If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I knew you would list the Klan and the IRA. None of them are Christian. None of then follow the teaching of Jesus. The IRA was fighingt for independence from the UK and Ulster groups were/are trying to keep NI in the UK. You can blame the Crown for any religious overtones.
The divide is every bit as religious as it is political if not more religious. In fact if they were all one religion, its safe to say they probably wouldn't care which government they were paying taxes to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Muslims? They account for >90% worldwide. But no, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. No sir.
More unsubstantiated claims stated as fact. And completely devoid of this little thing we call context.
Religious extremism has become the main driver of terrorism in recent years, according to this year’s Global Terrorism Index.
The report recorded 18,000 deaths in 2013, a rise of 60% on the previous year. The majority (66%) of these were attributable to just four groups: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida.
Overall there has been a fivefold increase in deaths from terrorism since the 9/11 suicide attacks.
The report’s authors attribute the majority of incidents over the past few years to groups with a religious agenda.
While the chart below shows that this varies across region, bear in mind that more than 80% of deaths from terrorism in 2013 occurred in just five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.
The operative phrase here is "in recent years". Islam has been around since the 7th century which was the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the origins of the Quran. Or perhaps I should say it's been around that long as we in the West see it. Muslims consider Islam to be much older than that as Muhammad was their last prophet whereas Adam was their first. And what we view as "terrorism" in the modern sense is certainly not endemic to that entire history. In any event, the main point here is that with the exception of Nigeria .... this undeniable increase in religious extremism in the Islamic world is direct fallout from the regional destabilization that occurred as a result of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's remember that ISIL is a revitalized and even more extremist version of "al-Qaeda in Iraq" ... founded by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (remember him?) ... which did not even exist until the the US invaded that country on some bullsh*t. But naturally you mindlessly blame Islam as a whole and pretend like that had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
A little perspective. There has been continual jihad with small breaks since the time of Mohammed, hellfire be upon him. This "recent" extremism is just a revival of what has been a break since the end of WW I.
No. It doesn't. That video is talking about naval battles. The Moorish conquest of Spain. The expansion of an empire. It's NOT discussing some religious nut blowing himself up in a crowded market full of civilians. So let's not play that game ok? If you want to make a legitimate comparison of what that video references then compare these two empires at their greatest extent.
So if one is going to take issue with this imperial expansion from the Arabian Peninsula ...
Even your source says they're fact. Because what we're dealing with now matters more than what happened decades ago. Not that I expect you to understand what exists outside your prescribed narrative. Or do you have another no-true-Scottsman fallacy to add to that?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:
[W]hen Constantine also endorsed Arius’s ideas, there was an uproar that led the emperor in 325 to call the Council of Nicaea (Asia Minor) to settle the issue. After an intense struggle, the Council condemned Arius, declaring the Son to be “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, sharing the same substance (History of the Catholic Church, p. 83).