Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RavenHawk

Was: Do muslims......

180 posts in this topic

once again you strike out

shittes are from 10-20 % not as you claim .. get your info right please

not really not every shitte care about politics .. again you thinking of all of them by taking few examples

Wrong, I don't strike out. Yeah, I got the percentage wrong. Still a statistically significant minority. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole founding of the Shi'a branch and the whole concept of imams. Maybe that isn't based on politics.

and i'll help you understand my statement correct .. Violent .. is not measured wheathered the people support or oppose the united states .. i know you guys are really blinded by your own goverment on this

so every one who says NO to usa .. is simply violent or terrorist .. that's not how you measure violent

and looks to me .. that's how you do it so maybe it's You outta get to that logic courses .. seems like you need it more than i do bro

Nope, wrong again. Reading comprehension is an important part of any reply, sorry you're lacking it. Read my last post again, get back to me.

nope i never denied there are violent muslims just like i never deny there's also violent people in all religion

i never said that .. just your imagination playing tricks on you so do n't swell you ego thinking you made me into admitting something .. read my posts

I did. Every time someone talks about violence in Islam, you talk about "correcting their mistaken beliefs." When I mentioned aggressive Muslims, you said, "Name one, I'm all ears," thereby implying I wouldn't be able to. Sorry, we're discussing Islam, not other religions, keep on track.

your definition of violent is kinda of correct .. well kinda of that is IF islam was claiming desire to be the most dominated religion on earth .. it simply doesn't therefore again you strike out taking few examples and explain it in your weird little way apply on all muslims

You just don't understand your own religion then, that's kinda sad. Islam is one of the explicitly universalist religions. Another one would be Christianity. However, as I also mentioned, Christianity stopped spreading by violence a long time ago.

however i know you won't ansewr my rants about bush .. that's because you're too ignorant to admit when you're wrong

not that i care anyway .. laterz

Sorry, wrong again. Does it get tiring? I won't answer your rants about Bush because they are not germane to the topic. I already mentioned that, but we've already established that reading comprehension isn't your strong point, so I'll gladly reiterate. Anything for a bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was kind of rambling, but the point is that there are so many examples of Muslims being spoiled brats in their adopted country. And in some instances follow certain document patterns to over throw the current government for purposes of conquest. This is how Islam has spread – not just by the sword. I have no problem with anyone building a place of worship, but given the current circumstances, to build Cordova house where they want it is showing a lack of understanding by insulting American sensibilities. Does that not count for anything? And it’s not really the mosque but the meaning behind the name – totally inappropriate. That you bring it up shows how out of touch you are and proves my point. You’re not thinking and you don’t care. So why do you expect any respect to be returned?

I guess the feeling is mutual. But we both know this is just an excuse. If we took Bin Laden’s advice and got out of all Muslim territory, there’d soon be some other excuse. Again that is what Islam does.

Let’s start with the Muslim invasion of Europe. Shall we talk about the conquest of Iberia, the destruction of the Byzantine Empire, the invasion of the Balkans, the Barbary Pirates… Yeah, that really puts the Crusades into perspective finally. The first Crusade was in 1096. Al Andalus was in 711. The British Empire is probably the most notable invader. But the thing about that is that the British invaded to exploit resources (not to rob or steel). They weren’t really interested in converting anyone. Maybe except to Anglo-ize the locals just enough to run British style bureaucracy. The outcome of that was leaving a score of independent modern nations. Now if you are referring to Ottoman lands lost after WWI, that is not an invasion. Perhaps you were referring to the French invasion of Algeria? Now the Barbary Pirates wouldn’t have had anything to do with that now would they? Except for the British (and then in some cases) the only time Western powers invaded Muslim nations was because the Muslims felt it was their right to attack the West. And when that backfired because the West was able to play the game better, Muslims played the victim card.

What do you mean by 2 million paid the price? Between 2 and 4 million Iraqis left the country and most of them were Christian. Or are you buying into the inflated numbers of killed? The estimates are between 80,000 and 100,000 and most of those were those that fought against coalition forces. So please, get your numbers right. And if you think you are right , just think about it logically. If it was the intention of the American military to just go out and kill anyone and everyone, then they wouldn’t have needed ground troops. They could just bomb the Hell out of the Iraqis. If you know anything about training techniques, you know that troops train in urban warfare to go in, in a surgical manner and keep collateral damage to a minimum. So there is no way to have very large body counts.

Well, let’s see…what was the reason to invade? Despite the media and the hype, the reason as per Resolution 1441 was because Saddam violated the cease fire. And it was a good thing we went in when we did because we almost walked into a Shiite-Sunni civil war. But our invasion quelled that or there could have been millions of dead. And then France got p***ed at us. Not because we were violating Iraqi rights, but because we cut in on their deal with Saddam. The French wanted to arm Iraq with nukes to counter Iran. Are you kidding me? Isn’t India and Pakistan enough? On many levels, Iraq was a necessary war. I just wish we could have completed the task.

Well, you are wrong. You’ve bought into the hype. There were no two million Muslims killed by coalition forces. What do you have to say about the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed of his own people? Oh, that’s right, most of them were probably Shitties so it doesn’t matter. I imagine that a lot of them were also Kurds. I wouldn’t talk about reality if I were you. More Muslims have died at the hands of other Muslims than have at the hands of the West.

At least I try not to. I think I used Assad as an example once, but it was part of a list.

I don’t go looking for just the bad parts. I am very aware of the good. It is just insignificant at this time. To look at the good and ignore the bad is just plain ignorance until at least one begins to control the bad. Most of it is neither good nor bad. It is just history.

Well, as I mentioned before. Algeria brought it on herself by piracy. France said enough. If you don’t want to be invaded, then don’t hang a sign around your neck saying “kick me”. As far as Syria goes, France didn’t invade, it was awarded Syria because the Ottomans surrendered. For a time, it was French soil.

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, I don't strike out. Yeah, I got the percentage wrong. Still a statistically significant minority. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole founding of the Shi'a branch and the whole concept of imams. Maybe that isn't based on politics.

Nope, wrong again. Reading comprehension is an important part of any reply, sorry you're lacking it. Read my last post again, get back to me.

I did. Every time someone talks about violence in Islam, you talk about "correcting their mistaken beliefs." When I mentioned aggressive Muslims, you said, "Name one, I'm all ears," thereby implying I wouldn't be able to. Sorry, we're discussing Islam, not other religions, keep on track.

You just don't understand your own religion then, that's kinda sad. Islam is one of the explicitly universalist religions. Another one would be Christianity. However, as I also mentioned, Christianity stopped spreading by violence a long time ago.

Sorry, wrong again. Does it get tiring? I won't answer your rants about Bush because they are not germane to the topic. I already mentioned that, but we've already established that reading comprehension isn't your strong point, so I'll gladly reiterate. Anything for a bro.

yeah you got percintage wrong and who knows what else right ?

let me get this right .. you tell me am wrong when you make the mistakes ??

isn't that why you think they're violent ? coz your goverment tells you they are ?

you know it .. i know it .. there's no point of deny .. denial gets us nowhere here you know

and did you read me right .. i never asked you to prove that there is violent muslims ! it was exactly like this " you said that you wanna know why muslims in ME violent " i said " Explain please am all ears "

i never aimed to justify their violent .. when they're violent of course it seems to me that you are the one not reading the posts right

now we don't aim to " Imply " we aim to discuss i said name one so i can know where you get your pointviews from

and when your one named is " iran ayatoaalh " i got good idea that your points comes from your own goverment

which had really nice lies in the past about everything therefore i got pretty good idea what we can talk about

i mean you never hear the other side of story your gov and media won't allow it :D

and you keep throwing words left and right about me not understanding my religon .. it makes it sound funny you know

coz you seriously think those suicide bombs are meant to spread islam :D :D ?

if you do we're having bigger problem that this discussion :lol:

it's ok i never expected you to answer my " rants " about the Bush holy crusade on iraq :D

it was mere example to tell you how your gov even used religious concept to justify a war :P

so what you know ! it's not just islamic extremeists that does it !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah you got percintage wrong and who knows what else right ?

let me get this right .. you tell me am wrong when you make the mistakes ??

isn't that why you think they're violent ? coz your goverment tells you they are ?

you know it .. i know it .. there's no point of deny .. denial gets us nowhere here you know

Nope, I'm not going based on what my government tells me. That's just a foolish assumption. You're in denial, because every argument you make comes back to, "I know the truth, and you don't, because your government is big-stupid meanie heads. Then lots of smilies." You're extremely predictable.

and did you read me right .. i never asked you to prove that there is violent muslims ! it was exactly like this " you said that you wanna know why muslims in ME violent " i said " Explain please am all ears "

i never aimed to justify their violent .. when they're violent of course it seems to me that you are the one not reading the posts right

now we don't aim to " Imply " we aim to discuss i said name one so i can know where you get your pointviews from

and when your one named is " iran ayatoaalh " i got good idea that your points comes from your own goverment

which had really nice lies in the past about everything therefore i got pretty good idea what we can talk about

i mean you never hear the other side of story your gov and media won't allow it

Ah, you did it again! See what I was saying about predictability? And what did you expect, when I asked a question, and you never actually answered that question? Also, please stop with the smilies. They're predictable, but not enjoyable. And also childish.

and you keep throwing words left and right about me not understanding my religon .. it makes it sound funny you know

coz you seriously think those suicide bombs are meant to spread islam?

if you do we're having bigger problem that this discussion

Yep, you do not understand your own religion. You know extremely little about Islam. You heard me exactly right.

And sorry, still no discussion of that, silly, you really need to read better in the future. Everyone else is doing it is a child's justification. But that's as far as I'll answer that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm not going based on what my government tells me. That's just a foolish assumption. You're in denial, because every argument you make comes back to, "I know the truth, and you don't, because your government is big-stupid meanie heads. Then lots of smilies." You're extremely predictable.

Ah, you did it again! See what I was saying about predictability? And what did you expect, when I asked a question, and you never actually answered that question? Also, please stop with the smilies. They're predictable, but not enjoyable. And also childish.

Yep, you do not understand your own religion. You know extremely little about Islam. You heard me exactly right.

And sorry, still no discussion of that, silly, you really need to read better in the future. Everyone else is doing it is a child's justification. But that's as far as I'll answer that.

why do these cute smilies bothers you ? :lol:

they help keeps the discussions friendly when some one calls you childish you know ;)

so you going to play the serious dude now and tell me i don't know about my religion because what i know

doesn't suit your little world of lies ? :D sorry to dissapoint you mate

but that's the " truth "

i didn't see real question in your post i saw you coming aggressive .. probably more than muslims which kinda of dissapoint me i thought we're the aggressive ones !

now what question your majesty asked and i didn't asnwer ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm pretty convinced you know less than I do about Islam. It's a shame, I know.

Eh, conversation over. Fun for a while, now it's just getting too annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehehe you live in usa knows about islam more than me in syria born and lived as muslim :D

whatever floats your sinking boat mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's exactly the case. Sad, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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 p***es 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Islamic countries conquered other countries is not disputable. Human nature. But I do not understand why it is different of what christian countries did? Grab a piece land and spread your beliefe whatever it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Islamic countries conquered other countries is not disputable. Human nature. But I do not understand why it is different of what christian countries did? Grab a piece land and spread your beliefe whatever it is.

I think the biggest difference was the level of violence but I'm no expert. Also, the conquest of non Muslims continues today in the politics of 'host' countries where Muslims immigrate. Conquest in the sense that they try to change law and custom in an area to reflect their beliefs yet they will not allow themselves to be assimilated. It's a slow process but effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Islamic countries conquered other countries is not disputable. Human nature. But I do not understand why it is different of what christian countries did? Grab a piece land and spread your beliefe whatever it is.

Oh this is lovely. One Muslim argues that they don’t and other argues that they do. This has been the point. It doesn’t make a bit of difference who does it. But it’s hypocritical to claim that Muslims only attack in defense especially when it’s shown that Muslims were doing it to Europe from the start. The West isn’t the evil invader, it’s just returning in kind. The spread of Islam was stopped at the gates of Vienna and the tables have now turned. What is heard from Islam? Whines and terrorist attacks. If I may use a scene from a movie to paint a picture, in the movie “Dodge ball”, the main character hits a girl scout with the ball. She doubles over in pain (acting of course). Then the main character gets blindsided by a ball from another girl scout. When arguing with Muslims, I’m often reminded of that scene and the one I posted from “Mars Attacks”. I have as yet seen anything that would change that outlook. I keep waiting and hoping. The trust factor isn’t that high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest difference was the level of violence but I'm no expert. Also, the conquest of non Muslims continues today in the politics of 'host' countries where Muslims immigrate. Conquest in the sense that they try to change law and custom in an area to reflect their beliefs yet they will not allow themselves to be assimilated. It's a slow process but effective.

Not to mention that it is against the law in Muslim nations to proselytize. I’d love to see that law in England and France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this is lovely. One Muslim argues that they don’t and other argues that they do. This has been the point. It doesn’t make a bit of difference who does it. But it’s hypocritical to claim that Muslims only attack in defense especially when it’s shown that Muslims were doing it to Europe from the start. The West isn’t the evil invader, it’s just returning in kind. The spread of Islam was stopped at the gates of Vienna and the tables have now turned. What is heard from Islam? Whines and terrorist attacks. If I may use a scene from a movie to paint a picture, in the movie “Dodge ball”, the main character hits a girl scout with the ball. She doubles over in pain (acting of course). Then the main character gets blindsided by a ball from another girl scout. When arguing with Muslims, I’m often reminded of that scene and the one I posted from “Mars Attacks”. I have as yet seen anything that would change that outlook. I keep waiting and hoping. The trust factor isn’t that high.

Who attacked first whom is lost in history. Everyone writes the history as it one pleases. That is the only truth and consistency in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Islamic countries conquered other countries is not disputable. Human nature. But I do not understand why it is different of what christian countries did? Grab a piece land and spread your beliefe whatever it is.

Christians don't tend to deny it, also unlike Mohammed Jesus never owned a sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

raven there's no point discussions with you .. obviously you got thought on your head you just want to impose on us

regardless of other side of story you only wanna hear one and blow away judgements based on it

beside your talk of quran says so is another fantasy of yours .. bring me the line

just look at you trying to excuses us work in iraq saying "" happens in war .. well why didnt you think the same about the pirates ..and said "" happens ? why ? coz you're one sided and obviously working agenda i don't agree with

you can go on with your post i find it pointless to discuss further with one sided view on things

i like my discussions open and simple you admit wrong things .. i admit wrong things

instead of making up crap when you find your self cornered and say " **** happens "

well i can say the same things at 9/11 and other terrorist attacks .. you know just "" happens

we won't get anywhere like this .. you'd think you're more vauleable that when "" happens to you it's big deal

but when "" happens to other people it's no big deal .it's just "" happens

see you obviously don't pay attention i said " most " of conquests were in defense .. not all

go back and read well my friend before just taking fast hint at the post and start key striking

the way you started the topic was like ohh am willing to discuss with no idea to impose or side to take

but obviously you already made up your mind and got your idea which i don't agree on

trying to impose it like fact or something

you keep talking about muslims history and how much we don't know it .. yet on every point you make on islam history

it turns out you're bluffing and don't know crap about our history

and honestly and my personal opinion as simple as it is .. you're not trying to discuss

you just wanna impose your idea as the fact .. and you wanna overlook what makes your idea wrong

and dismiss it as """ happens .. which doesn't suits me well so catch you later

ohh and i'll try to save you spot in schools here so you can teach us " Real history " of islam :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest difference was the level of violence but I'm no expert. Also, the conquest of non Muslims continues today in the politics of 'host' countries where Muslims immigrate. Conquest in the sense that they try to change law and custom in an area to reflect their beliefs yet they will not allow themselves to be assimilated. It's a slow process but effective.

little example when the Crusaders took jerusalem .. they killed every single muslim

when Saladin Kicked their asses back to europe dragging their tails of defeat like cubs .. he didn't kill christians there

so yeah i agree the levels of violence were so uncompareable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians don't tend to deny it, also unlike Mohammed Jesus never owned a sword.

That is true. Isa allahisellam was a different kind of Allahs messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

little example when the Crusaders took jerusalem .. they killed every single muslim

when Saladin Kicked their asses back to europe dragging their tails of defeat like cubs .. he didn't kill christians there

so yeah i agree the levels of violence were so uncompareable

And what of the second part of my statement? Do Christians still try to conquer you? Immigrate to your country and try to change your law to suit themselves? The wars waged against Islamists in the past decade have been just wars. We have taken no land or resources, anyone who says we have is just a fool or a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

raven there's no point discussions with you ..

Only in your view there is no discussion. I’m holding your feet to the fire and not allowing you to divert from the discussion with your deception.

obviously you got thought on your head you just want to impose on us

regardless of other side of story you only wanna hear one and blow away judgements based on it

I’m not imposing anything. I’m trying to stay with the facts. Whoever writes the history only provides the flavor. That doesn’t change the events. You seem to want to stick to only one side of the argument. If anything is imposing anything on you, it is history and Muslim track record.

beside your talk of quran says so is another fantasy of yours .. bring me the line

9:5. 9:1-10 puts it into context.

just look at you trying to excuses us work in iraq saying "" happens in war .. well why didnt you think the same about the pirates ..and said "" happens ? why ?

I’m not making excuses. That in itself is an excuse to divert attention. **** happens and people die. That doesn’t make the West evil. I didn’t think I had to mention that **** happens with the Barbary Pirates – once is enough. But if you like, many innocent people died in the Umayyad Conquest of Iberia. Many died in the Ifriqiyan invasion of Sicily. And many died in the piracy acts of Algiers, Tripoli, and Morocco. That’s what happens in war. Does that make Muslims innately evil? I don’t think so.

coz you're one sided and obviously working agenda i don't agree with

you can go on with your post i find it pointless to discuss further with one sided view on things

I think things have been one sided for far too long. The point of my post is to bring balance to it.

i like my discussions open and simple you admit wrong things .. i admit wrong things

instead of making up crap when you find your self cornered and say " **** happens "

well i can say the same things at 9/11 and other terrorist attacks .. you know just "" happens

we won't get anywhere like this .. you'd think you're more vauleable that when "" happens to you it's big deal

but when "" happens to other people it's no big deal .it's just "" happens

I know it makes it easier for you if you think I am making up crap. That’s the madrasah in you. I’m trying to keep this open but it is far from simple. The mistakes of the West are obvious and well documented. It would be trivial to go over them. I think it’s about time to go over *all* the wrong doings of Islam this time. Of which you’ve never admitted to and you still try to make excuses for. History is a great revealer of track record. You’ve been given several examples in history and you still can’t acknowledge them. Because it happens to us doesn’t make it more valuable but now that the tables have turned and it’s happening to you – welcome to the club.

see you obviously don't pay attention i said " most " of conquests were in defense .. not all

go back and read well my friend before just taking fast hint at the post and start key striking

I paid attention, it just wasn’t noteworthy. You could have put “all”, “some”, or “a few” and it wouldn’t have mattered. You can either have *conquest* or *defense*, not both. But if you like, if you want to argue from that angle, then what Israel did in ’67 should fit your definition and the entire Muslim world should just stop whining about Israel’s pre-emptive strike and leave them alone. It was Jewish land long before it was Muslim. And it was poor choices by a Muslim nation that allowed the opportunity for Jewish return. It wasn’t the West.

the way you started the topic was like ohh am willing to discuss with no idea to impose or side to take

but obviously you already made up your mind and got your idea which i don't agree on

trying to impose it like fact or something

I’m always willing to discuss it, I’m just tired of having to sit back and be dictated to that your side is the only legitimate side. Let’s try going with the facts for once this time… You’re the one making up my mind, I’m trying really really hard to keep an open mind. I’m reacting to your words.

you keep talking about muslims history and how much we don't know it .. yet on every point you make on islam history

it turns out you're bluffing and don't know crap about our history

and honestly and my personal opinion as simple as it is .. you're not trying to discuss

you just wanna impose your idea as the fact .. and you wanna overlook what makes your idea wrong

and dismiss it as """ happens .. which doesn't suits me well so catch you later

And each point you’re proving that you don’t know your own history or you’re in denial of it. How am I bluffing (or whatever) by going with history? I’m not making this stuff up. I want to impose the facts of which you keep diverting from. **** happens is not my point, it is an axiom of war. My point is that the West is not the only ones guilty of that. There is just as much blood on Muslim hands. But Muslims look at their hands and say “no blood there”. How dishonest is that?

ohh and i'll try to save you spot in schools here so you can teach us " Real history " of islam :lol:

I may have to. If noone does then that artificial and phony sense of superiority will be Islam’s downfall.

I guess you overlooked the following, so I offer it again. 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 p***es 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

little example when the Crusaders took jerusalem .. they killed every single muslim

when Saladin Kicked their asses back to europe dragging their tails of defeat like cubs .. he didn't kill christians there

so yeah i agree the levels of violence were so uncompareable

Your history is a bit off and slightly disingenuous. Saladin wasn’t around during the sack of Jerusalem. But let’s back up.

The Seljuks had cut off access to the Holy land. The Byzantines had become Ignorant and Apathetic by the presence of Islam and out of fear requested help, and rightfully so, and so was born the First Crusade. Jerusalem was taken and not only Muslims, but Jews, Christians, and anybody else in the city were put to the sword. This was a perfectly acceptable action then. This sends a clear message to the surrounding cities about thinking twice about resisting. Saladin appeared during the Third Crusade (100 years later). He had some impressive victories. Then Richard showed up and had equally impressive victories. He took Acre and put it to the sword. He could have taken Jerusalem and done the same, but he didn’t. Richard and Saladin developed respect for each other by the tactics the other showed and by the discipline of the soldiers under their command. It was that respect that led to a treaty between the two and opened the Holy Land to *ALL* pilgrims and the world still enjoys that concession. This was the original cause of the First Crusade. But in time the remnants of the Crusader states were defeated or just simply absorbed back into Muslim Culture. Saladin didn’t kick their asses back to Europe for he died just a few months later. For centuries to come Europe has tried to secure a port city to keep trade with the East open. But that was beneficial to everyone, so there was no motivation to completely cut off the West. The rise of the Ottoman Empire benefited from it and the beginnings of the Renaissance in Italy. Now we don’t have time to go into it, so I’m not ignoring it. But the Crusades are the story of a just cause gone awry; more folly than anything else. It accomplished its goal but left excess death and destruction in its wake. If the Seljuks (Islam) had respected other religions, none of this would have happened. But then on the other hand, if the Seljuks had then Europe would not have been ready to stop the Muslim invasion/conquest of Europe like it had. And the Renaissance may never have happened or would have happened much later??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Raven you are so misguided. Those verse you quote are totally out of context, a bit like Muslims interpreting bush's words when he said this is a new crusade (maybe he meant it ;) )

Your reasoning for massacre of innocent Jewish, Christian and Muslim women, children, the frail etc was right at the time as it sent a message around to those nations around, really? Of course, they are acts of a tyrannical evil army hell bent on destruction the fact you try and justify it says a lot about you! Guaranteed, if they were the actions of a Muslim army invading a non Muslim nation thousands of miles away, would have been deemed barbaric and evil, wouldn't it? So why do you beat and around the bush, if people like you had their way you would nuke all Muslims to obliteration, just be honest, not to us, but to yourself. Your contempt for Islam and Muslims oozes from your posts and it clearly deluded your perception of history and reality!

Just go away tally up how many Muslim nations your armies occupy and how many you have killed, you will be proud of the figures!

Ps, you claimed the crusade was a just cause which went tits up! Justified how? Your reasoning that Islam was intolerant of other religions, what utter tosh! Who was unhappy under Muslim rule? The Jews or Christians? I can't wait for the answer, do you have any primary historical sources to show your point? I have several sources written by Jews and Christians of the era which say otherwise, or are you just going by those Christian missionary sites which regurgitate crusader myths till this day?

Edited by Lion6969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ raven

If the crusades were right to massacre everyone to send a message to those around him, does that mean hitlers actions were right at the time as he to was sending a message to those around him and the Jews specifically? It's the same logic, it's your logic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ raven

I bet you would agree with massacring all Muslims in Iraq inorder to send a message to surrounding Muslim nations not to *** with USA? I'm right aren't I? At least it will reduce the insurgency to 0 so you might be able to justify that way too ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your history is a bit off and slightly disingenuous. Saladin wasn’t around during the sack of Jerusalem. But let’s back up.

The Seljuks had cut off access to the Holy land. The Byzantines had become Ignorant and Apathetic by the presence of Islam and out of fear requested help, and rightfully so, and so was born the First Crusade. Jerusalem was taken and not only Muslims, but Jews, Christians, and anybody else in the city were put to the sword. This was a perfectly acceptable action then. This sends a clear message to the surrounding cities about thinking twice about resisting. Saladin appeared during the Third Crusade (100 years later). He had some impressive victories. Then Richard showed up and had equally impressive victories. He took Acre and put it to the sword. He could have taken Jerusalem and done the same, but he didn’t. Richard and Saladin developed respect for each other by the tactics the other showed and by the discipline of the soldiers under their command. It was that respect that led to a treaty between the two and opened the Holy Land to *ALL* pilgrims and the world still enjoys that concession. This was the original cause of the First Crusade. But in time the remnants of the Crusader states were defeated or just simply absorbed back into Muslim Culture. Saladin didn’t kick their asses back to Europe for he died just a few months later. For centuries to come Europe has tried to secure a port city to keep trade with the East open. But that was beneficial to everyone, so there was no motivation to completely cut off the West. The rise of the Ottoman Empire benefited from it and the beginnings of the Renaissance in Italy. Now we don’t have time to go into it, so I’m not ignoring it. But the Crusades are the story of a just cause gone awry; more folly than anything else. It accomplished its goal but left excess death and destruction in its wake. If the Seljuks (Islam) had respected other religions, none of this would have happened. But then on the other hand, if the Seljuks had then Europe would not have been ready to stop the Muslim invasion/conquest of Europe like it had. And the Renaissance may never have happened or would have happened much later??

yeah i know exactly how your version of history is written that's why i'll save my self the trouble and not argue

saladin kicked the crusaders ass out of jerusalem .. the never took it back in his life .. neither the life of his son after him .. correct your inoformations i hate to have discussions with some one so lacking yet always fond of flaoting around his " massaive " knowledge

jerusalem was never seized after saladin freed it from crusdaers

your history i think doesn't even admit the crusader embarrasing lost at the battle of " Hiten " so spare me your lack of knowledge am not here to give history lessions you got sites you can read from

bit of advice .. when you wanna discuss something builds some knowedge about it

claiming knoweldge is one thing .. but having it is another thing and claiming it without having it is extremnly annoying

yeah bunch of beaten up crusaders took their tails between their legs back to eurpoe and wrote history about their massive

win over muslims yay to them .. while muslims was taken control of jerusalem

just like your pop singer fantasy " Chris De Burgh " singing a fantasy of his .. that's what i think is your version of history .. amusing but pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.