I'd Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees - Charlie Hebdo Pays the Price for Free Speech

[element00]

Some are quiet but I have a good friend who is a Brit and just got back from England. He was telling me there are a lot of grumblings that the Premier League doesn't have enough English players too global. He noted that the nationalist front is alive and well there.

Agreed. I haven't been home in a long time but my brothers there are living it every day. These guys are London massive, not white and a couple are Muslim, so again have to watch their backs depending on the suburb

 

[Millard]

Here is an informative Le Monde article on French laws regarding freedom of expression (speech). It is in French but the Google translation is decent:

https://translate.google.com/transl...-d-expression_4555180_4355770.html&edit-text=

 

[heady muscle]

Jeremy Scahill on CNN

 

[flenser]

The Cato Institute...I remember something about them and their founders, the Koch brothers. Can't put my finger on it, I just remember it wasn't good. Everybody has an agenda.
Course I do feel safer. What with all these new laws and regulations, I especially like the cameras, gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Cato was co-founded by Rothbard. He had a falling out with Koch and Crane around 1980 due to a shift from pure (Rothbardian) libertarianism to something that gave them more influence in DC. It has had a spotty record since, often coming in on the pro-war side, but there are a LOT of good writers there still.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Religions do not tend to be unchanging monolithic entities. They adapt and change. At any given point in time their may be multiple versions or strains of a particular religion. A single religion can have various interpretations, many of which may be incompatible with each other. From what I've seen, people conveniently tend to make religion whatever they want it to be.

Why do you think Islam is different?

The answer to your question is too complex for a single post. The short answer is that Islam isn't so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political ideology with a religious component.

I'll try to give you a more detailed explanation for why I think Islam is different.

It's compulsory for Muslims to follow the sharia - a highly specific legal and political plan that governs every aspect of the Muslim's life (and I mean EVERY aspect). Even rules for things as simple as washing yourself or the elimination of bodily waste can be found in the sharia. For Muslim's living in a non-Muslim liberal democracy, the sharia takes precedence over the law of the land when the two conflict.

Islam's stated goal is world domination, not peaceful coexistence as equals with the disbelievers. The Quran commands Muslims to spread the faith by force:

"8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it)."​

The above are only a few examples of commands to spread Islam that are in the Quran. Unlike the descriptive passages of violence in the Bible, the violent passages in the Quran are prescriptive and open-ended. That is, they still apply today. This is an important distinction and it explains why you cannot find a single example of a Christian or Jew invoking scripture to justify violence, but examples of Muslims doing so are commonplace.

The Quran itself is not subject to interpretation because Muslim's are commanded to adhere to a strictly literal interpretation. The scriptures in the New and Old Testaments are considered by Christian's and Jew's to have been "inspired" by God, and thus subject to interpretation, whereas the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the direct word of God, and as such, not subject to interpretation. For that reason, the Islam practiced today is essentially unchanged from the Islam practiced in 610 AD. That's why you see floggings, stonings and amputations still being practiced in Muslim countries that are under the sharia today.


In addition to the fact that Islam is a supremacist ideology, the Quran forbids Muslims from befriending disbelievers. This is one of the reasons that many Muslim immigrants fail to assimilate when other immigrants like Hindus and Buddhists are assimilating easily. From the Quran:

5.51. "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

3.38. "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..." This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that "believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly."

3.118. "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand." This verse not only warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims as friends, but it establishes the deep-seated paranoia that the rest of the world is out to get them.

9.23. O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers" Even family members are not to be taken as friends if they do not accept Islam. (This is the mildest interpretation of this verse from the 9th Sura, which also advocates "slaying the unbeliever wherever ye find them").

53.29. "Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world."​

I'm not saying that all Muslims adhere to those commandments. One of the similarities Islam shares with other religions is that not everyone is all that serious about practicing the religion. Some are Muslim in name only, others only take part during religious holidays, some don't care, some want no part of jihad, etc. And in many non-Arabic regions in the world, Muslims have no idea what the Quran says because they are unable to read it. Most Qurans are written in Arabic.

Regarding your point that "at any given point in time their may be multiple versions or strains of a particular religion. A single religion can have various interpretations, many of which may be incompatible with each other." This is true of Islam as well. But like the different Christian denominations, the different sects of Islam share a common core.

These are just a few of the reason why I don't believe Islam is capable of coexisting within Western liberal democracies. There is so much more. To gain a better understanding of Islam, I recommend The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran by Robert Spencer, and Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Sharia Law by Nonie Darwish.

Just because Western liberal democracies and religious pluralism have not prevailed in predominantly Islamic cultures does not necessarily mean Islam is fundamentally incompatible with it. A similar argument could have been made about other religions before they encountered Western democracy. But the religions adapted.

Why are you convinced Islam is different?

Middle East Quarterly Spring 2007, pp. 71-79; Can There Be an Islamic Democracy? Review Essay
by David Bukay
http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy

Political Science Quarterly, Summer 1984, p. 214; Will More Countries Become Democratic?
Samuel P. Huntington
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/huntington-samuel_will-more-countries-become-democratic-1985.html

 

[BBC3]

Mommy, What did the man hit the other man in the head?? Why do big people fight? He is afraid of him. Why is he mean to him? Did he cry..? I don't understand...

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

French Muslims feel deeply torn by viral ‘I am Charlie’ slogan
By http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/anthony-faiola (Anthony Faiola) January 13

GENNEVILLIERS, France — Rather than fall quiet as requested during a national minute of silence last week, three boys in Hamid Abdelaali’s high school class in this heavily Muslim suburb of Paris staged an informal protest, speaking loudly through all 60 seconds.

Across France, they were not alone. In one school in Normandy, some Muslim students yelled “God is great!” in Arabic during that same moment. In a Paris middle school, another group of young Muslims politely asked not to respect the minute, arguing to their teacher, “You reap what you sow.”

Abdelaali, a 17-year-old high school senior who did observe the quiet minute, said he did so only because he was outraged by the killings in the name of his religion that were carried out at Charlie Hebdo — the http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/three-days-that-changed-three-lives-and-all-of-france/2015/01/10/b2924dec-9825-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html (satirical French newspaper attacked by Islamist extremists). But he also said he feels disgusted by a newspaper whose provocative cartoons had used the image of the prophet Muhammad for satire — and which continued to do so in its tragicomic first edition hitting newsstands Wednesday morning. “I know some kids who agreed with the attack,” he said. “I did not, but I also cannot say that I support what Charlie Hebdo is doing.”

Within France’s Muslim community of some 5 million — the largest in Europe — many are viewing the tragedy in starkly different terms from their non-Muslim compatriots. They feel deeply torn by the now-viral slogan “I am Charlie,” arguing that no, they are not Charlie at all.

Many of France’s Muslims — like Abdelaali — abhor the violence that struck the country last week. But they are also revolted by the notion that they should defend the paper. By putting the publication on a pedestal, they insist, the French are once again sidelining the Muslim community, feeding into a general sense of discrimination that, they argue, helped create the conditions for radicalization in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/they-are-not-charlie/2015/01/13/7c9d6998-9aae-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html


French Muslim Students Refused to Honor Moment of Silence for Charlie Hebdo Attack

By Brendan Bordelon
January 12, 2015 11:36 AM

A nationwide minute of silence for the victims of the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices was not honored by some Muslim students in French schools, a BBC reporter claimed.

Following last Wednesday’s slaughter of 12 people at the satirical newspaper by Islamic terrorists, President Francois Hollande asked the French people to observe a moment of silence the following day.

But while most of the nation responded with an outpouring of grief and solidarity, one subset of the French nation was less-than-reverential.

“I’m already getting reports from people in France that some schools in those strongly Muslim neighborhoods, the kids didn’t stand for the minute’s silence,” BBC reporter Katty Kay said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “They see those attackers as heroes. How do we change that? Because that’s where the problem for Europe lies.”

Kay said the Muslim-dominated Parisian suburbs must be “detoxified,” explaining that radicalization is spreading rapidly within the French Muslim community.

Muslims worldwide were incensed by Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking their prophet Mohammed, with many calling for revenge attacks like the one finally carried out last week.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-moment-silence-charlie-hebdo-attack-brendan


Charlie Hebdo : ces minutes de silence qui ont dérapé dans les écoles
Caroline Beyer Mis à jour le 10/01/2015 à 09:14

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-fr...de-silence-qui-ont-derape-dans-les-ecoles.php

 

[flenser]

This is an important distinction and it explains why you cannot find a single example of a Christian or Jew invoking scripture to justify violence, but examples of Muslims doing so are commonplace.

I don't know what scriptures preachers quote when they are revving up the crowds in support of the US empire and its many violent wars. I stopped going decades ago. But to say biblical verses can't be or aren't used to justify violence is absurd. It's like saying the US Constitution can't be or isn't used to justify gun control. People do it everyday.

In any case, let me give you Hitler's favorite verse:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)

I know it means the exact opposite of how most Christian's take it, ditto Hitler's Nazi's. But I imagine it is still quoted in today's Christian establishments in the US and probably Germany too.

Now that I'm thinking of this crap some of it comes back to me... How about these?

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, (Titus 3:1)

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king; as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (1 Peter 2:13-15)

 

[Millard]

Pope Francis defended violence as a "normal" response to insults and provocation. Not only that, he said he would personally respond with violence to certain types of insults/provocation. For this reason, the Pope believes freedom of expression should be limited. These statements sound like the Catholic Church is "blaming the victim" for Charlie Hebdo attack.

Asked about the attack that killed 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo – targeted because it had printed depictions of the prophet Muhammad – he said: “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.

“There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”

He gestured to Alberto Gasparri, who organises papal trips and was standing by his side, and added: “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-limits-to-freedom-of-expression

However, it should be noted the The Guardian didn't include important portions of the Pope's remarks (context) that condemned the violence. Specifically, the Guardian exclude the statement that immediately prefaced the quote above:

"It's true that we can't react violently, but, for example if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend of mine, says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him,"

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pa...edom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

And broader statements that condemned "extremist interpretations of religion" that justify violence:

“I express my hope that religious, political and intellectual leaders, especially those of the Muslim community, will condemn all fundamentalist and extremist interpretations of religion which attempt to justify such acts of violence.”

Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/12/pope-francis-denounces-charlie-hebdo-attack-ukraine-and-middle-east-conflict

In other Catholic news, Bill Donohue, the president of the (American) Catholic League, published a response that was criticized as blaming the victim in the Charlie Hebdo attacks:

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

 

[flenser]

The Cathars just popped into my head. Absolute pacifists persecuted and eventually wiped out by the Catholic church. Makes me wonder which was the more extreme interpretation of Christianity.

 

[heady muscle]

Maybe it's a good time to share this ->

"Ignore the headlines. The world is getting safer all the time."

It's an interview with one of the editors of "http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Threat-Perception-National-Security-ebook/dp/B00OGQEZB4/ (A Dangerous World?: Threat Perception and U.S. National Security)".

The book was released by the Cato Institute and edited by Christopher Preble (Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies,and John Mueller (Ohio State professor and Cato senior fellow).

The books looks interesting, I probably will order it. Thank you for sharing Millard.

The Vox article is not far off. I think like anything else, things of this nature (i.e. violence) are very cyclical. And yes, coupled with that there is much more media coverage via the web and television than we never had.

I don't think the amount or level of violence has changed much in this world. Kind of like the amount of water that is on the earth doesn't change. But one thing has changed. Technology. Technology is a great tool if is used properly (yada, yada, yada). But the changes caused by Technology are much more dramatic every year, especially in violence and it's oppression ways.

You trade a billy club for a taser. The violence is the same. You add to a 125mm tank shell depleted uranium. Smart bombs over dropping thousand at a time.

With all this comes paranoia at all levels. One cause is the feeling of lack of freedom and fear of being hurt by this violence (oppression). You have the rich and powerful in fear of losing their place, a piece of land, their share of the pie. So they beat down the minions financially, physically and any other way. The minions react with violence on their fellow man. You get the picture.

But with this technological paranoia you also get oppression at every level that leads to the Patriot Act, cameras EVERYWHERE, every intersection on your computer and phone. And with every advancement in technology, the violence will advance.

Prior to the violence being escalated by the west in the mid east, Africa and other countries, most these places still were rudimentary. Leaving off the land and making their way by a plowshare and hope. Not a lot of "advancement," or technology. But the war against the earth, imagination took away their swords and clubs and gave them cell phones and machine guns

John Steinbeck had a great line from The Log of the Sea of Cortez: “If then this tendency toward collectivization is a mutation there is no reason to suppose it is for the better. It is a rule in paleontology that ornamentation and complication precede extinction. And our mutation, of which the assembly line, the collective farm, the mechanized army, and the mass production of food are evidences or even symptoms, might well correspond to the thickening armor of the great reptiles—a tendency that can end only in extinction.”

 

[Millard]

The short answer is that Islam isn't so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political ideology with a religious component.

It's compulsory for Muslims to follow the sharia - a highly specific legal and political plan that governs every aspect of the Muslim's life (and I mean EVERY aspect).

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response. The question of whether sharia law can be compatible with secular law is important. It is something I need to study further.

Nonetheless, I can tell you that your interpretation of Islam seems very consistent with the interpretation of Islam shared by Islamic extremists.

But most Muslims living in Western democracies are not religious extremists. And they don't agree.

Quran forbids Muslims from befriending disbelievers. This is one of the reasons that many Muslim immigrants fail to assimilate

I'm not saying that all Muslims adhere to those commandments. One of the similarities Islam shares with other religions is that not everyone is all that serious about practicing the religion.

You acknowledge that not all Muslims follow your interpretation. But you dismiss those people as being followers who are not serious about practicing Islam. That's convenient.

I'm sure Christian extremists similarly feel that all of those self-proclaimed Christians who do not share their interpretations are not serious Christians.

The large numbers of "not serious" Muslims and Christians might strongly disagree.

The Quran itself is not subject to interpretation because Muslim's are commanded to adhere to a strictly literal interpretation. The scriptures in the New and Old Testaments are considered by Christian's and Jew's to have been "inspired" by God, and thus subject to interpretation, whereas the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the direct word of God, and as such, not subject to interpretation.

Your assertion that Christians ARE allowed to have multiple interpretations but Muslims are NOT is also convenient to your argument but not convincing.

Islam's stated goal is world domination, not peaceful coexistence as equals with the disbelievers. The Quran commands Muslims to spread the faith by force

The above are only a few examples of commands to spread Islam that are in the Quran. Unlike the descriptive passages of violence in the Bible, the violent passages in the Quran are prescriptive and open-ended. That is, they still apply today. This is an important distinction and it explains why you cannot find a single example of a Christian or Jew invoking scripture to justify violence, but examples of Muslims doing so are commonplace.

Do you really think Muslims are the only ones to invoke scripture to justify evangelism and conversion efforts that involve violence? Are you sure there isn't "a single example of a Christian or Jew invoking scripture to justify violence"?

I admit that my knowledge of Islam is limited. But I disagree that Islamic extremism is the only possible outcome for Muslims.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I don't know what scriptures preachers quote when they are revving up the crowds in support of the US empire and its many violent wars. I stopped going decades ago. But to say biblical verses can't be or aren't used to justify violence is absurd. It's like saying the US Constitution can't be or isn't used to justify gun control. People do it everyday.

Prove it. Show me an example of a Christian invoking scripture to to justify violence and I'll happily retract that statement. Where are these Christian terrorists?

I'm not saying Christians haven't committed violence in Christianity's name, but they don't do it because there are commandments in the Bible ordering them to. No Christian can find an example from the teachings or example of Christ to support violence. You can easily find such commandments from Muhammed. Using Hitler as an example of Christianity is absurd.

BTW, I looked at an atlas and was unable to locate the US empire. Can you tell me where to find it?

 

[heady muscle]

BTW, I looked at an atlas and was unable to locate the US empire. Can you tell me where to find it?

CBS,
I enjoy many of your posts, but that is the most ridiculous item you every posted (while being serious), IMO.

The US military is stationed in approximately 150 countries out of a 196 in the world. The US will not draw a map nor will it be recorded by mainstream history writers/books. The US likes to fly under the radar. But if you truly need a map to locate the US Empire, follow where all the McDonalds, Pizza huts and Starbucks are all over the world, then play connect the dots and there will be your answer.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”
Owelle 1984

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...y-bases-worldwide-have-they-made-us-any-safer

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

CBS,
I enjoy many of your posts, but that is the most ridiculous item you every posted (while being serious), IMO.

The US military is stationed in approximately 150 countries out of a 196 in the world. The US will not draw a map nor will it be recorded by mainstream history writers/books. The US likes to fly under the radar. But if you truly need a map to locate the US Empire, follow where all the McDonalds, Pizza huts and Starbucks are all over the world, then play connect the dots and there will be your answer.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”
Owelle 1984

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...y-bases-worldwide-have-they-made-us-any-safer

Marxist propaganda!

Empires cannot fly under the radar. The British, Dutch and French had empires - the US does not.

merriam-webster

1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit

b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

​

 

[heady muscle]

Marxist propaganda!

Empires cannot fly under the radar. The British, Dutch and French had empires - the US does not.

merriam-webster

1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit

b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

​

​

Okay, we are entering into semantical query here. If the US is not an "Empire," how would you classify them?

And I am not Marxist. I don't care what Foxnews says. Marx had some good ideas, but so did the founder of Capitalism Adam Smith (free market at least). I can't say I really adhere to any 'ism.' Maybe Steroidism? Foodism...my Bonerism!

 

[kawilt]

"b: something resembling a political empire; especially: an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control"

Sometimes our "dictators" get a little out of control and have to be replaced.

 

[heady muscle]

merriam-webster

​

Since you are quoting merriam webster, you should look at their history and ownership. The easy name that owns them is: Encyclopædia Britannica. But if you follow the threads of the CEO or suchas Benton Foundation, Jacqui Safra.

"Safra's ownership, the company has experienced financial difficulties, and has responded by reducing the price of its products and implementing drastic cost cuts. According to a 2003 report in the New York Post, the Britannica management has eliminated employee 401(k) accounts and encouraged the use of free images. These changes have had negative impacts, as freelance contributors have waited up to six months for checks and the Britannica staff have gone years without pay rises.[58]" From wikipedia.

 

[flenser]

Prove it. Show me an example of a Christian invoking scripture to to justify violence and I'll happily retract that statement. Where are these Christian terrorists?

I'm not saying Christians haven't committed violence in Christianity's name, but they don't do it because there are commandments in the Bible ordering them to. No Christian can find an example from the teachings or example of Christ to support violence. You can easily find such commandments from Muhammed. Using Hitler as an example of Christianity is absurd.

BTW, I looked at an atlas and was unable to locate the US empire. Can you tell me where to find it?

I gave you three examples. They are used routinely to command people to submit to and obey the government which commits violence. And incidentally, you said nothing about terrorism. You said violence, and dropping bombs on innocent civilians is violence as well as terrorism. Sending people to prison for political crimes is violence. Executing criminals is violence, is well supported by the Old Testament and never denounced in the New.

I live among devout church going Christians, they are some of the most violence supporting people I have ever known, and they are not the exception. I'm considering starting an argument with my brother this weekend on various violent acts he strongly supports and recording the scripture he throws at me.

Are you claiming all the crusades were enacted without invoking scripture? All those knights weren't care free about killing, looting and raping because they were given God's permission and exoneration? Do I really need to dig up the scriptures that were used, probably out of context, to justify this? Would you prefer Charlemagne to Hitler?

I think when you said violence, you meant terrorism, and by terrorism you meant individuals or groups of "extremists" running around blowing shit up and shooting people. But violence has a lot of different forms, and terrorism shouldn't be denied just because it's employed by government. And if Christians submit to and support government because of scripture, then scripture supports violence.

W.r.t. the US empire I'm not going to take you seriously. You know exactly what it is and where to find it.

 

[kawilt]

Well...This looks pretty violent:

Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.” When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6: 16-20)