Idiots protesting mosque near Ground Zero attack two Christians

[Woyzeck]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

I'm not arguing that Muslims are better, I'm arguing that both sides have idiotic terrorists who give the rest of the religion a bad name.

Im pretty sure he put you concerns to bed , as have I there is nothing in the Christian doctrine to sanctify the genocide done in the name of Christ.

Get back to me when you can match the body count of Islam by Christians follow in the footsteps of Christ.

The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the millions over several decades.

The value of the booty--'jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates' [Smith Oxford History of India p207]--can never be measured. As a result of [this] fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins.

We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. [Will Durant] This rich cultural heritage, like the foundations and materials of Hindu temples used to erect Muslim mosques, were highjacked by Islam. Indian mathemeticians conceived algebra and the number zero, which were translated to the Muslim world through its conquests, and then brought to the West through conquest; Islamic civilization now mistakenly recieves credit for these innovations. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time.
According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by about 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp

I've handled this. The article about the violence in the Bible, the list of Christian terrorists, and the list of hate organizations with strong beliefs in Chrisanity. Historical records? I listed some, and there's tons more.

When are you guys actually gonna refute what the Christians have done and still do over the years? And the Bible? Just trumpeting MUSLIMS ARE BAD MUSLIMS ARE EVUL MUSLIMS CONDONE VIOLENCE doesn't hold up when Christianity has proven itself to be just as naughty as the group you're railing against.

 

[sangha]

When are you guys actually gonna refute what the Christians have done and still do over the years? And the Bible? Just trumpeting MUSLIMS ARE BAD MUSLIMS ARE EVUL MUSLIMS CONDONE VIOLENCE doesn't hold up when Christianity has proven itself to be just as naughty as the group you're railing against.

The wingnuts do not do defense because they know there's no defending what they say. That's why you'll never see them post real data for their claims that a majority of muslims support terrorism

I even posted stats that prove conjob was wrong. I don't expect any substantive response from him

 

[ConHog]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

Woyzeck, meet conjob.

Stereotyping? So its based off because someone thinks he might be a terrorist and not off actual concrete evidence? Dude, you don't base any evidence off a stereotype,

You're wrong. Maybe you don't base evidence off of a stereotype, but conjob does. In fact, he just did

stereotypes don't hold water with anyone.

They hold water with conjob

They're not based off facts, they're based off inaccurate perceptions people have of a group of people. You don't get objective facts and information about anything through stereotypes.

conjob has no need for facts. That's why he won't back up his claims that a majority of Muslims think the Koran supports terrorism

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

 

[Woyzeck]

Is that a standing order or an element of history?

History, but that doesn't make it any less okay. It just means that killing the first born son of every family in a country is okay so long as God says it is.

That being said , please stop using elements of history to obscure the standing orders current today from the Quran.

I guess the Surpeme Court should stop using historical precedent to determine their actions in the future then. They aren't standing orders, you can't take anything from them. It's just dead words and stuff. No one could form opinions or guidance on what to do from past court cases. It's just... history.

 

[sangha]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

Woyzeck, meet conjob.



You're wrong. Maybe you don't base evidence off of a stereotype, but conjob does. In fact, he just did



They hold water with conjob

They're not based off facts, they're based off inaccurate perceptions people have of a group of people. You don't get objective facts and information about anything through stereotypes.

conjob has no need for facts. That's why he won't back up his claims that a majority of Muslims think the Koran supports terrorism

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

So you have proof that a majority of Muslims believe the Koran supports terrorism?

 

[ConHog]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

I'm not arguing that Muslims are better, I'm arguing that both sides have idiotic terrorists who give the rest of the religion a bad name.

Im pretty sure he put you concerns to bed , as have I there is nothing in the Christian doctrine to sanctify the genocide done in the name of Christ.

Get back to me when you can match the body count of Islam by Christians follow in the footsteps of Christ.

The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the millions over several decades.

The value of the booty--'jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates' [Smith Oxford History of India p207]--can never be measured. As a result of [this] fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins.

We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. [Will Durant] This rich cultural heritage, like the foundations and materials of Hindu temples used to erect Muslim mosques, were highjacked by Islam. Indian mathemeticians conceived algebra and the number zero, which were translated to the Muslim world through its conquests, and then brought to the West through conquest; Islamic civilization now mistakenly recieves credit for these innovations. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time.
According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by about 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp

I've handled this. The article about the violence in the Bible, the list of Christian terrorists, and the list of hate organizations with strong beliefs in Chrisanity. Historical records? I listed some, and there's tons more.

When are you guys actually gonna refute what the Christians have done and still do over the years? And the Bible? Just trumpeting MUSLIMS ARE BAD MUSLIMS ARE EVUL MUSLIMS CONDONE VIOLENCE doesn't hold up when Christianity has proven itself to be just as naughty as the group you're railing against.

Do you just read what you want to read? It's clearly been said in this thread SEVERAL times. those Christians who claim to kill, or terrorize , in the name of God are wrong and evil. That has NO NONE ZERO bearing on Muslims who do the same.

You're weakening your own argument by continuing this line of thought. If you want to argue that we shouldn't suspect all Muslims of being terrorists, make that fucking argument instead of trying to obfuscate by throwing the words Christian terrorists around.

 

[sangha]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

Woyzeck, meet conjob.



You're wrong. Maybe you don't base evidence off of a stereotype, but conjob does. In fact, he just did



They hold water with conjob

They're not based off facts, they're based off inaccurate perceptions people have of a group of people. You don't get objective facts and information about anything through stereotypes.

conjob has no need for facts. That's why he won't back up his claims that a majority of Muslims think the Koran supports terrorism

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

 

[ConHog]

Woyzeck, meet conjob.



You're wrong. Maybe you don't base evidence off of a stereotype, but conjob does. In fact, he just did



They hold water with conjob



conjob has no need for facts. That's why he won't back up his claims that a majority of Muslims think the Koran supports terrorism

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

No shit, but that's where they start, and then they do more "stereotyping" for instance ok we suspect he lives on this street, hey that's stereotyping . and it WORKS.


And it's absolutely what the man in the link I posted did to come up with is percentage of potential terrorists.

 

[bodecea]

Woyzeck, meet conjob.



You're wrong. Maybe you don't base evidence off of a stereotype, but conjob does. In fact, he just did



They hold water with conjob



conjob has no need for facts. That's why he won't back up his claims that a majority of Muslims think the Koran supports terrorism

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

 

[ConHog]

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

LOL - What do you think a profiler does? He stereotypes. LOL

 

[sangha]

You're a moron. Stereotypes DO work

You live in NYC, when the police suspect there is a serial killer, who do they focus on? Single white males in their 20s. Why? Oh because that's who the serial killers usually are. Oh but that's stereotyping. Better to waste resources checking out for the occasional 90 y/o black woman who goes on a killing spree

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

And in comparison, conjob stops at religion

He claims to work for the police, but he doesn't know how profiling works. He thinks it uses one characteristic, even though his example contains four.

 

[Woyzeck]

Im pretty sure he put you concerns to bed , as have I there is nothing in the Christian doctrine to sanctify the genocide done in the name of Christ.

Get back to me when you can match the body count of Islam by Christians follow in the footsteps of Christ.

The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the millions over several decades.

The value of the booty--'jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates' [Smith Oxford History of India p207]--can never be measured. As a result of [this] fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins.

We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. [Will Durant] This rich cultural heritage, like the foundations and materials of Hindu temples used to erect Muslim mosques, were highjacked by Islam. Indian mathemeticians conceived algebra and the number zero, which were translated to the Muslim world through its conquests, and then brought to the West through conquest; Islamic civilization now mistakenly recieves credit for these innovations. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time.
According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by about 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp

I've handled this. The article about the violence in the Bible, the list of Christian terrorists, and the list of hate organizations with strong beliefs in Chrisanity. Historical records? I listed some, and there's tons more.

When are you guys actually gonna refute what the Christians have done and still do over the years? And the Bible? Just trumpeting MUSLIMS ARE BAD MUSLIMS ARE EVUL MUSLIMS CONDONE VIOLENCE doesn't hold up when Christianity has proven itself to be just as naughty as the group you're railing against.

Do you just read what you want to read? It's clearly been said in this thread SEVERAL times. those Christians who claim to kill, or terrorize , in the name of God are wrong and evil. That has NO NONE ZERO bearing on Muslims who do the same.

Why? Why can't the Muslims who do the same be not-Muslims too? Why a double-standard?

You're weakening your own argument by continuing this line of thought. If you want to argue that we shouldn't suspect all Muslims of being terrorists, make that fucking argument instead of trying to obfuscate by throwing the words Christian terrorists around.

You're fine with stereotyping. You're proving yourself rapidly to be awfully bigoted towards people. I'm not weakening my argument, you guys refuse to see that Christians can be just as naughty, but you don't condemn Christianity and all Christians as terrorists. You don't suspect 15% of Christians to be terrorists. Why I should I believe this number as fact if it stereotypes? It's a biased opinion, not objective fact.

It's called hypocrisy, dude. If you can claim that christian terrorists are wrong and evil, than so are the Muslim terrorists. They aren't representative of Islam than the evil and wrong Christians are of Christianity.

Which was what I said pages and pages ago, no one has the high ground, they're both equally in the wrong.

 

[ConHog]

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

And in comparison, conjob stops at religion

He claims to work for the police, but he doesn't know how profiling works. He thinks it uses one characteristic, even though his example contains four.

HOLY SHIT you are stupid. If I gave an example of four attributes wouldn't it stand to reason that I believe more than one characteristic is needed to properly profile a suspect?

I mean it Sangha, you are absolutely the stupidest, most dishonest person I have ever conversed with.

Oh, and I can tell see why Obama is your hero, because he like you condemns things he hasn't even read. If you had read the link I posted where the writer came up with his 15% figure for potential terrorists out of the Muslim population of the world you would see that he took MANY , as in more than 5, things into consideration when determining if a person was a potential terrorist or not.

 

[bodecea]

Umm, they don't focus on EVERY SWM in their 20's.

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

LOL - What do you think a profiler does? He stereotypes. LOL

Actually, you are partly correct...to JUST stereotype by skin color or religion is not enough...a profiler must go much farther than that to be at all effective. This means NOT just looking at someone's religion. NOT just looking at someone's nationality. NOT just looking at someone's age. NOT just looking at someone's skin color.

 

[sangha]

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

And in comparison, conjob stops at religion

He claims to work for the police, but he doesn't know how profiling works. He thinks it uses one characteristic, even though his example contains four.

HOLY SHIT you are stupid. If I gave an example of four attributes wouldn't it stand to reason that I believe more than one characteristic is needed to properly profile a suspect?

When it came to muslims, you stopped at one, so YES, you think one characteristic is enough

 

[ConHog]

I've handled this. The article about the violence in the Bible, the list of Christian terrorists, and the list of hate organizations with strong beliefs in Chrisanity. Historical records? I listed some, and there's tons more.

When are you guys actually gonna refute what the Christians have done and still do over the years? And the Bible? Just trumpeting MUSLIMS ARE BAD MUSLIMS ARE EVUL MUSLIMS CONDONE VIOLENCE doesn't hold up when Christianity has proven itself to be just as naughty as the group you're railing against.

Do you just read what you want to read? It's clearly been said in this thread SEVERAL times. those Christians who claim to kill, or terrorize , in the name of God are wrong and evil. That has NO NONE ZERO bearing on Muslims who do the same.

Why? Why can't the Muslims who do the same be not-Muslims too? Why a double-standard?

You're weakening your own argument by continuing this line of thought. If you want to argue that we shouldn't suspect all Muslims of being terrorists, make that fucking argument instead of trying to obfuscate by throwing the words Christian terrorists around.

You're fine with stereotyping. You're proving yourself rapidly to be awfully bigoted towards people. I'm not weakening my argument, you guys refuse to see that Christians can be just as naughty, but you don't condemn Christianity and all Christians as terrorists. You don't suspect 15% of Christians to be terrorists. Why I should I believe this number as fact if it stereotypes? It's a biased opinion, not objective fact.

It's called hypocrisy, dude. If you can claim that christian terrorists are wrong and evil, than so are the Muslim terrorists. They aren't representative of Islam than the evil and wrong Christians are of Christianity.

Which was what I said pages and pages ago, no one has the high ground, they're both equally in the wrong.

There are two seperate arguments here.

1. If you want to argue that a Christian terrorist is as wrong as a Muslim terrorist , hey I agree, they are both wrong.

But you also seem to want to argue that Christianity has many terrorists as Islam, and we both know that isn't true; so Islam as a WHOLE is more in the wrong than Christianity.

And honestly if you can't admit that yes there are WAY more Muslim terrorists in the world than there are Christian one, then frankly I'm going to assume you're as stupid as Sangha and give up the notion of having an intelligent debate with you; and don't' bother coming at me with something from the middle ages either, I don't care.....

 

[bodecea]

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

And in comparison, conjob stops at religion

He claims to work for the police, but he doesn't know how profiling works. He thinks it uses one characteristic, even though his example contains four.

HOLY SHIT you are stupid. If I gave an example of four attributes wouldn't it stand to reason that I believe more than one characteristic is needed to properly profile a suspect?

I mean it Sangha, you are absolutely the stupidest, most dishonest person I have ever conversed with.

Oh, and I can tell see why Obama is your hero, because he like you condemns things he hasn't even read. If you had read the link I posted where the writer came up with his 15% figure for potential terrorists out of the Muslim population of the world you would see that he took MANY , as in more than 5, things into consideration when determining if a person was a potential terrorist or not.

Has Sangha said that Obama is his hero?

 

[ConHog]

No, they do not...they get a profiler and work on particulars such as type job, hang outs, hobbies, etc. And they narrow it from there....location of work, location of home, etc.

LOL - What do you think a profiler does? He stereotypes. LOL

Actually, you are partly correct...to JUST stereotype by skin color or religion is not enough...a profiler must go much farther than that to be at all effective. This means NOT just looking at someone's religion. NOT just looking at someone's nationality. NOT just looking at someone's age. NOT just looking at someone's skin color.

Of course it doesnt and Sangha is being an idiot, as per his usual , by saying that I think only one characteristic should be looked at, for the love of God, it was ME who posted the link that shows about 10 different things the man looked at to determine that 15% of Muslims are potentially terrorists, now why would I post that if I thought just being Muslim was enough? If that were my case, that link totally doesn't support that argument?

Once again Sangha is just being a failtard.

 

[sangha]

Do you just read what you want to read? It's clearly been said in this thread SEVERAL times. those Christians who claim to kill, or terrorize , in the name of God are wrong and evil. That has NO NONE ZERO bearing on Muslims who do the same.

Why? Why can't the Muslims who do the same be not-Muslims too? Why a double-standard?

You're weakening your own argument by continuing this line of thought. If you want to argue that we shouldn't suspect all Muslims of being terrorists, make that fucking argument instead of trying to obfuscate by throwing the words Christian terrorists around.

You're fine with stereotyping. You're proving yourself rapidly to be awfully bigoted towards people. I'm not weakening my argument, you guys refuse to see that Christians can be just as naughty, but you don't condemn Christianity and all Christians as terrorists. You don't suspect 15% of Christians to be terrorists. Why I should I believe this number as fact if it stereotypes? It's a biased opinion, not objective fact.

It's called hypocrisy, dude. If you can claim that christian terrorists are wrong and evil, than so are the Muslim terrorists. They aren't representative of Islam than the evil and wrong Christians are of Christianity.

Which was what I said pages and pages ago, no one has the high ground, they're both equally in the wrong.

There are two seperate arguments here.

1. If you want to argue that a Christian terrorist is as wrong as a Muslim terrorist , hey I agree, they are both wrong.

But you also seem to want to argue that Christianity has many terrorists as Islam, and we both know that isn't true; so Islam as a WHOLE is more in the wrong than Christianity.

You said that a MAJORITY of muslims interpret the Koran to say that it supports terrorism. So far, you haven't posted anything to support that.

The best you can do is post a study that says 15% (far less than a majority) are POTENTIAL terrorists. You have yet to post any info on how many muslims are actual terrorists or who believe that the koran justifies terrorism

And honestly if you can't admit that yes there are WAY more Muslim terrorists in the world than there are Christian one, then frankly I'm going to assume you're as stupid as Sangha and give up the notion of having an intelligent debate with you; and don't' bother coming at me with something from the middle ages either, I don't care.....

I'll admit it when you post the proof.

 

[ConHog]

Why? Why can't the Muslims who do the same be not-Muslims too? Why a double-standard?



You're fine with stereotyping. You're proving yourself rapidly to be awfully bigoted towards people. I'm not weakening my argument, you guys refuse to see that Christians can be just as naughty, but you don't condemn Christianity and all Christians as terrorists. You don't suspect 15% of Christians to be terrorists. Why I should I believe this number as fact if it stereotypes? It's a biased opinion, not objective fact.

It's called hypocrisy, dude. If you can claim that christian terrorists are wrong and evil, than so are the Muslim terrorists. They aren't representative of Islam than the evil and wrong Christians are of Christianity.

Which was what I said pages and pages ago, no one has the high ground, they're both equally in the wrong.

There are two seperate arguments here.

1. If you want to argue that a Christian terrorist is as wrong as a Muslim terrorist , hey I agree, they are both wrong.

But you also seem to want to argue that Christianity has many terrorists as Islam, and we both know that isn't true; so Islam as a WHOLE is more in the wrong than Christianity.

You said that a MAJORITY of muslims interpret the Koran to say that it supports terrorism. So far, you haven't posted anything to support that.

The best you can do is post a study that says 15% (far less than a majority) are POTENTIAL terrorists. You have yet to post any info on how many muslims are actual terrorists or who believe that the koran justifies terrorism

And honestly if you can't admit that yes there are WAY more Muslim terrorists in the world than there are Christian one, then frankly I'm going to assume you're as stupid as Sangha and give up the notion of having an intelligent debate with you; and don't' bother coming at me with something from the middle ages either, I don't care.....

I'll admit it when you post the proof.

I already posted the proof. If you find me any one month span where Christians have committed 46 terrorist acts around the globe then I will concede to you, otherwise , shut your fucking mouth and let the adults talk.