Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Recap on September 16, 2006, 08:01:20 AM
-
So I hear the muslims are mad at the Pope now. I'm so sick of hearing about them being pissed at something or another. Get over yourselves. It will all be settled when we die. Until then, take a chill pill.
-
Yep, darn Pope, we are >< close to World Peace, and DOH! there he goes. Cripes.
Now we will have to wait another 700 years...
;)
-
CNN reported that the Muslims firebombed 4 churches in the West Bank I think they said. Anyway just proves the Pope right. You didn't see Jews or Christians firebombing Mosques when Iran held their little cartoon contest last month.
These people are bringing a world of hurt down on themselves soon and it's going to make the Crusades look like a joke.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
CNN reported that the Muslims firebombed 4 churches in the West Bank I think they said. Anyway just proves the Pope right. You didn't see Jews or Christians firebombing Mosques when Iran held their little cartoon contest last month.
These people are bringing a world of hurt down on themselves soon and it's going to make the Crusades look like a joke.
The pope was just stating the obvious. Is anyone really surprised that this would happen?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214128,00.html
-
I think they need a new hobby ...
-
I think they need a new hobby ...
Ya, mass suicides. I'll gladly help em set up.
-
They get all offended because someone calls them violent, and they protest this by becoming violent.
I don't think they understand what's going to happen eventually. In time, the civilized western world is going to get so damned sick and tired of this that they start picking up "Gallic Wars" and "Mein Kampf" for tips and tricks.
-
Unfortunately, Islam hasn't cornered the market on religious wackos, per capita they may have more but let's not forget those religious wackos here in our own country who justify killing doctors and firebombing clinics who do things that are in opposition to their skewed religious beliefs.
Remember the Rajneeshie's and their attempt at poisioning whole community?
-
In time, the civilized western world is going to get so damned sick and tired of this that they start picking up "Gallic Wars" and "Mein Kampf" for tips and tricks.
That's exactly what the Islamic extremists want; an escalation that leads to a radicalisation of the majority moderate muslims in the defence of their faith. Global conflict is exactly their aim and their only way of gaining power. Oppression breeds resistance.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That's exactly what the Islamic extremists want; an escalation that leads to a radicalisation of the majority moderate muslims in the defence of their faith. Global conflict is exactly their aim and their only way of gaining power. Oppression breeds resistance.
That might be what they think they want, Dowding... But heaven help them when a civilized power actually takes the gloves off and goes after them... They can rally as many of their moderates as they like, it won't help them.
Boudicca, anyone?
-
more like when the civilized world becomes tried of their BS and treats them not as we would treat ourselves but according to their deeds.
the thing is most of the moslems I know are ok people, they just come from a messed up culture and they admit it. we need a massive infusion of American pop culture for those poor deprived, confused moslems and maybe an occassional bellybutton whipping
-
The Pope wasn't entirely wrong in his remarks and the texts he reference highlight the fact that "Islam by the sword" has been a world issue for centuries.
I hope the Vatican takes a long hard look at the current geo-political situation and weighs their global responsibility before reacting too quickly with a pervasive apology. Currently we have a ideological battle between radical Islam and secular capitalistic Great Britain and the United States. The lines of power would shift very dramatically if the Vatican actually came out and said Radical Islam is evil and it is the responsibility of good Catholics to denounce it. That pulls on populaces that are currently outside the influence of the standard Western USA/UK perspective. Particularly in "trouble" states like Venezuela its sets up conflict between the state religion and the state government, but also large sections of Europe which is currently more neutral in their views of the conflict.
Even radical Arabs have been careful to couch their rhetoric as anti-Jewish and then extending punishment to the "secular" West. Everyone knows the real powder keg is engaging Christians directly and it is somewhat significant that even the radical edge of Islam recognizes that political reality.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Unfortunately, Islam hasn't cornered the market on religious wackos, per capita they may have more but let's not forget those religious wackos here in our own country who justify killing doctors and firebombing clinics who do things that are in opposition to their skewed religious beliefs.
Remember the Rajneeshie's and their attempt at poisioning whole community?
Yup..lets not forget those 5 or 6 guys who were blowing up clinis and killing people (24 deaths from 1988 to 2000, according to these foks, not one since, although there have been some 11 arsons/attempts since 2000)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
-
I don't know why we even give them the time of day actually. If these people want to be "The faithfull followers of Islam". They need to be able to read their freaking book. The Quran speaks of co existance not Jiad. I mean really WTF?? 70 Virgins totally taken out of context. All this Urban myth B.S. Perpetuated by uninformed and the Media. I say let them eat their freaking Oil, and try growing crops in the sand. Besides they will screw up, either Pakistan or Iran or some "STAN" place and cook off a a Tel-Aviv or something and then look out:O Holy Stuff will be flying then.:rofl
-
Boudicca, anyone?
That's a bad example, for a variety of reasons.
Superpowers like to think they are untouchable. But they should never forget the lesson of Britain's celebrated Boudicca... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3539652.stm)
-
Muslims kill 3,000 of us, we kill 50,000 of them in retaliation, and they are the ones from the messed up violent culture. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Muslims kill 3,000 of us, we kill 50,000 of them in retaliation, and they are the ones from the messed up violent culture. :rolleyes:
A pretty sizable chunk of that 50,000 was Muslims killing Muslims. This was shown in another thread. /shrug
-
Originally posted by AKH
That's a bad example, for a variety of reasons.
Superpowers like to think they are untouchable. But they should never forget the lesson of Britain's celebrated Boudicca... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3539652.stm)
The British look at Boudicca as though she was a brilliant leader, and the Germans look at Arminius in the same light. Both are wrong.
I chose her for the Battle of Watling Street. Depending on which history you go by, a very small Roman force (read, western, civilized, structured), utterly annihilated a very much larger (how much larger depends on the source) force of Britons.
Of course she had a field day destroying little piece-meal forces, long retired veterans, and women and children before she was defeated, which obviously makes her a great heroin.
Kinda like Arminius. He decieves, betrays, and ambushes three poorly led Legions who (thought they) were marching to his aid, and he's hailed as a brilliant leader, and a German national hero. What is never told, is every other battle after that, even battles that started when the Romans were ambushed (albeit in territory they now knew was hostile), and when the Romans were besieged, outnumbered, or depleted, he was crushed.
-
These people are bringing a world of hurt down on themselves soon and it's going to make the Crusades look like a joke. - Well said hornet
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That's exactly what the Islamic extremists want; an escalation that leads to a radicalisation of the majority moderate muslims in the defence of their faith. Global conflict is exactly their aim and their only way of gaining power. Oppression breeds resistance.
what to expect from people who explode themself, kill/behead others,
this extremists want Armageddon, the final fight. Thats what they
get teached every day...
Like Dowding said, "Global conflict is exactly their aim and their only way of gaining power."
...and we should not feed this kind of troll.
-
Hi Uberhun,
Originally posted by uberhun
I don't know why we even give them the time of day actually. If these people want to be "The faithfull followers of Islam". They need to be able to read their freaking book. The Quran speaks of co existance not Jiad. I mean really WTF?? 70 Virgins totally taken out of context. All this Urban myth B.S. Perpetuated by uninformed and the Media.
Presumably we can assume that Muhammad understood Islam, and that even if we should not necessarily judge a religion by the actions of those who profess to be followers, we can and should judge a religion by the actions and writings of its founder.
If we examine the life of Muhammad we find that he ordered the assasination of those who wrote things against him (Bint Marwan and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, etc.) and after the Meccans rejected Islam led the first Jihad in order to impose Islam upon them. In fact, Muhammad told his followers that their prior peace treaties and alliances with the Meccan tribes need not be kept as they were unbelievers (Westerners take note). This Jihad started with raids on Meccan trade caravans and then progressed to the "Battle of Badr" the first Islamic victory an attack ordered by by Muhammad on a large Meccan caravan. This was followed by Muhammad leading the fight against a Medinan Jewish Tribe that refused to accept Islam, the Banu Qaynuqa, they were defeated, their property was divided and they were expelled, later the Jewish Banu Nadir who also refused to convert suffered the same fate, after a later battle all the men of the tribe were killed and their women and property divided by the prophet as spoils. The Prophet also commanded the same fate for the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe. Their extermination is detailed as follows:
"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off." (HADITH: IBN ISHAQ)
That evening Muhammad took the widow of the man he killed, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as wife, which was no doubt quite a wedding night for her.
In any event later Muhammad sent the first Jihad expedition against the Byzantines, convinced that Allah would give Islam an early victory over the Christians. This was not to be and the force was defeated at Mu'tah. [Several years after his death, Jihadis would win a series of great victories over the Byzantines eventually taking over most of the Empire's Eastern dominions. In time, the vision of Muhammad would be realized with the Byzantine's final defeat at the fall of Constantinoplel to the Ottoman Sultan (who styled himself Caliph, defender of Islam and the Holy Places) in the 15th century.]
In 630 AD Muhammad lead the final attack on Mecca which captured the city, this was followed by a successful Jihad campaign against the Arab Christian Ghassanids which effectively left the Arabian Peninsula entirely Islamic by the time of Muhammad's death.
Now why did I spend all this time rehearsing the life of Muhammad?
1) Because while I could have shown that violent Jihad for the spread of Islam is a duty taught in the Quran and Hadiths, inevitably Westerners would attempt to say "that's your interpretation" and dismiss any number of quotes.
2) Therefore, I chose to simply show the fact that the first violent Jihads were ordered and lead by Muhammad, the founder of Islam. If Jihad is not a duty taught in the Quran, then it's author didn't understand or practice the religion he created, which is simply absurd.
Let us face it, Islam always has been and is supposed to be, spread by the Sword. We may not like the Jihadis, we may prefer liberal revisions of Islam, but let's not pretend that the Jihadis don't consistently understand the fundamentals of Islam and practice Jihad in a manner that follows the example of Muhammad. When we do that, we are telling lies about them and lets leave the "dissimulating" to them.
-
Seagoon,
I'm not doubting you here, but can you provide me with some starter sources so I can do my own research?
It's just that if I'm going to make the same argument you just did, I can't very well say "this guy I know on an internet BBS told me so" as my source :)
I'd like to get some education on the matter. Any books or journals you can recommend would be appreciated.
Thanks,
-
Hi Vudak,
A lot of the events and details can be harvested from the Wikipedia entries on Muhammad. In fact, I used Wikipedia as a convenient way of getting at a translation of the Hadith quote from the Banu Qurayza massacre. Incidently watch out for variant spellings in any translation from the Arabic, especially when searching online. Banu for instance is sometimes Bene, Quran is often Koran, etc.
In terms of Scholarly works, if you don't have time to glean through a straight history like Watt's excellent Muhammad - Prophet and Statesman or Paul Fregosi's Jihad in the West and simply connect the historical dots, and are just looking for the straight bad news about the prophet, the man to read is probably going to be Robert Spencer, who in addition to several prior works including Islam Unveiled has just written a new "please declare a fatwa against me" contribution - "The Truth About Muhammad" which comes out on October 9th. You can already reserve a copy on Amazon.
Now I'll admit, I didn't start with guys like Spencer, I started reading either translations of Muslim material or histories like Lewis' "Islam - From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople" and so on, and that has given me a better vantage point (I hope) from which to assess the historicity of Spencer. It also caused me to scratch my head when I began to hear that Islam was a "peaceful religion" in the 1990s. Even when I was enamored of Islam in late 80s, I considered it a "power religion".
Anyway hope that helps.
Off to bed I go...
-
Many thanks, Seagoon :)
-
Vudak,
One last thought, I even got out of bed to type this. As you study Islam, beware the two most common errors committed by Westerners at present (aside from not bothering to study at all) which is to:
1) View Islam using the same template one uses for other mostly spiritual "religions" - Islam is a comprehensive ideology, in order to get it right think of it as a comprehensive social and political system with an attendent religion. Not a religion that missteps when it ventures into politics.
2) Do not attempt to assess Islam via anecdotal evidence of Westerners who have had good interactions with Westernized/Liberal Muslims. This would be like attempting to assess a White Supremacist movement via a good experience you had singing bluegrass tunes round a campfire with a couple of the members of the movement, or attempting to assess Nazism via the nice conversations you've had about gardening with the wife of a National Socialist, or even judging Christianity by the actions of someone Baptized Christian and calling himself Christian who admits he doesn't know anything about the Bible or consistently practice its teachings. Study the Founder, the actual history, the original teachings and what happens when the system is applied most consistently to a society.
-
Thanks again, Seagoon...
I actually just ordered Fergosi, Watts, and the new Spencer book that's coming out...
I realize you're going to bed and probably won't see this until tomorrow... But your earlier choice of wording regarding Spencer, "historicity..." Does this mean you don't find him, eh, scholarly or professional? Or would you just not have believed him if you hadn't read the other works first/had them to cross reference?
I guess I'm just trying to get at - do his claims add up after some investigation/prior knowledge or does he take some significant liberties?
-
Originally posted by Vudak
The British look at Boudicca as though she was a brilliant leader, and the Germans look at Arminius in the same light. Both are wrong.
I chose her for the Battle of Watling Street. Depending on which history you go by, a very small Roman force (read, western, civilized, structured), utterly annihilated a very much larger (how much larger depends on the source) force of Britons.
Of course she had a field day destroying little piece-meal forces, long retired veterans, and women and children before she was defeated, which obviously makes her a great heroin.
It's plain enough that you have little idea of how the British do see Boudicca.
Oh, the toils of the empire, struggling to bring civilisation, order and culture to its dominions. What a romantic view of the Roman Empire you seem to have: western, civilised, structured = good guys in white hats?
Anyway, back to why it's a bad example - what happened to the Roman Empire?
This will get you started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire)
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Unfortunately, Islam hasn't cornered the market on religious wackos, per capita they may have more but let's not forget those religious wackos here in our own country who justify killing doctors and firebombing clinics who do things that are in opposition to their skewed religious beliefs.
Remember the Rajneeshie's and their attempt at poisioning whole community?
Dayum Flatbar! Thank you so much!
I was unsure what to think about this whole Islam thingy but you my friend have put it all into perspective for me! :aok
Let's not forget those religious wackos here in our country...their behavior makes the whole Islam thingy ok in my book! Tit for Tat.
-
Originally posted by AKH
It's plain enough that you have little idea of how the British do see Boudicca.
Oh, the toils of the empire, struggling to bring civilisation, order and culture to its dominions. What a romantic view of the Roman Empire you seem to have: western, civilised, structured = good guys in white hats?
Anyway, back to why it's a bad example - what happened to the Roman Empire?
This will get you started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire)
Of course, Boudicca was, what, four centuries before the fall of the West Roman Empire, give or take a few decades?
I guess I don't have a good clue as to how the British view Boudicca, or how the Germans view Arminius. I'm going on how your views are represented over here... This could be wrong (care to enlighten me though?)
And as for the whole "Romantic View", I'm speaking solely on the battlefield... The Romans, at the time of Boudicca, were certainly western, civilized, structured as compared to the Britons who were, essentially, a mess. The end result? Complete slaughter of the Britons at Watling Street.
I see a parallel in armies of the western world and "armies" of the middle east today. I'm not trying to get into a societal debate here ;)
- Edit - and comparing a Legion (or really many other aspects of Rome) of the early Principate to a Legion around the time the west fell is, well, silly.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Muslims kill 3,000 of us, we kill 50,000 of them in retaliation, and they are the ones from the messed up violent culture. :rolleyes:
It's a question of effectiveness :)
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Of course, Boudicca was, what, four centuries before the fall of the West Roman Empire, give or take a few decades?
I guess I don't have a good clue as to how the British view Boudicca, or how the Germans view Arminius. I'm going on how your views are represented over here... This could be wrong (care to enlighten me though?)
And as for the whole "Romantic View", I'm speaking solely on the battlefield... The Romans, at the time of Boudicca, were certainly western, civilized, structured as compared to the Britons who were, essentially, a mess. The end result? Complete slaughter of the Britons at Watling Street.
I see a parallel in armies of the western world and "armies" of the middle east today. I'm not trying to get into a societal debate here ;)
- Edit - and comparing a Legion (or really many other aspects of Rome) of the early Principate to a Legion around the time the west fell is, well, silly.
I don't know about enlightening you, but read this as a Briton and you may understand better:
"From the pride and arrogance of the Romans nothing is sacred; all are subject to violation; the old endure the scourge, and the virgins are deflowered. But the vindictive gods are now at hand. A Roman legion dared to face the warlike Britons: with their lives they paid for their rashness; those who survived the carnage of that day, lie poorly hid behind their entrenchments, meditating nothing but how to save themselves by an ignominious flight. From the din of preparation, and the shouts of the British army, the Romans, even now, shrink back with terror. What will be their case when the assault begins? Look round, and view your numbers. Behold the proud display of warlike spirits, and consider the motives for which we draw the avenging sword. On this spot we must either conquer, or die with glory. There is no alternative. Though a woman, my resolution is fixed: the men, if they please, may survive with infamy, and live in bondage."
Fighting a pitched battle on terrain that significantly favoured the Romans was very naive. Irregular forces are invariably better employed attacking soft targets.
Those parallels may indeed exist. But something to be wary of is the fact that those particular "barbarians" didn't have the technology related to modern terrorism that tend to make things go pear shaped a lot faster.
As a point of interest, how do you think Rome vs China would have panned out?
-
Originally posted by AKH
As a point of interest, how do you think Rome vs China would have panned out?
You know, to be honest with you, I've never, ever studied China of the period... So I really have no clue.
About the best answer I could give is I suppose it would depend on which Legions, which commander, vs. what.
I'd be willing to bet Caesar with experienced Legions of his time (who were actually paid and happy ;) ) would be able to give a Chinese army a very hard fight.
From what I've read the legions of the late republic to early principate were really something else. The ones before and after that were slopes to the crest.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Muslims kill 3,000 of us, we kill 50,000 of them in retaliation, and they are the ones from the messed up violent culture. :rolleyes:
Again, Funked, I must disagree, but only partially.
Yes, we vaporized more of them. Yes, we did it far more efficiently. The problem is the way we presented this action to the world. If we'd been honest, and just called it a retaliation, the effect would have been different. But, of course, we went in to help these poor souls, and managed to harm that many more of them. We weren't fanatics bent on revenge, at least not on the surface. We were, again, politically correct. But what the hell is political correctness doing in the arena of war, anyway? War is supposed to be hell, the last resort. Is there a way of going to war without actually alienating the enemy--because that's what we were trying to do. The approach was all wrong, and we'll be paying for it for years to come. And while we've swept it under the rug with our PC broom, our enemy, for all their technological backwardness, has the psychology of war down pat.
Maybe the problem is that we really are not a violent culture. Sure, we cause more than our share of destruction, but it's always under the guise of improving the world. Violence for the sake of retribution is leaving our collective consciousness, and all the while, we're bombing nations in order to enlighten them. Too much BS. The Muslims are surely guilty of putting too much faith in a god that, by all accounts, doesn't even like them very much. We, on the other hand, instead of choosing god, have chosen to buy into our own hype, and now justify anything for values that don't work anywhere but here.
I'm not promoting genocide, and I hate repeating myself, but we'd better stop treating war as the administration of antibiotics to a sick patient, and start treating it as what it really is--a bullet to the head.
-
I've yet to see any Imam denounce the violence against the christian church because of the pope's comment.
-
Hoping I might find some of the purpoted peaceful leaders of Islam calling for calm I turned to Al Jazeera. This is all I found. If anyone can find an Islamic leader calling for peace in regards to this please link it.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8A36ACA6-0CD8-4E92-9DF8-CD716EE03310.htm
"On Friday, a prominent hardline Mogadishu cleric called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill the pope for his remarks."
-
Hello Vudak,
Originally posted by Vudak
Thanks again, Seagoon...
I actually just ordered Fergosi, Watts, and the new Spencer book that's coming out...
I realize you're going to bed and probably won't see this until tomorrow... But your earlier choice of wording regarding Spencer, "historicity..." Does this mean you don't find him, eh, scholarly or professional? Or would you just not have believed him if you hadn't read the other works first/had them to cross reference?
I guess I'm just trying to get at - do his claims add up after some investigation/prior knowledge or does he take some significant liberties?
Just a quick answer again, I might be able to get online after the evening service, but I don't know if I'll be available as we seem to be inviting people over for lunch and dinner of late.
Anywho, no, what I meant was I was glad I had some background in the acadmic and Muslim history of Muhammad otherwise I might not have been inclined to believe some of the actual details of his life that Spencer has no problem conveying - for instance marrying a six year old (Aisha) when he was 50 and then consummating the marriage when she was nine. Ordering the murder of Asma Bint Marwan as she slept with her child in her arms for the crime of composing poetry derogatory towards him, personally beheading enemies and taking their wives to bed that evening and so on. It's the kind of thing you expect from Attila the Hun but not necessarily from the founder of a religion, know what I mean?
-
err.. you cant be serious comparing rome vs boudicca to today?
rome and the britons... or rome vs. china same time period both used the same weapons really. It was all just a matter of how their tactics. And in those times neither side bothered with 'political correctness' or 'ethics' ... if the other side did not submit you kept killing them.
Its not the same massive gap that there is today in the west. vs. islamic nutcases.
If we were the romans today and the islamic nutcases were the britons (viewed as barbarians by the romans) we wouldn't be worrying about terrorist threats. The week after 9/11 the middle east would've been carpet bombed into oblivion. The week following that it wouldve been ground forces moving in killing anything that moved. It'd be on paper view (circus maximus) too!
THATS the difference it is today and why small guerilla/terrorist tactics work. We no longer blast the snot out of the general area the perceived enemy and its supporters are in.
oh.. and i do think china wouldve creamed rome. The gods are on the side of large batallions ;)
-
probably not real wise to start a land war in asia now or ever.