Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...lion-non-muslims-since-the-birth-of-mohammed/

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...lion-non-muslims-since-the-birth-of-mohammed/

Are you somehow trying to argue that run-of-the-mill wars of conquest are religious wars? And even if you do Muslims aren't particularly bad. They can't hold a candle to Genghis Khan. His army was mostly Buddhist and Christian. So by that logic Buddhism and Christianity are the most brutal and warmongering religions.

 

[Warpoet]

I tore the living shit out of the source angelo's hate site is drawing off of several years back, when another Islamophobe was using it to demonize Muslims, but the archives aren't available and the thread was probably deleted anyway because it was complete and utter trash (like this one).

Suffice to say, it's disingenuous garbage that draws from biased sources and shamelessly misrepresents data to inflate the number. The author, like all of angelo's source, is just another dickhead with no relevant qualifications trying to dress up bigotry in order to pass it off as scholarship.

And, on top of all the other shit angelo's polluted the forum with, we can add pictures of severed heads to the list. Fucking classy.

 

[angelo]

Which other religion has been responsible for more than 25.000 terrorist attacks throughout the world, just since 9/11 and counting, daily?
Turning a blind eye to this fact won't make it go away!

 

[KeepTalking]

Par for the course for xenophobes. Your posts are another great example of what it means to be terribly afraid of otherness.

It's Ms Greening that seems "to be terribly afraid of the otherness".

Actually, I fail to see how Ms Greening's concern could be construed as being "terribly afraid of otherness" (what ever than means) or xenophobic.

You lose credibility with each and every post you make. Directly contradicting yourself certainly does not help.

 

[repoman]

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...lion-non-muslims-since-the-birth-of-mohammed/

Are you somehow trying to argue that run-of-the-mill wars of conquest are religious wars? And even if you do Muslims aren't particularly bad. They can't hold a candle to Genghis Khan. His army was mostly Buddhist and Christian. So by that logic Buddhism and Christianity are the most brutal and warmongering religions.

What is your opinion on the Crusades? It must be that it was fairly benign...

 

[TSwizzle]

It's Ms Greening that seems "to be terribly afraid of the otherness".

Actually, I fail to see how Ms Greening's concern could be construed as being "terribly afraid of otherness" (what ever than means) or xenophobic.

You lose credibility with each and every post you make. Directly contradicting yourself certainly does not help.

Nonsense. You were trying to attribute Ms Greening's "fear of otherness" directly to me which I am having none of.

 

[angelo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...70628a-ae46-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

It his estimated that the crusades killed 1.7 million people, including the crusaders themselves!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you somehow trying to argue that run-of-the-mill wars of conquest are religious wars? And even if you do Muslims aren't particularly bad. They can't hold a candle to Genghis Khan. His army was mostly Buddhist and Christian. So by that logic Buddhism and Christianity are the most brutal and warmongering religions.

What is your opinion on the Crusades? It must be that it was fairly benign...

My opinion on the crusades is that they weren't religious wars. In each case they were about mundane and boring political issues that had nothing to do with religion. So it's a moot issue. In general I think war is bad. But I also see war as a kind of social vent. When society fails to adjust to rapid social change tensions rise. Wars are only symptoms of some underlying social problem (or several). Once we deal with that = no war. But most often wars are the result of social problems that persist precisely because they are impossible to fix easily.

I think comparing various "religious" wars as far as savagery is concerned is missing the forest for all the trees. The numbers mean nothing relevant.

edit: historically the catholic popes have been extraordinarily down to earth and skilled at realpolitik. Actually... same goes for the Caliphs. And let's not forget Mohammed. That's a religious man who could think on his feet updating, "the word of God", to suit his practical and worldly needs as needed.

If there's one thing "successful" religion has in common it's the willingness to compromise when necessary. Intransigent religious leaders tend to get replaced.

 

[fromderinside]

What is your opinion on the Crusades? It must be that it was fairly benign...

My opinion on the crusades is that they weren't religious wars. In each case they were about mundane and boring political issues that had nothing to do with religion. So it's a moot issue. In general I think war is bad. But I also see war as a kind of social vent. When society fails to adjust to rapid social change tensions rise. Wars are only symptoms of some underlying social problem (or several). Once we deal with that = no war. But most often wars are the result of social problems that persist precisely because they are impossible to fix easily.

I think comparing various "religious" wars as far as savagery is concerned is missing the forest for all the trees. The numbers mean nothing relevant.

edit: historically the catholic popes have been extraordinarily down to earth and skilled at realpolitik. Actually... same goes for the Caliphs. And let's not forget Mohammed. That's a religious man who could think on his feet updating, "the word of God", to suit his practical and worldly needs as needed.

If there's one thing "successful" religion has in common it's the willingness to compromise when necessary. Intransigent religious leaders tend to get replaced.

Try poverty: The move to support the poor Christ https://books.google.com/books?id=q...AF#v=onepage&q=crusades about poverty&f=false

 

[whichphilosophy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...70628a-ae46-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

It his estimated that the crusades killed 1.7 million people, including the crusaders themselves!

Compared to the population today that's equivalent to a lot more people.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My opinion on the crusades is that they weren't religious wars. In each case they were about mundane and boring political issues that had nothing to do with religion. So it's a moot issue. In general I think war is bad. But I also see war as a kind of social vent. When society fails to adjust to rapid social change tensions rise. Wars are only symptoms of some underlying social problem (or several). Once we deal with that = no war. But most often wars are the result of social problems that persist precisely because they are impossible to fix easily.

I think comparing various "religious" wars as far as savagery is concerned is missing the forest for all the trees. The numbers mean nothing relevant.

edit: historically the catholic popes have been extraordinarily down to earth and skilled at realpolitik. Actually... same goes for the Caliphs. And let's not forget Mohammed. That's a religious man who could think on his feet updating, "the word of God", to suit his practical and worldly needs as needed.

If there's one thing "successful" religion has in common it's the willingness to compromise when necessary. Intransigent religious leaders tend to get replaced.

Try poverty: The move to support the poor Christ https://books.google.com/books?id=q...AF#v=onepage&q=crusades about poverty&f=false

I think each Crusade needs to be picked apart separately. They were all very different. The first one is remarkable in that pope Urban grossly underestimated how many Christians would rally to his banner. Which of course was a disaster since troops need to get fed and the Byzantinians couldn't plan for it nor could afford it once they arrived. So Urban went from expecting to get rewarded to being slapped with a massive fine (which they didn't pay).

 

[KeepTalking]

Par for the course for xenophobes. Your posts are another great example of what it means to be terribly afraid of otherness.

It's Ms Greening that seems "to be terribly afraid of the otherness".

Actually, I fail to see how Ms Greening's concern could be construed as being "terribly afraid of otherness" (what ever than means) or xenophobic.

You lose credibility with each and every post you make. Directly contradicting yourself certainly does not help.

Nonsense.

Please explain how these two statements do not directly contradict each other:

It's Ms Greening that seems "to be terribly afraid of the otherness".

I fail to see how Ms Greening's concern could be construed as being "terribly afraid of otherness"

Actually, I fail to see how Ms Greening's concern could be construed as being "terribly afraid of otherness"

You were trying to attribute Ms Greening's "fear of otherness" directly to me which I am having none of.

How in the world could I attribute her xenophobia to you, when there is no chance whatsoever that she even knows you exist?

 

[TSwizzle]

How in the world could I attribute her xenophobia to you,

How is her statement/concerns xenophobic ?

 

[KeepTalking]

Par for the course for xenophobes. Your posts are another great example of what it means to be terribly afraid of otherness.

It's Ms Greening that seems "to be terribly afraid of the otherness".

How in the world could I attribute her xenophobia to you,

How is her statement/concerns xenophobic ?

Because it exhibits fear of people from other countries, specifically those from countries with a Muslim majority.

How is it that you have both agreed and disagreed with my statement that this is the case?

Also, please explain how you think I have attributed her perceived xenophobia to you.

 

[TSwizzle]

Because it exhibits fear of people from other countries, specifically those from countries with a Muslim majority.

Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary and equalities minister said the advice had ‘no place’ in modern Britain branding it ‘disgraceful. It has no place in Britain and is contrary to our British values and I think the Blackburn Muslim Association should very clearly and publicly withdraw those comments.’

I think it exhibits a concern that muslim women are getting bad advice, no ?

 

[KeepTalking]

Because it exhibits fear of people from other countries, specifically those from countries with a Muslim majority.

Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary and equalities minister said the advice had ‘no place’ in modern Britain branding it ‘disgraceful. It has no place in Britain and is contrary to our British values and I think the Blackburn Muslim Association should very clearly and publicly withdraw those comments.’

I think it exhibits a concern that muslim women are getting bad advice, no ?

Then why did you say the following?

It's Ms Greening that seems "to be terribly afraid of the otherness".

 

[TSwizzle]

Then why did you say the following?

Explained earlier. If you don't like the explanation, that's too bad, move on.

 

[KeepTalking]

Then why did you say the following?

Explained earlier. If you don't like the explanation, that's too bad, move on.

I'm not sure you did, I certainly didn't notice it. Regardless, if you really did explain it, then apply that explanation to my contention as well (since you were agreeing with me at that point), and it's all good.

 

[angelo]

Many here are saying Islam is not a disaster if it took hold of non muslim majority countries.
It would be for many reasons.