[chris]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Funny, I don't recall Buddhists being extremely violent...

They can be, when the Chinese invaded Tibet, even though they were outnumbered, they really laid down a decent beating on them. Yet of course the Tibetans eventually surrendered, they were just to far outnumbered, and they despised violence to begin with.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by chris ↗

They can be, when the Chinese invaded Tibet, even though they were outnumbered, they really laid down a decent beating on them. Yet of course the Tibetans eventually surrendered, they were just to far outnumbered, and they despised violence to begin with.

Thanks for the info, but isn't defending yourself a different story? At least compared to the murderous aggression of much of the Islamic world?

[chris]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Thanks for the info, but isn't defending yourself a different story? At least compared to the murderous aggression of much of the Islamic world?

Well violence is violence, in this case it would be considered justifiable violence, but when I read what you said, that just popped into my head, that they can be violent if they need to, yet they do hate violence by their general nature.

[GregK]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Funny, I don't recall Buddhists being extremely violent...

Almost every religon

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by GregK ↗

Almost every religon

I don't deny that most established religions have a history of violence, but I believe there's a big difference between violence of aggression and self-defense. I also believe that aggression/violence is a large part of human nature. It's part of our survival instinct, so to blame religion for most of it is disengenuous.

[Rfneimad]

Well if someone is dumb enough to listen to a holy book or some jackass spouting prophecy, then its a safe bet you should stay away from them.

And it seems in countries or regions where women cant choose their mates you get real high concentrations of people dumb enough to follow religion blindly.

Nations of Neck-Beards.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by Rfneimad ↗

Well if someone is dumb enough to listen to a holy book or some jackass spouting prophecy, then its a safe bet you should stay away from them.

And it seems in countries or regions where women cant choose their mates you get real high concentrations of people dumb enough to follow religion blindly.

Nations of Neck-Beards.

Can't claim to be a fan of most religions, but I think blaming it makes for a convenient scapegoat for man's natural aggression. We may not kill "in the name of God", but we kill just the same.

[ralucagymnast]

Saddam did it first!!! Throwing people off buildings!!

[ralucagymnast]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

It doesn't matter what percentage of Muslims engage, or condone this behavior.
It's very troublesome that it's not rare. And that it's filmed and most involved do not fear punishment.
No matter the percentages, these Muslims are declaring themselves Islamic leaders. They are the loudest voice representing the religion, and seemingly are not vigorously opposed within Islam.
There is not a huge revolt against ISIS within Islam. There wasn't a million Muslim protesters in the world's streets voicing their disgust.

So although it is true not all Muslims wish harm on others. It is their job to organize and show the world, show ISIS, that they are nothing like ISIS. And they only want peaceful coexistence. It's not the liberal Americans job to spread that message.

Remember that "peace" in Islam will ONLY happen when the WHOLE WORLD capitulates to Islam. Then peace will reign for 1000 years or something like that.

[Oswald2001]

Originally Posted by ralucagymnast ↗

Remember that "peace" in Islam will ONLY happen when the WHOLE WORLD capitulates to Islam. Then peace will reign for 1000 years or something like that.

1,000 year Reich sounds familiar.

So...the Fourth Reich then?