[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by aaken

I'm not disputing the fact that you've never given up your claim on Israel, nor I'm disputing the right of anybody to exist. But, although the arabs who were previously living over there have never been a nation, I don't think that displacing them (in part or in toto)

There were not displaced in 1947, when the UN partitioned the country and Israel accepted it, with all it's disadvantages.

They were displaced in 1948, when the Arabs declared war and attacked the Jewish State. They were then kept displaced by the Arabs themselves, who used them as a tool of misery against Israel for 20 years and no one in the world batted an eyelid about them.

and occupying the land that, for any reason, they thought it was theirs, has had a good effect on their mood.

The Arabs again threatened to push the Jews into the sea, mounted their troops, tanks and air forces against Israel. They lost. We won. Too bad.

In a sane world, the lesson would be crime does not pay. Not so with the Arabs against the Jews.

In any case, it was the Arabs who refused to negotiate and "recognize" Israel for another decade.

Reminder: the PLO, with its charter to destroy Israel, was founded in 1964 - 3 years before any Israeli had a foothold in Judea, Samaria or Gaza.

You reap what you sow.

Needless to say, whatever claim they may have, it doesn't justify the use of terrorism on their part. On the other hand, if kids start throwing rocks and you blast them with tank fire, it's not exactly polite.

This is a lie.

But back to Europe.
European countries have been subject to a flow of immigration (legal and illegal) from other european countries and from non european countries . The main reason for that, I suppose, it's economical. People trying to move to places where they may enjoy better life style, earn more money, and so on. Since in Europe we do have freedom of religion, freedom of association and so on, it's normal that the immigrants (part of which eventually become citizens of their host countries) are allowed to pray whatever God they may like.

So put Abu Hamza back in the Finsbury Mosque for all I care!

it's normal as well that they bring part of their culture in the host countries. If this is not in contrast with the laws of the host country, I don't have a problem with that.

Bingo!

Is Sha'aria law "in contrast" with European laws? Yes or no? (Skybird, no sarcastic remarks, please! )

Is Jihad law "in contrast" with European laws?

You will learn the hard way that the democracy and libertarian society that you so love and cherish (justifiably so), will be eaten away from within.

And I don't think the fact that in Saudi Arabia christians are not allowed to pray their God is an excuse to do the same in Europe.

Are Christians trying to forceably or cunningly rule over Saudi Arabia and then harshly subjugate its population afterwards and kill those that continue to resist?

Where is the comparison? Learn, learn, learn what dhimmitude is, what jizyah is, how they were employed in countries overrun by Islam.

As for the demise of my society...well...in the middle ages parts of Europe were invaded by muslims (and by anybody else as well), in some parts there was also a somewhat pacific co-existance of christians and muslims (like in south Italy during the reign of the Emperor Frederic the second), in other parts there was no co-existance. Still, most of the countries in Europe survived, evolved and ... eventually here we are today.

Thanks to the Crusades. Otherwise, indeed you would not likely be on this forum or this forum may not have existed for that matter. What we discuss is Haram.