Knight Of Shadows, on 13 April 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:
but this is halirious .. the conquest idea i mean i don't believe it's true at all maybe bend few laws for their side
but conquest ??? come on this is really called panic from your side
by the way ... again on the history of islam you told me we don't know much about
it wasn't spread by conquest at first place go back to history and take alook .. most of their wars were self defesne
and it spread more for it's princables among poor people and then by traders to other countries
it's all mentioned in history .. not saying there was no conquests just saying it was spread by conquests
No panic, just history. This is why I say Muslims don’t know their own history. They are too busy claiming that their conquests are acts of defense.
Quote
here now about algeria you're playing the western modern card all over again
algeria brought the invasion by pirecy .. lybia was occupied by italy for what again ?
iraq brought it on it self by weapon of mass destruction which didn't exist .. and what syria did to france too ?
and what all the other countries did to bring the invasions ? there's always exuses for the west no ?
i wish just some one could admit that the west was invading the middle east for greed .. but no they all circle around making exuses
What kind of bull are you talking about? What’s this “Western Modern Card”? The excuses never run out for Muslims. I’m assuming you’ve heard of the Barbary Pirates? It’s the same thing as these Somali Pirates today. This leads into one of my favorite stories. When the fledgling US lost the protection of the Navigation Acts, Tripoli, Morocco, and Algiers began pirating American merchantmen. In 1786, Jefferson asked Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja of Algiers, why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts and Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." And it’s history as to what the American response was. Many of the European powers followed suit over the next hundred years or so. They were tired of paying tribute.
Between 650 and 800 ce, various Muslim nations (Including Syria – and I tried staying away from that but you brought it up) raided Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, and the Italian coast. I’ve physically seen the Saracen fortifications in Amalfi and Bari - impressive. Then in 827, the actual conquest of Sicily began. Muslims held on to it until 1091. That wasn’t defending; it was an opportunity to grab territory. In 1911, Italy invaded Libya for two reasons. One was the continuation of defeating the Barbary Pirates plus the Libyan people were also looking for an opportunity to free themselves from the Ottoman Empire (which had nothing to do with religion).
The 2003 NIE over inflated the size of Saddam’s arsenal. The 2005 revised NIE corrected that, but it was still clear that he had on going weapon programs. France was covertly arming Saddam to take on Iran. I think that the 2007 Israeli punitive strike against Hezbollah found the remnants there. Don’t you think it unusual that France had offered to send a special peacekeeping unit to Lebanon? But the reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam had violated the cease fire just one too many times, including his continually revising weapon declarations and the way he toyed with the inspectors. It had become so blatantly obvious that he was hiding things.
France did not invade Syria. It was awarded it. Remember, the Ottomans lost and their Empire and it was portioned off. That is what the victors do. That’s what the Ottomans had done. France replaced the Ottomans as rulers.
I wish Muslims would accept and acknowledge their conquest of greed and understand that it is not defense.
Quote
saddam was a murderer .. usa did worse " abo graib prison " the shelter underground bombed that killed thousands of which all families and children see what i said i said he was a murderer am not like you .. i don't make exuses for murder
i just say it plain and clear .. but you would never admit what usa did was wrong too
you just have to look for bad parts about the west too .. and it's scheme in all of this not just look at muslims bad part
How is the US abuses at Abu Ghraib worse than what Saddam did? Thousands killed in a shelter? Now I know you are smoking something. Who’s making excuses? The US made mistakes in Iraq and **** happens in war. But you are so misinformed on the casualties in Iraq. If this is the level of your knowledge on the subject, then I’d suggest that Syria was as good as half a world away.
Quote
aww awarded .. speaking like people in here like object or prize eh ? nice attitude is this what western think of us ?
cattle to be awarded around ? ohh please for once just admit it that the western were invading middle east
to feed their own greed the reason you guys went rich coz you sucked the riches of Our countries
and as always the west lay down .. play victim .. how pitiful
The West doesn’t play the vctim, but as survivors, they get payback. That’s exactly what Syria was – an object prize. But you fail to see that under the Colonial powers, Syria and several other Muslim nations found their freedom that they didn’t have under the Ottomans or any other period prior to the Assyrian Empire. The West has used a lot of their own resources in developing the oil fields in the ME. They’re entitled to some compensation. You know what OPEC is? Who’s robbing who? The oil producers are more than handsomely compensated.
The bottom line is that I’m ok with the conquest part of it. Both sides do it. This is what civilization does. The weaker is absorbed by the stronger. That’s why empires come and go. I’m even ok with the Quran giving Muslims the right to make war on all non believers. But what pisses me off is the whinefest that Muslims do when the tables are turned. The moderates speak out against the radicals yet they overlook their own history and all that speaking out only amounts to lip service because in the end, moderates support the radicals. Nothing is going to change until Muslims admit to their complicity. And because of that it really doesn’t matter if the West invades more. Perhaps the West should take a lesson out of Genghis Khan’s book. I heard it was a hit with Muslims in the day.
0
