Dipping bullets in pork to demoralize terrorists.

[Happy Times]

Anyone with knowledge in Islam know if this will have any effect,
if seen by a terrorist?:hmm: Hope so :rock:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d3b99daae

[robbo180265]

Hardly winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the ordinary Muslims though is it?

How do you think they're going to feel when they see this?

[Polak]

I would bury the remains of suicide bombers under pigfarms.

[Dowly]

Thank you. I just add this to my "Americans: Why do they hate us so much" folder. :nope:

[STEED]

The biggest weapon on this planet is the media.

[SUBMAN1]

I love it. It is fitting that they die and be one with the pigs they despise so much.

And to the post above about why they hate Americans so much - ask yourself who hated whom first? Yes we, hate terrorists and always will and anything that we can do to make their life miserable is a good thing in my book.

We didn't hate them - they made us hate them. We need to quit dancing aroudn the rose bush like everything is fine and wake up to the fact that those roses have thorns and go ahead and fight fire with fire.

-S

[DanCanovas]

i have no sympathy for them

[The Noob]

This is illogical and primitive.

[Letum]

The British army tried this in India in the colonial days.
It was a total failure and caused a huge increase in the violence against the colonialists.

Then, as now, it should be obvious why this idea is a very poor one.

[bradclark1]

Put the thing in perspective for goodness sake.

[Tchocky]

This forum is bloody hilarious today....


"Lets dip bullets in pork"

[Camaero]

If it pisses off terrorists, then good. They are pigs anyway.

[Dowly]

I love it. It is fitting that they die and be one with the pigs they despise so much.

And to the post above about why they hate Americans so much - ask yourself who hated whom first? Yes we, hate terrorists and always will and anything that we can do to make their life miserable is a good thing in my book.

We didn't hate them - they made us hate them. We need to quit dancing aroudn the rose bush like everything is fine and wake up to the fact that those roses have thorns and go ahead and fight fire with fire.

-S

But you have to remember that the terrorists arent the only ones with that specific religion. How would it feel like, if I would come to 'help' your country with a bloody crusifix strapped to my gun and with a big text 'G-d is a c**t!' on my helmet?

The soldier in the vid is making fun of their religion, I bet the Iraqis wont be smiling about it.

[CCIP]

This is illogical and primitive.
Even the forum's official noob says so. :roll:

Come on people - whatever they are, what are you achieving by dipping bullets in pork? I'd understand if the pork made the bullets faster or more deadly, but geez.

The pork is not for the dead. It doesn't matter to a dead terrorist whether he's been shot with lead, pork or coleslaw. The pork is to piss off the living, and will inspire more hate, including in those who might not have been terrorist to begin with.

This is indeed very primitive. You might as well start parading heads on stakes and re-introduce the gibbet for displaying your latest terrorist. Cause the message you're delivering with this is equivalent :-?

[robbo180265]

Phew!! at least a couple of you saw what I was getting at. The more you alienate Muslims the more terrorists you create. Don't give them any more reasons to hate us.

Remember we Brits had that attitude in Northern Ireland and look where it got us.

Every time something like that film gets an airing another terrorist is born!

[Onkel Neal]

Phew!! at least a couple of you saw what I was getting at. The more you alienate Muslims the more terrorists you create. Don't give them any more reasons to hate us.

Remember we Brits had that attitude in Northern Ireland and look where it got us.

Every time something like that film gets an airing another terrorist is born!

Ok, then let's carve little Koran scriptures in the bullets :)

[bradclark1]

And people wounder why PC runs rampant.:roll:

[dean_acheson]

Phew!! at least a couple of you saw what I was getting at. The more you alienate Muslims the more terrorists you create. Don't give them any more reasons to hate us.

Remember we Brits had that attitude in Northern Ireland and look where it got us.

Every time something like that film gets an airing another terrorist is born!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevil_Chamberlain

Did you vote for this guy?

Since when do crazy islamic fanantics worry that flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousnads of innocent people will alienate folks in the west?

[robbo180265]

Then again maybe you didn't:o

[Boris]

Funny on the face of it... but this is another one of those little things that equates muslims and islam to terrorism.

Most people don't seem to realise that the war on terror is in fact against terrorism and not a crusade against islam.

This will probably just anger muslims in general, and create more terrorists.

Here's a great little flash game for you guys to play:

http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

[ASWnut101]

Phew!! at least a couple of you saw what I was getting at. The more you alienate Muslims the more terrorists you create. Don't give them any more reasons to hate us.

Remember we Brits had that attitude in Northern Ireland and look where it got us.

Every time something like that film gets an airing another terrorist is born!

Ok, then let's carve little Koran scriptures in the bullets :)


:rotfl: I love those single-post one-liners from you! I recon that this will be the only post of your's until the thread gets locked... really nice.:p :up:

[Skybird]

Reciprocity is the magical word for me. Treat them the same way their scriptures demand them to treat us infidels. Take the same attitude and stand towards them like they take towards us. Practice the very same kind of "dhimmitudish" ruling towards Muhammedan living in the West, like the Quran teaches Muhammedans to practice towards infidels in Muhameddan spheres of influence. Declare the right to claim land you set your foot into to be your own until all end of time, and make it a law to deal brutally with every Westerner not agreeing with this and question your motives.

If their teachings are right, if we copy them this way it should lead to global peace, tolerance, and serve the best of the single one, and the best of all mankind. If it does not acchieve this, than it means their teachings are not worth the breath it takes to speak them out.

Try to find historical evidence for the Islamic claim that it is about peace. What you find is the history of the biggest and longest and most far-leading military conquest of human history. Neither the Romans, nor the Mongoles nor the chinese kingdoms nor the age of European imperialism or the German Nazis can rival it.

And if such reciprocity in dealing with Islam leads to even more intolerance and violance and hate and wishes for submission in the world, then it means that their teachings are bad and evil. For a recipe that works bad when being used by an infidel, cannot suddenly be any better if it is used by a Muhameddan.

Stop having wellmeaning and self-deceiving illusions about Islam. Look at the status it led Islamic societies to over the last 14 centuries. If Islam is so right and wonderful, why did it lead Arabic societies to social stagnation, and loosing the educatioinal and scientific superiority Arabia had over Europe in the Medieval - before Muhammed appeared?

Why is a man who intimidated others, forced their surrender by violence, gave orders for assassination, blackmailed protection money, massacred whole tribes and murdered even male children of even the yolungest ages while leading all females into slavery and sexual exploitation, who started and ordered 60-70 wars and predatory raids, and whose only idea to defend himself against criticism was to throw critics into prisons, murder them and claim that he was acting in the name of some god - why is such a Mafiosi and mass-murderer still accepted as a holy man, a preacher of peace and freedom - when all he had to show in his deeds was submitting others, act with aggression, teach hate and intolerance against all who refused his authority and power, rob others, and wade in blood thoughout the better part of his life...???

Judge Islam - not by our standards, but by it's own standard. Learn to differ between what you want it to be (with the intention to make it something that you can deal with according to your own standards and instruments), and what it really is. Stop being a fool. Start to be a realist. Stop reading the Quran. Read history books. And then try to find parrallels to the teachings of humanistic philosphers of the West, Buddha or Jesus. You will fail. Islam is the anti-thesis to it all. It is not the victim, but the perpetrator. where it is violant, it does not violate it's teachings, but fulfills them.

Islam says that all what is is it's own sooner or later, and that it has the obligation to help that fate to become fulfilled. You bettter start to take that serious. the history of the Nazi'S rise shows that you do need only a gang of five or ten determined thugs taking on their black gloves to intimidate and make stopping to maove and make turning around a demonstration column of hundreds.

Stop being so awfully cowardly in the face of the challenge of Islam's demand to be the ruler of all world, man, society, and culture. Confront it and turn it's own standards and values against itself. Not more, not less.

1:1 reciprocity. Just this, for the better - or the worse. Reciprocity. See yourself where it leads you.

[Skybird]

Phew!! at least a couple of you saw what I was getting at. The more you alienate Muslims the more terrorists you create. Don't give them any more reasons to hate us.

Remember we Brits had that attitude in Northern Ireland and look where it got us.

Every time something like that film gets an airing another terrorist is born!

Ok, then let's carve little Koran scriptures in the bullets :)


:rotfl: I love those single-post one-liners from you! I recon that this will be the only post of your's until the thread gets locked... really nice.:p :up:
Yes, I noted that comment too. Neal's one-liners are doomed to become classics one day.

[CCIP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevil_Chamberlain

Did you vote for this guy?

Since when do crazy islamic fanantics worry that flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousnads of innocent people will alienate folks in the west?

And that relates to pork-tipped bullets HOW? :hmm:

[Iceman]

I was gonna post but as I read down I saw Skybird posted and ..again...sums things up about Islam pretty good.I choose to look at it for what it is ..not what I wish it was. The absurdity of you who are trying to saw this will only "Create" more terrorists then so be it...if the people who watch this and then say to themselves they will strap on explosives and blow themselves up in some crowed market and kill 100's of innocent people in some act of desperation..then holy crap....to me it only proves the insanity of this religion and it's evil goals of total domination...it is evil..period....pork up!...FULL METAL PORK.

Nothing is evil in itself, it becomes evil to the one who thinks it's evil.

[SUBMAN1]

I love it. It is fitting that they die and be one with the pigs they despise so much.

And to the post above about why they hate Americans so much - ask yourself who hated whom first? Yes we, hate terrorists and always will and anything that we can do to make their life miserable is a good thing in my book.

We didn't hate them - they made us hate them. We need to quit dancing aroudn the rose bush like everything is fine and wake up to the fact that those roses have thorns and go ahead and fight fire with fire.

-S
But you have to remember that the terrorists arent the only ones with that specific religion. How would it feel like, if I would come to 'help' your country with a bloody crusifix strapped to my gun and with a big text 'G-d is a c**t!' on my helmet?

The soldier in the vid is making fun of their religion, I bet the Iraqis wont be smiling about it.
And your point is? We are not shooting law abiding good faithed Muslims here. We are shooting the scum of the Earth and any law abiding good faithed Muslim is not involved in this incident and should welcome the death of these people who tarnish their existence. If we were shooting law abiding good faithed Muslims for fun with bullets dipped in pork, then I'd say there might be an issue.

-S

PS. The Muslims you talk about already have issue with you by the way if they despise you for bullets dipped in pork since they already assume you eat pork.

[August]

I see no proof that the maker of that video is a US serviceman. The hat isn't government issue nor is the shirt he's wearing. For all we know it could be some civilian fool trying to stir up trouble.

[U-533]

I say we deep freeze the pigs dip them in bullets and launch them at the intended targets...:huh: :o :hmm:

A modified 'Rooster Booster'* should do the trick ...:smug:


* Rooster Booster : Cannon used to excelerate various fowl to terminal velocities into airplane parts in an attempt to duplicate 'Bird Strikes'**

** Bird Strikes : Some birds become so religious they commit suicide by flying into larger flying objects in an attempt to obtain the 72 virgin chicks and insure a place in 'Bird Heaven'***

*** Bird Heaven : One of two final eternal destinations in the bird after life. A place of eternal pleasure. Bird Heaven is obtained by doing good though out earthly life. If birds cannot do good though out earthy life they go to 'Bird Hell' ****

**** Bird Hell : One of two final eternal destinations in the bird after life. A place of eternal torment. The easiest of the eternal destinations to get to. One bad thing in earthly life insures a place in 'Bird Hell'. One sure way to avoid this place is to bring down another flying object that does not have the same belief...The bigger the object the better and more assurance of 'Bird Heaven' ***



:smug: :know: :smug:

[U-533]

Dipping bullets in pork to demoralize Terrorist.

What a catchy title...
What other ways can you take this...
I have been laughing my butt off playing with these words...

Dipping Terrorist in bullets to demoralize pork:rotfl:

In Terrorist dipping pork to demoralize bullets:rotfl:

yep... i work to much
:sunny:

[John Channing]

A few quick thoughts.

1) Muslim's don't hate pigs.

2) "ask yourself who hated whom first?"

Well, when Richard the Lionhearted arrived in the Middle East and did not find the gold that God promised him in a dream he came to the only logical conclusion he could. Clearly the local's had swallowed it to hide it from him. Soooooo, he had over 3,000 women and children publically put to the sword to get it back (unsucessfully, of course).

Is that first enough for you?

3) Keep it cool, people.

[U-533]

A few quick thoughts.

1) Muslim's don't hate pigs.

2) "ask yourself who hated whom first?"

Well, when Richard the Lionhearted arrived in the Middle East and did not find the gold that God promised him in a dream he came to the only logical conclusion he could. Clearly the local's had swallowed it to hide it from him. Soooooo, he had over 3,000 women and children publically put to the sword to get it back (unsucessfully, of course).

Is that first enough for you?

3) Keep it cool, people.


I can go firstester...:smug:

Genesis chapter 16

This explains how the mother(Hagar) of all Muslims despised/or hated her mistress. I dont think you can get more firstier than that.:smug:

Now if you read you will find out how Islam and thus Muslim's came to being.

In particular interest read Genesis chapter 16 verse 12... What? No Bible? Ok heres the verse...I'll will start at verse 11 so we can get a name in there

11 And the angle of the Lord said unto her(Hagar), Behold , thou art with child, and shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Ish'mael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Anyway a whole new can of worms are now open...
:sunny:

[robbo180265]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:

[U-533]

2000 or more years of past history...

Ain't we supposed to learn from history?

[The Avon Lady]

2) "ask yourself who hated whom first?"

Well, when Richard the Lionhearted arrived in the Middle East and did not find the gold that God promised him in a dream he came to the only logical conclusion he could. Clearly the local's had swallowed it to hide it from him. Soooooo, he had over 3,000 women and children publically put to the sword to get it back (unsucessfully, of course).

Is that first enough for you?
I'll just copy and paste what I had to write to another history revisionist poster here about a month or 2 ago:
Why the Crusades Were Called

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem in 1099, according to journalist Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, was the "starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West." Islamic scholar and apologist John Esposito is a bit more expansive - he blames the Crusades ("so-called holy warriors") in general for disrupting a pluralistic civilization: "Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust."

Maalouf doesn't seem to consider whether "millennial hostility" may have begun with the Prophet Muhammad's veiled threat, issued over 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, to neighboring non-Muslim leaders to "embrace Islam and you will be safe." Nor does he discuss the possibility that Muslims may have stoked that "millennial hostility" by seizing Christian lands - which amounted to two-thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world - centuries before the Crusades. Esposito's "five centuries of peaceful coexistence" were exemplified, he says, by the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638: "churches and the Christian population were left unmolested." But he doesn't mention Sophronius' Christmas sermon for 634, when he complained of the Muslims' "savage barbarous and bloody sword" and of how difficult that sword had made life for Christians.


PC Myth: The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world

Wrong. The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: Early in the eighth century, sixty pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies - except for a small number who converted to Islam; and Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of others, even their own children.

Brutal subordination and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christian cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories. In the 960s, General Nicephorus Phocas (a future Byzantine emperor) carried out a series of successful campaigns against the Muslims, recapturing Crete, Cilicia, Cyprus, and even parts of Syria. In 969, he recaptured the ancient Christian city of Antioch. The Byzantines extended this campaign into Syria in the 970s.

In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever - and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. In 974, faced with a string of loses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Baghdad declared jihad. This followed the yearly jihad campaigns against the Byzantines launched by Saif al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi'ite Hamdanid dynasty in Aleppo from 944 to 967. Saif al-Dawla appealed to Muslims to fight the Byzantines on the pretext that they were taking lands that belonged to the House of Islam. This appeal was so successful that Muslim warriors from as far off as Central Asia joined the jihads.

However, Sunni/Shi'ite disunity ultimately hampered Islamic jihad efforts, and in 1001 the Byzantine emperor Basil II concluded a ten-year truce with the Fatimid (Shi'ite) caliph.

Basil, however, soon learned that to conclude such truces was futile. In 1004, the sixth Fatimid caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-hakim (985-1021), turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were patriarchs), ordering the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity. Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim gave his most spectacular anti-Christian order: He commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches (including the Church of the Resurrection). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, rebuilt by the Byzantines in the seventh century after the Persians burned and earlier version, marks the traditional site of Christ's burial; it also served as a model for the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Hakim commanded that the tomb within be cut down to the bedrock. He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and for Jews, heavy blocks of wood in the shape of a calf). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam of leave his dominions.

The erratic caliph ultimately relaxed his persecution of non-muslims and even returned much of the property he has seized from the Church. A partial cause of al-Hakim's changed attitude was probably in increasingly tenuous connection to Islamic orthodoxy. In 1021, he disappeared under mysterious circumstances; some of his followers proclaimed him divine and found a sect based on this mystery and other esoteric teachings of a Muslim cleric, Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Darazi (after whom the Druze sect is named). Thanks to al-Hakim's change of policy, which continued after his death, the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1027.

Nevertheless, Christians were in a precarious position, and pilgrims remained under threat. In 1056 the Muslims expelled three hundred Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. When the fierce and fanatical Seljuk Turks swept down from Central Asia, they enforced a new Islamic rigor, making life increasingly difficult for both native Christians and pilgrims (whose pilgrimages they blocked). After they crushed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and took the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, all of Asia Minor was open to them, and their advance was virtually unstoppable. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk emir Atsiz bib Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered three thousand people. The Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea that same years, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from there they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains.

The Christian empire of Byzantium, which before Islam's wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if death at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent. The Church of Constantinople considered the popes schismatic and had squabbled with them for centuries, but the new emperor Alexius I Commenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help.

- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131/sr=1-1/qid=1168414044/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1410328-2591853?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Robert Spencer
What? They didn't tell you any of this in history class? What? That's not the story you were told by Hollywood when you watched last years screen farce "Kingdom of Heaven"? I am shocked, utterly shocked, I tell ya! :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:
Yes, the problem is indeed that you can't see the difference.

[August]

2) "ask yourself who hated whom first?"

Well, when Richard the Lionhearted arrived in the Middle East

You mean to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims who captured it from the Byzantines?

In 614 the country fell to the Persians. The conquest of Jerusalem was a bloody affair in which thousands of inhabitants were massacred. Many churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, were destroyed and others were damaged. The sacred cross upon which Jesus was crucified was looted. Fifteen years later, in 620, the Emperor Heraclius restored Byzantine rule and returned the cross to its place. But within a decade, in 638, Jerusalem surrendered again, this time to the forces of a rising power on the stage of history -- the Muslim Arabs.

[August]

Darn AL beat me to it...

[robbo180265]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:
Yes, the problem is indeed that you can't see the difference.

No, the problem is that there IS no difference. You're all quoting stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago to justify your hate, Just like the fundamentalists of today.

Untill the world grows up and learns from its past we are all doomed to keep repeating it

[The Avon Lady]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:
Yes, the problem is indeed that you can't see the difference.

No, the problem is that there IS no difference. You're all quoting stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago to justify your hate, Just like the fundamentalists of today.

Untill the world grows up and learns from its past we are all doomed to keep repeating it
So you're saying that all the CURRENT DAY Islamic attacks against the non-Islamic world have nothing to do with the 1400 year old book?

Uh huh.

[robbo180265]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:
Yes, the problem is indeed that you can't see the difference.

No, the problem is that there IS no difference. You're all quoting stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago to justify your hate, Just like the fundamentalists of today.

Untill the world grows up and learns from its past we are all doomed to keep repeating it
So you're saying that all the CURRENT DAY Islamic attacks against the non-Islamic world have nothing to do with the 1400 year old book?

Uh huh.

No I'm not DUH!

I'm saying that you lot are exactly the same, both justifying your hate with stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago

Do pay attention 007:D

[The Avon Lady]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:
Yes, the problem is indeed that you can't see the difference.

No, the problem is that there IS no difference. You're all quoting stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago to justify your hate, Just like the fundamentalists of today.

Untill the world grows up and learns from its past we are all doomed to keep repeating it
So you're saying that all the CURRENT DAY Islamic attacks against the non-Islamic world have nothing to do with the 1400 year old book?

Uh huh.

No I'm not DUH!

I'm saying that you lot are exactly the same, both justifying your hate with stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago

Do pay attention 007:D
I truly don't think you don't catch on. No one here hates anyone for any event that took place 1400 years ago. That was water under the bridge way back when.

Try something more recent, like today, yesterday, the day before, last week, last month, last year, the past several years, past decades, even centuries.

[The Avon Lady]

Robbo, is Hirsi Ali also a xenophobe (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/06/video-ayaan-hirsi-ali-argues-with-alan-colmes-about-islam/)?

[jumpy]

lol

this thread tickled my funny-bone ;)

I have a more insulting idea than dipping bullets in spam -

Chop off the right hands of the bad guys and let them live with having to eat with the same hand they wipe their bottom with.

Come to think of it, how does Abu Hamza manage this? Last I heard there was going to be some special dude employed in his prison to help him out with his ablutions... hows that for respect in the nick? Get some biatch to wipe your backside for you lol Prisoner Cell Block H was so far behind the times back then :lol::lol:


Hehe, three pages of discussion over a U-tube (or whatever) movie :up: (where is the popcorn eating smilie when I need it?)

[Subnuts]

This will clearly lead to a new generation of pork-loving Islamic extremists who put bullets in their porkchops and throw them at unsuspecting market-goers.

[robbo180265]

2) "ask yourself who hated whom first?"

Well, when Richard the Lionhearted arrived in the Middle East and did not find the gold that God promised him in a dream he came to the only logical conclusion he could. Clearly the local's had swallowed it to hide it from him. Soooooo, he had over 3,000 women and children publically put to the sword to get it back (unsucessfully, of course).

Is that first enough for you?
I'll just copy and paste what I had to write to another history revisionist poster here about a month or 2 ago:
Why the Crusades Were Called

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem in 1099, according to journalist Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, was the "starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West." Islamic scholar and apologist John Esposito is a bit more expansive - he blames the Crusades ("so-called holy warriors") in general for disrupting a pluralistic civilization: "Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust."

Maalouf doesn't seem to consider whether "millennial hostility" may have begun with the Prophet Muhammad's veiled threat, issued over 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, to neighboring non-Muslim leaders to "embrace Islam and you will be safe." Nor does he discuss the possibility that Muslims may have stoked that "millennial hostility" by seizing Christian lands - which amounted to two-thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world - centuries before the Crusades. Esposito's "five centuries of peaceful coexistence" were exemplified, he says, by the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638: "churches and the Christian population were left unmolested." But he doesn't mention Sophronius' Christmas sermon for 634, when he complained of the Muslims' "savage barbarous and bloody sword" and of how difficult that sword had made life for Christians.


PC Myth: The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world

Wrong. The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: Early in the eighth century, sixty pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies - except for a small number who converted to Islam; and Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of others, even their own children.

Brutal subordination and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christian cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories. In the 960s, General Nicephorus Phocas (a future Byzantine emperor) carried out a series of successful campaigns against the Muslims, recapturing Crete, Cilicia, Cyprus, and even parts of Syria. In 969, he recaptured the ancient Christian city of Antioch. The Byzantines extended this campaign into Syria in the 970s.

In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever - and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. In 974, faced with a string of loses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Baghdad declared jihad. This followed the yearly jihad campaigns against the Byzantines launched by Saif al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi'ite Hamdanid dynasty in Aleppo from 944 to 967. Saif al-Dawla appealed to Muslims to fight the Byzantines on the pretext that they were taking lands that belonged to the House of Islam. This appeal was so successful that Muslim warriors from as far off as Central Asia joined the jihads.

However, Sunni/Shi'ite disunity ultimately hampered Islamic jihad efforts, and in 1001 the Byzantine emperor Basil II concluded a ten-year truce with the Fatimid (Shi'ite) caliph.

Basil, however, soon learned that to conclude such truces was futile. In 1004, the sixth Fatimid caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-hakim (985-1021), turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were patriarchs), ordering the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity. Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim gave his most spectacular anti-Christian order: He commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches (including the Church of the Resurrection). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, rebuilt by the Byzantines in the seventh century after the Persians burned and earlier version, marks the traditional site of Christ's burial; it also served as a model for the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Hakim commanded that the tomb within be cut down to the bedrock. He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and for Jews, heavy blocks of wood in the shape of a calf). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam of leave his dominions.

The erratic caliph ultimately relaxed his persecution of non-muslims and even returned much of the property he has seized from the Church. A partial cause of al-Hakim's changed attitude was probably in increasingly tenuous connection to Islamic orthodoxy. In 1021, he disappeared under mysterious circumstances; some of his followers proclaimed him divine and found a sect based on this mystery and other esoteric teachings of a Muslim cleric, Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Darazi (after whom the Druze sect is named). Thanks to al-Hakim's change of policy, which continued after his death, the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1027.

Nevertheless, Christians were in a precarious position, and pilgrims remained under threat. In 1056 the Muslims expelled three hundred Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. When the fierce and fanatical Seljuk Turks swept down from Central Asia, they enforced a new Islamic rigor, making life increasingly difficult for both native Christians and pilgrims (whose pilgrimages they blocked). After they crushed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and took the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, all of Asia Minor was open to them, and their advance was virtually unstoppable. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk emir Atsiz bib Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered three thousand people. The Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea that same years, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from there they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains.

The Christian empire of Byzantium, which before Islam's wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if death at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent. The Church of Constantinople considered the popes schismatic and had squabbled with them for centuries, but the new emperor Alexius I Commenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help.

- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131/sr=1-1/qid=1168414044/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1410328-2591853?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Robert Spencer
What? They didn't tell you any of this in history class? What? That's not the story you were told by Hollywood when you watched last years screen farce "Kingdom of Heaven"? I am shocked, utterly shocked, I tell ya! :roll:

"Try something more recent, like today, yesterday, the day before, last week, last month, last year, the past several years, past decades, even centuries".

You posted it hun, not me:D

[U-533]

Nice example of Xenophobia chaps!

And I must say using a book that was (allegedly) written 2 thousand years ago to justify your xenophobia is a nice touch (from where I'm sitting I really can't see a lot of difference between you guys and the fundamentalists that you hate)

And maybe that's the problem:hmm:
Yes, the problem is indeed that you can't see the difference.

No, the problem is that there IS no difference. You're all quoting stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago to justify your hate, Just like the fundamentalists of today.

Untill the world grows up and learns from its past we are all doomed to keep repeating it
So you're saying that all the CURRENT DAY Islamic attacks against the non-Islamic world have nothing to do with the 1400 year old book?

Uh huh.

No I'm not DUH!

I'm saying that you lot are exactly the same, both justifying your hate with stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago

Do pay attention 007:D

Well I ain't justifying my hate of xenos or whatever...using past or recent events.

Honestly, I only hate people who wish to control my way of life I have grown accustom to.

You wanted a more "Firstestyer" contest I gave you proof that the woman who conceived the Islamic people "Hated" first.:smug:

Now if it occurred 6000 years or just a few minutes ago...does not matter... the fact remains.

If you wish to discount the Bible as historic proof... because of "whatever"...:roll:

Then the prize goes to Avon Lady.

You at the out set did not specify a time frame.

Denying the past and or rewriting it to suite your ego is what keeps draging us back to war.:smug:

:sunny:

[The Avon Lady]

"Try something more recent, like today, yesterday, the day before, last week, last month, last year, the past several years, past decades, even centuries".
You posted it hun, not me:D
That was my response to John Channing regarding his historically misleading claims about cause and effect. This does not in any way contradict what I responded to you about current events.

Or can you not comprehend that? Or are you just trying to get off cheap?

[Letum]

What is your view on the origional topic Avon?

[The Avon Lady]

You wanted a more "Firstestyer" contest I gave you proof that the woman who conceived the Islamic people "Hated" first.:smug:
Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree! :nope:

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.
Denying the past and or rewriting it to suite your ego is what keeps draging us back to war.:smug:
:up:

[The Avon Lady]

What is your view on the origional topic Avon?
Dead pig is unclean according to Islamic law but that will not stop some Imam from finding a precedent or deriving a legal conclusion to issue a fatwa showing that an Muslim's soul will still achieve the highest levels in the world to come when dying in such a way during an act of Jihad.

I do not have the time right now to search for where I saw this discussed on Islamic sites quite some time ago.

While there are many incidents of Muslims becoming very agitated by live pigs or pig figures, you'll find no lack of fatwas saying that lives pigs are simply another one of G-d's creations and there's nothing wrong with petting or holding them at the zoo or farm.

[Letum]

What is your view on the original topic Avon? Dead pig is unclean according to Islamic law but that will not stop some Imam from finding a precedent or deriving a legal conclusion to issue a fatwa showing that an Muslim's soul will still achieve the highest levels in the world to come when dying in such a way during an act of Jihad.

Come to think of it, I'm surprised that didn't happen when the British East India Company's army used pork fat bullets.
At first it happened by accident there, but when someone pointed out that pork fat was used to grease the bullets the EIC's army publicised it for a bit to try and reduce the rebellion's moral, until they realised it was a very bad idea!

[DanCanovas]

I love this Avon Lady! she has a way of saying so many things I just cant get out!

[dean_acheson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevil_Chamberlain

Did you vote for this guy?

Since when do crazy islamic fanantics worry that flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousnads of innocent people will alienate folks in the west?

And that relates to pork-tipped bullets HOW? :hmm:

In the attitude that if we just do as the Islamofascists like, and properly respect Islam, they will be nice and not blow up our buildings.... I think the Democratic states tried that once, with predictable results...

[U-533]

You wanted a more "Firstestyer" contest I gave you proof that the woman who conceived the Islamic people "Hated" first.:smug:
Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree! :nope:

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.
Denying the past and or rewriting it to suite your ego is what keeps draging us back to war.:smug:
:up:

Well there you have it then ... I concede to Avon Lady ...:up:

True the Muslim religion did not exsit and the Islamic people did not go by those names however many years ago the Bible was written. BUT what I stated is taught in my Sunday school. I go with what I know.

Wait wait ... umm... Let me ask this please?

Islamics are a people and Muslim is one of their religions?

[Takeda Shingen]

Alright, this little boxing match has run it's course, and is wandering far and wide. The only thing left to come is hurt feelings, so I ask you all to wrap it up so that I don't have to.

Thanks.
The Management

[The Avon Lady]

The only thing left to come is hurt feelings, so I ask you all to wrap it up so that I don't have to.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2701/222ka8.jpg

:p

[gdogghenrikson]

I love it. It is fitting that they die and be one with the pigs they despise so much.

And to the post above about why they hate Americans so much - ask yourself who hated whom first? Yes we, hate terrorists and always will and anything that we can do to make their life miserable is a good thing in my book.

We didn't hate them - they made us hate them. We need to quit dancing aroudn the rose bush like everything is fine and wake up to the fact that those roses have thorns and go ahead and fight fire with fire.

-S

well said :up:

[tycho102]

What is your view on the origional topic Avon? Dead pig is unclean according to Islamic law but that will not stop some Imam from finding a precedent or deriving a legal conclusion to issue a fatwa showing that an Muslim's soul will still achieve the highest levels in the world to come when dying in such a way during an act of Jihad.

I do not have the time right now to search for where I saw this discussed on Islamic sites quite some time ago.
Basic taqiyya 101. To further jihad and spread the power of the clergy, they can eat pig, screw prostitutes, get completely pissed down at the local boozer. Just so long as when the ganglord attacks, that mujahid has already cut the telephone wires and killed the gate guard.

That's totally in the quran. I don't know where. I always just assume 7 or 9 until shown otherwise. Here's a similar one I googled.
Qur'an:4:94 "Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause, investigate carefully, and say not to anyone who greets you: ‘You are not a believer!' Coveting the chance profits of this life (so that you may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils and booty."

For mujahideen in the land of Dar al-Harb, anything goes. Yay for despoiling!

However, I support anything that fractures islam along clan and sect lines. Pig bullets sounds like it would just that purpose for a short time before all the ayatollahs got word out to all the clan imams what the new party line was.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

I'll stick on facts. It would be probably very interesting to join the discussion, but I'm affraid it's not possible because of my too poor English. There is enough misunerstanding in this thread, I'm not going to add language issues as another source of it.

But I''ve read whole the thread and found many bull**ts (pig**ts?) here.

Stop having wellmeaning and self-deceiving illusions about Islam. Look at the status it led Islamic societies to over the last 14 centuries. If Islam is so right and wonderful, why did it lead Arabic societies to social stagnation, and loosing the educatioinal and scientific superiority Arabia had over Europe in the Medieval - before Muhammed appeared?
Arabia had none superiority over anyone before Muhammad appeared. They were a big bunch of tribes fighting each other, hearding their camels, enjoying sunny weather, worshipping stones and mountains and writing unbelievably good poetry. In the Medieval 'Arabia', as you call it, id est the Arab-Muslim Empire (as historians call it nowadays), however they reached an extremely high level of civilisation (under Islamic rule, take a note): literature, social and healthcare, medicine, philosophy, mathematics and so on. Much higher than in Europe. There are uncountable reasons of fall down of the Empire, as usually. One of them is time (no empire lasts forever), devastating Mongol invasions, alienation of the rulers etc. etc. But all the best achievements of Arab-Muslim civilisation (BUT poetry) were gained only after Muhammad founded Islam.

Why is a man who intimidated others, forced their surrender by violence, gave orders for assassination, blackmailed protection money, massacred whole tribes and murdered even male children of even the yolungest ages while leading all females into slavery and sexual exploitation, who started and ordered 60-70 wars and predatory raids, and whose only idea to defend himself against criticism was to throw critics into prisons, murder them and claim that he was acting in the name of some god - why is such a Mafiosi and mass-murderer still accepted as a holy man, a preacher of peace and freedom - when all he had to show in his deeds was submitting others, act with aggression, teach hate and intolerance against all who refused his authority and power, rob others, and wade in blood thoughout the better part of his life...???
Probably for the same reasons, as Moses, Jozue and Israelites (you can found the story in the Bible), who murdered whole cities and wiped quite a few civilisations. :) Religion is a strange thing, man, and takes one's reason away...

Take a note: Muhammad is NOT treated as a 'holy man' in Islam, it would be a heresy to call him that. Learn more about Islam, it's always good to know more than know less, even if Islam is your enemy.

Also refrain from using the term "Muhammedans", which is highly offensive to Muslims, as they don't worship Muhammad, but the God, Allah.

Judge Islam - not by our standards, but by it's own standard. Learn to differ between what you want it to be (with the intention to make it something that you can deal with according to your own standards and instruments), and what it really is. Stop being a fool. Start to be a realist. Stop reading the Quran. Read history books. And then try to find parrallels to the teachings of humanistic philosphers of the West, Buddha or Jesus. You will fail. Islam is the anti-thesis to it all. It is not the victim, but the perpetrator. where it is violant, it does not violate it's teachings, but fulfills them.
Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.

Never forget, that there are hundreds of millions muslims in the world. And the so called Al-Qaida is run probably by no more than like 1k men, if that many. Whole the rest of the Muslims wish rather to stay home, live their own lives, earn money, grow children, watch TV and play computer games. The fundamentalists are dangerous regardless of their religion or ideology. Are they communists, Islamic, Jewish or Christian fanatics, nazis or greens...

When you discuss the reasons of the actual terrorist issue, never forget King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing) in Jerusalem. NEVER forget that. Islam is not the very origin of the terror. The Palestine is. If not the Palestine problem, there would not be any Hamas, Hizbullah, PLO, IJ. And in the Palestinian conflict neither side is clean, nor the international community is. There is no black and white, there are only flavours of grey, my friends.

Islam says that all what is is it's own sooner or later, and that it has the obligation to help that fate to become fulfilled.
Remember the infamous Treaty of Tordesillas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas)? If too long, look for the word 'pope' in the text.

You bettter start to take that serious. the history of the Nazi'S rise shows that you do need only a gang of five or ten determined thugs taking on their black gloves to intimidate and make stopping to maove and make turning around a demonstration column of hundreds.
History of manking and Christianity tells me, that you do need only one Empire that takes christianity as it's religion to dip the world in a never ending crusade. Sounds similar? It would be better to skip using such a propagandist language.

In 614 the country fell to the Persians. The conquest of Jerusalem was a bloody affair in which thousands of inhabitants were massacred. Many churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, were destroyed and others were damaged. The sacred cross upon which Jesus was crucified was looted. Fifteen years later, in 620, the Emperor Heraclius restored Byzantine rule and returned the cross to its place. But within a decade, in 638, Jerusalem surrendered again, this time to the forces of a rising power on the stage of history -- the Muslim Arabs.

The bolded massacre was done by the Persians - what does it have in common with then rising Muslim empire?


Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree! :nope:
That's not true. Islam doesn't refer to any of the 'patriarches' as "Muslim". They were "righteous worshippers of the [one] God", no more, no less. Abraham, Moses, Jesus and so on were NOT Muslims, as one could become Muslim only after foundation of Islam itself.

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.
Same applies to any 'nation'. In these times there was not such a name as "Arab", nor was it one people, nation or anything. Various tribes dwelled in the Arabian peninsula, speaking different languages, with different cultures. The same applies to Israelites - you can't say they were "sons of Abraham and Sarah", as historians seem to prove that they were a union of some semitic tribes (related extremely closely the what we call 'Arabic tribes').

The Peninsula was never under Babylonian rule, by the way.


PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam. Other word derivated from this verb are: 'istislam' - 'capitulation'; 'istislami' - 'capitulant [the one who capitulates']. If you'd like to express surrending AND taking Islam, you should use other verb, the very one that word 'Islam' comes from: 'aslama' (to submit, to take Islam). Words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Islami' all come from the verb 'aslama' (NOT 'astaslama'). So, if you want to express the idea of 'not surrending to Islam', you should use the correct phrase: Lan aslam (لن أسلم). :rotfl:

And remember to shoot you propaganda guy. He hasn't done well.

[The Avon Lady]

I'll stick on facts
At least you get an "A" for effort. :yep:

I will let Skybird REPEAT his answers to many of your claims to his posts (we've been there, done that). I will respond to your claims against my posts.
In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.
Same applies to any 'nation'.
Well, there you go then.
In these times there was not such a name as "Arab", nor was it one people, nation or anything. Various tribes dwelled in the Arabian peninsula, speaking different languages, with different cultures.
"And all the kings of Arabia (Hebrew: "Malchei Arav") and all the kings of the allies who dwell in the desert."
- Jeremiah, 25:24

This was precisely at the time of Babylonian rule. There is also a reference to Arabian kings in Kings I, 10:15. As implied, there were numerous such kings, inidcating seemingly tribal kingdoms, quite common at the time.
The same applies to Israelites - you can't say they were "sons of Abraham and Sarah", as historians seem to prove that they were a union of some semitic tribes (related extremely closely the what we call 'Arabic tribes').
Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.
The Peninsula was never under Babylonian rule, by the way.
Tons of refugees fled Egypt and Mesepotamia to the Arabian peninsula and Babylonian king Nabonidus went on a campaign against Arabia around 550BCE and settled there for the remainder of his life. BTW, Nabonidus' son was the biblicall famous Belshazzar, who couldn't read the writing on the wall. ;)
PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam.
Not directly. At least I know that. The point of the signature is that we will not tolerate Islam's intended subjugation of us non-Islamic infidels. A clear and elementary message.
Other word derivated from this verb are: 'istislam' - 'capitulation'; 'istislami' - 'capitulant [the one who capitulates']. If you'd like to express surrending AND taking Islam, you should use other verb, the very one that word 'Islam' comes from: 'aslama' (to submit, to take Islam). Words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Islami' all come from the verb 'aslama' (NOT 'astaslama'). So, if you want to express the idea of 'not surrending to Islam', you should use the correct phrase: Lan aslam (لن أسلم). :rotfl:
Sound right either way.
And remember to shoot you propaganda guy. He hasn't done well.
On the contrary!

[Abd_von_Mumit]

First and most important: for me there is no point to continue discussion with a person that treats the Bible as source of facts. We don't share the same basis, so our discussion would be pointless. For me the Bible is a source of historical material that is sometimes reliable, sometimes not. As any other historical source. It's main concern is religion, and I'm not one to treat religious issues seriously. I'd rather call them superstitions.

So let's focus only on facts, skipping biblical quotes.

"And all the kings of Arabia (Hebrew: "Malchei Arav") and all the kings of the allies who dwell in the desert."[/i]
- Jeremiah, 25:24
As you probably know, the phrase 'malchei araw' could be as well translated as "kings of Arabs" or even "Kings of the desert" (malchei erev) (as noone can be sure that the punctuation is right). And even if it's "Arabs", that's not any proof. Even Romans didn't know, how unbelievably big is the Pensinsula. They divided it on their maps into three parts (Petrea, Deserta, Felix) and have hardly managed to conquer a small part of it. The term 'Arabia' referred usually to only one part, the closest one, Petrea. No thinking man would like to invade the rest of the Pensinsula, where you could find only stones. So "malchei erev" can refer to kings of Petrea, some two or thre more kingdoms, skipping 90% of the rest of Pensisula. The very Pensisula, we should say.

There is an arguement among the Semitologists, what do " 'ivri", " 'aravi" mean in the Bible. As you know, there are numerous theories, none of them is sure.

Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.
The law you refer to comes from much, much later times (when the Talmud was written, about V-VI century Christian era). But it has no relation to the issue.

I refer to scientifical research, supported by linguistic, archeological, genetical and other research. You refer to the Bible text. No common base for us, sorry. :)

PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam.
Not directly. At least I know that. The point of the signature is that we will not tolerate Islam's intended subjugation of us non-Islamic infidels. A clear and elementary message.
That's what I said - if you want the phrase to refer to Islam, use the proper word for it. "Astaslama" is not a proper word, "aslama" is, as the first has no relation to Islam (almost) at all. The founder of this action (I forgot her name) doesn't know Arabic and she messed up the words a bit. :D As you know, proper wording is extremely importnat in Jewish tradition, as if you know a proper name of a thing, you got a rule over it. :) Thus you don't call a melech (king) a mal'ach (angel) and reverse, as these are not proper words.

[TteFAboB]

Remember the infamous Treaty of Tordesillas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas)

? Portugal and Spain are reduced to their homelands whereas Islam has expanded in every direction. Isn't this a fact? If Portugal and Spain had as a principle to conquer the world they'd have continued in that attempt wouldn't they? Of course, it's a lot less appealing to convince people to "convert" to Portuguese or Spanish citizenship, and that just causes alot of problems, than to convince someone to convert to Islam.

Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.


You are saying that a religion is just like an ideology or that ISlam is an ideology? I think you've managed to insult almost every Muslim in the face of the Earth. Besides from Christians, Bhuddists, etc.

You've said you came here to fix bull**** with facts. You're just a bull****ter yourself with some culture but little understanding. Abd_von_Mumit.

[The Avon Lady]

First and most important: for me there is no point to continue discussion with a person that treats the Bible as source of facts. We don't share the same basis, so our discussion would be pointless. For me the Bible is a source of historical material that is sometimes reliable, sometimes not. As any other historical source. It's main concern is religion, and I'm not one to treat religious issues seriously. I'd rather call them superstitions.

So let's focus only on facts, skipping biblical quotes.
I did not quote biblical verses for their religious significance but for their historical references to know peoples at the time. Your point is rhetorical.
"And all the kings of Arabia (Hebrew: "Malchei Arav") and all the kings of the allies who dwell in the desert."[/i]
- Jeremiah, 25:24
As you probably know, the phrase 'malchei araw' could be as well translated as "kings of Arabs" or even "Kings of the desert" (malchei erev) (as noone can be sure that the punctuation is right). And even if it's "Arabs", that's not any proof.
First let's deal with your elementary grammar error in Hebrew. Had the verse wanted to state "kings of Arabs" or "kings of the Arabs", it would have stated the word "Arabs" in plural - "Aravim". But it doesn't, so your point is what exactly? That you can drum up inexactitudes to suite your fancy? I don't think so.
Even Romans didn't know, how unbelievably big is the Pensinsula. They divided it on their maps into three parts (Petrea, Deserta, Felix)
So they did or didn't know? Make up your mind.

Also, not conquering the entire penninsula does not mean that refugee migrations did not head beyond the bounds of these major conquering empires. In fact the opposite is most logical.
The term 'Arabia' referred usually to only one part, the closest one, Petrea. No thinking man would like to invade the rest of the Pensinsula, where you could find only stones. So "malchei erev" can refer to kings of Petrea, some two or thre more kingdoms, skipping 90% of the rest of Pensisula. The very Pensisula, we should say.
How does any of this prove your original point, which - to remind you - was: "In these times there was not such a name as "Arab""? And again, I mentioned that I have no disagreement that the penninsula consisted of multiple kingdoms. In fact, that's what the verses I quoted state.
There is an arguement among the Semitologists, what do " 'ivri", " 'aravi" mean in the Bible. As you know, there are numerous theories, none of them is sure.
I have no problem with either of them, with much less doubt than you.
Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.
The law you refer to comes from much, much later times (when the Talmud was written, about V-VI century Christian era).
No, it is Halacha le'Moshe mi'Sinai, handed down from G-d to Moses at Sinai as the Torah's Oral Law. I suggest you try taking your revisionism elsewhere.
But it has no relation to the issue.
I simply responded to you incorrect claims.
I refer to scientifical research, supported by linguistic, archeological, genetical and other research. You refer to the Bible text. No common base for us, sorry. :)
You haven't referenced anything scientific so far. State your sources but this is becoming tedious.
PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam.
Not directly. At least I know that. The point of the signature is that we will not tolerate Islam's intended subjugation of us non-Islamic infidels. A clear and elementary message.
That's what I said - if you want the phrase to refer to Islam, use the proper word for it. "Astaslama" is not a proper word, "aslama" is, as the first has no relation to Islam (almost) at all. The founder of this action (I forgot her name)
Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005894.htm).
doesn't know Arabic and she messed up the words a bit. :D
I still don't see how.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

First let's deal with your elementary grammar error in Hebrew. Had the verse wanted to state "kings of Arabs" or "kings of the Arabs", it would have stated the word "Arabs" in plural - "Aravim". But it doesn't, so your point is what exactly? That you can drum up inexactitudes to suite your fancy? I don't think so.
As you should know, the Bible very often refers to a 'nation' by using it's patronimical name, thus 'Aram' can mean Aram as a man name, a land OR the people that dwell in the land, lets call them the *Arams. Same exactly applies to Araw. Also remember that modern Hebrew has gone a long way from it's biblical form and you find forms that cannot be met in today's everyday language. This makes it a bit more complicated issue to be so asured about proper forms. :D Would you say nowadays "Vayyar Elohim ki tov"? :)

So they did or didn't know? Make up your mind.
Oh, come on and don't try to be offensive. That doesn't help a bit in any discussion. And having an area on ones map doesn't mean that the area is explored. Have you read any book of a Roman historian describing so called Arabia? You should, you'd be sure none of them was there, when he wrote about streets full of gold, precious stones etc. What Romans did know was existance of land somewhere there. Even the name they called it was unproper (Arabia Felix is a flawed translation of "Yaman", similar to flawed translation regarding Moses face 'with horns' ('bekarnaim', if I remember correctly)).

Also, not conquering the entire penninsula does not mean that refugee migrations did not head beyond the bounds of these major conquering empires. In fact the opposite is most logical.
The really logical is to flee from the desert to find a fruitfull land to live, and that is what had been happening there for thousands of years. At least historians say that, you know. Tribes and peoples who lived in the central parts of the Peninsula constantly migrated to North (Syrian Desert, Mesopotamia) and West (Egypt), thus causing many problems and 'unrests'. You can find it it ANY book about ancient history. Have a look at Hitti's "History of the Arabs", Khourani's "History of the Arabs", Bright's "History of Israel", Moscati's "Culture of the Ancient Semitic nations" and so on, and so on.

The term 'Arabia' referred usually to only one part, the closest one, Petrea. No thinking man would like to invade the rest of the Pensinsula, where you could find only stones. So "malchei erev" can refer to kings of Petrea, some two or thre more kingdoms, skipping 90% of the rest of Pensisula. The very Pensisula, we should say.
How does any of this prove your original point, which - to remind you - was: "In these times there was not such a name as "Arab""? And again, I mentioned that I have no disagreement that the penninsula consisted of multiple kingdoms. In fact, that's what the verses I quoted state.
So I should correct myself. The point is: in these times there was no such a name as 'Arab' to name all the nations/tribes/peoples/whatever that lived in the whole Arabic Peninsula. It's the dawn of Islam that brought the idea of 'one Arabic nation'. Earlier they used to call themselves with a different names, for example "beduins", and almost every city/kingdom/large tribe had it's own identity, feel of being different from the other, who surrounded it.

There is an arguement among the Semitologists, what do " 'ivri", " 'aravi" mean in the Bible. As you know, there are numerous theories, none of them is sure.
I have no problem with either of them, with much less doubt than you.
And, you know, I'd envy you the self-asureness in the matter, if not the fact, that I prefer to stick on knowledge that comes from scientifical research than on beliefs. In modern Hebrew the meaning is simple: 'Aravi' stands for 'Arab', 'Ivri' for 'Hebrew' and that's as simple, as it could ever be. But the origin of these words is not such simple, thus we have very many efforts to find it's original, true meaning in the Bible.

Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.
The law you refer to comes from much, much later times (when the Talmud was written, about V-VI century Christian era).
No, it is Halacha le'Moshe mi'Sinai, handed down from G-d to Moses at Sinai as the Torah's Oral Law. I suggest you try taking your revisionism elsewhere.
As I stated above, I'll stick on the facts. The fact is that Talmud was written some one and a half thousands years ago, and the issues we try to discuss happened like four thousands years ago. We have no further evidence of existance of these laws before, not mentioning the existance of Moses etc. Thus for me Talmud cannot be any source of information about ethnical origin of the Jews. It's not the matter of revisionism, it's a matter of being religious and believing in what Bible says, and being a sceptic. I'm the latter one, and as I said there is not a base we could share in this discussion. :)

I refer to scientifical research, supported by linguistic, archeological, genetical and other research. You refer to the Bible text. No common base for us, sorry. :)
You haven't referenced anything scientific so far. State your sources but this is becoming tedious.
I've named a few books above.

I still don't see how.
If you are ok with the phrase as it is, enjoy it! Not my problem, really. It's always good to have a smile everytime I spot it in someone's sig! :up:

[robbo180265]

I'd give it up(in fact I have) this isn't a reasonable discussion any more,hasn't been for quite a while now:down:

[The Avon Lady]

I'd give it up(in fact I have) this isn't a reasonable discussion any more,hasn't been for quite a while now:down:
The usual cop-out. Toodaloo.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Anyone with knowledge in Islam know if this will have any effect,
if seen by a terrorist?:hmm: Hope so :rock:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d3b99daae

thats disgusting and embarassing.:nope:

[robbo180265]

Sticks and stones........

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Remember the infamous Treaty of Tordesillas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas)

? Portugal and Spain are reduced to their homelands whereas Islam has expanded in every direction. Isn't this a fact? If Portugal and Spain had as a principle to conquer the world they'd have continued in that attempt wouldn't they? Of course, it's a lot less appealing to convince people to "convert" to Portuguese or Spanish citizenship, and that just causes alot of problems, than to convince someone to convert to Islam.
"The treaty effectively countered the bulls of Alexander VI and was sanctioned by Pope Julius II in a new bull of 1506." Without the pope's sanction it would be just a treaty between two coutries. WITH that sanction it looks different, isn't it? Throughout the European history in these times it was said and believed that "God gave these lands by pope's mouth to Christian kings of Portugal and Spain". THAT was, what I meant.

Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.


You are saying that a religion is just like an ideology or that ISlam is an ideology? I think you've managed to insult almost every Muslim in the face of the Earth. Besides from Christians, Bhuddists, etc.
Yes, I'm saying any religion is an ideology. "Religion" is (for me) a word to name the kind of ideology that says the source of law, order, good and evil etc. is god. Other ideologies refer to different sources of these values. One believes in god, other in nature and the third in mankind or anything else. If that is offensive or insulting, stating that there is god should be insulting too to those who don't share this belief. But it's not. What was the point? Should I refrain from sayiong I don't believe in God not to insult anyone? Do we want to go so far?

You've said you came here to fix bull**** with facts. You're just a bull****ter yourself with some culture but little understanding. Abd_von_Mumit.
Oh... and that would be offensive, if I took it personally. I have never called anyone a bull***ter on these nor other forums. I strongly believe any discussion should focus on the topic that matters, to be ad rem, not ad personam. And again we don't share the same beliefs. And again I don't find this insulting... :smug:


Hmm... This discussion went far from the original topic. That's also partially my fault. From the pork to the Bible and linguistic issues... I'll try not to continue this. But, you know, at least my original post was on topic (I hope) and I tried to bring some fresh look on discussed issues and correct some thesis posted above, regarding Islam. Sorry to the bored ones.

[Konovalov]

If you are ok with the phrase as it is, enjoy it! Not my problem, really. It's always good to have a smile everytime I spot it in someone's sig! :up:

Not fair. :cry: I've had a laugh every time I have seen it over the months that people have been featuring it in their sig. Now the secret is out. Oh well. It is still amusing to see that people post a sig that they have no idea what it actually says. I guess it kind of sums up the complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject matter. Happy days. :sunny:

Excellent series of posts Abd_von_Mumit. :up:

[Konovalov]

You've said you came here to fix bull**** with facts. You're just a bull****ter yourself with some culture but little understanding. Abd_von_Mumit.

Direct personal attack. How sad. :nope: :nope:

[The Avon Lady]

First let's deal with your elementary grammar error in Hebrew. Had the verse wanted to state "kings of Arabs" or "kings of the Arabs", it would have stated the word "Arabs" in plural - "Aravim". But it doesn't, so your point is what exactly? That you can drum up inexactitudes to suite your fancy? I don't think so.
As you should know, the Bible very often refers to a 'nation' by using it's patronimical name, thus 'Aram' can mean Aram as a man name, a land OR the people that dwell in the land, lets call them the *Arams. Same exactly applies to Araw. Also remember that modern Hebrew has gone a long way from it's biblical form and you find forms that cannot be met in today's everyday language. This makes it a bit more complicated issue to be so asured about proper forms. :D Would you say nowadays "Vayyar Elohim ki tov"? :)
To answer your last question, it is perfectly valid and accurate in modern Hebrew, no less.

I failed to understand the relevance in this case of your point with patronomical names.
So they did or didn't know? Make up your mind.
Oh, come on and don't try to be offensive. That doesn't help a bit in any discussion. And having an area on ones map doesn't mean that the area is explored.
But I never said it was.
Have you read any book of a Roman historian describing so called Arabia? You should, you'd be sure none of them was there, when he wrote about streets full of gold, precious stones etc. What Romans did know was existance of land somewhere there. Even the name they called it was unproper (Arabia Felix is a flawed translation of "Yaman", similar to flawed translation regarding Moses face 'with horns' ('bekarnaim', if I remember correctly)).
The verse states "ki Karan panav" - meaning because his face radiated. Otherwise, the Roman history is nice but why are we going off on this tangent?
The term 'Arabia' referred usually to only one part, the closest one, Petrea. No thinking man would like to invade the rest of the Pensinsula, where you could find only stones. So "malchei erev" can refer to kings of Petrea, some two or thre more kingdoms, skipping 90% of the rest of Pensisula. The very Pensisula, we should say.
How does any of this prove your original point, which - to remind you - was: "In these times there was not such a name as "Arab""? And again, I mentioned that I have no disagreement that the penninsula consisted of multiple kingdoms. In fact, that's what the verses I quoted state.
So I should correct myself. The point is: in these times there was no such a name as 'Arab' to name all the nations/tribes/peoples/whatever that lived in the whole Arabic Peninsula.
Yet there it is staring at you in the verses I mentioned.
It's the dawn of Islam that brought the idea of 'one Arabic nation'.
Yes but it's the Islamic claim that the Arabs are the descendents of Yishmael that we're discussing and my claim that this is simply non-factual, which you actually agreed with.
Earlier they used to call themselves with a different names, for example "beduins", and almost every city/kingdom/large tribe had it's own identity, feel of being different from the other, who surrounded it.
Tangents. Tangents.
There is an arguement among the Semitologists, what do " 'ivri", " 'aravi" mean in the Bible. As you know, there are numerous theories, none of them is sure.
I have no problem with either of them, with much less doubt than you.
And, you know, I'd envy you the self-asureness in the matter, if not the fact, that I prefer to stick on knowledge that comes from scientifical research than on beliefs. In modern Hebrew the meaning is simple: 'Aravi' stands for 'Arab', 'Ivri' for 'Hebrew' and that's as simple, as it could ever be.
All you did was (re)state the English transliterized sounds of these 2 Hebrew words. So?
But the origin of these words is not such simple, thus we have very many efforts to find it's original, true meaning in the Bible.
"Eiver ha'Nahar" for "Ivri". "Erev" and "Ma'arav" for "Arav".

Ho hum. :roll:
Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.
The law you refer to comes from much, much later times (when the Talmud was written, about V-VI century Christian era).
No, it is Halacha le'Moshe mi'Sinai, handed down from G-d to Moses at Sinai as the Torah's Oral Law. I suggest you try taking your revisionism elsewhere.
As I stated above, I'll stick on the facts. The fact is that Talmud was written some one and a half thousands years ago, and the issues we try to discuss happened like four thousands years ago.
While this is when the Talmud was compiled, it was all compiled from oral sources, Just as the Mishnah was a few 100 years prior. Try again.
We have no further evidence of existance of these laws before, not mentioning the existance of Moses etc. Thus for me Talmud cannot be any source of information about ethnical origin of the Jews.
Whoopie for you.
It's not the matter of revisionism, it's a matter of being religious and believing in what Bible says, and being a sceptic. I'm the latter one, and as I said there is not a base we could share in this discussion. :)
So be it.

Laila tov.

[TteFAboB]

You've said you came here to fix bull**** with facts. You're just a bull****ter yourself with some culture but little understanding. Abd_von_Mumit.

Direct personal attack. How sad. :nope: :nope:

Why don't you point his personal attack on Skybird? Or on anybody else? He has said that he found many pig****terss in here. Who are they?

But I''ve read whole the thread and found many bull**ts (pig**ts?) here

Have you missed this Konovalov? Or is your blindness voluntary, ideological/religious?

Why only me Konovalov?

Oh... and that would be offensive, if I took it personally. I have never called anyone a bull***ter on these nor other forums. I strongly believe any discussion should focus on the topic that matters, to be ad rem, not ad personam. And again we don't share the same beliefs. And again I don't find this insulting... :smug:

As I've shown, you have said that this whole thread has many bull****s and pig****ters. Care to name and point them out? One who makes a bull**** is a bull****ter or is he not? You also called someone pig****ter. So you have thrown two offenses, that somebody made bull**** wich makes the author a bull****ter and pig****ter proper.

I will show that there is nothing personal in my response.

"The treaty effectively countered the bulls of Alexander VI and was sanctioned by Pope Julius II in a new bull of 1506." Without the pope's sanction it would be just a treaty between two coutries. WITH that sanction it looks different, isn't it? Throughout the European history in these times it was said and believed that "God gave these lands by pope's mouth to Christian kings of Portugal and Spain". THAT was, what I meant.


The Catholic Church replaced the vacuum created by the fall of the Roman Empire. With the Roman authority gone, treaties and contracts had no value at all. One Feudal people may consider something valid that the other one does not. To solve this issue Europeans relied on the Church as that was a common denominator to all and the Church gradually assumed the role. It was not by principle but by necessity.

If you are sincere in your intentions you know that Islam is based on the attempt to create a sacred state, by principle, and that's why a Muslim when converting has to sign a paper at the Mosque. A Christian can convert by himself, alone, hidden, inside a hostile enviroment. A Muslim must take part in the public life and be registered in the Islamic notary's public. It is not only a spiritual convertion, but a material declaration.

Thus, you are counter-productive by giving importance to this point. If the importance lies in juridical authorization from the religious authority, then every Muslim registered at a Mosque has acted in the name of Allah and in the name of Islam.

Yes, I'm saying any religion is an ideology. "Religion" is (for me) a word to name the kind of ideology that says the source of law, order, good and evil etc. is god. Other ideologies refer to different sources of these values. One believes in god, other in nature and the third in mankind or anything else. If that is offensive or insulting, stating that there is god should be insulting too to those who don't share this belief. But it's not. What was the point? Should I refrain from sayiong I don't believe in God not to insult anyone? Do we want to go so far?


Because you have devalued religion of revelation! You have de-divinized the content of religion. The source is the religion and not God. The source is natural and man-made and not divine. If you do not want to insult anybody then yes you would have to refrain from saying anything at all. Anything you say is a potential insult to somebody, somewhere. My point was to show that while you tell Skybird not to say "Muhammedans" because it is insulting, you, yourself, is also capable of insult. As I am and as anybody is because there is always someone willing to take an insult. You have denied Skybird the right to say "Muhammedans" but does not accept to be told the same. There is one standard for Skybird and another for you. Care to explain why you can say whatever you believe in, "(for me)", but others can't?

And here is the point. Your response to Skybird has brought confusion instead of ellucidating anything at all. And you have made every effort not to understand what Skybird meant.

Arabia had none superiority over anyone before Muhammad appeared. They were a big bunch of tribes fighting each other, hearding their camels, enjoying sunny weather, worshipping stones and mountains and writing unbelievably good poetry. In the Medieval 'Arabia', as you call it, id est the Arab-Muslim Empire (as historians call it nowadays), however they reached an extremely high level of civilisation (under Islamic rule, take a note): literature, social and healthcare, medicine, philosophy, mathematics and so on. Much higher than in Europe. There are uncountable reasons of fall down of the Empire, as usually. One of them is time (no empire lasts forever), devastating Mongol invasions, alienation of the rulers etc. etc. But all the best achievements of Arab-Muslim civilisation (BUT poetry) were gained only after Muhammad founded Islam.


Later you are going to say that all Empires fall. Could it be that Skybird is refering to a period of decline while you speak of rising and all there really is to it is a confusion to what is being refered as Islam? Islam considered as a religion, Islam considered as an ideology or Islam considered as anything a Muslim authority signs below.

Probably for the same reasons, as Moses, Jozue and Israelites (you can found the story in the Bible), who murdered whole cities and wiped quite a few civilisations. :) Religion is a strange thing, man, and takes one's reason away...

Take a note: Muhammad is NOT treated as a 'holy man' in Islam, it would be a heresy to call him that. Learn more about Islam, it's always good to know more than know less, even if Islam is your enemy.

Also refrain from using the term "Muhammedans", which is highly offensive to Muslims, as they don't worship Muhammad, but the God, Allah.


What have you done here? Relativized and generalized. This has made nothing clear. The particular problem of the thread that is being discussed: "Islam", is put aside next to "religion". Now we can't talk about Islam anymore, we have to talk about "religion". The problem being addressed and investigated dissapears and a whole new realm enters the room. No longer is Islam the issue, but the relations of "religion".

Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.

Relativized, same as above. Islam is no longer being analyzed, but its relations to "religion" and other "religions".

This paragraph has not brought up any facts at all, by the contrary, it has eliminated all the facts I am going to list:

1. Who - who has blood in his hands, exactly who killed?
2. When - when did this take place? How many times? What's the timeline?
3. How - how did it happened?
4. Why - what are the motivation and justification or even excuses for it?
5. Then what - what are the consequences to the event, what did others said, what did successors say, what happened next.

None of these facts are present and the relativization with other religions only makes their importance nill and thus their dissapearance, solving absolutely nothing and creating more problems and more confusion.

Never forget, that there are hundreds of millions muslims in the world. And the so called Al-Qaida is run probably by no more than like 1k men, if that many. Whole the rest of the Muslims wish rather to stay home, live their own lives, earn money, grow children, watch TV and play computer games. The fundamentalists are dangerous regardless of their religion or ideology. Are they communists, Islamic, Jewish or Christian fanatics, nazis or greens...

Relativization. At best we can talk about potential danger, not factual. But again, there is no talk, if it's all equal and the same the facts don't really matter.

When you discuss the reasons of the actual terrorist issue, never forget King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing) in Jerusalem. NEVER forget that. Islam is not the very origin of the terror. The Palestine is. If not the Palestine problem, there would not be any Hamas, Hizbullah, PLO, IJ. And in the Palestinian conflict neither side is clean, nor the international community is. There is no black and white, there are only flavours of grey, my friends.


Relativization. When you say that there is no black or white but only flavours of grey don't you realize this is impossible? If there is only grey how can you tell it's grey, that it's a mixture of black and white? How can you tell it is darker or lighter? Only because there is black and white and only because you are capable of thinking on these terms.

When you relativize everything you take away all the importance of the facts themselves.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Why don't you point his personal attack on Skybird? Or on anybody else? He has said that he found many pig****terss in here. Who are they?
[...]
Have you missed this Konovalov? Or is your blindness voluntary, ideological/religious?

Why only me Konovalov?
[...]
As I've shown, you have said that this whole thread has many bull****s and pig****ters. Care to name and point them out? One who makes a bull**** is a bull****ter or is he not? You also called someone pig****ter. So you have thrown two offenses, that somebody made bull**** wich makes the author a bull****ter and pig****ter proper.
Man... "Pig**ts" cannot stand for "pig**ters"... There's a huge difference. Thus it doesn't refer to any person, but to a flawed info provided here (like blaming Islam for Persian slaughter in Jerusalem).

[TteFAboB]

Then I ask you, Konovalov and whoever else to ignore everything related to the pig****/bull**** as it also, thus, has no relation to any object of reality and apologize for the inconvenience and wasted time.

[Konovalov]

Thank goodness for that then. :)

[Abraham]

We could wait for this thread to run out of hand from day 1.
Too offensive, too personal and too many stars without stripes recently to consider this a reasonable General Topics Forum discussion any longer.

Clangggg.

Discussion closed.

Abraham

(with moderator cap on)