Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif

After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS .

I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me

Quoted: MEMRI is not what I would call a reputable source.

Explain.

Quoted: I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me

You will wait a long time...

Still waiting for him to show us the errors in that timeline....

It would take a bunch of them to obfuscate the fact that Islamic imperialism aggressive tyrannical expansion in to Europe caused the inevitable and justified reaction of The Crusades.

Same thing today…

Quoted: Quoted: I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me You will wait a long time... Still waiting for him to show us the errors in that timeline.... It would take a bunch of them to obfuscate the fact that Islamic imperialism aggressive tyrannical expansion in to Europe caused the inevitable and justified reaction of The Crusades. Same thing today…

Yeah, I figured as much.

Sometimes people don't let the facts get in the way of their arguement, go figure.

I say we just send our Adrian Barbobot over to beat some ass.

-James

Good post.  It seems that the Muslims should STFU when the bring up the Christian Crusades in every other rant they spew.

Quoted: Another good book about Muslims that recently tought me a lot I didn't know is; larryvoyer.com/Piratical/pirate_images4/jw.jpg Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805 James B. Patrick JEFFERSON'S WAR: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805, Joseph Whelan, Carroll & Graf, Publishers, New York, 2003, $15.00. When, and against whom, did the United States fight its first war, and who was president at the time? I suspect many well-educated adults would readily respond, "the War of 1812 when James Madison was president." They would be wrong. In fact, the first war the United States fought occurred in 180l, the first year of Thomas Jefferson's presidency, when the Nation had existed barely 25 years. A few modern historians have tried to portray Jefferson as sort of a hippie, born 200 years before his time, peace-loving, and impractical. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jefferson was a tough, hardboiled president who did not scruple to use either intrigue or brute force if he felt the national interest required it. But, what was this war in 1801? Who was the enemy? The answer is the same as today--rogue Muslims. In 1800, the Mediterranean coast of North Africa was occupied by Islamic state--Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, Egypt--that were quasi-independent but, formally, part of the Turkish Empire, which was centered in Istanbul (Constantinople). The various beys and pashas who ruled these states paid substantial sums annually to the Sultan. If they did not, they were removed, frequently by strangulation. None of the regions produced much on their own, so the Muslim potentates readily turned to piracy in the Mediterranean as a source of income, but with a new twist; any nation could buy immunity for its ships. The price was stiff, but it was cheaper than losing the ships outright. The practice was also humane. Usually, captured Christian sailors were either sold into slavery in North Africa or allowed to rot in the pashas' dungeons on a starvation diet. After all, they were infidels, and Allah would not have wanted his faithful servants wasting perfectly good provisions on them. Every state in Europe with commercial interests in the Mediterranean had knuckled under to the extortion. Even England, which considered itself "mistress of the seas" paid bribes, as did Denmark, France, Holland, the Papal States, Spain, and all the rest. The payments were high. The pashas exacted whatever the traffic would bear, but the European nations, figuring war would be even more costly, paid up. (The World War 11 generation called this "appeasement.") And then a new nation, the United States of America, came on the scene, so the corsairs snapped up a few American ships, threw a bunch of their sailors into their dungeons, and awaited the customary negotiations to set the amount of the tribute. What happened afterward is the subject of Joseph Wheelan's "Jefferson's War," a splendid and exciting account of the American response that amazed the Europeans, stunned the Muslim gangsters, got the U.S. Navy off to a splendid start, created the U.S. Marine Corps, and put the "Shores of Tripoli" in the Marine hymn. It also created a surprisingly sophisticated system of combined operations. Every U.S. officer should read this book. Not only is it a well-written thriller, it also provides a fascinating perspective on the Global War on Terrorism--the cowardly Europeans who would rather pay than fight; the almost unbelievably cruel and greedy Muslim authorities; the primitive dependence of Islamic societies on Western technology; and the remarkable adaptability of America's young men to unusual circumstances and unique challenges--all are relevant to our times. This true story has something significant to tell us all. James B. Patrick, Staunton, Virginia

But hey, if there's one good thing I got out of this thread, except for the first post of course, It's a recommendation on a good book.  I might have to check this one out.

Quoted: What a balanced and unbiased article. Can't wait for the next installment of "Jews Muslims are the cause of all the bad things in the world, and always have been!"

The article is factually true.  It has taken your major whine "Christian's started the crusades" from your arsenal of weapons those who love Western Civilzation.  Islam started out by conquering their neighbors and converting them to islam.  Militarily conquering and forcibly converting a country at the point of a sword is the very definition of crusade.  Sometimes the truth hurts.  A sign of maturity is accepting the truth.  Are you able to accept that truth, which is supported by the historical record, or not?

Where are all the peace loving Mohometans, demonstrating against the evil "radical" Islamists who have "hijacked" the religion of peace

Quoted: Quoted: What a balanced and unbiased article. Can't wait for the next installment of "Jews Muslims are the cause of all the bad things in the world, and always have been!" The article is factually true.  It has taken your major whine "Christian's started the crusades" from your arsenal of weapons those who love Western Civilzation.  Islam started out by conquering their neighbors and converting them to islam.  Militarily conquering and forcibly converting a country at the point of a sword is the very definition of crusade.  Sometimes the truth hurts.  A sign of maturity is accepting the truth.  Are you able to accept that truth, which is supported by the historical record, or not?

We shall see.

My Faith has done some very bad things in the past, and mostly to folks of the same Faith.

Ignore that fact, and Christianity would still be living in the 4th Century AD.

When Islam ignores its past, it cannot get out of the 7th Century AD.

Eric The(Historical)Hun

One of the best books out there on the Muslims is "The Sword of the Prophet".  I forget the author's name.  My copy has been loaned out for two years.  I guess I'll have to buy another copy.  The author describes the history of the region and then of the beginnings of Islam. A very interesting and scholarly read. He also explains where all of the beliefs of the Moslems originated and why.  The book is a real eye-opener. Everyone should read it.  Maybe then, apologists for the moon god cult will change their mind.  But I doubt it. Their particular brand of koolaid is fatally addictive. Ever wonder why the symbol of Islam is the moon and the star?  Read the book and find out.  That and much more. Get the book.  Read it. Educate yourself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What a balanced and unbiased article. Can't wait for the next installment of "Jews Muslims are the cause of all the bad things in the world, and always have been!" The article is factually true.  It has taken your major whine "Christian's started the crusades" from your arsenal of weapons those who love Western Civilzation.  Islam started out by conquering their neighbors and converting them to islam.  Militarily conquering and forcibly converting a country at the point of a sword is the very definition of crusade.  Sometimes the truth hurts.  A sign of maturity is accepting the truth.  Are you able to accept that truth, which is supported by the historical record, or not? We shall see. My Faith has done some very bad things in the past, and mostly to folks of the same Faith. Ignore that fact, and Christianity would still be living in the 4th Century AD. When Islam ignores its past, it is cannot get out of the 7th Century AD. Eric The(Historical)Hun

Exactly, while Christians, and other religions seem to have grown from their mistakes in the past.  Islam embraces their mistakes and seeks killing those who disagree,  in other words, instead of moving forward, they regress.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS . I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me

I own a copy and have read the book (can't speak for thedoctors308), and while there absolutely IS a lot of good (and accurate stuff in it), I think the author deliberately ignores certain things from the Koran when they don't serve the arguments he is trying to make - but quotes away enthusiastically (sometimes out of context) when the passages DO serve the arguments he wants to make.

I wouldn't say there are "outright lies" in it, but the book could certainly be considered deliberately deceptive and misleading in parts, IMO.

whosever fault it is:  GET OVER IT!  And stop fucking with our women, children and airplanes!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS . I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me I own a copy and have read the book (can't speak for thedoctors308), and while there absolutely IS a lot of good (and accurate stuff in it), I think the author deliberately ignores certain things from the Koran when they don't serve the arguments he is trying to make - but quotes away enthusiastically (sometimes out of context) when the passages DO serve the arguments he wants to make. I wouldn't say there are "outright lies" in it, but the book could certainly be considered deliberately deceptive and misleading in parts, IMO.

The book most certainly has an agenda, and your point is well taken, and the core of the book IMO has great merit in pointing out false perceptions about what really happened during the crusades.  

It's funny how reasonable criticism and not just off hand accusations can be informative and mutually beneficial.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS . I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me I own a copy and have read the book (can't speak for thedoctors308), and while there absolutely IS a lot of good (and accurate stuff in it), I think the author deliberately ignores certain things from the Koran when they don't serve the arguments he is trying to make - but quotes away enthusiastically (sometimes out of context) when the passages DO serve the arguments he wants to make. I wouldn't say there are "outright lies" in it, but the book could certainly be considered deliberately deceptive and misleading in parts, IMO.

Examples?????

Quoted: whosever fault it is:  GET OVER IT!  And stop fucking with our women, children and airplanes!

Not bloody likely....

Sadly their 7th century behavoir,beliefs and tactics are having a definite impact on the civilized worlds lifestyle and behavior....and in my not so humble opinion shoudl be dealt with for once and for all...Cmon...you know we have the means...or are we waiting for them to have the same means so it would be "a fair fight"?

Quoted: Quoted: whosever fault it is:  GET OVER IT!  And stop fucking with our women, children and airplanes! Not bloody likely....

It seems people most prone to violence have a problem leaving past wrongs, as in, wrongs that occurred hundreds if not a thousand years ago, in the past.  We had a local radio station, discussing the recent British incident.  A man, probably muslim, called in and with sentence number two brought up the crusades.  The problems in Serbia/Croatia go back to a wrong commited several hundred years ago.  Folks - let it go.  There comes a time to put that stuff away.  Just because someone's great, great, great, great grandparents wronged you - you are not right in lashing out against them today.  The folks you lash out against were not alive then, were not the ones who wronged your distant relatives.  GET OVER IT.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS . I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me I own a copy and have read the book (can't speak for thedoctors308), and while there absolutely IS a lot of good (and accurate stuff in it), I think the author deliberately ignores certain things from the Koran when they don't serve the arguments he is trying to make - but quotes away enthusiastically (sometimes out of context) when the passages DO serve the arguments he wants to make. I wouldn't say there are "outright lies" in it, but the book could certainly be considered deliberately deceptive and misleading in parts, IMO. Examples?????

It's been a while since I've read it, so I'm not going to be able to give you a long list of specific examples.  But I can think of a couple off the top of my head that struck me as I read the book.

In his section about how it is a "PC Myth" that the Koran teaches that muslims should only fight in self-defense, Spencer acknowledges that the Koran actually very clearly says that muslims should not attack others.  The specific verse is 2:190 - "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors." Yet somehow, Spencer concludes that it is nothing but a "PC Myth" that the Koran says such a thing, and tries to obfuscate it by pointing out that the Koran THEN goes on to say that muslims are allowed to fight ruthlessly once they are attacked.  Somehow, that seems very disingenuous to me.

Furthermore, he consistently thoughout the book makes statements like "The Qur'an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction.  Taking the texts at face value, the command to make was against unbelievers is open-ended and universal" ... such statements also seem disingenuous, since the suggest that the Koran consistenly tells muslims to fight all unbelievers at all times, with no exceptions - despite his admission earlier in the book that the Koran very explcitily says that muslims should NOT attack others, and should only fight when attacked.  Further adding to what I would consider some level of deception is the lack of an attempt on his part to draw clear distinctions in much of his book between the Koran's language of "unbelievers", "People of the Book", "infidels" and "idolators" when there is violent language in the Koran about waging war against non-muslims.  Again, he does make some half-hearted attempts to clarify these very important distinctions early in the book - but for most of the book he freely uses quotes from the Koran that give the distinct IMPRESSION that the Koran actively encourages indiscriminant violence towards all non-muslims, when in fact many of the passages refer spcifically to idolators and infidels that are compeltely separate from Jews and Christians.  

I also noted that he cited some people who made claims that countries like Holland could be majority muslim by the middle of this century - which is complete and utter nonsense, and should be obvious to anyone with above grade-school arithmetic ability.   That kind of stuff really turns me off, because it is nothing but fear-mongering - but he carefully just CITED what other people were saying, so I guess he can claim that HE didn't actually lie or present these numbers as fact, just reported on what other "experts" were saying.  Again, I find it disingenuous.




Like I said, there is a lot of good and accurate information in the book, but I was saddend by what I saw as deliberate deception in it.

Quoted: Here's the TRUTH about the crusades and who started what. It's a HISTORICAL FACTUAL TIMELINE. Liberal Islamic apologists won't like it. So the next time your favorite bleeding heart pacifist liberal starts blathering about Christians starting the crusades and how the west is evil and beating on poor arabs, hit them with FACT betwixt the eyes.

And the Mamluk's under Khalil totally defeated the Crusaders once and for all in June 17, 1291 when Acre fell.

ANdy

Quoted: Sadly their 7th century behavoir,beliefs and tactics are having a definite impact on the civilized worlds lifestyle and behavior....and in my not so humble opinion shoudl be dealt with for once and for all...Cmon...you know we have the means...or are we waiting for them to have the same means so it would be "a fair fight"?

Sometimes I think so. *shakes head*

I'm in awe of the number of people who don't understand human nature, are gullible and are willing to hobble themselves unilaterally.

Sorry, but I just don't believe in the "goodness of man". Some people are plain evil. They're NOT misunderstood or just the way they are because of poverty or injustice. They're hateful and evil and need to be put down and out of their misery. Harse, no. Reality, yes.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's the TRUTH about the crusades and who started what. It's a HISTORICAL FACTUAL TIMELINE. Liberal Islamic apologists won't like it. So the next time your favorite bleeding heart pacifist liberal starts blathering about Christians starting the crusades and how the west is evil and beating on poor arabs, hit them with FACT betwixt the eyes. And the Mamluk's under Khalil totally defeated the Crusaders once and for all in June 17, 1291 when Acre fell. ANdy

'Once and for all'?????

Son, where did you learn world history?

From a grainy video from Bumphuque, Egypt?

I think they still regard any Westerner as a 'Crusader.'

The Arabs were quite unceremoniously divided by Sir Winston's pen in the 20th Century.

It is said that his hand jerked a bit while drawing the boundaries and several thousand acres were added to Jordan.



Not exactly a fitting denouement for the children of the Great Saladin, eh?

Really, cuz, you need to determine which civilization that you wish to see win in this latest conflict.

Eric The(WesternCiv101)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS . I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me I own a copy and have read the book (can't speak for thedoctors308), and while there absolutely IS a lot of good (and accurate stuff in it), I think the author deliberately ignores certain things from the Koran when they don't serve the arguments he is trying to make - but quotes away enthusiastically (sometimes out of context) when the passages DO serve the arguments he wants to make. I wouldn't say there are "outright lies" in it, but the book could certainly be considered deliberately deceptive and misleading in parts, IMO. Examples????? It's been a while since I've read it, so I'm not going to be able to give you a long list of specific examples.  But I can think of a couple off the top of my head that struck me as I read the book. In his section about how it is a "PC Myth" that the Koran teaches that muslims should only fight in self-defense, Spencer acknowledges that the Koran actually very clearly says that muslims should not attack others.  The specific verse is 2:190 - "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors." Yet somehow, Spencer concludes that it is nothing but a "PC Myth" that the Koran says such a thing, and tries to obfuscate it by pointing out that the Koran THEN goes on to say that muslims are allowed to fight ruthlessly once they are attacked.  Somehow, that seems very disingenuous to me. IMO Spencer was clear in explaining the theory and process of abrogation, that is the process where later sections cancelled out earlier, conflicting sections of the Q'uran. FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14) FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29) These sections cancelled out the earlier sections that were written before Mohammed became more powerful and could attack and destroy those who didn't follow the program. Furthermore, he consistently thoughout the book makes statements like "The Qur'an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction.  Taking the texts at face value, the command to make was against unbelievers is open-ended and universal" ... such statements also seem disingenuous, since the suggest that the Koran consistenly tells muslims to fight all unbelievers at all times, with no exceptions - despite his admission earlier in the book that the Koran very explcitily says that muslims should NOT attack others, and should only fight when attacked. Again this is covered under the laws of abrogation Further adding to what I would consider some level of deception is the lack of an attempt on his part to draw clear distinctions in much of his book between the Koran's language of "unbelievers", "People of the Book", "infidels" and "idolators" when there is violent language in the Koran about waging war against non-muslims.  Again, he does make some half-hearted attempts to clarify these very important distinctions early in the book - but for most of the book he freely uses quotes from the Koran that give the distinct IMPRESSION that the Koran actively encourages indiscriminant violence towards all non-muslims, when in fact many of the passages refer spcifically to idolators and infidels that are compeltely separate from Jews and Christians. This is covered in the 3 Choices given in the 9th Sura: Convert, pay jizya (tax) while being held in contempt or die. All three involve indiscriminent violence towards all non-muslims. The only difference is that some peoples (those not of the Book) had only the last choice: death. I also noted that he cited some people who made claims that countries like Holland could be majority muslim by the middle of this century - which is complete and utter nonsense, and should be obvious to anyone with above grade-school arithmetic ability.   That kind of stuff really turns me off, because it is nothing but fear-mongering - but he carefully just CITED what other people were saying, so I guess he can claim that HE didn't actually lie or present these numbers as fact, just reported on what other "experts" were saying.  Again, I find it disingenuous. I won't argue this point only since I don't have demographic and immigration figures. I only hope he is wrong! Like I said, there is a lot of good and accurate information in the book, but I was saddend by what I saw as deliberate deception in it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've posted this before but this is a book I read that is very insightful about this subject.  Basically outlines why all the people who cry about the crusades and persecution of muslims can rightly go fuck themselves. i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/izzman_2006/book.jpg Yep, looks like a great book, well grounded in reality, with no bias or agenda whatsoever. If you like that book, check out this one too. ddickerson.igc.org/protocols_english.gif After reading again your first comment on my post in regards to the book, and your EXTREMELY vague desciption of it,  I'm going to have to go ahead and call BS . I would like to know what outright lies, as you call them, are in the book.  I'm really not trying to start a pissing match, I am legitimately curious as to what aspects I took as fact, that aren't really true.  Teach Me I own a copy and have read the book (can't speak for thedoctors308), and while there absolutely IS a lot of good (and accurate stuff in it), I think the author deliberately ignores certain things from the Koran when they don't serve the arguments he is trying to make - but quotes away enthusiastically (sometimes out of context) when the passages DO serve the arguments he wants to make. I wouldn't say there are "outright lies" in it, but the book could certainly be considered deliberately deceptive and misleading in parts, IMO. Examples????? It's been a while since I've read it, so I'm not going to be able to give you a long list of specific examples.  But I can think of a couple off the top of my head that struck me as I read the book. In his section about how it is a "PC Myth" that the Koran teaches that muslims should only fight in self-defense, Spencer acknowledges that the Koran actually very clearly says that muslims should not attack others.  The specific verse is 2:190 - "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors." Yet somehow, Spencer concludes that it is nothing but a "PC Myth" that the Koran says such a thing, and tries to obfuscate it by pointing out that the Koran THEN goes on to say that muslims are allowed to fight ruthlessly once they are attacked.  Somehow, that seems very disingenuous to me. IMO Spencer was clear in explaining the theory and process of abrogation, that is the process where later sections cancelled out earlier, conflicting sections of the Q'uran. FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14) FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29) These sections cancelled out the earlier sections that were written before Mohammed became more powerful and could attack and destroy those who didn't follow the program. Furthermore, he consistently thoughout the book makes statements like "The Qur'an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction.  Taking the texts at face value, the command to make was against unbelievers is open-ended and universal" ... such statements also seem disingenuous, since the suggest that the Koran consistenly tells muslims to fight all unbelievers at all times, with no exceptions - despite his admission earlier in the book that the Koran very explcitily says that muslims should NOT attack others, and should only fight when attacked. Again this is covered under the laws of abrogation Further adding to what I would consider some level of deception is the lack of an attempt on his part to draw clear distinctions in much of his book between the Koran's language of "unbelievers", "People of the Book", "infidels" and "idolators" when there is violent language in the Koran about waging war against non-muslims.  Again, he does make some half-hearted attempts to clarify these very important distinctions early in the book - but for most of the book he freely uses quotes from the Koran that give the distinct IMPRESSION that the Koran actively encourages indiscriminant violence towards all non-muslims, when in fact many of the passages refer spcifically to idolators and infidels that are compeltely separate from Jews and Christians. This is covered in the 3 Choices given in the 9th Sura: Convert, pay jizya (tax) while being held in contempt or die. All three involve indiscriminent violence towards all non-muslims. The only difference is that some peoples (those not of the Book) had only the last choice: death. I also noted that he cited some people who made claims that countries like Holland could be majority muslim by the middle of this century - which is complete and utter nonsense, and should be obvious to anyone with above grade-school arithmetic ability.   That kind of stuff really turns me off, because it is nothing but fear-mongering - but he carefully just CITED what other people were saying, so I guess he can claim that HE didn't actually lie or present these numbers as fact, just reported on what other "experts" were saying.  Again, I find it disingenuous. I won't argue this point only since I don't have demographic and immigration figures. I only hope he is wrong! Like I said, there is a lot of good and accurate information in the book, but I was saddend by what I saw as deliberate deception in it.

Hey - I'm not trying to sell you anything.

All I am saying is that I have actually taken the time to READ the entire Koran (as you may have done too), and while there is a ton of accurate and useful information in Spencer's book, in my opinion, he undermines his own credibility by being somewhat deceptive in some of his descriptions and arguments.

If you have a different opinion, that's cool.  Doesn't bother me.

No no no no no.

Gentlemen, the term 'Crusader' is NOT equivocal, it DOESN'T APPLY TO MUSLIMS, because, duh, it's a description of someone who 'takes the cross' and goes on an armed PILGRIMAGE.

Secondly, there weren't as many Crusades as there were Muslim invasions or battles.

Thirdly, it was ALWAYS understood that forced conversion was forbidden and lo and behold NONE of the official Crusades in the Levant involved FORCED CONVERSION by the sword. They were armed pilgrimages whose mission was the liberation of the holy places so that other pilgrims could go there unmolested.

FEW Europeans wanted to colonize the Holy Lands and few wanted to tax the Muslims. It wasn't about wealth (which was one of the reasons the Levant always needed volunteer troops to stay free - thus the rise of the military orders).

It's amazing how much BS people pick up on these things.

Quoted: Hey - I'm not trying to sell you anything. All I am saying is that I have actually taken the time to READ the entire Koran (as you may have done too), and while there is a ton of accurate and useful information in Spencer's book, in my opinion, he undermines his own credibility by being somewhat deceptive in some of his descriptions and arguments. If you have a different opinion, that's cool.  Doesn't bother me.

I've never read Spencer's book, but yeah, original sources tend to be good for information...

See new line above avatar.

This is headed toward a huge war of islam against everybody else.

Better for we 'everybody else's' that it is fought soon before we get any weaker and before they get any stronger.

For peace to happen their ideas have to be extinguished.  The european nations will have to physically remove them and so will we.  A population who is not there can't plant IED's or launch red-rat rockets.

As a general rule, you don't have all the resources you want, you only have the resources that you actually have.  You have limited resources.  To achieve an optimal outcome you must use your limited resources where they will accomplish the greatest good.  (liberals are extremely poor at doing this, they actually believe pissing away the limited resources on projects that cause harm instead of good is the correct thing to do.  Leftist 'logic' and all that.)  An example of how to do things correctly would be to search middle eastern looking people first at airports or to just not let islamic looking people on planes or into your nation.

If france were islam free there would be no islamics to burn cars and riot.  If the middle east was islam free there would be far fewer problems there.  If the US had been islam free the World Trade Center towers would still be standing.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

It's time to unpimp ssaa world.  

Dieter, spool up the birds in silos 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, ...  Oh, snap!       (only partly in jest)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's the TRUTH about the crusades and who started what. It's a HISTORICAL FACTUAL TIMELINE. Liberal Islamic apologists won't like it. So the next time your favorite bleeding heart pacifist liberal starts blathering about Christians starting the crusades and how the west is evil and beating on poor arabs, hit them with FACT betwixt the eyes. And the Mamluk's under Khalil totally defeated the Crusaders once and for all in June 17, 1291 when Acre fell. ANdy 'Once and for all'????? Son, where did you learn world history? From a grainy video from Bumphuque, Egypt? I think they still regard any Westerner as a 'Crusader.' The Arabs were quite unceremoniously divided by Sir Winston's pen in the 20th Century. It is said that his hand jerked a bit while drawing the boundaries and several thousand acres were added to Jordan. Not exactly a fitting denouement for the children of the Great Saladin, eh? Really, cuz, you need to determine which civilization that you wish to see win in this latest conflict. Eric The(WesternCiv101)Hun

How interesting you should mention Saladin, or Salah al-Din to give him his correct name.

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem they slaughtered everyone, men, women and children inside the walls, be they Muslims, Jews and Christians. However when Salah al-Din recaptured Jerusalem he spared everyone, including the Christian armies…

I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by.

ANdy

Quoted:

I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy

Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy!

Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites.

You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads.

Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain.

Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure.

I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah!

Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy! Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites. You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads. Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain. Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah! Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun

You EVER been to a muslim country?

Just curious…

ANdy

Quoted: In 1529 and again in 1683, the Muzzies, in one more of their imperial crusades, attacked into Europe as far as the gates of Vienna. In both instances they were defeated. Since then their expansionism has been curtailed but is obviously on the march again. 1529 1683

So we can thank the Vienese for having stopped the Muslim fanatics AND the Mongol hoards?

Wow.

Quoted: Quoted: I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy! Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites. You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads. Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain. Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah! Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun

Yes, it was part of the deal/truce/cessation of hostilities, not because of anyone's altruism.

Quoted: Quoted: In 1529 and again in 1683, the Muzzies, in one more of their imperial crusades, attacked into Europe as far as the gates of Vienna. In both instances they were defeated. Since then their expansionism has been curtailed but is obviously on the march again. 1529 1683 So we can thank the Vienese for having stopped the Muslim fanatics AND the Mongol hoards? Wow.

The Ottoman Turks invaded and occupied Eastern and Middle Europe, starting in the mid-1500s.  They taught Vlad the Impaler all he knew.  They intended to march further into Europe (possibly they wanted to complete what the prior invasions failed to accomplish, and to revenge the loss at Tours, or just show that they could do what the others had not).  In any case, the various kingdoms and principalities of  Austria, Bohemia and with the aid of the Duke of Lorraine, stopped the Turks at the gates of Vienna.  Anopther battle, in 1683 at Esztergom in Hungary sealed their fate and it was retreat back to Turkey from then on.

I have frequently commented in threads about Middle East, Asian and Moslem intentions and ambitions that people need to know their history.  Usually that falls on deaf ears and they think it silly.  It isn't but, rather, is a guide to the future.  That some "authorities" and others of their dupes don't teach the history (not something obscure, but major events in the history of the Western world), suggests the dumbing down has other purposes.

"He who controls the past controls the future;
he who controls the present controls the past."

-Ministry of Truth  

Quoted: The christian crusaders weren't angels either, if I seem to recall they turned and sacked the city they were originally sent to liberate, on more than one occasion.

And what the fuck do you think the POS muslims did to deserve those fates?  Based on what we see today, I can only imagine.

Pathetic defense.

Wow. That is quite an epistle.

Unfortunately I am of the MTV generation and don't have the attention span or the time to read it all.

Luckily for me I don't have to to form an opinion.

What happened 1,2 or 3 thousand years ago has no bearing on my opinion for;

I learned all I need to know about islam,  on 9/11/2001.



RIP victims.  RIP freedom.  RIP asshole terrorsts who are getting blown up daily by our kickass fighting men and women.

Quoted: Quoted: I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy! Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites. You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads. Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain. Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah! Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun

Glad to see you mention Richard the Lionhearted.  According to my geneology,  I'm a decendant of his.  I take great pride in the fact he spent his life on the crusades.  Or a great portion of it.

You really did not expect me to read all of that did you? AHHH, that's sweet.

Good points.

Quoted: Bring it. www.mbohbot.com/Empire%20Crusader.jpg

Turn that into a poster for your wall with nothing but the printer you have at home.

In his section about how it is a "PC Myth" that the Koran teaches that muslims should only fight in self-defense, Spencer acknowledges that the Koran actually very clearly says that muslims should not attack others. The specific verse is 2:190 - "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors." Yet somehow, Spencer concludes that it is nothing but a "PC Myth" that the Koran says such a thing, and tries to obfuscate it by pointing out that the Koran THEN goes on to say that muslims are allowed to fight ruthlessly once they are attacked. Somehow, that seems very disingenuous to me.

First off, attacking a religion is hard to do basically beacuse they speak out of both sides of their mouth. Look at our Bible, On one page it says "stone the adulterers" then another says "he who is without sin cast the first stone".
The Koran is a troublesome book to interpret because of the way it was written. It reads like a court transscript! It has no begining or end, and no narritive whatso ever. So what if it says "God does not love the aggressors"??? Actions speak louder than. You have to understand the context of Mohammuds life to realise what the Koran is saying. Yes, at first Mohammud was all about "peace and love" and all that, basically becuase he thought for sure everyone would follow him. So there are Verses are in the Koran which are "peaceful", But once he gets kicked out of Mecca, the Revelations take a more aggressive tone, constant hellfire, constant warnings about damnation if you dont do what Allah (and by extension the Prophet) wants. Also remeber that a lot of Muslims behavior and culture DOES NOT come from the Koran, Where does it say to pray 5 times a day in the Koran?? It does'nt. Spencer overlooked the Haditha, which has as much influence on Islamic thought as the Koran does. It is the Life of the prophet that they look to for guidance in the form of the Haditha. Mohammud waged aggressive war against all who opposed him. Some deserved it at first becuase they tried to kill him, but most got wiped out becuase they refused to knuckle under to him and his new order. HE expelled all the jews and Christians from Arabia, Why? cause they refused to live as Dhimmi under Islam! It is these examples of his life that Muslims today follow, not some one line about "dont be aggressive".

Also look to Mohammud and his "companions", the first three generation of Muslims. In the TImeline of conquest you can see no diffrence in the leadership from Mohmmuad to his relatives who took over after he died. They used the same Modus operandi that he did, he set the stage, he created the  model of conquest that they use to this day. To try to give the impression that Islam is  a "peaceful religion" like ours, that gets "highjacked" every once in a while by "madmen" and warmongers and that Mohammud was not like that at all, is to overlook Islams ENTIRE history. YEs its true though i dont see why it is do hard for some people to understand, Not all cultures are the "same" not all people think Alike, Not all religions are "equally peaceful", how should we judge these things? By what they say AND what they do and have done in the past. If we continue to remain non-judgmental about others we'll just get stuck into the morass of multi-cultural handwringing, degenerate pacifism and moral relevancy.

Quoted: Quoted: The christian crusaders weren't angels either, if I seem to recall they turned and sacked the city they were originally sent to liberate, on more than one occasion. And what the fuck do you think the POS muslims did to deserve those fates?  Based on what we see today, I can only imagine. Pathetic defense.

Ah, you can 'only imagine'…

So what you mean is you actually don't know and chose not to do some research to find out…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade#Historical_background

Oh, and more Christian cities were captured and Christians killed by the Crusaders than were by the Muslims…

The sack of Zara and Constantinople, Christian cities attacked by the Christian Crusaders…


ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The christian crusaders weren't angels either, if I seem to recall they turned and sacked the city they were originally sent to liberate, on more than one occasion. And what the fuck do you think the POS muslims did to deserve those fates?  Based on what we see today, I can only imagine. Pathetic defense. Ah, you can 'only imagine'… So what you mean is you actually don't know and chose not to do some research to find out… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade#Historical_background Oh, and more Christian cities were captured and Christians killed by the Crusaders than were by the Muslims… The sack of Zara and Constantinople, Christian cities attacked by the Christian Crusaders… ANdy

Bear in mind that just because you serve under a Christian banner doesn't make you a Christian.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The christian crusaders weren't angels either, if I seem to recall they turned and sacked the city they were originally sent to liberate, on more than one occasion. And what the fuck do you think the POS muslims did to deserve those fates?  Based on what we see today, I can only imagine. Pathetic defense. Ah, you can 'only imagine'… So what you mean is you actually don't know and chose not to do some research to find out… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade#Historical_background Oh, and more Christian cities were captured and Christians killed by the Crusaders than were by the Muslims… The sack of Zara and Constantinople, Christian cities attacked by the Christian Crusaders… ANdy Bear in mind that just because you serve under a Christian banner doesn't make you a Christian.

Correct! To assume all 'Crusaders' were pious and noble is intellectually lazy. Money, power and land was the driving force behind the later Crusades, and if they couldn't find any Muslim towns to conquer and pillage, Christian ones did just fine.

Historical footnote: In the film 'Kingdom of Heaven' we see all the Christians given safe passage out of Jerusalem to the coast by Salah al-Din, this actually happened as shown in the film.

However, when they reached the Crusader stronghold of Tripoli on the coast they were refused entry by the inhabitants and robbed…

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy! Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites. You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads. Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain. Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah! Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun You EVER been to a muslim country? Just curious… ANdy

Andy's account must have been hacked, or he is in the process of becoming brainwashed.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy! Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites. You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads. Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain. Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah! Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun You EVER been to a muslim country? Just curious… ANdy Andy's account must have been hacked, or he is in the process of becoming brainwashed.....

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Quoted: EXCELLENT POST!

Agreed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know who I would prefer to be 'liberated' by. ANdy Yeah, present day IslamoFascists are so akin to Saladin (note 'Westernized' spelling) in their tactics in the wacky EuroWorldThinking of Andy! Saladin 'spared' everyone in Jerusalem because the Christians agreed to hurt neither the Muslims within the City nor any of their holy sites. You'd last a couple of minutes once you were 'liberated' by one of the modern day shiiteheads. Lord Have Mercy but the blood of Richard the Lionhearted is mighty thin in today's Britain. Some medieval Europeans named their sons 'Saladin', after the romanticized figure. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised if modern day Europeans name their sons Osama or Nasrallah! Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun You EVER been to a muslim country? Just curious… ANdy Andy's account must have been hacked, or he is in the process of becoming brainwashed..... Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I don't have a little mind, but you have a brainwashed one.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Andy's account must have been hacked, or he is in the process of becoming brainwashed.....

I notice my question has not been answered…

Some 'read about it', others speak from experience…

Oddly enough, the people, (usually US .Mil) that I know have lived and worked in the Gulf States don't seem to share the percieved wisdom.

Anyone want to guess were the USN does R&R in the ME, complete with booze on sale in bars?

ANdy