The Real Islam Exposed

[5stringJeff]

Well the topic was that adams apple believes that there is no war on terrorism, only a war on Islam. Other posters went on to say that all Islamics were terrorists. Then the thread digressed into a discussion of your avatar (my compliments by the way). In an effort to relate the digression to the original topic Gop_Jeff said



In a humorous way (I assume)

I trying to be similarly humorous (an apparently failed attempt) said

I get what you're saying. I personally think that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, pretty much all terrorists are Muslims.

 

[mrsx]

There's a HUGE difference. It is understandable for Islam and Christianity to denounce each other from a theological standpoint. Both sides do that on a regular basis, though not always as publicly as General Boykin. However, I have yet to hear of any Christians call for a holy war to destroy all of Islam, the way that Islam calls for a Jihad to destroy all non-Muslims. Even the Crusades, which the Left and radical Islam both prop up as evidence of violence in Christianity, was limited in scope; the Pope wanted only to secure the Holy Lands of Israel, and were content to leave the rest of the Middle East in Muslim hands.

The bottom line is that Christianity does not teach the doctrines of killing non-believers, as Islam does. In fact, Christianity teaches the opposite, to pray for one's enemies and bless those who curse you.

Both religions have an historical commitment to "holy war" and both have practiced convert-or-die policies in their holy wars. The First Crusade is an interesting point to bring up because like the Freedom Crusade in Iraq, it was started on the basis of false intelligence. The pope was told that Christians were being mistreated and not allowed to visit holy sites by the Venetian ambassador -- it wasn't true. The first people killed in that holy war were perfectly innocent Jews living in the Rhineland who were slaughtered by the Christian Crusaders before leaving to do God's work in the Holy Land. The pacifist ideas of Jesus that you refer to have their counterpart in the Holy Koran. The wisdom of the prophets and the practice of the faithful aren't quite the same. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!"

 

[dmp]

Both religions have an historical commitment to "holy war" and both have practiced convert-or-die policies in their holy wars. The First Crusade is an interesting point to bring up because like the Freedom Crusade in Iraq, it was started on the basis of false intelligence. The pope was told that Christians were being mistreated and not allowed to visit holy sites by the Venetian ambassador -- it wasn't true. The first people killed in that holy war were perfectly innocent Jews living in the Rhineland who were slaughtered by the Christian Crusaders before leaving to do God's work in the Holy Land. The pacifist ideas of Jesus that you refer to have their counterpart in the Holy Koran. The wisdom of the prophets and the practice of the faithful aren't quite the same. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!"

You have no idea what the Crusades were, do you? The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

 

[Said1]

Well the topic was that adams apple believes that there is no war on terrorism, only a war on Islam. Other posters went on to say that all Islamics were terrorists. Then the thread digressed into a discussion of your avatar (my compliments by the way). In an effort to relate the digression to the original topic Gop_Jeff said



In a humorous way (I assume)

I trying to be similarly humorous (an apparently failed attempt) said

Ok, makes sense now. I wasn't sure what you were referring too. But just for the record, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[mrsx]

You have no idea what the Crusades were, do you? The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Here we go again, boys! NAMGLA has its horns out and is blowing them loudly. Skip the rhetorical questions, sonny, and get to the factual rebuttal of my statment about the Venetian ambassador and the pogrom at Trier.

 

[Said1]

Here we go again, boys! NAMGLA has its horns out and is blowing them loudly. Skip the rhetorical questions, sonny, and get to the factual rebuttal of my statment about the Venetian ambassador and the pogrom at Trier.

What time period are you refering too?

 

[dmp]

Here we go again, boys! NAMGLA has its horns out and is blowing them loudly. Skip the rhetorical questions, sonny, and get to the factual rebuttal of my statment about the Venetian ambassador and the pogrom at Trier.

Here's your rebuttal:

You are inncorrect in your description of what the Crusades were. Therefore, the entire post you made is invalid.

 

[freeandfun1]

Here we go again, boys! NAMGLA has its horns out and is blowing them loudly. Skip the rhetorical questions, sonny, and get to the factual rebuttal of my statment about the Venetian ambassador and the pogrom at Trier.

Crusade Propaganda
By Prof. Thomas F. Madden

Excerpt

Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war [emphasis is the author's]. 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.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=231507&postcount=1

 

[Adam's Apple]

Well the topic was that adams apple believes that there is no war on terrorism, only a war on Islam.

No, that is not what I believe; it is what the author of the article believes. I only posted the article because I found it interesting and thought others might also. Evidentally, it was good for some discussion. We all need to be aware of what the real intent of the radical Islamists is. The article gave us one writer's opinion.

 

[5stringJeff]

Both religions have an historical commitment to "holy war" and both have practiced convert-or-die policies in their holy wars. The First Crusade is an interesting point to bring up because like the Freedom Crusade in Iraq, it was started on the basis of false intelligence. The pope was told that Christians were being mistreated and not allowed to visit holy sites by the Venetian ambassador -- it wasn't true. The first people killed in that holy war were perfectly innocent Jews living in the Rhineland who were slaughtered by the Christian Crusaders before leaving to do God's work in the Holy Land. The pacifist ideas of Jesus that you refer to have their counterpart in the Holy Koran. The wisdom of the prophets and the practice of the faithful aren't quite the same. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!"

I will not argue the point that Crusaders killed innocent people (although Pope JPII did apologize for such actions). I will argue the point that Christianity encourages such behavior. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command to spread the Gospel through force, to kill unbelievers, etc. This is not true for Islam, which contains the explicit commands to kill unbelievers if they refuse to convert to Islam. And your closing quote, while it made a great war song, is also not Biblical.

 

[mrsx]

I will not argue the point that Crusaders killed innocent people (although Pope JPII did apologize for such actions). I will argue the point that Christianity encourages such behavior. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command to spread the Gospel through force, to kill unbelievers, etc. This is not true for Islam, which contains the explicit commands to kill unbelievers if they refuse to convert to Islam. And your closing quote, while it made a great war song, is also not Biblical.

No argument from me about either the New Testament or the Holy Koran. My observations have to do with the practices of Christians and Muslims, not the teachings in their holy books.

 

[mrsx]

"The reason you find an army of right-wingers ratcheting on the radio and so few liberals is simple: Republicans are in need of affirmation, they don't feel comfortable in America and they crave listening to people who think like them. Liberals actually enjoy living in a free society; tuning in to hear an echo is not our idea of a good time." Who said it?

I take your post as a white flag on the issues of the Venetian ambassador and the porgrom at Trier. You tangled with the wrong granny on this one my bully boy; I finished high school.

 

[Said1]

I take your post as a white flag on the issues of the Venetian ambassador and the porgrom at Trier. You tangled with the wrong granny on this one my bully boy; I finished high school.

And I'll kindly ask you again, what period you are referring to? The 13th century?

 

[no1tovote4]

Hmmmm.... With that last post mrsx is reminding me of a certain other poster on the board....

 

[Said1]

Hmmmm.... With that last post mrsx is reminding me of a certain other poster on the board....

Who, Wade?

 

[no1tovote4]

Who, Wade?

No, I'll PM it to you.

 

[Said1]

No, I'll PM it to you.

Cool, Dude.

 

[freeandfun1]

"The reason you find an army of right-wingers ratcheting on the radio and so few liberals is simple: Republicans are in need of affirmation, they don't feel comfortable in America and they crave listening to people who think like them. Liberals actually enjoy living in a free society; tuning in to hear an echo is not our idea of a good time." Who said it?

This is such an asinine statement it almost doesn't deserve a reply. On the one hand, you say that Republicans need affirmation, yet on the other hand, you say they seek acceptance. That is quite the contradiction. It is the liberals that constantly need affirmation. That is how we have ended up with nonsensical grading systems, bans on organized sports, etc.

 

[mrsx]

And I'll kindly ask you again, what period you are referring to? The 13th century?

Tuesday, November 27, 1095 et. sig.

 

[Yurt]

"The reason you find an army of right-wingers ratcheting on the radio and so few liberals is simple: Republicans are in need of affirmation, they don't feel comfortable in America and they crave listening to people who think like them. Liberals actually enjoy living in a free society; tuning in to hear an echo is not our idea of a good time." Who said it?

I take your post as a white flag on the issues of the Venetian ambassador and the porgrom at Trier. You tangled with the wrong granny on this one my bully boy; I finished high school.

Then why in the world does air america radio like to brag that more people listen to their station than Bill O'Reilly? Regardless of the truth of the statement, this looks more like affirmation than simply having many radio shows which people listen to because the MSM is so liberally slanted.

Look up affirmation!