Wow, I found another
[quote]
(The National Security Advisor's Interview with Al Jazeera TV | The American Presidency Project) about Islam:
National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV, October 16, 2001.
Then we can look at real life aplication of the Koran
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#historical
This is the short list, go to the site for the exstened one
"Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam.
These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school."
Nice site.
If we’re not allowed to discuss the Crusades and the Inquisition, the above is hardly germane.
[quote=“BrightNShiny, post:401, topic:550891”]
Wow, I found another
Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
2010.09.01 (Pattani, Thailand) - A Buddhist couple in their 50’s are brutally murdered by Jihadi gunmen.
2010.09.01 (Lahore, Pakistan) - Twenty-nine Shia pilgrims in a procession are dismembered by a car bomb blast and two Sunni suicide bombers.
2010.09.01 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Fifteen people at a market are badly injured, many with limbs torn from their bodies, by a Taliban blast.
2010.09.01 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) - Two Afghans are blown to bits by a Taliban bomb hidden on a motorcycle.
2010.08.31 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - Five men and three women are taken down by al-Shabaab bombers.
2010.08.31 (Kurram, Pakistan) - At least one woman and two children are among seven murdered in two home invasions by Religion of Peace radicals.
[quote=“Don123, post:404, topic:550891”]
All these people were murdered by fanatics.
The fact that they happen to be Muslim is really neither here nor there.
It’s the ‘fanatic’ element that is salient.
As a fanatic yourself (for who could say that someone who searches out lists of things with which to bash a religion is anything other than a fanatic), you actually share more with these people whom yo so despise than the more peaceful and tolerant members of their religion.
Errr… no it’s not. Did you bother reading anything I said ? **None **of the passages you quoted are commandments to go out and purge the world by sword and flame, nor to subjugate other faiths. None of them. If you have others, please put them up.
The Koran frames any discussion on warfare, the rules of war etc… in terms of “us vs. unbelievers”, because it assumes that all Muslims will naturally be as one and live in perfect harmony with each other. Therefore, ipso facto, any discussion of “what to do if there’s a war” assumes it’s going to be a war with outsiders, and furthermore assumes that the outsiders will strike first. Because historically, that’s what they did - that’s why Muhammad had to flee to Medina in the first place. Then, and only then, did he start preaching armed resistance against oppression.
Of course, since the newly conquered Muslim world degenerated into internecine tribal warfare pretty much the minute Muhammad kicked it, there’s in retrospect a tiny flaw in that underlying assumption. Still, setting up rules for warfare and treating the outgroup fairly in a time when warfare was “anything goes, and then you rape the corpses” was pretty darn progressive of him.
As for nutters, a self-respecting nutter could find justification for his actions in the lyrics of Helter Skelter. What of it ?
[quote=“Don123, post:404, topic:550891”]
And the people who have died in home invastions in the United States? Shall we describe their killers as Relgion of the Nailed Guy radicals?
OK let us quick look at the Spanish inquisition, sounds good to me.
Let us keep in mind Islam had slaughtered their way across north Africa, invaded the Iberian peninsula starting around 711 AD. Muslims ravaged and brutalized the land that was not prepared for war and were mostly Christians living in peace. Muslims killed and slaved the local Christians and Jews in horrible suppression and forced conversions and gave a brutal slave tax.
Muslims then tried to enter France in their rape and pillage, and were a constant threat to Italy in raiding parties along the coast. The Muslims were stopped by Charles Martell (the Hammer) in 730 AD from entering Europe from Spain.
It took about 800 years to drive the Muslims out of Spain in constant wars at a great price of lives from one generation to the next. There was no love given to the Muslim invaders.
How many were killed in the Spanish Inquisition?
In a period lasting from 1540 to 1700, about 1,080 were killed that can be directly accounted for. Earlier estimates ranged from 3-5 thousand were killed over a period of 160 years, but this is based on estimated percentages. The exact figure is not known, and the study is on going.
Who were killed? It was not just the Islamic Moors that would not lay down their swords; there were some religious protestants, some criminals, no doubt some political rivals, and people thought to be of the devil as superstitions abounded.
Around 1480 to 1530 the last of the Muslims were subdued in Spain, and the Inquisition was the most active and reports are about 2,000 were killed that were mostly Islamic Jihads.
How brutal was it? Very brutal, but nothing that the Muslims had not done before as stacking human heads of Christians in a huge pile at the gates of some towns trying persuade the Nights and Crusaders not to continue the war of retaking Spain. The Muslim tactics of terror and brutality did not work this time, and the muslims were completly driven out.
The history of Spain is an on going study. Here is another site that some might be interested in for some greater detail of retaking Spain from Islam.
http://www.historyofjihad.org/reconquista.html
Muslims are quick to bring up the Christian Crusades, but say little of their political religion that was genocidal, savage, and brutal that marched across the Middle East and tried to enter Europe from the west. Muslims put Hitler to shame for all their genocides and mass slaughters.
Here is a dated listing of the Islamic crusades from 630 AD to 1095, up to the time of the first Christian Crusades. The Christian Crusades in fact divided the Islamic empire in half and stopped for a short time the Muslim conquest of Western Europe. One can clearly see that Western Europe was fighting for its life and survival against the savage Islamic empire.
The Islamic crusades, and the re-taking of Spain really should its own place on Great Debates. Perhaps at some other time but this is the thumb nail sketch for those that are interested.
Don
You, sir, owe me one drink for that spit take.
Look here, if all you want to do is call names IWILL DO MY BEST NOT to entertain you.
It is people like you that get threads closed, of what I’m trying hard to go by the rules of the board.
So put something valuable on the table or walk away. I have been warned to stay to the facts and leave off personal insults to others. And I am not quite sure how to handle your stupid accusations and not be banned. It is for sure the Mods will not come to my defense, and are looking for any reason that I can be eliminate. I stand alone, so I will just put you on ignore for a time and see what happens.
So you do not like Muslims to be put in a bad light from their own holy books, hisotrical facts, and their behaviour today in terrorist activity—too GD bad for you, learn to live with it in tolerance that is not found in the Koran.
Don
Why are you telling me? Is my name Condoleeza Rice? If you actually stood by what you’ve been posting, you would be condemning Rice, George W. Bush and most of the Republican Party for telling us that Islam is the religion of peace. Instead, you refuse to ever respond to them and keep spouting the same stuff at me. I’m not the one who said these things. You need to take it up with the Republicans, who spent the last decade telling us how peaceful Islam is. When the Republicans were running around telling us about peaceful Islam, where were you? Why weren’t you sending Koran passages to them?
Apparently Don123’s bustling melon-cart business kept him from attending high school history.
Did you do another one at “One can clearly see that Western Europe was fighting for its life and survival against the savage Islamic empire”?
Don, one gets the impression from your posts that you see Muslims as sub-human cartoon monsters, a mindless ravening horde bent on consuming the world like the aliens in independence Day. You claim that there are no such thing as moderate Muslims, that they are all following a command from Allah to kill unbelievers (apart from the ones that are so “stupid” that they kill each other), and that any Muslims that don’t actively espouse violence are either lying or not following their religion correctly. All violent acts by Muslims are attributed solely to their faith despite considerable evidence of other signficant socio-political factors and generalized to apply to all Muslims. You cite deeply biased websites, cherrypicked quotes and flawed historical analyses, and when the biases are pointed out, the contexts given and the history corrected you ignore them and post more of the same.
And then you talk about their lack of “tolerance”. What are we to do?
The Hustle.
dum dum dum di dum di dum dum dum dum dum dum di dum di dum dum dum
What strikes me most about Muslims is there absolute and unflinching obedience to their holy book. Sure don’t see that amongst Christians, can’t remember the last time I saw one give away everything he owned to the poor, so that he could follow Christ. Don’t know of anybody who refused standard funeral respect to a relative because the Good Book said so. Don’t think our structure of consumer capitalism would thrive in a population of relentlessly dogmatic Christians.
So what makes them so different? Is it genetic? Hardly likely, Indonesian Muslims are very removed from Arabic Muslims.
If your going to make the case that Muslims are aggressive and warlike due to blind obedience to carefully selected texts, you have to account for why they are so different in that regard. And why they are not equally blindly obedient to those texts which insist on tolerance and generosity, esp. as regards Christians and Jews.
“Slaughtered their way across North Africa” sounds impressively horrible, but the reality was more the typical wars of conquest with armies fighting it out and captured cities being subjected to brief periods of rapine, followed by more peaceful rule–pretty much the way that the Europeans were behaving at the same time.
There is no ten year period between the fifth century and 711 when Christians were not waging war on each other in the Iberian peninsula. After the Visigoths, Vandals, and assorted Germanic groups got done beating up the retreating Byzantine holdovers from the Roman era, they turned on each other in a series of civil wars and other internecine conflicts. In fact, Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Berber leader, was probably invited to invade by the Basques who wanted someone to put pressure on King Roderic who was waging war against them at the time.
The notion that the Iberians had their “peaceful” lives interrupted by the Berbers is just silly and completely contrary to actual historical fact.
Basically, no. The Jews were already being harrassed by the Christians pretty regularly and forced to convert to Christianity. (There was a brief period in the middle of the seventh century when the more onerous antJewish laws were repealed, but it was immediately followed by another round of persecution in which even the Jews who had converted to Christianity were persecuted and often murdered.)
The Berbers did enslave a number of people and several cities were brutally sacked–pretty much the way that the Christians to the North were treating each other at the same time. It was a horrible thing, but it had nothing to do with Islam or Christianity; it was just how humans tended to behave. As to the “brutal” tax, it is true that Muslims were exempted from part of the taxes, but the actual records indicate that the taxes levied were no more harsh than the taxes levied by the Christain monarchs that had been overthrown. (In fact, while I do not know the specifics of the Iberian taxes, in the East, the Muslim taxes were actually lower than the Byzantine taxes they replaced.)
The reality is that the “invasion” that was stopped at Tours was less a genuine invasion of conquest and more a raid in force looking for booty. Charles deserves credit for inflicting a sufficiently punishing defeat that the Arabs wandered back to the Pyrenees and settled down to ruling Iberia, but he did not actually stop an attempt to conquer France/Gaul or Christian Europe.
As to the raids on Italy, (and Southern France and the Baltics), they were pretty much part and parcel with the similar raids by Vikings in the North. Europe was pretty chaotic following the fall of Rome and no European nation invested in a good navy. That lack invited piracy and raids from any group that could assemble some ships to strike at European port towns, regardless whether the raiders worshipped Allah or Odin.
Utterly false.
Thumbnail sketch? Even a thumbnail sketch should have enough basic facts to avoid being the caricature that you have painted.
Oh no, I had stopped reading then and there. Now you’ve made me read the whole hog, and we’re up to a full six-pack. I really enjoyed how the 800 year grudgefest that was the Reconquista somehow became an example of how doggone bad them Muslims are. They’re so evil, they make good peace-loving law abiding Christians want to go over to their lands and beat them up !
I mean seriously, Don. Your vision of history reads like *300 *as written by Jack Chick and directed by Mel Gibson. With Hong-Kong bootleg subtitles. It’s *that *inaccurate, cringe worthy, rage inducing, poorly thought out, lacking in even the most remote hint of objectivity and just plain bad.
qpw3141, repeatedly calling another poster a “fanatic” is not permitted in Great Debates.
Do not do this again.
= = =
Don123, do not post who you are placig on your “ignore” list.
= = =
[ /Moderating ]
I thought the efforts to demonstrate that the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t really that bad were a nice touch.
It’s more likely that the invasion was triggered at the instigation at the sons of the previous king, who had fled to Tangiers after Roderic had become King. There, they, along with Jewish and Arian refugees who had fled Visigothic Spain to avoid persecution, incited Tariq to invade to restore them to power.
There was a Basque dynasty that converted to Islam and was a quasi-independent vassal state of the Caliphate, though, the Banu Qasi.