August 29, 2006

Stockholm Syndrome or Stupidity?

It's a bit tough to comment on the Fox News journalists who had been kidnapped by Islamic terrorists without sounding harsh. Then again, the formerly mainstream media is positively poisonous when speaking of their competition, all but verbally hoping they'd be killed for daring to work for Fox News. However, I wonder if the journalists are complete and total morons or clear victims of Stockholm Syndrome.

One of the captives actually says:

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

So, if he's NOT a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, we are to understand that he RESPECTS people who force him to do things against his will at gunpoint. Someone seriously needs to get this guy some counseling because he cannot tell right from wrong at the moment.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:04 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

1 he said he respects Islam, not his captors. Please read your own posts.

Posted by: gawker at September 01, 2006 01:38 PM (ZDZQ0)

2 His captors are Islamic.

Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2006 03:00 PM (oifEm)

3 Does that mean if I respect a religion, it is incumbent upon me to respect all of its followers as well? Can you spot the inherent problems in that statement?

Posted by: gawker at September 01, 2006 03:05 PM (ZDZQ0)

4 In this case, the person was converted at gunpoint and then delcared that he said he respects the religion that tells people to do it. I simply pointed out that this person has some mental issues. I would question anyone who says that they respect something that forces people do involuntarily do something and indeed, requires force to do it. Are you saying that Islam does NOT require it's followers to convert people to Islam or kill them?

Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2006 03:12 PM (oifEm)

5 The Bible says women should be servile creatures, submitting to the whims of men. The Bible says anyone working on the sabbath must be put to death. The Bible allows slaves to be beaten as long as they do not die. So will you be losing your respect for Christianity anytime in the near future? Every religion has its crackpot teachings, does that mean the entire religion should not be respected? Personally, I would say yes since I am an atheist, but then, I would say the same of Christianity as well, which, I am assuming, you have no problems respecting despite its many homicidal teachings.

Posted by: gawker at September 01, 2006 03:42 PM (ZDZQ0)

6 Ah, shall I bother with such wild, inaccurate accusations? To put it simply, you are incorrect about the Bible, and in addition, point out to me the thousands of people today who are following your interpretations. But back to the actual topic at hand -- you actually believe that Islam doesn't demand their followers to convert people or kill them. In that case, there's not much to discuss here. That is the reality. That is why terrorists have been for CENTURIES killing non-Muslims. That is why planes were flown into the twin towers. That IS why the athletes were killed in Munich. That is why the trains were bombed in Spain. I'm sorry that you cannot see this plain, simple, and obvious fact. The religion of Islam is a religion of death and a religion that requires it's followers to kill people. You think it doesn't. Well, I think the world is actually a large pyramid and not round. Does that make it so?

Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2006 03:52 PM (oifEm)

7 Exodus 31:15 : “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death." Timothy 2:11-12 : “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” Exodus 21:20 : “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” There are more where these came from. If someone were to follow these instructions to the word, would this make Christianity evil? Or would it make the follower evil and stupid? And according to you, if the entire religion of Islam is evil, does this mean every muslim should be put to death? I have numerous muslim friends who have never wished to kill me. Does this not nullify your assertion that the entire religion is evil?

Posted by: gawker at September 01, 2006 05:18 PM (ZDZQ0)

8 Hello, context? You are completely misquoting the Bible and using it out of context. And that's STILL not the point. Again, I can't really continue this conversation, because you honestly refuse to understand that the religion of Islam wants you and I dead. How do you know your Muslim friends never wished to kill you? Did you submit to their authority? If you did, and by being atheist, you may have, then you have surrended to them, so they didn't have to kill you.

Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2006 05:24 PM (oifEm)

9 I just gave you the exact Bible verses which you can go and look at in order to verify the truth of my statements. If you do not wish to accept that your religion is as ridiculous and full of holes as is Islam it is your call but you would only be fooling yourself. The Koran holds christians as well as atheists in equal contempt. But that is beside the point. Are you seriously suggesting that all muslims in the world secretly harbor a desire to kill every non-muslim? If that is really what you believe, then God help you because you are truly delusional and probably in need of therapy. It is not a religion that wants you dead, it is a few maniacs who believe in the literal meaning of the Koran who want you dead. And if you don't believe that, then you better get started cause there are about a billion people in the world that need to be killed.

Posted by: gawker at September 01, 2006 06:10 PM (ZDZQ0)

10 I'm not sure why you call it "my" religion, but never mind that, here's an example of out of context for you, so you will understand: You just claimed Islam was ridiculous. The exact quote that you wrote was "ridiculous Islam." So you have declared Islam ridiculous. That's called "out of context" and it's exactly what you're doing with the Bible. A "few maniacs?" I guess if by "few" you mean tens of thousands over the past 20 centuries, I guess that's accurate. You are close, however, when you mention that the people who believe in Islam want me dead. That is correct.

Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2006 06:30 PM (oifEm)

11 Islam and all other religions are ridiculous so there. Watch out Jews want to kill you too, check the Old Testament & it's views on the gentiles. Why even argue with people that believe in magic beans & pixie dust or as I call it The Bible, Koran, and all your other ridiculous revealed texts. MAybe you should read Jefferson's bible and see what it says about hating your enemy.

Posted by: Prudence Goodwife at September 02, 2006 01:28 AM (4h3In)

12 In fact, it's an Islamic tactic to point the types of things these people are pointing out about Christianity. Christianity is about 'free will' and the 'freedom to choose'. It's also about self-defense, not about 'kill the unbelievers wherever you find them'. I find it interesting that when Ogre calls something as he sees it, people find it necessary to change the subject and make it an attack on Christianity as an 'evil superstition' in true Russian Communist form. In fact, I can't imagine they realize they're getting their rhetoric directly from dictators like Hitler who also admired Islam because it forced people to submit by use of the sword. Though Hitler was certainly no Muslim, he *did* have an affinity for the Islamic religion, which he compared favourably against the Christianity in Germany. Albert Speer, Hitler’s wartime Minister of Armaments and Munitions, records in his memoirs, “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143) This demonstrates that Hitler found Islam more to his liking than Christianity. He was particularly attracted Islam’s penchant for violence. This is the most outward manifestation of Islamic theology (its penchant for violence) and there was also the common thread of hating the Jews which the Nazi party had with Muslim leaders in the Arab world at that time. ' So thanks for identifying your true ideology, lefties, it's indeed refreshing to see that leftist authoritarianism is living up to itself; complete with shutting down 'dissent' with personal attacks, insults and bible quotes taken out of context like Islamists do. The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity. The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States. All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler: Night of 11th-12th July, 1941: National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7) 10th October, 1941, midday: Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43) 14th October, 1941, midday: The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52) 19th October, 1941, night: The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. 21st October, 1941, midday: Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65) 13th December, 1941, midnight: Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119) 14th December, 1941, midday: Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120) 9th April, 1942, dinner: There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339) 27th February, 1942, midday: It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 27 The previous information is available here and it's by John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.

Posted by: Cao at September 02, 2006 06:05 PM (RyucI)

13 I think I can clarify. When the Bible preaches death to anyone who works on sundays or disrespects their elders, it needs to be properly contextualized. When the Koran preaches death to unbelievers though, it's serious. Because Ogre says so. The Inquisition, Cathar purge, Crusades (particularly number four), the Spanish Conquest of America, etc. etc. etc... the sad reality is any major ideology, Islam included will have a respectable list of atrocities to its name. Agnosticism is about the only one that's yet to rack up a kill count, but just you wait until agnostics sieze power somewhere...

Posted by: DW at September 04, 2006 02:12 PM (Hlf8Z)

14 Nice try, DW, but not even close. Feel free to read the entire book from which quotes are taken from. Then you might see the correct context. If you still don't see it, get back with me, and I'll explain it. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. And what has happened in the past is not what I was speaking about. What I'm addressing is TODAY. TODAY, Muslims want me dead and are trying to kill me. TODAY Christians do not want to kill me for their God. Big difference.

Posted by: Ogre at September 05, 2006 12:04 AM (QmGzr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
32kb generated in CPU 0.0139, elapsed 0.0831 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.0747 seconds, 203 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.