Why should Australians fear from Muslims?

Full story: Scoop 46,807
About 800 people gathered in Camden, NSW and raised their voice against the plan for an Islamic School to be built in the area. Read more
immigrant

Australia

#39261 May 10, 2013
Maybe they were outraged, like regular decent folks, at the gunners’ bloodlust (maybe bolstered by the false belief that they were avenging the 9/11 victims). That outrage itself would have been entirely appropriate, would it have not?
Who is an Innocent Civilian?
Of course one should distinguish between those responsible for all these crimes and the people of this country, like you and me. That’s indeed our premise in asking: how did these young men ever come to think otherwise?
But the distinction between the culpable regime and the innocent “American people” becomes muddied when you read polls showing that as recently as March 42% of the people in the U.S. believe the Iraq War was “not a mistake,” while (only) 53% believe otherwise. That forty-two percent of the U.S. adult population is roughly one hundred million people. Their opinions shouldn’t damn them; they are in any case largely shaped by the mass media, the pulpit and their own ignorance. But the fact that there is so much popular support at any particular time for U.S. atrocities among the people of this country (and sometimes it is overwhelming!) must make many around the world question the presumption of our collective innocence.
Why, they surely ask, do the Americans enjoying the “freedom” to participate in elections, always elect these people who attack, invade and bomb us? Why do they not drive them from power when they do? Why do they instead re-elect them, and never prosecute any leaders for war crimes? If their government is really “theirs”—freely chosen and supported—are they not our enemies as much as their leaders?
(By the way: is it not also an outrage that these polls in the aftermath of wars, including those in Vietnam and Iraq, always give the respondent the two options “mistake?” or “not a mistake”? Those responsible for war are thus assumed to have had good intentions. There is no way to respond:“I believe it was a calculated crime.” This tells the world something about U.S. capacity for self-criticism.)
The distinction between regime and people also blurs when you read that 65% of U.S. residents polled support the drone strikes producing more terror in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Or even when you go to Fenway Park in Boston, just wanting to enjoy the baseball, and are forced to listen to the requisite tributes to “our heroes” supposedly “defending our freedoms,” and note the enthusiastic crowd response to any mention of “our men and women in uniform.” Must it not sound to many like applause for the slaughter of innocents?
And mustn’t the sight of crowds of flag-wavers chanting USA! USA! USA!, aggressively affirming their pride in “their” country (uniting implicitly with the 1% who actually control this country) send chills down any conscious person’s spine? This after all sounds very much like this.
One might compassionately think,“Well, these people are ignorant, brainwashed.” Or one might think, these people are just evil. If you are a Muslim, part of a community under constant surveillance and suspicion, you might see every unprovoked U.S. killing of Muslims abroad as an attack on yourself. Is not mindless U.S. patriotism and knee-jerk support for each new war also a threat to yourself? How then to respond?
The U.S. responded to an attack on itself by some Muslims twelve years ago by attacking numerous Muslims with no connection to the attack. The ongoing slaughter in Afghanistan has nothing to do with al-Qaeda and 9/11 but is rather an effort to contain the resurgent Taliban (who are not and never were the same as al-Qaeda) and aligned forces fighting to topple the U.S.-imposed, highly corrupt, unpopular Karzai regime. In this effort, as in Iraq, U.S. forces are killing civilians with impunity.
immigrant

Australia

#39262 May 10, 2013
The moral question thus arises: If George W. Bush could slaughter Iraqi civilians in the name of fighting Muslim extremism, and if Barack Obama can bomb innocents in several Muslim countries virtually at will, why can’t Muslims kill U.S. civilians in the name of fighting back? Isn’t it a matter of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” as it says in the Bible (Exodus 21:24; see also the Qur’an 2:178)? At some point the older brother seems to have concluded precisely thus.
One should mention that there’s actually a difference between the tribal mentality “us vs. them” and the “eye for an eye” principle. The latter was apparently intended to curb the practice of indiscriminate and disproportionate revenge. Rather than killing everyone in the neighboring village for the death of one of your own at the hands of one of theirs, you just kill one and call it even.(I won’t digress on the irony involved in the fact that contemporary Israeli leaders, in effect rejecting Exodus 21:24, boast of their deliberately “disproportionate responses” to any attack on themselves. It is an effort to terrify all foes.)
In the history of religion one sees a further evolution from this “eye for an eye” principle to the (arguably higher) principle of forgiveness. Thus we find in the Buddhist Dhammapada:
“How will hate leave him if a man forever thinks,
‘He abused me, he hit me, he defeated me, he robbed me’?
Will hate ever touch him if he does not think,
‘He abused me, he hit me, he defeated me, he robbed me’?
There is only one eternal law:
Hate never destroys hate: only love does.”
And of course Jesus is supposed to have said (Matthew 5:38):
“You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well…” In the theology of St. Paul, the “New Law” of Christian forgiveness supersedes the “Old Law” of retribution of Mosaic law.
But such refined thoughts have rarely impacted the behavior of modern states. Indeed the rule has been:“Isn’t it ok to make them feel our pain—by killing their children, so rich in hope and promise, shattering their peace of mind as they go about their lives, actively or just tacitly supporting their government that has provoked us?” That’s how Gen. Curtis LeMay felt, surely, in waging his war without mercy. I think this is how the Tsarnaevs also came to feel.
Some Comparisons
On April 15, the brothers’ bombs killed two young women and a little boy, occasioning a national outpouring of grief and countless tributes to the imagined bravery of we Bostonians and the heroism of local police.
On that same day in Baghdad, according to Iraq Body Count, 30 civilians were killed by car bombs and IEDs for reasons directly connected to the U.S. invasion and occupation. In all 62 were killed in Iraq by bombs or gunfire for such reasons, just another typical day in that wrecked country.
On the same day, nine Afghan civilians were killed in the ongoing civil war sparked by the invasion and occupation. A roadside bomb killed seven. Four were killed by an IED the next day. A week before U.S. airstrikes had killed 17 civilians including 12 children in Kunar province; the public clamor forced President Karzai to order U.S. special forces out of the province.
immigrant

Australia

#39263 May 10, 2013
According to NATO, 475 civilians were killed in the Afghan conflict from January to March of this year. In Iraq, 561 civilians were killed in bombings or shootings in April alone. Such is the magnitude of suffering inflicted by U.S. imperialism on just these two countries within the Muslim world. Meanwhile Libya is worse off then ever after getting “liberated” by U.S.-NATO bombing; Mali suffers from the fallout of the Libya intervention; Syria and Iran remain in the U.S. crosshairs; and in Yemen resentment smolders at the drone strikes (up to 54 in April alone).
Some Muslim clerics—one must stress, a tiny minority—look at this big picture and say,“Islam is under attack from the U.S. It is our religious obligation to defend our brothers and sisters. Since we cannot defeat this enemy through conventional ways, we must use terror to make them realize there is a price for their own terror.” It is precisely the sentiment conveyed by an unknown Hebrew poet two and a half millennia ago, in venting his rage against the Babylonians who’d conquered and dispersed his people:
Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction,
A blessing on anyone
Who treats you as you treated us,
A blessing on anyone who seizes your babies
And shatters them against a rock!
Spine-chilling you say? Yet it is, for Jews and Christians, Holy Writ: the ending of Psalm 137:8-9. And you will find no end of Jewish and Christian cleric-bloggers who jump to its defense.“One of the unsurpassed biblical hymns of all time,” says one.“Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist’s request,” writes another,“ or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.” Another writes:“Now the psalmist says that soon someone will destroy Babylon. He was right!” Others write that the poet is simply expressing satisfaction that prophecy will be fulfilled.
An Eye for an Eye, Including Your Baby’s
But there’s really no question that this justifies mass-murder, or at least surely did, for some people, for a period of time. It is more than “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” It’s “the eye or the tooth of any of your people including the innocent child” or rather an expression of the notion that there are no “innocents” in this great conflict between the People of God and their enemies. There is no great leap between this (sick) mentality and that of the occasional Islamic imam who depicts everyone in this country as an appropriate target.
But did the Tsarnaevs need some sort of religious-political mentor (the mysterious Misha, William Plotnikov, Mansur Nidal, Awlaki) to make the leap from mere outrage to the righteous shattering of babies against the rock? Or was the moral model already at hand, there in the wars based on lies, in the Abu Ghraib photos, the Blackwater Baghdad murders of Sept. 2007, the Baghdad collateral murder video?
“It’s their fault for bringing their kids,” said the pilot in the leaked video, proud to have picked off eight Iraqis. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, proud to have killed three Bostonians, might say with precisely the same degree of moral legitimacy,“It’s their fault for attacking Muslim kids!”
To fail to understand this is to invite the endless exchange of eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth. One senses this was what Osama bin Laden wanted when he planned or approved the 9/11 attacks. He reasoned that the U.S. would launch a general crusade, including attacks on targets with nothing to do with al-Qaeda (like Iraq) thereby uniting more Muslims in hostility to itself. Prompting more terrorism, it would respond with more, begetting more in response, and so on, polarizing the world, drawing an ever firmer line between the west and a revived Islam with visions of a new global Caliphate. Could he have imagined that two irreligious Avar-Chechen boys from Kirgizia, growing up in the U.S., would ever climb aboard the jihadi-terrorist bandwagon?
immigrant

Australia

#39264 May 10, 2013
He probably wouldn’t have been surprised, supposing that the course of events itself would “radicalize” those hitherto apathetic. An online al-Qaeda publication reportedly urges supporters in western countries to stay at home and take action in their own countries. The current leaders probably think that exploits like the Marathon bombing will sharpen the sense of “us vs. them,” produce anti-Muslim backlashes, leading to more violence within clearer battle lines, paving the way to ultimate victory. The vision, while insane and impossible, acquires more resonance with each new report of a Muslim civilian death at U.S. hands.
Radicalized Here or There? What Difference Does It Make?
Gandhi is supposed to have said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” The even more primitive “us vs. them” mentality has long since blinded most of the political class and the mainstream media.
In the face of the Boston tragedy, all they can ask is,“Were the boys radicalized abroad? Or did it happen here?” Rephrased: Was their decision to express their outrage at the Iraq and Afghan wars through terrorism something implanted in their minds by Muslims met abroad, in dangerous mosques in Dagestan or Chechnya? Or did it stem from their own failure to assimilate into U.S. society, and a hatred towards this country rooted in their own hereditary religion? Either way the issue becomes merely us versus “radical Islam”—leaving the wars unmentioned, as though they played only a marginal role in the boys’“radicalization.”
The blind are leading the blind. George W. Bush’s instinct the day of 9/11 was to attack Iraq! and to declare an indefinite “War on Terror” against anyone who could be smeared with the charge of supporting “terrorists” or pursuing WMD programs. Never mind that these are very different phenomena in themselves, or that the U.S. supports terrorists on occasion and also maintains half the world’s nuclear arsenal. While insisting publicly that the U.S. was not against Islam (gosh, he wondered, why would anyone think that?) Bush used ignorant anti-Muslim sentiment to garner support for his war on Iraq, depicting that war as one of response to 9/11.
“You’re for us or against us,” he bellowed, obviously and shamelessly invoking Jesus’ statement “Anyone who is not with me is against me”(Matthew 12:30), to divide the world in two. Obama has not stepped back from that crude Manicheanism. He criticized the Iraq War as a “strategic blunder” but has never questioned the morality of using the “us versus them” mentality to garner support for that criminal act. Instead he has praised Iraq War vets as “heroes” and pointedly declined to direct the Justice Department to pursue any charges against officials responsible for a criminal war.
He has always embraced the invasion of Afghanistan, sharply escalating it while terrorizing the people of neighboring Pakistan presumed collectively responsible for aiding the Taliban(s) that now flourish in both countries. He contemplates attacks on targets in Syria, Iran, perhaps Mali, that pose no more threat to you or me than Saddam’s imagined WMDs.
Much of humankind sees all this. It is not blinded. It looks on in unease if not horror at the scale and impunity of U.S. violence. If it becomes radicalized (in a positive life-affirming way), it is not by religion or a passion for holy war, but by natural human revulsion at the antics of a wounded Cyclops—the one-eyed monster that is twenty-first century U.S. imperialism.
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion,(AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
immigrant

Australia

#39265 May 10, 2013
BUT DID YOU CONVICTS UNDERSTAND ANYTHING? LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,
immigrant

Australia

#39266 May 10, 2013
Trucker wrote:
<quoted text>no ! We would have to dumb ourselves down 45iq points with a lobotomy and live under a rock all our lives to be as dimb as uou ! not even imagine there was a Easter bunny, santa Claus , or a religion badly copied from books of others in a land far away with Ali Babas in charge. It is why Muslims flee Islam by the million every year . The moon god of the desert tribes Allah , the alter of Hindus "Kaaba", the al Aqsa built on the foundations of a stolen Jew Temple Mount . And a despot religious leader whom God did never utter one word to Maybe God too busy speak Mohammed ? Sent a messenger ? Maybe God playing golf that day !
I wasn't addressing you slum-dog, sure you don't understand, you only understand Bombay smells, LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL, feeling a little homesick are you wobble head? next time bark only when addressed,this lesson is for convicts only...LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,
Serpent

Calgary, Canada

#39268 May 10, 2013
immigrant wrote:
BUT DID YOU CONVICTS UNDERSTAND ANYTHING? LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,
Immigrant, why don't you go back to your country, you know, the sh^thole you and your forefathers built?
Nobody in the west likes sh^tty muzzies, so just fk off!!
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#39269 May 10, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
<quoted text>
The British empire invaded and named this land Australia, I suppose much like Islam when it invaded other lands and expected native populations to become Muslim.
Slavery by Arabs can be seen as no different to the value of convicts that the British brought with them to perform their forced labour without pay.
When Muslims invaded any country, they did not "exterminate" the people living there as White Europeans did in South and North America and in Australia and New Zealand.

Muslims did not make any nations as their "colony" just to exploit there economic and raw materials and make them "selling markets" for their products.

Muslims "adopted" every country they went into. Gave the same right to any one who accepted Islam and left those who did not accept Islam by paying a "token money for getting state protection".

How can you compare What Muslims did in Egypt with what Christians did it there in 300 years?

Please do not teach us "how to treat other nations and how to rule foreign people".

Our record is much better than any other nation on the face of this earth.

Earliest Muslims were "as perfect specimen" of truth and honesty as humanly possible.

The world has not seen the likes of him and never shall be.

They were "disciples and coached by the Last and Final Prophet, they were passout of his school"!!

No other prophet got so many dedicated followers as our prophet and no prophet was as successful as our prophet. This is fact!!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#39270 May 10, 2013
pointy pune poster wrote:
<quoted text>
history of india is contrary evidence to that. for a thousand years hindu women lived in fear that they could be picked up and carried away by Muslims to been slaved and raped into accepting islam.
So India's free society was no more and parents started forcing their daughters into staying indoors and covered.
islamic idea of a woman's modesty is one of the stupidest and most twisted idea that considers only modest women as honorable - totally contrary to any idea of civility or human rights. Women forced to cover up cause Muslim men are pigs who lose all control if they see an attractive woman. Thus only way is to force women to cover up and deny them their birth right to be a WOMAN. Indeed the burkha is a sign of muslim men's total dishonor and islams total failure.
That is what the khalifs imposed and that too by force on people who were in foreign lands after much much blood letting.
That was and is wrong in every way one can think off. Islam is humanities biggest mistake perhaps. And certainly Asia and middle easts biggest weakness which allows selfish supers powers to exploit us for oil.
An islam free asia would not be so easy to fool. But the automatic and inevitable fall of islam is being stalled by US UK EU oil interests and they are quick to attack or place sanctions on the more progressive countries like Iraq or Iran where increasing education levels lead to concomitant increase in rationalism and huge numbers of people leaving islam for atheism or even rationalism. The most progressive Iraq is now a ruined haven for islamic deviants. Imagine the gloom the real people of Iraq must be feeling.
Hindus in India did not live for 1000 years in mortal fear of their lives.

This was all a British Propaganda to create divide between Hindus and Muslims, so they can perpetuate their rule in India.

After initial political fights (which were very common in Indian history), Hindus and Muslims settled down to have a peaceful co-existence in India.

Hindus were as rich and as prosperous as Muslims.

Did Muslims reduced Hindus to the level of Shudras? If Muslims had done that then in 1000 years, there would not be a single Hindu left in India.

So do not get carried away by those who speak in rhetoric language and present 1000 years Muslim rule in India in blackest of color.

Muslim rulers were no angels, but they were also not devils. For their throne, they could and did kill Muslims as well as any Hindu who will come in their path.

There never was a general massacre or destruction of whole city and state as was common when other nations attacked their enemies.
Rohit Arya

Satellite Provider

#39271 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hindus in India did not live for 1000 years in mortal fear of their lives.
This was all a British Propaganda to create divide between Hindus and Muslims, so they can perpetuate their rule in India.
After initial political fights (which were very common in Indian history), Hindus and Muslims settled down to have a peaceful co-existence in India.
Hindus were as rich and as prosperous as Muslims.
Did Muslims reduced Hindus to the level of Shudras? If Muslims had done that then in 1000 years, there would not be a single Hindu left in India.
So do not get carried away by those who speak in rhetoric language and present 1000 years Muslim rule in India in blackest of color.
Muslim rulers were no angels, but they were also not devils. For their throne, they could and did kill Muslims as well as any Hindu who will come in their path.
There never was a general massacre or destruction of whole city and state as was common when other nations attacked their enemies.
Who was Aurangzeb?? Now Tell Me
Tasleema Nasrin

Kolkata, India

#39273 May 10, 2013
Rohit Arya wrote:
<quoted text>
Who was Aurangzeb?? Now Tell Me
Aurangzeb was the son of Shah jahan,, and the fifth mughal king,,,this much also you dont know,,, crap shame on you

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39275 May 10, 2013
immigrant wrote:
BUT DID YOU CONVICTS UNDERSTAND ANYTHING? LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,
-
What we do understand is that if Australia was under attack by a foreign nation, we be there fighting to get the foreign nation out of our country and not paying taxes so that the enemy who is killing our people can buy more bullets to kill more of us.
-
Is what all you coward Muslims do who live in Western Countries,(Australia).
-
You coward Muslims who live in Australia contribute into killing your own people, by us convicts by you paying your taxes and we buying more bullets to give our soldiers to kill more Muslims.
-
Immigrant do the cap fit you?
Kieth

Perth, Australia

#39276 May 10, 2013
immigrant wrote:
BUT DID YOU CONVICTS UNDERSTAND ANYTHING? LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,
Who would read anything you would copy and paste You Dam Dirty Ape !!

http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uplo...

Your a Ugly Hate Filled Deserting Coward.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39277 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
When Muslims invaded any country, they did not "exterminate" the people living there as White Europeans did in South and North America and in Australia and New Zealand.
-
MUQ for some unknown reason you keep forgetting India.
MUQ wrote:
Muslims did not make any nations as their "colony" just to exploit there economic and raw materials and make them "selling markets" for their products.
Muslims "adopted" every country they went into. Gave the same right to any one who accepted Islam and left those who did not accept Islam by paying a "token money for getting state protection".
-
MUQ has a convenient memory:
MUQ forgets the Islam raids on other countries, long before the Christians started invading other countries.
-
Read on MUQ >>>>>
The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:

Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.
MUQ wrote:
How can you compare What Muslims did in Egypt with what Christians did it there in 300 years?
Please do not teach us "how to treat other nations and how to rule foreign people".
Our record is much better than any other nation on the face of this earth.
Earliest Muslims were "as perfect specimen" of truth and honesty as humanly possible.
The world has not seen the likes of him and never shall be.
They were "disciples and coached by the Last and Final Prophet, they were passout of his school"!!
No other prophet got so many dedicated followers as our prophet and no prophet was as successful as our prophet. This is fact!!

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39278 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
When Muslims invaded any country, they did not "exterminate" the people living there as White Europeans did in South and North America and in Australia and New Zealand.
Muslims did not make any nations as their "colony" just to exploit there economic and raw materials and make them "selling markets" for their products.
Muslims "adopted" every country they went into. Gave the same right to any one who accepted Islam and left those who did not accept Islam by paying a "token money for getting state protection".
How can you compare What Muslims did in Egypt with what Christians did it there in 300 years?
Please do not teach us "how to treat other nations and how to rule foreign people".
Our record is much better than any other nation on the face of this earth.
Earliest Muslims were "as perfect specimen" of truth and honesty as humanly possible.
The world has not seen the likes of him and never shall be.
They were "disciples and coached by the Last and Final Prophet, they were passout of his school"!!
No other prophet got so many dedicated followers as our prophet and no prophet was as successful as our prophet. This is fact!!
-
MUQ read and you shall be educated what Islam did in the past.
-
Your own country was invaded by Islam, Islam killing 80 million Hindus and forced Islam onto the population, hence the reason to-day we have Pakistan Hindu Muslims:
-

In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39279 May 10, 2013
MUQ keep reading what Islam did 1400 odd years ago.
-
The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

MUQ keep on reading and educate your self.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39280 May 10, 2013
MUQ I do realise you will not answer me for you are aware I am much more educated and more intelligent than you are and you will lose in any debate we have.
-
MUQ I am not trying to make you into Christian, for they are the same as Muslims, they also killed million.
-
MUQ may I suggest you read every thing I post just trying to educate you.
-

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches; enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem; etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority; their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed; the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39281 May 10, 2013
MUQ only a few more for you to read:
-
The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

The Crusades

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39282 May 10, 2013
MUQ after reading all this, maybe you will stop posting your stupid entries:
-
A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39283 May 10, 2013
MUQ this is the most important part of the postings I submitted:
-
1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mentally stable at 38,000 feet: Can you trust y... 49 min I hate humans 2
News Kiev accused of moving artillery in violation o... 1 hr George 34
News Egypt president welcomes return of US military aid 3 hr Uli 1
News We'll murder police, says Real IRA (Apr '11) 8 hr James 234
News Unmasking of 'Jihadi John' as a London lad shoc... Tue Polo 18
News Ukraine Psych Wards Prepare For PTSD Mar 28 humanspirit 3
News The radicalization of John Maguire Mar 28 Tim 3
More from around the web