25
   

Can world survive Islam.

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 04:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Those who gave their lives for France during the 1st and 2nd world wars?


None of those people who helped France are trying to invade Europe, they are either dead or too old to travel.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 04:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
Mine was a rhetorical question. The point is that this is not about origins but ideology.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 05:13 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Neither of those justify a bullshit claim that the crusades were defensive, as i have pointed out to you in the past.

I disagree. I feel that those two facts very much justified a defensive action from Europe.

I also do not agree that the claim of self defense was BS.


Setanta wrote:
The last time you brought up this bullshit, those were an afterthought--you initially said that Europe was threatened with invasion; those two points you came up with when i contradicted that claim.

Europe was indeed threatened with invasion. The fact that the Byzantine Empire stood between Europe and Islam only meant that they had to be invaded first. It was clear that as soon as the Byzantines fell, Europe was going to be next.

The excellent Vlad Dracula did manage to check the Islamic advance for awhile after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Mr. Dracula knew just what to do with Islamic invaders, and he did it well. But alas, his reign was all too short.


Setanta wrote:
Furthermore, as i have also pointed out to you in the past, the crusaders did not do anything to defend the Roman Empire from the Turks. In fact, they had so badly plundered the Empire in marching to Constantinople, that the Emperor did the only sensible thing, and provided them transport across the Bosporus, to get them the hell out of his territory. The historical record simply does not support a bullshit claim that the crusades were defensive.

The Crusaders did a less than exemplary job when it came to defending the Byzantine Empire. That is true.

They did strike a much-needed blow against Islam however.


Setanta wrote:
There is no such thing as "the Byzantine Empire," except in the minds of much later historians and in survey history books--it was the Roman Empire.

Yes. And for that matter, the Muslims who conquered the Byzantine Empire also claimed to be a continuation of the Roman Empire.

But in my book, the last leader to truly deserve the title of Roman Emperor was Justinian. Once their territory was whittled down to roughly the dimensions of modern-day Turkey, they were more like one small fragment of what was once the Roman Empire. To me that is justification for no longer calling them the Roman Empire, so I go along with those who give them a different name.


Setanta wrote:
You are employing the rhetoric of bigotry

There is a serious problem within Islam. It needs to be addressed for the good of humanity.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 06:24 pm
@oralloy,
This is pure, polemical bullshit, and is of a piece with your hyper-Zionist distortions of history. The actual, effective fighters of the first crusade were Franks. They had no stake in Jerusalem. You're appealing to some abstract devotion to religious purity and devotion on the part of people who were so depraved that when they got hungry, they killed, cooked and ate their prisoners. These were people who had plundered, raped and murdered their way across the western portion of the Roman Empire. (Try to get it through your thick skull that there was no "Byzantine Empire--they didn't call it that, the Empire did not call itself that--it only got that name from monkish, gnomish historians centuries later. How can anyone take you historical abortions seriously when you can't even take on-board basic historical fact?)

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was ordered destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph who then controlled Palestine, in 1009. The First Crusade did not begin until 1095, eighty-six years later. The church had already been rebuilt with the consent of the Fatimid Caliph who had succeeded the Caliph who had order its destruction. The reconstruction of the church was completed in 1048, forty-seven years before that crusade began. The fate of a church which had already been re-built was a casus belli, an excuse for war. There was nothing the least bit defensive about it. The crusaders were Franks. The Franks had never lived in Palestine, they had never own one square foot of Palestine--it was nothing more than am excise to invade and attempt to set up a kingdom in Jerusalem.

The Franks not only did nothing to defend the Roman Empire, they plundered it shamelessly as they marched across Europe, long before they arrived anywhere near Constantinople. The alarmed Emperor ferried them over the Bosporus to get them the hell out of his territory. They did nothing to protect Roman territory from the Turks, and they did nothing to recover lands already overrun by the Turks. After all, it was so much easier to plunder unarmed populations, or to take territory from corrupt, weak rulers. The crusade, no matter what holy joe bullshit you come up with, was a naked plundering expedition and a land grab.

This is all of a piece with your Zionist polemics. You think that a claim that Jews lived in Palestine almost 2000 years previously justified the plundering and murder of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1947. Invoking the crusades is just as big a load of bullshit as the Zionist claims. It is gross historical distortion to claim any sort of holy and virtuous motives to the organized brigands who comprised the actual fighting force of the first crusade. They were not defending anything to which they had ever held title, and they did nothing to return the former territory to the Roman Empire, or to defend it from the Turks. It is a lie, plain and simple, and typical of the sort of fairy tale you consistently advance as "history" to justify your polemical positions.

There is a serious problem within Christianity when their adherents bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions, and their body guards and the employees of such clinics. There is a serious problem within Christianity when atrocities such as the slaughter at Srebenica was allowed to take place without interference, and the criminals who committed it are allowed to go unpunished. There is a serious problem within Judaism when Zionists routinely murder innocent men, women and children, and go unpunished. These things don't seem to bother you, while you so eagerly blame the actions of a tiny minority of Muslims on all of Islam, and use your bullshit to justify the crimes of others.

I consider you a shameless liar.
ak99
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 07:51 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I consider you a shameless liar.


Source or sources for your revisionist history?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 08:21 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
I don't expect Jihadists to rise to anywhere near the top of my threat list within my lifetime.
You can thank others for that .
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 09:32 pm
@andy31,
andy31 wrote:
I can't argue about you being wrong. However according to your analogy, your greatest risk is a natural death more than anything else, because everyone has 100% guarantee for that to happen if every other thing fail.

I agree. If you want to be precise about these things, you need to quantify them in years of life expectancy gained rather than in number of lives saved. In the long run, we're all dead, but we have some influence on when this long run begins.

andy31 wrote:
Do you see Thomas what spinning can do to any argument? It turns into nonsensical discussion.

Not this one. You may be disagreeing with my position yet unable to prove it wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm talking nonsense (nor that you are).

andy31 wrote:
But we are talking about collective safety, and preservation of freedom and life style not only as a nation but even in a wider spectrum, as a western culture.

Doesn't change the argument. The Affordable Healthcare Act and Michelle Obama's "Let's move!" campaign probably save orders of magnitude more American lives than any anti-terrorist campaign now under discussion in Washington. So do initiatives to increase traffic safety, workplace safety regulations, building codes, curbs on environmental pollutants and many more. The death toll from terrorism against Americans just isn't all that high compared to other threats.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 09:36 pm
@Setanta,
"Zionist" is the new code word for "kike."
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:27 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You're appealing to some abstract devotion to religious purity and devotion on the part of people who were so depraved that when they got hungry, they killed, cooked and ate their prisoners.
The only instance I know of was Muslims starving Christian prisoners to do that, a joke on communion . Do you have any references ?
0 Replies
 
andy31
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 11:55 pm
@ak99,
Quote:
Source or sources for your revisionist history?


Good luck getting an answer. My quess would be he must have heard a sermon at a Mosque. Or from Palestinian history channel.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 02:52 am
@ak99,
There is nothing revisionist about this. The Frankish crusaders did not protect the Roman Empire. They did not return any former territory of the Roman Empire to the Empire. They hardly needed to go to Jerusalem to act on the destruction of a church that had already been rebuilt.

If you want to join the list of Muslim haters here, help yourself. Don't expect me to play stupid word games with you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 02:55 am
@andy31,
Hey asshole, all you appear to have is some reactionary catholic blog writer. You've got a gall to sneer at anyone else about sources.

I've never been in a mosque in my life. I have never in my life hear an Imam or Mullah speak--you snotty, bigoted little piece of ****.
andy31
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 03:22 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
You may be disagreeing with my position yet unable to prove it wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm talking nonsense


By no means I would want to insult you. I'm sorry if it sounded that way, but I was referring to a fabric of our discussion and not you.
We might have disagreements on mostly everything (?), but I like your personality. Although I respect your own opinion, I would not want to leave it unchanged because it is fun talking to someone with different approach on things. It is interesting to me why that is, and if any compromise is possible.

Quote:
The Affordable Healthcare Act and Michelle Obama's "Let's move!" campaign probably save orders of magnitude more American lives than any anti-terrorist campaign


Uuu.. here I'm definitely 180 the other way on this one. And the very effects of Obama care will be also 180 oposite to your belief. But... I just let you wait and see it for yourself instead argue this topic. The drastically negative effects are already being felt by many, including my parents. Those devastating effects were designed to come after Obama leave office. But be patient.

Quote:
The death toll from terrorism against Americans just isn't all that high compared to other threats.
?????

September 11, 2001. Almost 3000 dead, 6000 injured in less than 2 hours. Skyes were empty. Every single plane was grounded for days. Entire world economy was in shambles. Stock exchange closed for a week. I know, you would prefer to erase that paragraph, but we all make mistakes.

The way I see It, you should categorize everything for us to be on the same page. Exemple: accidental death, natural death, violent death. Now you see the only variable is 3rd one. First two are constant -- you have no control over it. Another thing is significance: You might give out 20 bucks or more, but if someone cheed you over 2 or 5 bucks, or grab a dollar from you that's a different story. Also affect on your life doesn't have to be dead. It could be financial, moral, intellectual etc.
Exemple: it's ok to have consensual sex, but to have sax by rape would be a serious crime.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 04:13 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
"Zionist" is the new code word for "kike."


You disgusting racist pig. Zionists are those who believe that Jews should have their own homeland, based on what they claim were their historical borders. They believe that any acts are justified in pursuit of that goal. Not all Jews agree with that, and that includes Jews in Israel. After seeing your performance here in the past, i am not surprised to see you using a vile racist epithet and then trying to shove that off on someone else. You are a low-life scum-bag.

Zionism defined at the Jewish Virtual Library--note that this Jewish source states that not all Jews agree on what Zionism means.

Really, Laymna, you are the lowest of the low.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 04:51 am
@Setanta,
Your source in full...

Quote:
The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has come to include the movement for the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel through support for the Israel Defense Forces.

From inception, Zionism avocated tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left, right, religious and secular - formed the Zionist movement and worked together toward its goals.

Disagreements in philosophy has led to rifts in the Zionist movement of the years and a number of separate forms have emerged, notably: Political Zionism; Religious Zionism; Socialist Zionism and Territorial Zionism.
You say not even Zionists agree on a definition of what the term means, so how is layman open to criticism for using it without him explaining what he meant ? What it meant to me was a little joke on the subject .
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 10:59 am
@andy31,
andy31 wrote:

Quote:
The death toll from terrorism against Americans just isn't all that high compared to other threats.
?????

September 11, 2001. Almost 3000 dead, 6000 injured in less than 2 hours. Skyes were empty. Every single plane was grounded for days. Entire world economy was in shambles. Stock exchange closed for a week. I know, you would prefer to erase that paragraph, but we all make mistakes.

No I don't. September 11 did not make much of a dent in the overall American murder rate in 2001, which stood at roughly 50,000. That's an order of magnitude more. And unlike the once-off September-11 attack, it repeats every single year --- as does the number of traffic fatalities, gun-accident fatalities, swimming-pool fatalities, and other fatalities that claim five-digit death tollls per year, as opposed to a four-digit death toll once-off. When I said Obamacare and "Let's Move" are more effective as anti-terror policies at saving American lives, I didn't mean to hype Obamacare and "Let's Move". I was merely pointing out what small fish terrorists are in the overall pond of threats.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 11:02 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
I was merely pointing out what small fish terrorists are in the overall pond of threats.

So does having our kids snatched off the streets by strangers, or having those same kids seriously hurt back when playgrounds used to be fun. Americans have a long record of failure at the skill of separating real threats from imaginary threats.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 11:06 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I was merely pointing out what small fish terrorists are in the overall pond of threats.

So does having our kids snatched off the streets by strangers, or having those same kids seriously hurt back when playgrounds used to be fun. Americans have a long record of failure at the skill of separating real threats from imaginary threats.

I agree. But we can, and should, still try to correct this kind of failure.
2016
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 12:43 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Hey asshole, all you appear to have is some reactionary catholic blog writer. You've got a gall to sneer at anyone else about sources.

I've never been in a mosque in my life. I have never in my life hear an Imam or Mullah speak--you snotty, bigoted little piece of ****.


Aren't we the little bitch. How come you can talk that way without being banned? http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/rulz.gif
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 01:19 pm
@Thomas,
There is a reason why terrorism is propped up as a threat: the militaro-industrial complex and the CIA and co all want to stay in business and increase market shares. Fighting forest fires or improving road safety may well be more important and useful for the people, but these things do not cater to the above concerns.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 07:14:10