I’m going to need a cite that the sectarian tension and violence experienced in Nigeria today rises to the level of civil war.
Cite needed, in particular relation to the activities of Boko Haram /Islamists.
Can you put your link in context? Is it supposed to support your proposition that ethnicity is more important? if so, that cannot be inferred from the linked article. What your linked article omits to mention is that Fulanis are predominately Muslim and the unnamed “native farmers” are Tivs, who are predominantly Christian. I don’t believe it supports my proposition either, as this appears to be more of a fight over scarce resources amongst people whose resources are scarce enough as it is than anything.
Cite that civilian Christian (not government) forces /militias are “fighting and shooting” on a comparable scale in Nigeria.
It is not true that Hitler killed six million people because they were Jewish. Just not true. It is not true that any gay people are ever beaten up or killed for being gay. Just not true.
It is not true that anyone is ever persecuted for anything. Just not true.
Nah. I am not interested in getting all semantic over this. I find the notion that the Christians are legit and right because they are the government while the Muslims are wrong because they are separatists kind of silly. If the Muslims were in the goverment and the Christians were the separatists we’d be hearing about the abusive Muslim government not letting the poor Christians live their life.
A huge part of central Africa is a mess for their own tribal and ethnic reasons and for Cristians in developed countries to try to score points on account of some Christians in Africa is beyond silly. It is just ridiculous.
I am perfectly comfortable victim blaming a fair number of idiots who did such feckless things as hiking near the border of a war zone and being arrested as spies, or deliberately preaching Christianity in a country where it is not only illegal, they were copiously warned about the illegality and the punishment for preaching Christianity, or thinking that as Americans, our code of laws superseded that of the country they were visiting.
Seriously? Do you even recall your earlier post #54?
And you are hardly alone. The reason this thread has lasted for three pages is largely due to semantics.
Nonsense. Even the briefest look at the members of the Nigerian government at executive, legislative and judicial levels reveals a number of Muslim names. The seat of government is in the south, but that hardly means Muslims are excluded.
I would hope that any human rights abuses would be brought to light and that the focus is on the perpetrator and victims. You are focusing disproportionately on the messenger, and on a small subset at that.
I would accept that some of the entries are suspect - such as the store keeper killed by the American serviceman in Richmond earlier this year - do we know that he was a Christian - but since the 2013 incidents alone take up almost 5 sides of A4 and the full list runs to 45 pages, the deaths and injuries listed (which aren’t in anyway exhaustive) add up to quite some figures.
Would it be worth comparing this number with the number killed, displaced, etc, prior to the intervention? Think, for instance, of the deaths of Kurds and other ethnic minorities under Saddam and ‘Chemical Ali’. Even those who were affected after the invasion, how many of these suffered for reasons other than the Allied intervention (after all, there were several other nationalities involved other than Americans alone).
What percentage of Americans do you think this actually applies to? Because when I mention people who “would have you killed for being gay, having consensual sex, or for disbelieving religion” we are talking about a* majority* of Egyptian and Pakistani Muslims.
“The Politically Incorrect Truth About One Really Messed Up Religion”? :rolleyes: You think that this is a site reasonable people should take seriously, as opposed to say, BBC News?
I’d agree, aru - but not when those people are citizens of the particular state involved. In the late 50s to early 70s, several thousand Nepalese Christians were arrested and sentenced to internal exile for preaching the Gospel, whilst others (many 2nd generation believers) were arrested and charged with converting from the faith of their father.
The best news was that by sentencing them to internal exile, they were able to spread the Christian Gospel to parts of Nepal where it had never been heard before, and that several of these 2nd generation believers were able to argue that, by encouraging them to convert to Hinduism, the police and authorities were enticing them to break the law!! If you want to read up on some of this, it’s in a book called ‘Braver than the Gurkhas’ by ‘Sikhar’.
Having looked at the site briefly, I found it quite interesting in a weird sort of way - but this particular list is helpful, insofar as it gives figures for atrocities over a period of about 12 years, some of which may not relate directly to the issue at hand, but is at least somewhere to start.
Actually secular Jews did not get a pass. Neither did converts. No one asked for your shul attendance record. The persecution was based on perceptions of ethnicity, not faith.
I suspect some of the same people outraged by persecution of Christians are also outrage by Muslims building a mosque in their neighborhood.
Muslims kill Christians. Christians kill Muslims. Christians kill Christians. Muslims kill Muslims. Hindus kill Muslims and vice versa.
Religious groups without the power don’t - like the very early Christian Church. But they make up for lost time when they get the power.
Now IOL is a legitimate SA news site; however that report was published in a local tabloid. Nor did the article state anything stronger than
So just one random example, picked purely because it took place in my country, is not an Islamist incident at all; and it is included purely on the basis of a report in a single tabloid, a report which merely stated “police are investigating links”.
The list is likely to be full of similar bullshit.
Where are the popular political and religious leaders who say that people should be killed “for being Muslim, for profit, being brown, or just because it’s fun.”? Where are the polls that back up your claims that this is a commonly held view among Americans?
Because until you provide this I am going to use my anecdotal knowledge as an American myself that these sorts of opinions are rare. Then I must conclude that your statement is hyperbole born of a reluctance to be critical of what you see as non-white/non-Western culture.
the question is straightforward. You claimed that we sent in troops and sorted it out.
I asked what division was sent in.
We used air power to paralyze various Serbian actions, but I do not recall the U.S. putting any troops on the ground beyond a few advisers. Certainly, U.S. troops played no part in “sorting them out.” U.S. air power and diplomatic efforts (channeled through NATO) were significant, but U.S. Troops played almost no role in the war.
:rolleyes: Why should anyone care what they say? What matters is what they do, and support being done. And again; Americans like to pretend that they are the good guys, so of course they aren’t honest enough to outright say that very often. They just spout some transparent handwaving about how they are killing people to free them.
If anything, one of the biggest differences between Muslim fanatics and American imperialists & Christian fundies is that the Muslim fanatics haven’t learned to lie as much.
The elections where politicians who order such things get elected and re-elected.
So whatever semantic point you want to make about the troops by all means go ahead. I realize none of them had relatives who frequent the dope and could share in their sorrow but I think they deserve more than you’re giving them.
Der Trihs, you must learn to rein this in. You continue to allow your strongly held political beliefs to take you too far.
Your statement that the great majority of Americans kill people for being Muslim, being brown, for profit or just for fun is - to my moderator’s eyes - no different than if you had said “the great majority of blacks will steal” or “the great majority of French are smelly” or something else equally ridiculous.
Just because the group you are being prejudiced is your own - Americans - doesn’t make it less odious. There’s a strong current of self-criticism in American culture and that’s a good thing. But your version of self-lambasting is entirely negative and not geared towards improvement - which criticism should be.
If you must be so offended by the actions of Americans that you must resort to rhetoric of this kind, please take it to the BBQ Pit where it is better served.