount of current ongoing deaths not researched and unknown by me at the moment]

and

"During the Gulf War, the US and its allies (France, Saudi Arabia, UK) drop 61,000 cluster bombs containing some 20 million submunitions. The number of cluster munitions delivered by surface-launched artillery and rocket systems during the Gulf War is not known, but an estimated 30 million or more DPICM submunitions were used in the conflict."

Gee .... a whole 658 suicide bombings and a whole 21,350 killed since '83 .... really ? That many ? :rolleyes:

Geez ... I mean the US Armed Forces are estimated to have killed 91,500 South Vietnamese civilians alone in the Vietnam War - and that's not counting combat deaths ....

And another 52,000 to 70,000 North Vietnamese civilian deaths as a result of the bombing campaigns in the North .....

FWIW, the total Vietnam War-related deaths included 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians .... versus only 58,159 U.S. soldiers.

And you wanna talk about 21,350 as a number .... really .... ?

One could make the case that someone who would knowingly and intentionally forfeit their own life (by being a suicide bomber) in furtherance of what they see as a war of aggression by a foreign power, has just a bit more cahones .... than some guy, who from the relative safety of 50,000 feet, squeezed a button, pulled a trigger .... (and one could also easily make the case that both are equally insane)

One could also make the case that one is a morally superior position - fighting against foreign domination, in defense of one's home land - when compared to the military of a foreign nation who has invaded another country - particularly when the country being invaded didn't attack the country doing the invading .....

One could also - quite easily - make the case of who really poses the greater actual threat to peace and security on this planet ..... simply by examining recorded history .... and keeping in mind who has access to the greatest quantities of the most deadly weapons

Please keep in mind that I didn't intend the little listing above to be all-compassing and all-inclusive of all murder, mayhem, death, and destruction that the United States, as a "Christian" nation, has wrought throughout it's entire history .... nor did I address the similar actions on the part of other "Christian" nations .....

The idea that the threat of radical islamic jihadism can be compared to that of Christian religious wackos (who may or may not be evangelicals) is laughable.
..... only to those who utterly incapable of taking an honest and unflinching look at the actual record ...... by virtue of being Christian religious, or some other form of wacko, themselves ....

Fortunately, the Christians and Jews who have been attacked repeatedly by suicide bombers at funerals, crowded markets, etc. have not responded in kind with equal numbers of retaliatory suicide bombings against muslim targets such as mosques at prayer time.
Yeah .... you just keep suckin' on that moral inequivalency kool-aid thru the straw of self-righteous Christian indignation .... all while keeping your head buried in the sand (or some other equally dark, but perhaps somewhat moister, place):

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

The cluster rounds which don't detonate on impact, believed by the United Nations to be around 40% of those fired by the IDF in Lebanon, remain on the ground as unexploded munitions, effectively littering the landscape with thousands of land mines which will continue to claim victims long after the war has ended.

Because of their high level of failure to detonate, it is believed that there are around 500,000 unexploded munitions on the ground in Lebanon. To date 12 Lebanese civilians have been killed by these mines since the end of the war.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.

A direct hit from a phosphorous shell typically causes severe burns and a slow, painful death.


Full article, as reported in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper:

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well stated Rlent..but will fall on deaf ears..for the most part,

As long as WE the western world infer our beliefs of right and wrong on other nations and squash their right to soveriegnty and self determination..because it is not in OUR best interests..we will always be at odds with someone...

IF the shoe was on the other foot..how would we react? They say you can not do that WE will not allow you to...would not your reaction be to fight back?


Anything like Obama care being FORCED on South Dakota? Why should South Dakota have to have their states rights and sovereignty violated by a government that has no legal authority to do so? Smaller scale, same issue.

Are your uncles still upset that the U.S. did NOT jump into WWII at the beginning? What would have happened if we did? What would have happened if WE tried to stop Hitler or Stalin before they began THEIR REIGN OF TERROR? Would more people or less people DIED? Just askin'.

How do YOU decided which "cause" is right or wrong. Is it as simple as is may seem? Can you really get accurate information? How many people who agree with current policy, in a position to know a little more, have you spoken with? Are you ideas only based on personal reflections? No problem with that, just askin'. What to you base your personal beliefs on this subject on? Which 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand information sources do you really on?

That is what is boils down to. You make choices on every subject. You choose which sources you get information to make those choices on. You never really know how accurate or complete those sources are. THEIR information can be wrong, incomplete or biased. We all, you, RLENT, Turtle, Layoutshooter and OVM, base our thoughts and ideas on our own individual bias, studies, first hand experiences and multiple hand me down sources.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Well stated Rlent..but will fall on deaf ears ..... for the most part
Yeah ..... well, I think I once read somewhere that sometimes ..... those who have eyes yet fail to see ...... and those that have ears yet do not hear ....

As long as WE the western world infer our beliefs of right and wrong on other nations and squash their right to soveriegnty and self determination ..... because it is not in OUR best interests ...... we will always be at odds with someone ...
Indeed ....

But the fact is, in the long term .... and in the final analysis ... it is always in our best interests to respect other peoples' right to their own soveriegnty and self determination .....

IF the shoe was on the other foot..how would we react?
Can there be any doubt whatsoever ?

They say you can not do that WE will not allow you to ...
Moreover they say: you can not do that WE will not allow you to ... but we OURSELVES will do it because it pleases us .....

would not your reaction be to fight back?
As would most any man's ....... ;)
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Thats History and mistakes were made...
Same can be said of you, Leo, Pilgrim and Chef....you have your side...
And someone made us(the west) judge, jury and executioner by proxie...

WE started this thing when WE deserted Afganistan when the Soviets pulled out...it has been down hill ever since...with the M.E. conflict...This whole mess with Iran and Iraq..
There was a time we weren't fighting these people....somewhere it went all wrong...

You a only sort of correct when you state that this all started when we left Afghanistan the first time. That lack of action did lead to many problems but is not even close to answering what the route problems are. You, as many, tend not to go back far enough into history to trace the routes of these problems. You have to go back WAY further than the 1980's to even begin to figure out what is going on today in the Middle East. These problems, as with all the worlds problems, go back centuries. Long before any of today's key players were born and will continue long past their grandchildren are dead. Man is short lived, the problems are not.

As I said, EVERYONE in here writes based on their own beliefs, personal bias and their own first hand experience. Those are the facts. Many will TRY to say different, but that is what it is.
 
Top