Author Topic: Islam Is Peace (Read 1865 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #60 on:** October 29, 2002, 01:24:01 PM »

Maybe dystopian is a better term. Whatever.

I don't have a truck, and have never seen an anti-muslim sticker on a truck or any other vehicle.

"we were allied with russia in wwii because of a mutual enemy."

Just like we and the Chechens had a mutual enemy c. 1983.

"saying we judged their cause for political convenience isn't a satisfactory answer for me. "

Happy hunting.

Toad · « **Reply #61 on:** October 29, 2002, 01:25:00 PM »

In the history of most of these conflicts, Ireland, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir just to mention a very few, there is a common starting point.

Back at the beginning, somebody forcibly "took" some other bodies' land and/or sovereignity.

That's usually when the fight starts to "get it back".

When does the fight to "get it back" stop?

Boroda, please explain for me Russia's right to rule Chechnya. Keep it simple, I'm just a stupid Yank.

I have a feeling that the argument is merely "force of arms" and the "time of conquest" is roughly 1791, when Sheikh Mansur was captured.

The Chechens never really accepted their "defeat" nor their "conquest" did they?

Russia and the Chechens had at it again in the 1830's when Russia wanted to solidify their Turkish border. Took about 20 years for that one to play out about 1859?

Then the War with the Ottoman Empire in the 1870s provided the Chechens with a taste of freedom; they were briefly out from under Russian domination.

During the Revolution, the Chechens sided with the Whites and the Red Army reconquered them in the 1920's.

During late WW2, Stalin deported 200,000+ Chechens from their homeland into Central Asia because he feared they would support the Germans. There's evidence that a very large number of Chechens perished in this relocation which I'm sure you'll deny.

Kruschev allowed the Chechens to return to their homeland in '56, but they've never really been satisfied with Russian domination have they? The '90's showed that for certain.

So, explain again Russia's right to rule them.

Simply force of arms, correct? And when should the vanquished officially be required to give up the struggle?

Because if you know how to implement that, we'll make you the world's ambassador to Palestine.

*******

None of the above should be construed as any type of support for the Chechens. The Moscow situation was terrorism at it's worst.

-dead- · « **Reply #62 on:** October 29, 2002, 01:25:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
We Christians USED to refer to Musilms as HEATHENS back in the middle ages...INFIDELS is what they call us TODAY. So...change your post to Kill the HEATHEN Musilms and you might spark a better reaction....infidels is their phrasiology.

From Chambers English Dictionary -
infidel adj. unbelieving: sceptical: disbelieving Christianity or whatever be the religion of the user of the word. n. one who rejects Christianity, etc.: (loosely) one who disbelieves in any theory, etc. [O. Fr. infidele - L. infidelis - in-, not, fidelis faithful - fides, faith.]

Infidel is from the Latin (the language the church used for all official stuff - masses, bibles, papal bulls) - like semper fidelis for example.
Heathen on the other hand is from Old English haethen or the Dutch heiden . At the time, Latin and French were the lingua franca, not English or Dutch.

Here's a small bit on the pope's call for the First crusade:
"Pope Urban II was a powerful speaker; all our sources indicate that the speech he delivered that day was moving and memorable. We have several accounts that differ in detail, but the following delivers the general sense of his message that day.
The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.
The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.
God himself would lead them, for they would be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!
Deus lo volt! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusaders."
http://crusades.boisestate.edu/1st/02.htm

See how often the word heathen (after the background bit) turns up in this translation of the Romanus Pontifex Papal Bull
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html

Infidel is the Christian nomenclature - hardly surprising given that the word is from the Latin.

Apparently, the arabic for infidel is Kafir - this means also [somewhat ironically] a native of Kafiristan (Literally "land of the infidels") - which is the old name of nuristan - a region of Afghanistan.

2Slow · « **Reply #63 on:** October 29, 2002, 01:27:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
Lets not forget Rambo the super patriot fighting among the honorable afghan rebels to liberate Afghanistan from the evil Russians...

wait. Russians are our pals now and we must destroy scummy afghans. gotta keep with the squedule! enemies change so quickly, this world is full of traitors!

I don't watch anything with that draft dodger in it. I know he makes good flicks, I just refuse to support his cowardice.

funkedup · « **Reply #64 on:** October 29, 2002, 01:29:03 PM »

PS Fish:

You seem to be confusing Afghanistan and Chechenya.

Afghanistan was a sovereign nation invaded by the Evil Empire. To have done nothing in the face of Soviet agression like this would have been wrong. And you'd have to be a complete idiot (or communist stooge) to take the USSR's side of the argument in that one. Certainly what the US did was nothing in comparison to Soviet and Red Chinese aid given to North Vietnam in their war of agression against South Vietnam.

I have no idea what the US did in Chechenya during the 1980's. Considering that it was an ASSR, I'd wager that the US had very little success in doing anything over there. However if they had risen up against their Russian masters, I'm sure the USA would have supported their movement, although only in ways that would be hard to trace and unlikely to be taken by the USSR as acts of war.

Boroda · « **Reply #65 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:04:26 PM »

Toad, this question is 100% out of discussion. We are not going to let anyone discuss the borders of USSR and Russia stated in Helsinki in 1975, and we are strong enough to stop any attempt to revise them, like you did to Yugoslavia in 1999.

Toad, can you explain for me the US right to rule Texas or California?

It is OUR land. Most of the land that is called "Chechnya" now is the land of the Terek Warriorship. It was given to Chechens by Nikita with the amnesty for nazi-supporters.

We are trying to restore law and order in Chechnya and secure nearby Orthodox and Moslim population from the medieval gangster regime that was built in Chechnya since 1991. They had their independance in 1996-99, and what we got was the invasion to Dagestan, not speaking of slavery and kidnapping (including Western citizens), robbery and armed attacks on nearby settlements.

Call me whatever you want, but I vote for Stalin's solution: deportation in one night, but this time Novaya Zemlya instead of Kazakhstan. One terrorist found in a village - the whole village goes to sunny beaches of Arctic Ocean. One rifle found in a village - the same thing.

Or we can give them independance officially and declare war on them 2 hours later, and not bother about "human rights" that our European "friends" talk so much.

Or maybe we should send all the Chechens to Denmark, that showed great respect to terrorists and hosted "international Chechen congress"? The bloody beasts will be happy to live in Denmark. BTW, what's with the "political shelter" status for Akhmed Zakayev in the US? What's with http://www.kavkaz.org registered in Florida? Isn't it time for your government to stop speaking and start to act?

Boroda · « **Reply #66 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:09:35 PM »

Doing anything in Chechnya in 1980s? Well your propaganda office was busy enough with Baltic republics that time

What is that Western propaganda radio that started broadcasting in Chechen language this summer? Was it "Liberty" or "Voice of America"?

mrfish · « **Reply #67 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:12:35 PM »

i see your point funked but shouldn't we have seen how evil they were (ie did we ask them what type of government they would establish if thy could?) and said no way, let them fall - hell we'd have backed satan himself if he were anti-commie.

my point is that you are making light and being really flippant "look how peaceful..." about the death of a lot of people whose main demand was "stop the war on chechnya".

the ussr rolled into a lot of countries during their expansionist period and i have to say it doesn't seem that unreasonable for them to fight back - i sure won't support them funked, but i'm not going to jump on the band-wagon and bemuse their death until i do know more about the truth of the matter-

in the cold war we jumped into bed with anyone who was against russia - what are we gonna do now, turn away from all of russia's enemies solely because we want their UN support? i like a US that takes the right stand regardless - i'm just going for that

cheers dude-

funkedup · « **Reply #68 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:30:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish
the ussr rolled into a lot of countries during their expansionist period and i have to say it doesn't seem that unreasonable for them to fight back - i sure won't support them funked, but i'm not going to jump on the band-wagon and bemuse their death until i do know more about the truth of the matter-

I don't care how good their cause is. Taking civilians hostage and murdering them is not acceptable.

I don't really have a problem with Islamic people in general. I have worked with quite a few Muslims and never had any issues with them. One was my supervisor and two others were my "right hand man" at various times. The ones I have known were hard working and respectful, and had a good sense of humor.

I just think the President's quote (the thread title) is more and more ironic as more and more blood is spilled by losers who claim they are working for Allah.

And I will continue to happily wish painful death and destruction upon people like those in the picture I posted.

Enjoy

Toad · « **Reply #69 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:33:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Toad, this question is 100% out of discussion.

No, it bears directly on the discussion. The Chechens have never accepted Russian domination. As a result there have been continual periods of open conflict since the 1790's.

From their point of view, I'm sure they see it as a continual struggle against oppression to regain their independence. (Although, as I said, they were simply terrorists in Moscow. Resorting to these tactics dooms them to failure, as it should.)

From the Russian point of view, I'm sure it's merely a rebellion against the "true" lawful government, right?

The heart of it is, however, that like Palestine, this is likely to never have an ending.

Yet here you are proposing solutions that would make even the Israelis blush and be ashamed to mention, I think.

I find it ironic, Boroda, that you seem to have become what you so often decry on these boards.

Quote

Boroda: Toad, can you explain for me the US right to rule Texas or California?[/b]

Sure, the populations of both California and Texas voted to accept admission to the United States and were accepted.

If you are referring to our taking that land from the "original" inhabitants, it's basically force of arms. Although in the case of both Texas and California it was primarily the Spaniards that did the early subjugation of the native populations.

Another difference is that California and Texas are not in open rebellion against the government. THEIR populations WANT to be in the United States. Pretty big difference, eh?

Quote

It is OUR land.

[/b]

Really? Like Northern Ireland really belongs to Great Britain? Or the Sinai or the Golan Heights really belongs to Israel? Or like Kuwait should have belonged to Iraq?

When does it end, Boroda? That's the question.

Quote

Call me whatever you want,

[/b]

Don't need to call you anything. You're doing a fine job of defining yourself without my help.

As I said, it's particularly amusing given your history here on this BBS. You have become what you used to decry.

Hey, what about the OIL! What do you think about the OIL aspect? Is Russia interested in the OIL at all, do you think?

You have to admit, it's just tooooooooo funny.

mrfish · « **Reply #70 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:34:02 PM »

so if it were 1983 and we were at 'war' with the evil empire you'd still say good riddance to the rebels - i mean they still would have been hostage takers so your same moral position should apply right? you'd have jumped up and praised russi for executing them on the spot while they slept?

even though the evening news would have been singing their praises you'd have stood alone in dissention. yeah right.

BNM · « **Reply #71 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:38:29 PM »

Quote

Another difference is that California and Texas are not in open rebellion against the government. THEIR populations WANT to be in the United States. Pretty big difference, eh?

So far... just don't push it.

Toad · « **Reply #72 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:39:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish
i like a US that takes the right stand regardless - i'm just going for that

cheers dude-

Just a side note here....

That's the US I would like as well.

Now, can you tell me how to get the US to make the "right" decision everytime without error?

How do you get world events to stay static long enough to decide?

How do you get a decision that everyone agrees upon as "right"?

In short, how do we achieve such perfection?

funkedup · « **Reply #73 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:40:17 PM »

In 1983, we wouldn't have seen it so clearly if they were taking hostages at a theatre in Moscow. It wouldn't have leaked out of the USSR, not in detail. Maybe US intelligence would have picked it up, but they would have spun it as freedom fighters or rebels without revealing the sleazy tactics. I think I would have supported the notion of an SSR fighting for independence, but I don't think anybody could support them if they knew the details of tactics like the theater hostage-taking. If the hypothetical 1983 Chechens had limited their actions to military targets I wouldn't have a problem with it. But hell they can't even do that right. Their atrocities against Russian troops are well-documented. I had the misfortune of seeing some of them on video.

funkedup · « **Reply #74 on:** October 29, 2002, 02:47:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Just a side note here....

That's the US I would like as well.

Now, can you tell me how to get the US to make the "right" decision everytime without error?

How do you get world events to stay static long enough to decide?

How do you get a decision that everyone agrees upon as "right"?

In short, how do we achieve such perfection?

Yep that's the major problem. If you make decisions with imperfect information, you are bound to make some bad ones. Which is why I think we should stop the global meddling. If somebody attacks us or our allies, send troops. Otherwise, bring them all home. I'm tired of paying for it. We have enough toejam to pay for already.