Muslim Mob Torches Christian Neighborhood in Pakistan

Objective evidence to the contrary has been provided. Feel free to add something that supports this counter-claim.

I have no trouble owning up to my words. However, I never said the sole blame was on Islam. I said the primary blame was Islam's, and I stand by it. Saying "the religion of peace strikes again" is not to say it was the only cause, just the primary cause. You have to reach semantically for your point to stand, and infer things that were not meant to be inferred. But clearly intellectual dishonesty won't stop you, so have at it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe they are only peaceful because they already purged the local environment of offensive things. Why does this shit always happen wherever there are Muslims running things?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, why not? It's all the same disease.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't that is just your Jewish/Zionist bias talking. It's not happening due to Islam but do to poverty and the like.

 

You say that, but why aren't the impoverished Christians attacking Muslim neighborhoods?

Wake up. The reason this happened was because Islam takes a hard line on blasphemy, particularly as its practiced in Pakistan, but in general as well. Did you already forget what happened to the Danish cartoonist who depicted Muhammad? Of course you did, because it's easier to pretend Islam is this benign philosophy that way.

 

Agreed, and we have discussed the ills of Christianity at length.

It's funny, the bleeding-hearts don't seem to realize that everything being said about Islam today could have been said about Christianity until maybe a couple hundred years ago. But instead of accepting that Islam is going through its own growing pains, we'll pretend there's nothing wrong with it, because God forbid we offend anyone.

 

What surprise you get called out on your bigotry and u accuse others of being intellectually dishonest. If you didn't mean to imply that it was islam's fault in the whole don't imply it than.

 

Actually we do the bigots like u and spider don't.

 

It is off all the abrahamic faiths textually it is the hardest against violence. It's perfectly benign. U hate is blinding u to underlying causes. And in case u didn't know Christians have murdered Muslims in the states for being Muslim so yeah your hate is just simple bigotry.

 

You do the bigots like? What, are you Yoda now?

Punctuation, man, punctuation!

 

I didn't imply it. Your failure to comprehend my words seems to be the culprit here.

Apparently I do, since I just said I do. Meanwhile, I post a factual article reporting an event, and am accused of bigotry. Funny, that.

It's also the most violent, both in practical examples and in textual injunctions.

The real world begs to differ. There's nothing benign about any of the Abrahamic faiths, least of all Islam.

And u reading comprehension is blinding u to the points being made.

When did I say that didn't happen? When did I say Christianity was peaceful? Oh, right: I didn't. You're getting straw all over the floor, buddy.

 

Unless you can find some reference in the article that takes islam outside of the context of pakistan it should be perfectly clear what your "addition" is

actually I haven't even read Bells posts

Thats almost as stupid as saying that all the street violence that erupted in Britain a few years ago was catalyzed by racial tensions (as opposed to people just busting in to shops to steal stuff)

yet we don't see any statements in the article that takes islamic/village/steel mill union politics outside of the context of pakistan .... however if we look at your comments ...

yet that still fails to explain your hyper-sensationalizing

Oh, so you don't have a suave argument to explain why muslim violence is isolated to a small handful in politically (even if the politics is simply about steel mill unionism) tumultuous regions
...figures
:shrug:

 

shit?
you mean hyper-sensationalizing of already sensationalized news events?

Like, say, escalating the bullshit by making statements about "the muslim countries" having already gone through their "civil/international jihad" era in order to land them in their current "un-newsworthy" state?

Probably because their economies and politics (or the economies of influential neighbors nearby) have been done over by western interests for practically all of the era of modern history.

The tragedy of the situation is actually yours and Balerion's mindset.

Even though you both have a desire to see this sort of violence end, you can't comprehend how your attitudes will simply see it prolonged longer.
:shrug:

 

The article doesn't have to reference anything outside of Pakistan for Islam to be the catalyst for the violence.

So you've read neither the story nor Bells' misrepresentation of it, yet you're comfortable commenting anyway? How unsurprising. You're also the guy who "completely understands" Dawkins without having read so much as a page of his books.

I suppose lazy thinking is easier...maybe that's the allure of it. :shrug:

I'm not sure which event you're referring to, but there's nothing stupid about saying religion was the catalyst of an event that was caused by allegations of blasphemy. The only stupid thing would be in denying religion's primary role in it. But, again, coming from a low-rent apologist, such a claim is wholly unsurprising.

Oh, I forgot that this thread exists in a vacuum, where history is confined to the events portrayed in the titular article. In that case, where Islam has never displayed violence anywhere else in the world, sure, I'm probably reaching in my condemnation of Islam as a philosophy.

If only there were a "real world" we could escape to once we close this thread...

I suppose that's because I wasn't "hyper-sensationalizing."

It isn't. There's violence attributed to Islam all over the world, just as there's violence attributed to most faiths. There's violence in Europe and Britain anytime there's a perceived blasphemy, not just in the Middle East. The trick Bells is trying to pull here is blaming the violence on local elections, but that would ignore the decades of persecution the non-Muslim minorities have suffered in that country. In all Islamic countries, but particularly in Pakistan. But then, ignoring facts is your game, isn't it?

 

Actually, it's precisely your mindset that makes finding a solution impossible. Since we're not allowed to hold certain parties responsible for their actions, can't even post a news article without being called a bigot, there's no footing upon which to reach a consensus on even what we're dealing with, let alone how to deal with it. It's ironic, actually, because you're likely among those who were grimacing at the American right wing when they branded any attempt to understand Al-Qaeda's motives as sympathizing with the enemy, yet your Islamic apologetics here accomplishes exactly the same thing. You're promoting ignorance and relieving the guilty parties of all responsibility.

And it doesn't even make sense. If this happened in a Christian country between two Christians sects, nobody would have called me a bigot.

 

You are being called a bigot because you are holding persons accountable (ie muslims as a creed) who were not involved in what seems to be a provincial issue in pakistan.

Thats what a bigot does.

:shrug:

What you can't comprehend is how the bigotry you represent (or indeed any bigotry from any historical era one cares to mention), despite veneering their attitudes in calls for an end to such conflict, actually escalates it

 

Why Muslim in their land are persecuting Christians in this century ?

 

I'm holding an institution accountable. Islam's hard line on blasphemy--which was the catalyst for this event--is not limited to Pakistan.

Holding people or institutions accountable for their actions is the only way to stop the violence. Pretending the guilty parties have no role in it is enabling.

 

that doesn't explain why you try to manhandle the context of the article out of pakistan in order to float your bigotry

well no, I read the article and a few of your other posts ..
You simply pretend that I read bells posts much like you pretend that I didn't read yours.
:shrug:

the irony is that at the moment you are trying to say thats its me who doesn't read your posts ....

even easier is ignoring key facts, such as what someone actually said or which particular persons were involved in which particular conflict, in order to make one's bigotry appear more salient.

seriously?

sure

there is however plenty of things stupid about saying an event was caused by blasphemy when there is clear evidence of other issues (such as regional/occupational politics) .. but then coming from a person with low capacity investigative skills who's only purpose is to float their violence inflaming bigotry, I guess we could anticipate your opinions on such matters ...

That would be fine if you were presenting a historical analysis of the situation .. as opposed to ignoring key points in order to make bigoted statements that serve no purpose other than to appease your ego

sure.

Just approach your nearest muslim and tell them they are participating in the same regime of violence that recently developed amongst some muslims at a steel factory in pakistan and see what ensues ...

Still waiting for that suave argument you promised .....

so the mind of the religious bigot tells him ....

and as I said, the irony is that you can't comprehend how your attitude inflames the situation, even though you actually desire to see this sort of thing end
:shrug: