Nagaland Rebels and their Christian friends, a loving group

NOTE: The Nagaland Rebels (1947-present) are a Christian organization active in the predominantly Christian state of Nagaland in India. They were involved in several bombings in 2004. Their goal is independence from India after annexing parts of neighboring Indian states and Burma if it has Christian majority.



The ceasefire-driven ‘normalcy’ continues to have an extraordinary meaning in Nagaland. Despite two of the principal insurgent groups entering into separate cease-fire agreements with the Union Government in New Delhi, at least 108 deaths have been reported in 2007, positioning Nagaland in the third place in the vortex of violence in the States of India’s Northeast, behind Assam and Manipur. Fatalities in 2007 are marginally below the 147 deaths reported in 2006, but this represents little improvement in the circumstances in Nagaland, where the insurgents continue to exert a vice-like grip over every walk of life.

See, you don't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist.

Surprised you didn't post the IRA

catbox_9 wrote:

See, you don't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist.

Yeah

But the problem is not with Hindus in India

But Al Queda trying to destroy America


And the simple fact is that Muslim terror groups are more of a threat than isolated Christian terror groups

gs78 wrote:

Surprised you didn't post the IRA

They're been pretty peaceful lately so I didn't pick them. I was going to pick Army of God since they're fairly violent, but they are only believe in murdering abortionists. While most Christians don't (I hope) believe that murder of abortionists is justifiable, they would agree (I think) that abortionists are evil.

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

See, you don't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist.

Yeah

But the problem is not with Hindus in India

But Al Queda trying to destroy America


And the simple fact is that Muslim terror groups are more of a threat than isolated Christian terror groups

While Al Queda is almost certainly the biggest/most "important" (or something) terrorist organization in the world and while they are Muslim extremists, that does not mean all people from the Middle East or all Muslims are terrorists and want to destroy America and kill Christians. EVERY religion has its extremists, but people shouldn't lump everyone in with the extremists.

Most Americans probably don't know a lot of Muslims and most of what they hear about is Al Queda so Americans by and large are pretty anti-Muslim and that just isn't fair.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Surprised you didn't post the IRA

They're been pretty peaceful lately so I didn't pick them. I was going to pick Army of God since they're fairly violent, but they are only believe in murdering abortionists. While most Christians don't (I hope) believe that murder of abortionists is justifiable, they would agree (I think) that abortionists are evil.

I think Pat Robertson supports Army of God

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

See, you don't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist.

Yeah

But the problem is not with Hindus in India

But Al Queda trying to destroy America


And the simple fact is that Muslim terror groups are more of a threat than isolated Christian terror groups

While Al Queda is almost certainly the biggest/most "important" (or something) terrorist organization in the world and while they are Muslim extremists, that does not mean all people from the Middle East or all Muslims are terrorists and want to destroy America and kill Christians. EVERY religion has its extremists, but people shouldn't lump everyone in with the extremists.

Most Americans probably don't know a lot of Muslims and most of what they hear about is Al Queda so Americans by and large are pretty anti-Muslim and that just isn't fair.

However;

Al Queda is growing

And they have grown behind the Middle East Sphere

Indonesia has a high number of Al Queda Members

The problem in the Middle East is most of those countries are set up terribly. They need a complete overhaul of their governments. The other problem is the way we're trying to do it. They don't need our system of government, just a different one. There are lots of successful nations other than the United States, any of those models would work fine, too.

Although I'm defending Muslims left and right, I do not agree with using the Qu'ran as their Constitution. Look at every successful nation in the world - none of them use religious texts as their Constitution. There are plenty of deeply religious, successful countries that have perfectly secular Constitutions. With the wrong people in charge, little power to the general population, and religious-based Constitutions, you can have huge problems as religious texts can be interpreted in the wrong way if the wrong people are doing it (just google "Christian Terrorism" and you'll find lots of Christian terrorist groups, too....the difference is they have no power so they don't accomplish much).

Of course if those nations do get secular Constitutions, they shouldn't be vastly different from the Qu'ran - leave stuff open to the people, that's the only way to have a successful nation.

catbox_9 wrote:

The problem in the Middle East is most of those countries are set up terribly. They need a complete overhaul of their governments. The other problem is the way we're trying to do it. They don't need our system of government, just a different one. There are lots of successful nations other than the United States, any of those models would work fine, too.

Although I'm defending Muslims left and right, I do not agree with using the Qu'ran as their Constitution. Look at every successful nation in the world - none of them use religious texts as their Constitution. There are plenty of deeply religious, successful countries that have perfectly secular Constitutions. With the wrong people in charge, little power to the general population, and religious-based Constitutions, you can have huge problems as religious texts can be interpreted in the wrong way if the wrong people are doing it (just google "Christian Terrorism" and you'll find lots of Christian terrorist groups, too....the difference is they have no power so they don't accomplish much).

Of course if those nations do get secular Constitutions, they shouldn't be vastly different from the Qu'ran - leave stuff open to the people, that's the only way to have a successful nation.

I doubt the Muslim extremists will stand for secular nations in the region

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

The problem in the Middle East is most of those countries are set up terribly. They need a complete overhaul of their governments. The other problem is the way we're trying to do it. They don't need our system of government, just a different one. There are lots of successful nations other than the United States, any of those models would work fine, too.

Although I'm defending Muslims left and right, I do not agree with using the Qu'ran as their Constitution. Look at every successful nation in the world - none of them use religious texts as their Constitution. There are plenty of deeply religious, successful countries that have perfectly secular Constitutions. With the wrong people in charge, little power to the general population, and religious-based Constitutions, you can have huge problems as religious texts can be interpreted in the wrong way if the wrong people are doing it (just google "Christian Terrorism" and you'll find lots of Christian terrorist groups, too....the difference is they have no power so they don't accomplish much).

Of course if those nations do get secular Constitutions, they shouldn't be vastly different from the Qu'ran - leave stuff open to the people, that's the only way to have a successful nation.

I doubt the Muslim extremists will stand for secular nations in the region

That's the problem. People let the extremists have so much power it's going to be impossible to fix the situation. I've never been to the Middle East, but from people I've talked to that have been/lived there, most people there don't want Al Queda in charge. They don't want Americans to die, and they don't want to be violent.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

The problem in the Middle East is most of those countries are set up terribly. They need a complete overhaul of their governments. The other problem is the way we're trying to do it. They don't need our system of government, just a different one. There are lots of successful nations other than the United States, any of those models would work fine, too.

Although I'm defending Muslims left and right, I do not agree with using the Qu'ran as their Constitution. Look at every successful nation in the world - none of them use religious texts as their Constitution. There are plenty of deeply religious, successful countries that have perfectly secular Constitutions. With the wrong people in charge, little power to the general population, and religious-based Constitutions, you can have huge problems as religious texts can be interpreted in the wrong way if the wrong people are doing it (just google "Christian Terrorism" and you'll find lots of Christian terrorist groups, too....the difference is they have no power so they don't accomplish much).

Of course if those nations do get secular Constitutions, they shouldn't be vastly different from the Qu'ran - leave stuff open to the people, that's the only way to have a successful nation.

I doubt the Muslim extremists will stand for secular nations in the region

That's the problem. People let the extremists have so much power it's going to be impossible to fix the situation. I've never been to the Middle East, but from people I've talked to that have been/lived there, most people there don't want Al Queda in charge. They don't want Americans to die, and they don't want to be violent.

I think McCain would do a better job in Middle East Relations than Obama;

We have to stay the course

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Surprised you didn't post the IRA

They're been pretty peaceful lately so I didn't pick them. I was going to pick Army of God since they're fairly violent, but they are only believe in murdering abortionists. While most Christians don't (I hope) believe that murder of abortionists is justifiable, they would agree (I think) that abortionists are evil.

I think Pat Robertson supports Army of God

Actually; I was joking on that


He might not

gs78 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Surprised you didn't post the IRA

They're been pretty peaceful lately so I didn't pick them. I was going to pick Army of God since they're fairly violent, but they are only believe in murdering abortionists. While most Christians don't (I hope) believe that murder of abortionists is justifiable, they would agree (I think) that abortionists are evil.

I think Pat Robertson supports Army of God

Actually; I was joking on that


He might not

From what I can tell he's not a member. Still, I wouldn't want him near my kids (if I had any)......

(On feminism): "[feminism is a] socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

(On September 11): "[it was caused by] pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way."

(On acceptance of homosexuality): "[it could lead to] possibly a meteor."

(On Chinese abortions): "[they are] doing what they have to do"

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would bring only Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. 'What do you mean?' the media challenged me. 'You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, 'Yes, they are.'"

(On liberal professors) "[They are] racists, murderers, sexual deviants and supporters of Al-Qaeda"

And my personal favorite.....
(On Hugo Chavez) "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop."

Where exactly in the Bible does it say "though shall kill"?

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Surprised you didn't post the IRA

They're been pretty peaceful lately so I didn't pick them. I was going to pick Army of God since they're fairly violent, but they are only believe in murdering abortionists. While most Christians don't (I hope) believe that murder of abortionists is justifiable, they would agree (I think) that abortionists are evil.

I think Pat Robertson supports Army of God

Actually; I was joking on that


He might not

From what I can tell he's not a member. Still, I wouldn't want him near my kids (if I had any)......

(On feminism): "[feminism is a] socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

(On September 11): "[it was caused by] pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way."

(On acceptance of homosexuality): "[it could lead to] possibly a meteor."

(On Chinese abortions): "[they are] doing what they have to do"

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would bring only Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. 'What do you mean?' the media challenged me. 'You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, 'Yes, they are.'"

(On liberal professors) "[They are] racists, murderers, sexual deviants and supporters of Al-Qaeda"

And my personal favorite.....
(On Hugo Chavez) "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop."

Where exactly in the Bible does it say "though shall kill"?

George Bush is a terrorist. I imagine McCain would pretty much "stay the course" on that as well.

He sure "terrorizes" me with his plan to slash Medicare and Health Benefits for the poor and needy.....