"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. "
This is nothing new. Now, you can choose to place faith in secret plans to turn America into a fascist state, but then, Jefferson was in on it too.
This is the height of irony.
You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).
Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.
While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.
Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.
All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.
Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.
He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
That's because history books no longer say regions were conquered by other people, they say that the conquering race migrated into the area... a HUGE dis service to the young today.
Yup, another example of the pitiful self loathing of the west. We have gone from healthy self criticism to self loathing. We have gone from simple disagreement with one another to absolute irrational hatred, to the point where the left in the west is now supportive of teh subjegation of women, slavery, church burning, and mass murder over a cartoon -- as long as it is done in the name of Allah by a fanatical faction within Islam.
That's okay to them, as long as they are opposing people they disagree with. It's a terrible thing.
To think this is where the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has fallen. Amazing.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time. The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
Ok, let's examine your post. Here's where it comes from www.MarkHarasa.com (who?):
"GANGPLANK: Somali Piracy and the Lessons of Barbary Wars"
The International Chamber of Commerce Commercial Criminal Service has a map depicting the reported piracy events around the world. The Gulf of Aden north of Somalia is a battleground. Somali pirates, organized into marauding gangs in fast moving boats, are seizing commerce vessels at sea. Once boarded, the pirates hold the ships and crews. In effect, companies and countries are forced to walk the plank through high ransom payments.
These events in the Gulf of Aden are classic examples of Islamic Bedouin mischief. In the early 1800s, the Barbary Pirates of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya raided shipping in the Mediterranean Ocean. The Barbary countries taxed tribute on nations in Europe and the US. Pirates captured military and commercial shipping, pressing the crews into slavery or worse.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripolis envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Ladens 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
Great military men were called upon to fight the Barbary Pirates. The US Marine Corps hymn heralds Presley OBannon exploits on the shores of Tripoli. Commodore Stephen Decatur recaptures the USS PHILADELPHIA and burns it to the ground in a daring raid which Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson called the most daring raid of the ages. The USS CONSTITUTION, oldest registered US Naval warship currently in Boston harbor, fought the Barbary pirates during the Jefferson and Madison administrations.
Now there's a bunch more gobblety-gook about U.S. warships and piracy too long and boring to mention that goes "blah blah blah naval history".
But what you clearly did here, was take something out of context to try and bolster a point. This was not in reference to Jihadism, it was in reference to piracy on the high seas. This had to deal with individual pirates making money off of countries doing business near their coasts, lol. Last I checked, Bin Laden and his friends weren't pirating and asking for ransoms.
We are talking about terrorism, and you give us Tales of Captain Jack Sparrow? I fail to see the connection. This has more relevance to the Somali pirates snatching tankers two months ago than Osama Bin Laden, friend.
So nice of you to confuse an issue of Terrorism with Piracy for your convenience by cherrypicking items. Are you sure you didn't like Bush?
Very nice attempt, but you had to figure you'd be found out, right?
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
Ok, let's examine your post. Here's where it comes from www.MarkHarasa.com (who?):
"GANGPLANK: Somali Piracy and the Lessons of Barbary Wars"
The International Chamber of Commerce Commercial Criminal Service has a map depicting the reported piracy events around the world. The Gulf of Aden north of Somalia is a battleground. Somali pirates, organized into marauding gangs in fast moving boats, are seizing commerce vessels at sea. Once boarded, the pirates hold the ships and crews. In effect, companies and countries are forced to walk the plank through high ransom payments.
These events in the Gulf of Aden are classic examples of Islamic Bedouin mischief. In the early 1800’s, the Barbary Pirates of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya raided shipping in the Mediterranean Ocean. The Barbary countries taxed tribute on nations in Europe and the US. Pirates captured military and commercial shipping, pressing the crews into slavery or worse.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
Great military men were called upon to fight the Barbary Pirates. The US Marine Corps hymn heralds Presley O’Bannon exploits on “the shores of Tripoli”. Commodore Stephen Decatur recaptures the USS PHILADELPHIA and burns it to the ground in a daring raid which Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson called the “most daring raid of the ages.” The USS CONSTITUTION, oldest registered US Naval warship currently in Boston harbor, fought the Barbary pirates during the Jefferson and Madison administrations.
Now there's a bunch more gobblety-gook about U.S. warships and piracy too long and boring to mention that goes "blah blah blah naval history".
But what you clearly did here, was take something out of context to try and bolster a point. This was not in reference to Jihadism, it was in reference to piracy on the high seas. This had to deal with individual pirates making money off of countries doing business near their coasts, lol. Last I checked, Bin Laden and his friends weren't pirating and asking for ransoms.
We are talking about terrorism, and you give us Tales of Captain Jack Sparrow? I fail to see the connection. This has more relevance to the Somali pirates snatching tankers two months ago than Osama Bin Laden, friend.
So nice of you to confuse an issue of Terrorism with Piracy for your convenience by cherrypicking items. Are you sure you didn't like Bush?
Very nice attempt, but you had to figure you'd be found out, right?
What the heck are you talking about? Must you continue to attack straw men? Why do you insist on continuing to argue against things I have not said?
Amazing. I've lost count on how many times you have done this.
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. "
This is nothing new. Now, you can choose to place faith in secret plans to turn America into a fascist state, but then, Jefferson was in on it too.
This is the height of irony.
You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).
Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.
While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.
Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.
All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.
Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.
He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
man this is painfully annoying reading some of these posts. firstly let me state Jihad means struggle, so saying Jihadists - strugglists?!? makes no sense, id like to comment on a lot of stuff but due to shortage of time il focus on this.
the crusades were not a defensive war, if it was they wouldn't have walked into Jerusalem butchering every man woman and child, infact in one of the diaries of the crusaders, he notes how the crusaders began eating the bodies of the children of the palestinians. i wouold provide a link but im short of time sorry i will provide one later. Secondly Jihadist empire? I'm guessing you mean Ottoman Empire, as in like the Byzantine empire but just muslim (understand what im getting at yet?). Even the Byzantines were afraid of the oncoming horde of crusaders as the wife of the ruler of Constantinople noted, they were a pack of savages hardly self-defence...i could go on but i dont have the time.
btw nice going popinjay decent arguments with back up of evidence unlike a lot of posts ive read
"If they can make Penicillin out of mouldy bread, they can sure make something out of you," - Muhammed Ali
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. "
This is nothing new. Now, you can choose to place faith in secret plans to turn America into a fascist state, but then, Jefferson was in on it too.
This is the height of irony.
You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).
Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.
While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.
Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.
All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.
Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.
He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
man this is painfully annoying reading some of these posts. firstly let me state Jihad means struggle, so saying Jihadists - strugglists?!? makes no sense, id like to comment on a lot of stuff but due to shortage of time il focus on this.
the crusades were not a defensive war, if it was they wouldn't have walked into Jerusalem butchering every man woman and child, infact in one of the diaries of the crusaders, he notes how the crusaders began eating the bodies of the children of the palestinians. i wouold provide a link but im short of time sorry i will provide one later. Secondly Jihadist empire? I'm guessing you mean Ottoman Empire, as in like the Byzantine empire but just muslim (understand what im getting at yet?). Even the Byzantines were afraid of the oncoming horde of crusaders as the wife of the ruler of Constantinople noted, they were a pack of savages hardly self-defence...i could go on but i dont have the time.
btw nice going popinjay decent arguments with back up of evidence unlike a lot of posts ive read
Jihad means several things, depending on teh context. yes, transliterated the term means "struggle," just as transliterated "Islam" means "submission." Outside of context they mean nothing.
To the Jihadist, and throught much of the history of islam Jihad means the struggle of Islam vs the non-Islamic world. This is what it means in most of the hadith and in most Muslim writing.
With the advent of Sufism, a new meaning of Jihad became popular -- the person's inner struggle with God and virtue. This is known as "spriritual Jihad," and is a fine thing that I respect and admire. I obviously did not mean that meaning of the word in the context I was writing.
That is not the meaning used when Bin Ladin or the hammas uses it. When they use it they mean what, if you need a modifier, "offensive Jihad" which is the right of islam to rule the world. By force, the Jihad belives they have the right to impose Islam uber alles.
As to the destruction caused by the crusades and whether the war was defensive or not --- those two are not mutuallt exclusive. Was WWII not defensive war, at least on our part? Did we not firebomb dresden? destroy two japanese cities. the war itself was still defensive.
The Crusades were STARTED in response the the fact that Islam was taking over the known world; they had taken north africa, spain, and many parts of Europe.
Did they go as planned? No. Were they excessive? definitely. that has nothing to do with whether they were defensive or not. They were.
Islam has changed over the years. centures of defeay after defeat has led most Muslims not to feel this way -- they have begin a reformation. Now the Jihad, once the majority position within Islam, now is a small minority. sadly, many of them are in powerful positions. Also, there are those who actively pursue Jihad through violence -- Bin Ladin, abu sayyaff, and Hammas and Hezbollah are decent examples -- and the there are those who support the Jihad with money, or just beliefs.
Either way, go ahead propagating the self loathing myths of the west that date back to when we were fighting Marxism and the left used these ideas to weaken us and our resolve. Our enemy has no such doubts.
I do have one question: who taught you that the Crusades were an aggressive war? Where did you pick up this notion in the first place? I'm curious.
Interesting that you compliment popinjay though, who in this thread and others argues through personal attack, and against straw men. he then uses his "evidence" to argue against things people never said. just as I disagree with you on the issues, I disagree with your assessment of the merits of his arguments.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripolis envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Ladens 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
He is quoting a source I never cited. he is then attacking that source.
I quoted Jefferson from his papers. He launched an ad hominem attack on Jefferson. When that failed him, he then pulled some article I have never seen by an author I have never heard of, claimed I used it as a source, and then started arguing with this article.
He then used this article as his own source to attack again. Why should I answer such tactics any more than I answer yours?
I am willing to argue with anyone who argues decently and reasonably. He is not doing that. Neither do most people I find who are attacking from the left. that seems to go for "independents" who attack from the left or liberals who attack from the left.
I hardly ever see this when I argue with conservatives. They are, for the most part, decent, respectful, and argue me on points.
I saw Obama using the same shabby tactics when defending his pork plan. First, he attacked Bush. Then, he attacked Republicans in general saying that the choice was to either His plan or doing nothing. That was a straw man and a lie. Republicans have at least three plans out there, and many ideas -- and NONE are nothing.
The idea of doing nothing came from his own, liberal CBO, which said that doing nothing would be better for the economy in the long run than this package.
President Obama then chose to attack Republicans for something his own side was saying and advocating.
It is easy to see why people who support Obama are doing what they are doing. Dear Leader is leading by example.
Good luck negotiating with nutjobs like the Iranian leader. These folks believe in a warped version of their prophet's words that basically say, "To die in battle against enemies of Islam in glorious battle is entrance into Heaven".
Good luck in convincing me you can deliver "Change You Can Believe In" to monsters like that.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam.
"To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign." (from About.com)
Osama and many Muslims believe the U.S. has been infiltrating the Middle East with a corrupting evil and religious philosoply not inspired by Allah because we do not submit to Islamic law. So anything the U.S. does there is an abomination in Allah's eyes the way he sees it and unlawful. So, when the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia as we had, sets up military bases, interacts and influences the culture of Muslims (food, tv, music, film, reading material, etc), brings in women and allows them to do things which is against Islamic law, we are fair game under jihad. It is their duty to root us out of the region as Allah blesses the land and it is under Allah's authority. They also believe that Israel has occupied formerly muslim lands taken by force as sanctioned by the British, US and other countries but not Allah, therefore they are an illegal evil government which obligates every Muslim to free the area and return it to the Muslim people.
Conversely, if the U.S. had simply left Saudi Arabia and all Muslim country's territories and not aided Israel, there is no problem with jihad. They would not come over here to attack us simply because they hate us because we are a Christian based country. They would just consider us lost people who are going straight to Hell. But because we choose to aid Israel, we are on the list. They do not target countries under Dar-al harb like Sweden, China, North Korea, or a host of other countries they consider evil because those countries are neutral and choose to remain out of the Middle East politics.
So, if the U.S. does not go to the Middle East in the 50s and oust a devout Muslim, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran over oil nationalization with a CIA backed coup, then the mullahs do not rise up and take over the country from the Shah, who we put in his place. But because this was an affront to Islam, it was only a matter of time before the religious people rose up under Dar-al harb. Same thing with our aid and prodding of Saddam to attack Iran in the 80s. The Muslim countries view us as a DEstablizing force in the region, not a paragon of democracy and light.. especially with our history of civil rights violations during most of these events in our own country.
If we don't go to Saudi Arabia and set up Westernized military bases where Christianity is practiced every Sunday in the land of Mecca, the holiest Islamic city on the planet, this stuff does not start. To them, the U.S. is rubbing the Islamic country's noses in filth and enjoying it without consequence. Osama does not rise up under Dar-al harb and plot to destroy America. Osama watched all this growing up under Dar-al harb in most Muslim's eyes.
For someone who studied this his whole life as you said earlier, I'm surprised you do not know why Osama attacks us or why Iran is sympathetic to him and others like him. Of course I do NOT side with Bin Laden on his terrorist activities, but I do understand why we are such an affront to the people of that region's eyes and why they want us out.
They really don't need any more "Baywatch" tv shows or "Titanic" movies according to their spiritual leaders, and some of the faithful believe this is all justified as long as we remain in the region on any Muslim soil or aid any enemy who does.
Again, unlike Bush saying they want to kill us because they hate freedom and envy us, they just want us out of their affairs in their own lands.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripolis envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Ladens 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue <Mod edit>....fight the good fight brother!
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
"To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign." (from About.com)
Osama and many Muslims believe the U.S. has been infiltrating the Middle East with a corrupting evil and religious philosoply not inspired by Allah because we do not submit to Islamic law. So anything the U.S. does there is an abomination in Allah's eyes the way he sees it and unlawful. So, when the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia as we had, sets up military bases, interacts and influences the culture of Muslims (food, tv, music, film, reading material, etc), brings in women and allows them to do things which is against Islamic law, we are fair game under jihad. It is their duty to root us out of the region as Allah blesses the land and it is under Allah's authority. They also believe that Israel has occupied formerly muslim lands taken by force as sanctioned by the British, US and other countries but not Allah, therefore they are an illegal evil government which obligates every Muslim to free the area and return it to the Muslim people.
Conversely, if the U.S. had simply left Saudi Arabia and all Muslim country's territories and not aided Israel, there is no problem with jihad. They would not come over here to attack us simply because they hate us because we are a Christian based country. They would just consider us lost people who are going straight to Hell. But because we choose to aid Israel, we are on the list. They do not target countries under Dar-al harb like Sweden, China, North Korea, or a host of other countries they consider evil because those countries are neutral and choose to remain out of the Middle East politics.
So, if the U.S. does not go to the Middle East in the 50s and oust a devout Muslim, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran over oil nationalization with a CIA backed coup, then the mullahs do not rise up and take over the country from the Shah, who we put in his place. But because this was an affront to Islam, it was only a matter of time before the religious people rose up under Dar-al harb. Same thing with our aid and prodding of Saddam to attack Iran in the 80s. The Muslim countries view us as a DEstablizing force in the region, not a paragon of democracy and light.. especially with our history of civil rights violations during most of these events in our own country. If we don't go to Saudi Arabia and set up Westernized military bases where Christianity is practiced every Sunday in the land of Mecca, the holiest Islamic city on the planet, this stuff does not start. To them, the U.S. is rubbing the Islamic country's noses in filth and enjoying it without consequence. Osama does not rise up under Dar-al harb and plot to destroy America. Osama watched all this growing up under Dar-al harb in most Muslim's eyes.
For someone who studied this his whole life as you said earlier, I'm surprised you do not know why Osama attacks us or why Iran is sympathetic to him and others like him. Of course I do NOT side with Bin Laden on his terrorist activities, but I do understand why we are such an affront to the people of that region's eyes and why they want us out.
They really don't need any more "Baywatch" tv shows or "Titanic" movies according to their spiritual leaders, and some of the faithful believe this is all justified as long as we remain in the region on any Muslim soil or aid any enemy who does.
Again, unlike Bush saying they want to kill us because they hate freedom and envy us, they just want us out of their affairs in their own lands.
Too bad some lands were technically in Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantine) hands before Islam started its military campaigns of the 7th century. To technically claim Christians are invading these lands I guess is a matter of debate. I'll give some of the lands is theirs however.
While there have been past sins on both sides I think the US ultimately wants the region to stabilize enough to promote trade of oil without worry. The region has always been another theatre for the Cold War between the US's Republic with Democratic ideals and Communism. (Still ongoing but the US, Russia, and China doesn't want to admit) Between Communism and elements of Democracy succeeding I think the Republic side wants the democracy to prevail.
Aye we're "on the list" but that just ultimately means we're now considered a large landmass of Isreal to them so terrorists and the regimes supporting them won't stop plotting to kill Americans even if the US were to leave or leave them be.
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
Like last year when I had to put up with all the "Neo-Con" labels and attacks against any of us who have Republican thoughts from the South? Like we're lesser lifeforms that don't belong in this country?
You mean stuff like that I had to put up from your side last year? Stop drinking the spiked punch and learn that karma really does return to the sender.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam.
"To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign." (from About.com)
Osama and many Muslims believe the U.S. has been infiltrating the Middle East with a corrupting evil and religious philosoply not inspired by Allah because we do not submit to Islamic law. So anything the U.S. does there is an abomination in Allah's eyes the way he sees it and unlawful. So, when the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia as we had, sets up military bases, interacts and influences the culture of Muslims (food, tv, music, film, reading material, etc), brings in women and allows them to do things which is against Islamic law, we are fair game under jihad. It is their duty to root us out of the region as Allah blesses the land and it is under Allah's authority. They also believe that Israel has occupied formerly muslim lands taken by force as sanctioned by the British, US and other countries but not Allah, therefore they are an illegal evil government which obligates every Muslim to free the area and return it to the Muslim people.
Conversely, if the U.S. had simply left Saudi Arabia and all Muslim country's territories and not aided Israel, there is no problem with jihad. They would not come over here to attack us simply because they hate us because we are a Christian based country. They would just consider us lost people who are going straight to Hell. But because we choose to aid Israel, we are on the list. They do not target countries under Dar-al harb like Sweden, China, North Korea, or a host of other countries they consider evil because those countries are neutral and choose to remain out of the Middle East politics.
So, if the U.S. does not go to the Middle East in the 50s and oust a devout Muslim, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran over oil nationalization with a CIA backed coup, then the mullahs do not rise up and take over the country from the Shah, who we put in his place. But because this was an affront to Islam, it was only a matter of time before the religious people rose up under Dar-al harb. Same thing with our aid and prodding of Saddam to attack Iran in the 80s. The Muslim countries view us as a DEstablizing force in the region, not a paragon of democracy and light.. especially with our history of civil rights violations during most of these events in our own country.
If we don't go to Saudi Arabia and set up Westernized military bases where Christianity is practiced every Sunday in the land of Mecca, the holiest Islamic city on the planet, this stuff does not start. To them, the U.S. is rubbing the Islamic country's noses in filth and enjoying it without consequence. Osama does not rise up under Dar-al harb and plot to destroy America. Osama watched all this growing up under Dar-al harb in most Muslim's eyes.
For someone who studied this his whole life as you said earlier, I'm surprised you do not know why Osama attacks us or why Iran is sympathetic to him and others like him. Of course I do NOT side with Bin Laden on his terrorist activities, but I do understand why we are such an affront to the people of that region's eyes and why they want us out.
They really don't need any more "Baywatch" tv shows or "Titanic" movies according to their spiritual leaders, and some of the faithful believe this is all justified as long as we remain in the region on any Muslim soil or aid any enemy who does.
Again, unlike Bush saying they want to kill us because they hate freedom and envy us, they just want us out of their affairs in their own lands.
I know why Osama attacked us. Read what they write to their own people, not what they tell us. Starl with the Al Qaeda reader. There they explain their plans for eternal hostility against us. It has nothing to do with anything WE have done.
I have also read all their propoganda designed to get you on their side. I know its bunk because I know what they write for their own consumption. Read it.
You are of course free to believe what you want to believe. I will however choose to believe them when they say they are destined to rule the world, and we are standing in their way, and we must be destroyed.
"To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign." (from About.com)
Osama and many Muslims believe the U.S. has been infiltrating the Middle East with a corrupting evil and religious philosoply not inspired by Allah because we do not submit to Islamic law. So anything the U.S. does there is an abomination in Allah's eyes the way he sees it and unlawful. So, when the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia as we had, sets up military bases, interacts and influences the culture of Muslims (food, tv, music, film, reading material, etc), brings in women and allows them to do things which is against Islamic law, we are fair game under jihad. It is their duty to root us out of the region as Allah blesses the land and it is under Allah's authority. They also believe that Israel has occupied formerly muslim lands taken by force as sanctioned by the British, US and other countries but not Allah, therefore they are an illegal evil government which obligates every Muslim to free the area and return it to the Muslim people.
Conversely, if the U.S. had simply left Saudi Arabia and all Muslim country's territories and not aided Israel, there is no problem with jihad. They would not come over here to attack us simply because they hate us because we are a Christian based country. They would just consider us lost people who are going straight to Hell. But because we choose to aid Israel, we are on the list. They do not target countries under Dar-al harb like Sweden, China, North Korea, or a host of other countries they consider evil because those countries are neutral and choose to remain out of the Middle East politics.
So, if the U.S. does not go to the Middle East in the 50s and oust a devout Muslim, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran over oil nationalization with a CIA backed coup, then the mullahs do not rise up and take over the country from the Shah, who we put in his place. But because this was an affront to Islam, it was only a matter of time before the religious people rose up under Dar-al harb. Same thing with our aid and prodding of Saddam to attack Iran in the 80s. The Muslim countries view us as a DEstablizing force in the region, not a paragon of democracy and light.. especially with our history of civil rights violations during most of these events in our own country. If we don't go to Saudi Arabia and set up Westernized military bases where Christianity is practiced every Sunday in the land of Mecca, the holiest Islamic city on the planet, this stuff does not start. To them, the U.S. is rubbing the Islamic country's noses in filth and enjoying it without consequence. Osama does not rise up under Dar-al harb and plot to destroy America. Osama watched all this growing up under Dar-al harb in most Muslim's eyes.
For someone who studied this his whole life as you said earlier, I'm surprised you do not know why Osama attacks us or why Iran is sympathetic to him and others like him. Of course I do NOT side with Bin Laden on his terrorist activities, but I do understand why we are such an affront to the people of that region's eyes and why they want us out.
They really don't need any more "Baywatch" tv shows or "Titanic" movies according to their spiritual leaders, and some of the faithful believe this is all justified as long as we remain in the region on any Muslim soil or aid any enemy who does.
Again, unlike Bush saying they want to kill us because they hate freedom and envy us, they just want us out of their affairs in their own lands.
Too bad some lands were technically in Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantine) hands before Islam started its military campaigns of the 7th century. To technically claim Christians are invading these lands I guess is a matter of debate. I'll give some of the lands is theirs however.
While there have been past sins on both sides I think the US ultimately wants the region to stabilize enough to promote trade of oil without worry. The region has always been another theatre for the Cold War between the US's Republic with Democratic ideals and Communism. (Still ongoing but the US, Russia, and China doesn't want to admit) Between Communism and elements of Democracy succeeding I think the Republic side wants the democracy to prevail.
Aye we're "on the list" but that just ultimately means we're now considered a large landmass of Isreal to them so terrorists and the regimes supporting them won't stop plotting to kill Americans even if the US were to leave or leave them be.
What he has done is common in the west. he has taken our natural propensity for self criticism and turned it into self loathing. he then uses it to justify the actions of the enemy. Welcome to the results of our government education system.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
Like last year when I had to put up with all the "Neo-Con" labels and attacks against any of us who have Republican thoughts from the South? Like we're lesser lifeforms that don't belong in this country?
You mean stuff like that I had to put up from your side last year? Stop drinking the spiked punch and learn that karma really does return to the sender.
All they seem to know is how to attack people personally, call people names, and argue against straw men. We saw Dear Leader doing so last night to sell his pork plan.
This is what he does. so this is what they do. It's the way they learned to argue (or not to argue, but to destroy conversation and thought) in school. They have not educated themselves enough outside of that system, so it seems to be all they know.
I shall continue to teach them that ad hominem attacks, straw men, and namecalling is not the way decent people debate topics. Eventually, they'll get it. I have faith in them.
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
To the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, there were only two forces at play in the world. Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law. The second, Dar al-Harb, or House of War, was every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. As part of this House of War, the Barbary Pirates implement al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, on European and American commerce coming through the Mediterranean Ocean.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the issue with Tripoli’s envoy in London. His answer parallels Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja tells Adams and Jefferson; “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
Too bad some lands were technically in Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantine) hands before Islam started its military campaigns of the 7th century. To technically claim Christians are invading these lands I guess is a matter of debate. I'll give some of the lands is theirs however. While there have been past sins on both sides I think the US ultimately wants the region to stabilize enough to promote trade of oil without worry. The region has always been another theatre for the Cold War between the US's Republic with Democratic ideals and Communism. (Still ongoing but the US, Russia, and China doesn't want to admit) Between Communism and elements of Democracy succeeding I think the Republic side wants the democracy to prevail. Aye we're "on the list" but that just ultimately means we're now considered a large landmass of Isreal to them so terrorists and the regimes supporting them won't stop plotting to kill Americans even if the US were to leave or leave them be.
Good post.
One thing I would disagree with is the idea that if the U.S. somehow left the Middle East, that they would follow us all the way over here.
A large portion of their hate is because we held a military presence (think Roman colonial garrisions) in their holiest country, Saudi Arabia. There are three cities which mean an awful lot to Muslims; Mecca, Jerusalem and Medina. Two of those (Mecca/Medina) are in Saudi Arabia where we had troops launching from to fight other Muslims.
Again, this was the sole reason Osama began his terrorism career.
A quick one from Wiki:
Osama bin Laden began calling for the withdrawal of the troops, stating that the US was, "Occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories," as a reference to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, homes of Muhammad. The U.S. rejected the characterization of its presence as an "occupation," noting that the government of Saudi Arabia consented to the presence of troops. Many in the U.S., the Arab world and elsewhere saw the presence of U.S. troops as supporting the House of Saud, the rule of which is controversial.
I have a feeling that as the United States learns to mind its own beeswax, other countries who used to hate us will begin to see us in a different light. As with Vietnam, Americans can go there now and have quite the relationship with many former Vietcong and even do business because we do not try to meddle in their politics anymore and create boogeymen and prop up leaders.
I am not saying we should not support Israel's right to exist, which I believe they have. But we already give them the most advanced weaponry known to man in the history of the world. They have the nuclear bomb, planes, tanks, and satellites and plenty of intelligence from Mossad. We can continue to support them, but with a fairer eye. It's no secret the U.S. would love to see Israel prevail because then Britain and the U.S. get a hefty part of the oil wherever Israel blows someone off the map over there. We've been after those reserves since World War II.
If the U.S. did not provide weapons, they'd get it from France, Britain or someplace else on the black market if not us. Israel is not some weakling and we need to stop treating them as such and force them to the negotiating table with the threat that if they don't negotiate in good faith, they will be on their own and we will only help if THEY are attacked militarily.
Treat the Palestians better than just ghetto rats... basically force Israel to grow up.
I love how you libs go to your default BUSH BASH RANT instead of actually take on the original point of the thread... Obama is incompetent and weak in the eyes of the nations of the world.
He is not weak in the eyes of the nations of the world. I know some of you trigger happy conservatives consider anybody who doesn't think violence is the answer as weak, but those with a little bit more sense in their skull will realise that another invasion is not going to help anybody. Stop pretending like Iran is gathering its army for an all out war.
Yes we're truly fortunate that not everyone has the Strength and Vision of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld.
The truth is, the President has over a 70% approval rating and almost everyone in the country is concerned about Jobs, trade, healthcare and the retiring baby boomers.
Very few are truly concerned about a few crazies in a cave somewhere, which makes this a perfect time for dialogue and to look for common interest with other nations. ( Real Strength if you ask me)
Almost nobody wants another Iraq, on either side.
Lets see....We went to Iraq as liberators. What would we go to Iran as? Kinda dyslexic? Especially when you consider the Shia majorities in both countries. It would just be the same lack of planning and understanding of the situation we saw in Iraq with the same results.
Too bad some lands were technically in Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantine) hands before Islam started its military campaigns of the 7th century. To technically claim Christians are invading these lands I guess is a matter of debate. I'll give some of the lands is theirs however.
While there have been past sins on both sides I think the US ultimately wants the region to stabilize enough to promote trade of oil without worry. The region has always been another theatre for the Cold War between the US's Republic with Democratic ideals and Communism. (Still ongoing but the US, Russia, and China doesn't want to admit) Between Communism and elements of Democracy succeeding I think the Republic side wants the democracy to prevail.
Aye we're "on the list" but that just ultimately means we're now considered a large landmass of Isreal to them so terrorists and the regimes supporting them won't stop plotting to kill Americans even if the US were to leave or leave them be.
Good post.
One thing I would disagree with is the idea that if the U.S. somehow left the Middle East, that they would follow us all the way over here.
A large portion of their hate is because we held a military presence (think Roman colonial garrisions) in their holiest country, Saudi Arabia. There are three cities which mean an awful lot to Muslims; Mecca, Jerusalem and Medina. Two of those (Mecca/Medina) are in Saudi Arabia where we had troops launching from to fight other Muslims.
Again, this was the sole reason Osama began his terrorism career.
A quick one from Wiki:
Osama bin Laden began calling for the withdrawal of the troops, stating that the US was, "Occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories," as a reference to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, homes of Muhammad. The U.S. rejected the characterization of its presence as an "occupation," noting that the government of Saudi Arabia consented to the presence of troops. Many in the U.S., the Arab world and elsewhere saw the presence of U.S. troops as supporting the House of Saud, the rule of which is controversial.
I have a feeling that as the United States learns to mind its own beeswax, other countries who used to hate us will begin to see us in a different light. As with Vietnam, Americans can go there now and have quite the relationship with many former Vietcong and even do business because we do not try to meddle in their politics anymore and create boogeymen and prop up leaders.
I am not saying we should not support Israel's right to exist, which I believe they have. But we already give them the most advanced weaponry known to man in the history of the world. They have the nuclear bomb, planes, tanks, and satellites and plenty of intelligence from Mossad. We can continue to support them, but with a fairer eye. It's no secret the U.S. would love to see Israel prevail because then Britain and the U.S. get a hefty part of the oil wherever Israel blows someone off the map over there. We've been after those reserves since World War II.
If the U.S. did not provide weapons, they'd get it from France, Britain or someplace else on the black market if not us. Israel is not some weakling and we need to stop treating them as such and force them to the negotiating table with the threat that if they don't negotiate in good faith, they will be on their own and we will only help if THEY are attacked militarily.
Treat the Palestians better than just ghetto rats... basically force Israel to grow up.
Yup, we are the bad guys. Once again you assume that people who are not of the West are too primitive (or something) to be evil. Sheer bigotry and arrogance.
And of course, it is also the Jews fault. It's always the jews now, isn't it? I knew we would get here eventually. Sooner or later, anyone on Dear Leader's side eventually attacks the Jews.
One thing I would disagree with is the idea that if the U.S. somehow left the Middle East, that they would follow us all the way over here. A large portion of their hate is because we held a military presence (think Roman colonial garrisions) in their holiest country, Saudi Arabia. There are three cities which mean an awful lot to Muslims; Mecca, Jerusalem and Medina. Two of those (Mecca/Medina) are in Saudi Arabia where we had troops launching from to fight other Muslims.
Again, this was the sole reason Osama began his terrorism career.
A quick one from Wiki:
Osama bin Laden began calling for the withdrawal of the troops, stating that the US was, "Occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories," as a reference to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, homes of Muhammad. The U.S. rejected the characterization of its presence as an "occupation," noting that the government of Saudi Arabia consented to the presence of troops. Many in the U.S., the Arab world and elsewhere saw the presence of U.S. troops as supporting the House of Saud, the rule of which is controversial.
I have a feeling that as the United States learns to mind its own beeswax, other countries who used to hate us will begin to see us in a different light. As with Vietnam, Americans can go there now and have quite the relationship with many former Vietcong and even do business because we do not try to meddle in their politics anymore and create boogeymen and prop up leaders.
I am not saying we should not support Israel's right to exist, which I believe they have. But we already give them the most advanced weaponry known to man in the history of the world. They have the nuclear bomb, planes, tanks, and satellites and plenty of intelligence from Mossad. We can continue to support them, but with a fairer eye. It's no secret the U.S. would love to see Israel prevail because then Britain and the U.S. get a hefty part of the oil wherever Israel blows someone off the map over there. We've been after those reserves since World War II.
If the U.S. did not provide weapons, they'd get it from France, Britain or someplace else on the black market if not us. Israel is not some weakling and we need to stop treating them as such and force them to the negotiating table with the threat that if they don't negotiate in good faith, they will be on their own and we will only help if THEY are attacked militarily.
Treat the Palestians better than just ghetto rats... basically force Israel to grow up.
The reason why I'd disagree with your Vietnam example is, as far as I know, the Vietmanese haven't followed us to America, ran planes through our buildings, and made past attempts against those trade centers. So based on what I have to go on I'd have to say the terrorists would follow us and hunt us down like clone warriors extermenating Jedi on Order 66 if they could.
The reason we can't stop supplying arms to Isreal/support in general is because, like I said earlier, the Russians and Chinese are actually in a Cold War with us and supplying arms to the regimes. The regimes supply arms to the terrorists and general support. Although the current divide in this country may have the Russians and Chinese succeeding from within. (That's another topic though)
It's the same reason the US can't leave Iraq now. Especially since things are succeeding over there. Democracy will have to succeed over Communism.
Energy will take care of itself if alternative energy is "truly" pursued and perhaps we'll see the shadow of Communism lose its influence as well. One can hope. To counter your Roman colonial garrisons though if Russia and China were allowed to exert more influence over oil trade to us from the Middle East it would be deadly. Think troops holding all the oasis holes from thirsting passer-bys.
The hostility will end against Isreal once more wake up in the Islamic world. Once they want to realize Jews had their own country way before there was an Islam and have a claim to live in the region. Assaryians have taken their lands before and Romans have made Jews suffer any attempt of a thought at having any home. Once Islam realizes they have taken lands of Christians before liked I said in the post earlier. (Once they realize they have sinned also)
I can't think of how much massacre Jews would've avoided had these countries not thwarted attempts at Jews keeping the land they founded. (the horrible tragedies in Europe during the Crusades and the genocide of WWII) Especially how east vs west might not even be happening.
The hope of defending one people from genocide (Isrealis) and freeing another towards free thought (Iraqis) means there yet be hope in the grand shceme of things.
Comments
This is the height of irony.
You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).
Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.
While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.
Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.
All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.
Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.
He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
That's because history books no longer say regions were conquered by other people, they say that the conquering race migrated into the area... a HUGE dis service to the young today.
Yup, another example of the pitiful self loathing of the west. We have gone from healthy self criticism to self loathing. We have gone from simple disagreement with one another to absolute irrational hatred, to the point where the left in the west is now supportive of teh subjegation of women, slavery, church burning, and mass murder over a cartoon -- as long as it is done in the name of Allah by a fanatical faction within Islam.
That's okay to them, as long as they are opposing people they disagree with. It's a terrible thing.
To think this is where the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has fallen. Amazing.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Ok, let's examine your post. Here's where it comes from www.MarkHarasa.com (who?):
Now there's a bunch more gobblety-gook about U.S. warships and piracy too long and boring to mention that goes "blah blah blah naval history".
But what you clearly did here, was take something out of context to try and bolster a point. This was not in reference to Jihadism, it was in reference to piracy on the high seas. This had to deal with individual pirates making money off of countries doing business near their coasts, lol. Last I checked, Bin Laden and his friends weren't pirating and asking for ransoms.
We are talking about terrorism, and you give us Tales of Captain Jack Sparrow? I fail to see the connection. This has more relevance to the Somali pirates snatching tankers two months ago than Osama Bin Laden, friend.
So nice of you to confuse an issue of Terrorism with Piracy for your convenience by cherrypicking items. Are you sure you didn't like Bush?
Very nice attempt, but you had to figure you'd be found out, right?
"TO MICHAEL!"
Ok, let's examine your post. Here's where it comes from www.MarkHarasa.com (who?):
Now there's a bunch more gobblety-gook about U.S. warships and piracy too long and boring to mention that goes "blah blah blah naval history".
But what you clearly did here, was take something out of context to try and bolster a point. This was not in reference to Jihadism, it was in reference to piracy on the high seas. This had to deal with individual pirates making money off of countries doing business near their coasts, lol. Last I checked, Bin Laden and his friends weren't pirating and asking for ransoms.
We are talking about terrorism, and you give us Tales of Captain Jack Sparrow? I fail to see the connection. This has more relevance to the Somali pirates snatching tankers two months ago than Osama Bin Laden, friend.
So nice of you to confuse an issue of Terrorism with Piracy for your convenience by cherrypicking items. Are you sure you didn't like Bush?
Very nice attempt, but you had to figure you'd be found out, right?
What the heck are you talking about? Must you continue to attack straw men? Why do you insist on continuing to argue against things I have not said?
Amazing. I've lost count on how many times you have done this.
fishermage.blogspot.com
This is the height of irony.
You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).
Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.
While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.
Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.
All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.
Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.
He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
man this is painfully annoying reading some of these posts. firstly let me state Jihad means struggle, so saying Jihadists - strugglists?!? makes no sense, id like to comment on a lot of stuff but due to shortage of time il focus on this.
the crusades were not a defensive war, if it was they wouldn't have walked into Jerusalem butchering every man woman and child, infact in one of the diaries of the crusaders, he notes how the crusaders began eating the bodies of the children of the palestinians. i wouold provide a link but im short of time sorry i will provide one later. Secondly Jihadist empire? I'm guessing you mean Ottoman Empire, as in like the Byzantine empire but just muslim (understand what im getting at yet?). Even the Byzantines were afraid of the oncoming horde of crusaders as the wife of the ruler of Constantinople noted, they were a pack of savages hardly self-defence...i could go on but i dont have the time.
btw nice going popinjay decent arguments with back up of evidence unlike a lot of posts ive read
"If they can make Penicillin out of mouldy bread, they can sure make something out of you," - Muhammed Ali
This is the height of irony.
You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).
Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.
While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.
Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.
All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.
Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.
He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.
Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.
The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.
man this is painfully annoying reading some of these posts. firstly let me state Jihad means struggle, so saying Jihadists - strugglists?!? makes no sense, id like to comment on a lot of stuff but due to shortage of time il focus on this.
the crusades were not a defensive war, if it was they wouldn't have walked into Jerusalem butchering every man woman and child, infact in one of the diaries of the crusaders, he notes how the crusaders began eating the bodies of the children of the palestinians. i wouold provide a link but im short of time sorry i will provide one later. Secondly Jihadist empire? I'm guessing you mean Ottoman Empire, as in like the Byzantine empire but just muslim (understand what im getting at yet?). Even the Byzantines were afraid of the oncoming horde of crusaders as the wife of the ruler of Constantinople noted, they were a pack of savages hardly self-defence...i could go on but i dont have the time.
btw nice going popinjay decent arguments with back up of evidence unlike a lot of posts ive read
Jihad means several things, depending on teh context. yes, transliterated the term means "struggle," just as transliterated "Islam" means "submission." Outside of context they mean nothing.
To the Jihadist, and throught much of the history of islam Jihad means the struggle of Islam vs the non-Islamic world. This is what it means in most of the hadith and in most Muslim writing.
With the advent of Sufism, a new meaning of Jihad became popular -- the person's inner struggle with God and virtue. This is known as "spriritual Jihad," and is a fine thing that I respect and admire. I obviously did not mean that meaning of the word in the context I was writing.
That is not the meaning used when Bin Ladin or the hammas uses it. When they use it they mean what, if you need a modifier, "offensive Jihad" which is the right of islam to rule the world. By force, the Jihad belives they have the right to impose Islam uber alles.
As to the destruction caused by the crusades and whether the war was defensive or not --- those two are not mutuallt exclusive. Was WWII not defensive war, at least on our part? Did we not firebomb dresden? destroy two japanese cities. the war itself was still defensive.
The Crusades were STARTED in response the the fact that Islam was taking over the known world; they had taken north africa, spain, and many parts of Europe.
Did they go as planned? No. Were they excessive? definitely. that has nothing to do with whether they were defensive or not. They were.
Islam has changed over the years. centures of defeay after defeat has led most Muslims not to feel this way -- they have begin a reformation. Now the Jihad, once the majority position within Islam, now is a small minority. sadly, many of them are in powerful positions. Also, there are those who actively pursue Jihad through violence -- Bin Ladin, abu sayyaff, and Hammas and Hezbollah are decent examples -- and the there are those who support the Jihad with money, or just beliefs.
Either way, go ahead propagating the self loathing myths of the west that date back to when we were fighting Marxism and the left used these ideas to weaken us and our resolve. Our enemy has no such doubts.
I do have one question: who taught you that the Crusades were an aggressive war? Where did you pick up this notion in the first place? I'm curious.
Interesting that you compliment popinjay though, who in this thread and others argues through personal attack, and against straw men. he then uses his "evidence" to argue against things people never said. just as I disagree with you on the issues, I disagree with your assessment of the merits of his arguments.
fishermage.blogspot.com
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
"TO MICHAEL!"
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
fishermage.blogspot.com
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
He is quoting a source I never cited. he is then attacking that source.
I quoted Jefferson from his papers. He launched an ad hominem attack on Jefferson. When that failed him, he then pulled some article I have never seen by an author I have never heard of, claimed I used it as a source, and then started arguing with this article.
He then used this article as his own source to attack again. Why should I answer such tactics any more than I answer yours?
I am willing to argue with anyone who argues decently and reasonably. He is not doing that. Neither do most people I find who are attacking from the left. that seems to go for "independents" who attack from the left or liberals who attack from the left.
I hardly ever see this when I argue with conservatives. They are, for the most part, decent, respectful, and argue me on points.
I saw Obama using the same shabby tactics when defending his pork plan. First, he attacked Bush. Then, he attacked Republicans in general saying that the choice was to either His plan or doing nothing. That was a straw man and a lie. Republicans have at least three plans out there, and many ideas -- and NONE are nothing.
The idea of doing nothing came from his own, liberal CBO, which said that doing nothing would be better for the economy in the long run than this package.
President Obama then chose to attack Republicans for something his own side was saying and advocating.
It is easy to see why people who support Obama are doing what they are doing. Dear Leader is leading by example.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Good luck negotiating with nutjobs like the Iranian leader. These folks believe in a warped version of their prophet's words that basically say, "To die in battle against enemies of Islam in glorious battle is entrance into Heaven".
Good luck in convincing me you can deliver "Change You Can Believe In" to monsters like that.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam.
"To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign." (from About.com)
Osama and many Muslims believe the U.S. has been infiltrating the Middle East with a corrupting evil and religious philosoply not inspired by Allah because we do not submit to Islamic law. So anything the U.S. does there is an abomination in Allah's eyes the way he sees it and unlawful. So, when the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia as we had, sets up military bases, interacts and influences the culture of Muslims (food, tv, music, film, reading material, etc), brings in women and allows them to do things which is against Islamic law, we are fair game under jihad. It is their duty to root us out of the region as Allah blesses the land and it is under Allah's authority. They also believe that Israel has occupied formerly muslim lands taken by force as sanctioned by the British, US and other countries but not Allah, therefore they are an illegal evil government which obligates every Muslim to free the area and return it to the Muslim people.
Conversely, if the U.S. had simply left Saudi Arabia and all Muslim country's territories and not aided Israel, there is no problem with jihad. They would not come over here to attack us simply because they hate us because we are a Christian based country. They would just consider us lost people who are going straight to Hell. But because we choose to aid Israel, we are on the list. They do not target countries under Dar-al harb like Sweden, China, North Korea, or a host of other countries they consider evil because those countries are neutral and choose to remain out of the Middle East politics.
So, if the U.S. does not go to the Middle East in the 50s and oust a devout Muslim, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran over oil nationalization with a CIA backed coup, then the mullahs do not rise up and take over the country from the Shah, who we put in his place. But because this was an affront to Islam, it was only a matter of time before the religious people rose up under Dar-al harb. Same thing with our aid and prodding of Saddam to attack Iran in the 80s. The Muslim countries view us as a DEstablizing force in the region, not a paragon of democracy and light.. especially with our history of civil rights violations during most of these events in our own country.
If we don't go to Saudi Arabia and set up Westernized military bases where Christianity is practiced every Sunday in the land of Mecca, the holiest Islamic city on the planet, this stuff does not start. To them, the U.S. is rubbing the Islamic country's noses in filth and enjoying it without consequence. Osama does not rise up under Dar-al harb and plot to destroy America. Osama watched all this growing up under Dar-al harb in most Muslim's eyes.
For someone who studied this his whole life as you said earlier, I'm surprised you do not know why Osama attacks us or why Iran is sympathetic to him and others like him. Of course I do NOT side with Bin Laden on his terrorist activities, but I do understand why we are such an affront to the people of that region's eyes and why they want us out.
They really don't need any more "Baywatch" tv shows or "Titanic" movies according to their spiritual leaders, and some of the faithful believe this is all justified as long as we remain in the region on any Muslim soil or aid any enemy who does.
Again, unlike Bush saying they want to kill us because they hate freedom and envy us, they just want us out of their affairs in their own lands.
"TO MICHAEL!"
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
you get the idea... too bad it's so true.
edit woot! link
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=972
Too bad some lands were technically in Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantine) hands before Islam started its military campaigns of the 7th century. To technically claim Christians are invading these lands I guess is a matter of debate. I'll give some of the lands is theirs however.
While there have been past sins on both sides I think the US ultimately wants the region to stabilize enough to promote trade of oil without worry. The region has always been another theatre for the Cold War between the US's Republic with Democratic ideals and Communism. (Still ongoing but the US, Russia, and China doesn't want to admit) Between Communism and elements of Democracy succeeding I think the Republic side wants the democracy to prevail.
Aye we're "on the list" but that just ultimately means we're now considered a large landmass of Isreal to them so terrorists and the regimes supporting them won't stop plotting to kill Americans even if the US were to leave or leave them be.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Like last year when I had to put up with all the "Neo-Con" labels and attacks against any of us who have Republican thoughts from the South? Like we're lesser lifeforms that don't belong in this country?
You mean stuff like that I had to put up from your side last year? Stop drinking the spiked punch and learn that karma really does return to the sender.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam.
"To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign." (from About.com)
Osama and many Muslims believe the U.S. has been infiltrating the Middle East with a corrupting evil and religious philosoply not inspired by Allah because we do not submit to Islamic law. So anything the U.S. does there is an abomination in Allah's eyes the way he sees it and unlawful. So, when the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia as we had, sets up military bases, interacts and influences the culture of Muslims (food, tv, music, film, reading material, etc), brings in women and allows them to do things which is against Islamic law, we are fair game under jihad. It is their duty to root us out of the region as Allah blesses the land and it is under Allah's authority. They also believe that Israel has occupied formerly muslim lands taken by force as sanctioned by the British, US and other countries but not Allah, therefore they are an illegal evil government which obligates every Muslim to free the area and return it to the Muslim people.
Conversely, if the U.S. had simply left Saudi Arabia and all Muslim country's territories and not aided Israel, there is no problem with jihad. They would not come over here to attack us simply because they hate us because we are a Christian based country. They would just consider us lost people who are going straight to Hell. But because we choose to aid Israel, we are on the list. They do not target countries under Dar-al harb like Sweden, China, North Korea, or a host of other countries they consider evil because those countries are neutral and choose to remain out of the Middle East politics.
So, if the U.S. does not go to the Middle East in the 50s and oust a devout Muslim, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran over oil nationalization with a CIA backed coup, then the mullahs do not rise up and take over the country from the Shah, who we put in his place. But because this was an affront to Islam, it was only a matter of time before the religious people rose up under Dar-al harb. Same thing with our aid and prodding of Saddam to attack Iran in the 80s. The Muslim countries view us as a DEstablizing force in the region, not a paragon of democracy and light.. especially with our history of civil rights violations during most of these events in our own country.
If we don't go to Saudi Arabia and set up Westernized military bases where Christianity is practiced every Sunday in the land of Mecca, the holiest Islamic city on the planet, this stuff does not start. To them, the U.S. is rubbing the Islamic country's noses in filth and enjoying it without consequence. Osama does not rise up under Dar-al harb and plot to destroy America. Osama watched all this growing up under Dar-al harb in most Muslim's eyes.
For someone who studied this his whole life as you said earlier, I'm surprised you do not know why Osama attacks us or why Iran is sympathetic to him and others like him. Of course I do NOT side with Bin Laden on his terrorist activities, but I do understand why we are such an affront to the people of that region's eyes and why they want us out.
They really don't need any more "Baywatch" tv shows or "Titanic" movies according to their spiritual leaders, and some of the faithful believe this is all justified as long as we remain in the region on any Muslim soil or aid any enemy who does.
Again, unlike Bush saying they want to kill us because they hate freedom and envy us, they just want us out of their affairs in their own lands.
I know why Osama attacked us. Read what they write to their own people, not what they tell us. Starl with the Al Qaeda reader. There they explain their plans for eternal hostility against us. It has nothing to do with anything WE have done.
I have also read all their propoganda designed to get you on their side. I know its bunk because I know what they write for their own consumption. Read it.
You are of course free to believe what you want to believe. I will however choose to believe them when they say they are destined to rule the world, and we are standing in their way, and we must be destroyed.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Too bad some lands were technically in Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantine) hands before Islam started its military campaigns of the 7th century. To technically claim Christians are invading these lands I guess is a matter of debate. I'll give some of the lands is theirs however.
While there have been past sins on both sides I think the US ultimately wants the region to stabilize enough to promote trade of oil without worry. The region has always been another theatre for the Cold War between the US's Republic with Democratic ideals and Communism. (Still ongoing but the US, Russia, and China doesn't want to admit) Between Communism and elements of Democracy succeeding I think the Republic side wants the democracy to prevail.
Aye we're "on the list" but that just ultimately means we're now considered a large landmass of Isreal to them so terrorists and the regimes supporting them won't stop plotting to kill Americans even if the US were to leave or leave them be.
What he has done is common in the west. he has taken our natural propensity for self criticism and turned it into self loathing. he then uses it to justify the actions of the enemy. Welcome to the results of our government education system.
THAT is truly a thing to be feared.
fishermage.blogspot.com
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
you get the idea... too bad it's so true.
edit woot! link
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=972
Don't you have some poorly researched links, which ultimately don't support your point, to post?
Like last year when I had to put up with all the "Neo-Con" labels and attacks against any of us who have Republican thoughts from the South? Like we're lesser lifeforms that don't belong in this country?
You mean stuff like that I had to put up from your side last year? Stop drinking the spiked punch and learn that karma really does return to the sender.
All they seem to know is how to attack people personally, call people names, and argue against straw men. We saw Dear Leader doing so last night to sell his pork plan.
This is what he does. so this is what they do. It's the way they learned to argue (or not to argue, but to destroy conversation and thought) in school. They have not educated themselves enough outside of that system, so it seems to be all they know.
I shall continue to teach them that ad hominem attacks, straw men, and namecalling is not the way decent people debate topics. Eventually, they'll get it. I have faith in them.
fishermage.blogspot.com
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
you get the idea... too bad it's so true.
edit woot! link
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=972
Don't you have some poorly researched links, which ultimately don't support your point, to post?
you still have bad blood over the more than enough proof i gave for my point, backed up complete with even the God send CNN?
nah, noone has ever refuted my point yet, so ball's in your court. Care to bring a point yourself?
From the article you cherrypicked out of, something interesting.
The author says the pirates resembled Osama Bin Laden's philosophy of Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where every thing else outside Islam, the area not under Muslim control where infidels ruled. NOT Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam meant Muslim government and Sharia Law.
Well, guess which kind of Islam Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia practice?
According to (Arutz Sheva) Israel National News.com reports independent investigative journalist David Bedein in FrontPageMagazine.com:
"Saudi Arabia, run by Sharia law, is in fact one of the most oppressive countries for Christians, according to a report released last year by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, as is Iran."
"The Palestinian Authority has adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law, rendering all people living in the PA subject to Islamic Law."
So even the author of the article you quoted points out what Osama practices as a terrorist is something different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and quite a few Muslim countries practice as a government. The "other" kind of Islam.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What are you talking about? again with the straw man. I don't know where you got that article but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
stop posting popinjay, it's obvious he has absolutely no intention of answering you
While Popinjay does a great job of refuting much of Fishermage's revisionist "facts", I think it's ultimately futile. He's deeply entrenched with the notion that he is right all other dissenting views are branded as "liberals" and thus our arguments are invalid or we are labeled as "indecent" because we do not conform and will not comply to his "rules of debate" or his view of the world and its history. But if Popinjay wished to continue to expose him as the fraud that he is....fight the good fight brother!
wishful thinking lol.
Seriously, you can't expect that to stand as anything of substance can you?
I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw going around in an email...
It has our famed Uncle sam holding a pillar called "Western Civilization and Freedom" on it...and in his other hand is a gun held in his own mouth and the barrel of the gun says "Liberalism." and on the gun part that you cock back is a hand holding it with the label "Islamist extremism"
you get the idea... too bad it's so true.
edit woot! link
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=972
Don't you have some poorly researched links, which ultimately don't support your point, to post?
you still have bad blood over the more than enough proof i gave for my point, backed up complete with even the God send CNN?
nah, noone has ever refuted my point yet, so ball's in your court. Care to bring a point yourself?
lol
My, my, don't we have selective memories?
Good post.
One thing I would disagree with is the idea that if the U.S. somehow left the Middle East, that they would follow us all the way over here.
A large portion of their hate is because we held a military presence (think Roman colonial garrisions) in their holiest country, Saudi Arabia. There are three cities which mean an awful lot to Muslims; Mecca, Jerusalem and Medina. Two of those (Mecca/Medina) are in Saudi Arabia where we had troops launching from to fight other Muslims.
Again, this was the sole reason Osama began his terrorism career.
A quick one from Wiki:
I have a feeling that as the United States learns to mind its own beeswax, other countries who used to hate us will begin to see us in a different light. As with Vietnam, Americans can go there now and have quite the relationship with many former Vietcong and even do business because we do not try to meddle in their politics anymore and create boogeymen and prop up leaders.
I am not saying we should not support Israel's right to exist, which I believe they have. But we already give them the most advanced weaponry known to man in the history of the world. They have the nuclear bomb, planes, tanks, and satellites and plenty of intelligence from Mossad. We can continue to support them, but with a fairer eye. It's no secret the U.S. would love to see Israel prevail because then Britain and the U.S. get a hefty part of the oil wherever Israel blows someone off the map over there. We've been after those reserves since World War II.
If the U.S. did not provide weapons, they'd get it from France, Britain or someplace else on the black market if not us. Israel is not some weakling and we need to stop treating them as such and force them to the negotiating table with the threat that if they don't negotiate in good faith, they will be on their own and we will only help if THEY are attacked militarily.
Treat the Palestians better than just ghetto rats... basically force Israel to grow up.
"TO MICHAEL!"
He is not weak in the eyes of the nations of the world. I know some of you trigger happy conservatives consider anybody who doesn't think violence is the answer as weak, but those with a little bit more sense in their skull will realise that another invasion is not going to help anybody. Stop pretending like Iran is gathering its army for an all out war.
Yes we're truly fortunate that not everyone has the Strength and Vision of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld.
The truth is, the President has over a 70% approval rating and almost everyone in the country is concerned about Jobs, trade, healthcare and the retiring baby boomers.
Very few are truly concerned about a few crazies in a cave somewhere, which makes this a perfect time for dialogue and to look for common interest with other nations. ( Real Strength if you ask me)
Almost nobody wants another Iraq, on either side.
Lets see....We went to Iraq as liberators. What would we go to Iran as? Kinda dyslexic? Especially when you consider the Shia majorities in both countries. It would just be the same lack of planning and understanding of the situation we saw in Iraq with the same results.
Good post.
One thing I would disagree with is the idea that if the U.S. somehow left the Middle East, that they would follow us all the way over here.
A large portion of their hate is because we held a military presence (think Roman colonial garrisions) in their holiest country, Saudi Arabia. There are three cities which mean an awful lot to Muslims; Mecca, Jerusalem and Medina. Two of those (Mecca/Medina) are in Saudi Arabia where we had troops launching from to fight other Muslims.
Again, this was the sole reason Osama began his terrorism career.
A quick one from Wiki:
I have a feeling that as the United States learns to mind its own beeswax, other countries who used to hate us will begin to see us in a different light. As with Vietnam, Americans can go there now and have quite the relationship with many former Vietcong and even do business because we do not try to meddle in their politics anymore and create boogeymen and prop up leaders.
I am not saying we should not support Israel's right to exist, which I believe they have. But we already give them the most advanced weaponry known to man in the history of the world. They have the nuclear bomb, planes, tanks, and satellites and plenty of intelligence from Mossad. We can continue to support them, but with a fairer eye. It's no secret the U.S. would love to see Israel prevail because then Britain and the U.S. get a hefty part of the oil wherever Israel blows someone off the map over there. We've been after those reserves since World War II.
If the U.S. did not provide weapons, they'd get it from France, Britain or someplace else on the black market if not us. Israel is not some weakling and we need to stop treating them as such and force them to the negotiating table with the threat that if they don't negotiate in good faith, they will be on their own and we will only help if THEY are attacked militarily.
Treat the Palestians better than just ghetto rats... basically force Israel to grow up.
Yup, we are the bad guys. Once again you assume that people who are not of the West are too primitive (or something) to be evil. Sheer bigotry and arrogance.
And of course, it is also the Jews fault. It's always the jews now, isn't it? I knew we would get here eventually. Sooner or later, anyone on Dear Leader's side eventually attacks the Jews.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I have a feeling that as the United States learns to mind its own beeswax, other countries who used to hate us will begin to see us in a different light. As with Vietnam, Americans can go there now and have quite the relationship with many former Vietcong and even do business because we do not try to meddle in their politics anymore and create boogeymen and prop up leaders.
I am not saying we should not support Israel's right to exist, which I believe they have. But we already give them the most advanced weaponry known to man in the history of the world. They have the nuclear bomb, planes, tanks, and satellites and plenty of intelligence from Mossad. We can continue to support them, but with a fairer eye. It's no secret the U.S. would love to see Israel prevail because then Britain and the U.S. get a hefty part of the oil wherever Israel blows someone off the map over there. We've been after those reserves since World War II.
If the U.S. did not provide weapons, they'd get it from France, Britain or someplace else on the black market if not us. Israel is not some weakling and we need to stop treating them as such and force them to the negotiating table with the threat that if they don't negotiate in good faith, they will be on their own and we will only help if THEY are attacked militarily.
Treat the Palestians better than just ghetto rats... basically force Israel to grow up.
The reason why I'd disagree with your Vietnam example is, as far as I know, the Vietmanese haven't followed us to America, ran planes through our buildings, and made past attempts against those trade centers. So based on what I have to go on I'd have to say the terrorists would follow us and hunt us down like clone warriors extermenating Jedi on Order 66 if they could.
The reason we can't stop supplying arms to Isreal/support in general is because, like I said earlier, the Russians and Chinese are actually in a Cold War with us and supplying arms to the regimes. The regimes supply arms to the terrorists and general support. Although the current divide in this country may have the Russians and Chinese succeeding from within. (That's another topic though)
It's the same reason the US can't leave Iraq now. Especially since things are succeeding over there. Democracy will have to succeed over Communism.
Energy will take care of itself if alternative energy is "truly" pursued and perhaps we'll see the shadow of Communism lose its influence as well. One can hope. To counter your Roman colonial garrisons though if Russia and China were allowed to exert more influence over oil trade to us from the Middle East it would be deadly. Think troops holding all the oasis holes from thirsting passer-bys.
The hostility will end against Isreal once more wake up in the Islamic world. Once they want to realize Jews had their own country way before there was an Islam and have a claim to live in the region. Assaryians have taken their lands before and Romans have made Jews suffer any attempt of a thought at having any home. Once Islam realizes they have taken lands of Christians before liked I said in the post earlier. (Once they realize they have sinned also)
I can't think of how much massacre Jews would've avoided had these countries not thwarted attempts at Jews keeping the land they founded. (the horrible tragedies in Europe during the Crusades and the genocide of WWII) Especially how east vs west might not even be happening.
The hope of defending one people from genocide (Isrealis) and freeing another towards free thought (Iraqis) means there yet be hope in the grand shceme of things.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth