Mass stabbing in central London leaves woman dead and six injured

[Feuer Frei!]

East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade,
the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

East and West what? Where? Between who?

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

East and West what? Where? Between who?

Seriously, what is your point?
2000 years, 1000 years.... would it make any difference to the current situation, to the facts about this ideology?
Again: What is your point? Wait... do you have one?

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Seriously, what is your point?
2000 years, 1000 years.... would it make any difference to the current situation, to the facts about this ideology?
Again: What is your point? Wait... do you have one?

My point is that there is little to be gained through debating with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[Feuer Frei!]

The 'war' has been waging since before the crusades.

Examples:

the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, atempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

The Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia.

You see, it has waged since bfore mohammed.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

My point is that there is little to be gained through debating with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

No clue?
It seems you don't have a clue, read my latest eductional post number 80 and bask in it so that you may inform your muslim friends of their war that has been waged since before muhammed.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

My point is that there is little to be gained through debating with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

You said that the other day already when you were asked for actual arguments instead of just personal attacks and "no it's not true!" kind of nonsense.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

The 'war' has been waging since before the crusades.

Examples:

the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, atempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

The Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia.

You see, it has waged since bfore mohammed.

Yup. Wars have been going on for a long time. To present this as some sort of epic battle between 'East' and 'West' is however nonsensical. The Alexandrian Greeks weren't conquering the world for 'the West', they were doing it for themselves. Likewise the Persians, and Mongolians. 'East' and 'West' are recent ideological constructs having no bearing on what was happening 2000 years ago.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

You said that the other day already when you were asked for actual arguments instead of just personal attacks and "no it's not true!" kind of nonsense.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

As opposed to your 'yes it is true!' arguments? And your fabrications regarding what I am supposed to have said about a book ("the book you defend so fiercely") I hadn't even discussed? If you are actually interested in debate, rather than using this forum as a soapbox, I suggest you put a little more effort into collating a little evidence, and then presenting a coherent argument worthy of response.

[Feuer Frei!]

In 624, mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims, on at least one occasion led by mohammed, had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were considered holy wars.

The Christians didn't invent the concept holy wars.

The new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, after muhammeds death launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, against hundreds of nations.

From southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

Simply put, the conquering of christian and jewish people.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa.

The conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters in the middle of France.

Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war.

repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches, sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s, building small mosques on the top of Christian churches, enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches, attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem, etc.

This before the crusades even began.
Six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation.


And today?

Much much worse.


"Our flowers are the sword and the dagger:
Narcissus and myrtle are nought.
Our drink is the blood of our foeman;
Our goblet his skull, when we've fought."

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

As opposed to your 'yes it is true!' arguments? And your fabrications regarding what I am supposed to have said about a book ("the book you defend so fiercely") I hadn't even discussed? If you are actually interested in debate, rather than using this forum as a soapbox, I suggest you put a little more effort into collating a little evidence, and then presenting a coherent argument worthy of response.

Nice try. But you may go easier on the reflecting, it's kinda obvious.
Anyways, as to proof... the Quran isn't proof enough on the topic of Islam!?
You start to confuse me, because that is highly nonsensical.

And if you debate Islam, which you do, you automatically debate the Quran.
Just...stop, please.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Nice try. But you may go easier on the reflecting, it's kinda obvious.
Anyways, as to proof... the Quran isn't proof enough on the topic of Islam!?
You start to confuse me, because that is highly nonsensical.

And if you debate Islam, which you do, you automatically debate the Quran.
Just...stop, please.

Where was I 'debating Islam'? I was certainly debating your claims to be an authority on the subject - and nothing you have presented so far suggests to me that you have the slightest qualification in that regard. And no, what is written in a holy book is not in of itself sufficient to discuss a faith. Would you think it reasonable for me to expound at depth on the French Wars of Religion or the Taiping Rebellion based solely on what I'd read in the Bible?

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Where was I 'debating Islam'?

Alright, that's enough internet for today.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And no, what is written in a holy book is not in of itself sufficient to discuss a faith.

I must interject and just say this:
The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam.

So for it not to be considered sufficient, is.......wrong.

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

I must interject and just say this:
The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam.

So for it not to be considered sufficient, is.......wrong.

That's an understatement.
And also very pointless.
Because he knows better.
Although he doesn't know the ideology.
Logic 101.