abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:


But it is NOT irrelevant. It's relavance is the basis of your argument. He made no such claim and far more importantly, no third party/nation/political system or ideology have made a claim on his behalf. That is completely relevant.


abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:


Now you speak of disassociation rather than representative. The fact that they tried to hide it (wrongly) should give you an insight to the rightful public feeling of this and similar crimes. I will agree that there needs to be a level of scrutiny and investigation that can find and bring to justice anyone who committs similar and deliberate acts. And make them public. I can suspect things that are likely to be happening, but can't be indignant for a specific case if I have no knowledge of it.

And he IS being committed to trial. I'm not saying it has not happened but how many extremist Islamic groups or individuals are bought to trial in Muslim countries?

I am not including deaths caused by colateral damage. That is a completely separate issue.


Quote:


abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:


I got your point, but did you get mine about public global perception about Islamic groups proudly CLAIMING violent actions IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. And the silence, probably from fear of becoming a target from the same groups, of other Islamic leaders and communities.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 12:15am:


Sorry, you cannot set yourself up as the victim, not with history holding you by the scruff of the neck.

Islam has never been anything other than a conquering, enslaving, expansionist political system of tribal pagan Arabs. Its pretensions to revealed religion are naive and fairy tale-like.  The Koran and the haadiths are an unerring list of misunderstandings of and resentment towards both Jewish and Christian writing and religion by Mohammed and his followers, who have never read or digested any of the stuff they denounced and against which they set themselves up in the most vehement and bloody-minded opposition. Islam is motivated by its resentment for the rejection of Muhammed as a prophet by Christians and especially Jews, whom he set out to impress and copy.

 Indeed, Islam is inconcievable in any terms except in opposition to Judaism and Christianity. Take out of the Koran everything that is not in oppositin or in the spirit of resentment and you have nothing left that is new or an improvement on anything that went before.

Islam is as Islam does. Its history is an endless story of expansion, provocation, conquest and counter-attack. The crusades, that celebrated bit of muslim victimhood, was but a late and reluctant retaliation for decades, centuries of muslim menacing and take over of the Christian Levant and Byzantine territory.
Don't tell us that the Arabs were invited into the Byzantine Empire, into Spain, to the Balkans, to the gates of Vienna, and to India.  

Here's a bit of history to back up the above:

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Well put, don't you think?

Or try this on for size:

"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on."

And so on indeed.

Just by way of exposing extremism, you understand.

Quote:


Kush is a Persian word for mountain or peak, and is used for many other mountain ranges. When you cut and paste arguments about which you have no genuine knowledge yourself, you're likely to be shown up.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:



As if...


The earliest known use of this name - HINDU KUSH - was by the famous Arab traveller, Ibn Battuta aroundd 1334:

"Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow, for on the road there is a mountain called Hindu Kush, which means "Slayer of Indians," because the slave boys and girls who are brought from India die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the quantity of snow."

Was that the only non-fault you could find with the account of peace loving muslim influence in India?

Quote:


Mozza, got any source for it? Or just a link to jihadwatch.com maybe? I've seen plenty of other mountains in Iran named <something> kush. I've found over 291 place names in Iran alone that contain the word Kush, perhaps they all refer to Muslim slaughters of Hindus and Zoroastrians right?

James Rennel, a British geographer and surveyor wrote during his survey of the mountain range:

Quote:


There you have it from your own Western sources.

Quote:


1948 is ancient? Did you study the explusion of the Palestinians in ancient history at school did you mozza? 

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 1:21am:


Will Durant
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Will+Durant+&x=16&y=18

and

Koenraad Elst
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Koenraad%20Elst&page=1



Next time there'll be a charge for doing the research for you.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 9:50am:


Glad to see that the facts are not in dispute, only the scary identities of those who bring the news.
American? Enough said.
Eurocentric (ie not thirdworldist)  - horrific,
Oreintalists (ie got the measure of muslims just right) despicable.
Belgian? What can I say?
Right-wing - cover your eyes, children,  what?
And of course, say neofascist if you can't say islamophobe  - as you are not allowed. (I am glad you remembered what I said on another thread - the next guy who accuses anyone of islamophobia is a rotten egg.) So neofascist is the next expletive for those who do not thing Islam is a religion of... ahem... peace.