Blackwater boss a christian on 'crusade to wipe out muslims'

The boss of a private American security firm under investigation for murdering civilians in Iraq has been accused in court papers of seeking to wipe out Muslims.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince ‘views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,’ according to a former employee.

One, an employee for four years, claimed Prince encouraged his staff ‘to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis.’

He added: ‘It appears that Mr Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who had provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct.

‘Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...cused-crusade-wipe-Muslims.html#ixzz0NmpI5QcP

 

If they were really "murdering Iraqis"... that's bad.
If they were killing MUslam Nutjob ExtremISt WhackOs!!! So what. Good for them.

What amazes me most about these "Mercenary" types is that Americans flocked by the droves to see guys like Chuck Norris, Rambo, Arnold and others portray solider turned defender of the free world kick as and kill terrorists and communists in the name of truth justice and the American way.

When someone does it for real they cry foul. Whatever. I guess we'll have to wait and see to find out what really did or did not happen here.

 

How in the world this guy if he did what he is occused of - killing muslims to wipe them out can call himself Christian?
He may be just hating muslims, but he is in no way Christian.
If he did that stuff, he is noting less than a criminal.
Somebody must tell him that Jesus preached "Love your enemies."

 

I think even americans can tell the difference between a film and real life.

 

I was under the impression he was just "accused".

I would not give all American's that much credit. Look at "Loose Change"

 

People of "faith" rarely actually follow what their books tell them. Most just pick out the bits that support which ever views they already have.

Like how most right wing christians who are anti gay and pro war select the bit about homosexuality being an abomination and ignore the bit about loving your enemy and turning the other cheek. The truth is most "christians" don't actually believe it any more than i do, the only difference is they happen to hold opinions that can only be justified if they invent some supreme deity and claim he agrees with them.

 

Kinda defines the difference between, terrorist/extremist and "Follower".

 

Why wouldn't someone be an extreemest if they believe a book is written by god? If someone believe the OT or Quran is the word of god why wouldn't they kill children who curse them or the "infidels"?

The moderates in religion are the ones who don't actually believe it but think it mes them look good if they claim to believe it or those who have an agenda which can only be justified by the claim that god agrees with them. I mean, what better justification is there for homophobia than the
bible?

 

Is this a rhetorical question? If not, I'll answer. Why? Ah, they do!!! Most of them to follow it; DO!

I'm not sure how the "Bible" can be justification for homophobia when it eludes to the fact that it exists, while also stating that "in literal view" that it condemns it.

However, "Moderates" as you might call them would also indicate that the passages that refer to homosexuality in the "Bible" are open to interpretation.

Here's a good place to look at the differences between what one might interpret the "Bible" to mean: http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm

 

Well interpretation certainly has been used to hammer the square peg word of god in to the "believers" round hole opinions, which is the point. A pro-war homophobe is as likely to interpret it in a way which supports their views as an anti-war liberal is.

 

Do realize too, that what is being interpreted is being done using documents that have already been "interpreted", or translated. Much has obviously been lost in translation.

What's with all the "homophobe" stuff btw? Its my understanding that the reason the "Bible" asks that man not lie down with man has NOTHING to do with a moral quandary, but rather everything to do with the idea of reproduction. "Be fruitful and multiply". I'm more akin to the idea that God intended man and women (of every species) to reproduce to popluate his world. Somehow I find trouble with this idea that the "Bible" or religions in general are "homophobes" for clinging to this idea of "reproduction". Not all of us have "moral" issues with regard to homosexuality. It's already clearly evident that the behavior is quite natural in humans, as well as other speicies.

End of the day? Who gives a crap? Do what comes natural. I think we've got the reproduction thing covered many times over.

 

The New Testament is very clear with respect to homosexuality - there isn't any wiggle room, "interpretation," "context" or otherwise:

All the monotheistic traditions have an issue with homosexuals - in Paul's words, the "due penalty" was death; Islam (I don't believe there is anything in the Qu'ran; but Sharia, as practiced in Iran, prescribes death - I'd have to allow muslims to chime in here as I'm less clear) and Judaism (Leviticus: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.") - prescribe the same penalty.

One cannot condemn Muslims for their religion's view of homosexuals (and many other things), and then pretend the Bible is all flowers and light with respect to many of the same issues.

Similarly, one cannot castigate those Muslims who ascribe things to historical context, and live by their modern sensibilities, while choosing to do the very same thing with respect to his or her own religious tenements. In other words, so long as a Christian, for example, chooses to allow "each to their own," and not, say, murder a witch - "thou shall not suffer a witch to live"*** - or take no issue with homosexuals, it is hypocritical to take issue with Muslims choosing to live their life out with a similarly modern worldview.

To do so is simply to push a biased line.

***Let's not forget Sarah Palin's pastor; a literal "witch hunter." It's relevant, as 2012 is around the corner, and this bail-my-job ex-guv is clearly jockeying for position.

 

The idea that homosexuality is natural in human beings completely contradicts the notion of a perfect God.

 

I agree north. Calling homosexuals an abomination is as homophobic as calling black people an abomination is racist. The bible is very clear about homosexuals, they are an abomination and should be killed. Something which even the most right wing "Christian" would have trouble admitting publicly, even if they do agree with it privately.

 

How so? God created us in his own image. Who's to say God is imperfect because homosexuality exists? It obviously existed in God himself with respect to the creation of man. I fail to see 1) where the contradiction is and 2) why you think homosexuality is the opposite of "perfect".

Where the hell does it say that? I guess an ignorant understanding of the literal translation of Leviticus 20:13 might bring one to assume this is the case, but I assure, you it is not.

Where does the "Bible" say homosexuals are an abomination? Where does it say they should be killed?

 

Leviticus 20:13 is very clear mia, don't fall foul of the same dishonest tactic of "context" which you are quick to criticise Muslims for. You seem to be very unrelactant to apply the same standard to your own religion as you demand Muslims apply to theirs.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

In Islam there's no punishment by the way of killing one human being unless he kills others first (with conditions). Homosexual is haram in Islam. Allah forbids those act. However that does not justify anyone to kill them. Only Allah have the rights to punish them in the hereafter.

 

1. Not my religion.
2. "Bible" is not a "religion."
3. The literal translation is what is "very clear", not the reality.
4. Muslims are asked to act on the literal. There's a huge difference there.

The problem as I see it is that the original Hebrew has been translated over and over to mean something more than what was written. Words like death, sex, intercourse, abomination, etc., have been interjected into almost every modern day translation of this verse.

Are we all to assume that the inference of man lying with man to mean they are having sex? I really do not believe the verse is clear at all. The translations of it out there are indeed VERY CLEAR as you indicated.

However one interprets this, the reality is, no one is putting people to death for this on the Christian side of faith. If we are applying standards, I'd argue that the difference is that Christians typically tend to apply their own faith and understanding rather than take literal the interpretation of leaders of the faith or their direction.

 

Mia, Christians aren't putting people to death because they're hypocrites. They are more reasonable.. usually, yes, but this also makes them hypocrites.

What part of the text is to be taken literally and which part is to be, well.. entertained? If you're going to be a bible thumper and push your stuff on others, I'd expect you to adhere strictly to the text.. and live savagely.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that "to lay with a man as one would lay with a woman" could mean something other than sexual intercourse? Cmon mia, as contradictory, hypocritical and futile as your argument is you can do better than denying the patently obvious, probably. You are reminding me of the Muslims and their futile defence of the indefencible.

I thought you were a member of one of hundreds of Christian denominations. I understand if you don't want to admit to it, I wouldn't either.