'Our fight is not for a homeland or a region...'

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
There is absolutely no reason to believe people are joining the "resistance" for any other reason than A> religious obligation and/or B> the Sunnis are the minority about to be governmed by a majority that they once cruelly oppressed (the Shi'as). If I were an Iraqi Sunni Muslim I'd be scared too.

I'm not saying that people aren't joining the resistance for the reasons you suggest, but I'd like to know your reasons for thinking so, besides just assumption.

Religious Obligation, see Patriotic Obligation...see also Fantasism and Brainwashing.

My reasons for thinking so, that would have to do with what I've read seen and discussed over the past 4 years.

I've seen enough to not believe all I hear, see or read.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Well... there are several ways to analyze the crusades and their purpose, as well as the intent of the invasions of the "lands of milk and honey" by the muslims. In the end, we have equal rhetoric from both sides, but one side has a longer memory than the other.

And that's the point... equal rhetoric. Your words "understand your enemy" were only followed by my "understand why". Your conclusion jumping assumed I had other motives of some type.

It's not that they have a 'better' memory. It's that they've had their history whitewashed, just like every other act of horrible attrocity committed in Allah's name throughout history. All you hear about are Christian attrocities, and even an act of self defense is turned into an albatross hung around Christianity's neck for a thousand years. What, after all, were Muslims doing in Spain? Every acre of land taken by Christians in the Crusades was once part of Christendom. No one ever hears about the Muslim invasions of India, or questions why there were entire Jewish, Christian, and pagan populations in Arabia and North Africa before the arrival of Islam and now there are none. If Christians were responsible for this the world would never hear the end of it.

No one knows that the Arab Muslims participated far more vigorously in the African slave trade (and some still do to this day) America is so harshly criticized for, but meanwhile there are no descendents of these slaves in Arabia, while there are tens of millions of them thriving in America.

The Crusades were brutal, no doubt, even by the standards of the day. I am not an advocate of the Crusades in practice, but the fact is the Pope got involved in all this because the Emperor of Constantinople sent for aid because he was under seige by Muslim hoards. That Constantinople, once the heart of Christendom, is now modern-day Istanbul (Turkey, or, if you will, Ottoman Empire), puts this in perspective.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by Ibn Iblis]

Many pro-war individuals look to these video and audio statements as proof of a much larger "jihad" against the west and use it as an example of why the United States need to be in Iraq. However it is the recent history of Iraq which disproves this. I will explain below:

The violence going on in Iraq at this point in time was not happening under Saddam's regime.

The rebuttal I will assuredly read will be that Saddam was violently oppressing his people to keep this from happening. Yet the United States is violently oppressing the jihadists right now and the violence continues. Why would a miserably weak leader like Saddam pose any threat to the jihadists? If they were intent on taking out Saddam, they would have been able to at any point they wanted after 1991 when Saddam's military and WMD were reduced to ashes.

Therefore you can only conclude that the violence going on in Iraq at this time is to drive out their occupational government. The video and audio statements to the contrary of this assessment do not have any basis in reality given the status of the current conflict.

We are not violently oppressing the jihadists. Had a Fallujah type situation arisen under Saddam's rule, he would not have given the insurgents time to negotiate or dig in or escape, he would have entered with brute force.

How short your memories are. You forget that Saddam gassed several Kurdish towns in 1987. 5,000 dead.

Further, these insurgents were not the people Saddam was violently oppressing. That would be the Shi'as, who make up the majority of the population, and, not coincidentally, the overwhelming majority of the people ecstatic about the fact we came in and freed them from Saddam. You have to understand, to the Sunnis, we have not freed them of Saddam's oppression and cruelty; we have robbed them of his protection and good graces. He was one of them. They loved him.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
"Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves."
"an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God"


Yes indeed, know your enemy. Also know why they are your enemy. Anyone know who spoke these words I quoted above?

Attributed to Pope Urban II, the call to arms sparked the crusades... Some feel this is the origin of European racism towards the East, and the de facto sponsorship of genocide. Premeditation by Pope Urban II of those particular facets would be difficult to prove, but the aftermath of his incitement is a matter of historical record.

Pope Urban did not spark the Crusades.

The emperor of Byzantine asked for his help, because he was under attack from Muslim hoards.

Also, they decided it was time to RE-TAKE former Christian lands taken by Islam.

This included Spain. Look on the map and see how far Spain is from Mecca.

But for the victory at Tours (France), the Koran might now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by Ibn Iblis]

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Pope Urban did not spark the Crusades.

First, a little more about Pope Urban II.

www.newadvent.org...

Now, about them there Crusades.

www.newadvent.org...

newadvent.org
The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to Pope Urban II (1095), and the motives that actuated him are clearly set forth by his contemporaries: "On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon the Christian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descended into Gaul" (Foucher de Chartres, I, in "Histoire des Crois.", III, 321). Of course it is possible that in order to swell his forces, Alexius Comnenus solicited assistance in the West; however, it was not he but the pope who agitated the great movement which filled the Greeks with anxiety and terror.

I say let the Catholics take the rap for the Crusades.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Again, read the original post. Terroisim isn't just Iraq. When "W" went into Afganistan the IRA layed down their weapons,

You got a link to back your claim about the IRA laying down it weapons because of Bush going into Afganistan, did the UDA lay there weapons down too, please provide a link if you can

[edit on 16/11/2004 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
I say let the Catholics take the rap for the Crusades.

That's completely and utterly ignorant.

Crusade Propaganda

So, what do the medieval crusades have to do with all this (the "War on Terror")? After all, doesn't the Muslim world have a right to be upset about the legacy of the crusades? Nothing and no.

The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Ask a random American about them and you are likely to see a face wrinkle in disgust, or just the blank stare that is usually evoked by events older than six weeks. After all, weren't the crusaders just a bunch of religious nuts carrying fire and sword to the land of the Prince of Peace? Weren't they cynical imperialists seeking to carve out colonies for themselves in faraway lands with the blessings of the Catholic Church? A couch potato watching the BBC/A&E documentary on the crusades (hosted by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame no less) would learn in roughly four hours of frivolous tsk-tsk-ing that the peaceful Muslim world actually learned to be warlike from the barbaric western crusaders. No wonder, then, that Pope John Paul II was excoriated for his refusal to apologize for the crusades in 1999. No wonder that a year ago Wheaton College in Illinois dropped their Crusader mascot of 70 years. No wonder that hundreds of Americans and Europeans recently marched across Europe and the Middle East begging forgiveness for the crusades from any Muslim or Jew who would listen. No wonder.

Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact.
...

If the Muslims won the crusades (and they did), why the anger now? Shouldn't they celebrate the crusades as a great victory? Until the nineteenth century that is precisely what they did. It was the West that taught the Middle East to hate the crusades. During the peak of European colonialism, historians began extolling the medieval crusades as Europe's first colonial venture. By the 20th century, when imperialism was discredited, so too were the crusades. They haven't been the same since. In other words, Muslims in the Middle East � including bin Laden and his creatures � know as little about the real crusades as Americans do. Both view them in the context of the modern, rather than the medieval world. The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by Ibn Iblis]

news.bbc.co.uk...

Even though the "peace" talks had been underway between UK and IRA, Bush's "with us or against us" caused many terrorist, including the IRA, to seek a "deal". His "hard" line did rattle some cages these animals live in. Apeasement never works. Cowards, bullies, and Islamofascist only understand strength and bullets in their heads.

The link above is a "timeline" of IRA peace. April 2002 the IRA saw the "light".

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
That's completely *SNIP*

A copy and paste by your part, please try and come up with your own text, not preexisting material from the internet.

NewAdvent.org is a Catholic website, I don't think that they would slander the [sic] good name of Pope Urban II just to appease the Muslim world.

I've provided my own thoughts on the Crusades, and you have read them. I provided the link to a scholar on the Crusades because he knows more about the Crusades than any of us.

The facts are the facts: Constantinople called for help and the Pope answered.

Why the call for help? Because half of Byzantine was swallowed up by Muslim hoards, in addition to 2/3s of Christendom.

Spain is 2,000 miles from Mecca, only 500 miles from Britain.

Without the Crusades this world would be a much, much different place.

Thank God for them.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
news.bbc.co.uk...

Even though the "peace" talks had been underway between UK and IRA, Bush's "with us or against us" caused many terrorist, including the IRA, to seek a "deal". His "hard" line did rattle some cages these animals live in. Apeasement never works. Cowards, bullies, and Islamofascist only understand strength and bullets in their heads.

The link above is a "timeline" of IRA peace. April 2002 the IRA saw the "light".

that artical does not mention Bush at all or the Americans I'm still waiting for you to back your claim up that the IRA layed it's weapons down becuase of Bush,

[edit on 16/11/2004 by Sauron]

You've mistaken me for someone else I think. Or maybe you're not responding to me.

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Even though the "peace" talks had been underway between UK and IRA, Bush's "with us or against us" caused many terrorist, including the IRA, to seek a "deal".

The link above is a "timeline" of IRA peace. April 2002 the IRA saw the "light".

DrHoracid this statement is a crock, Bush doesn't even know how to spell Ireland, and which other terrorist groups lay their weapons down after Bush's "with us or against us" pro-facist statement?

Maybe you mean they put down their weapons cos' they were laughing so much....??

Koka, what ever I post here will not change the irrational hate you have for "W". Shortly after the US melted down the Taliban in Afgan many terrorist groups began to shut down, TV and Newspaper accounts abound but thats not the proof you need or want.

Fact, Bush took away the money trail for many groups. No money, no bullets, no fanatics without $$$$.

America is beginning to understand who the real enemy is and who our friends are. Anything "french" is our enemy, in North America , Europe, Africa, or anywhere else. Speak French get "Fried".

We complain about the crusades into israel. But don't complain about the jihad invasions into spain and eastern europe. The arabs complain about jewish occupations and american occupation. But forget their occupation of western europe and spain.


Totally one sided approach. It's like america is targeting christianity and forcing people to turn away from it because of the crusades. But they never mention the jihad crusaders which the christian fighters had to fight.

The spainish held back the the muslims from marching into europe. The serbs which were all taught to depised by the west, also held back the muslims from marching into europe.

European's owe alot to the spainish and serbs keeping out this barbaric mentality called islam out of the influence of their future grandsons and daughters.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by Thinker]

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Koka, what ever I post here will not change the irrational hate you have for "W".

Correct, though my hatred for "W" and his administration is far from irrational, and around 50% of Americans and a majority of the rest of the world agree with me.

Shortly after the US melted down the Taliban in Afgan many terrorist groups began to shut down, TV and Newspaper accounts abound but thats not the proof you need or want.

Correct, that isn't proof. Please provide valid proof (credible links) that "W" was responsible for the IRA laying down it's weapons.

Fact, Bush took away the money trail for many groups. No money, no bullets, no fanatics without $$$$.

Who are these many groups? Credible Links?

America is beginning to understand who the real enemy is and who our friends are. Anything "french" is our enemy, in North America , Europe, Africa, or anywhere else. Speak French get "Fried".

I think I understand, A friend is someone that doesn't question your motives or actions, basically, someone who says "Yes" and, apparently hate french people, or as you put french speakers, which I take to include Canadians and North Africans?

Thanks for your jingoistic input.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by Koka]

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
''The enemies of Allah should be assured that our fight is not for a homeland or a region, rather it is to make supreme the laws of Almighty Allah.''

Solution - Eliminate Allah and these clowns would have nothing to fight for. Agreed?

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
''The enemies of Allah should be assured that our fight is not for a homeland or a region, rather it is to make supreme the laws of Almighty Allah.''

Solution - Eliminate Allah and these clowns would have nothing to fight for. Agreed?

I dont think you can eliminate allah but it wouldnt hurt to promote some truth about the nature of islam.
Let people know its not some wierd amish sect, but a hate group just like Nazism