|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Axl Rose
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| When you say Islam is a religion of peace compared to Christianity, you are absolutley right. Christianity has 'offed' more people than any other faith which include such methods as concentration camps, two H bombs, 7 European empires in Africa and 6 in the Americas. It is a no brainer that Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion historically and if you look at killing and murder scoreboard, Christianity is well up in the lead with no close contenders. |
Your reference to concentration camps is presumably meant to infer that the Nazis were 'Christian fundamentalists', and that the holocaust was carried out in the name of Christianity, rather than the quasi-Pagan racial ideology of Nazism. Likewise, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were not carried out for 'Christian' reasons or with biblical justification, but were rather the end result of brutal war between two Pacific powers.
Something does not become Christian, Buddhist or any other kind of religious warfare simply because it is carried out by people of a nation who are nominally of that religion. It becomes religious warfare when the actors involved explicitly state their justifications, motives and goals on a religious basis, and that is what all Islamic terror groups do, and is why they are referred to as such. Moreover, many of these Islamic terror groups are supported by numerous Islamic clerics who exalt violent Jihad, encourage hatred of infidels and advocate the domination of the world under Islam.
This is a fact which you seem unable to grasp, and so instead present absurd examples of 'Christian' terrorism which do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. |
The bit involving "2 H bombs" wasn't right either. The nuclear bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of course a Uranium bomb and a Plutonium bomb respectively.
H-bombs have been tested several times by several countries, but never used in war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Maybe the liberals have an anti war policy but are unsatisfactory to the mainstream votrers on other issues. |
Well, the LibDem policies would have to be pretty freaking awful for a sincere anti-war voter to continue supporting the supposed mass murderer Tony Blair.
ANTIWAR BRIT: This war is a vile crime against humanity, a vicious and blood-soaked imperial assault on innocent souls in the name of western hegemony!
SOMEONE ELSE: I see. So you're voting Liberal, then?
AWB: Are you mad? Their tax policy sucks bollocks. Tony all the way!!
Picking up on my earlier riff, I think that for a lot of antiwar Brits, being against the war has more to do with asserting cultural identity than with any deep-seated morality. Sorta like "unlike those stupid bloody Yanks, we're smart enough to realize that our taxes are going to support mass murder!!" But few of them are really interested in making the hard choices that would follow from acting upon the knowledge that they possess.
But I also suspect that Big Bird is probably right about at least some antiwar people thinking that the troops should stay because withdrawal will only make things worse. A similar thought germ seems to have infected American liberals as well. Sort of the "keep pounding back the whiskey until you get sober" line of thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd like to also say that I don't mean to single out Brits as being especially apathetic and amoral. Had the Canadian Conservatives been in power in 2003, they almost certainly would have sent troops to Iraq, and a good chunk of Canadian public opinion would have gone along with it, or at least not voiced any significant opposition. And a lot of those Canadians would have been the same people who lambaste Americans as bred-in-the-bone warmongers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
safeblad
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Maybe the liberals have an anti war policy but are unsatisfactory to the mainstream votrers on other issues. |
Well, the LibDem policies would have to be pretty freaking awful for a sincere anti-war voter to continue supporting the supposed mass murderer Tony Blair.
|
The LibDems dont have any policies, the just flip flop around the centre ground, and yes their tax policy is unappealing.
As Big Bird said it is a two party system, the Lib Dems have never recovered from the WW1 and dont look set to do so any time soon.
That said, they polled a substantial amount of the vote in the last election, though the turnout was pathetic and embarrassing for UK democracy.
There was something of a surge in support for the LDs though perhaps due to the anti-war voters, they would have had more votes if they were viable candidates and were not at the time led by a drunken scot with zero appeal.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the nearly 40% of people who didnt vote to see the source of their apathy, there is probably a fair but of anti-war sentiment there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I'd like to also say that I don't mean to single out Brits as being especially apathetic and amoral. Had the Canadian Conservatives been in power in 2003, they almost certainly would have sent troops to Iraq, and a good chunk of Canadian public opinion would have gone along with it, or at least not voiced any significant opposition. And a lot of those Canadians would have been the same people who lambaste Americans as bred-in-the-bone warmongers. |
Put down the booze buddy and stop posting.
The majority of Canadians would absolutely not support the war.
Unless you believe a good chunk equals 20-30%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
safeblad
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I'd like to also say that I don't mean to single out Brits as being especially apathetic and amoral. Had the Canadian Conservatives been in power in 2003, they almost certainly would have sent troops to Iraq, and a good chunk of Canadian public opinion would have gone along with it, or at least not voiced any significant opposition. And a lot of those Canadians would have been the same people who lambaste Americans as bred-in-the-bone warmongers. |
Put down the booze buddy and stop posting.
The majority of Canadians would absolutely not support the war.
Unless you believe a good chunk equals 20-30%. |
you could probably say the same with the UK, then there was the 40 minute claim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I'd like to also say that I don't mean to single out Brits as being especially apathetic and amoral. Had the Canadian Conservatives been in power in 2003, they almost certainly would have sent troops to Iraq, and a good chunk of Canadian public opinion would have gone along with it, or at least not voiced any significant opposition. And a lot of those Canadians would have been the same people who lambaste Americans as bred-in-the-bone warmongers. |
Put down the booze buddy and stop posting.
The majority of Canadians would absolutely not support the war.
Unless you believe a good chunk equals 20-30%. |
Please re-read what I wrote...
| Quote: |
| a good chunk of Canadian public opinion would have gone along with it, or at least not voiced any significant opposition. |
(emphasis mine)
According the the CBC, in December of 2002...
| Quote: |
The pollsters found that support for military action in Iraq among those polled was 40 per cent.
|
So, with 40% of Canadians supporting the war outright, I don't think it would have been too hard for a pro-war prime minister to round up another 10% or so who just wouldn't care enough to let the war affect their political behavior, thus producing the kind of voting bloc I alluded to in my post.
Of course, as it became increasingly obvious that the war was a hopeless debacle, a solid majority of Canadians would probably switch to a definite anti-war position, as happened early on in the UK and is now happening in the US.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/12/07/poll_sat021207.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
