- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:04 pm to asurob1
Jeez you're a moron.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:07 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's interesting how violence has followed Islam from its founding. Muhammad wasn't exactly a peaceful guy.
Violence has followed every religion since its founding. Even Buddhism, although they've historically been much less violent than most religions. Anything that pits one group against another will tend to trigger the human propensity for violence. In that regard, there's nothing particularly unusual about Islam. They're currently in the forefront, but they're far from unique.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:10 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Christians shooting abortion doctors in the head or blowing up clinics
When did this last happen? Seriously. Years and years ago and it was utterly denounced by every legitimate Christian group in the country.
Liberals so badly want Christianity to be violent to make it the equivalent of what is happening in Islam. But, it isn't.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:13 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
In that regard, there's nothing particularly unusual about Islam. They're currently in the forefront, but they're far from unique.
Their treatment of women and children and their barbaric methods are unique. I'd argue that while other groups may have demonstrated violence in the past, they haven't been nearly as violent relative to the other violence going on in the rest of the world at that time as ISIS/ISIL have been in this day and age.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:13 pm to LSU alum wannabe
You think that gun hoarders are ridiculous but the only thing more ridiculous than that is to think that it would get to a point where federal military would go house to house and take them.
That would be a slaughter. Military would be lucky to make it out the Midwest , much less the Deep South.
It's insane to think that some people are anti gun, knowing they took a history class and learned how our nation was formed. Sickening really.
That would be a slaughter. Military would be lucky to make it out the Midwest , much less the Deep South.
It's insane to think that some people are anti gun, knowing they took a history class and learned how our nation was formed. Sickening really.
This post was edited on 12/14/14 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:15 pm to Reames239
quote:
You think that gun hoarders are ridiculous but the only thing more ridiculous than that is to think that it would get to a point where federal military would go house to house and take them.
That would be a slaughter. Military would be lucky to make it out the Midwest , much less the Deep South.
Here we go again. I'm out.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:17 pm to TerryDawg03
Could have just left without the useless post. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:20 pm to Reames239
quote:
Could have just left without the useless post. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
I rest my case.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 11:36 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
Here we go again. I'm out.
Do you think he's wrong?
It's an absurd scenario, but if you examine it logically, he is absolutely correct.
We have a total combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery, special ops) force of about 200,000.
As good as our guys are, they'd have an absolute bear of a time even controlling a city like Chicago or New York, much less entire regions or country.
Signed,
A Former Infantry Officer
This post was edited on 12/14/14 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 12/15/14 at 12:38 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
In that regard, there's nothing particularly unusual about Islam. They're currently in the forefront, but they're far from unique.
This is just intellectually dishonest. You may bring up Christian brutality in the Crusades or the Inquisition, but that all happened in a world in which the life expectancy was around 30.
It's the 21st century. Nonetheless, Islamist terrorist acts happen frequently and human rights conditions in much of the Muslim world, particularly with respect to women, homosexuals, and criminals, are appalling. Are you implying that there is an excuse here, in light of the fact that Islamist terrorists have the ability to use social media to talk shite about infidels and the Arab region of the world has an immense amount of natural resources that should theoretically bolster their standard of living? Comparing violence and brutality in the 20th/21st centuries with that of previous historical eras is risible.
Since the invention of gunpowder, one can safely say no single religious group has inflicted as much terrorism on innocent civilians. Some isolated incidents in Belfast and so on do not diminish this reality, and bringing up Buddhism or Christianity or whatever, and saying that this is in no way unique, is just absolute bullshite.
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 12:42 am
Posted on 12/15/14 at 12:40 am to KCT
quote:
95% of these terrorist acts are perpetrated by the same group, for the same reasons.
nope. Not even close actually. Posted on 12/15/14 at 12:44 am to MrCarton
From a broadly historical/marco perspective, are you really willing to argue that the objectives of al Qaeda, ISIS, the Boston Marathon Bombers, and the 1972 Munich terrorists are all that different?
Posted on 12/15/14 at 12:55 am to Lou Pai
quote:
Since the invention of gunpowder, one can safely say no single religious group has inflicted as much terrorism on innocent civilians. Some isolated incidents in Belfast and so on do not diminish this reality, and bringing up Buddhism or Christianity or whatever, and saying that this is in no way unique, is just absolute bullshite.
Apparently you don't know much about European history from say the mid 1500's the the mid 1700's. Or hell, what the Serbs and Croations were doing to each other 15 years ago. Good Christians, all. I don't give Islam a pass on the evil perpetrated in its name, but my view of all philosophies built around fear of an invisible man in the sky is considerably more jaundiced than yours is. Put Protestants and Catholics in Iraq with control of oil in the balance, and they'd go at each other just as enthusiastically as the Sunnis and Shia have. The only difference is one of motive, means, and opportunity.
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 1:00 am
Posted on 12/15/14 at 1:01 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Apparently you don't know much about European history from say the mid 1500's the the mid 1700's.
If you really think the Inquisition is comparable (which had very little to do with religion), then you're just misguided entirely.
You haven't answered my question yet, though. On second thought, don't worry about it.
Edited to quote what your original post was, pre-edit.
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 1:03 am
Posted on 12/15/14 at 1:05 am to Lou Pai
quote:
If you really think the Inquisition is comparable (which had very little to do with religion), then you're just misguided entirely.
I'm not talking about the Inquisition, I'm talking about the near-continuous wars between Catholics and Protestants, in which civilians of the wrong religion were routinely put to the sword by victorious armies.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 1:07 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Or hell, what the Serbs and Croations were doing to each other 15 years ago.
Since the Serb-Croatian war was based on religion or has any relevance to what we are discussing.
quote:
Put Protestants and Catholics in Iraq with control of oil in the balance, and they'd go at each other just as enthusiastically as the Sunnis and Shia have.
Sunni-Shia conflicts are internal to Islam and again have little to do with anything that we are talking about. You got so caught up in your efforts to equivocate, you missed the point entirely.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 1:23 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
quote:
Actually number could be up to 50 hostages now per Lindt Australia CEO
Police spokeswoman just said it was less than that.
It's now less than 30. Five people, including three Lindt workers, have escaped from the building.
The hostage-taker told them that there are four bombs under his control - two inside the cafe and two in undisclosed locations within the downtown district.
He has two requests - one is to brought an ISIL flag, and the other is to speak directly to Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
This information is the up-to-date latest direct from Sydney as of 2:21 AM Eastern time (6:21 PM Sydney time).
One of the escaped Lindt workers:
The hostage-taker:
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 1:57 am
Posted on 12/15/14 at 2:55 am to Reames239
quote:
That would be a slaughter. Military would be lucky to make it out the Midwest , much less the Deep South.
you're right it would be a slaughter...but you are wrong about who would be slaughtered.
I sure do love good old boys who think because they were smart enough to purchase a hand gun they can take on the world.
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 2:57 am
Posted on 12/15/14 at 3:04 am to asurob1
It would be a form of guerilla warfare. And the good 'ol boys have a lot more firepower than just a few handguns laying around.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News