Terror Attack in London

[Picton]

That was the answer I was looking for. And because we are dealing with fellow humans you choose to take the same liberal path and refuse to actually look closer to what we are dealing with here. Id assume you feel our human pedophiles, rapists, and murderers should be dealt with in a similar compassionate manner?

Its tough have cake and eat it too. Unless of course your a hypocrite...

This one?

And Im honestly not trying to attack you. Just pointing out how biased and flawed your subject view is. If you reread what I wrote and remove yourself from what I said. Use current and past history for more than justifiying your stated position I feel then you should understand what I said. Its quite clear and direct using the correct and exact words to convey my messege. I dont think others are struggling with understanding. agree or not. Perhaps this alone says something?

If it's the one up top, I'm not sure how any reasonable reader wouldn't say you're putting words in my mouth. It's nothing I said, it's what you said.

Please spell it it out for me, because I'm sure we're talking past each other: if "because we are dealing with fellow humans refuse to actually look closer to what we are dealing with here," what is it that we're dealing with? I've already admitted you've stumped me; congratulations. I just don't have a clue what you think I've said, and frankly your words are totally unclear to me.

 

[TimMcG74]

I met a British couple in Barcelona yesterday who, after a brief conversation on the street, invited me to lunch. We talked about everything but politics. They were both ex-British military, met in the service and were celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary on the Catalan coast. The attack came up for about 2 seconds, then we moved on. It was great.

 

[Jason Flare]

You're proving my point. All the rest are what I called "cafeteria Muslims," and probably have no clearer an understanding of the Koran than the average Christian has of the Bible.

An anecdote: my students overwhelmingly identify themselves as catholic. But the vast majority doesn't even knowsomething as basic as the difference between Catholics and protestants, and they generally have no clue what a "sacrament" is. And they've all been through CCD.

Guaranteed those kids would still call themselves Catholic, and who am I to say they're not?

plenty of self-identifying Muslims probably couldn't quote more than six or seven verses from the Koran, but then I'm not the one making silly statements about how "religion is everything to a Muslim" or "the whole religion is based on conquest."

You did very well here until you went off the rails.

It's great that you figured out that I agree with you. As I said, only those Muslims following the Koran closely are violent. Most are just unwary followers. They can quote few passages and do not go to the mosque as often as they are commanded to.

The question is, on what side will these lax Muslims fall in the event that the Muslims around them lobby for Sharia Law?

I mentioned Christianity earlier and you brought up the Old Testament and the violence there. Christians have taught that Jesus is the savior of the world and what he taught came after the Old Testament. A Catholic attending mass every week would have little exposure to the Old Testament.

The importance of the printing press isn't simply that it was capable of printing book. It's importance was that it printed the Bible making it accessible to modern day Christians. Prior to the printing press Christians followed the word of the priests who had access to the Bible. This is similar to what has gone on in Islam. Imams interpreted the Koran but now the Internet makes it accessible.

With the Koran accessible even people born in the US and England can adhere to the literal foundations of Islam.

If your argument is that only a minority of Muslims adhere to the foundations of Islam and are therefore radical, I agree with you. In all religions there seems to be a majority who do not follow it to the letter, but again, where do they fall when the more vocal and active Muslims, few as they may be, call for Sharia Law?

 

[Nick Fury]

I said the same exact thing only more bluntly and look how far I got. Good luck with ten times the words.

Oh and thanks for the support guys...

 

[5811]

The back and forth here is entertaining. Picton, please read the following statement, take a second, actually think about what this means and then respond.

Mother Theresa was a devout Christian who followed her teachings as they were written. Omar Mateen (Orlando jihadist) was a devout Muslim who followed his teachings as they were written.

Do you see the difference now Picton?

 

[mg42doc]

The question is, on what side will these lax Muslims fall in the event that the Muslims around them lobby for Sharia Law?

This is the whole crux of the argument.
It takes more than most people have to go against the group they identify with. Even if they dont agree with said group.

it wont matter if you like their food or not

 

[Picton]

Ah. So, at the end of the day, we all agree: people go along to get along, regardless of whether it's a social or a religious group.

Again, not groundbreaking science.

The difference? Sharia law is not in Britain's future. Gerrymandered parliamentary constituencies and the conservatism of the House of Lords will see to that, and at less than 5% the question is whether Muslims in Britain will achieve a plurality before fundamentalist violence burns itself out, ISIS-style. I'd bet no.

I doubt it's in America's future either. Time will tell.

 

[Jason Flare]

Ah. So, at the end of the day, we all agree: people go along to get along, regardless of whether it's a social or a religious group.

Again, not groundbreaking science.

The difference? Sharia law is not in Britain's future. Gerrymandered parliamentary constituencies and the conservatism of the House of Lords will see to that, and at less than 5% the question is whether Muslims in Britain will achieve a plurality before fundamentalist violence burns itself out, ISIS-style. I'd bet no.

I doubt it's in America's future either. Time will tell.

Historically countries that were not Islamic became Islamic. What, in your opinion, makes Sharia Law impossible it Britain and the US.

Extra credit: Is Sharia Law possible in any western country.

 

[Picton]

Historically countries that were not Islamic became Islamic. What, in your opinion, makes Sharia Law impossible it Britain and the US.

Extra credit: Is Sharia Law possible in any western country.

Again...

Sharia law is not in Britain's future. Gerrymandered parliamentary constituencies and the conservatism of the House of Lords will see to that, and at less than 5% the question is whether Muslims in Britain will achieve a plurality before fundamentalist violence burns itself out, ISIS-style.

The US I'm not as sure about, locally. We're more decentralized here. But I still doubt it; 1a will always call religion-based civil laws into question.

 

[Jason Flare]

Again...

Sharia law is not in Britain's future. Gerrymandered parliamentary constituencies and the conservatism of the House of Lords will see to that, and at less than 5% the question is whether Muslims in Britain will achieve a plurality before fundamentalist violence burns itself out, ISIS-style.

The US I'm not as sure about, locally. We're more decentralized here. But I still doubt it; 1a will always call religion-based civil laws into question.

In your opinion since Sharia law is impossible in the U.K. and possible but unlikely in the US. what would you suggest the members of NES do to insure that it doesn't happen in the US, no matter how unlikely.

What are we doing wrong here, and what could we be doing right that we could expand on, if anything.

 

[Picton]

The members of NES? They should vote. As long as everyone does that, and reliably, sharia won't ever be a problem here. But voter turnout blows in the US, so...

Weshould do as we've always done: lots of canned goods, precious metals, ammo, and griping. Other than that, I mentioned my outlook in post 278: sharia's not what I'm worried about. Terrorism is.

"So going forward, what do we do about truck terror attacks? Beats me. Maintain situational awareness, carry a gun, and get some training; all good ideas. But not foolproof. At the end of the day, you might just have to jump off a bridge to save yourself from a terrorist. Or, hell, your number might come up and you might not make it."

Frankly, I think my worldview is gloomier and more pessimistic than a lot of youse, just for different reasons. I think TEOTWAWKI will happen not because of Islam per se, but because the inequalities in our society will force a reset. That's what I'm preparing for.

Or Yellowstone erupting.

But those are separate discussions.

 

[pastera]

We can agree to disagree.

But ask yourself: a "cafeteria Muslim" in Dearborn or Jakarta or Delhi follows the same faith as one from KSA, yet mosque attendance is much lower. If Muslims have other ways to settle disputes and learn to read, they'll use those just like everyone else. So, to me, that presents a good argument that culture trumps religion.

I know several cafeteria Muslims and not a single one will categorically condemn these "lone wolf" attacks.
While they don't openly support the attacks they explain that the attacker, while mislead, was just reacting to the adverse conditions imposed by Western culture.

Attacks against government targets receive an even warmer welcome.

One could say it is because they fear for their lives if they publicly condemn the attacks, which is a position verified by multiple Muslims I know. However, even one on one they won't categorically condemn attacks.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[Dadstoys]

The members of NES? They should vote. As long as everyone does that, and reliably, sharia won't ever be a problem here. But voter turnout blows in the US, so...

Weshould do as we've always done: lots of canned goods, precious metals, ammo, and griping. Other than that, I mentioned my outlook in post 278: sharia's not what I'm worried about. Terrorism is.

"So going forward, what do we do about truck terror attacks? Beats me. Maintain situational awareness, carry a gun, and get some training; all good ideas. But not foolproof. At the end of the day, you might just have to jump off a bridge to save yourself from a terrorist. Or, hell, your number might come up and you might not make it."

Frankly, I think my worldview is gloomier and more pessimistic than a lot of youse, just for different reasons. I think TEOTWAWKI will happen not because of Islam per se, but because the inequalities in our society will force a reset. That's what I'm preparing for.

Or Yellowstone erupting.

But those are separate discussions.

I think it's fascinating that you think Sharia is implemented by voting.
And your a teacher huh?

 

[flippinfleck]

I think it's fascinating that you think Sharia is implemented by voting.
And your a teacher huh?

A teacher who apparently discusses religion with their students. Quite telling, if I do say so myself.

/edit to add relevant quote, emphasis mine

You're proving my point. All the rest are what I called "cafeteria Muslims," and probably have no clearer an understanding of the Koran than the average Christian has of the Bible.

An anecdote: my students overwhelmingly identify themselves as catholic. But the vast majority doesn't even knowsomething as basic as the difference between Catholics and protestants, and they generally have no clue what a "sacrament" is. And they've all been through CCD.

Guaranteed those kids would still call themselves Catholic, and who am I to say they're not?

plenty of self-identifying Muslims probably couldn't quote more than six or seven verses from the Koran, but then I'm not the one making silly statements about how "religion is everything to a Muslim" or "the whole religion is based on conquest."

 

[Picton]

So, when kids are supposed to mark their religious preference on an MCAS or AP test form, and they have no idea whether to mark "Roman Catholic" or "Lutheran" or whatever, I'm supposed to just laugh at them?

"What religion are you? That's the one you mark, Little Johnny."

Little Johnny stares, perplexed. "Uh, I'm Christian," he says, and I roll my eyes.

"Okay, dummy, what church do you go to? First Methodist or St Briget's?"

Another blank stare. "St Briget's."

"Good. So, you're Catholic."

Frustrated fist-pound from Little Johnny. "No! I'm Christian!"

Happens every year. Many, many times.

Aside from that, sure I discuss religion. Hard to teach history without doing so. And if you can tell me, specifically, how Great Britain would impose Sharia without Parliamentary action, I'm all ears.

Voters elect Parliament, see. It's roughly similar here, too. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but some of you are merely being a-holes now. And my involvement here has obviously run its course.

 

[Jason Flare]

And if you can tell me, specifically, how Great Britain would impose Sharia without Parliamentary action, I'm all ears.

No go neighborhoods. If one exists then two can exist, etc.

You are correct that a civilized takeover from the British perspective is less likely.

 

[enbloc]

I know several cafeteria Muslims and not a single one will categorically condemn these "lone wolf" attacks.
While they don't openly support the attacks they explain that the attacker, while mislead, was just reacting to the adverse conditions imposed by Western culture.

Attacks against government targets receive an even warmer welcome.

One could say it is because they fear for their lives if they publicly condemn the attacks, which is a position verified by multiple Muslims I know. However, even one on one they won't categorically condemn attacks.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

Koran states it is ok to outright lie and deceive infidels, so I don't believe anything that comes out of their mouths...

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I know several cafeteria Muslims and not a single one will categorically condemn these "lone wolf" attacks.
While they don't openly support the attacks they explain that the attacker, while mislead, was just reacting to the adverse conditions imposed by Western culture.

Attacks against government targets receive an even warmer welcome.

One could say it is because they fear for their lives if they publicly condemn the attacks, which is a position verified by multiple Muslims I know. However, even one on one they won't categorically condemn attacks.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

[video=youtube_share;Ry3NzkAOo3s]http://youtu.be/Ry3NzkAOo3s[/video]

 

[Chevy 2 65]

[video=youtube_share;hRp5xmwHEDc]http://youtu.be/hRp5xmwHEDc[/video]

 

[Dadstoys]

So, when kids are supposed to mark their religious preference on an MCAS or AP test form, and they have no idea whether to mark "Roman Catholic" or "Lutheran" or whatever, I'm supposed to just laugh at them?

"What religion are you? That's the one you mark, Little Johnny."

Little Johnny stares, perplexed. "Uh, I'm Christian," he says, and I roll my eyes.

"Okay, dummy, what church do you go to? First Methodist or St Briget's?"

Another blank stare. "St Briget's."

"Good. So, you're Catholic."

Frustrated fist-pound from Little Johnny. "No! I'm Christian!"

Happens every year. Many, many times.

Aside from that, sure I discuss religion. Hard to teach history without doing so. And if you can tell me, specifically, how Great Britain would impose Sharia without Parliamentary action, I'm all ears.

Voters elect Parliament, see. It's roughly similar here, too. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but some of you are merely being a-holes now. And my involvement here has obviously run its course.

You impose Sharia the same way it's always been imposed.
You F'ing kill everyone that that trys to stop you.
There are areas in England now that have it now, they even have their own Sharia police and the local police stay the hell out of there.
See anyone stopping them ?
Me either.

 

[ldi]

[video=youtube_share;Ry3NzkAOo3s]http://youtu.be/Ry3NzkAOo3s[/video]

Fantastic answer indeed !
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chevy 2 65 again.

 

[pastera]

So, when kids are supposed to mark their religious preference on an MCAS or AP test form, and they have no idea whether to mark "Roman Catholic" or "Lutheran" or whatever, I'm supposed to just laugh at them?

"What religion are you? That's the one you mark, Little Johnny."

Little Johnny stares, perplexed. "Uh, I'm Christian," he says, and I roll my eyes.

"Okay, dummy, what church do you go to? First Methodist or St Briget's?"

Another blank stare. "St Briget's."

"Good. So, you're Catholic."

Frustrated fist-pound from Little Johnny. "No! I'm Christian!"

Happens every year. Many, many times.

Aside from that, sure I discuss religion. Hard to teach history without doing so. And if you can tell me, specifically, how Great Britain would impose Sharia without Parliamentary action, I'm all ears.

Voters elect Parliament, see. It's roughly similar here, too. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but some of you are merely being a-holes now. And my involvement here has obviously run its course.

Those kids are what is called "culturally Catholic" - if you are basing your opinion on them, I'm sorry but you're not even in the park.



Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

So, when kids are supposed to mark their religious preference on an MCAS or AP test form, and they have no idea whether to mark "Roman Catholic" or "Lutheran" or whatever, I'm supposed to just laugh at them?

"What religion are you? That's the one you mark, Little Johnny."

Little Johnny stares, perplexed. "Uh, I'm Christian," he says, and I roll my eyes.

"Okay, dummy, what church do you go to? First Methodist or St Briget's?"

Another blank stare. "St Briget's."

"Good. So, you're Catholic."

Frustrated fist-pound from Little Johnny. "No! I'm Christian!"

Happens every year. Many, many times.

Aside from that, sure I discuss religion. Hard to teach history without doing so. And if you can tell me, specifically, how Great Britain would impose Sharia without Parliamentary action, I'm all ears.

Voters elect Parliament, see. It's roughly similar here, too. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but some of you are merely being a-holes now. And my involvement here has obviously run its course.

[video=youtube_share;ra45nX9JmW4]http://youtu.be/ra45nX9JmW4[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube_share;ZhxR5rt2sOc]http://youtu.be/ZhxR5rt2sOc[/video]

 

[Chevy 2 65]

[video=youtube_share;LOfn-8OKVL0]http://youtu.be/LOfn-8OKVL0[/video]

 

[10thSFFD]

An anecdote: my students overwhelmingly identify themselves as catholic. But the vast majority doesn't even know something as basic as the difference between Catholics and protestants, and they generally have no clue what a "sacrament" is. And they've all been through CCD.

Guaranteed those kids would still call themselves Catholic, and who am I to say they're not?

plenty of self-identifying Muslims probably couldn't quote more than six or seven verses from the Koran, but then I'm not the one making silly statements about how "religion is everything to a Muslim" or "the whole religion is based on conquest."

Bernie screwed up plenty of students who never learned that Mao killed millions and Stalin invented "engineering of human souls". I took bunch of kids to France, they were all taking French in their schools for years, and when we arrived at the train station, they discovered that their French is not good enough to buy them a ticket. I blame parents and teachers. I would never blame kids.

These discussions here about Islam only underline how far we are from the actual world. We know nothing, so we grab whatever is handy. Some news, some television, some internet and bum, we have formed an educated opinion. Sometimes educated opinions do not matter anymore.

In 1980's no American was afraid of Islam. We were clapping hands while mujahideens were cutting balls of Soviet soldiers. Mujahideens won the war with Soviets not because we gave them weapons, but because they were sitting in front of their huts playing nice during the day and at night they slashed throats of soldiers who were there to protect them from "radicals". Our intelligence agencies reported pretty well back then on why Soviets lost, but our politicians refused to listen. We knew better! Then, we sent our guys.

You can't talk about terrorism without a full understanding of how screwed up our own politicians are.

Allow me to share with you a historical snapshot. When I was in camps with mujahideens in early 80's I was surrounded by fighters who wanted to go back and fight. What American propaganda did? Showed them movies about wonderful life in America where television is in every room and where cars do not explode in your face. Would you go back in caves and fight? No, you would not. We started this stupid idea that we can move NATIONS into America and world will magically become a wonderful place. We probably still do not understand that when we remove a squirrel we only open a territory for another unknown squirrel. We carried on, Rambo movies, weapons, training, money,.....

Those young guys did get our messages. We convinced them that the democracy is the best thing in the world. We convinced them that where they used to live it was a dungeon compared to American and European cities with clubs, music, girls. They got all of it! They accepted our and European invitations and they moved. Just like any immigrants, their expectations were much higher than what our democracies could offer. Most of these future parents had no skills and most of them were in some kind of a war forever in their homelands. We offered them hard work and freeloading programs. Freeloading programs paid better than any job in their homeland but they were not enough to get you on the bar hopping tour in Europe.

Fast forward to our times when frustrated "citizens" plan terrorist attacks. Try, just try, without using any religion to explain why they are doing what they are doing. Do you see it now?

If you still do not understand it, just ask questions, and I will try to answer them as truthfully as I can, but, please, stop this religious BS, because this has nothing to do with the root of this problem.

We need to start with us. Our systems are rotten, broken or ineffective.

Here is yet another fresh example of stupidity produced by democratically elected officials (example is from Germany):

http://www.dw.com/en/german-police-predicted-berlin-terror-attack-nine-months-prior/a-38123750

Months before Anis Amri rammed a truck into a crowded market, police warned he was planning an attack. Authorities ignored their calls for his deportation, saying such a move was legally impossible.

In a confidential letter investigators cited, among other evidence, Amri's chat history in the Telegram mobile app, in which he used euphemisms to indicate his plan to commit such an act.

Despite the warning NRW's Ministry of the Interior decided that deportation was not legally enforceable. Since the attack state Interior Minister Ralf Jäger repeated that position.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

[video=youtube_share;y1tEpjmFH9g]http://youtu.be/y1tEpjmFH9g[/video]

 

[Carl in Ct]

OK, I apologize for the long post and I don't mean to perpetuate the religious discussion here but I do have to bring up a couple of points and ask a question. I'm not trying to preach or evangelize, but rather I'm trying to draw a distinction between the Bible and the Quran and understand how that distinction may play a role in radical Islamic behavior, especially as it relates to terrorism.

Picton mentioned that Christianity is just as violent as Islam based on violence ordered by God in the Old Testament. There surely was violence ordered by God against other people in the Old Testament. That said, to my knowledge, that violence was directed at people who were real and legitimate physical threats to the Jewish people. When the threat was ended the violence stopped. It wasn't random and it wasn't directed at anyone and everyone that wasn't Jewish. There was never a standing order to kill anyone who wasn't Jewish or who refused to convert to Judaism.

I have not really studied the Quran carefully so I am open to correction here but from what I can see the call for murder in the Quran does apply to any and all people who will not convert to Islam, regardless if they are an actual threat to Islam or not. It is not to deal with a specific threat then stopped. It is a standing order.

So then we have the New Testament where God sent Jesus to be the Savior. Jesus did not abolish Old Testament law, it is still valid except where specifically repealed for lack of a better word. He did outline a new way to deal with life, religion, interpersonal relationships, etc. This verse from Luke chapter 6 is Christ speaking about that:

27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either."

Christ came to show the world that even His own Jewish people could not live up to God's law (and were therefore in need of a Savior and He was there to be that Savior). Jesus preached to treat all people the way God had intended it from the start, with love, not hate. Unfortunately mankind has a way of screwing stuff up pretty quickly. Not surprisingly people have managed to pervert Christianity and kill in the name of God but that is a departure from Christ's instructions, not an adherence to them. Christ's words are to love your enemies and pray for them, not kill them.

So my question. In the Quran, is there a point where something changes and the standing order given by Allah to murder all infidels is reversed/stopped the way Christ came and told people to love their enemies, etc? Is jihad and the murder of anyone who isn't Muslim and won't convert to Islam a departure from the Quran or a fundamentalist adherence to it?

 

[10thSFFD]

OK, I apologize for the long post and I don't mean to perpetuate the religious discussion here but I do have to bring up a couple of points and ask a question. I'm not trying to preach or evangelize, but rather I'm trying to draw a distinction between the Bible and the Quran and understand how that distinction may play a role in radical Islamic behavior, especially as it relates to terrorism.

Picton mentioned that Christianity is just as violent as Islam based on violence ordered by God in the Old Testament. There surely was violence ordered by God against other people in the Old Testament. That said, to my knowledge, that violence was directed at people who were real and legitimate physical threats to the Jewish people. When the threat was ended the violence stopped. It wasn't random and it wasn't directed at anyone and everyone that wasn't Jewish. There was never a standing order to kill anyone who wasn't Jewish or who refused to convert to Judaism.

I have not really studied the Quran carefully so I am open to correction here but from what I can see the call for murder in the Quran does apply to any and all people who will not convert to Islam, regardless if they are an actual threat to Islam or not. It is not to deal with a specific threat then stopped. It is a standing order.

So then we have the New Testament where God sent Jesus to be the Savior. Jesus did not abolish Old Testament law, it is still valid except where specifically repealed for lack of a better word. He did outline a new way to deal with life, religion, interpersonal relationships, etc. This verse from Luke chapter 6 is Christ speaking about that:

27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either."

Christ came to show the world that even His own Jewish people could not live up to God's law (and were therefore in need of a Savior and He was there to be that Savior). Jesus preached to treat all people the way God had intended it from the start, with love, not hate. Unfortunately mankind has a way of screwing stuff up pretty quickly. Not surprisingly people have managed to pervert Christianity and kill in the name of God but that is a departure from Christ's instructions, not an adherence to them. Christ's words are to love your enemies and pray for them, not kill them.

So my question. In the Quran, is there a point where something changes and the standing order given by Allah to murder all infidels is reversed/stopped the way Christ came and told people to love their enemies, etc? Is jihad and the murder of anyone who isn't Muslim and won't convert to Islam a departure from the Quran or a fundamentalist adherence to it?

Thank you for this post, Carl!

Side note: Jesus also brought us a sword.

This is where humanity steps in and we can get many interpretations based on whom you talk.
Here is one example for many:
https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/why-does-the-quran-say-that-infidels-should-be-killed/

 

[10thSFFD]

Humans mold ideology and religion to their needs.

Extreme interpretation of ideology or religion requires elimination of all opposing views. No discussions, no agreements, no compassion. Already in Middle Ages there were few versions of religious jihadists. Followers of Mister Jan Hus, called Hussites, were burning towns, killing catholic clergy and those who did not share their extreme interpretation of The Bible in the Center Europe. They were also killing their own who wanted peace instead of war. Few crusades were launched against them.

Extreme interpretation is often used as an excuse for grabbing power and wealth.

 

[Carl in Ct]

Humans mold ideology and religion to their needs.

Extreme interpretation of ideology or religion requires elimination of all opposing views. No discussions, no agreements, no compassion. Already in Middle Ages there were few versions of religious jihadists. Followers of Mister Jan Hus, called Hussites, were burning towns, killing catholic clergy and those who did not share their extreme interpretation of The Bible in the Center Europe. They were also killing their own who wanted peace instead of war. Few crusades were launched against them.

Extreme interpretation is often used as an excuse for grabbing power and wealth.

I agree, Catholicism can be taken to unBiblical extremes (Spanish Inquisition, and I don't mean the three cardinals from Monty Python) just like other groups claiming to be Christian (what's that sick Baptist church running around?). But, it is very hard to get around Christ's command to love your enemies and then claim killing in His name is ok. I would argue that the extremists who claim to kill in the name of Christ are ignoring His command, not clinging closely to it. That is not fundamental Christianity even if they claim it is (they're bat poop crazy).

They can twist the Bible and find Old Testament examples of wars but that doesn't hold water when held up to Christ's words and his own example. He had a large following and the average Jew was not that fond of the Pharisees because they were in bed with the Romans (they feared them). He actually could have raised an army before He went to Jerusalem for the last supper on Passover. Not to mention that He could have raised an army of angels and wiped out all of Rome if He wanted if you believe that He was divine as Christians do.

Mohamed is the holy prophet of Islam and the Muslims highest example of how to be holy. He engaged in jihad did he not? He himself killed infidels, or ordered it.

Jesus is the example of how to be holy to Christians. In the Bible Jesus preached grace and mercy and love and laid down his life for everyone, including people who hated him, the very people who killed him. He never killed anyone or ordered anyone to be killed or said killing is ok, let alone holy.

In true fundamental Christianity the extreme is to lay down ones life for others as Christ did for the world. It seems like in Islam the extreme is just the opposite, to kill people in the name of Allah.

Again, I'm not trying to preach the Christian religion. I'm just trying to contrast the differences in fundamentals between Christianity, which has had a huge impact on western culture and morays, and Islam which seems to have a disproportionate participation rate in terrorism.

True fundamental Christianity (not the crazy Spanish Inquisition kind) is no threat to anyone. Can that be said of Islam or does Islam become more dangerous the more fundamental it gets?