McVeigh is a terrorist who happens to be Christian. A more apt comparison is the anti-abortion folks who kill abortion docs, burn and bomb clinics, and so on. They are terrorists who kill for Christian ideals.

The Ottoman Empire did what all empires have done or attempted to do. The Roman Empire, Hitlers Reich, Ghenghis Kahn and others conquered, slaughtered, and imposed their will because it kept their people in a position of strength, and gave them influence and wealth. The fact that the Ottomans were Muslim is irrelevant. Especially since other Muslims fought to overthrow them. Religion is a tool that is used by leaders to achieve a goal.

Steve

Some goals are good!!!!!

Yep, that is true. Hitler, while being a murdering maniac, still managed to put together the Autobahn.

Islam has the same basic tenets as Christianity. If reasonable people follow those tenets then reasonable results will usually follow.

Steve

Then you think the problem with Muslims are they are unreasonable?

Name some of those basic tenets that are the same?

Hey, I've seen a few bimbos that belong in Burkas.........Can we say "Coyote ugly?"

Roscoe

SPO1715 say's,

Yup, exactly the same principle. We need people who understand the "enemy", the threat. That fact, that need, comes with risk. Monitoring the risk is the key, it would appear the Army missed the red flags on this guy. I won't jump to that conclusion, but it does appear at this point that there were indeed "indicators" that should have been followed up on. Never the less, the need for such people, counselors, interpreters, etc. remains valid.

One of the problems was the military recognition of the fact that we DO need these kind of peoples in the ranks. Muslims as well as others who can offer insight to the threat at hand. That "need", I suspect, was a major factor in ignoring the red flags with this individual. Tighten up the monitoring, the background checks and continue with the basic premise of the plan. Choose these folks wisely, don't underestimate the risk based on the need.

Right now we have the Islamic Extremists and their Jihad. AND THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO THE EXTREME AND WE MUST DEAL WITH THEM HARSHLY, they will never negotiate meaningfully.
But that is now!

In the past we have had the "Inquisition!" Witch burnings and drownings in the name of religion. Crucifixions, many of them, for crimes and religions. Beheading and genocides of all sorts in the name of and under the APPROVAL of religions. This has gone on for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years and has shown itself in every spot on out globe.

Religions and liberalism, both preach love and compassion. Both will KILL you with kindness!

Radical conservatives, they will kill you with whatever they have at hand, out of fear and paranoia. I see little difference between the two extremes, either way, the end result cannot be tolerated by a civilized society.

So the radical leftist in the White House should not be tolerated?

Looks like we need to define "radical". :)

Being a radical, in itself, is not always a bad thing. Some times radical reforms are necessary, like in times of war or extraordinary social upheaval. I don't consider Obama a radical, but I do consider some of his methods/decisions radical and necessary considering the economy. I think a radical approach required to get a handle on this economic mess is required and justified.

Who is or isn't a bad radical is often left to society to judge. The old verbage about one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighter sort of thing. Depends on what side of the fence your standing on.

Society, the majority, have not yet concluded that Obama is a "radical", anymore than Cheney is a "radical". Or a gun toting, tea bagging, ultra conservative, kill 'em all and sort 'em out later Texan might well be considered radical in many circles of society. No apologies to Texan's by the way, you know who you are. :)

Then there are those that rate far above mere "radical" status. McViegh comes to mind. Osma bin Laden as well. Anti abortionist murders, etc.

Yes the extremist came into power in the late 70's IN Iran and it's spread like wildfire since then.

But to say that Christianity is some equivalent is not quite correct.

First the Spanish Inquisition although inexcusable, does not come close to
the to the scope of Muslim history. During a 350 year period their were
between 3000 to 4000 put to death, at its height their were 10 per month
put to death. Plus many of those were victims of the Kings, such as King
Ferdinand of Spain who thought the Pope was too soft and escalated the
Inquisition, to take care of political enemies. Precise detailed records were
kept for the most part. Of course it is really Catholic in particular that was
involved along with corrupt government.

Second the in the Witch trials their were a total of 21 put to death in one
small New England village. Again inexcusable but relatively small in scope and
an isolated incident in American church history.


The point is that the Christian Faith although far from perfect and is not without blood on their hands has not been the mass murderer that todays urban legend make it to be. Plus compared to societies that have banned religion there is no comparison. The great Stalin at his height of rampage in 1937-38 was killing 40,000 per month. And than their is Anita Dunn's Obama's recent staff member and her favorite person Mao who killed between 60 to 70 million. Both of these hated religion and banned its existence but in the name of the people killed millions.

One murder in the name of religion is OK but a million murders are not?

NO, they are all murders.

If you wish to say the Islamic history is 100% the worst throughout history. OK, I have no problem with that. But that puts the lesser religious murders at 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999%
The difference in their horrors is infinitesimally not worth noting. Bad is bad, period.
There is NO Holier than Thou stance available.

Take a deep breath and focus no where did I say it was OK, you are shadow boxing, your responding to a point that was never made! There is a perspective to learn from the numbers, and intentions. But keep on using that big brush to paint everyone the same, its a very intelligent argument.:cool:

Did you read the term "inexcusable"? Ray Charles had better reading comprehension.:o

More people were killed in the twentieth century by anti-religion tyrants, (Mao, Stalin, Hitler) than in The 2000 year history of the Christians. In what must be a coincidence they also were socialists/communists. In order to bring power to the working class, they had to kill the opponents & enslave the rest. What a plan.