Unpopular Opinions That You Have.

[Nate]

9 minutes ago, Tesla said:

UOTYH 1: Terrorism isn't that big a deal. Don't get me wrong, I understand it scares people that mass deaths can occur so instantly and with no way of stopping it, but in many ways the fear is irrational. The chances of you or someone you know dying due to terrorism is tiny. There are many many things that will kill you first. Honestly you might as well just lock yourself in your room and not step out, but then again mould has probably killed more people in Melbourne (or even Australia) than terrorists so you're still fucked. Basically you might as well just kill yourself if you're going to be afraid of such improbabilities (that's another thing you're way more likely to die of, suicide). Worst of all is this shit always leads to some more retarded nanny state laws coming into affect.

UOTYH 2: While I'm sure most people prefer innocent people wherever they live to not die at the hands of terrorists, it's 100% normal and fine to care a lot more about terrorist attacks in other Western countries than in Beirut or Pakistan. People look at the attacks in Paris and think "Oh shit if that can happen in Paris it can happen here", hence they care since it affects their lives, some terrorist attack in Beirut or Pakistan doesn't really affect their lives so they don't care much. I don't see the problem? This whole "what about Beirut" thing is some fucked up logic.

 

I half agree with your first point.
Terrorism is a huge deal imo as it has the potential to become a far greater issue but I understand what you mean, at the moment there's no point being overly afraid about it due to the reasons you pointed out. 

You fucking nailed the second point, I've seen so many annoying, whiny posts on social media about it (mainly from idealistic uni students) but they refuse to grasp that it simply boils down to cultural values and the degree that one assimilates with places such as Beirut and Pakistan. And as bad as it sounds, as an anglo-Australian I just can't care about it as much as I do in comparison to a country such as France which shares far more similar cultural values that I identify with. 

[hedaik]

9 hours ago, Tesla said:

 

UOTYH 2: While I'm sure most people prefer innocent people wherever they live to not die at the hands of terrorists, it's 100% normal and fine to care a lot more about terrorist attacks in other Western countries than in Beirut or Pakistan. People look at the attacks in Paris and think "Oh shit if that can happen in Paris it can happen here", hence they care since it affects their lives, some terrorist attack in Beirut or Pakistan doesn't really affect their lives so they don't care much. I don't see the problem? This whole "what about Beirut" thing is some fucked up logic.

 

On point there. Not much different to the Phil Hughes argument that was on here.

You'd be a pretty broken human if you showed the same amount of grief for some random you've never heard of dying as you would with your dead mother. 

Although it does help provide some perspective with how lucky we are, and that other countries in the world are going through this type of shit all the time. Fine line between providing that perspective and acting pretentious though. 

Edited November 15, 2015 by hedaik

[Pete Heartspur]

3 hours ago, hedaik said:

On point there. Not much different to the Phil Hughes argument that was on here.

You'd be a pretty broken human if you showed the same amount of grief for some random you've never heard of dying as you would with your dead mother. 

Although it does help provide some perspective with how lucky we are, and that other countries in the world are going through this type of shit all the time. Fine line between providing that perspective and acting pretentious though. 

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that hearing about incidences in places such as Beirut, Pakistan, Iraq, etc have been so common in the past, that it isn't as shocking as hearing something like that what happened in Paris.

Edit: Couldn't fix the shocking grammar in the last part of my post. Still a few bugs with the update I assume.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Pete Heartspur

[cadete]

I just find boring as batshit when somebody thinks it's profound to point out on FB that one story is more newsworthy than a supposedly similar story... this has been happening since the fucken Printing Press was invented, in fact you could say the same thing about the way different news spread amongst the public in bloody Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece.

The greater public will always found certain stories more newsworthy than other stories for any number of reasons... its human nature and the press just acts accordingly to its audience. It does not mean you have too feel this way or that even the journalists reporting the stories themselves personally feel as such.

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by cadete

[NewConvert]

18 hours ago, Tesla said:

UOTYH 1: Terrorism isn't that big a deal. Don't get me wrong, I understand it scares people that mass deaths can occur so instantly and with no way of stopping it, but in many ways the fear is irrational. The chances of you or someone you know dying due to terrorism is tiny. There are many many things that will kill you first. Honestly you might as well just lock yourself in your room and not step out, but then again mould has probably killed more people in Melbourne (or even Australia) than terrorists so you're still fucked. Basically you might as well just kill yourself if you're going to be afraid of such improbabilities (that's another thing you're way more likely to die of, suicide). Worst of all is this shit always leads to some more retarded nanny state laws coming into affect.

UOTYH 2: While I'm sure most people prefer innocent people wherever they live to not die at the hands of terrorists, it's 100% normal and fine to care a lot more about terrorist attacks in other Western countries than in Beirut or Pakistan. People look at the attacks in Paris and think "Oh shit if that can happen in Paris it can happen here", hence they care since it affects their lives, some terrorist attack in Beirut or Pakistan doesn't really affect their lives so they don't care much. I don't see the problem? This whole "what about Beirut" thing is some fucked up logic.

 

Partially agree with this.

Point 1: Terrorism is a big deal but not because a random person will die from an unsuspecting attack. It is a big deal because of your last line in the paragraph that the government will introduce greater security laws. I don't like using the term nanny state because the word nanny makes the whole thing look rather childish and infantilises the argument - it is more of a totalitarian state. What is even worse is that these laws are conducted by fallible human beings which means in the end everyone will fall foul of these laws - that was one of the reasons why the former Chilean dictator, Pinochet, fell. Even if you were a law abiding middle class citizen you could come under suspicion or worse.

And your logos is correct but your pathos is thoroughly deficient. Even in ancient times (European at least) to be murdered  by another human being was despicable (but not so in battle) but to be killed by disease or by a hungry beast was accepted. This reasoning must be a primordial instinct in human beings more than likely to do with trust.

Point 2: You are right here. According to traveller.com.au over 1 million people travel to France every year and you don't see that many people holidaying in Pakistan or Lebanon. The other thing is that we automatically assume that they have first class security services like Australia does and so any failure there could also mean that our security services will also fail. If a bomb goes off in Pakistan its a bit like going swimming in a NT river and finding a crocodile but in Paris is like finding a croc in the Yarra.

 

5 hours ago, cadete said:

I just find boring as batshit when somebody thinks it's profound to point out on FB that one story is more newsworthy than a supposedly similar story... this has been happening since the fucken Printing Press was invented, in fact you could say the same thing about the way different news spread amongst the public in bloody Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece.

The greater public will always found certain stories more newsworthy than other stories for any number of reasons... its human nature and the press just acts accordingly to its audience. It does not mean you have too feel this way or that even the journalists reporting the stories themselves personally feel as such.

 

I don't know about the ancient times but certainly in 1683 when the Ottomans attacked Vienna, neither the Germans, nor the French, British or Spaniards gave a shit. Although if the Ottomans would have taken Vienna then it is more than likely that the whole of Europe would have fallen under their control. It is as you say, human nature.

[Tesla]

19 hours ago, Nate said:

Terrorism is a huge deal imo as it has the potential to become a far greater issue but I understand what you mean, at the moment there's no point being overly afraid about it due to the reasons you pointed out. 

 

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

Point 1: Terrorism is a big deal but not because a random person will die from an unsuspecting attack. It is a big deal because of your last line in the paragraph that the government will introduce greater security laws.

Yes, you're both right, it was a poor choice of words to say it isn't a big deal. My point was that the fear of it is quite irrational, even though I do understand why it scares people so much.

And certainly a fair point Nate about the dangers of not keeping it in check. While I obviously (based on my previous posts) agree with you New Convert about it leading to an almost totalitarian state. 

 

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

The other thing is that we automatically assume that they have first class security services like Australia does

If anything they would have superior security services.

GIGN is considered by many in the know to be the best counter terrorism unit in the world, probably a very hard thing to judge accurately though, but at the very least I imagine they would be close to the best. Australia seems a long way behind. Not sure it makes a huge difference though, can't see terrorists in Western countries (not much scope for training, no experience) going to well against any trained, organised, well resources counter terrorism unit. And in many cases the counter terrorism units are not even going to get a chance to stop/minimise an attack.

As for intelligence, Australia seems to do pretty well, and with all the intelligence sharing between nations I doubt there is going to be much of a difference between France and Australia, but it's hard to imagine a country like France having anything but a stronger intelligence service as well (nuclear armed, perm un security council member, global power, more money, etc).

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Tesla

[cadete]

In the early days of Roman Empire there was a relation of the first and current Emperor of Rome Augustus called Germanicus... 

Anyway due to his bloodlines he was appointed a General, now PPL argue with each other how great a general he was but he was no means near the best general Rome had in operation at the time and def not from around that period (Augustus had defeated everyone and proclaimed himself as Emperor not that much longer earlier and just before him Julius Caesar was around the place).

However because he was young and attractive when he died the People of Rome and in particular the many Chroniclers at time went way overboard about how he would have been a potential Supreme General (Unlikely), Possible Emperor (Very Highly Unlikely) and even Rome's Alexander the Great (Not Possible At All).

That was in AD19, and still see this happen to this day... I mean most PPL have forgotten that Mother Teresa died only six days after Princess Di.

Edited November 16, 2015 by cadete

[thisphantomfortress]

20 hours ago, cadete said:

he was no means near the best general Rome had in operation at the time and def not from around that period

Going way off topic but, I know the punic wars were a fair bit before the early pricipate but nobody would even come close to Scipio Africanus, the long haired bad ass who the senators hated who took down Hannibal. Talk about man crushes.

[Shahanga]

Anyone who thinks there aren't serious problems with Islam is a fool

[kingofhearts]

Pauline Hansen would be a good pm for aus

[NewConvert]

15 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Anyone who thinks there aren't serious problems with Islam is a fool

It could be argued that anyone who thinks that there aren't serious problems with any religion is a fool. AFAIK the only two countries that have dealt properly with the role of religion has been Japan and Singapore: Japan in the 17th century by massacring 100,000s of religious nutters, including the genocide of all Christians, and since then have had no issues with religion; and Singapore by restricting their activities although I do note that they are having trouble controlling the Saudi Arabian imams.

However that statement is too broad.

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

Pauline Hansen would be a good pm for aus

She would actually need to be elected for that to happen. Serial candidate, only been elected once off the top of my head

[hakz7]

4 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Anyone who thinks there aren't serious problems with Islam is a fool

No problem with the religion. It's the minority of people. The people who claim to believe in the religion but go against everything it stands for.

[Tesla]

Even if Islam said "go and kill everyone that doesn't believe" (I have no idea if it does or doesn't, not sure it even matters TBH), anyone that blindly follows any religion is fucked in the head. Simple as that.

AFAIK every major religion is full of shit that is not compatible with our modern Western society. For example, in places like Australia and the UK you could very well go to jail just for advocating the anti-gay shit that major religions teach (including both Islam and Christianity), let alone if you actually acted out on it.

But still there are millions of religious people that have no problem fitting in to our society and it's values, because they don't blindly follow the teachings of thousand year old books. Personally, I've always been under the impression that organised religion is an "all or nothing" sort of thing (which is why it has never appealed to me), so not sure how all these people actually justify this "pick and choose" approach to themselves, but that's not my business as long as they aren't doing the retarded shit found in their religion it's a good thing.

Anyway, the point is, I don't give a fuck what any religion says, it has nothing to do with the actions of an individual. If you blindly follow and live your life according to some thousand year old books, thats called being brainwashed. And if you go and commit violence because of these beliefs, that's called being a psychopath, which is a mental disorder independent of one's religious beliefs.

[jw1739]

6 hours ago, NewConvert said:

It could be argued that anyone who thinks that there aren't serious problems with any religion is a fool. AFAIK the only two countries that have dealt properly with the role of religion has been Japan and Singapore: Japan in the 17th century by massacring 100,000s of religious nutters, including the genocide of all Christians, and since then have had no issues with religion; and Singapore by restricting their activities although I do note that they are having trouble controlling the Saudi Arabian imams.

However that statement is too broad.

The issue is what those serious problems are specifically, not that all religions have serious problems generally. These so-called Moslem "terrorists" are nothing less than "murderers", murdering random people of all races and religions, including no religion at all, in the name of religious-political entity associated with Islam. I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any other religion that does the same thing in today's world.

[cadete]

7 hours ago, NewConvert said:

It could be argued that anyone who thinks that there aren't serious problems with any religion is a fool. AFAIK the only two countries that have dealt properly with the role of religion has been Japan and Singapore: Japan in the 17th century by massacring 100,000s of religious nutters, including the genocide of all Christians, and since then have had no issues with religion; and Singapore by restricting their activities although I do note that they are having trouble controlling the Saudi Arabian imams.

However that statement is too broad.

WTF did I just read... 

[thisphantomfortress]

8 minutes ago, cadete said:

WTF did I just read...

Clearly hasn't heard of this mob

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

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, cadete said:

WTF did I just read... 

 

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Clearly hasn't heard of this mob

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

At the end of the 15th century feudal Japan broke down into a massive political civil war which more or less lasted about 120 years. At that stage there were two official religions: Shinto, the native ancestor worshipping of Japan, and Buddhism to which the majority of the aristocracy adhered to. Given that there were multiple alliances (it wasn't one side versus another - it was multiple sides versus everyone else) the monasteries for both religions eventually had to fend for themselves and hence raised armies. Which led to the political civil war overlayed with a religious war between the two religions - not to mention which monasteries became leaders. The poor peasants formed armed brigades and pirates roamed between the islands. Out of the ashes of this rose Toyotomi Hideyoshi as a Daimyo who managed to defeat the other Daimyos through warfare, alliances and briberies. Once the political class had been subjugated/pacified (and he had become Shogun) he turned his attention to the pirates and brigands for which he showed no mercy - entire towns were wiped out. Finally he faced the monasteries who refused to submit to his rule. He then placed the largest monastery which had a standing army of 80,000 men under siege and wiped them out altogether, burned the monastery to the ground and had a forest planted on it, erased all documents and roads leading to it and to this day no one exactly knows where it was. A couple of others were taught the same lesson leading to all other monasteries accepting his authority and disbanding his armies.

Whilst this was happening St Ignatius landed in Yokohama and began preaching Catholicism. The English could not accept this so they sent protestant missionaries. Thus pretty soon protestants and catholics had a small but substantial followers in Japan. Hideyoshi did not mind as long as they accepted his rule and kept the peace. but of course in Europe the Christian civil war was raging and so that got exported to Japan as well. Hideyoshi put an end to their war and warned them of the consequences of violating the peace. Shortly he died of illness and after a succession battle Ieyasu Tokugawa became the Shogun, and he was more devoutly Buddhist. Anyhow about 15 years later both Christian denominations raised separate armies to go to war with each other once again. Ieyasu was not as forgiving as Hideyoshi and not only crushed the Christian armies but proceeded to outlaw Christianity (and all other religions) and genocided all practitioners. A small cell survived but eventually they were discovered and executed as well.

It was not until after WWII that freedom of religion was firmly established in Japan. Then in the late 60s the new types of religions such as the Aum emerged but they are all really quite small and after the subway incident the internal security apparatus begun stifling them.

One of the reasons that Japan is so peaceful compared to most other countries was because for about two centuries disturbing the peace was met with such terminal brutality. They were born into that type of society and raised their kids in the same way.

[thisphantomfortress]

Sorry to waste your time dude but I have a history degree and did one my major pieces on the Tokugawa period of Japanese History.

You are still wrong btw.

[NewConvert]

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

The issue is what those serious problems are specifically, not that all religions have serious problems generally. These so-called Moslem "terrorists" are nothing less than "murderers", murdering random people of all races and religions, including no religion at all, in the name of religious-political entity associated with Islam. I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any other religion that does the same thing in today's world.

My personal experience with General Pinochet in Chile was that once he banned all political parties and trade unions there wasn't any space for civil disobedience. So three distinct and separate group arose over time: the armed guerilla resistance that tended to commit terrorist acts against the military or government apparatus, the football clubs (which were still allowed to function) and the grassroots Catholic church.  The guerillas tended to attract people who were prepared to be tortured and killed; the football clubs (active supporter groups) tended to attract young men without any hope and quite often involved in petty crime; and the churches attracted the middle classes. Occasionally you would come across people who crossed the boundaries.

So my perspective is that in Arabic countries there are no outlets for disobedience just the mosque. Since any peaceful attempt to evolve society is resisted by the overlords then it becomes more violent. Of course the fact that western countries keep on interfering only means that things will get worse. As Osama bin Laden said that Al Qaida had no intentions of doing anything in Sweden because they are not involved.

And I am not sure whether the sporadic violence in India by Hindus against Christian and Moslems count as terrorism nor do the Buddhists against the moslems in Myanmar but certainly I don't travel to those countries.

You are right that they are nothing but murderers.

9 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Sorry to waste your time dude but I have a history degree and did one my major pieces on the Tokugawa period of Japanese History.

You are still wrong btw.

can you elaborate? I got most of my Japanese history from The Cambridge History of Japan Vol 1-6.

[jw1739]

4 hours ago, Tesla said:

Even if Islam said "go and kill everyone that doesn't believe" (I have no idea if it does or doesn't, not sure it even matters TBH), anyone that blindly follows any religion is fucked in the head. Simple as that.

AFAIK every major religion is full of shit that is not compatible with our modern Western society. For example, in places like Australia and the UK you could very well go to jail just for advocating the anti-gay shit that major religions teach (including both Islam and Christianity), let alone if you actually acted out on it.

But still there are millions of religious people that have no problem fitting in to our society and it's values, because they don't blindly follow the teachings of thousand year old books. Personally, I've always been under the impression that organised religion is an "all or nothing" sort of thing (which is why it has never appealed to me), so not sure how all these people actually justify this "pick and choose" approach to themselves, but that's not my business as long as they aren't doing the retarded shit found in their religion it's a good thing.

Anyway, the point is, I don't give a fuck what any religion says, it has nothing to do with the actions of an individual. If you blindly follow and live your life according to some thousand year old books, thats called being brainwashed. And if you go and commit violence because of these beliefs, that's called being a psychopath, which is a mental disorder independent of one's religious beliefs.

The only thing I'd disagree with you about is that I think it's quite OK to take a selection out of a set of ideas (if that's what they are), the ones that you feel are appropriate to your time and place, whilst discarding others as wrong, unworkable, or for some other reason. The world is moving forward steadily, and it is indeed madness for blindly follow some ancient recipe for living your life.

[thisphantomfortress]

4 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

can you elaborate? I got most of my Japanese history from The Cambridge History of Japan Vol 1-6.

Sadly I am massively under prepared for my Advanced Corporations exam next week and my modafonil riddled brain is focussing pretty heavily on the Corporations Act at the moment. Give me a week or two and we can have it out

[Jimmy]

13 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Sadly I am massively under prepared for my Advanced Corporations exam next week and my modafonil riddled brain is focussing pretty heavily on the Corporations Act at the moment. Give me a week or two and we can have it out

Well if it's got nothing to do with city why post ??  Nobody gives a shit that u go to uni like nobody cares what anybody does for a job around here ....... It's irrelevant stop grandstanding pal ........ Bizarre stuff

[cadete]

In regards to New Converts Superpost:

I learnt the advocation of the Genocide of PPL due to their religion was wrong in a Children's History Book about WW2 when I was 7.

Edited November 18, 2015 by cadete

[thisphantomfortress]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Well if it's got nothing to do with city why post ??  Nobody gives a shit that u go to uni like nobody cares what anybody does for a job around here ....... It's irrelevant stop grandstanding pal ........ Bizarre stuff

You've done better Jimmy

[Jimmy]

Just now, thisphantomfortress said:

You've done better Jimmy

You miss what I was referencing?

[cadete]

Also New Convert you realise we are Australian?

How is the only country to ever have attacked us in Japan meant to be viewed one of the most peaceful societies of last 200 years?

They also attacked a few other countries (Some more than once) in this time period as well... 

[thisphantomfortress]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

You miss what I was referencing?

Whoosh. My selectively shit memory amazes me sometimes

[thisphantomfortress]

11 minutes ago, cadete said:

Also New Convert you realise we are Australian?

How is the only country to ever have attacked us in Japan meant to be viewed one of the most peaceful societies of last 200 years?

They also attacked a few other countries (Some more than once) in this time period as well... 

Does well to disregard the impact of Article 9 of their constitution too

[NewConvert]

3 hours ago, cadete said:

Also New Convert you realise we are Australian?

How is the only country to ever have attacked us in Japan meant to be viewed one of the most peaceful societies of last 200 years?

They also attacked a few other countries (Some more than once) in this time period as well... 

Sorry I meant to say internally peaceful. Hideyoshi did invade Korea with about 300k troops and got his arse kicked. However, according to Dutch merchants who were never barred from trading with the Shogunate, it was possible to travel from Nagasaki to Edo (Tokyo) without suffering a single misadventure.

The period of history I was referring to was also a very bloody one right across the world and capital punishment was standard. the last public hanging in Melbourne was in 1842.

Japan after WW2 was a different country with a written constitution, the rejection of the divinity of the emperor, the almost complete wiping out of the ruling class, etc. And although Japan still has capital punishment until the previous government no Justice Minister had signed any decree for the execution of prisoners for quite a long time leading to a large backlog. A former minister decried the need for him to sign the death warrant.

My post referred to how countries have dealt with religion and government, specifically with regards to Moslem countries. It does not hurt to see what has happened elsewhere in different times and the circumstances surrounding those events. Given that they are quite often so remote from our own times it is easier to look at them dispassionately. Of course whether any of that can be applied today is a different argument.

[GreenSeater]

15 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Anyone who thinks there aren't serious problems with Islam is a fool

Correct. But the same can be said for every religion. After all look the thousands of years of violence and war the spread of Christianity created for example, but nobody associates all Christians with the Spanish Inquisition.

At the same time though, anyone who thinks that Islam is the biggest causing factor of ISIS is a fool. ISIS is more about an anti-west response due to the western countries constatly meddling in the Middle East and using it for their own financial gain.  Eventually the United States strategy of supplying cash and weapons to extremist groups to fight the Russians/overthrow governments was going to come back to bite the west. We saw it with 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings and now we're seeing it again.

If anyone is to blame for the current situation its the oil-hungry west for fucking up the Middle East and kicking the hornets nest.

[jw1739]

9 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

Correct. But the same can be said for every religion. After all look the thousands of years of violence and war the spread of Christianity created for example, but nobody associates all Christians with the Spanish Inquisition.

At the same time though, anyone who thinks that Islam is the biggest causing factor of ISIS is a fool. ISIS is more about an anti-west response due to the western countries constatly meddling in the Middle East and using it for their own financial gain.  Eventually the United States strategy of supplying cash and weapons to extremist groups to fight the Russians/overthrow governments was going to come back to bite the west. We saw it with 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings and now we're seeing it again.

If anyone is to blame for the current situation its the oil-hungry west for fucking up the Middle East and kicking the hornets nest.

No. We're talking about today, in the 21st century, not what happened a thousand or hundreds of years ago. Don't try to justify what jihadists do today because someone else did something wrong in the past.

Someone once said ""The thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." Read the story/parable/myth of the Trojan Horse. You're a fool if you invite your enemy into your living room.

[Tesla]

It's nice that everyone has an opinion, but I prefer to deal in facts.

And what the scientific research shows is that the cause of terrorism is geopolitical / political conflict, rather than religion.

Eg http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

When there is more/better scientific evidence that terrorism is caused by religion I will happily change my position (it's not going to happen though because it's not true)

If people put their feelings and beliefs aside and looked at things objectively it's actually pretty obvious.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Tesla

[n i k o]

And to add to that, people that hold the belief that wars wouldn't exist if religion didn't fail to realise man as a being would continue to find/have reason to go to war. The difference is religion wouldn't be the blanket that covers the true reasoning behind it. 

In saying that though religion has its own questions to answer in that it has been used as a tool to to go to war. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by n i k o

[GreenSeater]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

No. We're talking about today, in the 21st century, not what happened a thousand or hundreds of years ago. Don't try to justify what jihadists do today because someone else did something wrong in the past.

Someone once said ""The thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." Read the story/parable/myth of the Trojan Horse. You're a fool if you invite your enemy into your living room.

Have you ever read the Christian bible? It says plenty of just as violent and shocking things as the Quran, in fact it actually advocates genocide.

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites andutterly destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'”

And then God punishes King Samuel for not obeying his command and taking the Amalkite king alive. That is just one example. There are literally hundreds of other examples of glorification of violence and murder throughout the whole bible.

But why are there no violent Christian extremists in the world today you're probably asking? Simple. There are.

- Anti-Balaka, a CHRISTIAN terrorist group in the Central African Republic burned almost every mosque in the country in 2014 and have engaged in several large scale massacres against muslims. In fact there were even reports of cannibalism of muslims by the Anti-Balaka. Its setimated that due to the escalating violence by the group that around 350,000 muslim refugees have been forced to flee the country.

- Remember #Kony2012? Joseph Kony is the leader of a Ugandan CHRISTIAN terrorist organisation called the Lord's Resistance Army. They use child soldiers to destroy villages, murder, torure and rape thousands of people. But they're sure to wear their rosary beads into every battle after the read their bibles.

- The National Liberation Front of a Tripura is a CHRISTIAN terrorist organisation based in Northern India. They state they their aim is to remove all Bengali immigrants from from the tribal areas and turn the state overtly Christian. They've warned the local tribes that failure to accept Christianity as the one true religionbwill result in extreme violence towards them. They also recieve funding and weapons from Baptist Church of Tripura.

- The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland is another CHRISTIAN terrorist organisation based in Northern India. Their motto is "Nagaland for Christ" and their aim is also to convert all of the local tribes to Christianity by any means necessary. In 1992-93 they committed an ethnic cleansing in Northern India where over 900 local tribespeople were killed.

- Huntaree is a CHRISTIAN militia group based in Michigan, USA. In 2011 Daryl Johnson from the US Homeland Security Department stated that Huntaree possessed more weapons that all of the Islamic terrorists arrested in the United States since 2001 combined.

There are obvilously more examples such as the Aryan brotherhood, the KKK and many many more but I think I've made my point. What is the common thread that links these groups together (Except the US based ones as that is another thing all together)? They are based in unstable, poor countries. If a country is in a bad enough way, violent rebel groups will appear. And what is the best way to get people on the side of your violent rebel group? Telling them that you're doing the work of God. These violent groups use violent passages from every holy text imaginable to justify their actions. Christianity is just as easy to abuse for your own will as Islam.

In the case of many of the Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East such as ISIS and Al Queada and the Taliban, they only become as massive and powerful as they do because the United States and other countries fund them to overthrow governments or win wars for them to make taking oil from rogue states easier. The cause of ISIS, as myself and Tesla have already mentioned, is a geopolitical one more than a religious one. ISIS appeal to and radicalise people around the world in a way that Al Queadea and the Taliban never did as they have access to more technology, allowing them to spread their awful message to the world via social media. If Australia was ever in a war torn state like that of Iraq or Syria, you would see far right nationalist terrorist groups of all religions pop up all over the place.

As to your other ridiculous point about the Trojan Horse? You sound like one of those American gun nuts who needs a stockpile of ammunition in case somebosy is out their trying to get them. Muslims have been part of Australian culture for over 100 years. Believe it or not, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of muslims are just like me and you. All they want is to be happy and healthy and live a good life. If all muslims were really out to destroy the Aussie way of life, they already would have. There are 1.5 billion of them.  Now I assume you're talking about not allowing refugees into the country because of the relatively minor threat that one of them will be a terrorist. Shockingly enough, the refugees are the ones running away from ISIS, not the ones trying to spread it. We shouldn't stop immigration of all white Christian Americans on the off chance that one of them may be a member of the Aryan Brotherhood should we? Islam isn't the problem. The problem is war and imperialism.

Sorry for the wall of text, but shit like this makes my blood boil.

[n i k o]

43 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

Have you ever read the Christian bible? It says plenty of just as violent and shocking things as the Quran, in fact it actually advocates genocide.

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites andutterly destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'”

 

 

The Book of Samuel actually lies within the Old Testament. Christianity teachings is predominantly based on the New Testament. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by n i k o

[n i k o]

@GreenSeater I think one of the issues is the comparative number of terroristic actions committed by Muslims compared to other religions. Yes probably <1% of Muslims commit terrorist actions, but it seems, and don't quote me on this, 99% of all terrorist actions on western society is committed by Muslims. 

[Tesla]

24 minutes ago, n i k o said:

 99% of all terrorist actions on western society is committed by Muslims. 

Incorrect.

Not that I have any interest in getting into the whole "christians are terrorists too" debate, like I said above religion isn't the cause of terrorism.

[n i k o]

I was talking about the last few years if that changes anything. 

And I said don't quote me on it. 

[Tesla]

18 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I was talking about the last few years if that changes anything. 

And I said don't quote me on it. 

Well it would be a retarded thing to argue about because it depends on how you classify something as a terrorist attack.

But by every definition I know something like the attacks in Norway a few years ago is a terrorist attack, which was perpetuated by a far-right Christian extremist, for example.

FWIW, I'm not denying that a large amount, maybe even a majority, of terrorist attacks in Western countries are carried out by muslims, I'm just saying it's certainly not anything like '99%'.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Tesla