Quote:


I think it's more of a show of face to America. After being destroyed in WWII, Germany had to act as America demanded it act. If the US is no longer in it's current position, then Germany probably wouldn't be too worried about the Zionists.

Quote:


I think Jews would prefer safe passage out than destruction at their own hand. If they're given no choice, then yes they might do something like they did in Masada, but if they're offered safe passage back to their original countries, I'm sure they'd accept it.

Quote:


Practising Christians generally read the Bible in it's entirety, and are aware of the practises and customs and beliefs of the Israelites. I'm sure they must know that a lot of them are very similar to Islamic custom/belief.

Quote:


If you're talking about states, then really what right do you have to enforce your ideology of secularism in Muslim countries? Isn't the West complaining that Muslims want to enforce their ideology onto you? When it facts the exact opposite, you're fighting wars to enforce your ideology onto us. We don't want secularism, simple.

Quote:


So why do they keep electing Islamist-leaning governments? And why does the military keep overthrowing them? The secularists are actually a very small but vocal minority. They just so happen to have full control of the military.

Quote:


Since there's no such concept as a clergy in Islam, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense.

Quote:


Undoubtedly there are some who do. But they are a very tiny minority, and they only really allow it in places like Palestine, where the occupation force and the civilian population are the exact same entity. They use the rulings from when Muhammad (pbuh) used the mangonel to beseige cities that contained military and civilian populations.

The nature of warfare today means that civilians are more likely to be casualties, this is a natural consequence of militaries that just fly around dropping explosives incidiscrminately on populated areas. Islam does not prefer this type of battle, but it's unlikely the invading forces in Iraq for instance will agree to a fair fist fight or a duel of sabres.

Just because Western leaders make apologies and say "It was regrettable" or "there's always going to be collateral damage" etc. doesn't mean they didn't carry out the action knowing it would happen, and thereby they condone it. Islam does not condone it, and so far I've only seen Muslim groups resort to it out of desperation. Like in Palestine, they resisted the occupation conventionally for about 30-40 years before the first suicide bomber was used. Do you think they should just keep suffering in camps for another 30-40 years? It's still a terrible tragedy that they have to resort to that, and I don't think a single Muslim really supports or is happy about it, but the world has abandoned and betrayed them.

Quote:


I don't think he's ever stated that. Sounds like media sensationalism.

Quote:


Most Hezbollah actions are carried out in the deserts of Southern Lebanon, not from populated areas. Gaza I could accept, but Lebanon, they don't. Doesn't stop the Zionists from bombing civilians, even in UN shelters...

I noticed you completely missed out the part about Israel not being subject to the IAEA, why?

Quote:


I jest you not. This is the same reasonable solution offered by Salahudin after he ended the last 99 years of Western-imposed occupation. Those who wish for safe passage back to their original lands shall be guaranteed it. Those who don't, are free to remain and live peacefully among us.

Certainly much nicer than what the Europeans offered to us when they took al-Andalus. Conversion or a BBQ...

Quote:


No. That was never an Islamic suggestion, it was Arab nationalist propaganda, and merely echoed that which was actually carried out by the Zionists.

Quote:


Well Muslims entered Australia with the consent of the government, as well as many of us being anglo-converts. Bit different. If  you'd used the example of the Aborigines, it might be a little more relevant.

Quote:


Since I don't consider Iran to be a valid implementation of the Islamic ideology, it's irrelevant what process they use. their entire system is full of nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

Quote:


But it's nothing to do with Islam. It's an issue of a Zionist state, and an international body. I think perhaps you won't answer it because you know it's a very obvious contradiction?

Quote:


Actually the Catholics never really ruled Spain prior to the Muslims, so they couldn't re-take it. It was ruled by the Arian Goths, who practised a purely monotheistic version of Christianity that predates the trinitarian polytheistic variety. And they actually invited the Muslims into Spain. Muslims were carried into Spain by Christian boats, surely that's not considered an invasion force.

Quote:
]

Christians only ruled those areas for a very short period of time, surely a lot less time than what Muslims ruled al-Andalus.

Quote:


All the result of pre-emptive strikes and defensive manouveres.

Quote:


Prior to Islam Arabs inhabited not only the Arabian peninsula but also most of souther Iraq, Jordan and Palestine, and even as far up as Syria. The Ghassanids for instance were an Arabic people who had lived in the Levant for centuries prior to the arrival of Islam.

Quote:


Liberation from life... Tell it to the middle eastern Christians and Jews who were slaughtered alongside the Muslims. It was nothing but a poor attempt by Europeans to  counteract the growing 'threat' of  Islam, and to escape their own squalor at home in Europe. It's a known fact that the Europeans first learnt how to bathe with soap and many other fine aspects of civilisation during their 99 years in the middle of the MUSLIM lands.

Quote:


What a load of nonsense. Why didn't they do it in the 7th. century then? At least Christians were allowed to live in Muslim lands, no Muslims were even permitted to live in Christian lands, Muslims were either expelled, forced to convert or executed, simple. If anyone had reason to invade the other, it was Muslims.

Quote:


They'd already desecrated it by turning it into a church anyway. It's a known fact that on most occasions Salahudin (May God be well pleased with him) fought against the Crusaders, he practised moderation and permitted them either safe passage or disarmament and safe settlement amongst the Muslims, after the end of hostilities. Muhammad al-Fatih (May God be well pleased with him) also did the same when he took Constantinople, what did they threaten to destroy there? Their own churches perhaps?

Anyway, when we compare it with the capture of the cities of al-Andalus centuries later, it's quite obvious who the barbarians and who the civilised people were. Conversion or the fiery stake.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 2:10pm:


That is a neat piece of subtle distortion (you probably thought) yet it is  glaringly dishonest.  

Quote:


Indeed.

Quote:


They were invited in a mercenary force, as  muscle, not to rule.

If this is how your mind turns then you must have no objection to the 'crusader armies'  currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they are also there by the invitation of the elected governments of these countries. And they will leave when asked by these elected governments.

By contrast, the Mulism of Spain (and of everywhere else, ever) were and are NOT familiar with the meaning of 'thank you and good-bye'.

Islam does not believe it when it is asked to leave. It gets offended if it is not welcome. In fact, Islam has absolutely cornered the market of 'being offended'. That is one of its most offensive and mendacious traits.

Soren !!!
You get a 10/10 for a new word !!
mendacious - excellent. i have not seen it before.
Had to look it up - love it.
Its mendaciousness obstificates its "hidden" message.

Abu the Catholic Roman Empire ruled spain long before muslims. Spain remained vastly catholic after that.