super_fly said that "the implication that teaming up islamic terrorists is the only way to get [Christians] to use suicide bomb tactics" was inaccurate.
In response to that I asked how many Christians have actually committed suicide bombings.
In response to that I asked how many Christians have actually committed suicide bombings.
What answer are you looking for, though? Is it "None"? Does that bolster a further argument of "Christians are not (as) inherently violent," as implied from super_fly's comment earlier? Because I linked examples of Christian violence earlier, and the response was "well, those aren't suicide bombings" and it's just like... is that supposed to make them less reprehensible, or...?
I suspect the mod hammer is going to come down on this conversation fairly soon, but for as much as you accused me earlier of making ignorant assumptions, all this is coming off as somewhat disingenuous in the light of post-9/11 Islamophobia.
You can infer whatever you want if you want an excuse to be outraged. There's plenty that can be said about the prevalence of Christian extremism in comparison to Islamic extremism but if I had wanted to say something about it I would have. I'm not one to mince words.
no subject
In response to that I asked how many Christians have actually committed suicide bombings.
That's it. There is no thesis.
no subject
What answer are you looking for, though? Is it "None"? Does that bolster a further argument of "Christians are not (as) inherently violent," as implied from super_fly's comment earlier? Because I linked examples of Christian violence earlier, and the response was "well, those aren't suicide bombings" and it's just like... is that supposed to make them less reprehensible, or...?
I suspect the mod hammer is going to come down on this conversation fairly soon, but for as much as you accused me earlier of making ignorant assumptions, all this is coming off as somewhat disingenuous in the light of post-9/11 Islamophobia.
no subject
no subject
no subject