The Iraq thread 4

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

@ Feb. 10 2005,02:40)]

@ Feb. 10 2005,02:25)]

This is why that part of the world will never see peace. Atleast not until all those who are like this are wiped of the face of the earth.

I'm of the opinion that we should convert them all to Christianity and kill those who resist the process- what do you think, DoR?

I think your probably the best froum member ever! Also I think that statement is insane. We should try to make them like beans and if they don't make them eat rice.

Eh, it was worth a shot. Welcome back, DoR.

Thanks amigo. I think that we can have some most brilliant discussions here. We might even become best of friends, that disagree on a few things. Anyways I am happy to be here, but I had better get back on topic before Placebo sends me packing!!!

[theavonlady 2]

Sabotage?!

Quote[/b] ]Bomb "likely cause" of British plane crash in Iraq

2 hours, 57 minutes ago

LONDON (AFP) - The crash of a British military transport plane in Iraq occurred after the loss of its entire right wing and investigators believe a bomb planted by insurgents was the most "likely cause".

The Sun reported that the entire right wing of the C-130 Hercules plane was torn off, sending the plane instantly into a violent spin and causing it to break up in about four seconds but not before the pilot hit the mayday button.

What was left of the plane spiralled and somersaulted into desolate marshland 20 miles (30 kilometres) northwest of Baghdad.

"A bomb now looks the most likely cause" of the January 30 crash, a senior Royal Air Force source was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

"But sabotage is a another distinct possibility. Metal fatigue is another option but is considered much less likely. The suggestion that the plane was hit by a missile is a virtual non-starter," the source said Thursday.

Exploding ammunition or a missile would probably not have caused the wing to sheer off, and the plane was probably out of missile range, they added.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman refused to comment on the report. "We don't speculate when the findings of a board of inquiry have yet to be concluded," the spokesman said.

The bodies of the nine Royal Air Force aircrew and one soldier were flown into RAF Lyneham airbase in southwest England on Tuesday.

It was Britain's largest single-day loss of life since it helped launch the Iraq war in March 2003.

A senior US general said he believes the crash was due to an attack rather than a technical problem.

Lieutenant General Lance Smith, deputy commander of the US Central Command in Iraq, emphasized that it was his personal impression, and not the result of the ongoing enquiry.

"I personally believe that there may have been hostile action or something that happened inside the aircraft, but I don't think it was mechanical in nature," Smith told reporters at the Pentagon in Washington.

Smith said that the plane could have been victim of small-arms fire, or even "a lucky shot from an RPG", or rocket-propelled grenade.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm of the opinion that we should convert them all to Christianity and kill those who resist the process-

I really hope that was some kind of a sick/asinine joke...

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I'm of the opinion that we should convert them all to Christianity and kill those who resist the process-

I really hope that was some kind of a sick/asinine joke...

Think "cynicism", "sarcasm".

[Baphomet 0]

I gave it a 50/50 chance it was either an Ann Coulter'ism or just some very dry satire.

[theavonlady 2]

I gave it a 50/50 chance it was either an Ann Coulter'ism or just some very dry satire.

Not a big fan but please show me where Coulter said anything similar without herself intending it sarcastically.

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]theavonlady Posted on Feb. 10 2005,13:40

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Baphomet @ Feb. 10 2005,20:36)

Quote  

I'm of the opinion that we should convert them all to Christianity and kill those who resist the process-  

I really hope that was some kind of a sick/asinine joke...

Think "cynicism", "sarcasm".  

Probably should have been more like:

I'm of the opinion that we should convert them all to <insert religeon here> and kill those who resist the process-     Kinda sad thought even as a joke... Cause it's a good part of what's going on over there.

[denoir 0]

I gave it a 50/50 chance it was either an Ann Coulter'ism or just some very dry satire.

Not a big fan but please show me where Coulter said anything similar without herself intending it sarcastically.

On September 13th 2001,

This Is War; We should invade their countries

Quote[/b] ]Barbara Olson kept her cool. In the hysteria and terror of hijackers herding passengers to the rear of the plane, she retrieved her cell phone and called her husband, Ted, the solicitor general of the United States. She informed him that he had better call the FBI — the plane had been hijacked. According to reports, Barbara was still on the phone with Ted when her plane plunged in a fiery explosion directly into the Pentagon.

Barbara risked having her neck slit to warn the country of a terrorist attack. She was a patriot to the very end.

This is not to engage in the media's typical hallucinatory overstatement about anyone who is the victim of a horrible tragedy. The furtive cell phone call was an act of incredible daring and panache. If it were not, we'd be hearing reports of a hundred more cell phone calls. (Even people who swear to hate cell phones carry them for commercial air travel.)

The last time I saw Barbara in person was about three weeks ago. She generously praised one of my recent columns and told me I had really found my niche. Ted, she said, had taken to reading my columns aloud to her over breakfast.

I mention that to say three things about Barbara. First, she was really nice. A lot of people on TV seem nice, but aren't. (And some who don't seem nice, are.) But Barbara was always her charming, graceful, vebullient self. "Nice" is an amazingly rare quality among writers. In the opinion business, bitter, jealous hatred is the norm. Barbara had reason to be secure.

Second, it was actually easy to imagine Ted reading political columns aloud to Barbara at the breakfast table. Theirs was a relationship that could only be cheaply imitated by Bill and Hillary — the latter being a subject of Barbara's appropriately biting bestseller, Hell to Pay. Hillary claimed preposterously in the Talk magazine interview that she discussed policy with Bill while cutting his grapefruit in the morning. Ted and Barbara really did talk politics — and really did have breakfast together.

It's "Ted and Barbara" just like it's Fred and Ginger, and George and Gracie. They were so perfect together, so obvious, that their friends were as happy they were on their wedding day. This is more than the death of a great person and patriotic American. It's a human amputation.

Third, since Barbara's compliment, I've been writing my columns for Ted and Barbara. I'm always writing to someone in my head. Now I don't know who to write to. Ted-and-Barbara were a good muse.

Apart from hearing that this beautiful light has been extinguished from the world, only one other news flash broke beyond the numbingly omnipresent horror of the entire day. That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan — and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs.

They should have been ours. I want them to be ours.

This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.

The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling.

People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty.

"All of our lives" don't need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack — or a plane crashes because of pilot error — Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever.

The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers "packed their own bags," and the hostile, lumpen mesomorphs ripping open our luggage somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. (Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?)

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

[EiZei 0]

I gave it a 50/50 chance it was either an Ann Coulter'ism or just some very dry satire.

Not a big fan but please show me where Coulter said anything similar without herself intending it sarcastically.

Here we go again:

Quote[/b] ]"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. ¶ We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - from her syndicated column (http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml), 13 September, 2001

Hey, why im here I might throw in some extra ones for free:

Quote[/b] ]

"To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! Merry Christmas." - http://www.anncoulter.com/ (since removed) December 22 - 29, 2004.

Quote[/b] ]

* "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')". - from her column (at townhall.com) (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml), 4 March, 2004

Quote[/b] ]

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." - Talking Ann Coulter doll, Conservative Book Service [1] (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C6230&sour_cd=ANB000101) (from Slander, pp. 5-6; published June 2002)

EDIT: Denoir got to it, damn he is fast, too fast

[theavonlady 2]

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

And you understood that to be taken l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y?

Her point is to do to others what they try to do to you.

[EiZei 0]

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

And you understood that to be taken l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y?

Her point is to do to others what they try to do to you.

Please read the latter part of the same paragraph, I really do think that she is saying that literally, or is reading ann coulter akin to reading the old testament nowadays?

Hell, maybe Michael Savage is also not being literal when he says:

Quote[/b] ]

"I think these people [Al-Qaida, terrorists] need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." - The Daily Savage, May 12, 2003.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Her point is to do to others what they try to do to you.

That seems a rather ridiculously generous assesment of what she was/is saying.

[theavonlady 2]

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

And you understood that to be taken l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y?

Her point is to do to others what they try to do to you.

Please read the latter part of the same paragraph

I did. War is war. Clear message.

I'm the last one to be interested in converting anyone to Christianity (sorry, folks!) and I understand her intent to mean make the enemy suffer in the most offensive way, whether physically or emotionally.

One does not have need a PhD in literature to understand just what she means.

But take it as you wish.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Ann Coulter: What's different about Germany than here, but I think is more similar to Japan and ought to be the model, is that Germany at least had a wealth of civilization prior to the Third Reich and it had a respect for human life, something that was not as noticeable in Japan. And one of the things General MacArthur did, he considered converting the emperor to Christianity. Decided not to because he thought there would be a fight between Catholics and Presbyterians. But General MacArthur called in thousands of Christian missionaries. He distributed thousands of Bibles. It wasn't as much of a success story as the Christian missionaries were in Korea after the Korean War, but you know how it was a success story? They have unprecedented religious freedom there, something that is absent in every Muslim country. In fact --

[Transcript of Politically Incorrect, September 25, 2001]

[theavonlady 2]

Thank you. That sheds a lot more light on her intentions.

[Akira 0]

Thank you. That sheds a lot more light on her intentions.

The interesting thing is I've been searching for a transcript to that show...to try and get context before and after...

And I can't find that show at all. All the links to that transcript are dead, but there are links to other dates before and after that date.

[theavonlady 2]

Thank you. That sheds a lot more light on her intentions.

The interesting thing is I've been searching for a transcript to that show...to try and get context before and after...

And I can't find that show at all. All the links to that transcript are dead, but there are links to other dates before and after that date.

Took me a long time.

[Akira 0]

Thanks Avon.

Case anyone is interested here is the part immediatly following the quote I gave:

Quote[/b] ]Bill: We want democracy to take root.

Eric: If we go into that country now and start distributing Bibles, we're going to be in trouble.

Ann: Well, yeah, but two Christian missionaries --

Eric: We have to allow the tolerant part of Islam to flourish.

In other words, establish Democratic institutions and then --

Ann: What tolerant part of Islam?

Eric: Islam has an enormous history.

Ann: Where is that in evidence in the Middle East right now?

Eric: Do you know anything about the history of the Middle East?

Ann: Name the country.

Eric: Do you know anything about the history of the Middle East? And what civilization --

Jerry: You don't have to know the history.

[ Talking over each other ]

So I think it is safe to say she did indeed mean that we should convert the Middle East to Christianity.

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]Eric: In all those countries, you have dictators that we have supported for 15 years.

Bill: Right.

Eric: Those dictators have --

Ann: We didn't support Saddam Hussein.

That's not true.

Bill: But there is a --

[ Talking over each other ]

Bill: Islam was the most flourishing civilization in the middle ages.

When Western Europeans were shivering and cowering and cast behind --

Ann: Fine, they invented the flying buttress, but they don't have a history of tolerance.

That's the point --

She must have forgotten the part that before the Christians came rampaging down during the Crusades...other religions were allowed to practice and flourish under Islamic rule...

[Acecombat 0]

Dont worry akira everyone conveniently forgets that

Plz move on with this crap already , delusional religious or so called 'religious' conservatives and their views need'nt even be bothered discussed around , its a waste of forum space.

So in the maentime you guys can enjoy this hoax .... apparently this belongs right next to the 'US marines will be guarding the streets of heaven' crap or whatever ..

[theavonlady 2]

She must have forgotten the part that before the Christians came rampaging down during the Crusades...other religions were allowed to practice and flourish under Islamic rule...

Right. When Islam ruled in Andulusia, everyone was happy!

[Acecombat 0]

She must have forgotten the part that before the Christians came rampaging down during the Crusades...other religions were allowed to practice and flourish under Islamic rule...

Right. When Islam ruled in Andulusia, everyone was happy!

Yes we know your hate for islam and you never find anything nice with it at all so can we move on, i expect your history book reads about how EVERY islamic rule was bad and how EVERY islamic ruler was evil and filled with NOTHING but vileness and etc etc

Weve been there done that so can we move with the Iraq news as the thread says so?

[theavonlady 2]

She must have forgotten the part that before the Christians came rampaging down during the Crusades...other religions were allowed to practice and flourish under Islamic rule...

Right. When Islam ruled in Andulusia, everyone was happy!

Yes we know your hate for islam and you never find anything nice with it at all so can we move on, i expect your history book reads about how EVERY islamic rule was bad and how EVERY islamic ruler was evil and filled with NOTHING but vileness and etc etc

Weve been there done that so can we move with the Iraq news as the thread says so?

No but if you insist - a little Bar Ye'or to ruffle your revisionism:

Quote[/b] ]Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest. Most churches were converted into mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a strong faction of royal Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.

Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis - like elsewhere in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains; many abandoned their land and fled to the towns. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and crucifixions* would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing.

By the end of the eighth century, the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced Malikism, one of the most rigorous schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and subsequently repressed the other Muslim schools of law. Three quarters of a century ago, at a time when political correctness was not dominating historical publication and discourse, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, the pre-eminent scholar of Andalusia, wrote: "The Muslim Andalusian state thus appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation."

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur’an 5:33*.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20 000 families expelled. Feuding was endemic in the Andalusian cities between the different sectors of the population: Arab and Berber colonizers, Iberian Muslim converts (Muwalladun) and Christian dhimmis (Mozarabs). There were rarely periods of peace in the Amirate of Cordova (756-912), nor later.

Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.

The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun (d. 1134) offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and Christians in Seville around 1100 C.E.: "No…Jew or Christian may be allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual; on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to [greet] them with the [expression], ‘Peace be upon you’. In effect, ‘Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God’s warning. They are the confederates of Satan’s party; Satan’s confederates will surely be the losers!’ (Qur’an 58:19 [modern Dawood translation]). A distinctive sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace."

Ibn Abdun also forbade the selling of scientific books to dhimmis, under the pretext that they translated them and attributed them to their co-religionists and bishops. In fact, plagiarism is difficult to prove since whole Jewish and Christian libraries were looted and destroyed. Another prominent Andalusian jurist, Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (d. 1064), wrote that Allah has established the infidels’ ownership of their property merely to provide booty for Muslims.

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade.

The Granada pogrom was likely to have been incited, in part, by the bitter anti-Jewish ode of Abu Ishaq, a well known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote: "Put them back where they belong and reduce them to the lowest of the low..turn your eyes to other [Muslim] countries and you will find the Jews there are outcast dogs...Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them...They have violated our covenant with them so how can you be held guilty against the violators?"

The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation- massacre, captivity, and forced conversion- was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim “inquisitors†(i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries) removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators. Maimonides, the renowned philosopher and physician, experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordoba with his entire family in 1148, temporarily residing in Fez — disguised as a Muslim — before finding asylum in Fatimid Egypt.

Indeed, although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: "..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.."

A valid summary assessment of interfaith relationships in Muslim Spain, and the contemporary currents responsible for obfuscating that history, can be found in Richard Fletcher's engaging Moorish Spain. Mr. Fletcher offers these sobering, unassailable observations:

"The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion- to mention only a few disruptive episodes- must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie. The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility...Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later)…In the second half of the twentieth century a new agent of obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the liberal conscience, which sees the evils of colonialism- assumed rather than demonstrated-foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of al-Andalus and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly, in the Moorish conquest and colonization). Stir the mix well together and issue it free to credulous academics and media persons throughout the western world. Then pour it generously over the truth…in the cultural conditions that prevail in the west today the past has to be marketed, and to be successfully marketed it has to be attractively packaged. Medieval Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal. Self-indulgent fantasies of glamour...do wonders for sharpening up its image. But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch."

The socio-political history of Andalusia was characterized by a particularly oppressive dhimmitude that is completely incompatible with modern notions of equality between individuals, regardless of religious faith. At the dawn of the 21st century, we must insist that Muslims in the West adopt post-Enlightenment societal standards of equality, not "tolerance," abandoning forever their hagiography of the brutal, discriminatory standards practiced by the classical Maliki jurists of "enlightened" Andalusia.

*The Noble Qur'an- Three esteemed translations, online:

Sura 005, Verse 033

YUSUF ALI: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

PICKTHAL: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;"

SHAKIR: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Bat Ye'or, www.dhimmitude.org, www.dhimmi.org , is the author most recently of Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, and Eurabia.

Charmed.

G'nite. Sweet dreams.

[Acecombat 0]

Thanks again for your version of history , i am charmed indeed .

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Yes we know your hate for islam and you never find anything nice with it at all so can we move on, i expect your history book reads about how EVERY islamic rule was bad and how EVERY islamic ruler was evil and filled with NOTHING but vileness and etc etc

Weve been there done that so can we move with the Iraq news as the thread says so?

    Funny if you replace islam with christianity in that quote it could be directed at you.

     

Quote[/b] ]Yes we know your hate for christianity and you never find anything nice with it at all so can we move on, i expect your history book reads about how EVERY christian rule was bad and how EVERY christianruler was evil and filled with NOTHING but vileness and etc etc

Weve been there done that so can we move with the Iraq news as the thread says so?

     I'm not going to pretend the crusades didn't happen, they sucked. What I don't like is how every one conveniently ignores the big opening Jihad that was the birth of Islam. Every one seems to have this false belief that the people of the middle east had always been muslims and that the crusades brought unheard of violence and war to the region. The fact is that the birth of Islam was a traumatic bloody Jihad.

      Both sides were blood thirsty religious fanatics. The Muslims were not the good guys, they were up to the same bullshit as the crusaders.All I'm trying to say is If you're so up tight and pissed about the crusades you have to hate both sides. They were both equally worthless and the same.

       At least the Crusades only took place in and around Palestine. You want to talk about the goody two shoe Jihadist? How about Spain, The Balkans, North Africa, Chechnya, the Philipines, and parts of India.

[Acecombat 0]

Oh god not another one