You're changing the subject AGAIN.
You said ONE RELIGION has a monopoly on atrocities. That is PATENTLY FALSE. You're trying to create some great boogeyman to attack so you can justify your prejudice.
Oh you win...the award for being the board's most annoying poster. Good Lord, even Tibs at times capitulates to a degree. Yet you, on one single page, look like a drunken fool who can't remember what he's said, who gets owned by the other posters, then claims victory. It's like watching the Special Olympics.
Let's recap for our viewers shall we?
Hamster said specifically -
"I will never defend any atrocity that is done in the name of any religion. One religion seems to have a monopoly on it today."
Now Steel, I want you to pay very close attention to detail this time, ok, but his choice of words are very very important? Eyes and ears to the chalkboard now: He said one religion (obviously and clearly meaning Islam) seems to have a monopoly on atrocity done in the name of religion...[drum roll]...
today.
Your reply to him
introduced the Burmese (note Hamster did not. This is pertinent later). Your reply also falsely introduced the "Zionist Israelis" as an example of another religion committing atrocities in the name of religion. Those "atrocities" (I like to call them self defense)
aren't committed in the name of religion. This is the error you continue to commit over and over in these threads, introducing Israel as comparable to Islam. It's not, not in the least, and you'll lose that argument 10 times out of 10. They happen to be Jewish, but Judaism isn't teaching them to go kill their enemies.
You listed half a dozen other examples of
groups/countries committing atrocities, but none of them are doing it in the name of religion. They are doing it in the name of drugs, land, oppression. Islam is doing all of this because their God teaches them to do so. This is a fundamental point you refuse to learn.
Your statement after those examples was this gem:
"Islam has absolutely NO monopoly on violence or heinous acts in the modern world."
Speaking of changing the subject man. Your statement is correct, Islam doesn't have a monopoly on violence in the modern world. But that isn't what Hamster said, now was it? He said it's the only "religion" that does. You now get the comedy in this correct? You rebut using completely different points and tenets for your argument - comparing countries, organizations and yes some religions erroneously (that are not acting because their religion told them to) to Islam. You just skirted Hamster's valid, accurate point. You side stepped it and changed the basis for the discussion.
So let the evidence stand for the court, that Steel Vanguard changed the subject. Not the other way around.
Now for the Burmese...
You introduced the Burmese, originally. Hamster challenged your introduction of the Burmese as evidence. This is a valid, linear extension to a discussion. You introduced the concept, he challenged your facts around the concept, and then boom...in Special Olympics style...you call him out for changing the subject. I mean, seriously...WTF man LOL. One can only shake their damned heads at this "Clown Car" episode you put forward all over page 9 of this thread.
Making this
most comical is your claim of victory.
I'll give you this, you are entertaining in that sort of lap dog kind of way.