New Crusade 2 - War Against Islam

The Philipines.

 

did anyone else hear the Muslims in that video clip telling peole "Move away from the mosque?" I do not think this is as big a seal as some people think it is.

And don't this gang of Muslims look like a real threat to civilized society?

[video=youtube;eUO66d8WvCY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUO668WvCY[/video]

 

Sure. I bet the Serbs would disagree with you on that point. It's not like the Muslims are doing their part to be the religion of peace by being nice to their non-Muslim neighbors. They definitely started the hostilities in Kosovo, and I doubt that the Serbs are solely to blame in Bosnia or in Croatia. It is the Muslim invasion of Europe which has led to this centuries long battles between the Christians and Muslims in this region, so this is nothing new. Croatians also slaughter civilians and so did Kosovar Albanians. You can find Muslims burning down Christian churches on YouTube. This is nothing new here. This has been going on for hundreds of years. It doesn't matter the religion either. If there is a religious conflict around the world, most of the time it is Muslims vs someone else.

And, as far as Iraq is considered, they did attack us first. They attacked our planes on a regular basis and tried to assasinate a former president. That is an act of war. The afgans failed to turn over the al Qeada terrorists so they became accomplices after the fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

 

Iraq war was not just about WMD's although many stupid people think that.

And:

 

Excuse me, but you are defending the war in Iraq by referrencing the bull (*)(*)(*)(*) that Bush the Lesser used to get us into it.

That is utterly illogical, given that he pulled most of it out of his butt, and we wasted a couple trillion dollars on his infantile feud with the guy who (for what some people would consider good reason,) tried to whack his daddy.

 

Attempted assassination of a current or former leader has long been recognized as being equivelent of a declaration of war.

I would not care if the former President attacked was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (neither of which I cared for), that is just something you do not do and any action done for such an act would pretty much be fine with me.

Would you have turned a blind eye if some Somali Warlord tried to have President Obama or Clinton assassinated? I would bet not.

 

The Bosnian war started after the collapse of Yugoslavia both the Serbs and Bosnian went their different way and started to secure territories a civil war that saw a ruthless and indiscriminate shelling and attacking of civilians. And the USA-NATO came to the aid of the Muslims that eventually Muslims from other countries will not recognize and will wage war against us culminating with the 9/11 attack

 

Bush the Senile was trying to whack Saddam.

 

During a war. Iraq tried to have the former President assassinated during peace, something very different indeed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html

But let me guess, this never happened in your world, right?

 

It's kinda hard to believe that you are an American.

 

I never considered militant fascism and colonialism and religious perscution to be consistant with American moral values. To use militarty power toward those ends is even less in keeping with American values.

Torturing prisoners is just way over the top and those who advocate it should be considered unfit to hold any position of trust in America.

your side has been crapping on America far too long using the excuse of protecting us from some Muslim threat that would probably be diminished more effctively by opening friendlier relations with Muslim governments, and will be greatly aggravated by taking the attitude that we can over-power them and make them leave us alone.

 

Mosaddeq and his government (democratically elected) were overthrown, and the constitutional-monarchy was replaced with an absolute one. So yes, I think we can consider it a coup.

No, the Shah did not 'simply replace' his prime minister, and to draw a comparison between the events of 1953 and a constitutional power reserved for the Queen of England is laughable.

 

I think people who want war should be allowed to have it, but why do those people have an overwhelming need to drag other people into it? Go have your war. I'm sure there are Muslims out there willing to oblige. How about we designate a 50 mi. radius around Gila Bend, Arizona for Christian and Muslim 'warriors' to get it on? I just want the beer rights.

 

Nothing in the constitution permits making war to extirpate a religion. Nothing permitts sending our soldiers to die for a religion. Christians who want to send our soldiers to die for their faith are requested to go to hell. Not even Jesus authorizes you to convert people by force.

We do not have the military forces, equipment or funding to conquer and occupy the entire world and we never will.

 

Not a very good synopsis of history to be sure. At the time the Muslims were more technologically advanced and more civilized than Europe and they had held Jerusalem since around mid 600 AD.

They were battling in Anatolia (turkey greece and the baltics) but not with Europe.

The Holy Roman Empire was a pariah on the world .. destroying knowledge and persecuting anyone who disagreed with the Church.
Christianity at the time was a scourge on humanity.

Jews and Muslims lived in a peacefull coexistence in Jerusalem. During the first crusade in 1090 the crusaders not only killed the Muslims but massacred all the Jews as well. The Church hated the Jews and persecuted them whenever it got a chance.

About a century and a half later Pope Innocent (hardly !) put out a papal bull explicitly authorizing the use of torture against anyone who disagreed with the Church.

The nasty history of the Church in the centuries prior to this time and in the centuries that followed is well recorded.

For sure the Muslims were no saints .. but they were not in the same league as the Christians in terms of atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Times have changed and so have the respective parties. The Christian church has moved forward and Islam has moved backward.

Comparing the Church of today with the Church of the past (mayhem in the name of God) in the way this fellow does not jive with the history books.

 

Interesting that you bring up the Serbs. This is a 3 religion battle Catholics, Orthadox, Muslim .. and all hate each other.

On the part of the Serbs .. The Catholic Croats committed genocide against Orthadox and Jewish Serbs in WWII. Hundreds of thousands were killed and forced conversions was the rule of the day.

The Pope knew about it and even helped Pavilic escape (dressed as a bishop) after the war. The Catholic church also participated in the genocide and there were priests convicted for crimes against humanity after the war.

The harsh nature of the war in Yugoslavia in the 90's had alot to do with payback.

 

Interestingly enough, if you actually look at the Iranian Constitution of 1906, it only mentiones the position of Prime Minister one time (and a single mention of the "First Minister"). However, it talks quite a bit about everything being done in the name of the Shah, and with his authority in his name. That nothing can be done against the will of the Shah, and that all serve at his pleasure.

So interesting you try to claim that this is not the case. Yet it is clearly written in the Constitution that it is indeed the case.

So under their own Constitution, it seems clearly that this is in deed the case. But feel free to look through it yourself.

http://fis-iran.org/en/resources/legaldoc/iranconstitution

This is why I encourage people to actually do research, not just try and act like an old Monty Python skit. You apparently just go with the "no you are wrong" school of debate. Where as I actually go to the documents in question and see what they have to say about the matter. And I still would not consider a national leader who uses his or her own Constitutional powers to remove somebody from office a "coup".

 

Yes, we are aware the coup plotters drew up a royal decree and had the shah reluctantly sign it. We are also aware that the CIA gave a great sum of money to the only newspaper that agreed to publish the decree; and that after the initial coup had failed, the CIA turned to spread black propaganda among the populace and instructed their agents to create chaos on the streets.

Any serious scholar or intelligence official would consider what happened in Iran as clearly a coup.

 

But wait, I thought you had just said that it was unconstitutional, and that the Shah did not have that power or authority at all?

Please, you have to stop confusing me here. Pick one angle, and stick to it. Do not keep shifting your claims around over and over as evidence comes forward that you simply do not like.

This is what happened.
No, it is not.
Yes it is, because I said it is.
No, it is not, and here is the proof that it id not.
Well, what I say is still true, because I know it is.

Sorry, but I find it laughable when you bring up "serious scholar or intelligence official", since obviously what you mean is "anybody that is serious because they agree with me".

So, care to provide proof that the Shah was forced to sign the decree? Can you provide any proof that this was anything other then the Shah trying to regain his eroding power by trying to strongarm the Parlaiment himself? Because you have yet to bring anything other then nebulous claims, some of which were blasted as wrong by their own Constitution.

 

I didn't say anything about constitutionality, and I did not claim the Shah 'did not have that power or authority at all'; I am simply arguing that what happened in 1953 was a coup. You are focusing on one insignificant point, when your missing the entire context.

A serious scholar would look at all the details and occurrences that took place in 1953, and conclude that it was indeed a coup. It was not a simple event of passing a constitutional decree- it was a covert operation to overthrow a legitimate government. Even Obama considered this as so, but then again he is a 'leftist' and it's the leftists who regarded it as a coup in the first place.

I never said the Shah was forced to sign the decree, but thanks for asking, as my search led me to new interesting information:

Trying to Persuade a Reluctant Shah

You're free to regard what happened in 1953 as a simple transition of power through constitutional decree, despite all the evidence that points to what happened as being a coup.

 

The bottom line is: The muslims aren't happy!


They're not happy in Gaza .
They're not happy in Egypt .
They're not happy in Libya .
They're not happy in Morocco .
They're not happy in Iran .
They're not happy in Iraq .
They're not happy in Yemen .
They're not happy in Afghanistan .
They're not happy in Pakistan .
They're not happy in Syria .
They're not happy in Lebanon .



And where are they happy?


They're happy in England

.
They're happy in France .
They're happy in Italy .
They're happy in Germany .
They're happy in Sweden .
They're happy in the USA .
They're happy in Norway .



They're happy in every country that is not Muslim.



And who do they blame?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.



THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN.

 

Not what I intended to respond to in this thread but, this should not go unchallenged.
Al Saud was only "influential in that area of the Middle East even before Columbus set sail" in the same sense that any random tribe was "influential" in the Arabian peninsula. Diriyah, the Saudi "city," was far less important than any of the port cities on the entire peninsula.
It wasn't until 1744 when the heretic Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab joined with Muhammad bin Saud to spread their fanatical death cult "reforming" Sunni Islam, that the tribe of Saud began to have influence.
Even so, they were eradicated once by the Ottomans and Egyptians and they self immolated a second time before their last successful attempt, where they sacked; looted; and burned Mecca for the third time, to take over the Arabian peninsula by terror and persecution.

However, the point pertinent to this thread is that.... it is NOT "Islam" that is evil.
Islam got along quite nicely for the last 1400 years before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Rise of Al Saud.
Their history is NO different than the history of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or any of the various nation States or peoples that these religions engendered.
All were peaceful; warlike; savage; cultured; tolerant and intolerant in their own times.

Now, today, things are, indeed, different....
The Arab/ Muslim world has been undergoing a Great Sectarian Civil War for the last one hundred years since the fall of the Ottomans; the rise of the Saudis; and the creation of all of the various Muslim and Arab nation States.
They have been slaughtering each other in large numbers as one tribal faction and/or religious sect has attempted to establish a new Dictatorship or imaginary Caliphate over the other factions and sects.
Today, with this new advent of "Democracy," fostered by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, those factions or dictators who seized power during the course of this War, are now being overthrown and murdered themselves.
As the various Arab and/or Muslim Peoples rise up, factions and individuals are trying to kill each other with much more impunity, now that the old Masters have weakened or are no more. And, of course, the various death cult Islamist groups are all getting a crack at establishing their own petty fiefdoms.

Now is the Arab Winter of Their Discontent...

Attacks against Israel or, indeed, the US; Russia; or any other "Power," are simply notches on the Arab/Muslim Coup Stick that give street cred - prestige, to the faction or cult that carries out the most noteworthy attack.
That faction then has more power to attract followers to then kill other Arab/ Muslim factions...

Historically, the Jews did the same thing 2,000 years ago in their Great Sectarian Civil war that lasted about 300 years until they ultimately annihilated Israel.
The Christians managed to wipe out millions of European Christians, depopulate and decimate much of Europe during their Great Sectarian Civil War called the "Protestant Reformation."
And, historically, the Arab/Muslim world is on the same path of self annihilation. Only this time, it is truly a world wide phenomenon that could include billions of human souls in their deadly path.

Islam is not Evil any more than any other religion.
However, the current insanity that encompasses the Muslim and Arab world could, indeed, destroy our world.
Anybody have any ideas on how to change that?

 

All right...
Now that I have not blamed Islam, I do believe that I can do the above one better...


They're rioting in Libya.
They murdering in Yemen
They're killing folk in Syria
And also Sudan.

The Arab world is festering with unhappy men.
The Lebanese hate Syria; the Saudis hate Yemen.
Iraqis hate Kuwaitis; Egypt hates Sudan.
And everyone hates Amahnutjob of Iran.

But we can be thankful and never surcease
Our praise for that tranquil Religion of Peace.
Even though we know that this lovely day...
Someone has lit the spark off...
And they are blowing everyone away...

They're rioting in Libya
They fight in Bahrain
What the infidels do not do to you...
Will be done by your fellow...
Muslim.

 

When and how much was really not the point. The point was that they were powerfull and influential long before the poster I was rebutted claimed, that it was only due to the "meddling" of England in the First World War.

And in this I do agree. Islam in itself is no more dangerous then Christianity or any other religion. However, what we have been seeing for the last 100 years has been an increase in the influence of radical fundamental Islam.

And we have seen examples in the past of such trends in just about every religion, including Judaism and Christianity.

As far as I am aware though, nobody can "change that". Myself, I just hope that they will soon experience another "Golden Age", and the fanatics will turn towards enlightenment and discovery instead of attempts at conversion, conquest and slaughter.

 

The past such trends in Christianity and Judaism are 600 and 2000 years old, respectively.
Israel annihilated itself through its hatreds.
Christianity annihilated the entire continent of Europe and massacred itself in other parts of the globe, through its hatreds.
There was no "Golden Age" for either religion until they had wiped themselves out - millions in Judaism, mainly in Israel; and tens of millions in Christianity, with large tracts of Europe becoming uninhabitable.
History says that the Islamist will first wipe out the world and then, eventually, when mankind recovers, they will have their new age of "Enlightenment..."
This is not good.