Nobody has to "use Muslims as a tool for spreading fear", Muslims do that themselves.
Muslims are murdering people right now in Barcelona, but hey it's so nice Muslims have freedom in Western countries.
Bullshit. This is the very attitude that I'm talking about.
Ever since 9/11 Bush was using Muslims as a way of getting what the right wanted and had lost with the dissolution of the USSR, a new common enemy. And they've done it, and 8 years of Obama couldn't reverse this, but 8 years of right wing propaganda telling everyone how ALL MUSLIMS are bad and evil works wonders.
Muslims are murdering people in Barcelona, sure, but did you see what happened in Iraq in 2003 and for a long period after up until today? No, missed that one. Far, FAR more people died in Iraq than have died in Europe and the US through terror attacks. If you GO TO WAR, what the **** do you think is going to happen? They'll just roll over and pretend it didn't happen and not fight back?
******* hell, you people and your twisting of things, forgetting things, pretending it didn't happen or pretending it's not important, or that you're the good guys and everyone should kiss your ass with the sun shining out of it for doing everyone a favor and being the biggest promoters of Islamic fundamentalism in the world.
And what next? Will you use the "funny" button on this post?
Of course far more people died in Iraq, it's full of Muslims.
You're right, when you go to WAR do you think people won't fight back? Muslims have been at war with the West, and everyone else for that matter, for 1400 years. They've invaded Europe, and were eventually pushed back thanks to the Crusades. They were highjacking ships in the Mediterranean Sea in the early nineteenth century, then President Jefferson sent war ships to deal with them and put them in their place. Our first foreign war after the Revolution was with Islamic terrorists.
Since then they've been fairly dormant because they had no technology. Then came along AK-47s and bombs, since then the Middle East has been a mess. Muslims kill each other for being the wrong brand of batshit crazy Islam. Muslims attack all non-Muslims around them. They attack Jews, they attack Buddhists, they attack Hindu, and they attack Christians.
Look what they did to Lebanon, a once Christian majority nation that was once known as "the Paris of the Middle East", until they welcomed Muslim "refugees" to overrun them. Once they became the minority, Muslims quickly moved to wipe them all out, and now Lebanon is an Islamic shithole.
Then they attacked the US on September 11th. Did you expect us to not fight back after such an attack? As for Saddam and Iraq, we had already been at war with them since something called the Gulf War. Saddam was violating the terms drawn up at the end of that war, such as violating the no-fly zone on a daily basis and not allowing inspectors to go where they needed. I didn't agree with what Bush did in that war, I think we should had carpet bombed the entire country and taken the oil for ourselves as war reparations. Instead Bush tried to give these Islamic savages "democracy" which was and still is a fool's errand and then he gave the oil away for free.
Democracy in the Middle East will always end up leading to a dictatorship anyway, it's what Muslims want. There is no such thing as a Muslim majority country that embraces freedom and diversity. We should stay out of the Middle East and isolate them. Don't allow any immigration from them and let them kill each other. If and when they plot attacks on Western countries, drop bombs on them.
How to twist history to make it fit your agenda 101.
What's the point of replying to this? You're never going to bother looking at the bits of history that are inconvenient, like for example how the Muslims have been at war with the West for 1400 years, yet it was always fought in the Middle East and beyond.
Iraq doesn't exist as a country because the Iraqis went to the West, it become Iraq because the West interfered in Middle Eastern politics.
The crusades weren't fought in London.
When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a Western country? The nearest you'll get in Spain and Austro-Hungarian Empires and that's because they bordered North Africa and the Ottoman Empire. This wasn't travelling thousands and miles to go attack people.
Afghanistan isn't next to the USA, nor is it next to the UK, nor is Iraq, nor is Lebanon, nor is Syria, nor is Libya, nor are all the other Muslim places. The closest Muslim country to the US is probably Morocco or something thousands and thousands of miles away, and yet somehow, it's Muslims fighting with the West and not the West fighting with the Muslims.
I never said the Crusades were fought in London. The Crusades started by French kings that were tired of dealing with the Muslim invasion of all of southern Europe. Islamists took over Spain, parts of France, coastal cities all around the Mediterranean Sea.
You also answered your own question (and contradicted yourself), Muslims did invade Spain, and the Ottoman Empire invaded all of their neighbors: Greece, the entire area around the Black Sea.
Not sure what your point is about Muslims countries not being close to the US is, other than to try to act like they are no threat whatsoever. They most certainly are next to Europe and even in Europe now. London has been taken over by Muslims, and Muslim populations continue to grow in Western European countries that keep letting them in.
You also failed to point out one Muslim country that has tolerance and religious freedom. The only way Islamists were defeated was "by the sword". Appeasement never worked, and never will work. Just ask any Christians from Lebanon.
No, the crusades weren't about people tired of Muslim invasions of Europe. Where the hell do you make this shit up?
Firstly it was the Spanish that had to deal with the Muslim invasion of the Iberian peninsular. Now, if you were fed up of the Muslims being in the Iberian peninsular, it doesn't make much sense to send troops to JERUSALEM, does it?
They weren't fighting the same people, so you can't make any claim to head off to the east to fight those in the west. The Muslims went into France in 711 and their advance was stopped in 721 and by 759 had basically kicked the Muslims out.
The Crusades started in 1095. That was 340 years AFTER the Muslims were kicked out. You don't go start a war 340 years after you defeated someone, and also attack completely different people.
No, I didn't contradict myself, simply said, you made up something that you think I said which I clearly did not say. I did not say that Muslims didn't fight in Europe. So how could I have contradicted myself? It's like having a debate with someone debating something completely different. Try sticking to WHAT I ******* SAID.
And then you go off on one about London becoming Muslim, er... what? London isn't Muslim. You're making up more bullshit again about things you think you know about, but you have no idea.
I failed to point out one Muslim country that has tolerance and religious freedom? Er... you failed to mention who won the Superball in 1854, but **** it dude, you didn't ask me for a country that had tolerance and religious freedom.
As it happens I can name one, Malaysia. I can also point out that the Muslims in Spain AND the Ottoman Empire were much more tolerant than the Christians who took over. The Spanish kicked out the Jews and the Muslims afterwards, the Ottomans being taken over in what is now Serbia by the Serbs, who went and committed Genocide in the 1990s, among other wars and shit that happened after they had left, in that region, plus the Middle East, holy crap that went to shit after they got kicked out in WW1, didn't it?
But then again I'm not stating that I like Islam or that it's that tolerant at all. So I don't see how I failed to point something out when I didn't actually say I agreed with that. You just, again and again, made shit up that you decided I had said when I did not say it.
