Pakistani Christians Burned Alive By Muslims

[Provaskola]

C'mon Benuty, you know all Mooslems are teh ebul.

Come on guise, crusade! it worked well last time!

Hell no

[Herargon]

This is what happens when you give a particular religion an separate state. The existence of Pakistan proves that a religious state has failed state.

Iran seems to be doing ok, despite its assholeishness.

I will quote this.

Herargon

[-The West Coast-]

The so-called "Religion of Peace" strikes again! And even more violent than before. When will the Western world see how incredibly violent these people can get and come together to figure out how to help nations plagued with extremists?

[Patrick OConner]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

[Domi concordia]

"Islam is the religion of peace!"
Almost every incident with terrorism that has relation to religion is caused by Muslims
Seems legit.

ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Black September, Hamas, overral Jihadists, etc.

I ain't saying other religions are totally clean, but do you see them strapping bombs on themselves and commiting an Act of Terror?

[Acharastan]

Wait, there are Christians in Pakistan? (Sorry if I sound racist. I'm American, so the media bends everything and I end up being misinformed.)

*Facepalms*

First of all, no religion other than cults and Satanism approves of murder, especially in the name of God (or Allah, well, you know what I mean). These people are just using their faith as an excuse for murder.

Imagine it in the US. A man is on trial for three accounts of murder. He is about to the given his sentence, but suddenly, he objects. He claims the three victims were Muslim. The room starts clapping and he is let go.

This is BS.

[Herskerstad]

Wait, there are Christians in Pakistan? (Sorry if I sound racist. I'm American, so the media bends everything and I end up being misinformed.)

*Facepalms*

First of all, no religion other than cults and Satanism approves of murder, especially in the name of God (or Allah, well, you know what I mean). These people are just using their faith as an excuse for murder.

Imagine it in the US. A man is on trial for three accounts of murder. He is about to the given his sentence, but suddenly, he objects. He claims the three victims were Muslim. The room starts clapping and he is let go.

This is BS.

You might want to review the post. It's incoherent, has it's fair amount of fallacies of it's own and is quite frankly poorly put.

Still, as far as the point is concerned, it seems Muhammad himself had little issue with people murdering to keep him happy.

In July-August 625, in revenge for an ambush on some Muslim missionaries, Muhammad sent Amr bin Umayya and a companion to assassinate a leader of the Meccans. The assassins failed in their attempt. They had to flee under pursuit. Umayyah hid in a cave, but not before murdering a man along the way. As the pursuit was dying down, a tall, one-eyed, unnamed Bedouin entered the cave, driving some sheep. Umayyah and the Bedouin introduced each other. After they settled down, the shepherd sang a simple two-line song in defiance of Muslims and Islam. Then he fell asleep, snoring. Umayyah recounts what he did in retaliation for insulting Islam: . . . "I went to him and killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever been killed. I leaned over him, stuck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out of the back of his neck." He fled back to Muhammad, who said, "Well done!" The account ends: The prophet "prayed for me [Umayyah] to be blessed."

Source: Tabari, vol. 7, pp. 149-50 / 1440-41

Trust me, given the history of in particular early Islam, it does not take a lot for a Muslim to theologically justify the murder of someone who has 'insulted' Islam. Muhammad himself gave the green light for similar things several times.

[Threlizdun]

The so-called "Religion of Peace" strikes again! And even more violent than before. When will the Western world see how incredibly violent these people can get and come together to figure out how to help nations plagued with extremists?

And presumably you believe that when a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic their actions represent all of Christianity? Some individuals do terrible things, especially when they are in terrible situations. That does not mean anyone with any degree of similarity with them must agree with their actions.

"Islam is the religion of peace!"
Almost every incident with terrorism that has relation to religion is caused by Muslims
Seems legit.

ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Black September, Hamas, overral Jihadists, etc.

I ain't saying other religions are totally clean, but do you see them strapping bombs on themselves and commiting an Act of Terror?

Uh yeah, in India, Myanmar, and Northern Ireland there is extensive histories of religious violence. Islamic terrorism is a subset of religious terrorism, which is in turn of subset of terrorism, which can just as easily be secular in nature as it can be religious.

Wait, there are Christians in Pakistan? (Sorry if I sound racist. I'm American, so the media bends everything and I end up being misinformed.)

*Facepalms*

First of all, no religion other than cults and Satanism approves of murder, especially in the name of God (or Allah, well, you know what I mean). These people are just using their faith as an excuse for murder.

Satanism doesn't approve of murder, and while most organized religious would certainly oppose murder now, there certainly are passages in most major religions that could be understood to condone violence.

[Salus Maior]

Killing someone is bad wether or not it's for a righteous cause. Plus, I'm pretty sure killing is considered a sin in the bible.

Lots of killing in the Bible. I think Murder is the big sin.

Just because killing is written in the Bible, does not mean the Bible condones murder. Heck, Murder is one of the biggest sins there is in Christianity.

However, that is not to say we're pacifists. We do believe in just wars. Or at least I do, anyway.

[Southern Arkansas]

Lots of killing in the Bible. I think Murder is the big sin.

Just because killing is written in the Bible, does not mean the Bible condones murder. Heck, Murder is one of the biggest sins there is in Christianity.

However, that is not to say we're pacifists. We do believe in just wars. Or at least I do, anyway.

Eh? I said that Murder is a big sin.

[Salus Maior]

Just because killing is written in the Bible, does not mean the Bible condones murder. Heck, Murder is one of the biggest sins there is in Christianity.

However, that is not to say we're pacifists. We do believe in just wars. Or at least I do, anyway.

Eh? I said that Murder is a big sin.

Sorry, I was confused by your phrasing

[Muinordgrad]

Well, this thread looks like the marriage of talibaptists and "religion is stupid" advocates that no one wanted.

Anyway, I still say that maybe Pakistan actually making some freedom of religion laws would change this situation so it never happened again. That way, no crusade, but no more roasting Christians.

[Salus Maior]

C'mon Benuty, you know all Mooslems are teh ebul.

Come on guise, crusade! it worked well last time!

Only one ever succeeded (the first one), and it ended up with our Crusaders becoming cannibals and slaughtering Jerusalem's populace, made up of Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians, and dragging their corpses into piles "as tall as houses" outside it's gates.

Not the best representation of Christ here on Earth, wouldn't you say?

Not to mention that all the other Crusades were complete failures...

[Salus Maior]

Well, this thread looks like the marriage of talibaptists and "religion is stupid" advocates that no one wanted.

Anyway, I still say that maybe Pakistan actually making some freedom of religion laws would change this situation so it never happened again. That way, no crusade, but no more roasting Christians.

That wouldn't change anything. What needs to change is the Pakastani attitude, to it's core.

[Muinordgrad]

Well, this thread looks like the marriage of talibaptists and "religion is stupid" advocates that no one wanted.

Anyway, I still say that maybe Pakistan actually making some freedom of religion laws would change this situation so it never happened again. That way, no crusade, but no more roasting Christians.

That wouldn't change anything. What needs to change is the Pakastani attitude, to it's core.

True, but the chances of that happening are practically nonexistent, so second best is the only option (dibs on the band name).

[Cyrisnia]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

[Salus Maior]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

Erm...No.

[Benuty]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

Erm...No.

Sounds like Samson option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

[Southern Arkansas]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

I call it trolling. *** Warned *** on account. I mean really.

[Autumn Wind]

That is an oversimplification and I think you know it. Take the crusades for example, it had both strategic importance seeing how prior to such, Islam had been crusing into western Europe and edging ever closer to the what was really the center of the world, a fact none of the major figures in the Christian parts of Europe was content with, Constantinople, at that point... Seeing how it destabilized the Muslim world, and parts of the crusading expeditions even aided greatly in overthrowing the Moorish hold on Iberia, while at the same time for the east ensuring fewer Jihads against the Byzantine Empire which had eaten up a huge portion of it. There was very little, from a military, political and economical standpoint, in the way for their expeditions, and for that was largely the reason they occured.

Which was exactly why the crusaders of the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople for the sake of Venitian merchants... Err.. I mean the Prussian crusade was fought to save ... but the Albigensian crusade was totally not about French warlords acquiring land....

[Utceforp]

I call it the Carthage Option. what it boils down to is this.
Step 1 Invade every Islamic country.
Step 2 Defeat the military's of said countries
step 3 Begin systematic destruction of key infrastructure and cities. Use chemicals or dirty bombs to make land uninhabitable. sow salt in the feils so no crops can be grown, Kill everyone over the age of say 2 and take all those under back to your nation to raised and indoctrinated in your culture. Destroy all major religious sights of Islam.

Please don't be serious...

[Herskerstad]

That is an oversimplification and I think you know it. Take the crusades for example, it had both strategic importance seeing how prior to such, Islam had been crusing into western Europe and edging ever closer to the what was really the center of the world, a fact none of the major figures in the Christian parts of Europe was content with, Constantinople, at that point... Seeing how it destabilized the Muslim world, and parts of the crusading expeditions even aided greatly in overthrowing the Moorish hold on Iberia, while at the same time for the east ensuring fewer Jihads against the Byzantine Empire which had eaten up a huge portion of it. There was very little, from a military, political and economical standpoint, in the way for their expeditions, and for that was largely the reason they occured.

Which was exactly why the crusaders of the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople for the sake of Venitian merchants... Err.. I mean the Prussian crusade was fought to save ... but the Albigensian crusade was totally not about French warlords acquiring land....

For the 'sake of' Venetian merchants?

The fourth crusade is one of the least understood situations in history. The goal from the onset was to conquer Egyptian and other provinces in the Levant. What ended up to be the sack of Constantinople had much more to do with Byzantine/Greek politics than some premeditated conquest of Thrace. The Venetians themselves had invested greatly in the crusade for the sake of getting a prime hold in Alexandria, and the crusade preparations had Venice suspending near all commercial shipwright activities to ready up for troop transport, while at the same time greatly over-estimating the French army, while at the same time many of the crusaders choose different approaches, by land, towards their intended destination. Which ensured that Venice itself could have faced financial ruin. Which is when one of the princes of the Byzantine empire, which was in the court of Phillip of Swabia, struck a deal with Boniface to compensate the Venetians for their loss, the crusaders for any future expenses if he could be restored to his father's throne. It should also be noted that when such a deal was struck, a sizable part of the Crusade quit there and then. Even the current pope at that time was strongly against the diversion.

Now, once the new emperor Alexius was put to the throne. The crusader factions did not attempt to 'coup' Byzantine as a whole which should be noted. Yet, Alexius was unable to get a reign on the Greek politics and everything fell apart. He was later killed by a relative anti-western politican who shut the gates to the crusaders, and refused to honor Alexius's terms. Not merely that, he started to amass wealth and men to destroy the crusaders completely which was the last straw for the crusading forces. They decided to put what resources remained into an assault on Constantinople which fell largely due to, once again, Byzantine court politics. The city was sacked, though, not sacked in the typical way for the time. The crusaders did pay off the Venetians and even attempted to garner a fund for the original expedition into Egypt.

Call it a logistical clusterfuck, but it is fair to say that the crusades origins had more rational intentions than the execution of it. You even get the Albeginian crusade wrong. It was far more about the relatively young catholic fractionalism, disputes over secular and religious rights and Iberian/Franco politics, which would continue for centuries later. While the victorious Catholic forces certainly put resources to have their foes suppressed after the relatively short crusade in both Occtian and Iberian lands.

[Luziyca]

So this was pretty disgusting. Its events like these that really reaffirm my belief that religion (yes all of them) is a cancer upon mankind. Why do Muslims say that they are a religion of peace, yet have in place some of the most barbaric beliefs and practices involved. The ISIS for example is following the Qur'an to the dot, why then do people make excuses for Islam? I say this because people always shift the blame from the religion itself to the people who practice it, but when the religion has verses on killing apostates and people who "blasphemy" (which is frequently carried out), what more is there to say really -

Also notice the slavery in the article? Disgusting.

The Bible and probably the Torah have very similar verses.

You act as though a few thousand cunts somehow represent the billion-plus Islamic adherents of the earth.

Exactly. At my school, we have quite a few Muslims, and most of them are nice people.

[The Kings Republic (Ancient)]

Anyone up for a Tenth Crusade?

No. Anyone who suggests such an idea should seek medical help immediately.

The kings republic is way better than your nation