Group 'claims' N Ireland attack

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images//2009/3/8/200938191259392734_5.jpg
The police said the attackers shot some of the victims at close range [AFP]

A dissident Irish republican group has reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack on an army base in Northern Ireland that killed two soldiers and left four other people injured.

The Sunday Tribune newspaper said that one of its reporters received a telephone call from a purported spokesman of the Real IRA, which says it is fighting to end British rule in the province.

Suzanne Breen, the chief Northern Ireland reporter for the Sunday Tribune, said that the spokesman used a codeword to verify he was from the group before defending Saturday's attack.

The attackers opened fire on a group of British soldiers as they collected pizzas outside the headquarters of the Royal Engineers in Northern Ireland at Massereene, northwest of Belfast.

Two of those wounded were pizza delivery men.

Breen said the Real IRA spokesman decribed the pizza delivery men as "collaborators with British rule".

Dissident groups

Jonathan Moore, a Northern Ireland expert at London Metropolitan University, told Al Jazeera that the Real IRA, which carried out a bombing in the town of Omagh in 1998 killing 29 people, were the most likely group to have carried out the attack.

Timeline: N Ireland unrest


• August, 1969: A Catholic civil rights movement escalates into rioting in Derry and Belfast. UK troops return to N Ireland.
  
  
• March, 1972: N Ireland government is suspended and direct rule imposed from London.
  
  
• 1974: Irish Republican Army (IRA) launches bombing campaign in Ireland and on the British mainland.
  
  
• April, 1998: Good Friday Agreement is signed, ending twenty-four years of violence in which 3,000 people were killed.
  
  
• March, 2007: Power-sharing government agreed with devolved power from London.
  
  
• July, 2007: UK troops begin withdrawal.

"There are a great number of small dissident republican groups in Northern Ireland, the Real IRA are the most significant," he said.

"Since the mainstream provisional IRA gave up its arms, all kinds of small groups, many of them very locally based, have come into existence and we have had splits and further splits which mean that any kind of control becomes more difficult."

The Real IRA split from the provisional IRA after a peace accord in 1998 ended 30 years of violence between those who wanted a united Ireland and those who supported British rule over the province.

Leaders from both sides of the political spectrum have condemned the attack and vowed that it would not harm the power-sharing government which came to power in 2007.

"Their intention is to bring British soldiers back onto the streets. They want to destroy the progress of recent times and to plunge Ireland back into conflict," Gerry Adams, president of the Sinn Fein party which led opposition to British rule, said.

"Our responsibility is to defend the peace process and the progress that has been made to achieving national and democratic rights," he said in a statement.

Peter Robinson, the first minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, urged pro-British unionists not to retaliate against the Catholic community.

"Can I urge all of those who may be angry within the unionist community ... this is a matter to be left entirely with the police and the authorities," he said.

Peace process

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said that the killings would not stop the peace process in the province from moving forward.

"I can assure you that we will bring these people to justice," he said.

"No murderer will be able to derail a peace process that has the support of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland and we will step up our efforts to make the peace process one that lasts and endures."

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images//2009/3/8/2009382327177734_3.jpg

Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, also condemned the attack, saying: "A tiny group of evil people cannot and will not undermine the will of the people ... to live in peace together."

Derek Williamson, the police chief superintendent who is leading the hunt for the attackers, said that the six victims were believed to have been wounded during the initial volley of bullets before some were shot again at close range.

The attackers' vehicle was later found in the nearby town of Randalstown.

'Criminal' attack

Shane Greer, a Northern Ireland political analyst, described the attack as a criminal act.

"The last time a British soldier was murdered in Northern Ireland by terrorist forces was 1997," he told Al Jazeera.

"We shouldn't elevate this beyond what it is. It is an act of criminal barbarism. These people will in no way derail the peace process in Northern Ireland."

Last week, Hugh Orde, Northern Ireland's police chief, warned of possible attacks by republican paramilitaries.

Northern Ireland endured three decades of civil unrest known as the Troubles in which around 3,000 people were killed.

Paramilitary attacks in Northern Ireland are now relatively rare but the last 18 months have seen an upsurge in violent activity from republican paramilitaries opposed to the peace process.

Source: al-Jazeera

And, what has their actions to do with them being christians ?
If indeed they are

What bible quote did they screech as they attacked ?

NONE

Irrelevant, they're one group of Christians murdering another.

I don't see too many protestant or orthodox members amongst their ranks. They are a Christian militant group based on their belonging to a certain sect of Christianity (catholics), and they're fighting another sect of Christianity (protestants).

The fact they probably don't quote the Bible so much is probably just more to do with the fact Christians are much less religiously devoted overall than other religions, especially in Western Europe, so of course their extremist religious groups don't use as much religious symbolism, that's irrelevant though.

Anyway here's some images relating to the conflict, and if you ask me, some of them look just a little related to Christianity... maybe I'm just imagining it though...

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/murloy1.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/murloy7r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/murloy9r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/shankill/shankillmural2r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/shankill/shankillmural7r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/shankill/shankillmural8r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/posters/loyalist/poster64r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/posters/unionist/poster92r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/bibdbs/murals/plate106a.gif

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/posters/republican/poster73r.jpg

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/posters/republican/poster70r.jpg

So, they don't/can't quote any biblical instruction to support their blood violence ?

well, that's pretty relevant, isn't it ?

"...For God and Ulster..."

Says it all mate. So God is even before their nationalist sentiments.

They are killing in the name of God, your God, the Christian God... aren't you a protestant also? So even your very same sect. Perhaps you fund them? Perhaps some of the donation money you give each sunday actually goes to help them arm up?

You bloody Christians shouldn't be allowed into this country!!

Everytime I drive past the "Loyal Organge Club" near my house, I wonder why these bloody Christian militants have to bring their religious-warring symbolism here??

abu - hahahahah

still no quotes from the bible supporting them ?
or actions from their supposed spiritual leader of that sort of behaviour ?

thought not, well, knew not

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/09/northern-ireland-shootings

Quote:

Politicians and communities from across the religious divide united yesterday in condemnation of dissident republican paramilitaries who shot dead two British soldiers outside their barracks near Antrim hours before their regiment was due to leave the province for a tour of duty in Afghanistan. In a historic moment for Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness last night backed the police manhunt and denounced the attackers.

There is obvious difference between Christians who are readily condemned killers and muslims who do not.

particularily good to see Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness supporting law and order.

"Christian militants kill U.K soldiers"


abu,

'Jesus made them do it.',  .....did he?????       :D



John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


Matthew 26:51
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52  Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?



".....Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."



abu,

Strange isn't it???

How is it that 'Gabriel' didn't reveal this gem of knowledge to 'the last prophet of God' [Muhammad]?

I didn't find this verse anywhere in the Koran.         :o



+++++++




An ISLAMIC cleric tells the truth, about the use of terror [the sword].....

Question:
Was Islam spread by the sword?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
.....Allaah sent him – meaning the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – with the guiding Book and the conquering sword, ahead of the Hour, so that Allaah alone would be worshipped with no partner or associate, and his provision was placed beneath the shade of his sword and spear. Allaah has established the religion of Islam with proof and evidence, and with the sword and spear, both together and inseparable.
This is some of the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The evidence clearly indicates that the sword is one of the most important means that led to the spread of Islam.
.....If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? Of mere words spoken on the tongue?
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/43087

Quote:

".....Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

It's all empty rhetoric though isn't it.

You don't honestly believe in this, because if you did, you'd be opposing the U.S & Australian use of the "sword" in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other uses of the "sword" they've engaged in over the past few decades. But you don't, because you support it, and the doctrine of "A just war" has a long history in Christianity. So it's all good and well to claim to be all peaceful, now it's just the *practise* part you need to learn.

And I'm sure... both Protestants and Catholics in in Ireland, believe they've been fighting a "Just war" against the other. Just like Muslim militias believe they're fighting just wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few people actually goto war thinking they're fighting an "unjust war".

This isn't about Christians, or even Catholics v non-Catholics.

It is about those loyal to Ireland v those loyal to Britain.

There have been plenty of nationalist Protestants.

Also, abu, that orange club you drive past, it is a freemasonry linked society.

This is nothing like a jihad. Civilian casualties are not encouraged.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 9^th, 2009 at 3:16pm:

particularily good to see Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness supporting law and order.

Do you have any inkling as to the organised crime syndicates in Northern Ireland and who run them?  ::)

easel,

It's people fighting war based on their religious loyalties.

Even though there might be some who side with the other, the main division line is Catholic and Protestant, and the Protestants quite clearly use a lot of religious symbolism and slogans in their paramilitary organisations.

And the Catholic Irish have fought for their faith almost since the rise of English Protestantism. Attending Mass was until recently considered not only a religious obligation but also an act of defiant patriotism.

It's not religious.

It is people who consider themselves Irish and people who consider themselves English.

The fact that they often have a common religion in mind is irrelevant.

There are non-Catholic Christians who consider themselves Irish and not English, living in that part of the world.

FACT.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

And the Catholic Irish have fought for their faith almost since the rise of English Protestantism. Attending Mass was until recently considered not only a religious obligation but also an act of defiant patriotism.

What do you know about Halloween?

It's nationalism not bloody religious crap.

It's not about faith. It is about Irish people being mistreated, having their lands stolen, persecuted, starved, underpaid, losing self determination, amongst many other things, thanks to the English.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 9^th, 2009 at 2:02pm:

"...For God and Ulster..." Says it all mate. So God is even before their nationalist sentiments. They are killing in the name of God, your God, the Christian God... aren't you a protestant also? So even your very same sect. Perhaps you fund them? Perhaps some of the donation money you give each sunday actually goes to help them arm up? You bloody Christians shouldn't be allowed into this country!! Everytime I drive past the "Loyal Organge Club" near my house, I wonder why these bloody Christian militants have to bring their religious-warring symbolism here??

It's a fight over land which happens to be between two groups of difference race and religious identity. The war is not being fought for the global christian jihad, unlike the war of jihad for Islam. Their goal (even though the methods are deplorable and they should be strung up and shot) is to get Britain out of Ireland. Not get all people of other religions out of the whole world, and impose catholic law on the whole world.

That's why using the Real IRA as an analogy for the global jihad, is ridiculous.

The Real IRA, again, need to die. All of them for what they do. But their aims and reasoning have nothing to do with the core views of the religion. Nor do they claim it to be. Whereas jihadis say, WE DO THIS FOR ALLAH!

Brits redeployed SRR before Irish started fighting back.

Ironic Calanen that you write RIRA need to die.

Whoever it is fighting in that part of the world compare it to, say, Australia getting swamped by Muslims and Aussies fighting back with guerrilla tactics because it is the only means available.

In that situation would (what you would consider to be) Aussie Patriots deserve to die, all of them for what they do?

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos/belfast/murloy7r.jpg


Quote:

It's nationalism not bloody religious crap.

easel, read the small sign on the right.

"Our faith and our nationality".

You can claim to you're blue in the face it's not about religion just nationalism, but they themselves say it's about both.

Calanen,


Quote:

It's a fight over land which happens to be between two groups of difference race and religious identity.

Ahhh, like Palestine/Israel you mean?


Quote:

The war is not being fought for the global christian jihad, unlike the war of jihad for Islam. Their goal (even though the methods are deplorable and they should be strung up and shot) is to get Britain out of Ireland. Not get all people of other religions out of the whole world, and impose catholic law on the whole world.

The goals of many diferent groups in many different conflicts differ. Hamas for instance want to establish a Palestinian state only. Most Iraqi insurgent groups want to liberate Iraq only. I know you've got this paranoid conspiracy going that all Muslims are out or world domination, and to subjugate you into dhimmitude, but it's just a fantasy. Yes there are a few groups who are working towards such things, just as there's groups amongst the West who seek to bring the rest of the world under their influence, this is nothing new, and certainly not unique to Islam. And in fact those Muslim groups working for these kinds of aims are fighting those superpowers who've tried to assert that kind of influence also.

abu - you still have not given the quote/s from the bible these people use to justify their actions .
Or their spiritual leader that they follow

do they go around targetting nonchristians ?
Do they put clips of executions on the net, terrorisiing everyone else ?
Do they seek a world under ira control ?

but, thanks for your honesty
Quote:

.....and to subjugate you into dhimmitude, but it's just a fantasy. Yes there are a few groups who are working towards such things........

I'll argue it until I'm pink in the face.

It's not about religion.

'our country our faith'

They consider their country england. They consider their faith Church of england. It's english wanting to keep control of Ireland.

The Palestine struggle was easier to support when it didn't become Islamic and was nationalist.

easel wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 2:00pm:

Brits redeployed SRR before Irish started fighting back. Ironic Calanen that you write RIRA need to die. Whoever it is fighting in that part of the world compare it to, say, Australia getting swamped by Muslims and Aussies fighting back with guerrilla tactics because it is the only means available. In that situation would (what you would consider to be) Aussie Patriots deserve to die, all of them for what they do?

Hypotheticals about Australia being swamped with muslims have nothing to do with the very complex problem of Northern Ireland.

Terrorism as a tactic is NOT the only means available. Look at Ghandi and India? And also, the IRA and Sinn Fein signed a peace treaty, so the Real IRA doesn't get to just go and blow people up in violation of that.

That IED they made was 130kgs in a car, that is enormous. It was parked near a school. It didn't go off, but it could have.

You can make all the arguments you want about how the Real IRA are just proud patriots. But they are murdering thugs that don't give a toss about anyone, and will blow a bomb up in the middle of civilians if they think it will do them any good. Like the Omagh bombing.

easel wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 1:51pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 1:44pm: And the Catholic Irish have fought for their faith almost since the rise of English Protestantism. Attending Mass was until recently considered not only a religious obligation but also an act of defiant patriotism. What do you know about Halloween? It's nationalism not bloody religious crap. It's not about faith. It is about Irish people being mistreated, having their lands stolen, persecuted, starved, underpaid, losing self determination, amongst many other things, thanks to the English.

And what do you know about cultural memory?

Sure its about nationalism, but Irish cultural memory stretches back to Cromwell's new model army and his murderous attempt to decatholicise Ireland... The Irish (almost) lost their language but they fought for the faith of their fathers and the struggle has had a religious dimension ever since.

However this latest attack has been condemned on both sides and has little chance of derailing the peace process, because the survival of Irish identity no longer depends on religion and armed struggle to survive.

Calanen -
Quote:

You can make all the arguments you want about how the Real IRA are just proud patriots. But they are murdering thugs that don't give a toss about anyone, and will blow a bomb up in the middle of civilians if they think it will do them any good. Like the Omagh bombing.

When anyone uses violence to "further a cause", to me the cause loses a LOT of credit.

Quote:

Hypotheticals about Australia being swamped with muslims...

Hypothetical? I thought it was well under way?

Calanen wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 8:31pm:

Hypotheticals about Australia being swamped with muslims have nothing to do with the very complex problem of Northern Ireland. Terrorism as a tactic is NOT the only means available. Look at Ghandi and India? And also, the IRA and Sinn Fein signed a peace treaty, so the Real IRA doesn't get to just go and blow people up in violation of that. That IED they made was 130kgs in a car, that is enormous. It was parked near a school. It didn't go off, but it could have. You can make all the arguments you want about how the Real IRA are just proud patriots. But they are murdering thugs that don't give a toss about anyone, and will blow a bomb up in the middle of civilians if they think it will do them any good. Like the Omagh bombing.

Yeah Sinn Fein and the PIRA sold out and bent over to the English system. As far as I am aware, it was only the PIRA that signed on.

I reckon if they wanted the IED to go off it would have. Ghandi and India isn't the same. It is a closer comparison when comparing a swamping of Muslims coming to Australia.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 8:46pm:

When anyone uses violence to "further a cause", to me the cause loses a LOT of credit.

What if nothing else works?

They didn't have a choice in the matter, anyway.

The ‘look a Gandhi’ argument is always a good laugh. As if the British abandoned the jewel in the crown of the Empire because a little peacenik wrapped in a sheet told them to leave. It was either leave while the getting was good or risk being crushed by a probable war of independence or at least massive armed struggle... And that following on from WW2.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 1:04pm:

Quote: ".....Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." It's all empty rhetoric though isn't it. You don't honestly believe in this, because if you did, you'd be opposing the U.S & Australian use of the "sword" in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other uses of the "sword" they've engaged in over the past few decades. But you don't, because you support it, and the doctrine of "A just war" has a long history in Christianity. So it's all good and well to claim to be all peaceful, now it's just the *practise* part you need to learn. And I'm sure... both Protestants and Catholics in in Ireland, believe they've been fighting a "Just war" against the other. Just like Muslim militias believe they're fighting just wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few people actually goto war thinking they're fighting an "unjust war".

abu,

I don't agree with your proposition made here.

BUT....
Even if 'Christian' nations felt justified in going to war, which they sometimes do, there is no comparison between the examples of [the consequences of] wars waged by 'Christian' nations, and the consequences of those wars which have been waged by Allah's finest.




And it could be argued that all of the recent wars conducted by 'Christian' nations, have been conducted by the 'secular state(s)' [without any religious motives], and not by a religious state.

Take WWI & WWII, waged by 'Christian' nations.

The 'Christian' allied nations may have felt aggrieved enough to fight "A just war", but their conduct as victors, vindicates our claim that our 'Christian' culture, while not perfect, is not oppressive.

In the example of WWII, when the 'Christian' nations, led by the USA and Britain eventually prevailed, the have not stayed as occupiers of either Germany, or Japan.

And while it could be argued that Germany was a 'Christian' nation, Japan certainly was not.

Although the USA, as the conqueror, imposed political reforms on Japan, the USA did not seek to destroy the cultural mores of the Japanese culture, and did not seek to impose 'Christianity' upon Japan.

Today, Germany & Japan, are self governing, homogeneous states, that have largely retained all of their base culture, though these nations were both occupied by the 'Christian' allies after their defeat in WWII.

'Christian' nations are not totalitarian and tyranical.






abu,

Where is the example of ISLAM as benevolent victors?

There is no example.

ISLAMS doctrines, teach the supremacism of ISLAM - NOTHING MORE.

History demonstrates, ISLAMISTS have always been oppressive, cruel, victors [if you dismiss the self aggrandising historical accounts of the muslims themselves!].

ISLAM is a mono-culture, which imposes its own values upon all subjugated people.

The touted 'benevolence' of ISLAM is a lie.

ISLAM is a vicious [un-reformable] political tyranny, which has always murdered its critics, and it continues that practice even today.

In truth, ISLAM is an example political fascism,
....a fascism hiding behind a 'veil', portraying itself as a religion.





Google,
examples critics of muhammad assassinated
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ei=9vK2Sd6OK4mQtQOK5pXmCA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=examples+critics+of+muhammad+assassinated&spell=1




Developing this theme, the criticism, and self-criticism, of ISLAM......

The Koran states...... that Mohammed is a wonderful example for all muslims to follow.
.....[that fact that Mohammed himself received this 'revelation' from Allah, about his own virtue, is worth considering]

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.021




And today, muslims are encouraged to emulate Mohammed's life values and actions.

Yet, the reality is, that Mohammed was a ruthless, **deceptive**, 7th century warlord, a slave-trader, a mass murderer, a man who readily assassinated several of his critics.

Example....
Deception, the assassination of a critic, Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf....

In this Hadith, Muhammad himself sets the example, for the murder of Allah's 'enemies' [Muhammad's critics!],

"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who *has hurt Allah* and His Apostle?"....."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

This was a straight out *political* assassination!

We could also ask, how could a mere man, Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf [as stated in the Hadith], have *hurt* Allah, who is supposedly an all powerful god?

Well, isn't Allah all powerful?

Or is ISLAM just a mafia gang of malcontent's, who hate their critics - to death ?





And many, many, muslims in the world today, willingly follow Mohammed's example - of murdering [ISLAM's] critics....


http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
London cartoon protests.




http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest12.jpg
Muslims, teaching their children, ISLAMIC values [London]

Quote:

In the example of WWII, when the 'Christian' nations, led by the USA and Britain eventually prevailed, the have not stayed as occupiers of either Germany, or Japan

Japan was occupied after WWII, some parts of it physically up until 1971, and even today over 47.000 U.S troops still remain in Japan (more than in Afghanistan), but it's not occupied... of course not... shhhh don't tell anyone anyway.

As for Germany:


Quote:

The Occupation Statute of Germany (German: Besatzungsstatut) of April 10, 1949 specified the roles and responsabilities of the newly created German government and the Allied High Commission in West Germany. It was drawn up by American, British, and French representatives and was in rule until the Treaties of Paris (1954) came into power on May 5, 1955. The statute's authors were United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson, British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ernest Bevin, and the French Prime Minister Robert Schuman, who deliberated for eight days in intensive conferences in Washington, DC. It gave Germany conditional sovereignty and admitted it into the Marshall Plan organization as an equal partner. The Allies retained the right to keep occupational forces in the country and complete control over disarmament, demilitarization, related fields of scientific research, reparations, the Ruhr, decartelization, displaced persons and refugees, protection, prestige and security of the occupying forces, foreign affairs, and foreign trade and exchange

Not occupied either... of course not.

Well not after 1990 (officially anyway):


Quote:

The Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany (or the Two Plus Four Agreement)[1] was negotiated in 1990 between the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the German Democratic Republic (GDR), and the Four Powers which occupied Germany at the end of World War II in Europe: France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union (USSR).

You have to remember that Aboo is a biased ignorant muslim who needs to blame others to justify and vindicate his beliefs and the murderers from his religion.

This is not the same thing as Islamic Jihad.

This is Christian vs Christian for starters.  Quite happy to concede they are lunatic Christians.  But that doesn't mean they are doing it for their religion.  Obviously they are not since both sides have the same religion.

They are from different churches though.  But the main issue is Nationalism.  It just happens to be that one nation and the other have different churches.

There is no global support for them from Christianity and they cannot use the bible or quotes from it to support or justify their behaviour.

So Aboo...  nice try but you are barking up the wrong tree.

Quote:

Where is the example of ISLAM as benevolent victors?

Do you call what the allies did to Dresden 'benevolent'? Give me a break.

As for benevolent Islamic conquests, let's start with Makkah. After years of oppression, torture, expulsion and confiscation of their possessions, the Muslims conquered Makkah peacefully, and forgave all the bitterest enemies of Islam, most of whom embraced Islam upon seeing it's mercy and forgiving spirit.

How about Jerusalem? Constantinople? How about Salah'ud-deen's benevolence towards the Christians? This is well known throughout Europe.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 10:26am:

Quote: In the example of WWII, when the 'Christian' nations, led by the USA and Britain eventually prevailed, the have not stayed as occupiers of either Germany, or Japan Japan was occupied after WWII, some parts of it physically up until 1971, and even today over 47.000 U.S troops still remain in Japan (more than in Afghanistan), but it's not occupied... of course not... shhhh don't tell anyone anyway.

abu,

Of course you are correct.
/sarc off



And still today, every time the US ambassador in Japan has an audience with the Japanese emperor, the Japanese emperor kneels, and bows down to the ground before his master.

And Japan still today, sends tribute [Jizya] in gold to the USA, just so the USA won't be provoked to nuke Japan again.
/sarc off




"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029






abu,

Your logic, in the arguments you present, is always so obtuse.


Dictionary,
obtuse = =
1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
2 (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
3 not sharp-pointed or sharp-edged; blunt.

ha ha ha...  shot down in flames, can't form an argument.

hey aboo, I bet there are blonde haired people on either side...  why don't you claim Blonde militants kill..  rotflmao  :D :D :D

Quote:

There is no global support for them from Christianity...

I see..


Quote:

The IRA have had contacts with foreign governments and other illegal armed organisations. Libya has been the biggest single supplier of arms and funds to the IRA, donating large amounts (three shipments of arms in the early 1970s and another three in the mid 1980s, the latter reputedly enough to arm two regular infantry battalions) of both in the early 1970s and mid 1980s.[81] The IRA has also received weapons and logistical support from Irish Americans in the United States, especially the NORAID group. Apart from the Libyan aid, this has been the main source of overseas IRA support. American support has been weakened by the War against Terrorism, and the fallout from the events of 11 September 2001.[82][83] In the United States in November 1982, five men were acquitted of smuggling arms to the IRA after they revealed the Central Intelligence Agency had approved the shipment (although the CIA officially denied this).[84] There are allegations of contact with the East German Stasi, based on the testimony of a Soviet defector to British intelligence Vasili Mitrokhin. Mitrokhin revealed that although the Soviet KGB gave some weapons to the Marxist Official IRA, it had little sympathy with the Provisionals.[85] The IRA has received some training and support from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In 1977, the Provisionals received a 'sizable' arms shipment from the PLO, including small arms, rocket launchers and explosives, but this was intercepted at Antwerp after the Israeli intelligence alerted its European counterparts [86]. In the 1980s, the Provisionals also had some contact with Hezbollah. The IRA has been alleged to have had a co-operative relationship with Basque militant group ETA since the early 1970s. In 1973 it was accused of providing explosives for the assassination of Luis Carrero Blanco in Madrid.[87] In the 1970s, the ETA also exchanged a quntity of handguns for training in explosives with the IRA [88]. In addition, the leaders of the political wings of the respective Irish Republican and Basque separatist movements have exchanged visits on several occasions to express solidarity with each others' cause [89]. Prominent former IRA prisoners such as Brendan McFarlane and Brendan Hughes have campaigned for the release of ETA prisoners.[90][91] In May 1996, the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia's internal security service, publicly accused Estonia of arms smuggling, and claimed that the IRA had contacted representatives of Estonia's volunteer defense force, Kaitseliit, and some non-government groups to buy weapons.[92][93] In 2001 three Irish men who became known as the Colombia Three were arrested after allegedly training Colombian guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in bomb making and urban warfare techniques. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations in its report of 24 April 2002 concluded "Neither committee investigators nor the Colombians can find credible explanations for the increased, more sophisticated capacity for these specific terror tactics now being employed by the FARC, other than IRA training".

So why, after 65 years, do they still have more troops stationed there than they do in Afghanistan? A country they've been at war with for the past 8 years?

Why is Japan still not able to form it's own military? Funnily enough Germany's troop numbers are limited also (not the same as Japan's though). It's not under occupation though, of course not.

And of course, U.S occupation... oops I mean friendly-visiting-soldiers who often go around raping Japanese women do so on personal leave, not whilst stationed there occupying the country  ;D

"...The US military is investigating another allegation that a soldier sexually assaulted a woman on the southern island of Okinawa, as Washington and Tokyo strive to keep anger over crimes by US troops from damaging broader ties..."

"...Last week, a 38-year-old Marine, Tyrone Hadnott, was arrested on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old girl on Okinawa, an incident that has rekindled memories of the 1995 rape of a 12-year-old girl on the island..."

"...Four Marines at Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station are also being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman last October and could face court martial for the crime..."

Source

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 10:43am:

Quote: Where is the example of ISLAM as benevolent victors? Do you call what the allies did to Dresden 'benevolent'? Give me a break.

Errr, Dresden, err, it was war zone.

Duh.








Quote:

As for benevolent Islamic conquests, let's start with Makkah. After years of oppression, torture, expulsion and confiscation of their possessions, the Muslims conquered Makkah peacefully, and forgave all the bitterest enemies of Islam, most of whom embraced Islam upon seeing it's mercy and forgiving spirit. How about Jerusalem? Constantinople? How about Salah'ud-deen's benevolence towards the Christians? This is well known throughout Europe.

Lies.

Sorry abu, after the fact, muslim historical accounts of their own 'benevolence' towards their victims, don't qualify as credible.

Never have, never will.

"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/001.qmt.html#001.001




http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/HamasKillFatah.jpg
IF THIS IS HOW MUSLIMS TREAT OTHER MUSLIMS,
....CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW THEY TREAT 'UNBELIEVERS'???
http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/HamasKillFatah.jpg

Hamas (the party of "Islamic Resistance") parades several Palestinian
men through the neighborhood before shooting them to death in front of
their wives and children.  Afterwards, the gunmen kneel in prayer to Allah!iConstantinople?

Yes abu, i often visit that great Christian cathedral in Istanbul, Turkey.
Where Christians are still so welcome.
/sarc off

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Aya_sofya.jpg/250px-Aya_sofya.jpg
Hagia Sophia....is a former patriarchal basilica, later a mosque, now a museum in Istanbul, Turkey.
Famous in particular for its massive dome, it is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Aya_sofya.jpg/250px-Aya_sofya.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia





Secular Turkey, where Christians are always treated so well by their muslim brothers.....

Google,
christians murdered turkey
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=christians+murdered+turkey&btnG=Search&meta=

only 200k hits.




And don't get me started on the 'benevolent' ISLAMIC conquest of Jerusalem.

Like I said...  THERE IS NO GLOBAL SUPPORT FROM CHRISTIANITY.

ROTFLMAO  how pathetic even for you.   :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

Errr, Dresden, err, it was war zone.

The war was largely over, the city was packed with refugees, it was pure revenge, there was very little strategic benefit to it. Let us not forget the bombings of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, quite benevolent indeed. Hundreds of thousands of civilians instantly fried to death, real benevolent. And just as many more were bombed into oblivion during the bombing of Tokyo (Unexploded U.S. bombs were still being found and recovered in Tokyo as late as 2008).


Quote:

The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.

(Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, international lawyer and president of Genocide Watch)


Quote:

Yes abu, i often visit that great Christian cathedral in Istanbul, Turkey.

So why is it that even until this day the head of the Greek Orthodox Church is still in Constantinople?

Although there are some rumoured accounts of slaughtering after the conquest, the fact is the Ottomans were quite benevolent when they took over the city, and allowed anyone who wished to, to remain, in peace. And yes turning the church into a mosque was wrong, but I never claimed they were perfect.

Generally Muslims did not turn churches into mosques, unlike Christians, who did not leave a single mosque for instance in ALL of the Iberian peninsula, around about the same time. Nor did they leave a single Muslim actually, for that matter. When you compare Europe/Christianity, with Islam, during that same period, look at the mercy, tolerance and benevolence the Muslims had for Christians and Jews, compared to the evil tyrannical actions of the Christians. The parallel between Iberia and Anatolia is an interesting one, because it happened around the same period, and because it was the reverse, not just in the positions of the two faiths, but also in their treatment of one another.


Quote:

And don't get me started on the 'benevolent' ISLAMIC conquest of Jerusalem.

When you compare it to the Christian conquest, it was a picnic. Compare it first to the Roman conquest prior to Islam, and then to the Crusader conquest after Islam. Both European conquests of Jerusalem were extremely bloody and destructive, the Islamic conquest doesn't even compare.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 2:01pm:

Quote: Errr, Dresden, err, it was war zone. The war was largely over, the city was packed with refugees, it was pure revenge, there was very little strategic benefit to it. Let us not forget the bombings of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, quite benevolent indeed. Hundreds of thousands of civilians instantly fried to death, real benevolent. And just as many more were bombed into oblivion during the bombing of Tokyo (Unexploded U.S. bombs were still being found and recovered in Tokyo as late as 2008). [quote]The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.

(Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, international lawyer and president of Genocide Watch)


Quote:

Yes abu, i often visit that great Christian cathedral in Istanbul, Turkey.

So why is it that even until this day the head of the Greek Orthodox Church is still in Constantinople?

Although there are some rumoured accounts of slaughtering after the conquest, the fact is the Ottomans were quite benevolent when they took over the city, and allowed anyone who wished to, to remain, in peace. And yes turning the church into a mosque was wrong, but I never claimed they were perfect.

Generally Muslims did not turn churches into mosques, unlike Christians, who did not leave a single mosque for instance in ALL of the Iberian peninsula, around about the same time. Nor did they leave a single Muslim actually, for that matter. When you compare Europe/Christianity, with Islam, during that same period, look at the mercy, tolerance and benevolence the Muslims had for Christians and Jews, compared to the evil tyrannical actions of the Christians. The parallel between Iberia and Anatolia is an interesting one, because it happened around the same period, and because it was the reverse, not just in the positions of the two faiths, but also in their treatment of one another.


Quote:

And don't get me started on the 'benevolent' ISLAMIC conquest of Jerusalem.

When you compare it to the Christian conquest, it was a picnic. Compare it first to the Roman conquest prior to Islam, and then to the Crusader conquest after Islam. Both European conquests of Jerusalem were extremely bloody and destructive, the Islamic conquest doesn't even compare.[/quote]





abu,

Above is your point of view, your opinion of ISLAM.




My own point of view, my opinion of ISLAM, is expressed here.....

"Christian militants kill U.K soldiers"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236559378/27#27

In other words you agree, that Islam has a far more benevolent history than your own Christianity?

Thanks.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 7:49pm:

In other words you agree, that Islam has a far more benevolent history than your own Christianity? Thanks.

abu,

That may be your opinion.

Dream on!!!          ;D

It's the only conclusion one could draw from your failure to address my points.

But don't be down about it, just ponder it, and see if it actually fits in with what you're peddling about Islam and Christianity.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 9:20pm:

It's the only conclusion one could draw from your failure to address my points. But don't be down about it, just ponder it, and see if it actually fits in with what you're peddling about Islam and Christianity.

abu,

I study the Koran and Hadith.

I look at what muslims do in the world every day, and i read the placards which they carry in the street protests, in their host nations.






http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam1.jpg





http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/IslamicHolyWar.jpg



abu,

Its not rocket science.

Read ISLAMIC doctrine.

ISLAM is a supremacist political movement, seeking worldly political power.

more slogans and quotes by whackos like khomeini.

As long as it satisfies your 'intellect', why not.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 9:41pm:

more slogans and quotes by whackos like khomeini. As long as it satisfies your 'intellect', why not.

abu,

Exactly correct.

The Hadith is full of him [the chief whacko]....


"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196


Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.025


ISLAMIC texts, and the authorised schools of ISLAMIC jurisprudence, determine who is, and is not, a muslim.

ISLAM itself, defines who is a muslim.

And to be muslim, a muslim must accept the doctrines of ISLAM,
....which insist that it is 'legal', to

• murder anyone who will not submit to ISLAM, and
  
• murder anyone who renounces his faith [in ISLAM], and to
  
• deceive those non-muslims who are too strong [atm] to subjugate.
  

THOSE ARE FACTS.







Every real whacko, er, muslim believes he has a right to murder those, who refuse to submit to ISLAM,
....because ISLAMIC 'holy' texts sanctify such an action.

And Muhammad, er Allah, can't be wrong!


"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260


From ISLAMIC law texts....

Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER and HIS BLOOD MAY LEGALLY BE SPILLED. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_50.html#3.110

Paraphrasing the meaning...

"Whoever.....becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."







AND 'SANE' MUSLIMS ALL AGREE - KILL THE APOSTATE....

APOSTASY IN ISLAM
"Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.
The FOUR MAJOR SUNNI AND THE ONE MAJOR SHIA MADH'HAB (SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) AGREE that a sane adult male apostate must be executed......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Quote:

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."

Notice the use of the pronoun "I". Not "We" or "You". This command was purely for the Messenger (pbuh).


Quote:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."

It's the same in most countries today, including Christian countries. God then country.

What's wrong with being prepared to fight to defend your country? I would've thought most would consider it a noble cause.

Nothing untoward there, sorry.


Quote:

Every real whacko, er, muslim believes he has a right to murder those, who refuse to submit to ISLAM

Well I am a Muslim, and I don't believe I have that right. And I've never come across another Muslim who's made that claim. Sounds like a load of bollocks to me.


Quote:

AND 'SANE' MUSLIMS ALL AGREE - KILL THE APOSTATE

The Islamic texts stipulate it is the one who abandons Islam AND the community, ie. a traitor. Death penalty is quite common for treason, so again, nothing out of the ordinary.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 9:35am:

Quote: "Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...." Notice the use of the pronoun "I". Not "We" or "You". This command was purely for the Messenger (pbuh).

Mere semantics.


Dictionary,
semantics = =
1 the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
2 the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.


"Words are leaves that blow away in the wind."


abu,

Your semantics are all very well, but unfortunately for your logic,
.....the day to day actions of muslims today, demonstrate that their beliefs do not coincide with your interpretations.iQuote:

[quote]Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."

It's the same in most countries today, including Christian countries. God then country.

What's wrong with being prepared to fight to defend your country? I would've thought most would consider it a noble cause.

Nothing untoward there, sorry.
[/quote]



abu,

Again, [above] your are misrepresenting, muslim intentions.


Muslim intentions....

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/IslamicHolyWar.jpg
INTENTION OF ACTION, REVEALS SO MUCHiQuote:

[quote]Every real whacko, er, muslim believes he has a right to murder those, who refuse to submit to ISLAM

Well I am a Muslim, and I don't believe I have that right. And I've never come across another Muslim who's made that claim. Sounds like a load of bollocks to me.
[/quote]


abu,

These news reports gives the lie to your words [about muslim intent].



An ISLAMIC scholar gives advice to muslims,

Example #1,

ISLAMIC scholar being extraordinarily candid!

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims
London, Sept.8 [2007]
A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should **preach** peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, **only until** they gain enough power to engage in battle.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece



An ISLAMIC scholar gives advice to muslims,

Example #2,

Cleric preaches that violence is part of Islam
By Duncan Gardham
01/05/2007
In documents seen by The Daily Telegraph, al-Muhajiroun claimed: "Terrorism is a part of Islam" and "Allah made it obligatory to prepare and to terrify the enemy of Allah".
The article advised: "The kuffar of USA and UK are without doubt our enemy.There is no such thing as an innocent kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims. Not only is it obligatory to fight them, it is haram [forbidden] to feel sorry for them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/01/nplot901.xmli


Quote:

[quote]AND 'SANE' MUSLIMS ALL AGREE - KILL THE APOSTATE

The Islamic texts stipulate it is the one who abandons Islam AND the community, ie. a traitor. Death penalty is quite common for treason, so again, nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]


abu,

Exactly so.

Thank you.




http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
'Death to those traitors who insult ISLAM/Allah, by relinquishing their faith'.

Quote:

These news reports gives the lie to your words [about muslim intent].

Two news reports speak for 1.6 billion Muslims? I don't think so.

All they do is highlight your bigoted viewpoints.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 1:05pm:

Quote: These news reports gives the lie to your words [about muslim intent]. Two news reports speak for 1.6 billion Muslims? I don't think so. All they do is highlight your bigoted viewpoints.

abu,

You don't like the TRUTH, so when the TRUTH is exposed, it's Yadda is a 'bigot'?

That is 'rich', coming from one of Allah's finest!!!!          ;D     ;D     ;D

Dictionary,
bigot = = a person who is.....intolerant of the opinions of others.





Next you'll be calling Yadda a 'racist'?

It is just too easy for you muslims to disparage, and denigrate ppl who reveal TRUTH's about ISLAM, which you [muslims] hate being exposed.




Much better to place ppl like me into a Sharia jurisdiction, where they can be killed for 'insulting' ISLAM.

'Just wait Yadda, until the Caliphate comes here!'            ;D



Allah Akbar!              :D


Or was that, 'Inshallah'  ???               ;)

That's your 'light hearted' way of avoiding the fact that you are judging a massive amount of people based on the statements/actions of the disgruntled few?

I am not intolerant of your opinions, if I were, I wouldn't be wasting my time engaging you, I'd simply ignore you, and wait for the almighty Caliphate to clean you up.

ooooooh....everybody head for the hills, the almighty caliphate is coming!!!

RUN!!!!

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 1:50pm:

That's your 'light hearted' way of avoiding the fact that you are judging a massive amount of people based on the statements/actions of the disgruntled few? I am not intolerant of your opinions, if I were, I wouldn't be wasting my time engaging you, I'd simply ignore you, and wait for the almighty Caliphate to clean you up.

abu,

Your claim is,
".....you are judging a massive amount of people based on the statements/actions of the disgruntled few."




I claim, myself [and others] are pointing out the TRUTH.

Which muslims hate, because deep within [in your heart], you know that the TRUTH is a witness against you, before God.

When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"
Quentin Crisp

locutius wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 2:02pm:

When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?" Quentin Crisp

locutius,

'My God, is bigger than his God!!'         :P           ;D

Quote:

ooooooh....everybody head for the hills, the almighty caliphate is coming!!! RUN!!!!

If only you possessed the bare minimum of intellect to comprehend that this is precisely my point :)

Sarcasm still too subtle for you.

As I figured, you do not.
Keep at it, you might get it eventually.

the more people of the free world learn about islam the further away a caliphate is.


thanks for your teaching abu.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 6:47pm:

As I figured, you do not. Keep at it, you might get it eventually.

No, I get it. I just won't try and embarrass you anymore.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 10:43am:

Quote: Where is the example of ISLAM as benevolent victors? ....As for benevolent Islamic conquests, let's start with Makkah. After years of oppression, torture, expulsion and confiscation of their possessions, the Muslims conquered Makkah peacefully, and forgave all the bitterest enemies of Islam, most of whom embraced Islam upon seeing it's mercy and forgiving spirit. How about Jerusalem? Constantinople? How about Salah'ud-deen's benevolence towards the Christians? This is well known throughout Europe.

abu's view, of the last 1300 years of the history of mankind.

'ISLAM good.
Everybody else bad.'




For a more balanced account of the history of ISLAMIC hegemony....

abu, in this segment, i even left in....

"It would be a mistake to generalise and not to take into account that for long periods coexistence was possible between the Muslims, Christians and Jews of the Middle East...."



March 11, 2009
The silent exodus of Jewish refugees from Muslim lands

....here also is an illuminating article on the subject by Magdi Cristiano Allam [who identifies himself as a muslim],
"The Arabs Without the Jews: Roots of a Tragedy"

.....As has often happened in history, the Jews were the first victims of hatred and intolerance. All the "others" had their turn soon enough, specifically the Christians and other religious minorities, heretical and secular Muslims and finally, those Muslims who do not fit exactly into the ideological framework of the extreme nationalists and Islamists. There has not been a single instance in this murky period of our history when the Arab states have been ready to condemn the steady exodus of Christians, ethnic-religious minorities, enlightened and ordinary Muslims, while Muslims plain and simple have become the primary victims of Islamic terror.

.....saying 'enough is enough' to rampant lies and demagogy. Before the screening of the 'Silent Exodus' in the Congress Hall in Milan, a gentleman in his Seventies came up to me and said, in perfect Egyptian dialect: "I am a Jew from Alexandria. I have recently been in Tunisia and Algeria. I have to say that people there are not like us, they don't have the sense of irony that distinguishes us Egyptians." I smiled and replied that indeed, the Egyptians have a reputation as jokers. They are capable of laughing at anything, including themselves.

What struck me was the "us" - "us Egyptians": even if we were both Italian citizens, he a Jew and I a Muslim. It reminded me that just after the 1967 defeat, I discovered by complete accident that the girl I was in love with - we both were 15 - was Jewish. For me she was a girl like any other. But for the police who submitted me to intensive interrogation she was a 'spy for Israel' and I was her accomplice.

In fact 'the Silent Exodus' testifies that anti-Semitism and the pogroms against the Jews of the Middle East preceded the birth of the state of Israel and the advent of ideological pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism. It infers that hatred and violence against the Jews could originate in an ideological interpretation of the Koran and the life of the prophet Muhammed taken out of context.

It would be a mistake to generalise and not to take into account that for long periods coexistence was possible between the Muslims, Christians and Jews of the Middle East, at a time when in Europe the Catholic Inquisition was repressing the Jews and when the Nazi Holocaust was trying to exterminate them. In the same way, one cannot ignore Israel's responsibility together with Arab leaders in the emergence of the drama of millions of Palestinian refugees and the unresolved question of a Palestinian state.
The fact remains that of the million Jews who at the end of 1945 were an integral part of the Arab population, only 5,000 remain. These Arab Jews, expelled or who fled at a moment's notice, have become an integral part of the Israeli population. They continue to represent a human injustice and an historical tragedy.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025195.php