Muslim uproar - (Merged)

[SkvyWvr]

[quote=Immacolata]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

No one is willing to wage such a war. It is complete bollocks to even think about it.

I believe I did mention that the west was unwilling to wage such a war. As for your "bollocks" don't be surprised if the crawl up your buttocks when the terrorists use a nuclear device and the west finally say's ENOUGH!!

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by moose1am

So you are saying that they didn't use the sword to spread Islam across North Africa 3 decades after the death of Mohammad?

I don't believe I ever refuted that fact. As for the west not willing, I say NO ONE is willing for such a war. No one in the world is. A few mad hatters, yes, but the world population? No. And you sort of need a helluva lot of soldiers for that war. What if they don't want to fight?

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

The thing is many Muslims or at least those who have been posting on BBC site now consider that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a "crusade" in teh terms of "The Crusades" of the middle ages. Why, because George Bush said the word crusade when he was talking about taking on terrorism. It was jumped on to mean religious crusade which wasn't helped by teh fact that publlically GWB is a religious guy. It is a shame none of them found a thesaurus and looked up the other meanings of the word crusade and thought about whether he meant something else....

Well GWB never left me the impression that he was the sharpest pencil in the desk drawer when it comes to oratory skills. He probably just chose his word poorly, but Im pretty sure that it would not change a lot even if he picked other words. The muslim posters on BBC probably don't bellieve the stated motivations behind the attack on Iraq (the WMD argument). And we know now it was hogwash. So if the pretext wasn't WMD, what is then? Why did Bush and his lackeys need to invade Iraq? If not for the oil, and not for the WMD, and there was no Al-Qaeda connections, what motivations are left, then?

[HunterICX]

[quote=SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

I believe I did mention that the west was unwilling to wage such a war. As for your "bollocks" don't be surprised if the crawl up your buttocks when the terrorists use a nuclear device and the west finally say's ENOUGH!!

finnaly say's enough...most of the western population had it enough in their minds. and we're already in an War. but its not completly open yet. but sooner or later there will be an WW3. and that one is going to be terrible.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

As for your map AVL

Show me one of the age around the ottoman empire, lets say late 1700th century

Like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...toman_1683.png

Hardly the result of any crusades

Wrong! Notice the retreat of Islam from, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy. How did that happen?

And can you imagine what your 17th century map would have looked like had there been no crusades? And please answer the question: why were there crusades in the first place?

[Yahoshua]

"What if they don't want to fight?"

Here's a simple answer:



It's really quite simple.

[Fish]

One hour, seventen minutes.
Not for kids though!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28663574416724

[Skybird]

No - show it especially to your children, so that they can learn, get imune to the lies being told by Western liberals and socialists and wellmeaning idiots - and are prepared to resist to Islam, which will confront hem at school, at university, at job, in the medias, in all social life - and will do more and more so. the tools to wage war have chnaged, they are no longer trying it by military conquest, afetr our ancestors fought for their lifes and with great luck defeated them three times, with stakes already ridiculously high. Nevertheless, the scene of our ordinary life has been turned into a warzone again, an ideologcial war that is fought with the same Islamic intention on mind: to obliterate all mankind that is not islam itself. hiTech armies will not defend us, superwepaons will not save us: only our knowledge aboiut Islam'S true nature can give us and our chilsdren the needed determination to fight them back and out nof our homes. their fighting spirit is superior to ours, for they do not fear death, while we love life. this is our weakness. We can copensate for that not by weapons, but by insight and knowldeg that we need to fight the,m and that we need to fight them even if for many of us the fight is self-sacrifical - we need to take our motivation not from a belief that getting killed in war will earn us heavenly rewrds, but by some elemtnal Prussian or Roman virtues: that to win thatb fight at all cost is necessary for the survival of our children's future in a free, non-Islamic wolrd and culture - and that our own individual survival is not as important then our world winning the fight against Islam. we must not love death, like they do, but we must understand that our death shall not shy us away from fighting them, with all needed detemrination and unforgiveness needed. This is so,emthign no hitech and no satellite-guided smart bomb can do for us. We could have better weapons - and still be too much a weakling as that we could stop them. greater numbers and no fear of death is superior to hitech, beyond a certain ratio. Byzantium was destroyed because of this.


I have seen half of the movie until now, and my needles are at 110 % again, although I already know all that stuff. Note that many of the western muslims they have interviewed express kind and friendly and concerned opinions - nevertheless indicate that they do not see the connection between conquest and martial spirit, and the teaching of Islam: that orginally calls these "qualities" into life. You cannot expect these people, although they are kind and friendly and even I do not assume that they would slit my throat, to change Islam. they are not seeing clear about the true nature of their ideology, they try to paint it nice, try to avoid that they are folliwng an ideology that directly is responsible for the aggressiveness of Islam, for it demands it. Islam is the religion of hate, death and conquest, it is the religion of thanatos, not eros. That is why I reject to accept it as a religion, it is a political ideology, hidden in superstition, fed by greed and megalomania and absence of reason and logic. These people are not representative for true Islam. Call them what you want, but they are not representing the Quranic, Muhammedan Islam as was existant during the last 13 centuries. By their attitude I see them in clear violation of the Quran's demands - and how can they be isamic when ignoring centrals demands of the Quran? Muslims must learn what gangster Muhammad really was. Only this can be a cure that leads them to question the Quran, this absurd result of Muhammad's anti-intellectual self-justification. These people will only be of help, when they understand this: and become apostates. I do not demand them to become this or that, i do not want them to turn out to be what I want them to be, but I demand that they stop supporting Islam, and leave it. But by trying to live a "friendly life" and falsely labelling that "Islam", they actually make it look harmless, and assist directly the ongoing existence of real Islam: and that is the fighting Islam, that in this unique attitude of self-deception the West still considers to be a pervertion, a hijacking, a minor group, a radical school, a non-representative school of Islam. But it represents the only true face of Islam, and islam never has been anything else than that.

Over the weekend I red a good essay on the matter of violant Islam in the German FAZ, print edition. AL yesterday showed me where it had been set up on the web, on some blog site. It is German language, but if you understand only a bit of German, I urge you to read it. It is harsh truth, but it is truth, and the many historical examples are fact. If we do not understand these things, we will loose anything, all our world, our homes, our culture, our identity, our dignity, our rights and freedoms, our future - evberything. The clash of civilizations is a war for our sheer survival, and not only of the West but of all non-Islamic mankind. And Islam is the unlimited attacker.

Nobody wants to listen.

Ich könnte darüber verzweifeln.

http://myblog.de/kewil/page/1122265

[Yahoshua]

Choose this day whom you will serve.

[Perilscope]

That video clip pretty much sum up what I already knew. However, what I did not know, and sickens me, is to see a lot of muslim countries debate on television our death. To see so many idiots with such poor minds, and have power to be in front of the national TV and advocate our death in such a natural way. Here in our Western society, if one even dares to desire death on "anything", they will be marked as fanatical, disturbed person. Yet, there, they are on TV and probably acclaimed by the majority of viewers.

For me all of those tyrant preachers are hardly monkeys with bed sheets on their head.

[Yahoshua]

But they're fanatic monkeys with sheets on their heads who have LOTS of power. And they're eager to use it.

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Wrong! Notice the retreat of Islam from, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy. How did that happen?

And can you imagine what your 17th century map would have looked like had there been no crusades? And please answer the question: why were there crusades in the first place?

The Reconquista was large and small conflicts dragging on for what, 400 years? IT might put glory and starsprinkles on what a rather simple fight for land and power to call it a holy crusade. The crusades were pretexts for conquests and military campaign. The frankish kings backed their lot, the cordoba calpihate his lot. Granada capitulated at the end of 15th century first. And that is how history is shaped.

Originally Posted by Otto von Bismarck

“The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood.”

Crusades came about because a lot of idle hands needed something to do. with the destruction of the Sepulchre there was an excuse for starting a campaign in the ME. Oh, and don't forget, they also took a stab at Constantinople, now that the armies were up and marching. The "wrong" church, so they are fair game too. It had nothing to do with Constantinople being a fat ripe target, surely! Economical and social factors was the primary motivator, wrapped up in nice glossy fight for christendom gift wrapper.

The same argument has been used by everyone. The danish kings went on crusades in the Baltic to kill some heathens and earn brown nose points with the papacy. Oh and get some land too, of course. New vassals to support his feudal throne. When they are heathens, infidels etc. it is much easier to put the to the sword and take their belongings. Conquests has been made in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism... pharaoism? Probably lots more I have no clue about. I see a patterne here, to use religion as a tool for political ambition.

[The Avon Lady]

Simply unreal! Been reading Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes"? Or perhaps John Esposito's "Islam: The Straight Path"?

What? Muslim's seizing two thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world, during a period of over 300 years before the 1st Crusade, had nothing to do with the Crusades?

Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comenus' plea for help against the Muslim's butchering of myriads that was taking place against all infidels, was hyperbole, a mere "excuse"?

(Good grief! Are there no Christians out there in forumland that can speak up for themselves? No wonder everyone hires Jewish lawyers!)

Here's some real history for you. From Pope Urban II's Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095:

• For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

Nothing about conversions or conquest. It was all (intended to be) about removing Islam from what once were none other that Christian lands.

Did it fail? Mostly but partially not. Did it have to fail? No. There are lessons to be learned.

And today, there's more of the same. Do you wish to be like the martyrs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna? The choice is ours.

(Smyrna - today's Izmir. Anyone know what anniversary just passed 3 days ago?)

[Immacolata]

Yes yes yes, the crusades were held, and all that is a fact. But I do apply the view that religion is a coat of paint over the deeper conflicts of land and income. There would have been no crusades or islamist conversion by the swords if there hadn't been monetary gains from it. Somewhere, someone made a buck on this. Religion flavours your actions and motivations, but mankind itself is responsible for its actions, not God or sundry divinities. Since the dawn of civilization, soldiers have always marched to the jingle of coins, no matter if they were holy templar knights or saracen warriors.

Remember it was the RE-conquista, not just the Conquista. Git off mah land!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Yes yes yes, the crusades were held, and all that is a fact. But I do apply the view that religion is a coat of paint over the deeper conflicts of land and income. There would have been no crusades or islamist conversion by the swords if there hadn't been monetary gains from it.

I disagree on both counts.

The Crusades were not initiated for monetary gain or to stem the monetary losses to be more precise. It might be shocking to hear this but some people actually do believe in coming to the defense of their brother and sisters and the innocent.

And as much as Islam has precise laws on the division of the spoils of war, what motivates the average adherent Muslim soldier is doing Allah's will, whether he gets something out of it or not. Allah is to die for, according to the Quran. Witness the 100s of suicide terrorists in the last 2 decades. Jihad at its pinnacle.

[Immacolata]

Well at least we are that far now. I believe that man can act out of compassion and disregard monetary gains. Every person can chose to do this, and many do, luckily. But year long, centuries long military campaigns are not made out of compassion, but out of ambition and the prospect of a little <Jingle jingle>, titles, land, power, prestige. When Richard the Lionheart set course towards Jerusalem with a band of soldiers, the spoils of war to them was as much of a motivator as the pious part of it, make no mistake. The initiation it self might have the best of intentions, but the participators, who WERE the crusade, surely had other ambitions than merely gobsmacking in the name of christendom. Casus bellum was the destruction of the Sepulchre. And since they were infidel anyways, there was as bellum justum as well.

I prefer this understanding of things rather than the Corsican Goat Feud analogy I used earlier. Is mankind so irrational that he will squabble with his neighbour for centuries, both having forgotten the original cause? I think not.

I have been to Israel and experienced the commotion after another bomb blast struck Tel Aviv. Not a pleasant experience, and we were even far away so saw nothing of the gruesomeness. And of course the suicide bombers gain no money from their attacks. However, a mere 100s? It is the cause of many hundred tragedies, but that is not a war. You know, a WAR-war with soldiers, generals, conquests. It is not an army. It is crazy people doing crazy stuff. As a person can act out of compassion and unselfishness, he can also act in malice and evil. But because 100 malicious idiots blow them selves up to make some kind of ridiculous statement, there is a long shot to having millions marching under arms for the very same purpose. If Jihad is at its pinnacle when terrorists manage to blow up busses, trains, airplanes, then how would they ever manage to mass up a real army and actually grab any land? The WTC attack, which must be the cusp of the pinnacle of jihad, killed so many and was a great spectacle. But what did the jihad gain from this? New converts? A new caliphate? No. It is like blind men's rage. Hurting someone, but accomplishing nothing in the long run.

The very passion, hatred, whatever - the big emotional dimension of the jihad we see today (ie the cells of terrorists and the suicide bombers) seems to be without any clear objective. They will always threat our view on safety, but their irrational anger and unfocussed, spectacular pinpoint attacks on civilians gains them nothing.

Perhaps this is the modern guerilla warfare, which makes it hard to fight conventionally. The campaigns in Lebanon shows this with chilling clarity. How are you supposed to defeat an enemy that hides between civilians without butchering the lot of them? You can't! But as long as they can field merely 100s per decade for suicide attacks, maybe we can perservere for long enough? Ireland, England, Spain have experienced many terror bombs. They have not unravelled. Will Israel unravel? I hope not.