So we talking about Brussels?

Eŋg · 03-31-2016, 07:08 PM

if you were to decontextualize scripture from any of the three abrahamic religions you could make very convincing cases for each of them justifying the murder of those that aren't of their faith. those justifications have, historically, been actualized in the past, too. when cities are carpet bombed and innocent women and children are murdered en masse (to allegedly weed out a few 'terrorists' or insurgents they're sure are there) predominantly from the military forces of supposedly 'christian' states the faith is rarely, if ever, brought into it - even when a leader, at the time of committing said atrocities, will say their 'christian conscience is clear' (paraphrase).

you could also scour the scripture for good examples that posit co-existence. but nobody is interested in that, because when shit goes down, we (as a collective) immediately want to assign blame somewhere as long as it isn't among ourselves. creatures governed by fear and quick to cling to the negative.

on numbers alone (go and look at them), 'ISIS' are responsible for killing more muslims than they are non-muslims, so they can hardly be termed the jihadist crusaders for islamic justice, can they? atrocities committed outside of the western world (essentially america and europe) aren't given media exposure unless they fit into the western political rhetoric. similarly, true empathy/compassion can't be selective and switched on only when your news story tells you it should be. basically, we don't give a fuck unless white people are killed. assuming those white people aren't white muslim chechens or something. you know, those actually caucas people.

to summarize, ISIS isn't remotely representative of islam and is so only because of flawed hive-minded, mob-mentality thinking. i question whether they even think they're muslim, honestly, because it's not like there's no precedent for warring factions to assume another identity in attempts to exacerbate tensions or force a hand, is there? no, of course not. i'll let my nigga diderot put it more succintly than i could hope to:

disturbances in society are never more fearful than when those who are stirring up the trouble can use the pretext of religion to mask their true designs.

i mean, come on. he wrote that in the 17th century or some shit. smart dumb niggas. i can definitely point belgium out on a map, too.

03-31-2016, 07:08 PM	#37
Eŋg rhyme capsule. Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 2,150 Rep Power: 0	if you were to decontextualize scripture from any of the three abrahamic religions you could make very convincing cases for each of them justifying the murder of those that aren't of their faith. those justifications have, historically, been actualized in the past, too. when cities are carpet bombed and innocent women and children are murdered en masse (to allegedly weed out a few 'terrorists' or insurgents they're sure are there) predominantly from the military forces of supposedly 'christian' states the faith is rarely, if ever, brought into it - even when a leader, at the time of committing said atrocities, will say their 'christian conscience is clear' (paraphrase). you could also scour the scripture for good examples that posit co-existence. but nobody is interested in that, because when shit goes down, we (as a collective) immediately want to assign blame somewhere as long as it isn't among ourselves. creatures governed by fear and quick to cling to the negative. on numbers alone (go and look at them), 'ISIS' are responsible for killing more muslims than they are non-muslims, so they can hardly be termed the jihadist crusaders for islamic justice, can they? atrocities committed outside of the western world (essentially america and europe) aren't given media exposure unless they fit into the western political rhetoric. similarly, true empathy/compassion can't be selective and switched on only when your news story tells you it should be. basically, we don't give a fuck unless white people are killed. assuming those white people aren't white muslim chechens or something. you know, those actually caucas people. to summarize, ISIS isn't remotely representative of islam and is so only because of flawed hive-minded, mob-mentality thinking. i question whether they even think they're muslim, honestly, because it's not like there's no precedent for warring factions to assume another identity in attempts to exacerbate tensions or force a hand, is there? no, of course not. i'll let my nigga diderot put it more succintly than i could hope to: disturbances in society are never more fearful than when those who are stirring up the trouble can use the pretext of religion to mask their true designs. i mean, come on. he wrote that in the 17th century or some shit. smart dumb niggas. i can definitely point belgium out on a map, too. Last edited by Eŋg; 03-31-2016 at 07:21 PM.