ADVERTISEMENT

so peaceful

TopSecretBoiler

All-American
Feb 4, 2011
17,517
17,200
113
ISLAMABAD (AP) — A bombing on Easter Sunday killed 65 people in a park in the eastern city of Lahore that was crowded with Christians, including many children.
A breakaway Pakistani faction of the militant Taliban group claimed responsibility. Ahsanullah Ahsan, spokesman for Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, told the Associated Press that a suicide bomber with the faction deliberately targeted the Christian community.
The explosion took place near the children's rides in Gulshan-e-Iqbal park local police chief Haider Ashraf said. He said the explosion appeared to have been a suicide bombing, but investigations were ongoing.
The attack killed 65 people and wounded over 300, said Deeba Shahnaz, a spokesman for Lahore rescue administration.
 
you are right...we should judge an entire group by the actions of a tiny few.

Like Christians when they killed half a million or more in Rwanda. Or when they blew up a building with over 100 people in OKC.
 
you are right...we should judge an entire group by the actions of a tiny few.

Like Christians when they killed half a million or more in Rwanda. Or when they blew up a building with over 100 people in OKC.
In the LAST 30 DAYS extremist attacks in 25 countries have killed over 1000 and wounded over 3000. Just stop with your nitwit comparisons. I'm not christian, I don't believe in religion so you are not hurting my feelings.
 
In the LAST 30 DAYS extremist attacks in 25 countries have killed over 1000 and wounded over 3000. Just stop with your nitwit comparisons. I'm not christian, I don't believe in religion so you are not hurting my feelings.
Ah, so we should only make wide assumptions about 1.6 billion people based on a narrow sliver of folks who've committed acts in the last 30 days.

Got it.
 
you are right...we should judge an entire group by the actions of a tiny few.

The inconvenient truth is that most moslems are not terrorists but most terrorists are moslem. Frankly, I hesitate to use the word "terrorism" regarding these attacks because they are actually acts of jihad. The attackers aren't trying to invoke terror, they are killing infidels to please Allah and be rewarded with an houri of 72 virgins in paradise.
 
The inconvenient truth is that most moslems are not terrorists but most terrorists are moslem. Frankly, I hesitate to use the word "terrorism" regarding these attacks because they are actually acts of jihad. The attackers aren't trying to invoke terror, they are killing infidels to please Allah and be rewarded with an houri of 72 virgins in paradise.
Today, now, yes. 100 years ago, no, it was other groups. History didn't start 50 years ago.
And again, the only group we need to deal with are terrorists. Not Muslims. Terrorists. Identify them, destroy them, degrade them, deter them.
 
Classic qaz. A bizarre reference to 50-100 years ago rather than talking about the issue at hand.

OK, let's clarify the time frame. We're talking moslem jihad in the here and now. 35 dead in Brussels, 76 dead in Pakistan, 14 dead in San Bernadino, that kind of slaughter of infidels to please Allah done by Islamic goons.
 
Classic qaz. A bizarre reference to 50-100 years ago rather than talking about the issue at hand.

OK, let's clarify the time frame. We're talking moslem jihad in the here and now. 35 dead in Brussels, 76 dead in Pakistan, 14 dead in San Bernadino, that kind of slaughter of infidels to please Allah done by Islamic goons.
yes totally bizarre to not focus on just the last 50 years of human existence when making sweeping judgments about 1.6 billion religious adherents. Totally cray.
Can I just go back to the Christians who killed 500K or more in Rwanda?
How about the Christian who killed 100+ people at OKC?
 
yes totally bizarre to not focus on just the last 50 years of human existence when making sweeping judgments about 1.6 billion religious adherents. Totally cray.
Can I just go back to the Christians who killed 500K or more in Rwanda?
How about the Christian who killed 100+ people at OKC?
You are such a strawman building moron. The hutus and tutsis weren't killing each other over religion. Why do you respond to my posts with this bullshit? I post AP article, you post ignoramus argument that has nothing to do with anything. Hutu/Tutsi conflict was class warfare. They weren't running around yelling god is great. They weren't pretending to be commanded by their religion to kill the other people. I know you can't tell the difference because you're a wingnut asshole who can't read or understand anything that isn't spoon fed to you by the media. These aren't people who are muslim and happen to be committing a crime. They are committing a crime because of their interpretation of islam. Your stupid ass examples refute nothing.
 
You are such a strawman building moron. The hutus and tutsis weren't killing each other over religion. Why do you respond to my posts with this bullshit? I post AP article, you post ignoramus argument that has nothing to do with anything. Hutu/Tutsi conflict was class warfare. They weren't running around yelling god is great. They weren't pretending to be commanded by their religion to kill the other people. I know you can't tell the difference because you're a wingnut asshole who can't read or understand anything that isn't spoon fed to you by the media. These aren't people who are muslim and happen to be committing a crime. They are committing a crime because of their interpretation of islam. Your stupid ass examples refute nothing.
Ah so it doesn't matter what the religion is of the people doing the killing, just that they are killing ABOUT religion.

That's...interesting logic ya got there. Besides the fact that plenty of terrorist attacks actually aren't about religion but are about more earthbound complaints (doesn't make them any better obviously, but apparently you think there's a difference).

Of course, back to Rwanda...when Catholic missionaries came to Rwanda in the early part of the 20th century, they backed the Tutsi over the Hutu. They only picked Tutsi priests and nuns, not Hutu. Why? The Tutsi looked more European (taller, lighter skin). This idea of ethnic superiority was favored by them and it was baked into what would later turn into the conflict and genocide that arose primarily based on the idea that the Tutsi were ethnically better than the Hutu.

The "version" of Christianity that arose in Rwanda was a deeply ethnically prejudiced version. JUST like the Islamists who follow a deeply flawed version of Islam, the Tutsi followed a deeply flawed version of Christianity that established (much like Christians in the South used the bible to justify slavery of AAs) the superiority of the Tutsi to the Hutu.

Of course, I'm sure the problem is that I can't read or understand anything, and not that your ability to understand complex ideas is only slightly greater than my cat's.
 
Ah so it doesn't matter what the religion is of the people doing the killing, just that they are killing ABOUT religion.

That's...interesting logic ya got there. Besides the fact that plenty of terrorist attacks actually aren't about religion but are about more earthbound complaints (doesn't make them any better obviously, but apparently you think there's a difference).

Of course, back to Rwanda...when Catholic missionaries came to Rwanda in the early part of the 20th century, they backed the Tutsi over the Hutu. They only picked Tutsi priests and nuns, not Hutu. Why? The Tutsi looked more European (taller, lighter skin). This idea of ethnic superiority was favored by them and it was baked into what would later turn into the conflict and genocide that arose primarily based on the idea that the Tutsi were ethnically better than the Hutu.

The "version" of Christianity that arose in Rwanda was a deeply ethnically prejudiced version. JUST like the Islamists who follow a deeply flawed version of Islam, the Tutsi followed a deeply flawed version of Christianity that established (much like Christians in the South used the bible to justify slavery of AAs) the superiority of the Tutsi to the Hutu.

Of course, I'm sure the problem is that I can't read or understand anything, and not that your ability to understand complex ideas is only slightly greater than my cat's.
Except the germans and belgians were the ones who supported the monarchy. Nice try mr revisionist. The war wasn't over christianity. It wasn't over any interpretation of christianity. You are MAKING SHIT UP. If anything, the education the missionaries brought benefited the Hutus, as their social status would not have allowed them to receive it otherwise. But keep making shit up. This is fun to watch you try to compare these events. Maybe you should actually read the bahutu manifesto and see what their complaints were.
 
Ah so it doesn't matter what the religion is of the people doing the killing, just that they are killing ABOUT religion.

That's...interesting logic ya got there. Besides the fact that plenty of terrorist attacks actually aren't about religion but are about more earthbound complaints (doesn't make them any better obviously, but apparently you think there's a difference).

Of course, back to Rwanda...when Catholic missionaries came to Rwanda in the early part of the 20th century, they backed the Tutsi over the Hutu. They only picked Tutsi priests and nuns, not Hutu. Why? The Tutsi looked more European (taller, lighter skin). This idea of ethnic superiority was favored by them and it was baked into what would later turn into the conflict and genocide that arose primarily based on the idea that the Tutsi were ethnically better than the Hutu.

The "version" of Christianity that arose in Rwanda was a deeply ethnically prejudiced version. JUST like the Islamists who follow a deeply flawed version of Islam, the Tutsi followed a deeply flawed version of Christianity that established (much like Christians in the South used the bible to justify slavery of AAs) the superiority of the Tutsi to the Hutu.

Of course, I'm sure the problem is that I can't read or understand anything, and not that your ability to understand complex ideas is only slightly greater than my cat's.
Here this is free. quit talking out of your ass. https://books.google.com/books?id=E...6AEIXjAM#v=onepage&q=bahutu manifesto&f=false
 
First:

http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html

Second:

You've linked a few pages of 200+ page book where religion is barely discussed.

Third:

The point was not about how the Hutus applied their religious teachings (or how it benefited them), which is what your link talks about, it was about how the TUTSI applied their religious teachings and how it benefited them (you know, the guys who did the actual genocide?).

Try again.
 
First:

http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html

Second:

You've linked a few pages of 200+ page book where religion is barely discussed.

Third:

The point was not about how the Hutus applied their religious teachings (or how it benefited them), which is what your link talks about, it was about how the TUTSI applied their religious teachings and how it benefited them (you know, the guys who did the actual genocide?).

Try again.
Did you even READ this!?!?!
The groundwork for genocide was laid over a period of several years. The small-scale massacres that began in 1990 helped condition the population for larger massacres later. In 1992 a group of hardline Hutu created a new extreme political party, the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic (CDR), that appealed to supporters with virulently anti-Tutsi rhetoric. While publicly more extreme in its positions than the MRND, the CDR in fact cooperated closely with the ruling party, allowing MRND leaders to resist compromise with the RPF and the internal opposition by pressuring the MRND from the far right. As one source told me, "The CDR says what MRND leaders think but cannot say." Meanwhile, the MRND transformed its youth wing, the Interahamwe , into a militia, and the armed forces provided para-military training to both the Interahamwe and a new CDR militia. After the government and RPF signed a peace accord in August 1993 that would have brought the RPF into the government and integrated them into the Rwandan armed forces, the president's supporters sought to ensure that the accords would never be implemented. They intensified their propaganda efforts, creating a new radio station, Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM) to broadcast propaganda against Tutsi and moderate Hutu.(28) The armed forces expanded militia training and began distributing arms to civilians. At some point in late 1993 or early 1994, a group of officials close to the president drew up a plan to guarantee their power through a massive campaign of violence that would eliminate all of their opponents, including Tutsi and prominent moderate Hutu.

The genocide ultimately had much more to do with the contemporary political concerns of an authoritarian regime under attack than with "ancient tribal hatreds," and as such it could have been averted. The military support offered to the Habyarimana regime by France and other countries helped the regime to rebuild its strength at a moment when domestic opposition had seriously weakened its position. The vast expansion of the military that foreign support made possible -- from about 5,000 troops at the beginning of the war to more than 50,000 in 1992 -- allowed the government to place soldiers throughout the country, who harassed and subdued the population and eventually oversaw the implementation of genocide.(29) Even with the military expansion, genocide could have been prevented if efforts had been made to counter the ideological and logistical preparations. Although they could not have singlehandedly stopped the genocide, the Christian churches were nevertheless the organizations best situated within Rwanda to challenge the progress toward genocide, because they remained the largest non-state actors even with the explosion of civil society associations in the preceding decade.
...
I have no evidence that any church personnel were among the small cadre of people who ultimately drew up the plans for genocide, but church leaders certainly made no concerted effort to hinder the expansion of ethnic ideologies and hatreds, to condemn the scapegoating of Tutsi, and to oppose the growing militarization of society that made the genocide possible.

READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It had nothing to do with christianity. It was not a holy war. It was not a war between different sects of christianity. PERIOD. you are so ridiculous.
 
Did you even READ this!?!?!
The groundwork for genocide was laid over a period of several years. The small-scale massacres that began in 1990 helped condition the population for larger massacres later. In 1992 a group of hardline Hutu created a new extreme political party, the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic (CDR), that appealed to supporters with virulently anti-Tutsi rhetoric. While publicly more extreme in its positions than the MRND, the CDR in fact cooperated closely with the ruling party, allowing MRND leaders to resist compromise with the RPF and the internal opposition by pressuring the MRND from the far right. As one source told me, "The CDR says what MRND leaders think but cannot say." Meanwhile, the MRND transformed its youth wing, the Interahamwe , into a militia, and the armed forces provided para-military training to both the Interahamwe and a new CDR militia. After the government and RPF signed a peace accord in August 1993 that would have brought the RPF into the government and integrated them into the Rwandan armed forces, the president's supporters sought to ensure that the accords would never be implemented. They intensified their propaganda efforts, creating a new radio station, Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM) to broadcast propaganda against Tutsi and moderate Hutu.(28) The armed forces expanded militia training and began distributing arms to civilians. At some point in late 1993 or early 1994, a group of officials close to the president drew up a plan to guarantee their power through a massive campaign of violence that would eliminate all of their opponents, including Tutsi and prominent moderate Hutu.

The genocide ultimately had much more to do with the contemporary political concerns of an authoritarian regime under attack than with "ancient tribal hatreds," and as such it could have been averted. The military support offered to the Habyarimana regime by France and other countries helped the regime to rebuild its strength at a moment when domestic opposition had seriously weakened its position. The vast expansion of the military that foreign support made possible -- from about 5,000 troops at the beginning of the war to more than 50,000 in 1992 -- allowed the government to place soldiers throughout the country, who harassed and subdued the population and eventually oversaw the implementation of genocide.(29) Even with the military expansion, genocide could have been prevented if efforts had been made to counter the ideological and logistical preparations. Although they could not have singlehandedly stopped the genocide, the Christian churches were nevertheless the organizations best situated within Rwanda to challenge the progress toward genocide, because they remained the largest non-state actors even with the explosion of civil society associations in the preceding decade.
...
I have no evidence that any church personnel were among the small cadre of people who ultimately drew up the plans for genocide, but church leaders certainly made no concerted effort to hinder the expansion of ethnic ideologies and hatreds, to condemn the scapegoating of Tutsi, and to oppose the growing militarization of society that made the genocide possible.

READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It had nothing to do with christianity. It was not a holy war. It was not a war between different sects of christianity. PERIOD. you are so ridiculous.
Conclusions

Given the facts that I have presented, it should be clear that the failings of the Rwandan churches during the genocide were not the result of a few corrupt individuals but rather were deeply rooted in the very nature of Christianity in Rwanda. The manner in which Christianity was implanted in Rwanda and the policies and ideas promoted by missionaries began a transformation of Rwandan society that ultimately made genocide possible. After independence, the churches stood as important centers of social, economic, and political power, but rather than using their power to support the rights of the population, the churches were integrated into wider structures of power that allowed wealth and privilege to become concentrated in the hands of a select few. The churches as institutions worked with the state to preserve existing configurations of power in the face of increased public pressure for reform, ultimately culminating in the strategy of genocide. While never publicly endorsing genocide, the churches nevertheless are complicit because they helped to create and maintain the authoritarian and divided society that made genocide possible and because the entanglement of the churches with the state made the churches partners in state policy. People could thus kill their fellow Christians on church property and believe that their actions were consistent with church teachings. The complicity of the churches in the genocide is not merely a failing of Christianity in Rwanda, but of world Christianity as it has established itself in Africa, and it should lead people of faith throughout the world to question the nature of religious institutions and the ways in which they exercise their power.
 
Conclusions

Given the facts that I have presented, it should be clear that the failings of the Rwandan churches during the genocide were not the result of a few corrupt individuals but rather were deeply rooted in the very nature of Christianity in Rwanda. The manner in which Christianity was implanted in Rwanda and the policies and ideas promoted by missionaries began a transformation of Rwandan society that ultimately made genocide possible. After independence, the churches stood as important centers of social, economic, and political power, but rather than using their power to support the rights of the population, the churches were integrated into wider structures of power that allowed wealth and privilege to become concentrated in the hands of a select few. The churches as institutions worked with the state to preserve existing configurations of power in the face of increased public pressure for reform, ultimately culminating in the strategy of genocide. While never publicly endorsing genocide, the churches nevertheless are complicit because they helped to create and maintain the authoritarian and divided society that made genocide possible and because the entanglement of the churches with the state made the churches partners in state policy. People could thus kill their fellow Christians on church property and believe that their actions were consistent with church teachings. The complicity of the churches in the genocide is not merely a failing of Christianity in Rwanda, but of world Christianity as it has established itself in Africa, and it should lead people of faith throughout the world to question the nature of religious institutions and the ways in which they exercise their power.
Except that nothing here concludes that the war was about christianity. It concludes the churches failed, in his opinion, to stop the war. Yet he freely admits earlier in the paper they would not have been able to do that. You know why? Not everyone involved in this war was a christian! LOL...seriously. You are a joke.
 
Except that nothing here concludes that the war was about christianity. It concludes the churches failed, in his opinion, to stop the war. Yet he freely admits earlier in the paper they would not have been able to do that. You know why? Not everyone involved in this war was a christian! LOL...seriously. You are a joke.
No one said anything about the war being "about Christianity." Apparently you are so simplistic that if the war isn't literally in red bright lights about X, then X has no role or impact or importance. And no, the paper concludes that the religious teachings of the Tutsi led them to believe that they were better than the Hutu (because they were treated that way), and it was this twisted understanding of Christianity that helped this Genocide (that and the fact that many Christians were complicit if not explicit in their support of it).

There's no way you read the entire article in the time alloted, so clearly what you did was scan for the part that best made the argument you want to make, because if you had, you would have caught the entire sections in the middle that said exactly what I typed. I'd have more respect if you'd simply rejected the entire premise of the article, but you aren't smart enough to do that.

What you are smart enough to do is to try and find something in the article you can use to argue that an article entitled Church and Genocide, that finishes with a conclusion that "the failings of the Rwandan churches during the genocide were not the result of a few corrupt individuals but rather were deeply rooted in the very nature of Christianity in Rwanda" wasn't really saying the genocide was, ya know, deeply rooted in the very nature of Christianity in Rwanda.

I mean...that's some kind of intelligence I suppose.
 
No one said anything about the war being "about Christianity." Apparently you are so simplistic that if the war isn't literally in red bright lights about X, then X has no role or impact or importance. And no, the paper concludes that the religious teachings of the Tutsi led them to believe that they were better than the Hutu (because they were treated that way), and it was this twisted understanding of Christianity that helped this Genocide (that and the fact that many Christians were complicit if not explicit in their support of it).

There's no way you read the entire article in the time alloted, so clearly what you did was scan for the part that best made the argument you want to make, because if you had, you would have caught the entire sections in the middle that said exactly what I typed. I'd have more respect if you'd simply rejected the entire premise of the article, but you aren't smart enough to do that.

What you are smart enough to do is to try and find something in the article you can use to argue that an article entitled Church and Genocide, that finishes with a conclusion that "the failings of the Rwandan churches during the genocide were not the result of a few corrupt individuals but rather were deeply rooted in the very nature of Christianity in Rwanda" wasn't really saying the genocide was, ya know, deeply rooted in the very nature of Christianity in Rwanda.

I mean...that's some kind of intelligence I suppose.
bro...you are the one who compared rwanda to the suicide bombings. So...I take your article and show you what the author thought the war was about, and you STILL can't understand how this is different than coordinated muslim groups trying to engage in holy war throughout the world. That your author claims he HAS NO EVIDENCE that supports church members planned a genocide, where as I have muslim groups CLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY for these acts. You are really a petulant child who makes stupid comparisons, and then get bitch slapped by your own article.
 
bro...you are the one who compared rwanda to the suicide bombings. So...I take your article and show you what the author thought the war was about, and you STILL can't understand how this is different than coordinated muslim groups trying to engage in holy war throughout the world. That your author claims he HAS NO EVIDENCE that supports church members planned a genocide, where as I have muslim groups CLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY for these acts. You are really a petulant child who makes stupid comparisons, and then get bitch slapped by your own article.
No "bro" I did something a wee bit more complicated than a simple "comparison" of Rwanda genocide to suicide bombings. Whether "church members planned" a genocide, or misguided church teachings were fundamental underpinnings to the genocide doesn't really matter. Whether islamists are bombing to start a holy war, or are bombing because misguided teachings about Islam are fundamental underpinnings to that, doesn't really matter. BOTH involve a small subset of folks using twisted religious beliefs to kill.

As for the rest, this is why I can't take folks like you and others on here remotely seriously. Even when I try and engage you at an intellectual level, without much in the way of name-calling, the response is bitchslap, petulant child, stupid, etc. So yeah, I only regret taking the time wasted treating folks like you as if you are anything other than moronic mouth breathers who have enough mental energy to power a lonely, dim bulb.

It's an effort I won't be repeating with you anytime soon ;) I'll return to mocking derision now, it's more fun, and takes up less of my time.
 
No "bro" I did something a wee bit more complicated than a simple "comparison" of Rwanda genocide to suicide bombings. Whether "church members planned" a genocide, or misguided church teachings were fundamental underpinnings to the genocide doesn't really matter. Whether islamists are bombing to start a holy war, or are bombing because misguided teachings about Islam are fundamental underpinnings to that, doesn't really matter. BOTH involve a small subset of folks using twisted religious beliefs to kill.

As for the rest, this is why I can't take folks like you and others on here remotely seriously. Even when I try and engage you at an intellectual level, without much in the way of name-calling, the response is bitchslap, petulant child, stupid, etc. So yeah, I only regret taking the time wasted treating folks like you as if you are anything other than moronic mouth breathers who have enough mental energy to power a lonely, dim bulb.

It's an effort I won't be repeating with you anytime soon ;) I'll return to mocking derision now, it's more fun, and takes up less of my time.
You come on here and deflect, and build strawmen, stray off topic, and make no coherent arguments. You do this in almost every thread. It gets old. My position is islam is not a peaceful religion. You argue back that christians have killed people too! how ridiculous. I don't care. My argument has nothing to do with christians. On top of that, you pick an example of a war that would have happened regardless of any religion being present or not. Then you chose an article in which the author admits that both 1: the church couldn't have stopped the war and 2: that he has no evidence that the church engineered the genocide. You can't man up and say it's a bad comparison. It's in fact laughable and juvenile. Feel free to never ever post in my threads again. I won't miss your strawmen.
 
What's your point? That this somehow provides justification for discrimination of 1.6billion people? Seems like there is only one acceptable answer for the RWNJ crowd: kill all Muslims. Or at least deport or detain all Muslims. I'm not sure what any of your points are if not that. Posting every terror attack or articles like this don't sway my opinion that while there are tens of thousands of radicals out there, that doesn't justify mistreating the other billion.
 
What's your point? That this somehow provides justification for discrimination of 1.6billion people? Seems like there is only one acceptable answer for the RWNJ crowd: kill all Muslims. Or at least deport or detain all Muslims. I'm not sure what any of your points are if not that. Posting every terror attack or articles like this don't sway my opinion that while there are tens of thousands of radicals out there, that doesn't justify mistreating the other billion.
How about for starters doing a better job of screening people that have access to secure areas of airports. WTF do you think should be done, nothing? And where did I say all should be mistreated? You've been hanging with the board "genius" too long.
RWNJ? Please...after a simple link of an article? Hope your finger isn't too close to any triggers today.
Sorry to be so offensive to the Islamophiles on this board.
 
Last edited:
How about for starters doing a better job of screening people that have access to secure areas of airports. WTF do you think should be done, nothing? And where did I say all should be mistreated? You've been hanging with the board "genius" too long.
RWNJ? Please...after a simple link of an article? Hope your finger isn't too close to any triggers today.

Perhaps next time you will post something more meaningful and insightful than "Only a infinitesimal number are radicals, so no big deal", rather than flying off the handle at me when I interpret that as "All Muslims are bad." You pretty clearly meant something by it, so why not own it? If you didn't mean anything by it, then perhaps you shouldn't post it and leave it wide open for interpretation.

Otherwise I agree that it makes sense to screen anyone who works at airports adequately for criminal records and anything else that might pop up as troublesome, not just Muslims.
 
Perhaps next time you will post something more meaningful and insightful than "Only a infinitesimal number are radicals, so no big deal", rather than flying off the handle at me when I interpret that as "All Muslims are bad." You pretty clearly meant something by it, so why not own it? If you didn't mean anything by it, then perhaps you shouldn't post it and leave it wide open for interpretation.

Otherwise I agree that it makes sense to screen anyone who works at airports adequately for criminal records and anything else that might pop up as troublesome, not just Muslims.

My daughters both have Muslim room mates at college. I didn't call the schools and demand a change so obviously I don't believe "All Muslims are bad."
 
My daughters both have Muslim room mates at college. I didn't call the schools and demand a change so obviously I don't believe "All Muslims are bad."

And I would know that... how?

Do you understand how your first sentence - "Only a infinitesimal number are radicals, so no big deal." - might be interpreted when you just leave it out there in the context of this thread?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT