₦airaland Forum

If all you want is condemnation of terrorist acts then there would be no solution to terrorism. People fail to remember that the solution to a problem is to look at its root causes.

That is totally and utterly illogical.

To see that there is a problem iin the first place, you have to recognise that problem. Recognising that problem means that it has to be condemned. Otherwise it's not a problem is it? Condemnation is the first step to finding a solution.
Go take a look at how the UN or any other conciliatory body works. They say "This is wrong" and then they go and try to sort out the problem. Without that "This is wrong", nobody even knows that there is a problem.

Where is Bastage?

Dodging the bombs and bullets of your brethren.

Instant execution if it was Saddam regime.

No. He would have been tortured beyond imagination before being executed.

The fact that the worst this guy will receive is a few days in jail means he's no legend. If anyone throws a shoe at anyone else in any country, it's considered a crime and the prepertrator is punished. The Arabs may make him out to be a martyr but that's purely because they're hypocrites.

Now if the guy has thrown a shoe at Saddam, then he would have been a legend and definitely a martyr. Allbeit a dead one.


As for the invasion. Actually, the vast majority of Iraqis saw it not as an invasion, but as a liberation. But as they have historically done in the past when liberated from despotism (1920 springs to mind) they turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. It's akin to pulling someone out of quicksand and having them turn around and punch you in the face when you have freed them. Then they will go and punch everyone else in the face and blame you for having pulled them out. If they say it enough, even your friends will get tired and agree that it's your fault.
Iraqis are amongst the most ungrateful, hypocritical, rude, violent people on Earth.

There must've been a Second Shoe-ter

https://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif

Then why do you mind asking all Muslims to condemn the acts of Terrorism?

I want condemnation because I'm the guy who is stuck in the middle. I'm the guy the extremists' bombs kill when they explode at civilian targets. I'm the guy who is minding his own business yet is threatened and then murdered by people hitting out at Christianity or Islam. I'm the guy who just wants to be left in peace yet gets dragged into a war of religious ideologies that he wants no part of. I'm the guy who doesn't care about your god, their god or anyone else's god - just my own. And I neither want to shove that god down your throat or get you to worship him. I just want to live my life in peace without fear of losing my life or the lives of those close to me.
And there are billions of guys like me out here in the world.

I'm also equal opportunity - I vigourously condemn acts of extremism from any religion. Christian, Islam, Jew, Hindu, whatever. It doesn't matter.

To opine that killing millions of japanese with nukes helped saved more lives means you believe that Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran was justified.
You come across like a long time fan of Fox news,  don't you have any original thoughts of your own?
"NUKES SAVES LIVES". ROFLMAO! Hehehe!

You know absolutely nothing.

"Millions" of Japanese weren't killed with nuclear weapons. 70,000 died in Hiroshima and 50,000 in Nagasaki. It's possible that 200,000 died in the decades after due to radiation but that figure is arguable. But it's definitely not the "millions" of deaths that you claim.
I don't know if you've even picked up a history book in your life, but the Japanese used to defend everything to the last man. Even without taking into account Allied casualties that would be incurred during an invasion of mainland Japan (calculated to be well over quarter of a million up to one million), the fact that the Japanese fought to the death means that the figure of 120,000 deaths in the nuclear attacks would have been totally and utterly dwarfed. The fact is, millions of Japanese would have died if the US had not forced Japan to surrender by dropping the bombs. That, my friend, is a cold, hard, undeniable fact. Totally unlike the false statement that you have made.

The Iran/Iraq statement not only has no relevance but also shows the leap of logic of a simpleton. The use of nuclear weapons in WW2 not only has nothing to do with the subject but can't be claimed to justify or condemn anything due to it's sheer irrelevance as I pointed out in my last post.

You show absolutely no comprehension of the subject. Go, read up and learn before burbling more ignorant crap.

I bet if Prophet Muhammad's picture is available it could have become your favorite Tissue because of your extreme Hatred against Islam.

I would neither wipe my ass nor my nose with it. I couldn't care less about Islam. The only time I give it a thought is when it's a danger to me because of extremism. But because I disagree with you, I must hate Islam, right? You exhibit the typical mind-set of the religion-drone. Someone shows you that you guys have to take responsibility for your religion and you start whining. Fundamentalist Christians are exactly the same. The only difference is that they won't try to execute me like your guys would (not that they wouldn't like to).

Because you are on the wrong side either, we don't bother whatever you will think or say about Islam

That's your problem. There are many people on the "wrong side" and they do hate Islam because of your silence. They're the ones you'll have to worry about. And believe me, once you open the flood-gates, they'll be coming for you.

I can't voice out for the whole Muslims here and start apologizing for the Terrorists acts because of kinds of you

Nobody wants an apology. They want condemnation. They want the Muslim world to turn around and say "This is wrong". But as usual, the Muslim world just sits in silence. It's called "complicity".

Because the largest Terrorist communities are Christians and Zionists like you.

I'm neither Christian nor a Zionist. I'm just the guy stuck in the middle whilst you assholes battle it out. It's guys like me who get hit in the crossfire.
I'd have to disagree with your assertion that they're bigger terrorists though.

You are but the lost sheep of Israel, you are a Slave of the Zionists and the West.

Nope. Couldn't give a shit about Israel. I'd say the sheep and the slave is you - blindly following a religion so that you go to "Paradise". Like the rest of the religious freaks out there (Muslim and Christian) - if you opened your eyes, you'd see that by your own standards none of you are anything other than Satanists.

Well and you will see more than 3 Billion Folks crying for Help in the Hell! I don't petty you!

The word you're looking for is "pity". And I'm glad you don't pity me as pity is always given from a superior position. I do pity you though.

Saddam may have used chemical weapons against his neighbors but so did America. America remain the only country to have used Nuclear weapons hence they are always scared when any nation want to be at par with them.

I think any right-minded person would be scared of a nation having nuclear weapons.
But using the American nuclear bombing of Japan during WW2 is totally and utterly ignorant.

History has shown that using those weapons saved a helluva lot more lives than they took. Also this was in 1945. If you want to live over 50 years in the past, it's no wonder you can't grasp present day politics.
America has never used chemical weapons against it's neighbours as you claim. That's just sheer fantasy based on ignorance.

@Obvious. Yet another one burbling on about the oil fantasy. I'll ask you the same as the others. Where is the money the US is supposed to have got? Where is the oil the US is supposed to have got?

Has the US made money from the Iraq war? Emphatic answer - NO.

You use of the bolded is open to debate but we don't need to debate that. You should find out how many Iraqis were killed in all of saddam's years as leader and how many Iraqis were killed in the period of Bush's invasion. I don't think Saddam directly destroyed nearly as many lives as Bush has destroyed with his drugged american soldiers.

I've already given you the figures and it's not open to debate.
American soldiers have killed a couple thousand Iraqis. Mostly in combat.
Saddam killed over a million of his own people, Iranians and Kuwaitis.

So although you don't think Saddam destroyed as many lives, you are utterly, utterly wrong.

@Tornadoz.
The war was about oil? Then where is that oil? It hasn't gone to the US. As I've already stated, the US has pumped more money into Iraq than it will ever get back. The oil argument is outdated and thoroughly discredited.

As for the sectarian killings? No. Bush didn't create that atmosphere. It was already there. It's always there in Islamic society and it was running rife in Saddam's Iraq. So rife and so out in the open, people don't even notice it. You've only got to look at history to see this is so. Under Saddam, sectarianist killings were even worse than now - they were just state-sponsored. Take a look at the Anfal Campaign. Go look up the Iran/Iraq war. You'll see that a million people died in the name of Saddam's Islam. People say that there was no religious problem under Saddam and that he kept a lid on everything. That's absolute bullsh!t. He was a Sunni running a government dominated by the Sunni people - totally opposed to Shia Islam and he made war against them and murdered them in the hundreds of thousands.
Always there.

his wife could have been murdered by bombing drugged american soldiers. his brother could have been arrested innocently and sexually molested by drugged american soldiers. his in-laws could have been killed/assaulted by those drugged, hippie american soldiers.
during saddam, he probably could go to the market and buy things without fear of being killed by a suicide bomber - he can't do that now. During saddam's time, he probably could recieve medication in hospitals and there was probably electricity to run medical equipment.

Unlike the far larger number of Iraqis who disagreed with Saddam.
They would have just been tortured and put to death.

Alternatively. It's far more likely that since the invasion his wife could have been murdered by fellow Muslims. His brother could have been arrested innocently and sexually molested by fellow Muslims. His in-laws could have been killed/assaulted by those fellow Muslims.

All MUSLIMS cannot come out and say Sorry

No? But when the shoe is on the other foot, you expect all Christians to apologise for any slight against Islam.

Take for example protests against the Danish cartoons. Or the Mohammed teddy-bear. Muslims are then out on the streets burning flags and condemning the whole populations of the nations concerned.

Sorry, if folks like you are being killed by this terrorists then I will start praying for them to finish you all.

That doesn't suprise me. It just illustrates my point.

Only 0.000001% of Muslims can voice for all the Muslims because they commit acts of Terrorism Angry Angry Angry
But Hundreds of Muslims cannot voice for all the Muslims, Na WAO for you!

Again, it illustrates my point. Why are these guys who condemn terrorism speaking for Islam when the terrorists are not? You're the one who wants it both ways. Not me.
When people can see the majority of Islam condemning acts of terrorism, maybe then they'll start believing you. Until then, stop whining.

All MUSLIMS cannot come out and say Sorry

No? But when the shoe is on the other foot, you expect all Christians to apologise for any slight against Islam.

Take for example protests against the Danish cartoons. Or the Mohammed teddy-bear. Muslims are then out on the streets burning flags and condemning the whole populations of the nations concerned.

Sorry, if folks like you are being killed by this terrorists then I will start praying for them to finish you all.

That doesn't suprise me. It just illustrates my point.

Only 0.000001% of Muslims can voice for all the Muslims because they commit acts of Terrorism Angry Angry Angry
But Hundreds of Muslims cannot voice for all the Muslims, Na WAO for you!!

Again, it illustrates my point. Why are these guys who condemn terrorism speaking for Islam when the terrorists are not? You're the one who wants it both ways. Not me.
When people can see the majority of Islam condemning acts of terrorism, maybe then they'll start believing you. Until then, stop whining.[quote][/quote]

The move by the guy is really surprising and of course courageous!

If he was courageous, he would have thrown his shoes at Saddam when he was in power.
He didn't. That makes him either a coward, a hypocrite or a fan of Saddam. Certainly not someone who is "courageous".

@Tornadoz.

Lets get this straight, a bunch of fanatics fly a plane into the wtc and all Moslem's are now terrorist yeah?

Firstly, the WTC was only one instance in a massive list of Islamic terrorist attacks on the West. You forget that this was the second time that they had attacked the WTC. That's not even mentioning instances like the USS Cole etc. All of this was long before the West got involved in war in the Middle East.
Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but when one takes a look at statistics and sees that the majority of Muslims throughout the world don't even believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam, at the very least, the majority of Muslims are guilty of complicity.

As for Bush? The man is a complete idiot. But he's not the one who killed the vast majority of Iraqis. Muslims killed them. And Muslims are still killing them. Before Bush came along, Muslims in Iraq had murdered over a million other Muslims. Yet where was the "outrage" from Islam then? Where is the outrage at the Muslims killing their own people now? This "It wasn't me" mentality is tiresome and misleading. Take some responsibility, Islam. Stop burying your head in the sand.

Sorry. But for Islam read "Hypocrisy". It's OK for Islam to attack itself and others but if anyone tries to put a stop to it, they're a murderer.

You're just very lucky that the West is so tolerant and doesn't view every Muslim as a terrorist. If it did, there would be a bloodbath and Islam would have been wiped off the face of the planet for all the trouble that it has caused in this world.

Do u think the state of Iraq is currently better or worse than before?

Better. Like I've already pointed out - Over a million Muslims died under Saddam's rule. Two wars against neighbouring countries, using poisonous gas and killing thousands of his own people in less than a day, murdering anyone who so much as raised an eyebrow against him - these things won't happen again. And let's not even forget that a huge number of those victims were not even given the grace of a quick death but tortured in some of the worst ways imaginable.
Iraq is now settling down and give it a couple of years and it should be a peaceful democracy. If Saddam was still in power and running true to form, another million would probably have lost their lives. To suggest that change in Iraq should be painless is flying in the face of reality. But to suggest that things would be better under Saddam is just a pipe dream.
Would you rather that Saddam was still in power? Threatening and invading his neighbours and the wider world and also murdering his own people on the same massive scale?

So what do the Muslim nations do when the US and it's allies go in to sort it out? They don't give any help. They don't lift a finger to help oust the guy who has been killing their fellow Muslims both abroad and in his own country. They don't help to destroy the regime of a guy whom they themselves lived in terror of.  All they do is sit there and whine that the US is only interested in Iraq's oil, even when it's blatantly clear that the US isn't getting the oil and the war is costing them billions of dollars. The argument of war over oil is dead in the water yet still they whine.

Sure, blame Bush and ignore those who are really guilty. Ignore the Saddam regime and all of those Muslim governments who sat back and watched whilst he murdered everyone who stood in his way. Ignore and absolve from blame all those who didn't lift a finger or even a voice as he raped, tortured and murdered. Place all the blame on those who were attacked first and went in to sort the mess out whilst those who should have been acting to save their own people sat on their hands.

So that's alright then. We can forgive Islam because of this news report.

Oh hang on:

hundreds of Muslim men, women and children publicly denounced all the killers of innocents as enemies of Islam on Sunday.

.

Hundreds? Hundreds? And how many millions of Muslims are there in India? Yet from those millions we've got hundreds protesting? How many billions in the world? Hell. Someone writes a book saying that Mohammed sucks male genitals and those billions and millions would hit the streets, but a major atrocity and they muster hundreds?

Try again Islam. You've proven nothing.

@aulwal. What more do I want Muslims to say? Well, it looks like the vast majority (about 99.9999999999999999% of them) haven't said anything, doesn't it?

auwal87.
I ask again - so what?

You make these statements but they're irrelevant to the topic or irrelevant to anything that's been said here.
All you've done is prove what we already know - that The Lebanon is split between Muslims and Christians and that the Muslims are growing in population.
It doesn't matter a jot wether Christians support Hezbollah in The Lebanon. The question was, did they start a bombing campaign in Damascus when Syria invaded? If you're saying that by their support of Hezbollah, Christians supported the Syrian invasion of their country then you're still living in that dream-world - they were totally opposed to it, as illustrated by the Cedar Revolution.

@Bastage and Davidlad

Please it seems u guys are trying to justify the Iraq war that has been deemed a failure of intelligence?

No. I haven't posted anything for justifying the war. I've merely pointed out that Al Qaeda existed before the war.

Hamas was established in 1987 Isreal Had nuclear weapons since the early 70s.

That makes no difference whatsoever. Israel's nuclear weapons are not aimed at Hamas.

Do you know the UN charter call many parts of what is called Isreal today Occupied territories?

Yes. And I agree with it. Israel should immedaitely stop building settlements and get the hell out of the West Bank.

Dude what do you know about the Kashmiri problem and do you know the opinion of the kasmiri people themselves ? Are you aware there are more muslims in India than Pakistan?

Pakistan has half of Kashmir, India has the other. If the Muslim Kashmiris don't like living in India then they should move. You've just shouted about Israelis taking Palestinian land, why should the Muslims be allowed to annex Indian land? And unlike Israel, Kashmir has always been Indian.

I don't know your understanding of history but do u know Lebanon was occupied by Isreal for 20 years until Hezbollah kicked them out in 2000.

Actually, that's just Hezbollah propaganda. The Israelis left due to their own public opinion. Militarily, Hezbollah was like an ant fighting a lion - they never stood a chance. But like I said before, so what? The Lebanon is not Muslim land. Did the Christians start suicide bombs against Syria when they invaded The Lebanon? No. The original statement given to justify Islamic terrorism (that Israel invaded The Lebanon) is worthless.

While I am here condeming the killing of ANY lives here are some of you guys condeming the indian attacks with one mouth and trying to say the souls killed in iraq, afghanistan are not innocent!!!!

Nobody has said that. It's all in your head.

They're not male virgins dude.
They're 82 years old.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the first round of elections was totally free or fair, but I'm sticking to my guns that it was relatively free by African standards. I also don't dispute that MDC supporters have been targets for years. But evidence points to there being a lull prior to and during the first round of elections.
The intimidation and rigging didn't really start until the second round when Mugabe knew he was going to get his ass kicked.

Although I totally agree polling day alone is not an indicator of legitimacy, in the Zimbabwean case, the run-up to the first election was suprisingly free of intimidation and corruption - MDC held rallies, there were ralatively few reports of intimidation and no reports of major corruption. Mugabe thought he was going to walk it and totally underestimated the feelings of the people so he saw no need to really go to town on the opposition. Even the BBC (Mugabe's nemesis) stated that this was so. You can bet that they would have shouted to the rooftops if they had smelt a rat. They didn't.

One only has to compare international reaction between the first and second elections to see that my claim isn't irrational. Tsangerai probably wouldn't have stood in the first election if it was as bad as stated here and this is reinforced by the fact that he pulled out of the second when it did look like things were going that way.

I'm also not saying that Tsangerai is a bad man. He just doesn't have the charisma or the nous to take on Mugabe as has already been shown. A 51/49 split in the first election illustrates that fact.
When Zimbabwe gained independence, Mugabe went into a power sharing deal with Nkomo and almost immedaitely marginalised him. This is exactly what he's doing to Tsangerai. My beef is that there was a big precedent in history. Tsangerai should have seen this coming and had plans to deal with it. Instead, he's come out looking totally powerless and definitely not looking like the saviour he should be.

Zimbabwe needs an Obama. Instead they look to be stuck with a wallflower.

How is he misquoting the bible, is the OT not part of the bible.

Because as I've already pointed out, the passage refers to the marking of dead bodies with symbols of pagan gods.

The elections were NOT 'relatively fair'.
Where were you when Tsvangirai was complaining that his supporters were being hounded and beaten?

Go back and check, dude.
The first round were about as fair as you can get in Africa although I do agree that there were some discrepencies.
It was when Mugabe realised that he was going to lose the second round that he started targetting MDC supporters with his thugs.

you feel that opposition leader Morgan Tsangerai will be worthless as a president simply because he is black?

No matter wether Tsangerai is black or white. He will make a useless president. He has been outmanouevred in every department for years by Mugabe. In the first round of elections, even though they were relatively fair (by Africa standards) he didn't trounce Mugabe like he should have done. This shows that the voters were voting Mugabe out, rather than voting Tsangerai in.
Zimbabwe needs a strong leader once Mugabe has gone. Not a toothless lion like Tsangerai.

^^ Quoting that passage for the purpose of banning tattoos is stupid.

The passage is discussing preparation for death in which many bodies were tattooed with pagan religious symbols.

Yet another peice of historical dogma that needs to be consigned to the garbage can.

And no. I don't have any tattoos and I don't even like them. But it's crazy to try and use a misinterpretation of scripture to ban something you don't agree with.

Safer to just stay on Disney then:

"Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a "Zionist entity,  built on lands wrested from their owners."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Tell me where Hezbollah attacks if not in defense.

How about crossing into Israel and attacking and kidnapping Israeli soldiers? Or was that in defence?

Also of note is the fact that The Lebanon is not Muslim land. It also belongs to Christians and Druze who happen to have been there far longer than the Muslims. It's only very recently and a lot longer after the troubles with Israel began that Hezbollah dropped their official stance to turn it into an Islamic land. Unofficially of course, they're still aiming for it both by military and political means.

If the Israel terrorists were not terrorizing Palastenians, and they did not occupied their lands, Hamas would not have gotten the followers it has now, and would have been powerless.

So basically, you're saying Israel has no right of existence.

"Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

The same things was being said to Iran when the revolution happens, but now who can say that?

Any normal person would say that. A country where you can be arrested and imprisoned just for having the wrong haircut or wearing the wrong clothes? A few sky-scrapers don't make an advanced society. But anyway, Iran has one thing that Afghanistan doesn't have - oil. Afghanistan had absolutely no infrastructure under the Taleban and no finance other than the heroin trade. It's laughable to compare Afghanistan with Iran.

There wasnt Al Qaeda in Iraq, everyone knows that, it was only Saddam Hussein playing his games, NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before US invasion

So what? It's irrelevant. The fact is that they still existed and still targetted anyone who they disagreed with. The fact remains that 9/11 was well before the Iraqi invasion.

Regarding the Pakistan comment:

You are living in the 10th Century

Are you denying the fact that Pakistan isn't one of the biggest receivers of Western financial aid? If so, you lied when you said the sky on your planet was blue.

"Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid to foreign nations."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/26/asia/web-0226pakistan.php

Welcome to the real world.

auwal. Are you for real? What colour is the sky on your planet?

If not for America invading Iraq, Al Qaeda would not have been there

Al Qaeda existed long before the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 was long before the invasion of Iraq.

If not for America invading Afghanistan, it would have become another developed Nation like Iran

The Taleban dragged Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. There is absolutely no way that it would have become a "developed nation". The Taleban didn't want a "developed nation".

If not for Israel terrorizing the Palastenians, Hamas would not have even exists

The goal of Hamas is to totally destroy the State of Israel. Even if the Jews sat back and did nothing to the Palestinians, Hamas' stated aim is to destroy them whatever happens.

If not for the Sanctions placed in Pakistan by US and Ally, Pakistan would have become just another thriving nation like India.

Sanctions? Pakistan receives massive amounts of financial aid from the West.

If not for Israel terrorizing people in the Middleast, destroying building in Syria, Lebanon etc, Hezbollah wouldn't have exists

Again, Hezbollah is an organisation created to destroy the Jewish state. It is not a defensive group but an offensive one.



You really have absolutely no clue what you are talikng about.
I suggest you stick to this website where fantasy is the norm rather than post in a political forum - www.disney.com

Was colonisation good for Africa? - No.
But was it better than what's in place now? - Yes.

So if i go and put up a wikipedia entry on how stupid the bible is, it will become holy grail to you?

So if Wikipedia has a page on the General Theory of Relativaty and a link to Einstien, we can treat it as trash then can we?

I'd put way more faith into Wikipedia than I would The Bible. At least the former is generally updated and corrected when errors are noted.

Sorry dude.

Which scholars?

Try the majority of those who are considered educated in the World of Sanity.

If you check the Wikipedia page instead of just inanely blathering about it, you'll see endorsements by such luminaries as Howard.W.Clarke - Professor Emiritus of The University of California. Or what about Graham Stanton - Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University?

Grasping at straws? One for Joseph and one for Mary? Even though logically it either proves that the Bible contains utter irrelevancies or that Jesus had webbed toes because he was one interbred freak? Yeah. I'll lend you the straws when I've finished with them. After all - you need them way more.

If the two trees belonged to Mary and Joseph (which they don't), Jesus Christ would be nothing more than the result of interbreeding.

Oh hang on. God was his father. That means that Joseph's tree is totally and utterly irrelevant. Nice of the Bible's authors to include something in a "the Book of Truth" that isn't worth a crap then, isn't it?

Scholars have thrashed this out

For DavidDylan's version of "scholars" read "delusional idiots".

Maybe this will clarify things:

"The two accounts cannot be harmonized and today the genealogy accounts are generally taken to be "theological" constructs."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

I tell you again how does one find what you do not know

I can only give you a bit of advice and that is to start at the beginning. Start with the only thing you do know a tiny, tiny little bit about - yourself.
Then take it from there.

Max mentions Descartes. Like all philosophers, he's heavy going, but he's a very good one to begin with. You might also like Plato's "Republic". If you take it as a book written about the self rather than a society, it's got some very interesting points. It's also quite easy to read. Realise that it was a book written at and for a specific time though - some of it's ideas are either outdated or now considered immoral. But I do recommend it.

Christianity had a fringe following started by a man whose life work purpotedly lasted only 3 years, meeting the test of contemporaneity will be absurd given the era we speak of

Utterly ridiculous.
He purportedly lived and died in a country run by some of the most avid historical documenters of any civilisation. The Romans documented everything. To claim that contemporary documentation is absurd is absurd in itself. Three years of miracles, preaching, rebellion against the Jewish authorities and a state execution would have been more than enough for a contemporary Roman to document Christ. Yet not a single one did.


The majority of the examples you give go like this:

"See Christianity. A sect started by a guy called Christ". - Pliny 100 years after Christ.

Let's put that into context:

"See Christianity. A sect started by a guy called Christ" - 4 Play 2000 years after Christ.

Your statement has as much credibility as the former (ie: absolutely none).

And let's not even mention that some of those examples you give don't even mention Christ!!!

Only a cretin will seek to suggest that Pasteur's religiosity or the lack of one mirrors that of Hitler.

No. A cretin would try to place Pasteur on the Christian bandwagon and totally ignore the similarity in the argument with Hitler.

I asked you earlier whether the 20th century produced worse mass murderers than Mao, Hitler and Stalin, and you cravenly dodged the question.

I "cravenly dodged" it because it is utterly irrelevant. The figures mentioned were involved in politics not religion.
Someone makes a statement that chicken tastes horrible so you attack cabbages. Where's the relevance?

Try harder. You're failing badly at the moment.