August 7, 2012

"Twenty five Christian worshippers were killed by gunmen on Monday night during an evening church service..."

"The attackers arrived in a Toyota van, blocked the entrance, turned off the lights in the church, and fired shots into the church building.... Fifteen of the dead were women, 10 were men."

57 comments:

Michael K said...

The religion of pace strikes again. This goes back 40 years to Biafra. We had a medical student named Manny Mba on our service at LA County in 1972. The Biafrans were the educated segment of the Nigerian population and were slaughtered. Nothing new under the sun.

Tibore said...

"But the radical Islamist sect, Boko Haram, advised President Goodluck Jonathan over the weekend to embrace Islam or face the wrath of their struggle."

Proselytization at gunpoint. Yeah, way to gain trust. Congratulations, Boko Haram, you just proved again why radicals cannot be trusted.

Michael K said...

That's religion of PEACE if anybody was in doubt. The Wiki article make one brief mention of religion. Of course, Biafra was Christian and the north, which won the war, Muslim.

edutcher said...

Funny how nobody notices these killings.

Especially the Lefties.

You'd think they'd want to go over there and do something about all this black-on-black violence.

Oh, that's right...

All the dead people were Christian.

traditionalguy said...

More great work for black al-lah the moon god meteor rock hiding out in Mecca.

Allah's prophet said that unbelievers were to get two free requests to convert in peace, and only then when the third request was refused was it mandatory that their heads be removed by a sword on the spot. They bring it on themselves by mis-using their heads to believe in that outdated Jesus guy.

See it is a religion that offers peace.

And Muhammed allows all races to convert. Maybe only Arabs from Saudi Arabia get to rule, but all of the races are welcomed. Now as to women, they are valued as livestock that had better obey their masters or die.

rhhardin said...

The curious thing is that Muslims aren't outraged.

wild chicken said...

"You'd think they'd want to go over there and do something about all this black-on-black violence.+

Mogadishu ring a bell?

Carnifex said...

@Wild Chicken

Monica Lewinski, and wagging the dog ring a bell?

wyo sis said...

Carnifex
I hope you're not serious.

Carnifex said...

Anyone who thinks that you can have peace with muslims is delusional. Yes you get the good one that actually are civilized, but if just 1% of a billion people are radicalized that works out to...c'mon...hey! one of you eggheads wanna give me a hand. I ain't got that many fingers. Or IQ points!...errr...carry the one...10,000,000 lovely children of Allah waiting and wanting to cut off your head. (this includes, if not preferably, gays, Andy and Titus)

America has been fighting them since her birth.

Carnifex said...

You think Clinton invaded Somalia from the goodness of his heart??!!!


HAH!

Sorry Wyo Sis, I ascribe all bad things to full time politicians till they have proven they can be trusted. Sad part is, I have yet to meet one that lives up to that standard. Bush II actually came close a few times, but in the end he caved too. They all do. Look at Roberts as an example.

edutcher said...

wild chicken said...

You'd think they'd want to go over there and do something about all this black-on-black violence.

Mogadishu ring a bell?


I guess I'm going to have to put on the sarc tag more often.

In any case, Bush 41 wanted a straight humanitarian mission.

Things got ugly when Willie wanted to show how tough he was.

And then ran. Which set up 9/11.

David said...

wild chicken said...
"You'd think they'd want to go over there and do something about all this black-on-black violence.+

Mogadishu ring a bell?


The Americans killed in Mogadishu were lefties? I thought they were American soldiers, part of on undermanned detachment sent by a distracted President with insufficient resources to do an ill defined mission.

Carnifex said...

I look back on our founding, and what men we had then...Washington, Jefferson, not Lincoln, he was a hypocrit, many people fall for that Lincoln freed the slaves claptrap. And then I look at what we get now...Zero, Slick willie, and "read my lips. no new taxes"

That is why America isn't great anymore. We don't have great leaders. We have sound bites and Tricky Dicky. And when we get a chance to have a great man, they get crucified just like all great men.

The crowds would rather have Barrabas. Well, they got him.

YoungHegelian said...

These massacres are battles in the larger war for the soul of Africa and Africans.

Christianity is the faith of modernity, the faith that means that Africa joins the world. Islam means that Africa stays with the Ummah, and rejects modernity.

This is not my the product of my febrile, white, suburban brain. The Africans know it, and it's why Islam is losing the struggle for souls in Africa.

The name "Boko Haram" says it all. From the Wikipedia article, the translation is Western Education is sinful.

edutcher said...

David said...

The Americans killed in Mogadishu were lefties? I thought they were American soldiers, part of on undermanned detachment sent by a distracted President with insufficient resources to do an ill defined mission.

There was a sizable force in Mog, as it was called, including a battalion of the 10th Mountain Division, a company from the 3rd Ranger Battalion, and elements of Delta, plus the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.

What was in short supply was armor, which the Demos' "expert" on defense, Les Aspin, didn't think the troops needed.

Otherwise, you are correct.

Sam L. said...

edutcher, I think you're wrong. It's not that they're Christian, it's that they're black. Libs don't care about black-on-lack killings here, so why would they care about them there?

Michael K said...

"The Americans killed in Mogadishu were lefties? I thought they were American soldiers, part of on undermanned detachment sent by a distracted President with insufficient resources to do an ill defined mission."

Les Aspin was one of those brilliant Wisconsin lefties who "knew" that sending tanks would be provocative. AS a result, when the sh*t hot the fan, we had to go beg the Pakis for tanks to rescue our troops. Don't ever let Democrats fight another war.

mr said...

They need a good dose of gun control over there, I'm thinking.

G Joubert said...

...Washington, Jefferson, not Lincoln, he was a hypocrit, many people fall for that Lincoln freed the slaves claptrap

And that whole saving the union thing was just way over the top too, right Carniflex? Then to top that he went out and martyred himself! It just always has to be all about him. A real douche.

Nick Carter M. said...

The Madhi (aka the 12th imam/the Anti-Christ) is coming. At the end of WW3 Jesus is going to destroy him along with all of Islam. It's in the Bible. Islam isn't mentioned by name but it the "Beast" in Revelations. Too many similarities.
http://www.americaisraelprophecy.com/comparingislam-beast.html

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

G Joubert said...

...Washington, Jefferson, not Lincoln, he was a hypocrit, many people fall for that Lincoln freed the slaves claptrap

And that whole saving the union thing was just way over the top too, right Carniflex? Then to top that he went out and martyred himself! It just always has to be all about him. A real douche.


Lincoln overstepped his authority, in the eyes of many Libertarians, because the Federalist Papers noted secession as the final defense against a tyrannical government.

It can be said he used the firing on Fort Sumter as a pretext to invade the South on the grounds that it constituted treason, as defined in the Constitution.

That he was our first "statist" President is pretty clear, however. And his goal was preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves, as he himself admitted.

MadisonMan said...

Why is the make of the van (Toyota) included in the story?

Ironclad said...

Telling Goodluck Jonathan to covert is "emulating the prophet". Mo did that too, and when the receipants didn't agree that was a declaration of "Rebellion against God", punishable by death.

The patterns repeat. The results are always the same. Cultural destruction and assimilation.

Nigeria needs to split in two and put crocodiles in the moat between north and south

edutcher said...

PS Sam, I kind of mentioned that (should have had the sarc tag on), but your distinction is well-taken.

wild chicken said...

Why would we ever want to get militarilyb involved in that shithole called Africa.

Marshal said...

edutcher said...
Funny how nobody notices these killings.

Especially the Lefties.

You'd think they'd want to go over there and do something about all this black-on-black violence.


They notice, but the tactic is to wait. If they push now they have to give up their anti-war purity. On the other hand if they wait a decade they manitain their precious purity and can blame the deaths on America. See Rwanda for how it's done.

Carnifex said...

@G j(french name)

Pick up and actually read a history book once in a while. Washigton did NOT chop down a cherry tree. Lincoln only "freed the slaves" to foment rebellion behind the souths lines. Lincoln didn't give a flying fig about slavery. And Bush did not cause 9/11.

Eric said...

You'd think they'd want to go over there and do something about all this black-on-black violence.

Clearly all that needs to happen is for Nigeria to institute gun control. That's why nobody is ever murdered in Chicago, after all.

edutcher said...

Carnifex said...
@G j(french name)

Lincoln only "freed the slaves" to foment rebellion behind the souths lines. Lincoln didn't give a flying fig about slavery.

True only in that the abolitionists made emancipation the price of opening their pocketbooks when it became clear the war would drag on after Antietam.

That he didn't "give a flying fig about slavery" is, perhaps an overstatement. Preserving the Union was the important thing to him, but he saw slavery as the overarching motivation. Consider his opposition to the Mexican War as a 19th century truther*.

As the slaves were unarmed, disorganized, and unused to thinking for themselves, the idea there would be slave revolts in areas where they weren't even considered free by the North is a long stretch, indeed. In fact, the whole thing backfired, as 50,000 Union soldiers desterted when news of the Emancipation Proclamation became public.

* A great many Northerners thought Manifest Destiny was a plot to create opportunities for more slave states in the Western territories. Lincoln's opposition to the War with Mexico was based on it (costing him his seat in the House) and Ulysses Grant believed it to his dying day.

Andy R. said...

This is porn for American Christians, who want nothing more than to be a persecuted minority, even though they are neither persecuted nor a minority.

Eric said...

This is porn for American Christians, who want nothing more than to be a persecuted minority, even though they are neither persecuted nor a minority.

Nonsense. Christians are persecuted in many places and are definitely a minority worldwide.

Andy R. said...

Christians are persecuted in many places and are definitely a minority worldwide.

Yes some Christians are being persecuted, but American Christians are not being persecuted, as much as they might wish that to be so.

Also, Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

edutcher said...

Hatman betrays his ignorance and bigotry yet again.

The Godfather said...

Carnifex, your claim that Lincoln didn't care about slavery is grossly ignorant. Read his pre-civil war speeches. Lincoln regarded slavery as a terrible moral wrong. That his priority once the war began was to preserve the Union is irrelevant. But preserving the Union and winning the war made it possible to free the slaves.

Andy R. said...

Eric, maybe you are confusing plurality with minority.

Not as if that has any bearing on American Christians and their desire to be a persecuted minority in America.

traditionalguy said...

Andy R...You are right about the Christian message having the most professing converts.

The African areas are growing fast under missionary started local churchs. Remember pastor Muthee who creasted a media scandal when he layed hands on Sarah Palin in Alaska and prayed for her protection from witchcraft? Africans have no doubt what Christians are up against.

Surprisingly it is the Chinese now surprising everyone with the numbers of house church converts to Christianity that are estimated at 25,000 a month.

The Chinese know truth when they hear it and want to experience the love and grace promised by Jesus to His believers after they have endured 60 years of hopelessness from Communist Dialectic doubletalk.

YoungHegelian said...

What's the problem here, Andy?

Christian men, women, and children are being murdered for their faith in multiple places around the world, and your response is "Well, that's not happening here." Yeah, well, don't think for minute that there aren't folks here who wouldn't like to see it happen.

What is your problem?

Are you so consumed by your puerile anger that the rest of the world isn't down with your fist fucking that you have to trivialize martyrdom?

You do not help your cause, which most folks on this board probably have more sympathy for in the abstract than you care to give us. But, put a face like yours on the cause, and every multi-culti kumbayah lie we've ever heard in our lives springs into memory ("We've got nothing against the churches.....")

Guys like you are the reason that I made damn sure that my name was on the list to put SSM to a vote in Maryland.

Andy R. said...

your fist fucking
...
my name was on the list to put SSM to a vote in Maryland


If you're curious why your side is losing...

Sorun said...

Why is the make of the van (Toyota) included in the story?

Little Toyota pickups were significant in the Blackhawk Down story. They're called "technicals."

The reporter is helping you visualize the situation. Like emphasizing that the Sikh killer was in the Army -- imagine Rambo on a rampage, if you will.

Sorun said...

Let's talk more about guns. Guns aren't going away, any more that we can eliminate the use of shoes or the passing of gas. The only issue is the relative distribution of gun between the "police," the "military," and populace.

In the US, gun nuts such as me prefer that the civilian population have a fairly high percentage of existing guns.


(What exactly constitutes the "police" and "military" varies quite a bit around the world).

Don Jansen said...

Re: Mr - "They need a good dose of gun control over there." According to this site, Nigerians are already banned from owning military rifles and handguns: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/nigeria

JAL said...

... yes some Christians are being persecuted ...

Yes, some places they are.

Marshal said...

People are dead, but to Andy it's all about him.

What a despicable waste of life.

YoungHegelian said...

@Andy,

If you're curious why your side is losing...

Actually, when it comes to a vote, "my" side almost never loses. If the gay community continues to interfere with religious communities, you'll see a roll-back so fast your head'll spin.

Like every progressive, you think the course of history goes in one direction --- yours. That simply is not the case.

After all these years, have the anti-abortion forces "lost"?

I meant what I said about abstract sympathy with the gay community. If I knew that religious communities would be protected, I would support SSM in a hearbeat. I honestly don't give a shit about your personal life. But for me freedom of conscience is the foundation of all liberties, and it's clear that a vocal minority of the gay community would run roughshod over it if they could. And that, I must do what I can to stop.

Quaestor said...

People are dead, but to Andy it's all about him. What a despicable waste of life.

What a despicable waste of a hat.

Methadras said...

Christian Arabs and Iraqis (Chaldeans) are being murdered by muslims daily in the middle east and not a thought or a whisper about it.

Carnifex said...

I do go a bit over the top, don't I? But Lincoln was so worked up about slavery he let it sit there, much like Zero and his "Dream Act", until it was convienent politically to do something. I just get tired of the Civil war to free the slaves simplistic characterizations. And we know it's characterized as such to make all us white people feel better about ourselves. But Douglas was a stronger abolutionist the Lincoln. And that is the truth.

Kathy said...

Note to edutcher: Everything you said here mirrors my own point of view. You rock.

Thanks Ann for asking others to consider the atrocities being enacted week by week upon Nigerian Christians......

The fact that the leftand their palace guard media ignores this is.....exactly what edutcher reports....

just more Christians being killed.

edutcher said...

Thank you, ma'am.

Andy R. said...

your fist fucking
...
my name was on the list to put SSM to a vote in Maryland


If you're curious why your side is losing...


If Hatman is counting on all those polls skewed 5, 10, or 20 points in favor of the Demos, he may want to review that statement.

prairie wind said...

Tangent alert!

If Boko Harem means "Western education is sinful," I wonder what Procol Harem means.

Robert Cook said...

"I ascribe all bad things to full time politicians till they have proven they can be trusted."

Claud Cockburn, late father of recently deceased leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn, and himself a journalist, once said, referring to the British government, "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."

A good maxim for all people under all governments.

Bryan C said...

"Lincoln overstepped his authority, in the eyes of many Libertarians, because the Federalist Papers noted secession as the final defense against a tyrannical government."

Which doesn't mean they expected everyone to sit back and let secession just happen without a fight. Britain certainly didn't.

Most wartime Presidents overstep their authority, including some of Lincoln's predecessors. The Constitution was designed to allow that to happen, knowing that the powers entrusted only to other two branches and the States could hold the Executive in check if necessary. Or at least they could impeach after the fact. This was seen as preferable to the unworkably weak executive under the previous Articles of Confederation.

"And his goal was preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves, as he himself admitted."

Of course it was. Not that the two were mutually exclusive. A President can't do anything about freeing slaves in states that consider themselves a separate country.

Peter said...

Carnifex wrote, "Lincoln only "freed the slaves" to foment rebellion behind the souths lines. Lincoln didn't give a flying fig about slavery."

I think it would be fair to say that Lincoln's record on slavery was more complex than that. It seems clear enough that he went to war to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Nonetheless, he often seems quite aware that slavery was a monstrous evil.

Here, for example, are his words from his 2nd Inaugural Address:

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

edutcher said...

Bryan C said...

Lincoln overstepped his authority, in the eyes of many Libertarians, because the Federalist Papers noted secession as the final defense against a tyrannical government.

Which doesn't mean they expected everyone to sit back and let secession just happen without a fight. Britain certainly didn't.


We're not Britain and the American Revolution was not a secession.

Moreover, the attitude of the North in the days leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter was, "Don't let the door hit ya...". The reaction to Fort Sumter in the North was similar to the reaction to Pearl Harbor 80 years later and Lincoln used that to justify raising an army to preserve the Union.

Most wartime Presidents overstep their authority, including some of Lincoln's predecessors. The Constitution was designed to allow that to happen, knowing that the powers entrusted only to other two branches and the States could hold the Executive in check if necessary. Or at least they could impeach after the fact. This was seen as preferable to the unworkably weak executive under the previous Articles of Confederation.

Somehow, I don't think suspension of habeas corpus and the imposition of an income tax falls under what flexibility the writers of the Constitution intended.

As I say, secession goes unmentioned in the Constitution as it was assumed that states, having voluntarily joined the Union, could voluntarily leave it.

Fen said...

Interesting that this thread has branched off into the emancipation, considering that the abolitionist movement was started by pesky Christians trying to impose their morality on the rest of us :)