• Our popular and beloved forums are finally back, after being down since April 2018 due to hosting and server issues. We have now switched to a better platform, while maintenaing all data as it was before (contents and user names) . Thank you for your patience and loyalty. If you have any questions, need to report an error, or are having trouble logging in, please email us at: assyrianvoice@rogers.com

Accept a kurdish country


Active member
nejepnerast said:
let me put it for you in simple terms . Colonization had nothing to do with religion but, Church in the name of God did horrible things to the colonized regions . No?
Of course. That, I agree with, and I never denied it anyway. It was all a concoction anyway (patriotism, racism, nationalism and religion).

Try to separate the two and their crimes just for the sake of discussion . The state did it in the name of the state and the church committed the crime in the name of God . Both no Good , ,My focus is on the Christianity's crime which you are defending by constantly throwing other crimes committed by the state or other religions and you think that is a defense ?
Yes, both horrible crimes, and I never defended it. My main point was that Christians have stopped being barbaric, unlike many Islamic peoples.

You validate and defend the crime committed by the church as a thing of the past and should just be wiped out and forgotten and my question was and still is how would you feel if we used your logic about Assyrian prosecution ? what you wrote does not answer my question . I know I'm being Sly here because neither answer would be to your advantage , but you put yourself in this situation  .
I never validated the crime of the church. Saying that patriotism and racism was mostly behind killing of natives and that Christianity is not violent today has nothing to do with me saying "the church is innocent". Why do you always twist my words and get me wrong?

So you defense is that there is better, less violence , more peaceful religion (as you wrote above ) than Christianity , So Christianity is terrible in compare , but ,but  not as bad as Islam lol ?.
Yes and no. Christianity is a fairly average religion, has equal amount of good and bad, but it's neither a terrible religion nor a really great one. Islam, on the other hand, is more harmful than the rest. Again, I'm speaking within the 21st century sense. Last time I checked, you and I live in 2017, not 1017. So again, be more coherent and reasonable here.

simply not true . show me . You have nothing to say or defend christainity , so you tattoo islam on me . That is the real projection :)
Okay, then admit that Islam is a far more dangerous and harmful religion in this century, whereas Christianity is now benign in comparison (in which it is, if you check your statistics)? Would that be so hard? Enough of your historical excuses ("but the Church killed people too").That's why I'm accusing of having an Islamic-bias. They have these symptoms. ;)

Religious believes in general are not d?fendable and can never be validate it with logic . To run away Christians generally will throw islam at you  . Notice the trend , every question you want to avoid or you throw islam in there .
So you feel uncomfortable when I criticize Islam and see it as the worst one? I thought I was the Muslim-minded one here. I'm sorry, but a lot of people would find Islam to be a threat, from atheists to Buddhists, considering its atrocities in the 21st century. Clearly Islam is the bigger problem. Christianity just pales in comparison nowadays. Agree with this or not? Don't go with "well, if churches had power today they'll be violent" - That's a hypothesis and it's trivializing Islam, don't you think? "What ifs" aren't a rational comebacks, don't you think?

Defending religious believe could be frustrating and religious people tend to be touchee abit , but i'm glad you are not offended .
And I'm glad that we're having a nice debate about this, despite our little mordant responses. :)

so there is a statue of limitation :) . You are hilarious
Of course there is limitation. What you did 2500 years ago is nothing compared what you did 100 years ago. This fact. But you'll deny it of course, since your agenda is to make Christianity seem as bad as Islam because of its violent history. Who is hilarious now? Lmao.

Again you are avoiding the question by throwing multiple issue all over the place Try to focus on the question . how is me saying they are both equally bad makes me bias towards one ? Do you even understand the word bias ?
Because they are not equally bad, especially within the modern day context. And you're confusing Christianity with Christians. Christianity, as a doctrine based on Jesus, is far more superior than Islam and the Hadith. If you're not biased, you wouldn't bring history to criticize modern Christianity as you're doing. Because that's intellectually dishonest.

Confucianism , Buddhism , Jainism are more of philosophical system and ethical teachings than religion .Try to stay on the topic of Christianity and do not hide behind the good and bad of other believes or teachings .
They're still religions, either way. I've been on topic of Christianity the whole time here. You're the one who implied that all religions are bad. When they're not.

How is Assyrians and Armenians are more civilized and nonviolent ? Given a chance they will slaughter every turk and kurd and arab to get their ancient land back , No ? but they have no power ,so they claim the victim status and nonviolent . give me a break and enough with superiority complex . Both side , both religion are the same in terms of violence and do not make me start quoting the so called holy books  .
Aha, there you go with your hypothesis and "what-ifs". Whether you like it or not, Assyrians and Armenians are not as violent as modern day Islamic Kurds and Turks. Christianity is the reason why. The teachings of Jesus has moderated them. Pfft...You're going to quote their holy books? Lol, I have an inkling that you'll quote the Jewish books. You're really feeble, as I said. There is no superiority complex. But the teachings of Muhammad are much inferior than the teachings of Jesus. I'm sorry that you come from a violent ethnic background and religion. You have to get used it.

You see , you Christians and Muslims can never have a discussion with an atheist . A christian will accuse you of being Muslim and a Muslim will accuse you of being christian because both faith are not d?fendable , so they just exchange accusation about who is the worst , Exactly the way you do it . . Perfect for each other and exactly the same .
Whether I'm an atheist, a Christian or a Sikh, you still appear like a classically vexed Muslim apologist. It's reeking in your posts. You know deep inside that you're ashamed about the Islamic violence perpetrated by your people and religion, but you'll never admit it. Look at how emotional you're starting to sound now. You're exactly like a Muslim yourself. You're defending Islam by bringing up the history of Christianity. That's what your Muslims do. Such a cowardly and naive way to view things.

So should we just ignore the atrocities of Christianity just to make it look better then ? I mean that itself constitute weakness does not it ? That is political correctness if you even know what that mean .
Ignore it? No. But you can acknowledge that it happened. Too be too warped up about it is ridiculous, especially when we have modern Islamic terrorism and its barbarisms done its name. You seem to be doing that. That's major weakness right there.

Mention any Islamic atrocities and as an atheist i will not deny it or try to find an excuse for it like you do  , But any time Christian atrocities are mentioned you immediately turn the subject to islam as a way to defend yourself and your faith and you think that you are being  rational and coherent :). So you admit indirectly that Christianity as a whole is a terrible religion , but you are upset because it is compared to islam ? Seriously ?, that is what is upsetting you lol . So let us say islam is 100% bad what grade would you give Christianity as a whole and do not pick and choose ? 50% ? That is still does not make it good does it ? and you are an atheist ?
Of course I will turn to Islamic violence when Christian atrocities don't matter, as they happened in the past. How insensitive of me to brush off Islamic terrorism and think, "but the Inquisition!". That's what you're doing. Christianity is too bipolar and polarized. There are good and bad aspects in it, but today it's definitely more on the good side. Islam is more straightforward. I told you this.

here we go about how islam is bad again lol . You avoided the question again and used islam as a cover again .
Islam is straightforward and is much more atrocious compared to Christian doctrines (excluding the Jewish ones). That was my point. If you want, Christianity's only savage doctrine is its idea of hell and that nonbelievers would go with there. Except, we both know that hell doesn't exist. And Christians waiting for the Messiah are completely deluded and waiting for nothing. But you see, this idea is still better than killing infidels so you can be with 72 virgins, is it not?

I promise i will make a special post just to talk about how f...cked up islam is , but can we talk Christianity without islam for now and can we talk about it as a whole without cherry picking . Yes certainly all religions have some good aspects and Christianity is no different .
Some religions still have more good or bad material than other religions. This is fact. Why are you now fervently dismissing Islam? I thought this discussion was about Islam and Christianity from the get-go. What happened?

I love your analogy :), both religions are diseases and bad for human . I could not have said it better  . I will go with Ebola vs Polio
But are they both equally bad? That's where I digress. ;)

It is what it is and every atrocity committed proves my point and even the holy books proves what i say . Vatican as you said are a bunch of assholes who are in the business of making money and they are the richest non profit organization in the entire world . Why would they want to sacrifice all that ? if peace makes money for them then it is peace and if war makes money for them then it is war . I has been like this for them throughout history .
Perhaps. And you know what, I agree with this. You can say the Catholic church can commit murder again if they weren't fed with so much money. But my point was that Jesus, judging from his character, would be against so many atrocities of Christianity (even Gandhi said "your Christians are so unlike your Christ"). So that's why you cannot create a straight line between violent Catholics and Jesus, whereas you can do that with Islamic terrorists and Muhammad. You know, the two central figures. Can you at least understand that?

Again do not just throw mud . Show me how i trivialized Islamic atrocities .
Bringing up the violent atrocities of historical Christianity, saying Armenians and modern Assyrian can be as violent as modern Arab/Turkish Muslims, etc and etc.

Nooo , I was referring to your insinuation that somehow killing for Jesus makes you crazy and killing for mohamad makes the killing somehow valid . It is non sense and it is only in your head . Millions have been killed in the name of mohamd and jesus . What was the reason ? let me guess , misunderstanding of the words of mohamad and jesus . You see how similar you are ?
Not to sound rude, but do you lack basic comprehension skills or lack reading skills? You clearly had no idea what these two characters taught. Jesus taught peace. Muhammad did not. And I won't go any further. Stop your ludicrousness.

You mean the Fictional Characters of Jesus ? Spongebob is awesome too
Yes, and it's ironic that two fictional characters are much better people than those who actually did exist (Muhammad, Hitler, etc). Lol.

Nothing new here . All you are saying Christianity is good and islam is bad .I would advice you to avoid big words if you do not know what it means exactly . It makes your response contradictory and i do not want to get into correcting you .
Because Christianity is good compared to Islam. Stop crying about your native religion. You just have nothing constructive to say, so you give me this trite. Enough man.

One question though , Do you believe Christianity came from God ? I mean  the virgin merry , Son of God thing  ?
No. It was written in a book by a group of men.

No it does not make sense . Again nothing new
Of course, it goes against your Islamic apologia narrative. You're hurt and disheartened that Christianity has more redeemable qualities than Islam (turn the other cheek, do good to those who hate you, feed the poor, etc). Really sorry that your culture wasn't based on that.


Active member
Ezidi Kurd said:
You are a self-hating Semite. You have some serious issues and especially an inferiority complex.
It has been proven that the difference between Neolithic Levant/Semitic farmers and the Neolithic Iranian/Aryan Plateau farmers was bigger than differences between modern African and Chinese.
You're a self-hating Middle Eastern. You're just trying so hard to differentiate yourself from your Middle Eastern race when it won't work. You're not a western Iranian, Neolithic Aryan, Zagros dwelling Indo-European with fries and cream on top. You are a Middle Easterner to the world. That's how we all see you. Even your Kurdish friends here think you're a joke. Even they've had enough of your bullcrap. Because nobody falls for that Aryan/Semitic BS.  :giggle:

Levantines and Iranians are distinct ethnic groups of the same Middle Eastern or Mediterranean race. But you're too stupid to realize that. Or maybe you do, and you're suffering from an inferiority complex about it. Now whether you like it or not, you are related to Arabs and Jews - Even if other Iranid people are closer to you, Arabs and Jews are in your vicinity (ouch). You will always be a Middle Eastern subtype. But of course, since you have nothing in return, you bring up neolithic times and how your Assyrian relatives have African blood from 9000 years ago (ignoring the fact that this DNA will subside after that time). Lol.

Nobody will ever call you Indo-European (just the same we won't be called Semites), despite you speaking their language btw. No one will use "Semite", not unless if they have a language in their mind. You only do so to fuel your separatist, self-hating agenda - That you're "magically" not part of the Middle Eastern race and of a bullsh!t "Aryan" race or something. :lol:

People migrated out of Africa maybe 50000 years ago. We are talking about 9000 years ago. There is a HUGE gap between 50000 and 9000.
Except that there's also a huge gap between 9000 years ago and today. Your people are not how they were 9000 years ago, as the Assyrians, Turks, Jews, Mongolians, etc and etc. Heck, if your ancestor from 700 years ago had an Asian parent, it will not show in your DNA. Amazed at how ignorant you are, honestly. But again, you're a troll with a racist agenda, so you'll ignore this. As I said, even your Kurdish counterparts here think you're a pathetic joke.

Semites ARE a separate race. Semites have a lot n3gr0 blood/DNA in them. Proto-Semites are originally from the Eastern Africa. This is a fact.
There is a Middle Eastern race. You and I are part of it. Nobody uses the obsolete term "Semitic race", unless if they believe in the bible (you idiotically do somehow, but since you have a dumb agenda I wouldn't be surprised). "Semitic" is used by the few stupid Kurds like yourself to feel "superior" to Middle Eastern peoples and act as if they're European/Caucasian. Sorry bub, but you still cluster with Arabs and Jews (your Gedmatch even showed us that). No matter how much difference you see between Western Iranians and Levantines, they'll still be of the same MIDDLE EASTERN race as ethnic groups, like Chinese and Vietnamese. You'll always be akin to not only Persians and Afghans, but other Arabs as well.

Dude, 9000 years ago we could have Mongoloid in us and god knows what else. Doesn't mean it'll show up today in our genes. Love how you're so stupid, oblivious and ingenuous. Also, you know very well that modern Somalians and Ethiopians have no genetic ties to modern Assyrians (and that hurts you, so that's why you jump back to 9000 years). And FYI, Proto-Semitic language came from the Levant. It then spread to east Africa. Gulf Arabs are the only ones with African blood. But you're too stupid to know that, since your enviousness is aimed at Assyrians. :giggle:

As long you will continue to speak a Semitic language your people will be always be considered as Semites. Even when you go to look like Chinese as long you speak Semitic you will be always Semitic.
As long as you originate from the Middle East and look Middle Eastern, your people will always be considered Middle Eastern. Even when you look Chinese, as long as you're from the Middle East, you're Middle Eastern.

My description is more of a reality though, since the world will always refer to you as Middle Eastern, akin to your Arab and Jewish brothers and sisters. There are so many Iranians btw who proudly self-identify as Middle Eastern. Obviously you wouldn't do that because you have an inferiority complex. Since you're a white wannabe (it shows, because you hate "negroids") you will call yourself Nordic terms such as Aryan to separate yourself from your Middle Eastern race. Pathetic man, but funny really.  :lol:

It doesn?t matter how much you are mixed with people in the Mesopotamia. You have still a lot n3gr0 blood/genes in you.
I don't know how obtuse or uneducated you are, but you must know the proto-Semitic language started in the Levant where it spread to Africa. If anything eastern Africans have Levant in them. And since you're in the Middle East, you'll also have African blood in you from no more than 15,000 years ago. You and I, my self-hating friend, are still more African than eastern Asians, Indians and Nordics. That's just geographical and biological fact.

Honestly, are you mistaken for a negro yourself? Lol. I think you psychological issues, and you're throwing it out on the Assyrians. You're jealous that we look less African than you? Just admit something. You're really sick in the head. Are you coping with white racism? Must suck to look like a terrorist, huh?

Semites are Afro-Asiatic people. And you will be always parlty Africa. Now get the f*ck out of the Sumerian/Aryan Northern Mesopotamia and go back to Africa, where you belong!
Nice, but people will never see you as an Indo-European race. You will always be Middle Eastern. Try harder. But it seems like your brain is not functioning well again. Confusing a rather enormous language family (constructed by humans) with a race. But you're right. I was so stupid. I am a Negroid and I am akin to my neigbhours, the Chads and Somalians. Gee, how could I never know? I mean look at the resemblance!

No matter how "Afro-Asiatic" we are, you are still a Middle Eastern [insert racial slur] to so many eyes and will be confused for a Muslim terrorist. Everyone will always see you as the guy of "Middle Eastern or North African appearance". I know a lot of Iranian criminals in Australia labeled as that. That part makes me happy, because Kurdish separatists like yourself burn in the inside when nobody uses the terms "Aryan appearance" or whatever Nazi term you like for your kind. :wavetowel:

Because you already think like a n3gr0. You have a mentality of an African!
You probably look really African or stereotypical Arab, and you're throwing it on the Assyrians as many of them don't look typically Arab, like your Aryan president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who looks really Arab). Not sure about you, but Iranians have a more stereotypical Arab/African look than Assyrians. Just because you're the most Afro-Arab looking, doesn't mean you should be so hostile and jealous of your ethnic neighbours who look less African than you?  :lol:

P.S. You're probably not a Yazidi. This is becoming obvious now, as you're still persistently using the term "Semite". You're a deluded Kurdish Muslim who believes that his Jewish and Christian counterparts people came from Shem.