Dear Diver Dan,

You say "Massacre becomes an efficiency dictate; and who doesn’t want efficiency in their day to day life?"

Well the 9/11 attackers just used box cutters and the planes of their enemies to force the removal of US troops from the so call holy land of Saudi Arabia. They ultimately succeeded.

Obviously something you can admire and applaud.

ttbn

*...but the Muslims have remained that way while Christians have not...*

I should not have a need to remind you of the slaughter in NZ last year, of fifty Muslims in a Mosque in Christchurch, by Tarrent, a Christian, then.

And in the good old US of A, mass shootings are invariable the preserve of white Christians.

SteeleRedux

*... Obviously something you can admire and applaud...*

Not my call to like it or not, only to state the facts.
Vietnam war was renowned for its killing efficiency of civilians. The simple explanation for that was the vagueness of who was the enemy.

If, in that case, the enemy wished to put guns and bombs in the hands of civilians to use against allied troops, then the temptation was great to show scant regard for civilian welfare.

Dan

Here is a history lesson for you, Diver Dan. Christianity and Islam are two completely different religions that began in two different ways, and who's scriptures are fundamentally different.

Christianity was started by a Jewish pacifist and it was originally a completely pacifist religion. That was why the Romans hated Christians. The Romans were a martial race who worshipped the qualities of manliness, and they loved watching gladiatorial contests where real me fought to the death for the entertainment of Romans. But when Christianity eventually triumphed and became the state religion, it became just like every other supposedly enlightened revolutionary movement where the people in authority had absolute control. It became just as intolerant and violent as the people it once condemned.

The written Christian message of peace, love, and mung beans was soon ruthlessly suppressed by the Catholic clergy who were only concerned with their power and prestige. The Reformation was all about Christians ignoring the corrupt priests in Rome and returning to the original written words of their prophet. That did not mean that Christians suddenly all became pacifists, but Christianity is the reason why post reformation Protestant Christian societies were noted for their relative peacefulness.

Islam was completely different. It was created by a warlord to justify imperial expansion and make his soldiers invincible in battle by promising them all kinds of rewards if they were killed fighting for Islam. It's written scriptures orders all Muslims to kill, terrorise, and humiliate non Muslims.

Christianity was reformable because the original teachings of it's prophet emphasised pacifism and tolerance, even towards those who were of a different religion. (The Parable of the Good Samaritan) Islam is not reformable. The Prophet declared that Islam was perfect as it was and it could never be changed. That is why Islamic societies and Islamic people are so violent and do not tolerate criticism of Islam. They are locked in a religion more appropriate to caravan robbers in the 6th Century rather than a modern, technologically advanced state. The More Islamic a country is, the more of a backward sheethole it is

To Paul1408

By last count there were 52 Muslim terrorists serving jail sentences in Australia for terrorism related offences, and 0 "far right" people serving jail sentences for terrorist related offences in Australia. So how you equate "right wing" people with Muslim extremists is beyond me. It reminds me of the CNN report where they called BLM and ANTIFA rioters burning police stations, attacking courts and Federal government buildings, "mostly peaceful", while the "right wing" groups who did demonstrate peacefully, CNN called them "domestic terrorists."

You have to have an amazing capacity for ignoring complete double standards to be a lefty.

You seem to be advocating the position that extremists exist in every religion. while such a conclusion has some truth, it completely neglects the concept of proportions of extremism.

Christians would consider other Christians who preach violence towards other religions to be non Christian. Because of Christianity's pacifist roots, "fundamentalist" Christians tend to be completely pacifist like the Quakers or Mormons. Hardly suicide bomber material.

If you are claiming that most Muslims are "moderate" and do not think that non Muslims should be forcibly converted or killed, or that they don't think that homosexuals should be executed, or that women are not inferior to men, or that women who do not follow the dictates of Islam do not deserve to be raped, and if they are raped it is their own fault and they should be punished, or that anybody who criticises Islam should not be killed, then whatever these people are, they are not Muslims.

On the subject of group guilt, you seem to be saying that most Muslims are moderate and there are just a few extremists. Would you apply the same standard to Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen? I think not. Once again we see this amazing capacity you lefties have for double standards.

Dear diver dan,

Sure. So weren't the 9/11 attackers and the Australian troop who broke the rules of engagement and shot or beat to death unarmed detainees both engaged in a form of terror?

"Christianity was started by a Jewish pacifist and it was originally a completely pacifist religion" Gee BOZO, you need to brush up on the origins of Christianity. One of the great myths surrounding the Christian religion is the completely false notion that it was started by Jesus Christ. Not so, the early adherents were exclusively Jews led by the brother of Jesus, James. Like other sects they followed the beliefs and practices of Judaism, these followers were not excluded from the orthodox Jewish religion, in fact were part of it. If "Christianity" had been left in the hands of James and his followers then most likely it would have simply been re-absorbed back into orthodox Judaism, and there would be no word of Jesus today. Along came the true creator of Christianity, Paul (Saul of Tarsus), not me, the one I'm named after. It was the fact Paul, who incidentally never knew Jesus, allowed gentiles, and progressively their practices into the new religion, which was totally opposed by the Jerusalem sect. Paul was a Diaspora Jew (from exiled Jews) and a committed Roman citizen. It was Paul and his followers that created the myths surrounding Jesus. Paul went as far as making Jesus divine, the James followers never bestowed divinity onto Jesus. Paul the Apostle claimed Jesus spoke through him, he can be credited with almost half of the writings of the New Testament, and much of the rest was written by scholars associated with Paul.

One of the master strokes of Paul's Christianity was to shift blame for the death of Christ onto the leadership of orthodox Judaism, and in some convoluted fashion absolve the Romans, even though they executed Jesus. That made Christianity acceptable to the Roman establishment.