Muslims DID cause the shooting, even inadvertently

Original post by Harmonic Minor

It doesn't make sense to an ignorant person. My point was that Islam had been attacking Europe long before the First Crusade ever took place. And the First Crusade was actually launched in response to centuries of aggression, as a result, it was a relatively late and small scale operation (at least to begin with). The circumstances surrounding the First Crusade are simple and are as follows: In 1071, Byzantine power was broken at the Battle of Manzikert, which opened the road for unimpeded Jihad advance. Thus, the Byzantine emperor sent word to the west and the Pope asking for help, resulting in the First Crusade. It was a response to centuries of uninterrupted aggression by the Jihad armies, as is clear from Muslim advance in Spain, Sicily, France, and elsewhere.

So attacking people who had nothing to do with the original 'attack' you are talking about. This would be like in 200 years, Germany attacking England because it's pissed about world war 2.

Oh that's a good one!

Hahahaha... Islam a religion of peace... hahahaha!

Ignorance. The word is actually derived from the Arabic word for peace. No mainstream religion is a religion of war and violence, sadly though, many people use religion as an excuse for attacks.

Reply 42

LipstickKisses

Original post by Harmonic Minor

Yes, I'm really shaking in my boots from Hindu, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. If I insult Jesus or Abraham or Vishnu I'm really going to become target for assassination by crazed adherents of the former religions, and incite millions of their followers to burn, loot and kill.

Because the perpertrator of the recent Norway attacks in which many people were brutally killed was a Muslim extremist, right?! :rolleyes:

Oh no wait, he was a follower of that other Abrahamic religion, what's it called again? Oh yeah, Christianity.

They exist in every religion and/or ideology.

Reply 43

michaelhaych

So by that logic the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews. Damn Jews, why do they hate their foreskins so much. WHY!!?!?

Reply 44

Original post by Harmonic Minor

This isn't a matter of schism between the Eastern and Western Churches. The fact of the matter is that the heart of the Islamic world was taken by conquest and was previously Christian or pagan. Islam has always been spread by the sword and the Crusades were defensive wars in response to centuries of uninterrupted Islamic aggression.

But it's fine, tow the politically correct party line if you want. More fool you.

Political correctness is nothing to do with this. The claim that islam alone is a war-mongering religion is absurd. You're merely repeating your claim, and attempting to dismiss my previous post as just political correct drivel. Crusades did go against Byzantium, so tell me this. If they were defensive wars, why did this occur? Because surely, a defensive war of christianity against islam would be united.

Christianity is no better than Islam. In the west today, generally speaking, it's influence and political power has wilted. The three monotheisms of the world have more in common with each other than they'd like to admit.

Reply 45

Original post by LipstickKisses

So attacking people who had nothing to do with the original 'attack' you are talking about. This would be like in 200 years, Germany attacking England because it's pissed about world war 2.

You say this as though there were no such continuing entity as the Dar-al Islam and no such abiding religion as the Muslim faith. Or that the Battle of Manzikert did not take place only a couple of decades before the First Crusade. This is an idiotic copout and you know it.

Reply 46

LysFromParis

10

Original post by Coco_94

Zoroastrianism and Jewdaism existed before Christianity. What's your point?
These Christians were also NOT Catholic. And according to the Catholic church, they are the only real christians. The rest were heretics. The crusades was not some great defense of the faith. If the crusades were a defense of "Christian land" there'd not have been one against Byzantium.

Get off your high horse with the same old "Take a few history lessons." Too many people have the same attitude on this forum. it does not reinforce or validate your opinion if you say that. An argument of authority is fallacious.

They were not Roman Catholic, however it stills exist none-Roman Catholics churches which are Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

RC does recognized other Churches as Christians by the way...

Reply 47

Original post by LipstickKisses

Because the perpertrator of the recent Norway attacks in which many people were brutally killed was a Muslim extremist, right?! :rolleyes:

Oh no wait, he was a follower of that other Abrahamic religion, what's it called again? Oh yeah, Christianity.

They exist in every religion and/or ideology.

I don't think anybody seriously thinks this man was motivated solely by Christianity or that his actions have any basis in Christian theology whatsoever.

Reply 48

Original post by Harmonic Minor

Yes, I'm really shaking in my boots from Hindu, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. If I insult Jesus or Abraham or Vishnu I'm really going to become target for assassination by crazed adherents of the former religions, and incite millions of their followers to burn, loot and kill.

Have never heard of Tim McVeigh, or the Waco Siege? Do you not know what is going on in kashmir? Hell, fundementalists love to kill each other. Just like there is within christianity, there's a schism in islam. and just like christianity, they've killed each other more than they have everyone else.

Reply 49

savetheplanet

12

I actually don't blame muslims for this. I know that guy shot people because he was against the islamic domination of europe but shooting people isn't going to help is it?

Reply 50

Original post by Harmonic Minor

I don't think anybody seriously thinks this man was motivated solely by Christianity or that his actions have any basis in Christian theology whatsoever.

It's not yet clear that it was motivated by his faith. It was executed as if it was politically motivated. Which was why it was ridiculous with the speculation regarding Al'qaeda.

Reply 51

LipstickKisses

Original post by Harmonic Minor

You say this as though there were no such continuing entity as the Dar-al Islam and no such abiding religion as the Muslim faith. Or that the Battle of Manzikert did not take place only a couple of decades before the First Crusade. This is an idiotic copout and you know it.

It's not a cop-out, it's the truth. Again it's not significant to one group of people, but attacking someone years later because you're butthurt about something that happened in the past that was done by different people is ridiculous.

Original post by Harmonic Minor

I don't think anybody seriously thinks this man was motivated solely by Christianity or that his actions have any basis in Christian theology whatsoever.

And killing people in the name of Islam actually goes against what the religion is about and thus doesn't have a basis in Islam...like I said, extremists in every religion, but you shouldn't let them tarnish your view.

Reply 52

Original post by Coco_94

Political correctness is nothing to do with this. The claim that islam alone is a war-mongering religion is absurd. You're merely repeating your claim, and attempting to dismiss my previous post as just political correct drivel. Crusades did go against Byzantium, so tell me this. If they were defensive wars, why did this occur? Because surely, a defensive war of christianity against islam would be united.

I've already explained this in my posts in this thread. But to recapitulate: The Crusades were not the first encounter of Europe with the Islamic world, or vice versa. It came much earlier, from Muhammad himself. He wrote to the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople, Herakleios (Heraclius), telling him to embrace Islam. If he did, then their lives and property would be safe. In other words, the implicit threat was that if he did not, their lives and property would not be safe. And they weren't. The last battle Muhammad undertook was an attempted engagement with the Byzantine army. Shortly thereafter he received the revelation from Allah from the ninth chapter of the Koran, standing as the last word on Jihad and the relationship of believers to nonbelievers, which is incidentally the most bellicose and violent of all the chapters. It stipulates that Muslims must wage war against Jews and Christians, until they convert or submit as inferiors to Islamic rule.

Muslims warriors took this very seriously and began to chip away at the Byzantine empire, forming by now what is the heart of the Islamic world by conquest. They went on the conquer Constantinople, and advance into Spain, as I'm sure you well know. There were attempts to conquer France stopped by Charles Martel at Tours (732), and subsequent attempts to conquer southern France. They did however occupy Sicily and parts of Southern Italy beginning in the 9th century. In 846 the Jihad armies threatened Rome and in 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, Byzantine power was finally broken, opening the road for unimpeded Jihad advance. Thus, the Byzantine emperor sent word to the west and the Pope asking for help, resulting in the First Crusade. As I have said countless times, it was a response to centuries of uninterrupted aggression by the Jihad armies.

Christianity is no better than Islam. In the west today, generally speaking, it's influence and political power has wilted. The three monotheisms of the world have more in common with each other than they'd like to admit.

Can you explain to me why it was Christian Europe and then America which produced the miracles of the modern world, whereas the Islamic world fell into stagnation and superstition over five hundred years ago? And why the Islamic world today is a bastion of superstition, backwardness and intolerance?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 53

Original post by LysFromParis

They were not Roman Catholic, however it stills exist none-Roman Catholics churches which are Catholics.

RC does recognized other Churches as Christians by the way...

I should have been clearer and specified i was talking about Roman Catholic when i said catholic. What you say here with the RC, is what i was saying.

Reply 54

madders94

18

Them pesky Muslims with their darn Muslamic ray guns and speaking Mosque and Sharon law :mad:

Spoiler

Reply 55

creak

13

I'm disappointed OP. Why didn't you go the whole hog and blame it on a set up orchestrated by Norwegian security forces to deflect attention away from the threat of Islamic extremism? EDL Andy could teach you a thing or two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QomPbU0btnY&feature=youtu.be

Reply 56

Fusilero

14

Original post by LipstickKisses

So you attack 300 years later, when different people are living there that didn't wage the attack? Yeah that makes sense doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Oh the irony...Islam is actually a religion of peace, contrary to popular belief, and doesn't have a problem with other people's religions. Go and ask the average Muslim if he or she has a problem with someone else being Christian or Jewish...the vast majority will not have an issue with it at all.

What an atheist homosexual promiscuously attired sexually active unwed female? :holmes:

Tolerance of Christians or Jews doesn't make the religion tolerant, following from this I consider the fundamentals of the vast majority of religions unfathomably intolerant.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 57

FluxD

10

Original post by Harmonic Minor

It doesn't make sense to an ignorant person. My point was that Islam had been attacking Europe long before the First Crusade ever took place. And the First Crusade was actually launched in response to centuries of aggression, as a result, it was a relatively late and small scale operation (at least to begin with). The circumstances surrounding the First Crusade are simple and are as follows: in 1071, Byzantine power was broken at the Battle of Manzikert, which opened the road for unimpeded Jihad advance. Thus, the Byzantine emperor sent word to the west and the Pope asking for help, resulting in the First Crusade. It was a response to centuries of uninterrupted aggression by the Jihad armies, as is clear from Muslim advance in Spain, Sicily, France, and elsewhere.

Oh that's a good one!

Islam a religion of peace... hahaha *chokes*

Nice to see someone else who actually has taken the time to study history rather than simply regurgitate the phrase, "Islum iz peeceful herp derp".

Reps on recharge.

Reply 58

Original post by LipstickKisses

It's not a cop-out, it's the truth. Again it's not significant to one group of people, but attacking someone years later because you're butthurt about something that happened in the past that was done by different people is ridiculous.

This is just senseless but if you can't see my point then it's useless repeating it.

And killing people in the name of Islam actually goes against what the religion is about and thus doesn't have a basis in Islam...like I said, extremists in every religion, but you shouldn't let them tarnish your view.

No, we're not under threat from Christian, Jewish or Hindu extremists. This is just laughable. But we have been under threat from Islamic extremists for quite sometime, and chapter 9 verse 29 of the Qur'an explicitly states: 'Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.'

This verse, and many others similar to it, has been the basis for Islamic supremacism for over a thousand years. Only a person ignorant of Islamic history and theology and who submits to the politically correct party line would seriously think Islam is, or has ever been, a religion of peace.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 59

michaelhaych