Why is it always Muslims?

[JoeB131]

Joe is such a great American.

Yup, he never misses an opportunity to bash America, Christianity, Jews, and Israel.

I wonder why?

He's your garden variety American liberal.

As opposed to the Garden Variety American Conservative who cheers for wars from his couch while eating potato chips, and let's some brown kid do the actual fighting.

Trust us, you'll get a college degree when your done. Really.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Joe is such a great American.

Yup, he never misses an opportunity to bash America, Christianity, Jews, and Israel.

I wonder why?

He's your garden variety American liberal.

As opposed to the Garden Variety American Conservative who cheers for wars from his couch while eating potato chips, and let's some brown kid do the actual fighting.

Trust us, you'll get a college degree when your done. Really.

LOOK DICKHEAD, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER I SERVED !!!

 

[JoeB131]

You're not serving now.

Maybe you need to talk to your fellow conservatives to go down to the recruting station and sign up for that Holy Crusade to convert the unbeliever! That would be totally awesome.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You're not serving now.

Maybe you need to talk to your fellow conservatives to go down to the recruting station and sign up for that Holy Crusade to convert the unbeliever! That would be totally awesome.

I'm agnostic, but members of the military already lean more to the right than left. In fact only about 15% admit they're Dims.

 

[JoeB131]

You're not serving now.

Maybe you need to talk to your fellow conservatives to go down to the recruting station and sign up for that Holy Crusade to convert the unbeliever! That would be totally awesome.

I'm agnostic, but members of the military already lean more to the right than left. In fact only about 15% admit they're Dims.

I was right wing when I was in the service.

Then I got to learn what a shit sandwich Corporatism is.

I don't mistake Exxon's interests for America's anymore.

 

[Conservative65]

He meant what he said Joe and made you look, once again, like the typical leftist.

As far as a dick in the face, I bet you sat at the TV screen last night hoping Obama would pull his out so you could figuratively suck it.

I'm sure you obsess on Obama's dick.

You're the one that brought them up. I just recognized that you're the type that does that to him. At least wipe off your chin.

Look, guy, I know you are worried about your "shortcomings", but you need to get over it.

(Pssst. The guns don't "Compensate" for them.)

Don't need guns to compensate for something that doesn't need compensated. I own guns because I have a RIGHT to do so. Don't won't one, don't buy one. Don't want me to have one, come get it son.

 

[Conservative65]

You're not serving now.

Maybe you need to talk to your fellow conservatives to go down to the recruting station and sign up for that Holy Crusade to convert the unbeliever! That would be totally awesome.

I'm agnostic, but members of the military already lean more to the right than left. In fact only about 15% admit they're Dims.

I was right wing when I was in the service.

Then I got to learn what a shit sandwich Corporatism is.

I don't mistake Exxon's interests for America's anymore.

You still eat the shit sandwich.

 

[dannyboys]

It's always Muslims b/c they don't know how to live any different. They've been killing each other over some stupid argument since the seventh century. When they aren't killing each other they are looking for any excuse to kill the 'Infidel'. If there weren't any more 'infidels' left they be waging a Holy War on fucking sand flies.
Violence is part of their gene code.
http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-a...!/?cid=otr-marketing_url-sunni_shia_infoguide

 

[Roudy]

Again, back up your claims otherwise it's going straight in the garbage bin of a Isamic propoganda, as usual.

whatever, guy. No historian outside a university that teaches about Talking Snakes in Science Class thinks of the Crusades as a good thing.

Did you see me say the crusades were a good thing? No. But I bet you think Muslim animals invading other lands wasn't that bad, eh? Oh wait, the European Christians "welcomed" the invading Muslims, didn't they? Ha ha ha.

But you still haven't been able to produce any evidence that the crusades weren't in response to Muslim invasions, other than the rantings of a mentally ill arsehole named Joe.

And how all of this relates to why it's always Muslims that feel empowered to murder those who draw cartoons of their prophet, or criticize Islam?

 

[Roudy]

What a coincidence, most people don't see an ideology that can coexist with American values.

Israel will be a strong ally of America whether or not you Islamo Nazi lovers like it.

Israel will keep dragging us into wars until American mothers get tired of their sons coming home in boxes.

Oh, wait. That's already happened.

No it hasn't. Not even once, you whiny anti semtic radical Musłim in need of an FBI interrogation.

 

[Roudy]

The PC-protected religion certainly does have the usual suspects spinning and deflecting for it, doesn't it?

again, Mac, if you want a crusade, no one is stopping you from walking down to the Recruiter's office and signing up.

^^^^^^
Funny how Joe Blow so desperately defends everything and anything Islam.

 

[Roudy]

Joe is such a great American.

Yup, he never misses an opportunity to bash America, Christianity, Jews, and Israel.

I wonder why?

He's your garden variety American liberal.

His being a Liberal is just a cover.

 

[Roudy]

You're not serving now.

Maybe you need to talk to your fellow conservatives to go down to the recruting station and sign up for that Holy Crusade to convert the unbeliever! That would be totally awesome.

I'm agnostic, but members of the military already lean more to the right than left. In fact only about 15% admit they're Dims.

I was right wing when I was in the service.

Then I got to learn what a shit sandwich Corporatism is.

I don't mistake Exxon's interests for America's anymore.

You still eat the shit sandwich.

At least its hallal.

 

[Roudy]

Once again, history shows that the crusades started as a response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands. If anybody has anything to the contrary, then put up or shut up!

Had Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

History of the Crusades

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, theSeljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.


Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

By the way, I'd like to thank Joe for continuing to reply to this thread and keeping the title fresh in everyone's mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't need guns to compensate for something that doesn't need compensated. I own guns because I have a RIGHT to do so. Don't won't one, don't buy one. Don't want me to have one, come get it son.

You own guns because you are a scared little man...

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, history shows that the crusades started as a response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands. If anybody has anything to the contrary, then put up or shut up!

Had Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

Yes, those Christians were terribly upset about something that happened 400 years ago that the vast majority of htem didn't know anything about becuase they were completely illiterate.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you see me say the crusades were a good thing? No. But I bet you think Muslim animals invading other lands wasn't that bad, eh? Oh wait, the European Christians "welcomed" the invading Muslims, didn't they? Ha ha ha.

Well, actually, some of them did. The Monophysites in Egypt were subject to decades of Byzantine oppression, and they welcomed the Muslims with open arms.

Here's the thing, the reason why the Muslims overran so much of the world was because they embraced science and technology while the Christians were burning cats and Jews every time a plague broke out.

 

[Roudy]

Once again, history shows that the crusades started as a response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands. If anybody has anything to the contrary, then put up or shut up!

Had Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

Yes, those Christians were terribly upset about something that happened 400 years ago that the vast majority of htem didn't know anything about becuase they were completely illiterate.

Reading problems again? Muslims had invaded Christian lands, and were slowly creeping all over Europe. They had to be stopped. Here let me put it in larger print for you, dumbass:

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, theSeljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war.

Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

 

[Roudy]

Did you see me say the crusades were a good thing? No. But I bet you think Muslim animals invading other lands wasn't that bad, eh? Oh wait, the European Christians "welcomed" the invading Muslims, didn't they? Ha ha ha.

Well, actually, some of them did. The Monophysites in Egypt were subject to decades of Byzantine oppression, and they welcomed the Muslims with open arms.

Here's the thing, the reason why the Muslims overran so much of the world was because they embraced science and technology while the Christians were burning cats and Jews every time a plague broke out.

Joe Blow, you need to stop vomiting Islamist propaganda, you are once again proving you are nothing but a Muslim shill.

The only reason certain people "submitted" to Islam was because Muslim animals had slaughtered, raped, and looted many other lands before them! That is how Islam spread. In fact, if you take ISIS back about a thousand years, they are doing exactly what Muslims did back then.

Now, what does all of this have to do with why Muslims feel empowered to slaughter anybody who draws their prophet?

Or should I report you to the mods for being the off topic troll that you usually are.