News outlet bullies and cowards

The reason is two-fold. 1) To show the disparity between the actions of the followers of both religions since the Crusades happened centuries ago and ISIS is current 2) To show how the media loves to portray Christianity as dangerous while feeling free to criticize it but whitewashes Islam due to fear of violent reprisals.

I knew you couldn't resist trying to get a jab at us in; the same can be said for people from all groups including atheists. As I explained earlier, the Crusades were a defensive delayed response to the unprovoked violent persecution of Christians by Muslims in the the Holy Land and the Byzantine Empire.

The media walks on eggshells around Islam for two reasons 1) Leftists see Islam and Muslims as allies of convenience against Western society and Christianity 2) They're afraid of being the next Charlie Hebdo

I'm not tarring any person or group of people with the same brush, I'm pointing out the double standards. So you won't tar all Muslims or atheists with the same brush, but you will do so to Christians; you're quite the hypocrite. Or will you defend nonviolent Christians against people who want to paint us all with the same broad brush?

I find it hilarious that you made a meme about me, especially after you attacked that guy on the Deadpool meme for making ones about you.

Marxism is specifically atheistic

P.S. If feeling threatened by something proved it was right, then there'd be more "proof" for Islam in this day and age.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-religious_campaign_during_the_Russian_Civil_War

No worries.

Glad to hear you're actually even-handed and would also defend Christians and not tar us all with the same brush.

You said that guy accused you of being a child molester, which would be a disgusting bit of slander. I said that because I didn't find any memes from him calling you that; I saw a few relating to you, but they were affectionate jokes about your personality and status as a brony. What did he say about you?

While I thank you for introducing me to the concept of the Gallileo Gambit Fallacy that's not what I was doing. I wasn't saying that validated it because you felt threatened by it, I was giving an example of something Christ said would happen coming to pass, thus further establish who I any many others say He is.

On that point, you're wrong. All Marxist governments are inherently atheistic. The Bolsheviks burned churches and clergy alive.

I'm not sure but I've never seen an example of it in practice that accepted religion. Those were usually oppressed or killed off.

The "nonviolent" ones still believe what the violent ones are doing is right. Like your congresswoman asking that her fellow muslim receive lesser penalties for trying to join ISIS. It's all in there

That the terrorists just so happen to be Sunni and Arab and sometimes Pakistanis should be a clue. Number of terrorists from America's #2 enemy since 1979 and #1 since 1992, Iran, to date? ZERO. Shiite? ZERO. Kurds? ZERO. Turks? ZERO. Central Asians? ZERO. Malaysian? ZERO. Indonesian? ZERO.

Does that mean they love us? No. Then again, other than Luxembourg, who does? Literally. Luxembourg. And maybe Israel, because they're the 51st State and wouldn't make it past spring without being the biggest recipient of US foreign aid. So they have to like Big Daddy America.

FREE BONUS: Look up the Persian Famine of 1917 - 19 and Mossadegh 1953 to find out how legit beef with the UK & US gets born.

AND IF YOU ACT NOW, YOU'LL GET THIS FREE TO LOOK UP TOO: Book: "A Mosque In Munich" From the Nazis trying to recruit Moslems to the USA backing and promoting Arab nationalism and Wahhabism and other vectors for extremism to counter the spread of Nasserism and Socialism to Ronald Reagan hiring and funding a guy named Osama Bin Laden to create an outfit known as AL Queda, turns out there's a reason terrorism in the Middle East is not an archaic relic from the past, it's a MODERN WESTERN introduction made available originally to use them as proxies to do OUR dirty work.

That's why it did not exist prior to the creation of Israel, and it was safer there for a European than crossing the border to the next country till the mid 20th Century. Sepahrdic Jews - SPANISH Jews, are known as Arab Jews because that's where they found safety after getting chased out of Spain 500 years ago.

Ironic, innit?

Now go polish your AR-15 and wait at the border to shoot them pesky Mexis like you always say you want to in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy shit, I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you darn kids yadda yadda Christian Western Europe became civilized thanks to the Marshall Plan and VOA after WWII, so we can forget what our ancestors have done since we raped the Neanderthals to extinction.

That's ridiculous, since the nonviolent ones, the 'abberant' ones (women without veils, homosexuals, Westernized ones, adulterers, rockers, etc), the non-Sunni ones (Shiite and other sects), the Kurdish ones (who are mostly Sunni, but not Arab) are the PRIME targets of ISIL, Al Queda, and the rest of those outfits.

P.S Some atheists have a doctrine they used as justification, it's called Marxism; doctrine is like ideology, it can be religious or non-religious. Before you accuse me of tarring all atheists with the communist brush, I only said some.

P.P.S If you're just trolling me, you're not annoying me anymore or frustrating. Because I remembered something "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil because of the Son of Man." Luke 6:22 Jesus said it'd happen; you help verify Christianity even by raging against it.

If you are not being annoyed, why do you feel compelled to have to claim you are and site scripture as 'proof'? Why must you call him troll, when he clearly is not trolling you, and you are not "annoyed" by it either?

I never called him a troll. I suspected that his intention was to troll me so I pointed that out. I used to be annoyed sometimes by these sort of posts (eg; I don't go to every anti-Christian post and attack that because I've got better things to do), but then I remembered that verse and realized that what Octavia_Melody - and you, for that matter - do is to be expected, albeit not justified.

Of course, of course.

And you are blessed. Just like God's Chosen who those who have stolen the word, corrupted it, and called it their own have persecuted for how many millenia?
I'm sure when 144,000 of them are judged worthy to enter the Pearly Gates, you shall be one of the few Gentiles judged upon the value of their works to be allowed to accompany them.

I don't attack Christians - unlike you I was BORN Catholic, as have been my ancestors since it was invented (actually even farther back than that, but that's another story), I question fakers on their hypocrisy.

Assuming you're not trolling here... You're not born saved, it requires a personal decision on the part of each person. Regarding the 144,000 that's God's decision not yours (aside from that, The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic treatise. Because of this fact, many false religionists have attempted to exploit the message of the narrative to their own theological ends. The Apocalypse has become a happy hunting ground for some religious cultists who seek biblical support for their peculiar doctrines).

I don't determine who gets save? No kidding.

Doesn't matter what any Christian sect tries to wrench and twist out, Yahweh is for Jews, Jews are for Yahweh, they are the Chosen and vice versa. Israelites
had Elohim, and that's why these Gods only related to people in a tiny speck of land, unknown to the rest in the world. We all have out Gods, they are all tribal.

They always find it convenient to leave out the fact that the emperor asked the pope for help due to Muslim invasions as well. Even with the schism they still felt threatened enough to request catholic help.

Not to mention irl I've seen numerous non-Christians say online (perhaps jokingly) that we need another Crusade or even post "Deus Vult!" on forums.

You just refuted your own point; as you said they may or may not be Christian. The people I was talking about include one's I've seen posting anti-religious comments on the other forum where I found them, and even one avowed atheist saying they somewhat sympathized with the reasoning behind the Crusades.

This is just a circle of "he said, she said", so our points have equal weight except in each other's eyes. Also, will you do the same for any other belief or atheism?

I'm skeptical, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

the crusades were retaliatory for the Islamic invasions of the Mediterranean nations.

sure, the crusaders were bloodthirsty and barbaric, but compared to the Islamic invaders who destroyed holy sites, enslaved thousands, forcefully converted people and performed mass killings of those they deemed unworthy, and so on,

id say the crusades were less menacing as we make them out to be.

As well as the persecution of Christians by Muslims in the Holy Land. Not to mention a Pope in the 20th century apologized for atrocities done during the Crusades; have any Muslim leaders apologized for the atrocities done that provoked the Crusades?

And yet we're demonized for the Crusades hundreds of years after it happened, yet within two decades Islam gets whitewashed while Islamic terrorism is currently happening. Is that right or fair?

What Islamophobia? I hope you're not one of those "Islamophobia is racism" type people.

Everyone gets discriminated against in some form or another. There is less bigotry directed against Islam than most people say, and bigotry from Muslims against non-Muslims is also being swept under the rug.

Do you know the history of early Islam or early Christianity? The short, simplified version; early Christianity was a persecuted minority that mostly laid low and ended being scapegoated when Rome's problems started to bring the Roman Empire down (sound familiar?), early Islam was quite militarized since the time of Muhammad himself and the Ottoman Empire didn't form from peaceful evangelizing of Islam (note the Crusades were a defensive response to attacks from Sejic Turks and aggressors in the Holy Land; and what did the Ottoman Empire, the Sejic Turks and these aggressors have in common?).

It's not "might be", it is. Also, what examples are you talking about? For example; Robert Spencer's criticisms aren't hate speech. The difference between him and someone like Sam Harris is that he's not attacking the people and Spencer hasn't strawman at times unlike Harris.

I'm not sure about the 2017 Kansas shooting - if that's the Olathe shooting, while still a horrible hate crime, it seemed to be based on race not religion. While he did accuse them of being terrorists, the gunman made no mention of Islam (he also said "go back to your own country", again while a horrific crime this points more to race rather than religion).

The Portland Train Attack thankfully did not result in any dead Muslims though two sadly died. The two people who died and the injured man were white men who ganged up on a guy who was shouting at two Muslim women that "Muslims should die because they've been killing Christians for years." While there may have been malicious intent, and I don't condone his actions (even if he had a point about the "Muslims killing Christians" bit, let's not tar all with the same brush), he made no move to harm the women.

As you said the Dar-A Farooq Islamic Center bombing thankfully didn't kill anyone, though yes that was a hate crime.

I never said it was justified to beat that teenager up, though what where the circumstances? If the circumstances were beating him up for being Muslim or from the Middle-East yes that's wrong. If the circumstances were beating him up after he attacked first or threatened someone else, that's different.

Please give me an example of Islamophobia. I have asked for one and you haven't done so, which makes me suspicious.

The 2017 Kansas Shooting (1 dead, two injured), the Portland train attack (2 dead, 1 injured), the Dar-Al Farooq Islamic Center bombing (gladly no one died).
All three are from 2017 in America.
Also, in Jolly Old England where I live, someone assaulted a Syrian refugee teenager. In October 25th, 2018. Which is pretty damn recent.

P.S While it's sad that the Syrian teenager got assaulted, do you know about the Islamic grooming gangs and no-go zones in the UK?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/grooming-gangs-muslim-men-failed-integrate-british-society/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/21/europes-muslim-no-go-zones-documented-on-video/