Truck Driving Terrorist in Canada Kills 4, Injures 1

[Salus Maior]

You can find it by googling the guy's name.

Thanks for that.

Actually, no, thanks for nothing.

You seem to have misrepresented what's in the manifesto, but I can't prove it because there is no Official version. What I did find, was:

But after visiting the mosques in Christchurch and Linwood and seeing
the desecration of the church that had been converted to a mosque in
Ashburton, my plans changed.

The Christchurch and Linwood mosques had far more invaders, in a more
prominent and optically foreign building, with less students,more adults
and a prior history of extremism.

Granted his rare mention of Christianity but repeated ravings about Western CULTURE, could make the first example a statement about architecture rather than religion.

The paragraph following that I have included because it suggests that avoiding children (or young people, ie religious 'students') was one of his motivations. I hadn't expected it to be so easy to support the point I made with Dakini.

However, it's where he answers his own question here:

Were/are you a christian?

That is complicated.
When I know, I will tell you.

That there is a serious conflict with your version. If he was any other religion, there would be nothing "complicated" about it. Likewise if he was an atheist. I read it as "my acts may seriously displease God, or please him, and I won't know until I ask for forgiveness".

The whole document goes out of its way to avoid religious motivation (FOR the killing, or for WHO he chose to kill), but it's not well thought out. "We will meet again in Valhalla" as the final words is cringeworthy New Age rejection of Christianity, and seems to me like someone who was brought up Christian, tried to reject it, but kept some of the really bad parts in his thinking. Maybe 10% of his motives go way back to Revelations: he does see himself in grand terms, as kicking off a race war. Much like Breivik who he openly admires.

I literally posted the same quote verbatim, how did I misrepresent it, and how are there conflicts?

You’re making a lot of assumptions on the text. Why would you read those two sentences as being uncertain of whether his actions would please God rather than being uncertain if he believes in Christianity or not? I don’t see how it would be different if it were any other religion. If we compared his lukewarmness with, say, what ISIS typically says in their public statements it’s night and day. ISIS always makes clear that they’re fighting what they believe to be the enemies of God, that God is undoubtedly real and worth fighting for. It’s not disputable that they believe in God and that is the reason they commit terrorism.

With the Christchurch shooter there’s nothing like that. His reason to fight is constantly stated as being the preservation of white civilization and the expulsion of racial ‘invaders’ out of fear of their birthrates. I.e white replacement. Everything else he says revolves around that.

[Dowaesk]

Thanks for that.

Actually, no, thanks for nothing.

You seem to have misrepresented what's in the manifesto, but I can't prove it because there is no Official version. What I did find, was:

But after visiting the mosques in Christchurch and Linwood and seeing
the desecration of the church that had been converted to a mosque in
Ashburton, my plans changed.

The Christchurch and Linwood mosques had far more invaders, in a more
prominent and optically foreign building, with less students,more adults
and a prior history of extremism.

Granted his rare mention of Christianity but repeated ravings about Western CULTURE, could make the first example a statement about architecture rather than religion.

The paragraph following that I have included because it suggests that avoiding children (or young people, ie religious 'students') was one of his motivations. I hadn't expected it to be so easy to support the point I made with Dakini.

However, it's where he answers his own question here:

Were/are you a christian?

That is complicated.
When I know, I will tell you.

That there is a serious conflict with your version. If he was any other religion, there would be nothing "complicated" about it. Likewise if he was an atheist. I read it as "my acts may seriously displease God, or please him, and I won't know until I ask for forgiveness".

The whole document goes out of its way to avoid religious motivation (FOR the killing, or for WHO he chose to kill), but it's not well thought out. "We will meet again in Valhalla" as the final words is cringeworthy New Age rejection of Christianity, and seems to me like someone who was brought up Christian, tried to reject it, but kept some of the really bad parts in his thinking. Maybe 10% of his motives go way back to Revelations: he does see himself in grand terms, as kicking off a race war. Much like Breivik who he openly admires.

I literally posted the same quote verbatim, how did I misrepresent it, and how are there conflicts?

You’re making a lot of assumptions on the text. Why would you read those two sentences as being uncertain of whether his actions would please God rather than being uncertain if he believes in Christianity or not? I don’t see how it would be different if it were any other religion. If we compared his lukewarmness with, say, what ISIS typically says in their public statements it’s night and day. ISIS always makes clear that they’re fighting what they believe to be the enemies of God, that God is undoubtedly real and worth fighting for. It’s not disputable that they believe in God and that is the reason they commit terrorism.

With the Christchurch shooter there’s nothing like that. His reason to fight is constantly stated as being the preservation of white civilization and the expulsion of racial ‘invaders’ out of fear of their birthrates. I.e white replacement. Everything else he says revolves around that.

Well yes. ISIS does make it clear that what they do, they do for Allah. (Even if 99% of victims are Muslims). But Brenton Tarrant never directly said about Christianity, but its obvious he considers Christianity to be part of western culture. Now that, you cant deny. But all in all, yes. He didnt do it mainly for Christianity, he was just a white supremacist.
Now I believe we should drop this and go back thousands of kilometres back to London, Canada.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This was a horrific attack. I am angered that an extreme rightwing terrorist attacked an innocent family.

The utter lunacy from the Far right must be stopped.

The raise of extreme-right violence all around the world, USA, Norway NZ, France, Canada is really scary to witness.

What's also pretty scary is that an entire summer of leftist violence in the U.S. was either ignored, under-reported or outright cheered on by the worlds media.

Really? This has nothing to do with that.

Different nation, different ideology, different year.

Could you just say that you condemn this extremist terrorist attack that murdered 4 and injured one without bringing up something that has nothing to do with anything?

[Vyrnixion]

This was a horrific attack. I am angered that an extreme rightwing terrorist attacked an innocent family.

The utter lunacy from the Far right must be stopped.

What's also pretty scary is that an entire summer of leftist violence in the U.S. was either ignored, under-reported or outright cheered on by the worlds media.

Really? This has nothing to do with that.

Different nation, different ideology, different year.

Could you just say that you condemn this extremist terrorist attack that murdered 4 and injured one without bringing up something that has nothing to do with anything?

whataboutism is a helluva drug.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This was a horrific attack. I am angered that an extreme rightwing terrorist attacked an innocent family.

The utter lunacy from the Far right must be stopped.



Really? This has nothing to do with that.

Different nation, different ideology, different year.

Could you just say that you condemn this extremist terrorist attack that murdered 4 and injured one without bringing up something that has nothing to do with anything?

whataboutism is a helluva drug.

Whataboutism doesn't seem to end soon.

If they can apply it to when right wing terrorists tried to hang the VP and overthrow the government beacuse the orange calf god they worship didn't get reelected, they will apply it to everything.

It will be 2069, and after the 500,000th neo nazi terrorist kills some random minority minding there own business they will still go "WHAT ABOUT THE BLM RIOTS!?!?!"

[Kubra]

Exactly. I know you already defended your stand when Kubra said, but I still dont think its good enough. When Brenton talked about his faith, he said "its compliacted", yeh. But then take a look at the rest of his manifesto. He has quite the relationship with Christianity and its preservation. Im not excluding his white supremacists views here. But I dont think it'd be fair labelling him as an atheist. Agnostic Christian in the least, I'd say. And he was a Religious radical of some sort. Although he never called himself that. Look at him praising Breivik. "Knight Breivik". Here its quite obvious that the term "Knight" was used to signify sonething. Im not accusing or try to argue against Christianity here. Im just saying, I dont agree with what you're saying.

He doesn’t prioritize preservation of Christianity at all in his manifesto. White racial preservation is his constant focus, and his only references to religion are only to the crusades and how he believes they were defending ‘western civilization’, I.e the white race. He doesn’t even really reference God at all in his manifesto as a reason for which people should fight, just race. So no, I don’t really see how he has ‘quite the relationship’ with Christianity.

He likes Brevik because he wanted to kill Muslims, whom the shooter considers ‘invaders’. As for ‘Knight’ that’s just a title he made up for himself with his ‘reborn knights Templar’.

And what about that is insufficient?
Ain't you ever been outside a wal-mart and watched two hicks fight, and one shout "only god can judge me"? Do you think the fellow insincere?

[Austreylia]

"WHAT ABOUT THE BLM RIOTS!?!?!"

You'll still continue to justify them, that's what.

[Salus Maior]

He doesn’t prioritize preservation of Christianity at all in his manifesto. White racial preservation is his constant focus, and his only references to religion are only to the crusades and how he believes they were defending ‘western civilization’, I.e the white race. He doesn’t even really reference God at all in his manifesto as a reason for which people should fight, just race. So no, I don’t really see how he has ‘quite the relationship’ with Christianity.

He likes Brevik because he wanted to kill Muslims, whom the shooter considers ‘invaders’. As for ‘Knight’ that’s just a title he made up for himself with his ‘reborn knights Templar’.

And what about that is insufficient?
Ain't you ever been outside a wal-mart and watched two hicks fight, and one shout "only god can judge me"? Do you think the fellow insincere?

Because that's a trite phrase that almost everyone uses? That doesn't indicate sincere belief in God.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Because that's a trite phrase that almost everyone uses? That doesn't indicate sincere belief in God.

These are people in whose mind the white race, western society, and Christendom refer to the same concept. In this ideological context, a defence of the white race is defence of Christianity. As I said earlier, it's pure Christian propaganda to say that these movements are unrelated to Christianity and that racial terrorism is cleanly distinct from religious terrorism.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"WHAT ABOUT THE BLM RIOTS!?!?!"

You'll still continue to justify them, that's what.

This was a horrific attack. I am angered that an extreme rightwing terrorist attacked an innocent family.

The utter lunacy from the Far right must be stopped.

What's also pretty scary is that an entire summer of leftist violence in the U.S. was either ignored, under-reported or outright cheered on by the worlds media.

Really? This has nothing to do with that.

Different nation, different ideology, different year.

Could you just say that you condemn this extremist terrorist attack that murdered 4 and injured one without bringing up something that has nothing to do with anything?

Point out in this post where I justified riots plz

But just to repeat myself for the 64 billionth time, I do not condone riots caused by BLM. I support the peaceful protests by BLM but I do not condone or support or justify the riots.

Repeating my question, could you just say that you condemn this extremist terrorist attack that murdered 4 and injured one without bringing up something that has nothing to do with anything?

[Salus Maior]

Because that's a trite phrase that almost everyone uses? That doesn't indicate sincere belief in God.

These are people in whose mind the white race, western society, and Christendom refer to the same concept. In this ideological context, a defence of the white race is defence of Christianity. As I said earlier, it's pure Christian propaganda to say that these movements are unrelated to Christianity and that racial terrorism is cleanly distinct from religious terrorism.

Again, I disagree. Because Christianity isn't "the white race's religion", and it doesn't support the assumptions of white supremacy. Which, again, most high ranking white supremacists recognize.

Racial terrorism is distinct from religious terrorism, because they're based in completely different assumptions about humanity.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Because Christianity isn't "the white race's religion", and it doesn't support the assumptions of white supremacy.

Which isn't an uncontested consensus among Christian communities. Which the abundance of neo-Nazis making noises about defending Christian civilisation should tell you. Heck, defending Christian civilisation from the godless Bolsheviks was the core rhetoric that the actual SS, back in the days of the actual Nazis, used to recruit from places like the Netherlands.

Christianity as actually practiced on the ground has considerable differences with Christianity as defined by theological scholars with years of expertise studying the Bible.

Which, again, most high ranking white supremacists recognize.

Some, certainly. Most? I'd want to see more solid evidence on that than you've previously provided.

Racial terrorism is distinct from religious terrorism, because they're based in completely different assumptions about humanity.

Religion is not only a system of belief, it is also a part of the cultural identity of communities, no less than ethnicity or nationhood is, and in certain societies is part of the whole exclusionary package, with religious, racist, and nationalist movements not really being distinct.

Seriously. I am getting serious no-true-Scotsman vibes from you insisting that what you hold to be Christianity wouldn't associate with X, so X cannot be Christian in nature.

[Northern Connecticut]

There are giving my religion a bad name. Like the taliban giving Islam a bad name. Don't these religions teach PEACE?

[Salus Maior]

Because Christianity isn't "the white race's religion", and it doesn't support the assumptions of white supremacy.

Which isn't an uncontested consensus among Christian communities. Which the abundance of neo-Nazis making noises about defending Christian civilisation should tell you. Heck, defending Christian civilisation from the godless Bolsheviks was the core rhetoric that the actual SS, back in the days of the actual Nazis, used to recruit from places like the Netherlands..

You mean the same Nazis who were demolishing Polish churches, slaughtering Polish priests and religious en-mass, and interring them in concentration camps? The same Nazis whose youth wing would break into churches, vandalize them, and smear altars with shit? The same Nazis whose leader resented religion, particularly Christian religion, and had plans to destroy its influence utterly in the aftermath of a German victory? Those Nazis?

Arch has a long and well sourced post on the subject of Nazis and Christianity, which I'll link here.

As a National Socialist who has written a blog post on the subject, I can confirm that Hitler was Christian, but as of what demonination, I don't know.

See, that didn't take long, did it - the Archregimancy's corollary to Godwin's Law strikes again! And this time with an actual self-professed National Socialist chiming in!



Though for what it's worth....

There have been at least two threads over the last two days that try to draw a direct link between Hitler and Christianity, and much of the debate has been spectacularly ill-informed. With the assistance of actual quotes - something which most people contributing don't seem to believe are necessary - I'll attempt to offer a more nuanced perspective.

Yes, Hitler may have been raised Catholic - but since Austria was a Catholic nation with a strong Catholic presence in education, it would have been unusual if he wasn't. Stating that Hitler was raised Catholic is stating the bleedingly obvious.

The real question is whether he remained Catholic/Christian.

On the question of Catholicism, we can state unequivocally that he was opposed to the Catholic church - and Christianity in general - once he was in power. One of the most recent scholarly biographies of Hitler is Ian Kershaw's highly praised two volume effort, and I offer you the following quote, emphasis added, from page 424 of volume 2, Hitler 1936-1945; Nemesis (which I pasted to another thread yesterday).

"Despite Hitler's own repeatedly expressed wish for calm in relations with the [Catholic and Lutheran] Churches as long as the war lasted - the reckoning with Christianity, in his view, had to wait for the final victory - a wave of anti-Church agitation, accompanied by an array of new measures, had taken place during the first half of 1941. The activism appears in the main to have come from below, as anti-Church radicals exploited wartime needs to try and break the vexing hold ... which the Churches continued to have on the population. But it certainly had encouragement from above, particularly through Bormann and the Party Chancellery. In a confidential circular to all Gauleiter in June 1941, Bormann had expressely declared that Christianity and National Socialism were incompatible."

Volume 1 offers more examples than volume 2, but regrettably that's in my office, and I'm typing this at home. Nonetheless, Kershaw offers several explicit example of the hostility of both Hitler specifically and Nazism generally towards Christianity; including Catholicism. A quick check of the index of either book will supply further examples.

What might Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches have to say about his attitudes before he was in power? I've done an admittedly quick check, and certainly Hitler explicitly referred to himself as a Christian in some political speeches. However, I can't find a single example of Hitler explicitly referring to himself as a Christian that post-dates the Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. This seems to signal a change in his willingness to say "I am a Christian".

Mein Kampf is a more nuanced issue. Anyone parsing the book will be able to find references to God and a creator. Here's a couple of typical examples (from the 1999 Mariner Books edition):

"The world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free.” (pg 622)
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." (pg 125)

Attempts to find quotes that explicitly state that Hitler is a Christian, is supporting Christianity, or believes his values are compatible with Christianity or inspired by Christianity are harder to come by. I couldn't find one, though again my check was fairly brief. What you will find are individual quotes praising some aspect of historical Christianity rather than current Christian beliefs. An example might include:

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but
in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

Not so much a ringing endorsement of Christian faith that; more an attempt to use (or mis-use, depending on perspective) the rise of Christianity as an example of why Hitler believed negotiation should be rejected in favour of fanatical doctrinal belief.

The totality of the evidence, suggests that while Hitler was raised a Catholic, and was happy to state that he was a Christian in the earliest days of the Nazi Party prior to the Beer Hall Putsch, by the time he came to power his hostility towards both Christianity and Catholicism was overt. However, he considered winning the war more important than eradicating the Catholic and Lutheran churches, and delayed the 'final reckoning' with Christianity as a result. It may seem inconceivable to some of the younger contributors here, but an individual's personal beliefs and political perspectives can evolve over time.

However - and this is an important point - stating that Hitler was actively opposed to Christianity by the late 1930s is not the same as stating that he was an atheist. Here the evidence is at best ambiguous, and multiple interpretations are possible. There can be little doubt that, post-1936, Hitler believed that he had been chosen by 'providence' to lead Germany to inevitable victory (though by late 1944, he knew the war was lost). His public and private pronouncements often make reference to divine favour and a creator even while anti-Christian oppression was growing in Nazi Germany. While again the evidence is inconclusive, it's by no means unreasonable to assume that Hitler may have continued to believe in a divine presence even while eventually rejecting Christianity. Given that a significant number of people on NS express similar beliefs (summed up as "I was raised a Christian, but I'm not anymore, in fact I feel some hostility towards the Church, but I still believe in some sort of God") that surely shouldn't be too hard a possibility to grasp.

Not at all. As GeneralHaNor has pointed out, I'm merely citing the latest academic work - all of it reputable - on Hitler's complex interaction with Catholicism.

But let's say the quotes I kept using in this thread aren't good enough for you; or perhaps my constant repetition of the same 2009 post suggests that I don't have anything else to add to the topic....

Maybe you'd instead like some citations from Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History, which also happened to be the winner the 2001 BBC Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction. Perhaps that might count as an additional reputable source?

Burleigh devotes an entire chapter to the vexed issue of the Nazis and religion ("Men of God", pp. 717-728).

The introductory paragraph, on page 717, reads (with emphasis added):



Still on page 718, Burleigh states, in reference to Hitler's own speeches on the issue (again, my emphasis added):



But what about all of those Hitler quotes about 'God' and 'the Almighty' you bleat? We've already partially dealt with these in my previous post, but Burleigh is even more explicit here. On page 719, he addresses this by noting that when Hitler said things like "the national government sees in the Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of society" in his opening speech to the Reichstag, or when Protestants were told that the 'nominally Catholic' Hitler 'thought like a Protestant', this was just a short- to medium-term political tactic used to help gain and consolidate power in an overwhelmingly Christian country.

You want a quick one sentence summary of the above?

Newsflash! Totalitarian dictator says one thing in public for purely cynical political reason, then reveals his actual policy to his inner circle in private!

NSG must be overwhelmed with stunned amazement.

You asked me what I'm trying to do... In these posts, I'm not trying to associate atheism or anti-theism (not quite the same thing) with Hitler in order to associate atheism with Nazism. I consider that argument as misleading as stating that Hitler was Catholic or Christian, and associating Nazism with theism. The latter two arguments are generally stressed by atheists and theists who want to somehow associate Hitler's genocidal regime with their opponents. This is a distraction. Hitler carried out his atrocities because he was a fundamentally warped and evil man, which he probably would have been regardless of his beliefs (or lack thereof). But nonetheless Hitler was clearly opposed to Christianity generally and Catholicism specifically by the time he came to power, whatever his pre-WWI beliefs might have been.

In any case, the real mistake you seem to be making is in assuming that I'm trying to directly associate Hitler with atheism, and somehow attempting to traduce atheism by doing so. I'm doing no such thing, as my post at the top of this page makes clear, and as do other comments in my older Kershaw-based post. I consider arguing over the nature of Hitler's precise beliefs in an attempt to suggest that either atheism or theism contributed to making him an evil shit to be a distraction. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Hitler may have had some sort of nebulous belief in a form of divine 'providence', though short of bringing Herr Shicklgruber back from the dead, we'll never know either way, will we? Goebbels wrote in his diaries in 1939 that Hitler was simultaneously "profoundly anti-Christian" and "deeply religious", so his inner circle didn't find the two concepts entirely incompatible.

Nonetheless, that Hitler was anti-Christian generally and anti-Catholic specifically, and that he planned on a full-frontal attack on Christianity within the German Reich after achieving victory, and that the attack had already been launched in some geographic areas of the Reich, is entirely accepted and substantiated by the overwhelming majority of modern historians.

Now, if you have reputable academic sources that argue otherwise - and random unsubstantiated websites by non-academics with an axe to grind very much don't count - or if you can provide cited research of your own which might demonstrate why I should take you more seriously than Sir Ian Kershaw, Baron Bullock (who was also, as it happens, a vice-chancellor of Oxford University), Michael Burleigh, Albert Speer, Martin Bormann, and Joseph Goebbels, then you're very welcome to provide it here. In the meantime, I know whom I find more convincing.

Christianity as actually practiced on the ground has considerable differences with Christianity as defined by theological scholars with years of expertise studying the Bible.

I'll grant you that. But you'll also have to grant that "Christianity practiced on the ground" would also include things like the Civil Rights movement and the White Rose.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

You mean the same Nazis who were demolishing Polish churches, slaughtering Polish priests and religious en-mass, and interring them in concentration camps? The same Nazis whose youth wing would break into churches, vandalize them, and smear altars with shit? The same Nazis whose leader resented religion, particularly Christian religion, and had plans to destroy its influence utterly in the aftermath of a German victory? Those Nazis?

If burning Polish Catholic churches in nationalistic and ethnic violence is somehow anti-Christian, then I guess Prussia's Culture War was anti-Christian.

[Salus Maior]

You mean the same Nazis who were demolishing Polish churches, slaughtering Polish priests and religious en-mass, and interring them in concentration camps? The same Nazis whose youth wing would break into churches, vandalize them, and smear altars with shit? The same Nazis whose leader resented religion, particularly Christian religion, and had plans to destroy its influence utterly in the aftermath of a German victory? Those Nazis?

If burning Polish Catholic churches in nationalistic and ethnic violence is somehow anti-Christian, then I guess Prussia's Culture War was anti-Christian.

Destroying and desecrating Christian sites is absolutely anti-Christian, yes. How wouldn't it be? And the Prussian Kulturkampf was primarily anti-Catholic rather than anti-Christian as a whole. It also didn't succeed.

But regardless, I've already linked a well-sourced post on how the Nazis were anti-Christian.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Destroying and desecrating Christian sites is absolutely anti-Christian, yes. How wouldn't it be?

Christians have been trying to slaughter and pillage other Christian sects out of existence since time immemorial and, indeed, have committed more sectarian violence against each other than was ever committed against them by regimes of other religions or no religion at all. This sort of behaviour to me is very Christian.

Christians embracing religious peace is a fairly recent innovation.

But regardless, I've already linked a well-sourced post on how the Nazis were anti-Christian.

Very well; I suppose the Third Reich had too many weird Teutonic notions in the upper ranks to really count as a Christian movement, let alone a movement for Christianity.

[Salus Maior]

Destroying and desecrating Christian sites is absolutely anti-Christian, yes. How wouldn't it be?

Christians have been trying to slaughter and pillage other Christian sects out of existence since time immemorial and, indeed, have committed more sectarian violence against each other than was ever committed against them by regimes of other religions or no religion at all. This sort of behaviour to me is very Christian.

Christians embracing religious peace is a fairly recent innovation.

But regardless, I've already linked a well-sourced post on how the Nazis were anti-Christian.

Very well; I suppose the Third Reich had too many weird Teutonic notions in the upper ranks to really count as a Christian movement, let alone a movement for Christianity.

That's a woeful oversimplification of Christian history. And regardless, that's not the reason Germany did what it did in Poland.

It's not just "teutonic notions". It's intrinsic to Fascist ideology in and of itself.

"Everything within the State, Nothing against the State, Nothing outside of the State". If it's opposed to the state, or does not fit neatly within the state, then it's a mortal enemy of the state that has to be destroyed. The state replaces God as the primary concept that one owes loyalty to. There's no room for conscience or spirituality in that. This can be seen in Nazi Germany just as much as any other Fascist society.

[Sungoldy-China]

Only after experiencing enough iron and blood, can religion learn to embrace peace.
This is why in the Middle East, only those warlords who kill faster can control and defeat Islamic terrorist organizations.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Only after experiencing enough iron and blood, can religion learn to embrace peace.
This is why in the Middle East, only those warlords who kill faster can control and defeat Islamic terrorist organizations.

Iron and Blood sounds like an oi song.

[Kubra]

And what about that is insufficient?
Ain't you ever been outside a wal-mart and watched two hicks fight, and one shout "only god can judge me"? Do you think the fellow insincere?

Because that's a trite phrase that almost everyone uses? That doesn't indicate sincere belief in God.

*Everyone*? I've certainly never used it. Plenty of people can judge me, frankly.

[Salus Maior]

Because that's a trite phrase that almost everyone uses? That doesn't indicate sincere belief in God.

*Everyone*? I've certainly never used it. Plenty of people can judge me, frankly.

I'm sure plenty do.

[Kubra]

*Everyone*? I've certainly never used it. Plenty of people can judge me, frankly.

I'm sure plenty do.

oho, so I see, at least from one particular individual present. And if you'll permit me my own, you always seem surprisingly confounded at the idea at faith in Christ taking forms other than becoming tradcath and exegesis. Though it's perhaps a willful motion; I named two manifesto's, did I not?

[Dowaesk]

There are giving my religion a bad name. Like the taliban giving Islam a bad name. Don't these religions teach PEACE?

Taliban is not a good example. Taliban is recognised as following an offshoot ideology of Islam. And goes as far as to have their own ideology. But yes. They do give a bad name to Islam since most people dont want to go into the extra details, but simply put the blame on Islam itself.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You mean the same Nazis who were demolishing Polish churches, slaughtering Polish priests and religious en-mass, and interring them in concentration camps? The same Nazis whose youth wing would break into churches, vandalize them, and smear altars with shit? The same Nazis whose leader resented religion, particularly Christian religion, and had plans to destroy its influence utterly in the aftermath of a German victory? Those Nazis?

If burning Polish Catholic churches in nationalistic and ethnic violence is somehow anti-Christian, then I guess Prussia's Culture War was anti-Christian.

To be honest you probably aren't gonna be keen on burning your own religion's churches.