Why is it always Muslims?

[Roudy]

So what's making those poor Alqueda and ISIS "perpetually angry"? Ha ha ha. The fact that Zionists won't let the savages commit genocide on them is making them perpetually angry.

If you Zionists gave their land back and went back to Europe where you belonged, they wouldn't be all that angry.

But keep hoping America keeps bailing you out.

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

 

[Roudy]

Jow Blow forgot that as far back as Thomas Jefferson and the Barabry Wars, Muslim animals were kidnapping and beheading Americans in the name of Mohammad. In fact their behavior was IDENTICAL to how ISIS and Al Queda are acting today.

They were attacking ships that were IN THEIR WATERS. Heeellllllooooooo. Not that this was vicious or really invovled "Beheadings". They usually just held these people until they got a payoff.

Of course, what followed was 100 years or European colonization that has caused most of the radicaliziation of the Islamic world, Zionism just being the last sad act of htat stupidity.

No actually, nobody was in their "waters", they were practicing piracy and being criminal terrorists because they believed their religion sanctioned it.

Look it up. Helllooooooooo.

 

[Roudy]

Barbary Wars
The Barbary Wars were two wars fought at different times over the same reasons between the United States of America and the Barbary states (the de jure Ottoman Empirepossessions of, but de facto independent, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli) of North Africa in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ships and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. When Thomas Jefferson became President he refused to pay tribute and sent a United States Naval fleet to the Mediterranean; they bombarded the various fortified pirate cities, ultimately extracting concessions of fair passage from their rulers. Both the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison undertook the actions against theBarbary States at different times. Jefferson led the first, from 1801 to 1805, against pirates' cities in what are today Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria. Madison directed forces for the second war in 1815.

During the American Revolution, the Islamic pirates attacked American ships. On December 20, 1777, Morocco's Sultan Mohammed III declared that the American merchant ships would be under the protection of the sultanate and could thus enjoy safe passage into the Mediterranean and along the coast. The Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship stands as the U.S.'s oldest non-broken friendship treaty[4][5] with a foreign power. In 1787 Morocco had been one of the first nations to recognize the United States.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

Ring a bell? Ding ding ding ding. The cancer of a Islam as early as the American revolution.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

To see the root of the problem, one must read the Quran. While Muhammads early teachings were peaceful and did some good for his people, his latter teachings were about hate and violence against all who rejected his teachings. A Muslim who considers him/herself to be a "true" Muslim, must believe that Muhammads latter teachings of hate and violence supercede his earlier teachings.
Islam has no central figure like the Pope and thus any individual can declare themselves an islamic scholar (Imam, Mullah, Cleric). Teaching of the Quran is left to the individual who leads mosque he preaches from. The entity that funds the building of the mosque (Saudi Arabia as an example), decides who can teach.
The problem is that no matter whether the teaching is Sunni or Shia, the ultimate goal remains the same, to conquer the world, destroy all other religions and convert all, forcing non-believers to submit to being a second class populace, enforcing taxes on them and ultimately killing all non-believers.
Those raised in Islamic nations are fed this nonsense from infancy on in their families, their mosques, their required religious indoctrination schools (madrazzas), their friends and so on.
Thus, when some article or cartoon lampoons or ridicules their belief system, the Imams, Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Clerics, seize the opportunity to foment the preached hate in their followers toward the infidels, all with the ultimate goal of suppressing any criticizm of their religion and furthering the agenda of world domination.
The reason for many Muslims not rising up can probably fall into three categories:
1. Work and providing for their families takes precedence.
2. Some aren't caught up in the furor because they've been living in secular western democracies for generations and are happy with it.
3. The Islamic population may be very small in a nation and as such are concerned with their own safety should the host nation and its population get reason to react to any radical movement on the Muslims' part.
For those non-Muslim nations allowing Islam to grow within its borders, they may want to take a good hard look at "all" Islamic nations and how "non-believers" are treated and realise that if Islam gains a majority within their borders, their non-Muslim populace can be expected to be treated the same as their counterparts in Islamic nations, no matter what a Muslim may say to their face. After all, one must remember that the "doctrine of Taqqiya" (deception, lies) is allowed to protect the religion.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

Why does anyone do anything.

Some crazy prepper kid shoots up a school, you guys would never say it was an indictment of Christianity, or America or anyone but that kid. But some Muslim does something, and Gosh Darn, they all must be in on it.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

Why does anyone do anything.

Some crazy prepper kid shoots up a school, you guys would never say it was an indictment of Christianity, or America or anyone but that kid. But some Muslim does something, and Gosh Darn, they all must be in on it.

Riiiiight. There's crime and shootings in cities all over the world, let's not be too harsh here. Just because Muslims are waving the Koran and yelling "Allah Akbar" while committing genocide and slaughtering people in the name of Islam and Mohammad, doesn't mean anything. Yeah, why should it be of concern that Muslims seem to be the only group that murders cartoonists just for drawing cartoons?

Sure sure, everybody move on, nothing strange going on here, move on....

 

[Roudy]

To see the root of the problem, one must read the Quran. While Muhammads early teachings were peaceful and did some good for his people, his latter teachings were about hate and violence against all who rejected his teachings. A Muslim who considers him/herself to be a "true" Muslim, must believe that Muhammads latter teachings of hate and violence supercede his earlier teachings.
Islam has no central figure like the Pope and thus any individual can declare themselves an islamic scholar (Imam, Mullah, Cleric). Teaching of the Quran is left to the individual who leads mosque he preaches from. The entity that funds the building of the mosque (Saudi Arabia as an example), decides who can teach.
The problem is that no matter whether the teaching is Sunni or Shia, the ultimate goal remains the same, to conquer the world, destroy all other religions and convert all, forcing non-believers to submit to being a second class populace, enforcing taxes on them and ultimately killing all non-believers.
Those raised in Islamic nations are fed this nonsense from infancy on in their families, their mosques, their required religious indoctrination schools (madrazzas), their friends and so on.
Thus, when some article or cartoon lampoons or ridicules their belief system, the Imams, Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Clerics, seize the opportunity to foment the preached hate in their followers toward the infidels, all with the ultimate goal of suppressing any criticizm of their religion and furthering the agenda of world domination.
The reason for many Muslims not rising up can probably fall into three categories:
1. Work and providing for their families takes precedence.
2. Some aren't caught up in the furor because they've been living in secular western democracies for generations and are happy with it.
3. The Islamic population may be very small in a nation and as such are concerned with their own safety should the host nation and its population get reason to react to any radical movement on the Muslims' part.
For those non-Muslim nations allowing Islam to grow within its borders, they may want to take a good hard look at "all" Islamic nations and how "non-believers" are treated and realise that if Islam gains a majority within their borders, their non-Muslim populace can be expected to be treated the same as their counterparts in Islamic nations, no matter what a Muslim may say to their face. After all, one must remember that the "doctrine of Taqqiya" (deception, lies) is allowed to protect the religion.

 

[JoeB131]

Riiiiight. There's crime and shootings in cities all over the world, let's not be too harsh here. Just because Muslims are waving the Koran and yelling "Allah Akbar" while committing genocide and slaughtering people in the name of Islam and Mohammad, doesn't mean anything. Yeah, why should it be of concern that Muslims seem to be the only group that murders cartoonists just for drawing cartoons?

Exactly, guy. There's crimes all over the US. You guys whine about "No-Go Zones", but the fact is, most of them are a lot safer than the inner cities of America.

Look, sonny, you need to get over your Islamaphobia.

 

[Osomir]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

1.) Eliciting protection money, especially during the days of Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with religion or with theology. It was also a common practice for Europeans at that time in Africa; so the notion that it was "Just Muslims" is as silly as it is untrue.

2.) There is a lot of bad blood between Algerians / Muslims and France stemming from France's long and brutal occupation of Algeria and their not too distant war for independence. It's worth noting that the French terrorist organization the O.A.S. targeted cartoonists in their campaigns as well. In fact, their first victim was a lawyer who had drawn an editorial cartoon that they found offensive. So once again, then notion that it is "only Muslims" isn't even true if we examine modern French history let alone the rest of the world.

3.) The strongest case for ethnic cleansing engaged in by an Islamic population would be in Darfur; and there both sides are majority Muslim. As far as Christian populations being targeted, your best bet would be to point either to ISIL or Boko Haram, and it would be easy enough to point to Christian examples that exist in parallel with them from the Lord Resistance Army which has historically been just as bloody as Boko Haram, to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in the C.A.R. by 'Christian' militias. So once again, your notion that it is "just Muslims" falls incredibly short.

 

[Slyhunter]

Don't need guns to compensate for something that doesn't need compensated. I own guns because I have a RIGHT to do so. Don't won't one, don't buy one. Don't want me to have one, come get it son.

You own guns because you are a scared little man...

This is why people like you have no business being part of the discussion of firearms. Your above response which is typical of you, and continual comments regarding a gun owners "appendage", only tells others that you have no real knowledge regarding guns and their owners.

He's the typical Liberal. Joe can support something and if another person opposes it, that other person is simply not supposed to do it. For example, the arugment for same sex marriage includes if you don't want to take part in one don't but don't keep others from doing it. However, if people like Joe opposes something, he feels it's his place to support a ban on it.

If you don't like murder don't murder but don't make it illegal for other people to murder. Are you for real?

 

[Roudy]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

1.) Eliciting protection money, especially during the days of Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with religion or with theology. It was also a common practice for Europeans at that time in Africa; so the notion that it was "Just Muslims" is as silly as it is untrue.

2.) There is a lot of bad blood between Algerians / Muslims and France stemming from France's long and brutal occupation of Algeria and their not too distant war for independence. It's worth noting that the French terrorist organization the O.A.S. targeted cartoonists in their campaigns as well. In fact, their first victim was a lawyer who had drawn an editorial cartoon that they found offensive. So once again, then notion that it is "only Muslims" isn't even true if we examine modern French history let alone the rest of the world.

3.) The strongest case for ethnic cleansing engaged in by an Islamic population would be in Darfur; and there both sides are majority Muslim. As far as Christian populations being targeted, your best bet would be to point either to ISIL or Boko Haram, and it would be easy enough to point to Christian examples that exist in parallel with them from the Lord Resistance Army which has historically been just as bloody as Boko Haram, to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in the C.A.R. by 'Christian' militias. So once again, your notion that it is "just Muslims" falls incredibly short.

Really, even though Muslims said they did it because of Islam, Jefferson also made similar observations? Nah, I'll take the written words of impartial people at the time:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So you see, it's the same shit with Muslims about 200 years ago, as it is today. Not much has changed.

 

[Osomir]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

1.) Eliciting protection money, especially during the days of Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with religion or with theology. It was also a common practice for Europeans at that time in Africa; so the notion that it was "Just Muslims" is as silly as it is untrue.

2.) There is a lot of bad blood between Algerians / Muslims and France stemming from France's long and brutal occupation of Algeria and their not too distant war for independence. It's worth noting that the French terrorist organization the O.A.S. targeted cartoonists in their campaigns as well. In fact, their first victim was a lawyer who had drawn an editorial cartoon that they found offensive. So once again, then notion that it is "only Muslims" isn't even true if we examine modern French history let alone the rest of the world.

3.) The strongest case for ethnic cleansing engaged in by an Islamic population would be in Darfur; and there both sides are majority Muslim. As far as Christian populations being targeted, your best bet would be to point either to ISIL or Boko Haram, and it would be easy enough to point to Christian examples that exist in parallel with them from the Lord Resistance Army which has historically been just as bloody as Boko Haram, to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in the C.A.R. by 'Christian' militias. So once again, your notion that it is "just Muslims" falls incredibly short.

Really, even though Muslims said they did it because of Islam, Jefferson also made similar observations? Nah, I'll take the written words of impartial people at the time:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So you see, it's the same shit with Muslims about 200 years ago, as it is today. Not much has changed.

A couple of things here:

1.) If it was as clear cut as that the Barbary states wouldn't have been the only Islamic states engaging in such protection rent seeking.

2.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were doing it too.

3.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were, at the time, invoking Christianity as justification for the mass conquest of Africa and the murder and enslavement of its peoples.

4.) You completely glossed over the fact that French terrorists have killed cartoonists in modern times for drawing cartoons that they found insulting which in and of itself destroys the entire premise of your thread.

5.) You have once again completely ignored the existence of non0Muslim violence throughout modern history simply so that you can push an anti-0Islamic agenda.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

1.) Eliciting protection money, especially during the days of Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with religion or with theology. It was also a common practice for Europeans at that time in Africa; so the notion that it was "Just Muslims" is as silly as it is untrue.

2.) There is a lot of bad blood between Algerians / Muslims and France stemming from France's long and brutal occupation of Algeria and their not too distant war for independence. It's worth noting that the French terrorist organization the O.A.S. targeted cartoonists in their campaigns as well. In fact, their first victim was a lawyer who had drawn an editorial cartoon that they found offensive. So once again, then notion that it is "only Muslims" isn't even true if we examine modern French history let alone the rest of the world.

3.) The strongest case for ethnic cleansing engaged in by an Islamic population would be in Darfur; and there both sides are majority Muslim. As far as Christian populations being targeted, your best bet would be to point either to ISIL or Boko Haram, and it would be easy enough to point to Christian examples that exist in parallel with them from the Lord Resistance Army which has historically been just as bloody as Boko Haram, to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in the C.A.R. by 'Christian' militias. So once again, your notion that it is "just Muslims" falls incredibly short.

Really, even though Muslims said they did it because of Islam, Jefferson also made similar observations? Nah, I'll take the written words of impartial people at the time:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So you see, it's the same shit with Muslims about 200 years ago, as it is today. Not much has changed.

A couple of things here:

1.) If it was as clear cut as that the Barbary states wouldn't have been the only Islamic states engaging in such protection rent seeking.

2.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were doing it too.

3.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were, at the time, invoking Christianity as justification for the mass conquest of Africa and the murder and enslavement of its peoples.

4.) You completely glossed over the fact that French terrorists have killed cartoonists in modern times for drawing cartoons that they found insulting which in and of itself destroys the entire premise of your thread.

5.) You have once again completely ignored the existence of non0Muslim violence throughout modern history simply so that you can push an anti-0Islamic agenda.

What are you talking about. They were Islamic pirates who attacked merchant and other ships, with no provocation whatsoever, because they felt that Islam gave them a right to do that to that to non Muslims.

This is the undeniable common theme in Muslim behavior. And it was even observed by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

We know you are desperate to divert the discussion to Europeans and their sins, but it has absolutely zero to do with it.

 

[Osomir]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

1.) Eliciting protection money, especially during the days of Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with religion or with theology. It was also a common practice for Europeans at that time in Africa; so the notion that it was "Just Muslims" is as silly as it is untrue.

2.) There is a lot of bad blood between Algerians / Muslims and France stemming from France's long and brutal occupation of Algeria and their not too distant war for independence. It's worth noting that the French terrorist organization the O.A.S. targeted cartoonists in their campaigns as well. In fact, their first victim was a lawyer who had drawn an editorial cartoon that they found offensive. So once again, then notion that it is "only Muslims" isn't even true if we examine modern French history let alone the rest of the world.

3.) The strongest case for ethnic cleansing engaged in by an Islamic population would be in Darfur; and there both sides are majority Muslim. As far as Christian populations being targeted, your best bet would be to point either to ISIL or Boko Haram, and it would be easy enough to point to Christian examples that exist in parallel with them from the Lord Resistance Army which has historically been just as bloody as Boko Haram, to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in the C.A.R. by 'Christian' militias. So once again, your notion that it is "just Muslims" falls incredibly short.

Really, even though Muslims said they did it because of Islam, Jefferson also made similar observations? Nah, I'll take the written words of impartial people at the time:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So you see, it's the same shit with Muslims about 200 years ago, as it is today. Not much has changed.

A couple of things here:

1.) If it was as clear cut as that the Barbary states wouldn't have been the only Islamic states engaging in such protection rent seeking.

2.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were doing it too.

3.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were, at the time, invoking Christianity as justification for the mass conquest of Africa and the murder and enslavement of its peoples.

4.) You completely glossed over the fact that French terrorists have killed cartoonists in modern times for drawing cartoons that they found insulting which in and of itself destroys the entire premise of your thread.

5.) You have once again completely ignored the existence of non0Muslim violence throughout modern history simply so that you can push an anti-0Islamic agenda.

What are you talking about. They were Islamic pirates who attacked merchant and other ships, with no provocation whatsoever, because they felt that Islam gave them a right to do that to that to non Muslims.

This is the undeniable common theme in Muslim behavior. And it was even observed by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

We know you are desperate to divert the discussion to Europeans and their sins, but it has absolutely zero to do with it.

And is exactly what European states were doing at the time in Africa as well. Islam hardly needs to exist for such incidents to occur; nor does Quranic theology demand such actions be taken.

 

[Osomir]

I also find it rather telling how quickly you have dropped the whole cartoon line after being reminded of basic French history and of the O.A.S.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah? So why did Muslims attack Americans back in Jeffersons days, and the WTC 1993 and 9-11? Why did Muslims slaughter those cartoonists and Jews in France? Why are Muslims committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on Christians and others?

You're fulla shit.

1.) Eliciting protection money, especially during the days of Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with religion or with theology. It was also a common practice for Europeans at that time in Africa; so the notion that it was "Just Muslims" is as silly as it is untrue.

2.) There is a lot of bad blood between Algerians / Muslims and France stemming from France's long and brutal occupation of Algeria and their not too distant war for independence. It's worth noting that the French terrorist organization the O.A.S. targeted cartoonists in their campaigns as well. In fact, their first victim was a lawyer who had drawn an editorial cartoon that they found offensive. So once again, then notion that it is "only Muslims" isn't even true if we examine modern French history let alone the rest of the world.

3.) The strongest case for ethnic cleansing engaged in by an Islamic population would be in Darfur; and there both sides are majority Muslim. As far as Christian populations being targeted, your best bet would be to point either to ISIL or Boko Haram, and it would be easy enough to point to Christian examples that exist in parallel with them from the Lord Resistance Army which has historically been just as bloody as Boko Haram, to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in the C.A.R. by 'Christian' militias. So once again, your notion that it is "just Muslims" falls incredibly short.

Really, even though Muslims said they did it because of Islam, Jefferson also made similar observations? Nah, I'll take the written words of impartial people at the time:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So you see, it's the same shit with Muslims about 200 years ago, as it is today. Not much has changed.

A couple of things here:

1.) If it was as clear cut as that the Barbary states wouldn't have been the only Islamic states engaging in such protection rent seeking.

2.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were doing it too.

3.) You are ignoring the fact that the Europeans were, at the time, invoking Christianity as justification for the mass conquest of Africa and the murder and enslavement of its peoples.

4.) You completely glossed over the fact that French terrorists have killed cartoonists in modern times for drawing cartoons that they found insulting which in and of itself destroys the entire premise of your thread.

5.) You have once again completely ignored the existence of non0Muslim violence throughout modern history simply so that you can push an anti-0Islamic agenda.

What are you talking about. They were Islamic pirates who attacked merchant and other ships, with no provocation whatsoever, because they felt that Islam gave them a right to do that to that to non Muslims.

This is the undeniable common theme in Muslim behavior. And it was even observed by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

We know you are desperate to divert the discussion to Europeans and their sins, but it has absolutely zero to do with it.

And is exactly what European states were doing at the time in Africa as well. Islam hardly needs to exist for such incidents to occur; nor does Quranic theology demand such actions be taken.

Muslim modus operandi: when confronted with truths about Islam or Muslims, change subject to Europeans and Christians ASAP. Fact is the Islamic pirates attacked American vessels, took hostages and beheaded them, and they SAID they were doing it in the name of Islam, and so did their victims. And all of this has been recorded and documented.

But but but but Europeans had pirates toooooo! Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

I also find it rather telling how quickly you have dropped the whole cartoon line after being reminded of basic French history and of the O.A.S.

Haven't dropped anything. The conversation kept changing because Muslims and their terrorist loving appeasers like you kept trying to derail the OP.

"French History". What does that have to do with why Muslims are the only people that slaughter cartoonists, artists, journalists in democratic societies where such freedoms are allowed?

These barbaric killings are occurring all over Europe. They killed Van Gogh for making a movie about Islamic oppression of women, they killed another Danish cartoonist for drawing cartoons of Mohammed.

 

[Osomir]

Muslim modus operandi: when confronted with truths about Islam or Muslims, change subject to Europeans and Christians ASAP. Fact is the Islamic pirates attacked American vessels, took hostages and beheaded them, and they SAID they were doing it in the name of Islam, and so did their victims. And all of this has been recorded and documented.

But but but but Europeans had pirates toooooo! Ha ha ha.

1.) The entire premise behind this thread (as reflected by its title) is the idea that it is only ever Muslims. So showing that it isn't always Muslims isn't a logical fallacy, it is quite simply showing that you were wrong in your assumptions at best; and terribly ignorant of world history at worst.

2.) I'm not a Muslim. Nice try though.

 

[Osomir]

Haven't dropped anything. The conversation kept changing because Muslims and their terrorist loving appeasers like you kept trying to derail the OP.

"French History". What does that have to do with why Muslims are the only people that slaughter cartoonists, artists, journalists in democratic societies where such freedoms are allowed?

These barbaric killings are occurring all over Europe. They killed Van Gogh for making a movie about Islamic oppression of women, they killed another Danish cartoonist for drawing cartoons of Mohammed.

1.) The OP was about killing people over cartoons and your assumption that it was only Muslims who do this. It is very easy to point to France's own modern history to show that this isn't the case, and groups like the F.A.F. and O.A.S. demonstrate this with ease.

2.) Muslims aren't the only people who have killed cartoonists for the illustrations that they create. I just gave you an example of a French Christian group doing exactly this in France as well.

3.) You were wrong. Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

Muslim modus operandi: when confronted with truths about Islam or Muslims, change subject to Europeans and Christians ASAP. Fact is the Islamic pirates attacked American vessels, took hostages and beheaded them, and they SAID they were doing it in the name of Islam, and so did their victims. And all of this has been recorded and documented.

But but but but Europeans had pirates toooooo! Ha ha ha.

The United Kingdom attacked American vessels and took hostages. That's what the War of 1812 was about.

at the same time that these bad old Barbary Pirates were taking hostages (most of whom were released when ransoms were paid), European Christians in North America were killing Native Americans and paying for their scalps to be brought in as proof they were doing it.

And the ironic thing. Most people equate scalping with the Native Americans today.

Scalping - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia