France just hit again

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

People cheering it "well, it's just dead CACS" without actually having any proof it was just cacs who were killed.

The militant with the Micah Johnson avatar is on his "idgaf they kill my people everyday" streak as if random French civilians and tourists ever did anything to black people.

Theres Quite a few of those low information TLR militants with those avatars...they try to display "pro" blackness by announcing hate for white people as if those two were mutually dependent positions.

 

[David_TheMan]

Islam is also a branch on the Judaism tree, so you're making no point at all here. It's amazing how your first reaction to a bunch of civilians getting mowed down is "Well, they basically deserve it."

If you didn't literally try to set Islam aside you might have had a good point, but you didn't did you.

Youre studies are going the wrong way then...Its not new..its been around for over 200 years..it used to be confined to the desert but they were a big part of the muscle used by the house of saud to carve out their throne. .
The British carry alot of the blame for this too..their fear of Ottoman resurgency and Arab nationalism led them to back these nutjobs as a counterbalance

From what I've studied modern wahabbism is different from traditional wahabbism, its a modern varient specifically Saudi based that pushes the current extremism we see today.
That said the west has been aiding in spreading wahabbism outside of Saudi for a long time now and enabling it to have fertile ground to grow in the region.

Never said Christianity's record was spotless, but in today's day and age they're doing a lot better then Islam. There's not much doubt about that.

Anyway, the point of posting that history was to show today's era of terrorism isn't some new initiative that the religion of peace is merely relapsing in. It's the continuation of a long history, literally since its founding, of using violence to attack non-believing areas.

Today I doubt that, you look at the death totals from the US alone it far exceeds death from terrorists.
Look at the deaths brought about by the Iraq invastion, invasion of Afghanistan, toppling of Syria and Libya.

The death in that alone far exceeds terrorist activity since 2000.

You showed battles by a nation, and try to equate that to terrorism by radicals who are responding to events that are occuring due to political activity in their country.

The comparison fails completely.

 

[Trip]

Bouhlel told police he was delivering ice cream when they stopped his truck, hours before he launched his attack.

He had been parked on the street for nearly nine hours before the attack, and questioned by police who failed to check his vehicle - where he had stashed guns and grenades.

 

[Scoop]

Today I doubt that, you look at the death totals from the US alone it far exceeds death from terrorists.
Look at the deaths brought about by the Iraq invastion, invasion of Afghanistan, toppling of Syria and Libya.

The death in that alone far exceeds terrorist activity since 2000.

You showed battles by a nation, and try to equate that to terrorism by radicals who are responding to events that are occuring due to political activity in their country.

The comparison fails completely.

The constant between the "battles by nations" (aka invasions by Islam, in every example I posted Islam was on the offensive) and the terrorists today is Islam. A desire to expand its reach, to assimilate new people forcibly, to expand the caliphate. It's the same thing even if a different tactic is being used today. Traditional wars today wouldn't be successful for the Muslims, they would get washed so they use terrorism instead.

Equating death tolls from Iraq and such is silly. We all know those wars were provoked not by the desire to expand Christianity but things such as 9/11, nuclear proliferation, desire to capture oil, to feed military industrial complex etc.

 

[David_TheMan]

The constant between the "battles by nations" (aka invasions by Islam, in every example I posted Islam was on the offensive) and the terrorists today is Islam. A desire to expand its reach, to assimilate new people forcibly, to expand the caliphate. It's the same thing even if a different tactic is being used today. Traditional wars today wouldn't be successful for the Muslims, they would get washed so they use terrorism instead.

Equating death tolls from Iraq and such is silly. We all know those wars were provoked not by the desire to expand Christianity but things such as 9/11, nuclear proliferation, desire to capture oil, to feed military industrial complex etc.

In every example I posted christian nation US was invading and far more recently. Using your own logic this is just another example of the historic aggression of Christianity and the death, violence, and destruction it brings correct?
Traditional wars wouldn't be successul, majority of Muslims are not wahabbist, but the US is doing a excellent job of helping give the radicals power.

No equating the death tolls from Iraq isn't silly. Its a US/Christian invasion based on lies with no purpose but to extract resources for the local populace. It is in fact no different than your qualms about Islam.
9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq wasn't connected. Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
now why would the US want more oil and why would it want to feed its MIC, thats right expansion of empire.

So I find it funny Pakistan hasn't invaded, Malaysia hasn't invaded anywhere, Iran hasn't invaded anywhere,, Oman, Yemen, UAE, Qatar, no invasions, but you look at my avatar and you compare the actions of Islamic states to the US/Christian nation and the deaths the US has brought and it is no comparison who overtly terrorizes the world.

 

[Scoop]

In every example I posted christian nation US was invading and far more recently. Using your own logic this is just another example of the historic aggression of Christianity and the death, violence, and destruction it brings correct?
Traditional wars wouldn't be successul, majority of Muslims are not wahabbist, but the US is doing a excellent job of helping give the radicals power.

No equating the death tolls from Iraq isn't silly. Its a US/Christian invasion based on lies with no purpose but to extract resources for the local populace. It is in fact no different than your qualms about Islam.
9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq wasn't connected. Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
now why would the US want more oil and why would it want to feed its MIC, thats right expansion of empire.

So I find it funny Pakistan hasn't invaded, Malaysia hasn't invaded anywhere, Iran hasn't invaded anywhere,, Oman, Yemen, UAE, Qatar, no invasions, but you look at my avatar and you compare the actions of Islamic states to the US/Christian nation and the deaths the US has brought and it is no comparison who overtly terrorizes the world.

I'm not denying an American Empire, I'm denying that the spread of Christianity is motivating it. The American empire has always been about money and foreign policy influence, not about religion.

The common thread from the examples I posted from 700 AD to the attack last night has always been purely religious, to spread Islam.

 

[David_TheMan]

I'm not denying an American Empire, I'm denying that the spread of Christianity is motivating it. The American empire has always been about money and foreign policy influence, not about religion.

The common thread from the examples I posted from 700 AD to the attack last night has always been purely religious, to spread Islam.

Why do you deny the spread of empire motivating, US is one of the largest christian nations in the world.
There has never been a purely religious effort to start war, not Christianity and the Crusades, and not Islam.
Its time you start noticing that and stop acting like there havent been non religious political motivations behind a great deal of the shyt going on.

 

[Scoop]

Why do you deny the spread of empire motivating, US is one of the largest christian nations in the world.
There has never been a purely religious effort to start war, not Christianity and the Crusades, and not Islam.
Its time you start noticing that and stop acting like there havent been non religious political motivations behind a great deal of the shyt going on.

Of course there has been:

Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was literally and explicitly to expand Islam. Nothing more and nothing less.

I also think a lot of instability in the Middle East is caused by arbitrary boarders that were drawn after WW2. Instability due to arbitrary borders doesn't justify or cause terrorism or the jihad though.

 

[David_TheMan]

Of course there has been:

Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was literally and explicitly to expand Islam. Nothing more and nothing less.

I also think a lot of instability in the Middle East is caused by arbitrary boarders that were drawn after WW2. Instability due to arbitrary borders doesn't justify or cause terrorism or the jihad though.

Your own link states it was nothing but the rise of a new empire taking out 2 faded empires and trying to establish its own authority in its region.
There is nothing literally and explicitly stated about it in an attempt to expand Islam.

Policy toward non-Muslims
Main article: Dhimmi
The Arab conquerors did not repeat the mistake made by the Byzantine and Sasanian empires, who had tried and failed to impose an official religion on subject populations, which had caused resentments that made the Muslim conquests more acceptable to them.[80] Instead, the rulers of the new empire generally respected the traditional middle-Eastern pattern of religious pluralism, which was not one of equality but rather of dominance by one group over the others.[80] After the end of military operations, which involved sacking of some monasteries and confiscation of Zoroastrian fire temples in Syria and Iraq, the early caliphate was characterized by religious tolerance and peoples of all ethnicities and religions blended in public life.[81] Before Muslims were ready to build mosques in Syria, they accepted Christian churches as holy places and shared them with local Christians.[62] In Iraq and Egypt, Muslim authorities cooperated with Christian religious leaders.[62] Numerous churches were repaired and new ones built during the Umayyad era.[82]

 

[88m3]

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

 

[David_TheMan]

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

So when the Pope was calling to reconquer the holy land, when christians are saying they have to fight evil by wipping out muslims in the middle east so they won't get them at home, this isn't religious. When catholics and protestants are bombing each other and the respective religious figures endorsing their side that isn't religious.

Its only religious when muslims do it. I got you.

 

[88m3]

So when the Pope was calling to reconquer the holy land, when christians are saying they have to fight evil by wipping out muslims in the middle east so they won't get them at home, this isn't religious. When catholics and protestants are bombing each other and the respective religious figures endorsing their side that isn't religious.

Its only religious when muslims do it. I got you.

You're an apologist.

The Crusades

The Game:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades... and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would think that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions."


The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts...

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years afterEgypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years afterMuslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years afterSpain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was attacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance, but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to the Quran’s justification for slaughter simply on the basis that Muslims were denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage).

Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though "often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also animitation.... Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas... clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad."

Lewis goes on to state that, "unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory... The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule... The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

If someone takes your wallet and you take it back, who is the thief?

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Islamic radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Muslim world was also split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades can be justified from the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191). In this case, the objective wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after that event.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

 

[David_TheMan]

You're an apologist.

I'm not apologist, I'm a realist who hates hypocrisy and ignorance.

Crusades were entirely political, which is my point, it wasn't christians doing anything for the holy land, wasn't muslims trying to spread the faith. It was nothing more than battles between nations and empires.

I find it funny in all this talk of evil muslims, people really want to ignore how this whole chain of events was caused and still aided in expansion by western governments.

We need to get out of the nations in the middle east, stop supporting dictators, stop funding extremists, take the bases out of the region, leave them alone and let them be sovereign and deal with their own issues.

 

[plushcarpet]

the west fukked the place up royally which helped lead to this refugee crisis, it's not wrong to think they should take a bit of responsibility.

Unfortunately I don't know what they even can do at this point so unfortunalely for the refugees it might be better if they just leave everything alone.

The west caused a huge ongoing civil war between two sects of muslims?

and my suggestions is bombing them with pamphlets of christianity

 

[plushcarpet]

You're an apologist.

didn't realize you were woke on this issue