*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, August 6th, 2011 12:36pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

>> ^gwiz665:

quality doublepromote


DAAAAAAAAAAMN! Thanks!

Jesus taught love and "turning the other cheek".

O'Reilly makes a very important point... that you cannot judge someone by what they call themselves, but by their actions.

The same standard, of course, should apply to Muslims, Jews, and people of all faiths.


The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.

Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is a true Christian.

1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!

>> ^marbles:

The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.

>> ^heropsycho:

1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.



1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You
I've seen a video from this guy before, but didn't know about his utube page with over 150 vids.

Video proof presented in a calm and accurate manner of F%*&s News' bias.

Thanks, DerHassittot

I wish I had the juice to *quality this one.

What can I get for 5 Power Points?

Invocations (quality) cannot be called by Boise_Lib because Boise_Lib is not privileged - sorry.

Bill Maher To Panel On Norway Gunman: "He’s A Christian Terrorist"

3 months prior:
Bill Maher: You’re Not A Christian if You Celebrated Bin Laden’s Death

2009: muslim vermin shoots up Fort Hood shouting 'Allahu Ackbar'.

Libmedia plus Red House: "Uh...we shouldn't rush to judgement."



2011: nutball shoots Norwegians

Libmedia: "This guy is clearly a Christian."




When a muslim vermin acts as a terrorist, he is obeying the will of Allah per the quran.

When a vermin calling himself a Christian acts as a terrorist, he is disobeying the Holy Bible.

Calling people vermin reminds me of the Nazi talking about the Jewish people. Dehumanizing so that you can forget that they are human beings (fucked up humans, but still not vermin).

Yes, I went there.

>> ^marbles:

Jesus taught love and "turning the other cheek".
O'Reilly makes a very important point... that you cannot judge someone by what they call themselves, but by their actions.

It's common, and not just in the case of religion, to allow people to self-identify in personal matters. This guy believes he's a Christian, therefore he's a Christian. If Christians want to dictate who among self-identifying Christians are actually Christians, then they can't say things like "80% of Americans are Christians!" in defense of keeping "Under God" in the Pledge because each among the various Christian Churches considers the others to be heretical.

>> ^quantumushroom:

2009: muslim vermin shoots up Fort Hood shouting 'Allahu Ackbar'.
Libmedia plus Red House: "Uh...we shouldn't rush to judgement."

2011: nutball shoots Norwegians
Libmedia: "This guy is clearly a Christian."


When a muslim vermin acts as a terrorist, he is obeying the will of Allah per the quran.
When a vermin calling himself a Christian acts as a terrorist, he is disobeying the Holy Bible.


Read the old Testament lately? Sorry but both books are fucking stupid and evil and you can use both to justify killing people.

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.

My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?



There's plenty of people who believe that it is. There are also plenty of people that support Israel because of a warped Christian ideology. Come on this isn't new.

The man wasn't Christian..

He had a sense of Christiandom, just as a lot of people talk of the "Muslim/Arab world"... and found historical figures with whom he sympathized in order to justify his fight.

Breivik killed no-one for "God", his acts were political assassination.

Oh, by the way this fellow is completely disingenuous as the NYT (and just about every news source) also assumed it was a Muslim act when the news hit. You'd figure he'd put in a bit more research instead of before blowing hot air.

Oh, so since there are racists who are happy to bomb Iraq because they're believed to be an inferior race, that makes the Bush and Obama administrations racists?

BTW, saying stuff like "Come on, this isn't new" doesn't make it true. The War on Terror isn't waged because of a religious fight between Christians versus Muslims, especially when we are working with Muslim allies against terrorists. You're being ridiculous.

>> ^Yogi:

>> There's plenty of people who believe that it is. There are also plenty of people that support Israel because of a warped Christian ideology. Come on this isn't new.

>> ^heropsycho:

Oh, so since there are racists who are happy to bomb Iraq because they're believed to be an inferior race, that makes the Bush and Obama administrations racists?
BTW, saying stuff like "Come on, this isn't new" doesn't make it true. The War on Terror isn't waged because of a religious fight between Christians versus Muslims, especially when we are working with Muslim allies against terrorists. You're being ridiculous.
>> ^Yogi:
>> There's plenty of people who believe that it is. There are also plenty of people that support Israel because of a warped Christian ideology. Come on this isn't new.



Try a little reading comprehension next time. I didn't say the War on Terror was waged because of a religious fight between Christians and Muslims. I said that there are people who believe it is...including people who hold high office in our government.

The allegations aren't new...they've been going on for years and there's plenty of evidence to back them up.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Calling people vermin reminds me of the Nazi talking about the Jewish people. Dehumanizing so that you can forget that they are human beings (fucked up humans, but still not vermin).
Yes, I went there.


I would argue you did not really went there, because we already are there.

Most of the islamophobic ranting we hear is just recycled antisemitism. The "their holy book commands them to kill us", "they speak a double language", "they have secret teaching/goals", etc, are creepily similar (when not outright identical) to the fascist propaganda from the 1930s.

So many people I could quote or respond to in this thread, I'm just not gonna bother. But I'll say this:

Whether or not someone resembles your interpretation of Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian. Vast variations between faiths have been around since the earliest days of Christianity. And those variations did swing all the way from loving thy neighbor to killing those who didn't agree with you. Claiming that someone isn't a Christian if they kill someone is a useless argument. The Christian you are denouncing is still every bit as Christian in his or her own eyes, whether you think they are or not.

Faith can be used to bring about beautiful things, or horrible things. Trying to pretend this isn't true is both intellectually shallow and cowardly.

>> ^braindonut:

So many people I could quote or respond to in this thread, I'm just not gonna bother. But I'll say this:
Whether or not someone resembles your interpretation of Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian. Vast variations between faiths have been around since the earliest days of Christianity. And those variations did swing all the way from loving thy neighbor to killing those who didn't agree with you. Claiming that someone isn't a Christian if they kill someone is a useless argument. The Christian you are denouncing is still every bit as Christian in his or her own eyes, whether you think they are or not.
Faith can be used to bring about beautiful things, or horrible things. Trying to pretend this isn't true is both intellectually shallow and cowardly.


Pussy...respond to someone directly!

So, are you saying it is or is not fought due to religion? It's not even clear now what your point is. There's evidence to suggest the US just likes bombing browned skinned people, too, but it doesn't mean the US is actually racist in its foreign policy.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
Oh, so since there are racists who are happy to bomb Iraq because they're believed to be an inferior race, that makes the Bush and Obama administrations racists?
BTW, saying stuff like "Come on, this isn't new" doesn't make it true. The War on Terror isn't waged because of a religious fight between Christians versus Muslims, especially when we are working with Muslim allies against terrorists. You're being ridiculous.
>> ^Yogi:
>> There's plenty of people who believe that it is. There are also plenty of people that support Israel because of a warped Christian ideology. Come on this isn't new.


Try a little reading comprehension next time. I didn't say the War on Terror was waged because of a religious fight between Christians and Muslims. I said that there are people who believe it is...including people who hold high office in our government.
The allegations aren't new...they've been going on for years and there's plenty of evidence to back them up.

So calling vermin who massacre innocents "vermin" is WORSE than vermin actually killing innocents?

Way to prioritize.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Calling people vermin reminds me of the Nazi talking about the Jewish people. Dehumanizing so that you can forget that they are human beings (fucked up humans, but still not vermin).
Yes, I went there.

Touche!
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^braindonut:
So many people I could quote or respond to in this thread, I'm just not gonna bother. But I'll say this:
Whether or not someone resembles your interpretation of Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian. Vast variations between faiths have been around since the earliest days of Christianity. And those variations did swing all the way from loving thy neighbor to killing those who didn't agree with you. Claiming that someone isn't a Christian if they kill someone is a useless argument. The Christian you are denouncing is still every bit as Christian in his or her own eyes, whether you think they are or not.
Faith can be used to bring about beautiful things, or horrible things. Trying to pretend this isn't true is both intellectually shallow and cowardly.

Pussy...respond to someone directly!

As communism proves, religious conviction is not required to kill.

But since the libmedia wants to play favorites in bashing one religion while protecting another, their already scant credibility is beyond forfeit.



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
2009: muslim vermin shoots up Fort Hood shouting 'Allahu Ackbar'.
Libmedia plus Red House: "Uh...we shouldn't rush to judgement."

2011: nutball shoots Norwegians
Libmedia: "This guy is clearly a Christian."


When a muslim vermin acts as a terrorist, he is obeying the will of Allah per the quran.
When a vermin calling himself a Christian acts as a terrorist, he is disobeying the Holy Bible.

Read the old Testament lately? Sorry but both books are fucking stupid and evil and you can use both to justify killing people.

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
Jesus taught love and "turning the other cheek".
O'Reilly makes a very important point... that you cannot judge someone by what they call themselves, but by their actions.
It's common, and not just in the case of religion, to allow people to self-identify in personal matters. This guy believes he's a Christian, therefore he's a Christian. If Christians want to dictate who among self-identifying Christians are actually Christians, then they can't say things like "80% of Americans are Christians!" in defense of keeping "Under God" in the Pledge because each among the various Christian Churches considers the others to be heretical.


I think the bigger point is it doesn't matter what someone claims to be. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their religion. Religion is just a tool used to manipulate and control people. It's evil because it tells the individual to give up his sovereignty to some supposed greater authority. There's plenty of belief systems that preach this that are not religions.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

@heropsycho
Re:war on terror as religious crusade
dismiss, ignore, ignore, deny, dismiss. You're not going to dismiss/deny the other two examples?

Re:Obama and Christianity
Obama claims to be Christian, that's the standard you use for Breivik.

Re:Obama is not intentionally trying to kill civilians
False. It's accepted collateral damage. Raining down hellfire missiles leveling apartment buildings, assassinating entire wedding parties, etc. is terrorism.

Re:Terror bombings in Tripoli
Sorry, everything we are doing in Libya violates U.S. and international law. It's irrelevant what the mission is. Bombing civilian areas and doing fly-overs for hours is done for one purpose: to incite fear into the civilian population i.e. terrorism

Re:"It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large."
It's pretty silly you believe that garbage.

Re:Extreme progressives
So you admit that "progressive" is just another hollow label? What's the difference between regular progressives and "extreme progressives" say...5 years ago? There wasn't. But now it's progressive to illegally bomb other countries.

Thanks for making my point.

I won't deny the other two examples. I said already Obama isn't a hardcore progressive. I wouldn't even label him on a scale as progressive. Those are examples of where he isn't. If that's the indictment, no one is disagreeing with you.

Dude, how are you not getting this. Obama hasn't justified a single policy with Christianity. This guy sited directly his warped Christian beliefs in his manifesto. It's pretty clear as day the difference. Obama refutes the notion of the US as a "Christian Nation", etc. He's ridiculed by the Religious Right in fact for this. Isn't this pretty obvious?

Yes, it is accepted as collateral damage. Thank you for making my point. Were the attacks launched with the purpose of killing these civilians? NO! Was it the intention of Osama bin Laden to kill as many civilians as possible in the 9/11 attacks on purpose? YES! THAT is the difference. If Obama could conduct these attacks without killing innocent civilians, he'd do it in a heartbeat. If bin Laden could have killed 1 million American civilians instead of the number he did, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the difference. You're assuming that because civilian deaths occur, that how many people are killed in collateral damage never influences decision making. That's simply not true. You'll rarely ever achieve objectives without accepting some collateral damage, unfortunately. This is unfortunately part of being the President.

So we're gonna terrorize the population of Libya why exactly?! What would that possibly achieve in and of itself? That's utterly ridiculous.

It's against international law how exactly to be intervening in Libya? It was approved by the UN Security Council. Are you speaking to military strategy? So you're saying we should just put ground troops in there and go door to door, which will cause even higher casualties and more terrorizing of the civilian population? I don't pretend to know all the difficulties the military is facing when coming up with the best plan to achieve objectives.

It's silly to believe part of why we're in Libya is to help establish a democratic gov't there? Look, I was a big critic of the second Iraq war, but I don't doubt for a second part of why the Bush administration wanted to go in was to establish democracy in the region. It was a stated goal. You can call it silly all you want, but it is even within the US's self interests to have as Libya be a democracy. Why wouldn't we want them to be democratic?!

It is progressive to intervene in a country to help protect human rights. Schools of geopolitical realism would have determined intervening in Libya to not benefit the US enough to justify involvement. Again, I'm not suggesting the entire reason we went in was to help the Libyan people. There are many reasons why. But one of them was to help the Libyan people. I fully accept there were geopolitical calculations as well. All of those things have to contribute to the decision making.

Was it progressive to partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler? If no, then FDR wasn't a progressive?! We did it because Hitler was a bigger threat than Stalin at the time. Once Hitler was out of the equation, we became enemies of Stalin. To think you can just make international policy based exclusively on progressive ideas is fantasy.

On this site, I've defended progressivism when under attack from people who think progressivism is Communist, doesn't work, blah blah blah. Progressivism, like other ideologies, provides a lot of answers and ideas to solving problems, but it is also imperfect, just like every other ideology.

So Obama isn't progressive in the slightest?

Are the following progressive in nature?

Ending "don't ask, don't tell."
Advocating raising taxes on the rich
Increasing availability of Medicaid
Preventing health insurance companies denying based on pre-existing conditions

He's a moderate. Yes, I fully accept you could give a big long list of things that aren't progressive he's done, too. He's a moderate, who leans left. That's why I get really irritated when QM and WP call him a socialist or communist because it's simply not true.