Interview Mage Knight Apocalypse Q&A at TVG

[Chefe]

God has chosen to allow evil. This does not make him less powerful. It is a choice he made, to permit evil FOR A TIME. Why? One possiblilty is to show his love to a greater degree by rescuing his fallen creation by sending His Son to redeem it.

I agree with this. What I am saying is that for this to be true, God is capable of evil. He can do evil. He has the capacity to do evil just like everything else in the universe.

Have you studied world religions, Chefe? I have spent years doing so.

Actually, yes I have. I've looked into a number of them on an amateaur level, but I know my stuff. With your words about Islam, it leads me to seriously doubt you have studied anything at all. Unless...

I have a Th.D in world religions and history. Do you?

Ah, I see now. Let me guess... "One possiblilty is to show his love to a greater degree by rescuing his fallen creation by sending His Son to redeem it"... primarily in the Christian or Catholic field, correct? Good. Now I know what I'm dealing with here. Someone who is no better than those radical Muslims blowing up subway buses. Someone who fully indulges himself or herself in one religion, and regards all others as false or blasphemous.

Congratulations on your degree. It will obviously go a long way to making you a popular and respected guy around these internets. Oh and, sure I have a degree in World Religions. I also have a degree in Physics. Did you know that gravity was created by ancient wizards and magic power? Thank god they didn't run out of mana!

Your comments are laughable.

If my comments are laughable, yours must be an unknown degree below pathedic.

Christianity and Islam are worlds apart in their teachings and history.

Hehe. Yea, whatever dood. I'm just going to direct your "Theologian" ass to wikipedia.

Have fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Did Jesus Christ EVER promote war or violence. Do we find one word of that in the New Testament. No.

No, but his daddy sure did. Jesus was more into causing political and social unrest. I like to think of him as a radical hippy. Quick question, do you worship God or Jesus? I've never understood this, it seems most Christians worship Jesus alot more than they do God.

Did Mohammed? Yes! Do we find many words about this in the Koran? Yes.

Comparing the Koran to the Old Testament, the only difference is that in the Koran Muhammad leads some wars to better his people, and in the OT God just outright slaughters legions of people himself. Men, women, children, animals... trees. Sounds like me as a kid. I used to create huge towns out of Legos, then I would get bored and wreck the city, building a new one later. Rinse and repeat. Good thing Lego people aren't real, they would have been seriously fucked.

Secondly, when we examine Islam's practive over the centuries do we find a deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to conquer nations that don't subscribe to Islam? Yes. Do we find the same deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to do so by Christians? To subdue by force? Other than the crusades and a few isolated cases? No! Know what the bloody hell you are talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.

So, you're not only ignorant about every other religion than your own, you're also ignorant of simple historical facts? The Crusades were one of the largest, if not THE largest events in the medieval world. Legions upon legions of Christian soldiers fought Muslims for every aspect of their religions, from control over holy lands to a fight for "who's right". While the knights were at the front lines, back home in Europe the Christians were severely persecuting the Jews. Burning them, hanging them, and even enslaving them in some cases. Jews were the lowest of the low of society, and everyone was above them.

You've got your chickens confused here. Islam wars over her own lands. It protects her own lands and their holy sites. Christianity is the one that goes out to conquer. There were the Crusades, and then the Age of Exploration. What the Christians did to the Native Americans in both the North and the South is really fucking sick; even I cringe when I think about it. Also, don't forget that the Christians enslaved the Africans based pretty much solely on their skin color. Oh and, funny thing, do you know why the British and their American colonies enslaved Africans? They thought they were doing them a favor by bringing them into civilization. Hmm...

 

[Chefe]

The American war of independence was NOT a guerrilla war. The Americans had a uniformed Continental Army, led by former British officers. The Americans even fought face-to-face line battles that the British excelled at, knowing they would get beat, and also fought sieges.

Guerrilla - A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

The entire war may not have been a guerrilla war, but the guerrilla tactics did help the colonists win. Well that, and the French of course. But it's doubtful they would have held out as long as they did if they had not employed these then-radical means of warfare.

... and the Huns didn't take down the Roman empire...
... Rome was taken down by the local Germanic tribes...

Well, of course the Huns didn't take down the Roman empire by themselves. Note I said "the Huns and other barbarians". Of course, there were other factors such as the manical Roman emperors that kept popping up, and their system of government which was ill-suited to ruling a vast empire, but generally the various tribes and people who the Romans considered uncivilized and uncultured barbarians were a HUGE factor in their downfall.

And Greece never really had the same status as Rome. They were a bunch of city states until Macedonia conquered them (except Sparta).

They didn't, but they sure did hold a huge status. Macedonia became Greece when they conquored them. In fact, Philip II pretty much raised Alexander as Greek. They greatly revered them, and thus, called themselves Greeks after they conquered and united the city-states.

 

[ExMonk]

Chefe:

My comments from some of the highlights from your hilarious blooper reel:

Now I know what I'm dealing with here. Someone who is no better than those radical Muslims blowing up subway buses. Someone who fully indulges himself or herself in one religion, and regards all others as false or blasphemous.

Wow. I yield to your superior intellect which is able to leap such tall buidings in a single bound. I hereby crown you as the king of quirky correlations and the duke of daffy deductions. Sure, Chefe, any Christian who is convinced that his God is the true God and the gods of other religions are false is no better than radical muslim terrorists. Nice rhetorical flourish, but even you know that such a point is bogus. Christians, when faithful to Christ and the New Testament, love those who don't have the truth. They don't kill them.

You've got your chickens confused here. Islam wars over her own lands. It protects her own lands and their holy sites. Christianity is the one that goes out to conquer. There were the Crusades, and then the Age of Exploration.

Time to go back to school, Chefe. Islam's own lands? Islam began in Arabia and at the time of Mohammed that is the only land they possessed. How is that they procured what you so kindly refer to as their "own lands" They brutally swept westward across the Mediterranean world overrunning the remains of the Persian and Roman Empires. They would have conquered Europe if they had not been turned back at the Battle of Tours in 732. Now it is your turn to check wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours.

And how is it that Christianity conquered Europe? Missionaries -- who won over the leaders of the Germanic peoples by preaching and example.

More on the Age of Exploration when time allows.

 

[Chefe]

You're getting really irritating now. You respond to only small parts of my posts and disregard the others.

Sigh...

Wow. I yield to your superior intellect which is able to leap such tall buidings in a single bound. I hereby crown you as the king of quirky correlations and the duke of daffy deductions. Sure, Chefe, any Christian who is convinced that his God is the true God and the gods of other religions are false is no better than radical muslim terrorists. Nice rhetorical flourish, but even you know that such a point is bogus. Christians, when faithful to Christ and the New Testament, love those who don't have the truth. They don't kill them.

You're both close-minded. Done.

Time to go back to school, Chefe. Islam's own lands? Islam began in Arabia and at the time of Mohammed that is the only land they possessed. How is that they procured what you so kindly refer to as their "own lands" They brutally swept westward across the Mediterranean world overrunning the remains of the Persian and Roman Empires. They would have conquered Europe if they had not been turned back at the Battle of Tours in 732. Now it is your turn to check wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours.

And how is it that Christianity conquered Europe? Missionaries -- who won over the leaders of the Germanic peoples by preaching and example.

Yes, they got their own lands by assimilation and conquest. But then they stopped. Now, they're fighting to preserve their lands. Done.

More on the Age of Exploration when time allows.

Please no. I can't take your overwhelming intellect anymore. Have mercy.

 

[whitemithrandir]

[quote="ExMonk" ]

And how is it that Christianity conquered Europe? Missionaries -- who won over the leaders of the Germanic peoples by preaching and example.

[/quote]

You sir, are a moron.

 

[Twinfalls]

I'm not defending the actions of the radical fundamentalist fuckwits that feel the need to kill innocents to gain political influence. They're just as guilty as the powers that believe the only way to combat violence is with violence.

To be honest, I think you are defending the actions of the radical fundamentalists. When you say:

Now given the fact that beating the US in a "fair" military conflict is nigh on impossible, it's also understandable that the opposition of the US and its "allies" manifests itself as terrorist or guerilla acts.

You're giving them a motive which is far 'nobler' than the reality. The people who orchestrated the London bombings, and their ilk, are not doing this out of a desire to 'stop the West from hurting Muslims'. They are doing so out of a desire to impose their vision of a theocratic state over the entire world.

The London, Bali, Madrid, etc bombings are not aimed merely at countering US aggression in the Middle East or elsewhere. They are aimed at installing Islamist rule of the extreme Wahabi/Salafi ideology. Only the cannon-fodder used - angry Muslim youths, are no doubt fuelled by anger over Iraq, etc.

The Bali bombings (from which the Hindu Balinese are the ones to suffer) for example have the strategic purpose of depriving Indonesia from tourist income and influence, thereby helping to destabilise its power structure. The goal? Easier for the fundamentalists to take over.

I think it's a fucking abomination that the "coalition of the willing" profess to believe that aggression against the supposed source of the problem is a viable solution. It's a totalitarian measure, and it should be obvious that it only creates more enemies. The only way such totalitarian measures would even be remotely effective, is if they don't hold back at all.

I am in complete agreement.

Now to relate this back to the original discussion, in our democratic society, we theoretically have power through a mandate of the masses to oppose this sort of aggression. And so, since governments are privy to this fact, they use all the tools at their disposal to justify the conflict. One of the major tools employed is fear, and hence the parallels to terrorism. We're afraid of a terrorist threat, and so we don't present significant protest against the government's right wing idealism in dealing with the threat.

And this was what I was originally querying. All I'm saying is that one must not automatically assume that all measures proposed by Western governments should be written off as unneccessary deprivation of civil liberties. Nor are they all neccessarily 'right wing idealism' and hence inappropriate or unneccessary. Some laws in Australia DO need changing. An example is the detention-without-trial. It can take a number of weeks for computer encryption to be broken. Such is the threat posed, that a detention period of more than 48 hours is needed to keep a suspect until that type of evidence can be obtained. The devil is in the detail - judicial oversight is mandatory and is part of the proposed changes.

One of the interesting political consequences of the London bombings was a stoush between Tony Blair and Pervez Musharraf, the West's strongman in Pakistan. Blair pointed the finger at Pakistan after it was revealed that a number of the bombers had attended Madrasas - Islamic schools, in Pakistan, shortly before conducting their attacks. What Musharaf highlighted was a double-standard in Western assumptions about dealing with terror. When it was suggested that Pakistan wasn't doing enough to deal with those individuals who conduct indoctrination, he pointed out how a number of extremist clerics - some who had been expelled from countries in the Middle East, had been able to continue their work freely and with impunity in London. 'Londonistan' was what he dubbed it.

What he's saying is that we tend to expect hard, tough crack-downs in other countries, because we assume them not to have the rule-of-law "difficulties" that we do (whilst we ignore the political difficulties). We also expect not to have to make any compromises on our own civil law safety nets.

If you strive to improve the quality of life of potential enemies, the arguments posed by those who would stir such potential into action bear less weight. It's hard to lay down your life to fight capitalist scumfucks if they are a benefactor to your improved lifestyle. Of course, as I said earlier, this has to be done without imposing conflicting ideals upon these people.

I am with you on the ideals behind such thinking, but I fear that may not be viable as the ultimate solution. Sure, it helps to take away the anger which helps cannon-fodder get recruited. But at root, it is an ideology you are dealing with. Plenty of jihadists are affluent beneficiaries of Western economics and society.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Jesus? A terrorist? A terrorist sympathizer? Really? How many times have you read "The holy blood and the holy grail", pray tell? It never ceases to amuse me when people get most of their 'facts' from shoddy little sources like that book.

Get this: books like those are works of fiction, regardless of how they are presented. Well, I suppose that so is the Bible, but consider this:

If Jesus was 'just an antiroman rebel' when in fact the real Jesus preached PEACE towards the Romans, then what's the deal with all his supremely awesome teachings about peace and love? Where did all that come from, pray tell?

He was the only Jewish religious leader at that time who wasn't neither an obvious Roman cooperative nor was anti-Roman.

Anyhow, as much as I respect Jesus, religion is irrational.

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything just give him time to rationalize it." - Robert Heinlein

 

[Sol Invictus]

What the United States is doing now is nothing new. As long as civilizations have existed they have tried to impose their own beliefs and doctrines on others. This isn't because they're trying to be evil bastards, it's because they genuinely believe that everyone wants to live like them and it's better if they did anyways.

Just look at ancient Persia. They would conquer nations who were, in turn, allowed to keep their beliefs and culture; the only difference was that they were technically under Persian rule, had to pay tributes to the Persian empire, and had the Persian army's protection. They held together a relatively peaceful and prosperous empire. This was a great life, and the Persians couldn't fathom why anyone would want to live otherwise. A little band of provinces thought differently, however. These so-called "barbarians". You know, the Greeks, who eventually overthrew the entire Persian rule. The Persian empire was huge!

Then the Greeks had the same mindset of the Persians. They were eventually overthrown by the Romans. Then again, the same thing happened with the Romans. Every city conquored by Rome received a bathhouse, amphitheater, and every other luxury of Rome. Good life, eh? The Huns and other so-called "barbarians" thought differently, and when Rome tried to take over their land and incorporate them into Roman society and share Roman ideals, Rome fell.

Here we have the U.S. They're looking at the Middle East thinking "We have this great life and great government system built on democracy. Who wouldn't want this?" The so-called "terrorists" think differently. Deja-vu, eh? I'm not saying the U.S. will fall, but I'm talking about the mindset of the different groups.

And there's today's history lesson, class.

As a final note here, just think about these terrorists. They're being invaded by a foreign nation. The most fucking powerful nation in the world for that matter. They don't have an army that's even slighty comparable to the United States, much less a chance to stand up on a direct field of battle. Just like the in American Revolution, the disadvantaged side needs to find another way. The rebellous colonists used guerilla tactics to take down the rank-and-file soldiers of the British army that were trained to stand in a straight line and fire. The British never expected this, and thought who would even think to try something like that? The "terrorists" have to find another way to retaliate. A way that the U.S. and her allies don't expect, in places they don't expect. In the end, like all wars, it's not the leaders or the military that suffers the most, it's the common people.

You know, based on this post alone, I think you're a racist and a nationalist.

 

[kingcomrade]

Has anyone mentioned Spaghetti Monsterism yet? Usually in religion threads it gets mentioned at least once.

 

[ExMonk]

[quote="ExMonk" ]

And how is it that Christianity conquered Europe? Missionaries -- who won over the leaders of the Germanic peoples by preaching and example.

You sir, are a moron.[/quote]

Writ large on page one of Whitemithrandir's personal playbook: "When you know you can't compete in the realm of ideas, just use invective. It will make you sound intelligent in an aloof kind of way."

 

[ExMonk]

Jesus? A terrorist? A terrorist sympathizer? Really? How many times have you read "The holy blood and the holy grail", pray tell? It never ceases to amuse me when people get most of their 'facts' from shoddy little sources like that book.

Get this: books like those are works of fiction, regardless of how they are presented. Well, I suppose that so is the Bible, but consider this:

If Jesus was 'just an antiroman rebel' when in fact the real Jesus preached PEACE towards the Romans, then what's the deal with all his supremely awesome teachings about peace and love? Where did all that come from, pray tell?

He was the only Jewish religious leader at that time who wasn't neither an obvious Roman cooperative nor was anti-Roman.

Anyhow, as much as I respect Jesus, religion is irrational.

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything just give him time to rationalize it." - Robert Heinlein

Religion can be irrational in several ways. But if religion deals with an eternal, omnipotent God, should it surprise you that our little minds are not able to understand everything that is revealed? Also, we are living in postmoden times. It was modernism, begun at the time of the 18th Century Enlightenment, that assumed that man's reason was a reliable judge of all things. Postmodernism has wisely, albeit belately, realized that man's reason itself is irrational, and hardly a reliable judge. What seems irrational to us may be due not to the subject matter but limitations within us.

I like what you wrote about Jesus, though. Those who think that Jesus was an anti-Roman rebel have obviously never read the Gospels, or, like little children, are simply good at playing pretend.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It may surprise you to know that I hold to deism, which means that while I do believe in a creator (or rather, a supreme architect of the universe), I don't believe in a personal saviour, an empathetic god, heaven and hell, or any of the religious aspects that typically come with the belief.

You seem to be a man of reason, so I will not hold your Christianity against you. Clearly, none of us has the ability to know what the truth really is, so all we have are our beliefs. Your beliefs may probably comfort you, and likewise my beliefs provide me with stable base for my existence and the existence of the universe - but for me, it's more a case of 'how' it is, and not 'why' it is. The question toward motive of a more deeply philosophical, and introspective nature than a logical one.

Needless to say, my belief in a supreme creator, without the associated beliefs in sin, demons and angels, and so forth allows me to simply 'move on with my life', so to speak, and not dwell on such thoughts. If your beliefs in God give you stability in life, then more power to you.

It is deplorable that a lot of people would seek to undermine your view of the world for the petty sake of having amusement at the cost of your sanity.

 

[whitemithrandir]

[quote="ExMonk" ]


Writ large on page one of Whitemithrandir's personal playbook: "When you know you can't compete in the realm of ideas, just use invective. It will make you sound intelligent in an aloof kind of way."

Why would I want to debate with you when you completely ignore my previous post as well as those rational points made by other debators which go against your argument?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Since Wikipedia is a source you seem to respect over all others, Chefe, I'll direct you to this. The modern worship of guerrila methods is more rebel chic than real analysis of military history.

When discussing the Christianity of Germanic tribes, it should be noted that a great many of them were Arian Christians (as opposed to the mainstream Catholic version at the time) who rreally had been converted by wandering missionaries (as was the case in Ireland with St. Patrick, originally a Romanized Welsh Christian who had been kidnapped and taken to Ireland), but it was military force that made the Arians become Catholic (except for the Franks, who went right from paganism to Catholocism).

Chefe, I wouldn't mention slavery if you are trying to discuss the comparative morals of Christians and Muslims. If you've read Thomas Sowell's "The Real History of Slavery" then you know that the bulk of slavery went on in Islamic countries, and that most slaves were sold to Europeans by Muslims, and that the conditions of slavery under Muslims were FAR worse under Islam. The slave population in America EXPLODED even without any more slaves coming in. The native African population had mediocre growth, and the slaves in islamic countries were just replaced by more slaves from America when they died (which happened very frequently). Do you think many modern African Americans wish they had been born in Africa? This is not to say slavery is justified, just to compare one society with others.

It seems rather silly to say "Islam only fights in its own land". What doesn't count as Islam's own land, then? Islam has been expansionist since day one, and anywhere it borders another religion you can expect fighting. Once an area has been incorporated into Dar Es Islam, fighting doesn't stop. It just moves to the new border.

 

[kingcomrade]

Chefe you are vastly overestimating the power of guerrilla tactics, you are misunderstanding the relationship between America and the Middle East, and your history lesson about both Greek and Roman history seems half-educated at best.
Neither the Greeks nor the Romans were conquered militarily by "barbarian." Nor were the Hellenic Greeks ever an empire.
America is not an empire, either. America has not the trappings, the institutions, or really anything to suggest that it is imperial. Does America have power in other nations, and does it use this power to it's own benefit? Yes. That's not an empire. I suppose you could call it a "soft-power" empire, but then, that's not the same thing as a Roman Empire or Persian Empire. The Roman and Persian empires are also not the same thing. Nor are they comperable to Hunnic or Mongolian empires.

People have been foretelling the downfall of America since forever. Europeans especially. I suppose there's a bit of quiet pleasepleasepleasenomorestupidcowboys, and would be shadenfreude at America's downfall.
It was Japan before, then it was a rejuvinated Europe, now it's China, after China probably some South American country, all of these are support to supplant the evil greedy obnoxious theme-park building Americans. I doubt seriously they will.

 

[ExMonk]

? Yes. Do we find the same deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to do so by Christians? To subdue by force? Other than the crusades and a few isolated cases? No! Know what the bloody hell you are talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.

What the fuck? The crusades were a pretty big fucking deal that dwarfs pretty much any Muslim Jihad, both Dar al-islam AND Dar al-harb.

Christians don't promote war to spread their beliefs? Tell that to to Cortez, or the millions of native americans massacred in the name of God. Or how about the various missionary attachments to militaristic ventures into Africa?

Christians don't believe in war my ass. Let me know when you're ready to debate without that bias of yours. Th.D in Theology? Let me guess, from an online community college?

Did I say that Christians have never used war to promote their faith? It is you that need to read my previous posts more carefully. I said, did I not, that the Crusades, are an unfortunate, and I might add, inexcusable episode in the history of Christianty. Have you actually read any books on the Crusades? Or are you basing your knowledge on passing references and hearsay? The crusades were fought primarily to "rescue" the holy land, a ridiculous thing to begin with. After the crusades, it was Islam that was the aggressor. For example for much of the early 16th Century Suleiman sought to conquer Europe in name of his Muslim empire. The Ottoman Empire was the expansive empire of its day by far.

Cortez? A vile human being that "used" Christianity to further his meglamaniacal goals. Native Americans. We need to make distinctions. The first Christians who came to American had peaceful relations with Native Americans. They sought to convert them, true, but not by force. Moreover, the worst slaughter of Native Americans and the deplorable deportation of entire Native American races happened NOT as a result of Christianity, but as a result of the ambitions of the U.S. government. More of this happened under Andrew Jackson that under anyone else. Jackson was not a Christian and certainly was not acting in the name of Christianity. Have you researched Jackson and his Native American policy? I have.

So do I recognize that at times Christians have, contrary to the clear teachings of Christ an the New Testament used war and oppression to further their cause? Of course, as I've said. However, these are contrary to revealed intent of Christianity. Whereas, for Islam they are not.

As for my doctorate. I earned it at Boston University. Perhaps you've heard of it.

 

[whitemithrandir]

? Yes. Do we find the same deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to do so by Christians? To subdue by force? Other than the crusades and a few isolated cases? No! Know what the bloody hell you are talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.

What the fuck? The crusades were a pretty big fucking deal that dwarfs pretty much any Muslim Jihad, both Dar al-islam AND Dar al-harb.

Christians don't promote war to spread their beliefs? Tell that to to Cortez, or the millions of native americans massacred in the name of God. Or how about the various missionary attachments to militaristic ventures into Africa?

Christians don't believe in war my ass. Let me know when you're ready to debate without that bias of yours. Th.D in Theology? Let me guess, from an online community college?

Did I say that Christians have never used war to promote their faith? It is you that need to read my previous posts more carefully. I said, did I not, that the Crusades, are an unfortunate, and I might add, inexcusable episode in the history of Christianty. Have you actually read any books on the Crusades? Or are you basing your knowledge on passing references and hearsay? The crusades were fought primarily to "rescue" the holy land, a ridiculous thing to begin with. After the crusades, it was Islam that was the aggressor. For example for much of the early 16th Century Suleiman sought to conquer Europe in name of his Muslim empire. The Ottoman Empire was the expansive empire of its day by far.

Cortez? A vile human being that "used" Christianity to further his meglamaniacal goals. Native Americans. We need to make distinctions. The first Christians who came to American had peaceful relations with Native Americans. They sought to convert them, true, but not by force. Moreover, the worst slaughter of Native Americans and the deplorable deportation of entire Native American races happened NOT as a result of Christianity, but as a result of the ambitions of the U.S. government. More of this happened under Andrew Jackson that under anyone else. Jackson was not a Christian and certainly was not acting in the name of Christianity. Have you researched Jackson and his Native American policy? I have.

So do I recognize that at times Christians have, contrary to the clear teachings of Christ an the New Testament used war and oppression to further their cause? Of course, as I've said. However, these are contrary to revealed intent of Christianity. Whereas, for Islam they are not.

What you're saying is that at the core of the Christian doctrine as decreed by Jesus, violence is condemned. Being a member of the Church of the Latter Day saints, I agree with this.

However, you also say that certain Christians interpret these doctrines on the basis of personal goals and ambitions which deviates significantly from the original. I accept this also. However, you cannot use this as leverage to position Christianity as a whole into the course of history because the basic doctrine has been interpreted in so many ways that you cannot lump them into this one lump catagory.

As for my doctorate. I earned it at Boston University. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Haha. Boston University sucks, along with any university that does not sport a half-decent Engineering program, because anything that's not hardcore Engineering can be learned on your own. GG GF NO RE.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Blaming all of Christianity for the Crusades is unfair. Really, it's not actually comparable to Muslims who declare a jihad, because most of the Christians involved in the First Crusade were in fact doing so for political reasons. By uniting towards a common cause, it allowed them to set aside their differences (Europe was at war with itself) and pursue a united goal.

Most of them used Christianity as an excuse to rampage through the countryside for loot and plunder, including many European communities along the way to the Holy Land. A whole bunch of them even changed the course of their journey to plunder Byzantium - a fellow Christian nation. These were hardly the holy crusades some people would have you believe.

True, there is no disputing that some of them were men of the faith, who believed in the 'noble mission' and spreading the faith through non-violent means or setting up forts along the way to Jerusalem to protect the Christian pilgrims, like the Knights Templar, but the vast majority of people involved were nothing more than bandits bound together in an army.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Actually most of this chit can be traced back to the whole Israeli vs Palestine conflict, though if our records went back further and if you could dig deeper, you'd find a previous reason before that.

"Our terrorism is a good accepted terrorism because it's against America, it's for the purpose of defeating oppression so America would stop supporting Israel, who is killing our children."

(Funnily enough America has been supporting the Palestinians as well - though covertly and through training and not with tanks and helicopters).

To say the terrorists started it though because they bombed the Word Trade Center a full 10 years before they took it down is ignoring that that too was claimed to be in response to America's international political agenda at the time.

Truth is, you can't really blame anyone for starting anything. As with all things, most causes are hi-jacked for political purposes. The same way America invaded Iraq under the guise of "stopping terrorism" is the same way the terrorists blow Americans up under the guise of "supporting Islam".

There will always be elements in any organisation that start to believe the propoganda rather than looking deeper at the real reasons, which are often obscure and inane. Most wars are started out of hate or greed rather than out of any religious ideology (try to find out the reason for World War I for example). Those reasons come later and are merely offered as explanation for the actions of the irrational. A justification that people will buy into, lest they discover the "real reasons" (those being no more complex than a child wanting to destroy something, having no concept of the consequence of his actions).

Of course the big problem is that once it's begun, it doesn't stop easily. "They started it" is thrown around as a reason why one side shouldn't relent or compromise. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" - leaving the only real alternative of blowing them up - comes from the other side of the table as their reason for not talking about their problems and trying to sort something out.

People are different. People will always disagree. Just as their are Muslims who want to blow up the West, there are just as many who couldn't care less. To label them all "terrorists" is a misnomer, yet that's what some genuinely believe. Like-wise, on the other side of the table, "Westerners" are terrorists and anti-Muslim. I can tell you know there are some that most definately are but as with the Muslims, there are just as many who aren't.

Both sides are equally at fault. You won't get them to admit that thought because "us" is always right and "them" don't matter. "Us and them" mentality has a lot to answer for.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Cortez was quite a character. His own government tried to stop him, but he just absorbed the army sent to get him into his own. One of his men, Pedro de Alvarado, was such an utter bastard that he made Cortez look like a pussy (in Mexico City "El Salto de Alvarado" is named after part of a lake he pole-vaulted over with his lance after hording off hordes of Aztecs by himself on foot). Of course, if you beleive in cosmic justice and collective responsiblity, the Aztecs had it coming afters all they shit they dumped on the neighboring tribes.

I don't know if the crusades (at least the initial ones) were as horrible events as people make them out to be. It actually opened a lot of connections between areas that had been seperate for a long time. It was really part of a step between the Middle Ages and Rennaissance.

 

[ExMonk]

Blaming all of Christianity for the Crusades is unfair. Really, it's not actually comparable to Muslims who declare a jihad, because most of the Christians involved in the First Crusade were in fact doing so for political reasons. By uniting towards a common cause, it allowed them to set aside their differences (Europe was at war with itself) and pursue a united goal.

Most of them used Christianity as an excuse to rampage through the countryside for loot and plunder, including many European communities along the way to the Holy Land. A whole bunch of them even changed the course of their journey to plunder Byzantium - a fellow Christian nation. These were hardly the holy crusades some people would have you believe.

True, there is no disputing that some of them were men of the faith, who believed in the 'noble mission' and spreading the faith through non-violent means or setting up forts along the way to Jerusalem to protect the Christian pilgrims, like the Knights Templar, but the vast majority of people involved were nothing more than bandits bound together in an army.

Finally. A man who knows his medieval history. Well done, unconquered sun.

 

[Twinfalls]

To say the terrorists started it though because they bombed the Word Trade Center a full 10 years before they took it down is ignoring that that too was claimed to be in response to America's international political agenda at the time.

No-one's saying 'the terrorists started it' because of the WTC bombing. It is an example which illustrates the Iraq war is not a core motive. The key word in your sentence is 'claimed'. The motives were far greater than simply a 'response to America's political agenda'. They have had an Imperialist Islamist agenda of their own.

Most wars are started out of hate or greed rather than out of any religious ideology (try to find out the reason for World War I for example). Those reasons come later and are merely offered as explanation for the actions of the irrational.

Nazi expansionism was driven by ideology.

Islamism is an ideology driving suicide bombing against the West, of the sort we saw in London. This is not to say the US and the West (and China, and India..) do not have their own driving ideology - they do, one of capitalism and open markets. Yes, this is bad, yes it causes oppression and severe inequity. However, one should NEVER fall into the trap of thinking that simply because Islamists oppose the West, they are not driven by their own dangerous (it is fascist in the worst sense), ideology and agenda. They are.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists" - leaving the only real alternative of blowing them up - comes from the other side of the table as their reason for not talking about their problems and trying to sort something out.

You are incredibly naive if you think that this is akin to a neighbourhood dispute. I suggest you read about Islamism - Salafism, Wahabbism, etc etc. You are dealing with a movement to bring back the 7th century Caliphate, and impose the most disturbingly barbaric theocratic power the world has probably ever seen. Afghanistan under the Taliban is illustrative. This is not something which can be negotiated, for it is not the wish of the proponents of Islamism that it co-exist peacefully with the West. The goal of Islamism is the complete destruction of everyone else, the creation of a 'House of God' - Islamic rule for the planet. You are seriously underestimating the situation when you say its just a matter of 'both sides working something out'.

 

[kingcomrade]

Total destruction(?), I thought if we just paid a 90% tax to dar al islam we could be good dhimmis and live as slaves.
Slaves to the Ur-Quan! (Ur-Quan Kohr-An? Koran? COINCIDENCE?! I THINK NOT!!!!1111)

 

[Twinfalls]

Destruction of the 'Western way'. Oh and here's another thing. Giving Islamists credence by suggesting they are acting on behalf of oppressed Muslims also does moderate Muslims a great disservice.

It has been theorisd that the Islamist strategy is to drive a wedge between non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. The horrible situation facing the bulk of Muslims in the West as a result of suicide attacks - feeling both afraid AND persecuted - would be a deliberate outcome for the Jihadists.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

The motives were far greater than simply a 'response to America's political agenda'. They have had an Imperialist Islamist agenda of their own.

The problem is, the more reasons you give them, the greater their numbers grow. A small core group will always be out for "death to all westerners". What doesn't help is when you do things like the Iraq war under the guise of stopping terrorists. You give them more reasons, you affect a greater region of people and more of those people sign up to join causes which were previously unthinkable to them.

Most wars are started out of hate or greed rather than out of any religious ideology (try to find out the reason for World War I for example). Those reasons come later and are merely offered as explanation for the actions of the irrational.

Nazi expansionism was driven by ideology.

• Expansionism is the doctrine of expanding the territory or economic influence of a country.
  
• Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth or material possessions than one needs.

Those two sound awfully similar to me.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists" - leaving the only real alternative of blowing them up - comes from the other side of the table as their reason for not talking about their problems and trying to sort something out.

You are incredibly naive if you think that this is akin to a neighbourhood dispute. I suggest you read about Islamism - Salafism, Wahabbism, etc etc. You are dealing with a movement to bring back the 7th century Caliphate, and impose the most disturbingly barbaric theocratic power the world has probably ever seen. Afghanistan under the Taliban is illustrative. This is not something which can be negotiated, for it is not the wish of the proponents of Islamism that it co-exist peacefully with the West. The goal of Islamism is the complete destruction of everyone else, the creation of a 'House of God' - Islamic rule for the planet. You are seriously underestimating the situation when you say its just a matter of 'both sides working something out'.

Ever wondered why there are so many KKK members in the US of A and yet they haven't formed themselves into an army that's marching across the country killing black guys every night? I don't agree with their hatred of black people but trying to round them all up and kill them all wouldn't stop them. It's not possible to successfully identify every member of the organisation and have them killed. This is an organisation that exists in the United States. Now think of one such as a terrorist organisation which exists in countries outside of the USA and maybe you'll begin to understand the problem. Even take the IRA. Britain's being trying to kill those fuckers for years. Did they succeed? Nope. They start talking to them though and involving them in decisions that affect them and look what happens...

Most terrorists would drop the weapons if they didn't have a local issue to complain about. While there's a small hard-core element which are pushing their own agenda out of their hatred for all things different, the majority sign up because they see things like American bombs blowing up civilian trains and American big army bases in their country while they starve. You remove those things and most people couldn't give a sweet fuck about destroying all Westerners or shoving their religion down everyone's throats. The problem is, rather than talking to those people and helping them with their problems, they get labelled terrorists and we kill them.

That pisses off the guy's family and he has a son who...

... and so the cycle continues.