Don't link Islam to terror, Islamic chief urges

[gunflint]

Bombing Japan? What the hell are you talking about. Do you have any idea how many lives were saved by that action?

[Tutmos]

Bombing Japan? What the hell are you talking about. Do you have any idea how many lives were saved by that action?

I agree, that was one of the funnier things I've seen posted here. Forget justifying it by how many lives it saved. The bottom line is Japan attacked us and started the fight and any true intellectual sees why it was imperative that we crush them. I'd argue that we should have dropped 5 more if we had had them at the time, which we didn't, as a lesson to anyone in the future of the dire consequenses to attacking the US. The price has to be so painful that for decades nobody would even consider it. Proportional responses only encourage people to challenge and attack, knowing they'll only risk a level response. Essentially think of it as a Wolverine, you leave it alone because it goes *********** if disturbed.

[Dick Unger]

Bombing Japan? What the hell are you talking about. Do you have any idea how many lives were saved by that action?

Probably my life too. My father was on the way to invade Japan when the war ended. He thought those bombs were the best things ever invented.

But it is an example of an atrocity, done by a Christian nation against a non-Christian nation, warranted or not. More people see the pictures of the cities than read the history.

We think the A bombing was warranted by all the facts, the Arabs and plenty of others think 911 was warranted.

The bishops never objected, neither do the Mullahs.

[gunflint]

The definition of atrocity is an inhumane and cruel act. It's estimated that dropping the bombs saved anywhere from 250,000 to over a million lives. Both American and Japanese. How many people did the Japanese empire kill in the 60 years preceding the bombs? How many after? Maybe if the Muslim world were to see humane shadows burnt into the sidewalks they would give up on world dominance, get over the BS and we could start working on real problems instead of the my God is better than your God crap.

[DanM]

Christians believe the same thing about themselves. But a non Christian, who observes the actions of Christians and Christian nations over time, such as the Crusades, the Reformation, Holocaust, bombing of Japan, religious symbols used by the KKK, might actually be waiting for an apology from Christian leaders.
Yet the bishops don't feel any special responsibility for this stuff. They think it goes without saying that they opposed it. But did they ever in real time?

While you have a point, Dick, I find your examples ill-considered.

The Crusades were a response to decades of Muslim oppression/murder as they forced their belief system on the inhabitants of the Middle East in general, and what they call Palestine in particular. Men, women and children were targeted and slaughtered because they chose to hold a non-Muslim belief. So Muslims really have no grievance against the Crusaders except for convenience/argument's sake.

The Reformation did not target peoples of other faiths, but Christians who held different views within the faith. It also happened in Europe, where there were few Muslims present. So today's reformist Muslim's may take any view of it that they wish - but history does not support any grievance on their part.

The Holocaust was the work of an atheistic political party that attacked and subdued the Christian church as one of it's first acts. Then it carried out a campaign of extermination against an avowed enemy of Islam - the Jews. So explain to me how the Muslims take offense at this?

The bombing of Japan has been addressed by others.

The KKK is an illegal organization that targets a minority within America - another avowed enemy of the Muslim world - and a minority that the Muslims themselves subjugated by force. So where is their problem with this one? Oh, you said the religious symbols. Yes, that could be a problem because their extremists have hijacked Muslim religious symbols. I'll give you this one on that technicality.

It's too easy to buy, and perpetuate, the myths of the reformist/liberal media on these particular issues. The critical thinker could build a better argument without pandering to common misconceptions about historical events and their significance today.

Dan

[goalie]

The bishops never objected, neither do the Mullahs.

I hate to ruin your analogy (well, actually, that is a lie, I probably am going to enjoy it....) but, last time I checked, other than the Vatican, there were no modern countries run by the Catholic church, or any other Christian church. The United States of America bombed Japan. You know, that country with the Bill of Rights that ensures separation of church and state. I doubt if any of the bishops you refer to were teaching anything at all that would relate to what goes on inside many mosques (even in this country) today, BUT, even if they were, they were not in power and running the country. The Taliban were.

[Fast351]

I find myself having a real hard time giving this Imam any sympathy. Islamic terrorists are all Muslim, and even if they didn't press the detonator plunger or fly the planes into buildings themselves, there are MANY muslims that agree with the terrorists goals, IE to kill infidels. To wit, the cheering in the streets in third world predominantly ******* Muslim countries after 9/11 and Madrid.

No, if they want to change the image of the Muslim religion, they had better start cleaning house at home first before coming to the world at large hat in hand.

[Dick Unger]

The bishops never objected, neither do the Mullahs.

I hate to ruin your analogy (well, actually, that is a lie, I probably am going to enjoy it....) but, last time I checked, other than the Vatican, there were no modern countries run by the Catholic church, or any other Christian church. The United States of America bombed Japan. You know, that country with the Bill of Rights that ensures separation of church and state. I doubt if any of the bishops you refer to were teaching anything at all that would relate to what goes on inside many mosques (even in this country) today, BUT, even if they were, they were not in power and running the country. The Taliban were.

Sure. But the rest of the world does not dwell on these distinctions. They write their own history. All Churches or religions tend to separate people and tell their own history. Whether it is "infidels" or "false Christians" or "pagans" or "someone who follows Satan", or even "heritics", the "Antichrist" the bottom line is that proponents want these other folks put down.

Thinking critically about one's own belief, rather than blindly accepting the leaders doctrine on faith is universally discouraged in all religions and that certain seems true with Islam. But thinking critically about the OTHER folks belief, that's fine.

So they lead a daily chant of "kill the infidel" and when someone does, they say that person did not understand the euphenism, we are not responsible, stop blaming us.

[goalie]

Sure. But the rest of the world does not dwell on these distinctions.

Not my problem.

[Dick Unger]

Christians believe the same thing about themselves. But a non Christian, who observes the actions of Christians and Christian nations over time, such as the Crusades, the Reformation, Holocaust, bombing of Japan, religious symbols used by the KKK, might actually be waiting for an apology from Christian leaders.
Yet the bishops don't feel any special responsibility for this stuff. They think it goes without saying that they opposed it. But did they ever in real time?

While you have a point, Dick, I find your examples ill-considered.

The Crusades were a response to decades of Muslim oppression/murder as they forced their belief system on the inhabitants of the Middle East in general, and what they call Palestine in particular. Men, women and children were targeted and slaughtered because they chose to hold a non-Muslim belief. So Muslims really have no grievance against the Crusaders except for convenience/argument's sake.

The Reformation did not target peoples of other faiths, but Christians who held different views within the faith. It also happened in Europe, where there were few Muslims present. So today's reformist Muslim's may take any view of it that they wish - but history does not support any grievance on their part.

The Holocaust was the work of an atheistic political party that attacked and subdued the Christian church as one of it's first acts. Then it carried out a campaign of extermination against an avowed enemy of Islam - the Jews. So explain to me how the Muslims take offense at this?

The bombing of Japan has been addressed by others.

The KKK is an illegal organization that targets a minority within America - another avowed enemy of the Muslim world - and a minority that the Muslims themselves subjugated by force. So where is their problem with this one? Oh, you said the religious symbols. Yes, that could be a problem because their extremists have hijacked Muslim religious symbols. I'll give you this one on that technicality.

It's too easy to buy, and perpetuate, the myths of the reformist/liberal media on these particular issues. The critical thinker could build a better argument without pandering to common misconceptions about historical events and their significance today.

Dan

I'm giving examples of atrocities committed by nations with a Christian culture, "justified" or not. The point is simply that the Christian leaders feel no special responsiblity for what they regard as secuular conduct. Neither do the Imams.

The holocaust is a special example. Christians, who watched quietly while their neighbors were systematically killed, and then acquire their property, now say, well, those Nazis were technically atheists. Don't worry, they've all suddenly disappeared. The IImams would probably behave the same way.

[justaguy]

The KKK is an illegal organization that targets a minority within America

The KKK is an illegal organization??