Why is it always Muslims?

[Roudy]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

 

[saveliberty]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

 

[Discombobulated]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking of all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

 

[Roudy]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking of all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

Bullshit, you didn't answer my question. Christians and Jews aren't killing people because someone offended their religion or prophet.

 

[Roudy]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

 

[Discombobulated]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking of all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

Bullshit, you didn't answer my question. Christians and Jews aren't killing people because someone offended their religion or prophet.

Everyone goes to war believing God is on their side.

 

[orogenicman]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

Really? Perhaps you should rethink that claim.

 

[Roudy]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking of all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

Bullshit, you didn't answer my question. Christians and Jews aren't killing people because someone offended their religion or prophet.

Everyone goes to war believing God is on their side.

Again, we aren't talking about war, or history of the last 1000 years.

We have a cartoon, mocking all three faiths, yet it's only Muslims that feel an obligation to slaughter those that offend their religion. Why is that?

 

[Discombobulated]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking of all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

Bullshit, you didn't answer my question. Christians and Jews aren't killing people because someone offended their religion or prophet.

Everyone goes to war believing God is on their side.

Again, we aren't talking about war, or history of the last 1000 years.

We have a cartoon, mocking all three faiths, yet it's only Muslims that feel an obligation to slaughter those that offend their religion. Why is that?

Oh I see, first you want to make sweeping generalizations and now you'd like to confine your alleged argument. I can see why.

 

[Roudy]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

Really? Perhaps you should rethink that claim.

Had Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

History of the Crusades

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, theSeljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.


Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

"

 

[saveliberty]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

Really? Perhaps you should rethink that claim.

1 400 Years of Islamic Aggression An Analysis

Maybe you need to read.

 

[Discombobulated]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

Really? Perhaps you should rethink that claim.

Clearly some people around here don't quite have a sense of chronology.

 

[Roudy]

Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity satirist. Here he is mocking of all three faiths in one cartoon.

Yet only Muslim animals react the way they do.

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

Bullshit, you didn't answer my question. Christians and Jews aren't killing people because someone offended their religion or prophet.

Everyone goes to war believing God is on their side.

Again, we aren't talking about war, or history of the last 1000 years.

We have a cartoon, mocking all three faiths, yet it's only Muslims that feel an obligation to slaughter those that offend their religion. Why is that?

Oh I see, first you want to make sweeping generalizations and now you'd like to confine your alleged argument. I can see why.

"Sweeping generalization", you have a serious sweeping problem with logic.

My claim is, the magazine ridiculed all three faiths, but why was it people from the Muslim faith that found it necessary those that mocked their religion. Why is it always Muslims that behave this way when someone ridicules their religion? Is that a sweeping generalization? Ha ha ha.

 

[saveliberty]

...and then some just choose to ignore fact.

 

[saveliberty]

Not like its the first time a Muslim killed in response to a Fatwah.

 

[Discombobulated]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

Really? Perhaps you should rethink that claim.

Had Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

History of the Crusades

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, theSeljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.


Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

"

Difficult to measure the Crusaders piety since they spent so much of their noble efforts pillaging Christian Byzantines and slaughtering Jews

 

[Roudy]

Not like its the first time a Muslim killed in response to a Fatwah.

Yes of course. Muslims do this all the time. They killed Theo Van Gogh, and many other journalists, writers, and cartoonists for the same exact reason....the crime of ridiculing or telling the truth about Islam. But the appeasers want to keep making irrelevant stupid diversions to historical events like the crusades.

Truly entertaining.

 

[saveliberty]

Never underestimate your enemy.

 

[Roudy]

The Apologists like to portray the Crusades as some type of Catholic blood lust, but I think they just recognized the threat for what is was and still is.

The Crusades only occurred as a response to Muslim invasions of the holy land and Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood.

Really? Perhaps you should rethink that claim.

Had Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

History of the Crusades

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, theSeljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.


Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

"

Difficult to measure the Crusaders piety since they spent so much of their noble efforts pillaging Christian Byzantines and slaughtering Jews

Stay focused. The crusades were instigated by Muslim jihadist invaders, and, as bad as they were, are not the subject of this thread. Nor is war, or the history of Christianity which at times was brutal. We get it, you love Islam and hate Christianity.

We're talking about Muslim reaction to people criticizing their religion. What say you?

 

[Discombobulated]

Your question only works within a narrow context since Christians have a long history of killing each other for no good reason at all.

Bullshit, you didn't answer my question. Christians and Jews aren't killing people because someone offended their religion or prophet.

Everyone goes to war believing God is on their side.

Again, we aren't talking about war, or history of the last 1000 years.

We have a cartoon, mocking all three faiths, yet it's only Muslims that feel an obligation to slaughter those that offend their religion. Why is that?

Oh I see, first you want to make sweeping generalizations and now you'd like to confine your alleged argument. I can see why.

"Sweeping generalization", you have a serious sweeping problem with logic.

My claim is, the magazine ridiculed all three faiths, but why was it people from the Muslim faith that found it necessary those that mocked their religion. Why is it always Muslims that behave this way when someone ridicules their religion? Is that a sweeping generation? Ha ha ha.

I particularly enjoyed the part about "Muslim animals"..........was that a generic reference to all Muslims or were you talking about camels?