Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[quote=CB Fry;2275081

Funny really - Islamic terrorism is not religious but the second world war was.

Was that what I said ? Or was it that God was invoked by both sides to bolster support for their participation - even the atheistic Soviet Union 'rediscovered' religion as a prop for the Great Patriotic War.

"From the Islamic perspective it's not good to use violence or bear arms against anyone, regardless of their faith, and no life should be killed unjustifiably." Imam Asim Hafiz, Muslim Chaplain to the Military

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/priests/armychaplains_1.shtml

"From the Islamic perspective it's not good to use violence or bear arms against anyone, regardless of their faith, and no life should be killed unjustifiably." Imam Asim Hafiz, Muslim Chaplain to the Military

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/priests/armychaplains_1.shtml

That quote rather precisely illustrates the problem. There is no sacred text that can be the arbiter of whether something is or is not "Islamic". The Koran and all the thousands of hadiths are, by their very nature, capable of interpretation - even diametrically opposed ones, such as Islam=peace and Islam=violence.

Religion is the sum of the varied beliefs of the people who adhere to it, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing about these beliefs can, or ever have been, subject to a single "correct" interpretation. So in a religion with no hierarchy - no judicial or governmental centre like Catholicism - the sad and unavoidable news is that Jihadi John is also no less "right" than the Imam you quote. And there is likely to be no less sincerity in Jihadi John's belief in the Islamic correctness of his actions, than in the opposite belief by your (self appointed - always self-appointed) Imam.

Those who call for a reformation in Islam do so for precisely this reason: to make the Jihadi John interpretation so toxic that no one wants anything to do with it. (Of course, so long as the Saudis, with their Wahhabi Islamism, maintain control of Mecca and Medina, such a change is not immediately on the cards.)

Was that what I said ? Or was it that God was invoked by both sides to bolster support for their participation - even the atheistic Soviet Union 'rediscovered' religion as a prop for the Great Patriotic War.

Here's what you said:

 

3) Terrorists find religion a convenient excuse for their actions, and a lever with which to provoke interracial tensions - they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to try to justify the unjustifiable.

 

 

6) No need to go back 100 years, Christianity has been highjacked in all major conflicts of the last 200 years; without invoking Godwin's Law, how many people died in God's name in the 2 World Wars ?

So are you going to quantify which people did or didn't die "in God's name" (your words) in World War 2 which was "highjacked" by Christianity (your words), or are we going to assume they all died in God's name?

I'm saying WW2 was a complex geopolitical multi lateral conflict, you seem utterly desperate to stitch the while thing up as some religious high jacking.

Hilarious that you are using the phrase "convenient excuse" to absolve radical Islam of any culpability in the terror attacks in Paris and London - just random "sociopathic bullies" according to you - but your casting of a pretty complex multi - lateral global conflict into something you've boiled down to people dying in the name of God seems equally convenient.

Try harder. Think harder.

You want to make out Hitler and the Nazis was a religious fundementalist movement in the same way that IS is a Muslim fundementalist movement then that's really up to you old fruit. During WW2 the British Army, Navy and RAF had Chaplains and everything so probably just as bad as IS, right?

I really don't mind a spot of hyperbole every now and again in debate - but you can take it too far you know.

Nazi Germany was not a state deeply immersed in the teachings of Christ - just about everything they did between 1933 to 45 proves that beyond any question. Indeed, this point is quite obvious. The Nazi leadership was however, unlike Stalin's atheist Soviet Union, quite prepared to tolerate any religion (apart from Judaism that is) as long as was useful to them and did not interfere with their plans.

If you like I can show you images of Hitler attending Christian religious ceremonies, or photos of German Army chaplains who were quite prepared to wear Nazi insignia AND the crucifix on their uniforms without apparently seeing any inherent contradiction in that. Furthermore, here be a image of Croatian Muslim soldiers serving with the SS 13th Waffen Gebergs Division 'Handschar':

A nice way of showing I think that if a organisation as brutal and fanatical as the Waffen SS could find room to accommodate Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu's within its ranks - as I can assure you it certainly did - then no one religion can convincingly claim some monopoly on virtue or vice during WWII. The Human capacity for evil and violence is universal, and not limited in the slightest to particular faiths or races.

Others have highlighted episodes of less than Godlike behaviour by Christians but just to helped our Caped brother so he doesn't have to keep going back to the Crusades, here is a list of more recent events:-

Central African Republic Genocide 2012 to present - ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Christians

Bosnian Genocide 1992-95 - Orthadox Bosnian Serbs ethic cleansing against Bosnian Muslims

The Holocaust 1933-42 -Christians ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe

The Progroms 1881-1884, 1903-1906, 1917-1921 - a series of violent attacks carried out by Christians in Russia against the Jews

American slavery 1619-1865 - Christians enslaving Africans

Native American Cultural Cleansing 1500s to 1800s - Christians killing natives of North and South America who were referred to as "devils" and "heathens"

Plenty to be getting on with there.....

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Religion has caused countless wars throughout history but it doesn't make Islamic extremism any less of a problem, or any less Islamic. Fact is Christian extremism is not the same sort of problem today.

The Anders Brevik example is a good one, that is someone, who like IS, has used a religion for their own twisted aims. You can't blame other Christians for what he did just like you can't blame peaceful Muslims. BUT, if Brevik type incidents were happening as widespread and as regularly as Muslim incidents are nowadays and thousands of Christians supported them then questions would be asked why.

I really don't mind a spot of hyperbole every now and again in debate - but you can take it too far you know.

 

Nazi Germany was not a state deeply immersed in the teachings of Christ - just about everything they did between 1933 to 45 proves that beyond any question. Indeed, this point is quite obvious. The Nazi leadership was however, unlike Stalin's atheist Soviet Union, quite prepared to tolerate any religion (apart from Judaism that is) as long as was useful to them and did not interfere with their plans.

 

If you like I can show you images of Hitler attending Christian religious ceremonies, or photos of German Army chaplains who were quite prepared to wear Nazi insignia AND the crucifix on their uniforms without apparently seeing any inherent contradiction in that. Furthermore, here be a image of Croatian Muslim soldiers serving with the SS 13th Waffen Gebergs Division 'Handschar':

 

 

A nice way of showing I think that if a organisation as brutal and fanatical as the Waffen SS could find room to accommodate Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu's within its ranks - as I can assure you it certainly did - then no one religion can convincingly claim some monopoly on virtue or vice during WWII. The Human capacity for evil and violence is universal, and not limited in the slightest to particular faiths or races.

Gawd knows what you're on about apart from basically agreeing with me. WW2 was not a war based on religion. Thank you. You might want to tell Badgerx16 this obvious and simple point. Cheers.

Gawd knows what you're on about apart from basically agreeing with me. WW2 was not a war based on religion.

The eminently simple point you seem to be either unwilling to accept, or unable to comprehend perhaps, is that the problem of violence is related to our Human nature, rather than to religious faith per se.

You have had numerous examples presented to you now - both historic and contemporary - of massacres that can be traced back to followers of the Christian faith. Many of these events in fact are/were far more bloody affairs than anything that has happened in Paris so far this year. But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason.

I can only ask you why on earth should anybody on here accept such nonsense?

The eminently simple point you seem to be either unwilling to accept, or unable to comprehend perhaps, is that the problem of violence is related to our Human nature, rather than to religious faith per se.

 

You have had numerous examples presented to you now - both historic and contemporary - of massacres that can be traced back to followers of the Christian faith. Many of these events in fact are/were far more bloody affairs than anything that has happened in Paris so far this year. But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason.

 

I can only ask you why on earth should anybody on here accept such nonsense?

Oh I do love it when you just come out with total porkies.

"But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason".

If you can point me in the direction of any post by me on this thread - you can have the other one about the French national anthem too - where I say anything even remotely like that then please do. Please do.

Just f ucking fantasy land with you isn't it.

The eminently simple point you seem to be either unwilling to accept, or unable to comprehend perhaps, is that the problem of violence is related to our Human nature, rather than to religious faith per se.

 

You have had numerous examples presented to you now - both historic and contemporary - of massacres that can be traced back to followers of the Christian faith. Many of these events in fact are/were far more bloody affairs than anything that has happened in Paris so far this year. But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason.

 

I can only ask you why on earth should anybody on here accept such nonsense?

Who has ever said that? You just completely made it up!

Oh I do love it when you just come out with total porkies.

 

"But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason".

 

If you can point me in the direction of any post by me on this thread - you can have the other one about the French national anthem too - where I say anything even remotely like that then please do. Please do.

 

Just f ucking fantasy land with you isn't it.

Okay then - for the benefit of the forum explain where you stand on this issue because despite numerous posts arguing the toss this remains entirely unclear. Do you feel that the followers of the Prophet Muhammad are a more violent group than those who believe in the Christian faith?

Do try to express yourself in a clear and lucid manner so that others on here might understand what the hell you are talking about.

Isn't that why we come on here, to debate issues? So no I am not ashamed in the least. We all have opinions and we express them. If you wish to call that a sport that is your right. If you don't agree with my opinion, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and the only ones we need worry about are the extremist minority, so be it.

But you don't debate because you hold an informed view, you do it because you enjoy the ruck; that's why I call it a sport. You betray yourself by conitually changing your argument slightly or by drawing false conclusions just to keep the fires stoked and when the focus of the thread moves away from your running arguments you come on with something like 'so no one has got an opinion on blah blah (whatever the last little nugget of **** you posted)', hoping it will pull in a few more punters. Then when you have exhausted your position you go off to other forums looking for some validation.

Sad Old Git indeed.

Wow, you lot sure have stamina.

Brussels locked down tonight because of a bunch of muslims. No doubt waltz'd into europe very easily

Okay then - for the benefit of the forum explain where you stand on this issue because despite numerous posts arguing the toss this remains entirely unclear. Do you feel that the followers of the Prophet Muhammad are a more violent group than those who believe in the Christian faith?

 

Do try to express yourself in a clear and lucid manner so that others on here might understand what the hell you are talking about.

It appears to be only yourself and soggy who are feigning ignorance. Well I say feigning, I assume you are but it's probable that soggy has no idea what's going on.

What has any of what you posted above got to do with your claims that people have been saying that Islam has the potential to be as violent as Christianity. Clearly they have the potential to be as violent as each other but Islam has a much greater problem with violence at the current time. It's been repeated on here a whole bunch of times now, I'm surprised that you sound so confused.

Brussels locked down tonight because of a bunch of muslims. No doubt waltz'd into europe very easily

What a plain nasty way to phrase that.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-stalk-peaceful-muslims-at-texas-mosque-we-want-to-show-force/

*waits for response of "but but what about brievik and all that Christian stuff in Africa???" as if that is remotely comparable or proves that Christianity has the same level of problem at the current time.

What a plain nasty way to phrase that.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-stalk-peaceful-muslims-at-texas-mosque-we-want-to-show-force/

Clearly stuff like that is idiotic. Peaceful Muslims should be able to practice their religion in peace. Freedom in the West is the main value worth fighting for. Not sure what it has to do with Batman's point. The ineptitude from Merkel has done a lot of this.

It appears to be only yourself and soggy who are feigning ignorance. Well I say feigning, I assume you are but it's probable that soggy has no idea what's going on.

 

What has any of what you posted above got to do with your claims that people have been saying that Islam has the potential to be as violent as Christianity. Clearly they have the potential to be as violent as each other but Islam has a much greater problem with violence at the current time.

Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that objections to your (rather fuzzy and easily shifted) viewpoint are far more widely based than just myself and one other person - indeed when you start a post with such a blatant inaccuracy then this hardly inspires much confidence in what follows. But yes, Muslim fanaticism has certainly been more evident of late than the Christian version has been.

If there is any wider point beyond that narrow one you desire to make here then by all means make it.

Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that objections to your (rather fuzzy and easily shifted) viewpoint are far more widely based than just myself and one other person - indeed when you start a post with such a blatant inaccuracy then this hardly inspires much confidence in what follows. But yes, Muslim fanaticism has certainly been more evident of late than the Christian version has been.

 

If there is any wider point beyond that narrow one you desire to make here then by all means make it.

Complete bilge from yourself as always. I've been consistent on here and there hasn't been much disagreement save from yourself and soggy. I can see a number of posters taking issue with much of what you and soggy post, and the one that interests me most is from verbal- someone who is clearly much more informed on the issue than anyone else on here. You occasionally make a pompous point that I can almost agree with but then you ruin it by inventing things like people have said like Islam has the potential to be more violent than Christianity. What a shame. I note you don't make the same request of soggy to elaborate on what he stands for. As fan the Flames says above it appears that once he loses an argument he either slightly changes what he is saying, makes things up or simply repeats himself. Just know that you're currently on the side of a man who claims that the West is supportive of the clan more than the burka Ffs.

I'm glad you agree with me though. Islam has a greater violence problem at the moment than other religions. It only took days of posting to get there...

Okay then - for the benefit of the forum explain where you stand on this issue because despite numerous posts arguing the toss this remains entirely unclear. Do you feel that the followers of the Prophet Muhammad are a more violent group than those who believe in the Christian faith?

 

Do try to express yourself in a clear and lucid manner so that others on here might understand what the hell you are talking about.

I think where I stand on that question is pretty straightforward.

What the f uck has that question to do with anything related to this topic? Nothing. It's an irrelevant sideshow question adding nothing to the issue at hand.

You and SOGGY (who also, inexplicably, believes "we" are "not that bothered" about the Ku Klux Klan) and other loons desperately trawling Wikipedia for any atrocities/war/death they can pin on Christianity do look like you are having a wonderful time. But what point you are actually trying to make, for what end, I have absolutely no freaking idea.

Meanwhile, IS, who are are Islamic fundementalist group, killed a sh it load of people a week ago, have seemingly forced a major European capital into lock down and could possibly strike in London or another British city sometime soon. That's what is happening here in actual planet earth.

In the meantime you guys keep trawling Wikipedia. Any of you banged in "How Christian was Pol Pot?" into Google yet?

Oh, and for your satisfaction the answer to you utterly retarded fu cking question is No. Obviously fu cking No. Does that stop ISIS being Islamic fundementalists? Does it?

Complete bilge from yourself as always. I've been consistent on here and there hasn't been much disagreement save from yourself and soggy. I can see a number of posters taking issue with much of what you and soggy post, and the one that interests me most is from verbal- someone who is clearly much more informed on the issue than anyone else on here. I note you don't make the same request of soggy to elaborate on what he stands for. As fan the Flames says above it appears that once he loses an argument he either slightly changes what he is saying, makes things up or simply repeats himself. Just know that you're currently on the side of a man who claims that the West is supportive of the clan Ffs.

 

I'm glad you agree with me though. Islam has a greater violence problem at the moment than other religions. It only took days of posting to get there...

Well the record clearly shows that quite a few people have raised objections to your and CB's postings - as ill defined as they are. So I can only conclude that you appear to be suffering from some form of progressive amnesia or maybe you have not read this thread properly. Either possibility places you in a somewhat embarrassing situation I think.

On my latter request, can I take it then that you have no ''wider point'' to wish to make here?

I think where I stand on that question is pretty straightforward.

 

What the f uck has that question to do with anything related to this topic? Nothing. It's an irrelevant sideshow question adding nothing to the issue at hand.

 

You and SOGGY (who also, inexplicably, believes "we" are "not that bothered" about the Ku Klux Klan) and other loons desperately trawling Wikipedia for any atrocities/war/death they can pin on Christianity do look like you are having a wonderful time. But what point you are actually trying to make, for what end, I have absolutely no freaking idea.

 

Meanwhile, IS, who are are Islamic fundementalist group, killed a sh it load of people a week ago, have seemingly forced a major European capital into lock down and could possibly strike in London or another British city sometime soon. That's what is happening here in actual planet earth.

 

In the meantime you guys keep trawling Wikipedia. Any of you banged in "How Christian was Pol Pot?" into Google yet?

 

Oh, and for your satisfaction the answer to you utterly retarded fu cking question is No. Obviously fu cking No. Does that stop ISIS being Islamic fundementalists? Does it?

My dear chap, your position is anything but clear. I might add that circumventing the swear filter is neither big or very clever for that matter.

Well the record clearly shows that quite a few people have raised objections to your and CB's postings - as ill defined as they are. So I can only conclude that you appear to be suffering from some form of progressive amnesia or maybe you have not read this thread properly. Either possibility places you in a somewhat embarrassing situation I think.

 

On my latter request, can I take it then that you have no ''wider point'' to wish to make here?

Well the record doesn't show that, it mostly shows a couple of disagreements and then a load of posts from yourself and soggy that a number of people have disagreed with and replied to (and quite a few saying soggy had made stuff up.) then a load of stuff where you went all round the houses bringing up irrelevant Christian atrocities that everyone already knows about, had never denied and thus served no purpose.

I have no other points to make at this time that I haven't already written on here. Most of my posts have been to counter the bizarre rantings from yourself and soggy and trying to clarify for you what was actually being said by posters rather than what you imagined had been said. I'll stick to that thanks (it's an important job to ensure you both get called out on it) and continue to comment as I see fit whilst this story continues.

My dear chap, your position is anything but clear. I might add that circumventing the swear filter is neither big or very clever for that matter.

Seems incredibly clear to me my friend. I'd you're struggling to understand again then I'd just move on. Maybe you simply are not cut out for this type of thing.

Nothing at this time that I haven't already written on here. Most of my posts have been to counter the bizarre rantings from yourself and soggy and trying to clarify for you what was actually being said by posters rather than what you imagined had been said. I'll stick to that thanks (it's an important job to ensure you both get called out on it) and continue to comment as I see fit whilst this story continues.

But you so seldom clarify anything. Your regular tacit on here is to avoid answering reasonable questions - such as the one I asked you this morning - or some bogus pretence that your have been misrepresented in some way. This latter behaviour being more than a little 'rich' by the way given your posting history.

"Siri, did Genghis Khan ever read the Bible?"

Seems incredibly clear to me my friend. I'd you're struggling to understand again then I'd just move on. Maybe you simply are not cut out for this type of thing.

Careful - that post was directed at CB not you.

Please reassure this forum that you are two different people aren't you?

Do you feel that the followers of the Prophet Muhammad are a more violent group than those who believe in the Christian faith?

In 2015 they certainly are.

Again, that is kind of a 'narrow' point given the long - and on going - history of multi-faith violence in the world.

My dear chap, your position is anything but clear. I might add that circumventing the swear filter is neither big or very clever for that matter.

You ask me a question (which I have no doubt you were jolly proud of) I answer it with an affirmative answer and things are still "anything but clear" to you?

I can only conclude you are somewhat dim.

Search: Raoul+Moat+Songs+Of+Praise+huge+fan+of

Well the record clearly shows that quite a few people have raised objections to your and CB's postings - as ill defined as they are. So I can only conclude that you appear to be suffering from some form of progressive amnesia or maybe you have not read this thread properly. Either possibility places you in a somewhat embarrassing situation I think.

 

On my latter request, can I take it then that you have no ''wider point'' to wish to make here?

To chip in you just look like a verbose pompous fool. It is only you, SOG, Badger and Angelman who seem to not really know what is going on.

Apologies though as I don't read all your posts as too long winded.

Any sensible minded sort can clearly see that Fry and Hypo are speaking for the vast sensible majority who sort of get what is going on.

You ask me a question (which I have no doubt you were jolly proud of) I answer it with an affirmative answer and things are still "anything but clear" to you?

 

I can only conclude you are somewhat dim.

But you are - I think - despite arguing the toss all day now telling this forum that you don't think that Muslims intrinsically hold a higher potential for violence than other faiths do. But only yesterday you were busy on here issuing challenges daring others to name massacre incidents that Christian were responsible for.

I put it to you that the implications of that post are clear enough and indicative of your true mindset.

To chip in you just look like a verbose pompous fool. It is only you, SOG, Badger and Angelman who seem to not really know what is going on.

Apologies though as I don't read all your posts as too long winded.

 

Any sensible minded sort can clearly see that Fry and Hypo are speaking for the vast sensible majority who sort of get what is going on.

Unfortunately you have immediately invalidated this post by including the words ''sensibly minded'' and ''Fry and Hypo'' in the same sentence.

Look, the odds on us here getting murdered by a Muslim fanatic compared to a Christian, Jewish, Hindi, Jedi, skate are a great deal higher

That is all that matters. It will change over time. 30 years ago, the chances of being blown up in the uk by a mental Irishman was higher than the norm.

Why does this need debating by soggy and CEC???

Again, that is kind of a 'narrow' point given the long - and on going - history of multi-faith violence in the world.

Unfortunately you have immediately invalidated this post by including the words ''sensibly minded'' and ''Fry and Hypo'' in the same sentence.

To be honest mate a post validated by you would be cause for concern

But you so seldom clarify anything. Your regular tacit on here is to avoid answering reasonable questions - such as the one I asked you this morning - or some bogus pretence that your have been misrepresented in some way. This latter behaviour being more than a little 'rich' by the way given your posting history.

A huge amount of yours and soggys responses are misrepresentations of what I have said so it's not much of a surprise that I would think that- it's true. As far as I'm aware I answer the majority of questions posed on here except when I don't feel it's relevant to the discussion.

Its what we're discussing and what is relevant.

Sorry, but being naturally inclined towards an interest in history I tend to look at the world from what might be described as a 'longer term' historical perspective, rather than reacting only to yesterdays headlines.

But 'each to his own' as they say!

A huge amount of yours and soggys responses are misrepresentations of what I have said so it's not much of a surprise that I would think that- it's true. As far as I'm aware I answer the majority of questions posed on here except when I don't feel it's relevant to the discussion.

Please specify where in this thread exactly I have deliberately misrepresented something you have posted.

Look, the odds on us here getting murdered by a Muslim fanatic compared to a Christian, Jewish, Hindi, Jedi, skate are a great deal higher

 

That is all that matters. It will change over time. 30 years ago, the chances of being blown up in the uk by a mental Irishman was higher than the norm.

 

Why does this need debating by soggy and CEC???

I really don't understand what their position is. They are desperately trying to twist thing to suit their agendas (everyone else thinks Muslims are evil, everyone else thinks Islam is a violent evil religion compared to pure and wholesome Christianity.) and then- amusingly - CEC thinks that the majority of responses on here are in fact disagreeing with the alternate viewpoint and by implication agreeing with him! You really couldn't make it up (unless you are soggy, in which case you make it up whenever you feel like it.) Whelk has it spot on.

But you are - I think - despite arguing the toss all day now telling this forum that you don't think that Muslims intrinsically hold a higher potential for violence than other faiths do. But only yesterday you were busy on here issuing challenges daring others to name massacre incidents that Christian were responsible for.

 

I put it to you that the implications of that post are clear enough and indicative of your true mindset.

What's my "true mindset" then?

Sorry, but being naturally inclined towards an interest in history I tend to look at the world from what might be described as a 'longer term' historical perspective, rather than reacting only to yesterdays headlines.

 

But 'each to his own' as they say!

Do you agree that there is currently a problem with Islamic terrorism across a large section of the globe?

What does that even mean?

 

Do you agree that there is currently a problem with Islamic terrorism across a large section of the globe?

It means exactly what it says and I'm sure everyone agrees that extremism - from whatever source - is indeed a serious problem confronting the world today.

It means exactly what it says and I'm sure everyone agrees that extremism - from whatever source - is indeed a serious problem confronting the world today.

But 'each to his own' as they say!

Sorry, but being naturally inclined towards an interest in history I tend to look at the world from what might be described as a 'longer term' historical perspective, rather than reacting only to yesterdays headlines.

 

But 'each to his own' as they say!

What relevance do the Crusades have when discussing the problem of violence within Islam in 2015?

Please specify where in this thread exactly I have deliberately misrepresented something you have posted.

So you didn't try to claim that posters were saying Islam has the potential to be more violent than Christianity?

What's my "true mindset" then?

Well it seems clear that yesterday at least you doubted that Christians were as liable of conducting 'massacre' type behaviour as Muslims are. But if you can summon some alternative explanation that paints you in a better light - one that is remotely plausible that is - then by all means do so.

Well it seems clear that yesterday at least you doubted that Christians were as liable of conducting 'massacre' type behaviour as Muslims are. But if you can summon some alternative explanation that paints you in a better light - one that is remotely plausible that is - then by all means do so.

Yep. I was right. You are dim.