Muslim uproar - (Merged)

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nibelungenlieder...

Are you calling me a dragonslayer?

[Immacolata]

Well it was a wyrm, technically speaking

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Well it was a wyrm, technically speaking

A wiggly wyrm? :p

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Before the Muhammed cartoon incident, I would have flat out rejected that article. A few broken eggs does not an omelet make.

Before the Pope-quotes-dead-king-incident, I was asking myself if the problem was ever really going to be solved.

Now I am starting to belief that no matter what we do, or don't do, short of converting ourselves to islam, there will be no respite, no shelter from random terrorist acts, made to cause as much spectacle in the media as possible.

They are a fickle lot, and they will take offense at anything when the opportunity arises, in order to widen their appeal, and sinister types their recruitment base.

We either shed the ancient yoke of religion or get some serious synkretism running, and fast. Or forget about world peace.

But first we will have to stop kowtowing to the radicals, just because we really really really would like their oil. Untill the last drop of oil has been sucked out of the ME soil, the region will flare up time after time, and no stability will come over it.

Terrorism is not what conerns me. Even if we would have one 9/11 every year, our societies would absorb it, would survive it, would get used to it and adopt.Look at Israel'S almost relaxed attitude towards it.

that socalled moderate muslims, who rarely if ever stand up and take action against the "radicals" that speak for them, in the name of their same belief, quoting from the very same book, are becoming more and more by numbers, that political strategies of parties, and laws are getting changed i their favour, that people are so kind and friendly to say they are willing to put fighting Islam on the same level as freedom, peace, humanitarianism, christian teaching, that the immense qualitative differences are ignorred and this censoring of history and blinding of ones own eyes and rape of reason is called "tolerance" - this is what concerns me. where was something like "moderate Islam" ever able to project any influence on the history of Islam? where has it ever effected the way in which Islam dealt with other culutres? Nowhere! NOWHERE! It always was "You are mine!" Only a few people would be stupid enough to say they "tolerate" nazism, and that they care to not offend the hurt feelings of a sensible (or hysteric) Nazi when openly attacking Hitler. But concerning an ideology that has fought us for 1300 years and that claims even wider ranging demands and wants to subjugate all what is not itself by every means necessary and available, and that until the very day regards parts of Europe as it's colonies that were lost and needs to be won back, beforte the rest of Europe is put under the shining light of Islam - they open their hearts and minds and surrender and open all gates and let their future masters in withiout resistance, withiut care, without thinking about the act of turning future generations into slaves of medieval primitive thinking. "But that Muslim guy I know is a friendly man, they certainly are not all that bad, stop generalizing, Skybird!" And people in Germany for the most were not knowing about KZs, and were friendly people, even reasomable - but Hitler and Nazism still was a reality and needed to get burned out with rude force. For which most Germans today are thankful.

Dieses islamische Geschichtsdenken ist so verdammt verlogen, verschlagen und scheinheilig, und es ist gierig bis in die Knochen. Orwell's dysutopia was dilletantic, compared to Islam.

Why should Islamic people ever start to change, and reflect about themselves, when you naive idiots all around try your best to free them from any negative, aversive consequences their Islam is causing them? Wake up to the reality of human nature: people do no change when they are well and have their wishes fulfilled, they only change when their life does not work, when their is pain, and pressure as a result of the way in which they live their life. Feed them, nurse then, let them have their way, support them - and kill any motivation for them to think about themnsleves, if it is really all that clever how they spend their lifes and what they are thinking. Spare them the need to adopt to our standards wihtin our sphere of this globe - and see Islamic society not changing as a direct result of your well-meant stupidity. Because you already act as obedient servants to the wishes of Islam. See your house falling and theirs raising as your well-earned reward, then.

[Immacolata]

Are you adressing me with that tirade, or yelling at the world at large?

[Skybird]

World at large, and everyone who feels adressed. Yours is only the first two paragraphs.

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Before the Muhammed cartoon incident, I would have flat out rejected that article. A few broken eggs does not an omelet make.

Before the Pope-quotes-dead-king-incident, I was asking myself if the problem was ever really going to be solved.

Now I am starting to belief that no matter what we do, or don't do, short of converting ourselves to islam, there will be no respite, no shelter from random terrorist acts, made to cause as much spectacle in the media as possible.

They are a fickle lot, and they will take offense at anything when the opportunity arises, in order to widen their appeal, and sinister types their recruitment base.

We either shed the ancient yoke of religion or get some serious synkretism running, and fast. Or forget about world peace.

But first we will have to stop kowtowing to the radicals, just because we really really really would like their oil. Untill the last drop of oil has been sucked out of the ME soil, the region will flare up time after time, and no stability will come over it.

The region was in turmoil way before any oil was produced there. I believe that unless we are willing to embark on a new Crusade, all will be lost.

[moose1am]

More wars have been fought over Religion that I care to think about.

History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by moose1am

History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa.

Someone's been cutting history class!

Naughty! Naughty!

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by moose1am

More wars have been fought over Religion that I care to think about.

History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa.

Nah, most wars perceived as religious probably just used it as a pretext for political aims. Name me one religious war and I will point out to you it's vested power and economical interests between the warring parts.

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

The region was in turmoil way before any oil was produced there. I believe that unless we are willing to embark on a new Crusade, all will be lost.

Well that turmoil was caused by the meddling British empire and France as far as I recall. The middle east was AFAIK not severely unstable under the ottomans, for instance.

As for a crusade is needed, it is a fool who thinks that he can solve the problems of terrorism by a crusade or a war. If all it takes is a bright idea in the head of a random person to go on a jihad suicide attack, how do you except you can prevent this by conventional means?

So far the crusades in the middle east have all turned out to be disasters. A thousand years ago, and today.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

So far the crusades in the middle east have all turned out to be disasters. A thousand years ago, and today.

Could you please explain to us all why much of this in Europe is (for the moment) no longer so?



Also, could you please tell us why there were Crusades to the ME in the first place?

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Well that turmoil was caused by the meddling British empire and France as far as I recall. The middle east was AFAIK not severely unstable under the ottomans, for instance.

Yes, during the industrial boom but you can't blame oil for the problems before that.

Originally Posted by Immacolata

As for a crusade is needed, it is a fool who thinks that he can solve the problems of terrorism by a crusade or a war. If all it takes is a bright idea in the head of a random person to go on a jihad suicide attack, how do you except you can prevent this by conventional means?

I do believe war can solve this. It has to be a ruthless war which the west, at the moment, is unwilling to undertake. As was mentioned earlier, you have to inflict pain on them to get them to change.

[Immacolata]

[QUOTE=SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

I do believe war can solve this. It has to be a ruthless war which the west, at the moment, is unwilling to undertake. As was mentioned earlier, you have to inflict pain on them to get them to change.

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

As for your map AVL

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

Like this:

Hardly the result of any crusades

The british empires accumulated territory:



Hardly the result of a crusade, either.

As for the medieval crusades? Normally I do not give a flying fart about Wikipedia, but actually this rundown is a very good description of it Crusades wiki style

To cap it short, the pretext was a war of religion, the vested economical intereset was trying to gain power and riches while there was available hands for it. Naturally the Crusades could not have taken place after the bubonic plagues of the late medieval era, simply because there was no hands and people had no problems getting rich grabbing their dead neighbours estates.

There was tensions between empires as the caliphate pushed towards Byzantium. The casus belli came perhaps from the destruction of the Sepulchre in early 1100th century. However, it was about politics, power and land. Religion was a nice flavour to it.

The Reconquista of Spain was another conflict over land. The moors lost that battle. Was it a religious battle? No, I do not believe it was more religious than it was driven by politics

Originally Posted by Karl von Clausewitz

“War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means.”

[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 guess the History Channel got it wrong again!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/af...chapter3.shtmls/storyofafrica/7chapter3.shtml

[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....