Manchester terror attack- 19 dead, 50 wounded

Originally posted by Surtur
I quoted them because I felt they made a good point and this is how Muslims should react to terrorism.

What? What's your point? What do you want from them?

I've already shown you the Muslim community reported the Manchester bomber as an extremist years ago. He was banned from his local Mosque as well.
I've also shown you the Muslim community constantly condemning terroist attacks and aiding in thwarting potential terrorist attacks.
What more do you want from them?

You just seem hell bent on having a problem with Muslims.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
What? What's your point? What do you want from them?

I've already shown you the Muslim community reported the Manchester bomber as an extremist years ago. He was banned from his local Mosque as well.
I've also shown you the Muslim community constantly condemning terroist attacks and aiding in thwarting potential terrorist attacks.
What more do you want from them?

Bingo

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You just seem hell bent on having a problem with Muslims.

B.I.N.G.O.

Originally posted by Darth Thor

You just seem hell bent on having a problem with Muslims.

rage addiction takes many forms.

Remind me, how many of the innocents did the retard(Bush) specifically target?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
What? What's your point? What do you want from them?

I've already shown you the Muslim community reported the Manchester bomber as an extremist years ago. He was banned from his local Mosque as well.
I've also shown you the Muslim community constantly condemning terroist attacks and aiding in thwarting potential terrorist attacks.
What more do you want from them?

You just seem hell bent on having a problem with Muslims.

My point is I want even more to speak out like this. Even more than we have now. Do you understand this?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
In any case I apologize, I misremembered a statement you made a while back, and thought I was representing it accurately when I wasn't. The extent of your new atheism and contempt for religion still bothers me, but I was wrong to suggest you held an expressed hatred towards religious people.

Apology accepted. You get respect. 👆

Contempt is probably the wrong word. Desire for religion to be held to the same rigorous standards as every other discipline is really all we ask. Because right now it's a free for all. People believe the wackiest unsubstantiated shit without criticism. And in many cases said beliefs lead to unnecessary suffering and/or violence.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Firstly it's relevant when posters here are claiming that modern Muslims are terrorists because that's what their religion teaches them.

Because whether it happened in the time of the Crusades, or in 1904, or today, it's still relevant to that argument because Christians and Muslims still had the same teachings in all those time periods.

Second, I take it everyone has completely forgotten that when George Bush went to war in Iraq it was because "God told him to." What religion is he again? Oh and remind me how many innocents were killed in that war?

But if you were looking for something a bit more personal, then you can easily find examples of White Supremacist Christians murdering people for their Pro-White, Pro-Christian and Anti-Anything else agenda.

First, I never agreed with blaming Muslims as a whole. In fact, I made it a point to mention that I wasn't.

Second, your logic is shitty. It's entire foundation is shitty and built on mental gymnastics to to create a false (and irrelevant) equivalnce.

It is not the bible nor the koran that blew ppl up. It was people. Shitty evil people or ignorant, misled people. People are responsible for what they do. It matters little what "justification" they used to themselves. Be it religion/greed/nationalism/racism. Evil is evil. At the end of the day, society will judge their actions. Or not (as history is written by the winners). But evil ppl will use whatever tool they want to justify their actions. Religion is just an easy tool to use as it has been proven to have a very strong influence on the masses.

Third, while we should not judge an entire religion on the actions of the few. We also should not willingly blind ourselves to possible patterns of behavior in discussing life or death problems. When discussing the problem of terrorism in modern times (because yes, that is the reason we are discussin it, isn't it? Because we see it as a problem?), we need to look at ALL variables and eliminate individual factors when we've proven that there is no causality/correlation. Isn't that how the scientific method works?

And if we currently have a freakin crusades problem these days, then you can go ahead and dig up the crusade-y problems with the Cathloic Church, maybe make a new thread about it. But bringing it up just to paint a lousy picture or equivalence is unnecessary and simply tasteless and insulting and prejudiced.

And Bush was after oil and obviously didn't use religion to justify his war to the american ppl, he used hate and anger stirred up by 9/11. What his religion is irrelevant. What he "claims" or what others "claim "to be his own internal "motivation" is irrelevant. If 9/11 never happened, you think he could have convinced anyone to go to war because "God said so"? Sh!t, this whole line of logic is stupid AF. It is downright dissapointing hearing it from you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bingo

B.I.N.G.O.

Yeah because guys like Robbie never go out of their way to blame certain groups or persons for all the worlds Problems...

And R.O.B.B.I.E.O was his name-O!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
rage addiction takes many forms.

Rage Addiction...Sounds more like an SJW Meltdown Issue like what happened after Trump Stumped Clinton.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Remind me, how many of the innocents did the retard(Bush) specifically target?

Same # of Innocents that Clinton and Obama were after when ever they ordered Bombings and Missile Strikes?

Originally posted by Surtur
My point is I want even more to speak out like this. Even more than we have now. Do you understand this?

I think enough do tbh.

It seems to me like you want people to be apologetic for something they didn't do.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Remind me, how many of the innocents did the retard(Bush) specifically target?

When you start carpet bombing places you are targetting innocents because you're not differentiating between them.

Not that the "non-innocents" in Iraq were actually threatening the West anyway. Now you have Daesh all over Iraq and the Middle East threatening the West as a consequence of his War.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
First, I never agreed with blaming Muslims as a whole. In fact, I made it a point to mention that I wasn't.

I never said YOU DID. I said this whole "Crusade argument" was relevant when people are blaming a particular religion for terrorist attacks. Because whatever the time period, the Religious books themselves have not changed.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Second, your logic is shitty. It's entire foundation is shitty and built on mental gymnastics to to create a false (and irrelevant) equivalnce.

Either you've completely misunderstood the point, or you're just acting shitty right now because you've taken offence to me quoting you.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It is not the bible nor the koran that blew ppl up. It was people. Shitty evil people or ignorant, misled people. People are responsible for what they do. It matters little what "justification" they used to themselves. Be it religion/greed/nationalism/racism. Evil is evil. At the end of the day, society will judge their actions. Or not (as history is written by the winners). But evil ppl will use whatever tool they want to justify their actions. Religion is just an easy tool to use as it has been proven to have a very strong influence on the masses.

This is all very true.

Except people were not bringing up the crusades to counter this point. They were bringing up the Crusades to counter the point that "Islam" is a terror religion. So it was still a valid point despite your own mental gymnastics here.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Third, while we should not judge an entire religion on the actions of the few. We also should not willingly blind ourselves to possible patterns of behavior in discussing life or death problems. When discussing the problem of terrorism in modern times (because yes, that is the reason we are discussin it, isn't it? Because we see it as a problem?), we need to look at ALL variables and eliminate individual factors when we've proven that there is no causality/correlation. Isn't that how the scientific method works?

I think everyone knows its people calling themselves Muslims doing these attacks in the name of Allah. I've not seen anyone deny that. Why would they?

The real question is WHY they are doing these attacks.. If someone is going to put it down to their Religion, then yeah bringing up the Crusades (no matter when they happened) is a relevant comparison.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And if we currently have a freakin crusades problem these days, then you can go ahead and dig up the crusade-y problems with the Cathloic Church, maybe make a new thread about it. But bringing it up just to paint a lousy picture or equivalence is unnecessary and simply tasteless and insulting and prejudiced.

See above.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And Bush was after oil and obviously didn't use religion to justify his war to the american ppl, he used hate and anger stirred up by 9/11. What his religion is irrelevant. What he "claims" or what others "claim "to be his own internal "motivation" is irrelevant. If 9/11 never happened, you think he could have convinced anyone to go to war because "God said so"? Sh!t, this whole line of logic is stupid AF. It is downright dissapointing hearing it from you.

And what you think most Jihadists are after what exactly?

You know the 7/7 Bomber left a suicide video saying this was for the war on Iraq right? The Manchester bomber unfortunately has not as far as we know, so we don't know exactly wtf that evil prick was thinking.

You don't think Al-Qaeda and Daesh use hate and anger stirred up from the destabilisation of the muslim countries in middle east to recruit more radicals?

The points I've made are completely relevant when you start to really think about it. Of course they're not Exactly the same, but there's enough parallels between people using horrible events to justify shitty evil actions in the name of God on both sides.

And by the way Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Bush had already invaded Afghanistan for that. But used fear mongering and the hate from 9/11 to convince people to invade yet another country and kill even more people (sound familiar?)

I also noticed you ignored the point about White Supremacist Christians who have murdered people in what you could call smaller scale terror attacks, but I guess your response to that would just be that they're not a Religous cult like the Daesh. But like I pointed out already, the situations are obviously not exactly the same but there's more enough parallels.

Again I think you've taken some kind of offence to me quoting you along with Surtur, which is why you're being a bit shitty. But again the point stands, if people are going to bring up "Islam" as the cause of terror (which as you've correctly pointed out it obviously isn't), then the Crusades are a relevant counter point to bring up. Or all the times in history when there were not Muslim suicide bombers killing everyone else for the sake of it. Because both the Religion's teachings are the same now as they were then.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
1) I never said YOU DID. I said this whole "Crusade argument" was relevant when people are blaming a particular religion for terrorist attacks. Because whatever the time period, the Religious books themselves have not changed.

2)Either you've completely misunderstood the point, or you're just acting shitty right now because you've taken offence to me quoting you.

3) This is all very true.

Except people were not bringing up the crusades to counter this point. They were bringing up the Crusades to counter the point that "Islam" is a terror religion. So it was still a valid point despite your own mental gymnastics here.

4) I think everyone knows its people calling themselves Muslims doing these attacks in the name of Allah. I've not seen anyone deny that. Why would they?

The real question is WHY they are doing these attacks.. If someone is going to put it down to their Religion, then yeah bringing up the Crusades (no matter when they happened) is a relevant comparison.

See above.

5) And what you think most Jihadists are after what exactly?

You know the 7/7 Bomber left a suicide video saying this was for the war on Iraq right? The Manchester bomber unfortunately has not as far as we know, so we don't know exactly wtf that evil prick was thinking.

You don't think Al-Qaeda and Daesh use hate and anger stirred up from the destabilisation of the muslim countries in middle east to recruit more radicals?

The points I've made are completely relevant when you start to really think about it. Of course they're not Exactly the same, but there's enough parallels between people using horrible events to justify shitty evil actions in the name of God on both sides.

And by the way Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Bush had already invaded Afghanistan for that. But used fear mongering and the hate from 9/11 to convince people to invade yet another country and kill even more people (sound familiar?)

I also noticed you ignored the point about White Supremacist Christians who have murdered people in what you could call smaller scale terror attacks, but I guess your response to that would just be that they're not a Religous cult like the Daesh. But like I pointed out already, the situations are obviously not exactly the same but there's more enough parallels.

Again I think you've taken some kind of offence to me quoting you along with Surtur, which is why you're being a bit shitty. But again the point stands, if people are going to bring up "Islam" as the cause of terror (which as you've correctly pointed out it obviously isn't), then the Crusades are a relevant counter point to bring up. Or all the times in history when there were not Muslim suicide bombers killing everyone else for the sake of it. Because both the Religion's teachings are the same now as they were then.

1) Except that a religion is made up of more than its teachings. It is people that truly give religion its power and its weight. It is people that perform actions that contribute to the good/evils in the world. It is also the people within a religion, its members and its leaders that choose to either evolve with the times or stay steeped in antiquated and obsolete values. It is also people that interpret the teahcings however they see it. Even following your logic, the Crusades is still not a "valid counterpoint" as it is no longer the Catholic Church of today. A society/institution is only as evil/wrong as its history if it chooses not to learn from it. Or are you saying that all Germans are evil because they were once nazis? Again the logic is shitty on many levels that if I explain it even further on how bad this logic is, I believe it'd occupy too much uneeded room.

2) I am acting shitty because you defended the ignorant logic of the ppl (who are the ppl I called out, dunno if you started with this logic yourself as I only read Rage's post and indirectly and broadly replied because of it) who just equated my religion to modern terrorism by drumming up its history back when society in general was pretty much shitty to everyone. If ppl wanna defend Islam from prejudice, they might wanna go with the logic where they don't try to be prejudical themselves. The Catholic Church is not part of the atrocity that happened and is being discusses in this thread, so don't ****ing bring it up just to act edgy.

3) Except you countered no point. And, without knowing it, kinda indirectly agreed with them if you take this logic to its ultimate end (think about it a sec and you'll get it). You fought prejudice by being prejudiced to something else using flawed logic. Ergo double fail. Use better logic next time.

4) The "why" is a complex issue as the leaders, teachers and followers (being people themselves) of the religion will likely have different personal motivations. I have already demonstrated why the "Crusades counterpoint" is stupid, pointless, irrelevant and unnecessary. If you, til now, still can't see why then we have pretty little left to discuss.

5) Irrelevant to my point. See above.

Also, do not out words in my mouth. I neither acknowledged nor denied the causality of Islam/Muslims towards modern terrorism as it is not the point I am discussing and I do not wish to take part in a discussion that will likely end up being a cesspool of hate and trolling. I just want my religion left out of it.

So gee, yet ANOTHER terrorist attack.

Huge bomb in sewage tanker kills at least 80, wounds hundreds in Afghan capital

You know the drill.

#NotAllMuslims

Declare a day of mourning.

Time to order some flowers.

Originally posted by Surtur

#NotAllMuslims

What a truly dumb thing to say when the victims are all Muslims.

By the way, shall I start posting

#NotAllWesterners

every time a US bomb is thrown in Syria or Iraq killing innocents

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Except that a religion is made up of more than its teachings. It is people that truly give religion its power and its weight. It is people that perform actions that contribute to the good/evils in the world. It is also the people within a religion, its members and its leaders that choose to either evolve with the times or stay steeped in antiquated and obsolete values. It is also people that interpret the teahcings however they see it. Even following your logic, the Crusades is still not a "valid counterpoint" as it is no longer the Catholic Church of today. A society/institution is only as evil/wrong as its history if it chooses not to learn from it. Or are you saying that all Germans are evil because they were once nazis? Again the logic is shitty on many levels that if I explain it even further on how bad this logic is, I believe it'd occupy too much uneeded room.

S

2) I am acting shitty because you defended the ignorant logic of the ppl (who are the ppl I called out, dunno if you started with this logic yourself as I only read Rage's post and indirectly and broadly replied because of it) who just equated my religion to modern terrorism by drumming up its history back when society in general was pretty much shitty to everyone. If ppl wanna defend Islam from prejudice, they might wanna go with the logic where they don't try to be prejudical themselves. The Catholic Church is not part of the atrocity that happened and is being discusses in this thread, so don't ****ing bring it up just to act edgy.

3) Except you countered no point. And, without knowing it, kinda indirectly agreed with them if you take this logic to its ultimate end (think about it a sec and you'll get it). You fought prejudice by being prejudiced to something else using flawed logic. Ergo double fail. Use better logic next time.

4) The "why" is a complex issue as the leaders, teachers and followers (being people themselves) of the religion will likely have different personal motivations. I have already demonstrated why the "Crusades counterpoint" is stupid, pointless, irrelevant and unnecessary. If you, til now, still can't see why then we have pretty little left to discuss.

5) Irrelevant to my point. See above.

Also, do not out words in my mouth. I neither acknowledged nor denied the causality of Islam/Muslims towards modern terrorism as it is not the point I am discussing and I do not wish to take part in a discussion that will likely end up being a cesspool of hate and trolling. I just want my religion left out of it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Darth Thor
What a truly dumb thing to say when the victims are all Muslims.

remember when racism and bigotry were bannable offenses at kmc?
pepperidge farm remembers.

^ My post above is an error and is Nib wording not mine. Not sure how that happened.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Except that a religion is made up of more than its teachings. It is people that truly give religion its power and its weight. It is people that perform actions that contribute to the good/evils in the world. It is also the people within a religion, its members and its leaders that choose to either evolve with the times or stay steeped in antiquated and obsolete values. It is also people that interpret the teahcings however they see it. Even following your logic, the Crusades is still not a "valid counterpoint" as it is no longer the Catholic Church of today. A society/institution is only as evil/wrong as its history if it chooses not to learn from it. Or are you saying that all Germans are evil because they were once nazis? Again the logic is shitty on many levels that if I explain it even further on how bad this logic is, I believe it'd occupy too much uneeded room.

Yeah difference is Muslims don't have an entity like the "Church" which controls the majority of them or tells them as fact what's right or wrong. They do have educated scholars - all of which condemn the killing of civilians as far as I'm aware.

So your whole rebuttal here is completely irrelevant to the comments made on this thread. As I pointed out to you originally, people were accusing Muslims of being evil because their Religion must inherently be evil. I.e. the Quran and the teachings of their Prophet.

So going by THAT LINE of argument, someone could easily bring up- Look Christians used to kill other religions in the name of Jesus, so I guess that makes the basis of Christianity i.e. the teachings of Jesus also Inherently evil right?

Do you GET the point yet?

So the logic is perfectly fine. Or at the very least it's logic worth discussing and not even close to the level of- "it should just be thrown aside as being an argument which Dumb AF".

Oh and speaking of German Nazis, remind me what was their religion again?

Now I personally don't go around shouting "Crusades" after every terror attack. But I'll also defend someone bringing up that historical argument when people start throwing out "Muslims do these terror attacks because their Religion is evil."

And frankly you should know better than to defend the people spreading hate like that.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
2) I am acting shitty because you defended the ignorant logic of the ppl (who are the ppl I called out, dunno if you started with this logic yourself as I only read Rage's post and indirectly and broadly replied because of it) who just equated my religion to modern terrorism by drumming up its history back when society in general was pretty much shitty to everyone. If ppl wanna defend Islam from prejudice, they might wanna go with the logic where they don't try to be prejudical themselves. The Catholic Church is not part of the atrocity that happened and is being discusses in this thread, so don't ****ing bring it up just to act edgy.

Well having read a few more comments than you, I quoted you and Surtur and then defended that argument because of what was said before.

As for "Equated My Religion", looks like I was spot on about you taking it a bit personally.

Actually not all society was shitty at that time period. Muslims were overall quite civilized. I suggest you watch "Kingdom of Heaven" for a small dose of the history of those times.

Again you're equating everything to the "Catholic Church" of the time, and how since that's improved Christianity and Christians have somehow evolved. But did the Catholics following the Church at that time have no brain of their own to think about what they were doing? Did they not stop to think when they were murdering children and raping women, that maybe Jesus wouldn't be happy with this.

But yeah a comparison between the Church that did order those things and ISIS now might be a valid one, except I'm not sure if Daesh has that many followers.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) Except you countered no point. And, without knowing it, kinda indirectly agreed with them if you take this logic to its ultimate end (think about it a sec and you'll get it). You fought prejudice by being prejudiced to something else using flawed logic. Ergo double fail. Use better logic next time.

What? What was I being Prejudice towards? I was defending the historical comparison in light of the arguments of Prejudice. Pointing out comparisons is not being Prejudice in Return. It's called looking at things logically and in their historical context.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
4) The "why" is a complex issue as the leaders, teachers and followers (being people themselves) of the religion will likely have different personal motivations. I have already demonstrated why the "Crusades counterpoint" is stupid, pointless, irrelevant and unnecessary. If you, til now, still can't see why then we have pretty little left to discuss.
5) Irrelevant to my point. See above.

Also, do not out words in my mouth. I neither acknowledged nor denied the causality of Islam/Muslims towards modern terrorism as it is not the point I am discussing and I do not wish to take part in a discussion that will likely end up being a cesspool of hate and trolling. I just want my religion left out of it.

No you taking that comparison personally does not invalidate it. And is certainly not worthy of being called "stupid" as I already pointed out. If you stopped taking things so personally for a second you might actually see that.

I'm not bothered if you don't want to carry on discussing this. Frankly I feel like I've already wasted far too much time on it.

But when I do visit the thread, and do have time I will call out prejudices I see against Muslims or Christians. I don't see you doing that at all.

I'm not hating on anyone myself, nor am I trolling. The Crusades argument is a perfectly valid historic argument to bring up. As is the IRA not being called "Christian Terrorists."

You can try waving it off as some idiotic comparison as much as you want, but it's really not. After all ISIS/Daesh right now basically are on a crusade of their own.

It's interesting that some people complain about Surtur's "but, Hillary" statements. yet here they are saying "but, Christianity"

oh look, time-waster is trying to argue naked bigotry as a valid approach to debate. this should be good eat

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ My post above is an error and is Nib wording not mine. Not sure how that happened.

1) Yeah difference is Muslims don't have an entity like the "Church" which controls the majority of them or tells them as fact what's right or wrong. They do have educated scholars - all of which condemn the killing of civilians as far as I'm aware.

2) So your whole rebuttal here is completely irrelevant to the comments made on this thread. As I pointed out to you originally, people were accusing Muslims of being evil because their Religion must inherently be evil. I.e. the Quran and the teachings of their Prophet.

So going by THAT LINE of argument, someone could easily bring up- Look Christians used to kill other religions in the name of Jesus, so I guess that makes the basis of Christianity i.e. the teachings of Jesus also Inherently evil right?

Do you GET the point yet?

So the logic is perfectly fine. Or at the very least it's logic worth discussing and not even close to the level of- "it should just be thrown aside as being an argument which Dumb AF".

Oh and speaking of German Nazis, remind me what was their religion again?

Now I personally don't go around shouting "Crusades" after every terror attack. But I'll also defend someone bringing up that historical argument when people start throwing out "Muslims do these terror attacks because their Religion is evil."

3) And frankly you should know better than to defend the people spreading hate like that.

Well having read a few more comments than you, I quoted you and Surtur and then defended that argument because of what was said before.

4) As for "Equated My Religion", looks like I was spot on about you taking it a bit personally.

5) Actually not all society was shitty at that time period. Muslims were overall quite civilized. I suggest you watch "Kingdom of Heaven" for a small dose of the history of those times.

6) Again you're equating everything to the "Catholic Church" of the time, and how since that's improved Christianity and Christians have somehow evolved. But did the Catholics following the Church at that time have no brain of their own to think about what they were doing? Did they not stop to think when they were murdering children and raping women, that maybe Jesus wouldn't be happy with this.

7) But yeah a comparison between the Church that did order those things and ISIS now might be a valid one, except I'm not sure if Daesh has that many followers.

8) What? What was I being Prejudice towards? I was defending the historical comparison in light of the arguments of Prejudice. Pointing out comparisons is not being Prejudice in Return. It's called looking at things logically and in their historical context.

No you taking that comparison personally does not invalidate it. And is certainly not worthy of being called "stupid" as I already pointed out. If you stopped taking things so personally for a second you might actually see that.

I'm not bothered if you don't want to carry on discussing this. Frankly I feel like I've already wasted far too much time on it.

9) But when I do visit the thread, and do have time I will call out prejudices I see against Muslims or Christians. I don't see you doing that at all.

I'm not hating on anyone myself, nor am I trolling. The Crusades argument is a perfectly valid historic argument to bring up. As is the IRA not being called "Christian Terrorists."

10) You can try waving it off as some idiotic comparison as much as you want, but it's really not. After all ISIS/Daesh right now basically are on a crusade of their own.

1) Uh huh. Irrelevant to my point, which us that the ppl that composes a religion is what gives it its weight in the world. How an institution is organized is irrelevant and is just a filler argument.

2) How do you not see the flaws of your logic? That what you're doing is just a simple deflection? And that you are not really addressing their point directly or are you rebuting the flaw in their logic? That your approach even agrees with their premise (that an institution/ppl can be guilty based on the teachings and history of their religion instead of the fact that it is the individual that is guilty of his/her own actions?)? That you are making yourself guilty of the same freakin generalized prejudice as them by doing so? Seriously. Get your head out of your ass.

And yes. I am fully aware that you are saying it simply to make a point. But it is a freaking stupid point.

Here let me help you: the premise that an an entire ppl can be guilty or evil because of the actions of others is flawed because individuals are guilty of their own damn actions. Teachings are irrelevant, history is irrelevant as the teachings and history did not go out and kill ppl, the ppl did. <---- use that logic to address theirs. It's a lot less shitty and doesn't drag others (who wants nothing to do with all this) into this cesspool of a debate.

3) Excuse me?! Are you high? Pls post where I defended anything "they" said. I already stated on my very first sentence that I do not agree with the logic of inherited or institutional guilt, from both sides. Pls quote me, otherwise I deserve an apology.

4) Well duh. Of course I am taking this insulting, I think I made that perfectly and painfully obvious from my very first reply. You think I was trying to hide it or what?

5) Wow. History lessons from a freakin movie. Welcome to h1 level of stupid. Hint: You may well be right about Muslims being the more enlightened society during that time in the world's history, but use history books and not movies next time. Makes you look not stupid.

6) Ppl who ordered and did the raping/torturing/killing were of course vile/wrong/evil AF. And should be individually condemened based on their individual actions. They also used their religion to justify their actions, w/c is also wrong. But that is my point. Stop trying to strawman our (you and me) discussion towards something I never said.

7) Not valid. Just stupid. See above.

8) Which would have worked had you stuck to defending Islam/Muslims by directly countering the flaws in their logic instead of trying to deflect guilt towards an institution that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Learn from this. But defending the logic of ppl who say "just as bad as..." w/c simply condemns BOTH Catholicism and Islam doesn't really help anyone.

9) Wait. What the hell does me calling anyone out or not have to do with anything? Maybe I choose not to get involved with a debate that will most likely turn into a cesspool of hate and trolling until ppl start spreading shit that affects me personally? Maybe I have better things to do with my life?

10) Except it is an idiotic comparisson based on a flawed premise. The fact that you can't seem to move on from it is flabbergasting.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
What a truly dumb thing to say when the victims are all Muslims.

I agree the hashtag is a dumb thing to say, whether the victims are Muslims or not.

By the way, shall I start posting

#NotAllWesterners

every time a US bomb is thrown in Syria or Iraq killing innocents

You go ahead and do that bro. I don't support killing innocents, I didn't support the 16,000 bombs we dropped in 2016. I didn't support the increased tolerance of civilian casualties.