re islamic genocide in article qu o horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes in article qkovl k fido asd sgi com livesey solntze wpd sgi com jon livesey writes false dichotomy you claimed the killing were not religiously motivated and i m saying that s wrong i m not saying that each and every killing is religiously motivate as i spelled out in detail which killings do you say are religously motivated for example i would claim that the recent assassination of four catholic construction workers who had no connection with the ira was probably religously motivated at the time of writing i think that someone who claims the current violence is motivated by religion is reaching what would you call is when someone writes the killings in n i are not religously motivated now it s possible to argue that religion in the past is a major contributing factor to the violence in the present but i don t know of any evidence that this is so and i m not enough of a historian to debate it given that the avowed aim of the ira is to take northern ireland into a country that has a particular church written into its constitution and which has restriction on civil rights dictated by that church i fail to see why the word past is appropriate but to claim that the killings in n i are not religously motivated is grotesque all that means is that the church and believers are doing what they always do with history they can t face they rewrite it you re attacking a different claim my claim is that when an ira terrorist plants a bomb in warrington s he does not have as a motive the greater glory of god sorry frank but what i put in quotes is your own words from your posting qi b ec horus ap mchp sni de don t tell us now that it s a different claim if you can no longer stand behind your original claim just say so i mean the same thing when i say the killings in n i are not religously motivated as i do when i say when a terrorist plants a bomb s he doesn t have a religious motive the example is meant to clarify not to be a new claim the different claim to which i refer is the claim which you were seemingly attacking in the previous post namely that religion is not a major historical cause of the present violence i don t assert that nor do i assert its opposite you don t have to hand us a bunch of double talk about what i was seemingly attacking i quoted what i was attacking jon
