Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

True, but Koran is more the Victorian colonial spelling and not the modern nationalist spelling.

Otherwise, it's the Islamic Hate and War Manual. <----- Capitalized so as not to hurt your feelings.

Wrong.
The Quran is quite clear that no one is to ever be harmed except in defense.
There can also never be compulsion over religion.

The wars from the Mideast towards Europe were Mongols, Moguls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks, not Arab Muslims.

The history of Arab-Islamic war and conquest is quite clear you’re wrong.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

True, but Koran is more the Victorian colonial spelling and not the modern nationalist spelling.

Otherwise, it's the Islamic Hate and War Manual. <----- Capitalized so as not to hurt your feelings.

Wrong.
The Quran is quite clear that no one is to ever be harmed except in defense.
There can also never be compulsion over religion.

The wars from the Mideast towards Europe were Mongols, Moguls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks, not Arab Muslims.

The history of Arab-Islamic conquest is quite clear you’re wrong.

Don't encourage him. Just drop a few coins in his cup and move on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

The Barbary pirates are not Arab.
They are Berber, of ancient Egyptian ruling class heritage.

arab - muslim world

DURR

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?
The answer is no.
Neither are Iranians.

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.
The Mongols definitely were not, and totally wiped out the entire Moslem leadership.
There essentially was no Islamic leadership after around 1200 AD or so.
As time went on, these invaders adopted more and more Islamic tradition, but it is not clear how Moslem they will ever be?
Is Turkey Moslem or not, is not easy to answer.

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?

Are they muslim?

Neither are Iranians.​

​

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.​

You should go to Iran and tell them you doubt they're Muslims.
Have a video of your experience posted here.​

 

[Rigby5]

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

True, but Koran is more the Victorian colonial spelling and not the modern nationalist spelling.

Otherwise, it's the Islamic Hate and War Manual. <----- Capitalized so as not to hurt your feelings.

Wrong.
The Quran is quite clear that no one is to ever be harmed except in defense.
There can also never be compulsion over religion.

The wars from the Mideast towards Europe were Mongols, Moguls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks, not Arab Muslims.

The history of Arab-Islamic war and conquest is quite clear you’re wrong.

It is easy to totally disprove your false claim.
After the Zionists started the 1948 war, the Zionist tried to attack Jerusalem, and were defeated by the Jordanians.
So then were all the captured Jews murdered?
No, they were all allowed to leave and go to Israel that was created by the UN.

 

[Rigby5]

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

The Barbary pirates are not Arab.
They are Berber, of ancient Egyptian ruling class heritage.

arab - muslim world

DURR

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?
The answer is no.
Neither are Iranians.

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.
The Mongols definitely were not, and totally wiped out the entire Moslem leadership.
There essentially was no Islamic leadership after around 1200 AD or so.
As time went on, these invaders adopted more and more Islamic tradition, but it is not clear how Moslem they will ever be?
Is Turkey Moslem or not, is not easy to answer.

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?

Are they muslim?

Neither are Iranians.

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.

You should go to Iran and tell them you doubt they're Muslims.
Have a video of your experience posted here.​

The Mongols obviously were not at all Muslim.
The Moguls who invaded India, likely were not really Muslim.
The Moors might have been Muslim?
The Mamelukes likely were opportunists.
The Turks likely were and are not really Muslim.

The Iranians are Shia, and the Sunni and Shia have always fought over which was really Islamic.

 

[Coyote]

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?

Ok. Thank you! Couldn't you have said that straight off?

Second - is there a difference, in your view, between deliberately targeting kids (example - the Itmar massacre or the Dumas massacre) and, kids being accidentally killed in a military action?

 

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

Sigh...not that old canard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

The Barbary pirates are not Arab.
They are Berber, of ancient Egyptian ruling class heritage.

arab - muslim world

DURR

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?
The answer is no.
Neither are Iranians.

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.
The Mongols definitely were not, and totally wiped out the entire Moslem leadership.
There essentially was no Islamic leadership after around 1200 AD or so.
As time went on, these invaders adopted more and more Islamic tradition, but it is not clear how Moslem they will ever be?
Is Turkey Moslem or not, is not easy to answer.

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?

Are they muslim?

Neither are Iranians.

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.

You should go to Iran and tell them you doubt they're Muslims.
Have a video of your experience posted here.​

The Mongols obviously were not at all Muslim.
The Moguls who invaded India, likely were not really Muslim.
The Moors might have been Muslim?
The Mamelukes likely were opportunists.
The Turks likely were and are not really Muslim.

The Iranians are Shia, and the Sunni and Shia have always fought over which was really Islamic.

Blah, blah, blah.

Back to your error (lie?) about no Anti-Americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

Sigh...not that old canard.

They weren't pirates? They weren't Muslim? Be more specific in your error.

 

[Coyote]

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

 

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

Sigh...not that old canard.

They weren't pirates? They weren't Muslim? Be more specific in your error.

Their being Muslim was irrelevant to their piracy - which occurs all over.

 

[Hollie]

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

I’m not at all surprised by your apologetics for a brutish, retfogtade politico-religious ideology. My understanding of islam is based upon islamic theology and history.


Let's be honest, the ummah clearly doesn't enjoin right nor does it forbid wrong.

Examine the very worst atrocities taking place in the world today; Darfur, Iraq, India, Phillipines, Europoe, Africa etc., and you'll find the orthodox muslim doctrine of world domination playing a part.

Your position is of an apologist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of formed opinions on what you think or do not think about matters, though you require of yourself far less evidence than you require of others for their positions - that is, you are being dismissive to claims that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide threat to the free world.

I’m also concerned about the rights of the general public to be protected from Islamic terrorism. As much as you may wish to avoid having to address it, Islamic terrorism is a clear and present threat to the Western world and others.

This madness of calculated mass murder is not happening in the cause of any other faith on the globe at this time. It is only happening in the cause of Islam's jihad and it’s happening with the financial and logistical support of Arab/Muslim governments, sympathizers and enablers and it is definitely occurring frequently enough to require any objective, reasoned person consider that this problem is directly related to Islamic doctrine.

A sensible and reasoned person cannot sweep away the reality that if Muslims are genuinely concerned about "rights", (the very rights that Muslims demand for themselves but explicitly deny others), over the continuing incidents of mass murder in Allah’s name, then it falls to them to set forth, unequivocally, that reform to their ideology must be undertaken.



To suggest that an Arad warlord was “ahead of his time” is comical. Your hero has quite a history of being "ahead of his time"


610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain


After their surrender at the "Battle of the Trench" (see date above), 600-900 men were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina over trenches dug there. The women (who weren't taken as concubines) and children were sold into slavery. Some were sold to buy horses and weapons. This is recorded in the Koran two verses2:

He [God —ed.] brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them [i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Banu Quraysh Arabs —ed.] from among the People of the Book [Jews —ed.] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaybar—another conquest over a Jewish community in Arabia —ed.] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, God has power over all things.

 

[Shusha]

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?

You can't just look at the number of dead and establish the standard. The standard is not the number of dead.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

lol You seem never to be able to tell the truth. Palestinian children are not targeted by Israel. Why do you feel the need to lie so often?

 

[Coyote]

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

I’m not at all surprised by your apologetics for a brutish, retfogtade politico-religious ideology. My understanding of islam is based upon islamic theology and history.


Let's be honest, the ummah clearly doesn't enjoin right nor does it forbid wrong.

Examine the very worst atrocities taking place in the world today; Darfur, Iraq, India, Phillipines, Europoe, Africa etc., and you'll find the orthodox muslim doctrine of world domination playing a part.

Your position is of an apologist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of formed opinions on what you think or do not think about matters, though you require of yourself far less evidence than you require of others for their positions - that is, you are being dismissive to claims that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide threat to the free world.

I’m also concerned about the rights of the general public to be protected from Islamic terrorism. As much as you may wish to avoid having to address it, Islamic terrorism is a clear and present threat to the Western world and others.

This madness of calculated mass murder is not happening in the cause of any other faith on the globe at this time. It is only happening in the cause of Islam's jihad and it’s happening with the financial and logistical support of Arab/Muslim governments, sympathizers and enablers and it is definitely occurring frequently enough to require any objective, reasoned person consider that this problem is directly related to Islamic doctrine.

A sensible and reasoned person cannot sweep away the reality that if Muslims are genuinely concerned about "rights", (the very rights that Muslims demand for themselves but explicitly deny others), over the continuing incidents of mass murder in Allah’s name, then it falls to them to set forth, unequivocally, that reform to their ideology must be undertaken.



To suggest that an Arad warlord was “ahead of his time” is comical. Your hero has quite a history of being "ahead of his time"


610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain


After their surrender at the "Battle of the Trench" (see date above), 600-900 men were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina over trenches dug there. The women (who weren't taken as concubines) and children were sold into slavery. Some were sold to buy horses and weapons. This is recorded in the Koran two verses2:

He [God —ed.] brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them [i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Banu Quraysh Arabs —ed.] from among the People of the Book [Jews —ed.] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaybar—another conquest over a Jewish community in Arabia —ed.] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, God has power over all things.

You know something Hollie...when you are going to on mass cut'n'paste (hey...don't you ding Tinmore for that...?) you ought to link to your sources...and...those sources don't exactly scholarly.

Chronology of early Islam (83 wars in 154 years!)

Most of what you are saying fall's in the category of "blah blah blah" - how, specifically, was Mohammed NOT ahead of his time in the 6th century?

Was he an epileptic hallucinating in a cave? Who the hell knows. We have prophets conferring with burning shrubbery and zombie prophets running around proclaiming descent from deities with anger management issues. Religion is nuts, war was common place (as was rape and pillage as a rightful reward of conquest)...it sucked to be a woman, it sucked to be an orphan and it sucked even more to be a widow. That was the world THEN.

Mohammed and his followers started out persecuted by the polytheists. He saw corruption, greed, and inhumane treatment of widows and orphans. And he sought to remedy it. And, he did.

Like all prophets he was a product of his time - yet you judge him by 20th century ethics. ALL the prophets would fail your test.

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

 

[Coyote]

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

lol You seem never to be able to tell the truth. Palestinian children are not targeted by Israel. Why do you feel the need to lie so often?

Why do you insist on lying? Is it because you are unusually dense?

Fact: I did not say that. Reread my post and try not to make up shit.

 

[Coyote]

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?

You can't just look at the number of dead and establish the standard. The standard is not the number of dead.

Exactly. In many ways it's in WHO is targeted.

When Israel reacts in self defense to rockets launched across the border - Israel tries to avoid targeting children.

I would also say when Hamas launches rockets, it is not targeting children, it targets randomly.

But when someone creeps into a house and slits the throats of an entire family...there is no question about the target.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

lol You seem never to be able to tell the truth. Palestinian children are not targeted by Israel. Why do you feel the need to lie so often?

Why do you insist on lying? Is it because you are unusually dense?

Fact: I did not say that. Reread my post and try not to make up shit.

Maybe you are just too stupid to understand your own posts or maybe you are just a shameless liar. You said, "Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?" Who is targeting Palestinian children in your imagination?

 

[Coyote]

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

lol You seem never to be able to tell the truth. Palestinian children are not targeted by Israel. Why do you feel the need to lie so often?

Why do you insist on lying? Is it because you are unusually dense?

Fact: I did not say that. Reread my post and try not to make up shit.

Maybe you are just too stupid to understand your own posts or maybe you are just a shameless liar. You said, "Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?" Who is targeting Palestinian children in your imagination?

No. You are just too pigheaded to understand what I was saying.

Is it wrong to target and kill Palestinian children? Yes.

Is it wrong to target and kill Jewish children? Yes.

It is wrong to target and kill children period. YES!!!!!

This is not saying whether or not anyone is doing it. So bugger off.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

lol You seem never to be able to tell the truth. Palestinian children are not targeted by Israel. Why do you feel the need to lie so often?

Why do you insist on lying? Is it because you are unusually dense?

Fact: I did not say that. Reread my post and try not to make up shit.

Maybe you are just too stupid to understand your own posts or maybe you are just a shameless liar. You said, "Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?" Who is targeting Palestinian children in your imagination?

No. You are just too pigheaded to understand what I was saying.

Is it wrong to target and kill Palestinian children? Yes.

Is it wrong to target and kill Jewish children? Yes.

It is wrong to target and kill children period. YES!!!!!

This is not saying whether or not anyone is doing it. So bugger off.

Again, you just don't seem capable of putting up a post without lying. If you didn't mean to say anyone was tartetting children, why would you bring it up? Disabuse yourself of the notion you are clever enough to hide your bigotry.