ISIS execute 13 football fans by firing squad

[Solid at the back]

Religion is the biggest con, ever, what a load of nonsense

 

[Hillian1]

Religion is the biggest con, ever, what a load of nonsense

You are now on the list.

Praise Alan.

 

[Hastings gull]

I agree I think that is what he meant too.

I think the trouble with the situation is that too many people blame 'Islam' for this kind of stuff. This is causing more friction between the Muslim community and everyone else. This friction inevitably pushes more people to the extremes of their particular side (both sides). So the upshot of us blaming Islam for every done it its name (however twisted and *******ised) is that we have more extremists Muslims despite the fact that logic of doing so is heavily flawed.

To be fair to Mustapha, I think he was right in his assertion in the larger thread, that we must not blame all muslims for the evil deeds, as this drives them into one camp and non muslims into another accordingly, which is what you are saying. The solution, presumably, is to stay calm, try to work together and accept that evil is perpetrated by the minority. But, sadly, this becomes ever more difficult, as tit for tat random violence polarises opinions, and the extremists drag in more and more support.

 

[Withdean11]

Please do not criticise Islam. Tonight I had a meal with 3 Muslims, we sat and prayed for victims of what ISIL do, you have no idea how much normal peace loving Muslims hate these people.

Islam is a religion of peace, but just like any other belief system you can twist anything it and use it as an excuse for your actions. As has been shown throughout history, not just with Islam.
These people are not Muslims.

Looking at the quran and the sharia law, you could argue that this is the other way round and that these are the REAL muslims..

 

[BadFish]

I agree I think that is what he meant too.

I think the trouble with the situation is that too many people blame 'Islam' for this kind of stuff. This is causing more friction between the Muslim community and everyone else. This friction inevitably pushes more people to the extremes of their particular side (both sides). So the upshot of us blaming Islam for every done it its name (however twisted and *******ised) is that we have more extremists Muslims despite the fact that logic of doing so is heavily flawed.

To be fair to Mustapha, I think he was right in his assertion in the larger thread, that we must not blame all muslims for the evil deeds, as this drives them into one camp and non muslims into another accordingly, which is what you are saying. The solution, presumably, is to stay calm, try to work together and accept that evil is perpetrated by the minority. But, sadly, this becomes ever more difficult, as tit for tat random violence polarises opinions, and the extremists drag in more and more support.

The trouble is that the media perpetuates this angle and highlights Islamic terrorism over anything else and will always play up the Muslim angle of any situation. Let's face it the situation in Sydney last year was far more to do with mental health issues and a lax judicial system than Islam. Is it some kind of fundamentalist that can't get the writing correct on his flag. Yet the media tried to frame it as Islam terrorism. Thankfully most were not fooled, perhaps we are getting wise to this con.

Here are a few attacks that were not carried out by Muslims. Did these receive less coverage than those carried out in the name of Islam?
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

TEA PARTY AND THE RIGHT
10 of the Worst Terror Attacks by Extreme Christians and Far-Right White Men
Most of the terrorist activity in the U.S. in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.
By Alex Henderson / AlterNet July 24, 2013
Print
453 COMMENTS

From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice. Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev and the late Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (the Chechen brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013) are both considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam. And many terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who were neither Muslims nor dark-skinned.

When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.

Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.

1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer." When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.

Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for Godauthor Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, “I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn't get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.

4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.

Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.

6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D'Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.

7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.

8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.

9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.

Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995. Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist. Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack.

Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.

 

[Mackenzie]

Mental illness.

.

 

[Badger]

Looking at the quran and the sharia law, you could argue that this is the other way round and that these are the REAL muslims..

This is the problem, looking at the quran and sharia law you could argue pretty much ANYTHING to justify your actions. It's exactly the same with the bible, and there have probably been far more Christian extremists in history than there have been Muslim ones.

I find it hard to read articles like that without getting very ANGRY at people's sick and twisted logic.

 

[father_and_son]

A satellite dish on a roof may have told the Jihadists where to look for people watching TV content they consider worthy of execution for.

I often feel the same way about Sky TV... too soon?

 

[BadFish]

This is the problem, looking at the quran and sharia law you could argue pretty much ANYTHING to justify your actions. It's exactly the same with the bible, and there have probably been far more Christian extremists in history than there have been Muslim ones.

I find it hard to read articles like that without getting very ANGRY at people's sick and twisted logic.

I am no expert in the Quran but much seems to depend on which version or translation you use. As a rule book by which to life your life it is too ambiguous to be taken used with any clarity. Much like the bible as you say. But this is why religion has such wide appeal, If you can read the book and take what you need from it then it appears to hold "truth" for everybody. But if its truth for one can be the opposite of truths for another then it really sin't much use.

I find that the irony of the bible is that the 10 absolute rules (for want of a better word) that are unambiguous are largely ignored and instead we take our cues from the more cryptic passages. It astounds me that we have built our entire moral, political and social systems from such easily twisted logic.

Fairly simple instructions aren't they. Just ignored by so many of our Powerful Christians:

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

 

[Hastings gull]

I am no expert in the Quran but much seems to depend on which version or translation you use. As a rule book by which to life your life it is too ambiguous to be taken used with any clarity. Much like the bible as you say. But this is why religion has such wide appeal, If you can read the book and take what you need from it then it appears to hold "truth" for everybody. But if its truth for one can be the opposite of truths for another then it really sin't much use.

I find that the irony of the bible is that the 10 absolute rules (for want of a better word) that are unambiguous are largely ignored and instead we take our cues from the more cryptic passages. It astounds me that we have built our entire moral, political and social systems from such easily twisted logic.

Fairly simple instructions aren't they. Just ignored by so many of our Powerful Christians:

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

I don't know enough of the bible to comment on whether its ambiguous or not, but I do rather feel that you over-state your case here -there is still much good in the world, as there always has been, and I don't think you could reasonably claim that the 10 commandments, however old-fashioned in their wording, are largely ignored.

 

[father_and_son]

I am no expert in the Quran but much seems to depend on which version or translation you use. As a rule book by which to life your life it is too ambiguous to be taken used with any clarity. Much like the bible as you say. But this is why religion has such wide appeal, If you can read the book and take what you need from it then it appears to hold "truth" for everybody. But if its truth for one can be the opposite of truths for another then it really sin't much use.

I find that the irony of the bible is that the 10 absolute rules (for want of a better word) that are unambiguous are largely ignored and instead we take our cues from the more cryptic passages. It astounds me that we have built our entire moral, political and social systems from such easily twisted logic.

Fairly simple instructions aren't they. Just ignored by so many of our Powerful Christians:

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

The Qur'an is actually fairly straight forward other than the disputes about how to translate the Arabic accurately when its not taken in its original language. The rest of the religion doctrine rests on the Hadith which are the teachings of the Prophets. These, like much of the bible can be taken in a literal or figurative sense and, obviously, are set at a certain time with certain cultural norms that most people consider no longer valid. Therefore, among more moderate muslim sects, the scholars work to re-interpret the deeper meaning to apply to a modern world while the more traditionalists try to deny the modern world because it doesn't fit with their interpretations of the text.


With the more vocal Christians, the most amusing thing is the fact that many of the "rules" spouted are from a book that is explicitly discounted later in the bible. In brief, Jesus dying releases Christians from the rules laid out in Leviticus, hence the lack of sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc in Christianity. Therefore, quoting back these defunct rules (often out of context or incomplete!) is, for Christians, explicitly denying the role of Jesus in their own religion. But for God's sake don't tell them this, they tend to get all hissy about it!

 

[Hillian1]

Give us $200 Million or we kill the hostages.

http://news.sky.com/story/1411186/is-demands-200m-ransom-for-japan-hostages

Religion of Peace etc, etc, etc.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

To be fair, I think the post actually meant that these animals are not representative of what he thinks the majority are like, and this was his point, rather than they are literally not muslims. Much of is made, understandably enough, of the fact that the jihadists. or whatever other description of them you fancy, make up a small minority, that minority may have larger support than we care to imagine. I could be wrong, of course, but the support for, shall we say, a less moderate form of Islam in the UK seems to be growing, and sadly, a well-organised, possibly well-armed, determined, and ruthless minority tends to hold sway over the more lethargic majority. I am not saying we are there (yet?) but the risk becomes ever greater.

This was my point!
Basically I'm saying these people are not representative of the vast vast majority of Muslims (as I posted last night) it's way under 0.1% of all Muslims who would support Daash. Sit down with real Muslims, talk to them about their faith and people will realise they are not representative of Muslims.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I remember listening to a muslim cleric on this very issue after the Paris murders.He was saying there is a wide debate going on amongst muslims of how to eradicate the extremists out of their religion.He also added there are some people usually non muslim who have taken a misguided approach in labelling these people as not muslim at all. They are very much muslims, he said,just very bad muslims.Labelling them as not muslims is completely unhelpful to the wider debate going on in the muslim community he said and simply tries to stifle those trying to make progress on the issue.

Sorry I don't know how to reply to multiple posts in one quote, but that's the Immans view. I can only take what I think from every single Muslim I have met, and they have all said they are not Muslims.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

What is going on in these blokes heads to think " My God believes a group of teenagers and a magician entertaining people must be murdered " ? It is truly fcked up

 

[BadFish]

I don't know enough of the bible to comment on whether its ambiguous or not, but I do rather feel that you over-state your case here -there is still much good in the world, as there always has been, and I don't think you could reasonably claim that the 10 commandments, however old-fashioned in their wording, are largely ignored.

Maybe not as a whole but some have certainly been ignored. Thou shalt not Kill is completely unambiguous and cannot be taken any other way. Yet supposed Christians have been killing for centuries. Read the same for Thou Shalt not steal. How can those who claim to be Christian justify killing when it directly and definitely says in the bible that we should not.

My point is that these are direct instructions and some of them have been largely ignored. Whereas some Christians are still trying to decipher how we should feel about gays using ambiguous and cryptic passages from the bible. I am not christian but have read both bibles and to me the teachers of Jesus are massively ad odds to the ideals of our Neo Con (usually claiming to be Christians) leaders. IMHO Jesus advocated loving everybody and treating everybody well, including and especially those less fortunate. He directly positioned himself away from the money lenders and with the disabled and others on the fringes of society.

 

[BadFish]

The Qur'an is actually fairly straight forward other than the disputes about how to translate the Arabic accurately when its not taken in its original language. The rest of the religion doctrine rests on the Hadith which are the teachings of the Prophets. These, like much of the bible can be taken in a literal or figurative sense and, obviously, are set at a certain time with certain cultural norms that most people consider no longer valid. Therefore, among more moderate muslim sects, the scholars work to re-interpret the deeper meaning to apply to a modern world while the more traditionalists try to deny the modern world because it doesn't fit with their interpretations of the text.


With the more vocal Christians, the most amusing thing is the fact that many of the "rules" spouted are from a book that is explicitly discounted later in the bible. In brief, Jesus dying releases Christians from the rules laid out in Leviticus, hence the lack of sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc in Christianity. Therefore, quoting back these defunct rules (often out of context or incomplete!) is, for Christians, explicitly denying the role of Jesus in their own religion. But for God's sake don't tell them this, they tend to get all hissy about it!

I didn't realise this, So Jesus dying kind of nullified the old testament?

In that case Christians should be kind of groovy hippies into unity and loving and looking after everyone.

 

[pastafarian]

He directly positioned himself away from the money lenders and with the disabled and others on the fringes of society.

perhaps he could(or his old man for that matter)heal an amputee,he can bring the dead back to life "allegedly".......how hard can it be?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

You are wrong, they clearly consider that they represent Islam, you are entitled to think they don't.

To suggest different is naivety, no matter how laudable your motive.

To put it another way, one pitch invader from the home end does not mean ALL Derby fans want to invade the pitch, but he is still undoubtedly a Derby fan. To suggest he is not a Derby fan would be ridiculous.

This goes back to my point about relativity and subjectivity. For 99.9% of Muslims they see what Daash are doing and are horrified, both Sunni and Shia, as I've said in another post (apologises) every Muslim I have spoken to has said these are not Muslims, but more acceptable is that they are not at all representative of the peaceful faith they practice.

The sooner people realise you can twist anything and manipulate your behaviour because of a certain belief system the better. Islam for 99.9% is a religion of peace, just like 99.9% of Christians and Derby fans, we should be better than 'tarring all with the same brush'.

Just as a postscript, the Derby chairman came out and said the bloke shouldnt be considered a Derby fan.

 

[BadFish]

perhaps he could(or his old man for that matter)heal an amputee,he can bring the dead back to life "allegedly".......how hard can it be?

Well according to his past deeds i reckon with our level of heathenness we should be expecting a rather large Flood.........I am off to build an arc.