[jaadau121]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Ahmedinejad made his famous speech at the Interior Ministry on October 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole's.) The relevant portions read:

Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. … Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. … For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.

You evidently think that by "occupation," Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Israeli seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. But if this were true, it would not have been going on for "more than fifty years" now, would it? The 50th anniversary of 1967 falls in 2017, which is a while off. What could be clearer than that "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself?

As the Institute for Imam Khomeini itself has said, the remarks were:

Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.

(Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.)

This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."

American transalation haha, you are funny aren't you.

By the way MEMRI is a hardcore pro Israeli organisation, enough said.

There was no mention of years nor was the word NAGSHEH mentioned, I see you have dodged this point.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by jaadau121)
American transalation haha, you are funny aren't you.

By the way MEMRI is a hardcore pro Israeli organisation, enough said.

There was no mention of years nor was the word NAGSHEH mentioned, I see you have dodged this point.

So you dismiss the source for being American despite the fact they are a native Persian speaker working for none other than the Tehran Bureau? Whether or not nagsheh was mentioned is besides the point. What was said was quoted above and it is quite clear.

I see you dodged by point on Ahmedinejad referring to the "50 year long" occupation despite the fact that the 50th anniversary does not fall until 2017, and that the "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself. Ahmedinejad believes the occupation started in 1948, not 1967. He is an inciter of genocide.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Yes, they are both the names for the same place, we can use either. Just like we can use the terms Israel and Palestine to denote an area (the "Holy Land") quite interchangeably. I prefer the term Palestine, as I prefer the term Spain. Since you prefer the term used by the occupiers, in this case Al Andalus, do you also prefer to use the term Israel?

Oh look at this, you can't admit you thought Al Andalus was something else.

Where, in any of my posts, did I even suggest that Al Andalus was somewhere else? Please quote and provide appropriate commentary. Otherwise, it's obvious this is just another one of your legendary inventions.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Typically your ego must've got hurt.

Oh, so this is where it's coming from? You had your ego suitably thrashed yesterday, and as usual, when you realise or feel something negative within yourself, your first action is to accuse and project it onto others (like your accusations of others not being able to debate, being intellectually deficient, when anybody can see, that you are saying these in response to your own demonstrable failure to debate and intellectual deficiencies). If it makes you feel better, you can go about this, like I've said before, am not going to stand in the way of your mental wellbeing.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just how the Iraqis wanted the Americans to invade. Nice joke. All I need to do now is look up that camel joke by Al Shabab, and that's me done.

And this is where the debate ends, because it's wasting my time.

Of course this is where the debate must end, and not for want of "wasting [your] time", or indeed any "inability to debate" or "intellectual deficiencies" on my part. The debate has to end, because you were not smart enough to see the beautiful checkmate that you set up for yourself, and that I was cruelly leading you into. As always happens, when you finally see the hole you've dug yourself (and in a cruel way, it's always somewhat enjoyable watching you obliviously digging it), you start inventing excuses and running away, mainly as a result of your pride, lack of humility and weak imaan.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Firstly - To correct you

You have no evidence that Iraqi's wanted America to invade.

Just as you have no evidence that the Iberians, Levantines, and North Africans wanted the Arabs to invade. But for some reason, you believe they did.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
In truth, they did not. They did not want nearly a million deaths. They did not want, sectarian violence to shoot up.

I agree somewhat. Like you, I was totally against the Western imperialist invasion of Iraq, and believe the whole episode to be a crime. However, unlike you, I am consistent in my ethics, and rightly condemn the Arab imperialism in Spain, the Levant and North, something you fail to do.

However, like those occupied by the Arab imperialists, there were a minority of voices within Iraq that persistently drummed for the Americans to invade. Let's call them "sell outs" if you wish.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Had the Iraqi's wanted America to invade, then so many people wouldn't be criticizing America for the invasion there.

So how do you square the many Spanish, Portuguese, Maltese, Sicilians critical of the Arabs' imperialism and colonialism on their lands, with your unshaken belief that the imperialism and colonialism was wanted there?

Of course you will find some Iberians and southern Europeans who lovingly praise the times of Arab occupation, but you also fine some Iraqis who lovingly praise the American occupation.

So you need to be consistent here. And you need to stop running away from a very pertinent debate.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Secondly - To put you in your place

When Muslims invaded Al Andalus (Spain) -

---

Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution. - Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.

---

And? When the Americans planned and executed the occupation of Iraq, the Kurds welcomed them as liberators from Arab persecution, and indeed fought alongside the American soldiers. If you ever visit Iraq, and it's obvious you never have, you will probably have a fit at the sight of pictures of George Bush hanging in shops, restaurants and hotels in Dohuk, Hawler (Erbil), Silemani (Sulaymaniyah). Of course the Kurds are naturally "sell-outs".

This does not and should not translate to generalised "Iraqis wanting the Americans to invade", and indeed, does not justify the attack and occupation of a sovereign nation. If you can understand this basic principle, and have some humility to recognise and admit your inconsistency, then we might actually get somewhere here.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
When Muslims invaded Jerusalem;

---

The revolt ended with the departure of the Persians and an eventual massacre of the Jews in 629 by the Byzantines ending 15 years of Jewish autonomy. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were once again allowed to live and practice their religion with more freedom in Jerusalem, 8 years after their massacre by the Byzantines and nearly 500 years after their expulsion from Judea by the Roman Empire. - Gil 1997, pp. 70–71.

Since the American occupation of Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan has flourished and become the centre of the sense of Kurdish nationhood for the Kurdish communities and diaspora everywhere. Kurds live in peace and freedom, something they had not experienced for hundreds of years.

Does this justify the American occupation of Iraq? No it doesn't. Same applies for the Arab imperialists' occupation of Jerusalem.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

---

When Muslims invaded Syria. However, they heard the Romans were comming back with a huge army, so the Muslims had to regroup. This would mean that they could potentially lose or win, and if they lose, that means they have to give the Dhimmi's (Non-Muslims) all their tax money back. So before they leave, they give the Dhimmi's their tax money and this is their reply;

---

In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us” - Arnold, Preaching, p. 54.

---

And indeed, the Muslims did return and slapped the Roman's up.

And that's just a few examples of many. But the above should be enough to shut you up.

What all the Christians said that? Really? This is just becoming a joke (that is, your lack of debating ability and inability to evaluate historical sources)

All your examples supporting Arab imperialism and colonialism, have been refuted by the demonstration of identical concepts as occuring in modern day Western imperialism. This should be enough to shut any normal person up, however your deep seated pride and lack of humility will no doubt prevent this from happening.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Do you want quotes by prominent Iraqis, both religious and secular, with all their pleading for the Americans to come and save them, and all their praise once the Americans got there?

Keep dreaming.

So are you saying that there were no prominant Iraqis that begged for the Americans to invade, and indeed, still praise the American invasion and occupation? Yes or no?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

Do you understand what empirical evidence is?

As I've made clear, I, like you, opposed the American imperialists' invasion and occupation of Iraq. Where we part, is where you choose the path of inconsistency by condoning the Arab imperialsts' invasion and occupation of so many foreign and sovereign lands.

So if I run around Spain and Portugal with a camera asking people if they supported the Arab occupation of their land, and then edit the day's work by only showing people huffing and puffing about how awful it was, would that make you believe that the Iberians did not want the Arabs' to invade? I ask again, do you understand what empirical evidence is?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Anyways, it's clear you just wasted a lot of my time.

Hardly. You've cut short the debate at the point it was getting juicy, and you were about to have to admit that you lied or couldn't be rationally consistent. I know it must be humiliating for you, and terribly painful for your ego, but don't worry, am sure there will still be some brainless Muslims on this forum that will still exhale "Mashallah" when you post some tripe and conjecture in multiple different colours, and will still see you as a symbol of the ummah's invincibility. However, for the sake of those with intelligence reading this thread, let's post again the bit of the post, that you feel so desperate to run away from.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Thirdly, I never said the only reason you're allowed to fight for is "oppression".

Erm, sorry Mister, but the reason I was calling you up on this is because you said, in this very thread "Muslims aren't allowed to fight for stuff like "nationalism" and "patriotism". You're only really allowed to fight against oppression (whether it's against your religion, yourselves, someone else)." So if you now believe there are other reason, why did you write this which I just quoted?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
There's three reasons we're allowed to fight in, the reasons include removing oppression, defending the weak and implementing the justice of Islam. Which is exactly what happened in every invasion.

So are you still standing by your stance that "there was little reason" for Muslims to fight in the war against the Nazis?

You know, whenever Fox News is running its stuff about the righteousness of the Iraq war, it's all about removing oppression, defending the weak, and implementing the justice of freedom and democracy. It's like they're taking a leaf out of the Muslims' book.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You can't really debate,

Sorry mate, but objectively speaking, and anybody observing this conversation, would say that applies to you, not me.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
and instead are now arguing and making baseless statements like; "Iraq wanted USA to invade (even though there's no evidence to support this, not to mention that within just 5 months a poll suggested that most of the Iraqi's wanted America out)" which shows the desperation you've succumbed to.

I didn't argue that Iraq wanted USA to invade. I said that this argument applies just as much to the Iraq context as it did to the Levantine/North Africa/Iberian context. A few people from those places welcoming and praising an invasion and occupation does not equate to the people of those people welcoming and praising the invasion. This is basic basic stuff, and am surprised that I am even having to say this.

And the poll you link is very valid.

Where is the poll of Iberians, North Africans and Levantines from the 7th century saying how much they wanted to be invaded, occupied and colonised by Arabs? Where is it?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I had a lot of PM's to reply to, but instead I wasted time on you. That is regretful.

You and your excuses

[Chindits]

Hardly a surprise when 37% of so-called 'British' Muslims polled, said it was justified to target the British Jewish community.

Makes no difference to the left. The rabid anti-Israeli left wing movement will still march shoulder to shoulder with their Islamist allies.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Chindits)
Hardly a surprise when 37% of so-called 'British' .

Link Please.

[Chindits]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Link Please.

It was originally a Times article roughly around 2006. It was removed around 12 months ago, which took most of the links out with it.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=37%...ms+target+jews

Have a sift through and see if you can find something.

A channel 4 poll by YouGuv of British Muslims showed 1 in 4 sympathised with the London bombers.

[jaadau121]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
So you dismiss the source for being American despite the fact they are a native Persian speaker working for none other than the Tehran Bureau? Whether or not nagsheh was mentioned is besides the point. What was said was quoted above and it is quite clear.

I see you dodged by point on Ahmedinejad referring to the "50 year long" occupation despite the fact that the 50th anniversary does not fall until 2017, and that the "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself. Ahmedinejad believes the occupation started in 1948, not 1967. He is an inciter of genocide.

1. didn't dodge anything, Read my post again, I said, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF YEARS.

Learn to read.

2.No it isnt' beside the point because according to your lies and your pathetic sources, you claim he said 'wipe Israel off the map'

Number one the didn't say Israel, he said the regime occupying Al Quds ie the Israeli REGIME not Israel itself, you may beliEve he means Israel itrself but that is not what he said, he said REGIME.

Number two more importanty if he said wipe off the map, where in you source is the word NAGSHEH (which means MAP in Farsi) in your source?

You cannot claim he said wipe off the map and then refuse to show me where the Farsi word for map is in his speech.

Stop your lies, stop your propaganda, becaase you are not going to get away with lying and squirming your way out of this one with me.

When you can show me the word Naghsheh (map) in his speech then reply, other wise do not bother, you are wasting my time with your lies.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Chazzer66)
He's right though. Muslims (on your basis illegally) invaded Christian Spain. So what if the Jews there supported this, the Jews were not the majority and so the majority opposed the Muslims, hence you got kicked out in the reconquista. The Catholics of France and Spain united and kicked you out, but of course This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel

I hope you're not like Rat Bag, who can't debate, cannot accept facts or evidences, can't back his own points up, uses genetic fallacies, and then once he's been destroyed in debates, cries and spams your pm. And wastes a huge amount of time, and boy did I waste too much of it yesterday.

Anyways, to answer your question;

1. That quote was an unbiased one (Non-Muslim), to show that Muslims invaded and helped the oppressed Jews and various Christian sects who were considered "heratics".

Otherwise from the Islamic account, Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair (who was North African leader at that time) to ask for help against Rodrick (who was a tyrannical visigoth ruler).

2. The majority "did not oppose the invasion", it's well accepted that Tariq landed in spain and so easily defeated the standing army Rodrick brought around. (In fact, there was hardly any resistence except for this one small battle).

The reason the majority weren't opposed to the new rule is because of the terms Muslims provided which contrasted the harsh conditions placed in by the visigoths.

I would recommend you watch this documentary which touches on the subject pretty well;



^Watch the above video, it's excellent and even gives the input of many Spanish Historian Experts as well.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
The Catholics of France and Spain united and kicked you out, but of course This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel

Actually;

1. The Muslims ruled area's for almost 800 years.

2. Contrary to when the Muslims conquered Al Andalus, when Ferdinand and Isabella did complete the Reconquista, they sought to kill every single man, woman and child, that was either Muslim and Jew. Many would've died if it wasn't for Turks sending ships to rescue the civilians in danger, that not only took Christian/Jews but also Christians that were deemed heratics.

3. And during the recapture, all those people that had converted to Islam (which was an enormous amount) were forced to abandon their faith, and any signs of showing it meant persecution and death.

Although some attempted to practice in secret, most were forced to go back to Christianity. There was even an uprising, which was defeated down by the Christian rulers.

Isabella and Ferdinand sought to remove every and any trace of Islamic civilization in Spain. Obviously they weren't fully successful.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel

You mean Muslims? And we're not trying to defeat "7 million Jews", which has nothing to do with it. You'll find many Jews who share the same cause as the Muslims do, which is strictly confined against a government/military, not a people.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
Please accept that Muslims have engaged in imperialist wars contrary to haram, or you obviously have some sort of anti-reality device and I can give up trying.

It's going to be interesting seeing if you accept the above/watch the video or whether you will be in denial. (al Andalus)

And I have no issue with the word imperialism, depending on what you mean. In the academic circles, the word's only been used to describe the late Ottomon Empire (this list included the Ancient Persian/Roman empires).

So I suppose yes, there were some conquests that had imperialistic motives.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
2) Your logic seems to be deteriorating. Support for the war will not and cannot correspond to postwar support as facts and the political landscape have changed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Postwar most Americans were for pullung out, previously most supported intervention, ergo you are making no sense logically. An a priori error is pretty basic dude, stop grasping at straws.

1. No one cares what "most American's" thought, we're talking about Iraqi's here.

2. Most Iraqi's did not "support American intervention", don't bull crap and actually watch the video (before the intervention) and read the link. Otherwise give supporting evidence that "most iraqi's wanted intervention".

[Spaz Man]

Remember that it was the U.S that funded and supplied the Taliban in the 80s before turning their back on them, thus leaving them spurned and resentful yet more powerful.

America was happily funding Islamic extremism to combat Communism and yet now are wondering why they have so many problems.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
Remember that it was the U.S that funded and supplied the Taliban in the 80s before turning their back on them, thus leaving them spurned and resentful yet more powerful.

America was happily funding Islamic extremism to combat Communism and yet now are wondering why they have so many problems.

Well Duh, everyone knows the US funded the Mujahid.

[killa78]

(Original post by mack94)
lmaoo your username is killa78, How ironic

Haha, ChristianLady told me off for having it because it sounds violent

Tis a controversial name
Plus you don't know what i've killed

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I hope you're not like Rat Bag, who can't debate, cannot accept facts or evidences, can't back his own points up, uses genetic fallacies, and then once he's been destroyed in debates, cries and spams your pm. And wastes a huge amount of time, and boy did I waste too much of it yesterday.

Mate, any objective observer of our posts on this thread would simply laugh at your statement.

You posted you points. They were quickly and thoroughly refuted. You ran away. It's that simple. Anybody can see that, even you can.

To top it off, the total delusional way that you've handled this debate devalues everything you write elsewhere (and not everything you write is inconsistent, logically flawed and objectively untrue, sometimes your contributions are actually reasonable and valid, just not in this case). The fact you can be so delusional with all this posturing and triumphalism, would show to anybody, that you will believe and construct the most ludicrous things in your mind just to continue believing something that you want to. As a result, all your dawah efforts are diminished by several orders of magnitude, simply because of this comical display of character that you show us. If you sorted out this pride, lack of humility and ego problem you have, you might find yourself being a better Muslim, and moreover, a better debater.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Anyways, to answer your question;

1. That quote was an unbiased one (Non-Muslim), to show that Muslims invaded and helped the oppressed Jews and various Christian sects who were considered "heratics".

So if a Muslim is quoted supporting the American invasion and occupation of Iraq in the name of helping the oppressed Kurds and various Shia sects, then this somehow validates the invasion?

You do know, that there are uncountable numbers of Muslims who could be quoted to this effect? Does it validate the American invasion of Iraq? Nope. And neither does your quote validate the Arab invasion of Spain.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Otherwise from the Islamic account, Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair (who was North African leader at that time) to ask for help against Rodrick (who was a tyrannical visigoth ruler).

And? What did the Muslim Iraqis, Ayad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, Massoud Barzani, and Jalal Talabani do? They went to various world leaders, to ask for help against Saddam (was was a tyriannical ruler). They shower praise on people like Tony Blair and George Bush. Do these men's words validate the American invasion of Iraq? Nope. And neither does this "Julian" dude that you refer to, validate the Arab invasion of Spain.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
2. The majority "did not oppose the invasion"

How do you know that? Where are the polls to prove you point?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
it's well accepted that Tariq landed in spain and so easily defeated the standing army Rodrick brought around. (In fact, there was hardly any resistence except for this one small battle).

And when the Americans invaded Iraq, they wiped the floor, because;
-they had vastly superior military forces
-the Iraqi military force was weak and decrepit
-they had helpers from many sections of Iraqi society.

This should not be interpreted that "the majority did not oppose the invasion". Ordinary people had no means to, and it took time to organise the resistance that the Americans went on to subsequently face, and that eventually led to their explusion.

The exact same is true of Spain. When the Arabs invaded, they wiped the floor, because;
-they had vastly superior military forces
-the Iberian military force was decrepit and power structures totally fragmented
-they had helpers from many sections of Iberian society

But again, you cannot interpret that as "the majority did not oppose the invasion". Over time, resistance was organised that the Arabs went on to subsequently face, and that eventually led to their expulsion.

It's the same situation, so you can cut this denial.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
The reason the majority weren't opposed to the new rule is because of the terms Muslims provided which contrasted the harsh conditions placed in by the visigoths.

In your dreams. You haven't even got any proof what people on the ground thought. So cut the Fox News style "we're saving them from themselves and giving them freedom".

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I would recommend you watch this documentary which touches on the subject pretty well;



^Watch the above video, it's excellent and even gives the input of many Spanish Historian Experts as well.

But wait, it's Channel 4, so it's all biased surely?

So if you watch a documentary that says how great the American invasion and occupation of Iraq was, with many "Iraqi Historian Experts [sic]" you would be converted?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Actually;

1. The Muslims ruled area's for almost 800 years.

How is that relevant? Surely that makes it worse that they colonised the land for so long. At least the Americans were kicked out after a decade.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
2. Contrary to when the Muslims conquered Al Andalus, when Ferdinand and Isabella did complete the Reconquista, they sought to kill every single man, woman and child, that was either Muslim and Jew. Many would've died if it wasn't for Turks sending ships to rescue the civilians in danger, that not only took Christian/Jews but also Christians that were deemed heratics.

Have you seen what the Iraqi insurgency/resistance (equivalent in example to Ferdinand and Isabella) do and have done to their own people and the level of sectarian violence?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
3. And during the recapture, all those people that had converted to Islam (which was an enormous amount) were forced to abandon their faith, and any signs of showing it meant persecution and death.

Sounds like the level of brutality that many Iraqis have to face by their own insurgency/resistance men?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Although some attempted to practice in secret, most were forced to go back to Christianity. There was even an uprising, which was defeated down by the Christian rulers.

And you think there was religious freedom in the period of Iraqi reconquest from the Americans? You've got to be joking.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
It's going to be interesting seeing if you accept the above/watch the video or whether you will be in denial. (al Andalus)

The most interesting thing at this moment in time, is the level of delusion you express in you posts on this topic.

You cannot detach the violence of the resistance and reconquest of Spain from the Arab occupation, from the Arab invasion and occupation itself. The Arabs nurtured and unleashed this level of violence through the very action of colonialism. Just as you cannot detach the violence of the resistance and reconquest of Iraq from the American occupation, from the American invasion and occupation itself. All that sectarian violence, while carried out by Iraqis, is in part, a response to such occupation, just as was the case of the violence of the reconquista, carried out by Iberians. You can't say, "the Arabs liberated Spain, gave them freedom, and x, y z" and ignore what happened as a consequence of this occupation. Just as Fox News cannot (or shouldn't) say "the Americans liberated Iraq, gave them freedom, and x, y ,z", and ignore all that happened as a consequence of this occupation.

Do you understand this? Yes or no? Running away, ignore the debate, making up deluded stories about how I can't debate, etc etc (when it is patently obvious who can't/refuses to debate here) just won't do. Either man up, and engage in this debate properly, or accept that your stance cannot stand up in the face of objective scrutiny.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And I have no issue with the word imperialism, depending on what you mean. In the academic circles, the word's only been used to describe the late Ottomon Empire (this list included the Ancient Persian/Roman empires).

So it was Arab Imperialism?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
So I suppose yes, there were some conquests that had imperialistic motives.

The absolute majority of conquests and wars in the world's history have been for land, resources and power. The Arab conquests conformed totally to this norm.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
2. Most Iraqi's did not "support American intervention", don't bull crap and actually watch the video (before the intervention) and read the link. Otherwise give supporting evidence that "most iraqi's wanted intervention".

Can you give proper evidence (and that means not some anecdotes from individuals, since anybody can do that in the case of the Iraq war) that "most Iberians wanted Arab intervention"? No

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Mate, any objective observer of our posts on this thread would simply laugh at your statement.

You posted you points. They were quickly and thoroughly refuted. You ran away. It's that simple. Anybody can see that, even you can.

LOL, keep dreaming. Anyone who just saw the debate (even an Islamaphobe isn't stupid enough to deny), knows you got completed smashed and ended up wasting so much of my time.

It's not even the subject, it's the fact you were in complete denial despite the evidences and arguements placed ahead. Like there's no one who would argue against the facts because most of the evidences quoted by Academics are from primary sources. There was no way you could refute it, and you didn't even attempt to. Instead your reply pretty much showed how clueless you are about "History as a Academic subject".

You also made a completely baseless claim that Iraqi's wanted an invasion from the US, without any supporting evidence for it, despite the contrary evidence that was shown against such a claim. You also didn't watch the BBC documentary video, because of your own ignorance - and most importantly, because you don't want to learn, you just want to argue and waste time and fulfil that Islamaphobic ego of yours.

In general, you just completely and utterly wasted my time (not the first time mind you) and anyone else who had to read your sorry for an excuse reply. (Which btw, was clearly an ego hurt based one at that. You wouldn't have been so desperate to constantly PM me).

I don't care, if you want to "fulfil your hurt ego" and think you "won the debate" and that "I'm running away", think whatever you like. Point for me is, I just wasted a huge amount of time with you, and it annoys me because I could've instead spent that free time replying to you, by answering the PM's I have or replying to the various other people who have quoted me and aren't as completely and utterly deluded and in denial as you are.

I think I should've known better than to waste time with someone who uses genetic fallacies, believes he's a Hadith scholar, and makes implications that you should ask Richard Dawkins, who's a biologist expert, about "information on a religion".


I have nothing more to say, I have so much better to do. You can whine and be in denial, and believe whatever you like, that's up to you. I'm done wasting time on you.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
LOL, keep dreaming. Anyone who just saw the debate (even an Islamaphobe isn't stupid enough to deny), knows you got completed smashed and ended up wasting so much of my time.

You get more and more delusional. I don't see how you can say I "got completed [sic] smashed", when for most part, you have ignored 95% of the contents of the posts, including 100% of the last one.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
It's not even the subject, it's the fact you were in complete denial despite the evidences and arguements placed ahead.

But you haven't put forward any evidence or "arguements [sic]".

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Like there's no one who would argue against the facts because most of the evidences quoted by Academics are from primary sources.

Where is the primary source that "proves" most Iberians wanted the invasion?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
There was no way you could refute it,

I did refute what you brought. Try reading my post instead of all this huffing and puffing.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
and you didn't even attempt to.

It was comprehensively refuted.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Instead your reply pretty much showed how clueless you are about "History as a Academic subject".

I don't see how you can say that, when it is obvious you haven't even read my reply, let alone tried to respond to it. Instead you're just running away from the debate, as you always seem to do.

Ask yourself, who is going through, point by point, of the other's post, and comprehensively refuting everything being written in it? It's certainly not you, because you have avoided 95% of the contents of this debate, because you know your stance is indefensible.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You also made a completely baseless claim that Iraqi's wanted an invasion from the US, without any supporting evidence for it, despite the contrary evidence that was shown against such a claim.

I have never made any such claim. You need to actually read what I am writing.

The only claim I have made, is that if people used the same standard of evidence that you use to support your unsubstantiated claim that "Iberians wanted the Arabs to invade", then anybody could make a case that "Iraqis wanted the Americans to invade". Both are feeble cases. But your first task is actually to read what is being written, which you obviously haven't.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You also didn't watch the BBC documentary video, because of your own ignorance - and most importantly, because you don't want to learn, you just want to argue and waste time and fulfil that Islamaphobic ego of yours.

But the BBC is so biased according to you, so how can it be used as a source?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
In general, you just completely and utterly wasted my time (not the first time mind you) and anyone else who had to read your sorry for an excuse reply.

I know I have wasted your time. You believe your time is best spent churning out brainless propaganda and conjecture. You have not been able to do that in this case, because the brainless propaganda and conjecture has been shown for what it is.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
(Which btw, was clearly an ego hurt based one at that. You wouldn't have been so desperate to constantly PM me).

No, I PM you once to link the responses I had made, because you had run away. You responded with a feeble response to about 5% of my post, which I then replied to and refuted, and that was the end of the PM matter. Hardly this spam and desperation that you talk of, but maybe you have problems with perception (delusional people often do).

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I don't care, if you want to "fulfil your hurt ego" and think you "won the debate" and that "I'm running away", think whatever you like.

The only hurt ego is your own. And, yes I did win the debate, and yes, you did run away.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Point for me is, I just wasted a huge amount of time with you, and it annoys me because I could've instead spent that free time replying to you, by answering the PM's I have or replying to the various other people who have quoted me and aren't as completely and utterly deluded and in denial as you are.

You mean, you could have spent that time pasting propaganda and conjecture to brainless individuals, who cream their pants and exhale "Mashallah" at the very sight of your posts?

Fact is, you have failed to defend your stance, you have failed to rebut anything I have written, you have run away from the debate at hand, and you have made yourself look like an utterly delusional fool.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I think I should've known better than to waste time with someone who uses genetic fallacies

I've asked you to identify any one of these alleged genetic fallacies, and write a commentary about how it is so. You haven't.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
believes he's a Hadith scholar

No I don't

(Original post by Perseveranze)
and makes implications that you should ask Richard Dawkins, who's a biologist expert, about "information on a religion".

This is the third time you have attributed this quote to me, even when I have never written anything of the sort. Please can you kindly link this alleged quote (you've been asked to do so twice in the past, and as usual, failed), so we can put an end to this.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I have nothing more to say, I have so much better to do.

Like heal your thrashed ego. It clearly needs a lot of healing.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You can whine and be in denial, and believe whatever you like, that's up to you. I'm done wasting time on you.

All these excuses. Just goes to show how weak your imaan is, that's all.

[Chazzer66]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
LOL, keep dreaming. Anyone who just saw the debate (even an Islamaphobe isn't stupid enough to deny), knows you got completed smashed and ended up wasting so much of my time.

It's not even the subject, it's the fact you were in complete denial despite the evidences and arguements placed ahead. Like there's no one who would argue against the facts because most of the evidences quoted by Academics are from primary sources. There was no way you could refute it, and you didn't even attempt to. Instead your reply pretty much showed how clueless you are about "History as a Academic subject".

You also made a completely baseless claim that Iraqi's wanted an invasion from the US, without any supporting evidence for it, despite the contrary evidence that was shown against such a claim. You also didn't watch the BBC documentary video, because of your own ignorance - and most importantly, because you don't want to learn, you just want to argue and waste time and fulfil that Islamaphobic ego of yours.

In general, you just completely and utterly wasted my time (not the first time mind you) and anyone else who had to read your sorry for an excuse reply. (Which btw, was clearly an ego hurt based one at that. You wouldn't have been so desperate to constantly PM me).

I don't care, if you want to "fulfil your hurt ego" and think you "won the debate" and that "I'm running away", think whatever you like. Point for me is, I just wasted a huge amount of time with you, and it annoys me because I could've instead spent that free time replying to you, by answering the PM's I have or replying to the various other people who have quoted me and aren't as completely and utterly deluded and in denial as you are.

I think I should've known better than to waste time with someone who uses genetic fallacies, believes he's a Hadith scholar, and makes implications that you should ask Richard Dawkins, who's a biologist expert, about "information on a religion".


I have nothing more to say, I have so much better to do. You can whine and be in denial, and believe whatever you like, that's up to you. I'm done wasting time on you.

You didn't even respond to any of his comment at all? Please stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant. Accept you are wrong or put forward a case against Rat Bag. As far as I can see you need to get down off your horse and learn a) Some basic historical skills like argument and putting points logically
b) Basic history. And this comes from a history undergrad at Cambridge, your arguments just side-step the issue like politicians do, and you lack an overall ability to grasp trends, facts and evidence. If you have any qualifications in history given that last post I am worried for this discipline and if you do not then just give up arguing on the basis of political (ie Islamist, quite clearly) views.
You've had to concede that Arabs are imperialist so far and I think you have a lot more to accept, like the Taliban being terrorists for example.Yes, some of their actions may be 'fighting for freedom' but blowing up cafes full of bureaucrats is not. Likewise please accept that the Arab invasion of Iberia had no justification besides darwinian imperialism, as what sane country would demand en masse to be annexed? I await a cogent response!

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Chazzer66)
You didn't even respond to any of his comment at all? Please stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant. Accept you are wrong or put forward a case against Rat Bag. As far as I can see you need to get down off your horse and learn a) Some basic historical skills like argument and putting points logically
b) Basic history. And this comes from a history undergrad at Cambridge, your arguments just side-step the issue like politicians do, and you lack an overall ability to grasp trends, facts and evidence. If you have any qualifications in history given that last post I am worried for this discipline and if you do not then just give up arguing on the basis of political (ie Islamist, quite clearly) views.
You've had to concede that Arabs are imperialist so far and I think you have a lot more to accept, like the Taliban being terrorists for example.Yes, some of their actions may be 'fighting for freedom' but blowing up cafes full of bureaucrats is not. Likewise please accept that the Arab invasion of Iberia had no justification besides darwinian imperialism, as what sane country would demand en masse to be annexed? I await a cogent response!

Yeah, thanks for the refutation. You actually quoted Rat bag to challenge my evidence for the invasions of Al Andalus. I proved you wrong again, you did not respond to that or admit you were wrong. Like expected from all your posts, you have this bias agenda against Islam/Muslims. I wouldn't be surprised if you think Islam is a terrorist religion. And it's clear you haven't even seen Rat Bags posts, or how I tend to post to even know the difference.

When you said some Islamic invasions were imperialistic, I accepted it, based on the academic resources surrounding the claim (such as the Ottomons). You however, consider me "having to concede". And now you're telling me I need to accept the "Taliban are Terrorists"?

Lol.

I can refute Rat Bag again and again, make him look silly again and again, but it won't stop him from simply argueing, bringing out genetic fallacies, being in denial, not backing his arguments with proof etc. You don't know how much time is wasted on writing these essay replies to him.

This;

But the BBC is so biased according to you, so how can it be used as a source?

That's how his arguements are. How can you possibly expect me to waste time with that? Seriously? He did not watch the video or anything, or realise the bias has always been against Islam, so this documentary for the most part, may not be how Muslims saw things, but at least it proved the claim that I had made. No academia, no sources, no nothing. Instead of just admitting he was wrong, he simply brushed it away with the comment above. If you seriously can't see what I'm getting at here, then you're blind. It's such a time waste.

I prefer to ever engage in a debate with people like Mariachi, or yomomalomo. They may hate Islam, they may use bad sources even, but at least they can accept the facts or when the evidence is weighed against them. That's contrary to people like Rat Bag, Indiana, Exe etc. who aren't really interested in discussion or debating, they just want to argue for the sake of wasting time.

Enough people know me on these forums to know someone like Rat Bag doesn't come close to me in debating skills. They know Rat Bags an Islamaphobe and is on the same calibre of .exe. So he can say whatever he likes, and believe whatever he wants.

You can also think whatever you like. If you believe Rat Bag "beat me in a debate" and had "better arguments" then feel free to believe that. No one's stopping you.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Yeah, thanks for the refutation. You actually quoted Rat bag to challenge my evidence for the invasions of Al Andalus. I proved you wrong again, you did not respond to that or admit you were wrong.

What is wrong if he didn't respond; it's not like you behave any differently.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Like expected from all your posts, you have this bias agenda against Islam/Muslims.

And you have a bias agenda in favour of Islam/Muslims.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And it's clear you haven't even seen Rat Bags posts, or how I tend to post to even know the difference.

It's clear you haven't even read my posts.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I can refute Rat Bag again and again

Can you? So do it here. You haven't refuted anything I've written once, so let's see you do it "again and again".

(Original post by Perseveranze)
make him look silly again and again, but it won't stop him from simply argueing,

I am persisting in this "argueing" [sic] because it quite obviously got you rattled. Am not sure if it's because of the historical equivalence of the Arab invasion and occupation of Iberia and the American invasion and occupation of Iraq that you have quietly had to accept, or the beautiful check-mate that you set up for yourself in terms of Islamic permission to fight, from which you were going to have to admit that you lied, but something has clearly upset you. All this noise and flapping of yours

(Original post by Perseveranze)
bringing out genetic fallacies

You've been asked several times to identify one (just one) of these genetic fallacies you keep on talking about, and explain how it is so, but you have, as expected, failed to do so.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
being in denial

This level of denial of yours reminds me of that argument you had with Xotol about your spelling and grammar. Basically, you were criticising Indo-Chinese Food's spelling, rather than the points in his argument, and it was pointed out to you that your spelling was not perfect. You denied this, and when it was pointed out to you that you misspelled "arguement", you went into denial that it was a one off typo. Then it was show how in one thread alone, you had misspelled it more than 30 times. You were in total denial about it. Then, lucky for you, you got banned for a week, so never actually had to face up to it.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
not backing his arguments with proof etc.

In everything I've written, I've backed it up with equivalence examples.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You don't know how much time is wasted on writing these essay replies to him.

Yes, because you think your time is best spent attempting to indoctrinate people with misinformation. Obviously, you were called to account here, and that has stopped you spending your valuable time pursuing your intended aim.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
This;

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
But the BBC is so biased according to you, so how can it be used as a source?

That's how his arguements are.

Actually, that is exactly how your "arguements! [sic] are. I thought you were smarter than this not to see how much of a tongue in cheek comment this was, but clearly I over estimated you, and once again you are coming out looking absurd. When somebody quotes the BBC about how the Taliban bombed a bus of civilians, you dismiss the event's possibility, because the BBC is biased and not a reliable source. When the BBC produces a documentary that says how lovely and cuddly Muslims were in x, y, or z, you're jumping for joy and how everybody is now going to be able to see the truth.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
How can you possibly expect me to waste time with that? Seriously?

It's how you approach pretty much every debate. Funny how frustrated you seem to be by someone doing exactly what you do. Kind of shows how introspective you are.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
He did not watch the video or anything, or realise the bias has always been against Islam

Actually, I watched this documentary when it was shown on Channel 4. If anybody hasn't watched this documentary, it is you, because you have been insisting that it is a BBC documentary, even though I did point out to you first that it was a Channel 4 documentary. But hey ho, you've made enough of a fool of yourself on one thread, so I guess what's the harm in you doing it even more.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Instead of just admitting he was wrong, he simply brushed it away with the comment above. If you seriously can't see what I'm getting at here, then you're blind. It's such a time waste.

Actually my first comment was that anybody can post a documentary that has a pro-Iraq war narrative, so what you post is meaningless. But because you struggle with reading and comprehension, you clearly missed it.

You still seem unable to admit in public the equivalence of the Arabs' colonial adventures in the Levant, North Africa and Iberia (and many other places), and America's colonial adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places. You know it to be true, but you cannot admit so in public. That's some heavy pride there.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I prefer to ever engage in a debate with people like Mariachi, or yomomalomo. They may hate Islam, they may use bad sources even, but at least they can accept the facts or when the evidence is weighed against them. That's contrary to people like Rat Bag, Indiana, Exe etc. who aren't really interested in discussion or debating, they just want to argue for the sake of wasting time.

So Mariachi and yomomalomo hate Islam? Are they Islamophobes?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Enough people know me on these forums......

Doesn't somebody have an over inflated opinion of themselves?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
.......to know someone like Rat Bag doesn't come close to me in debating skills.

I know, am glad your debating skills don't come close to mine; yours are totally terrible, so the further their association is with mine, the better.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
They know Rat Bags an Islamaphobe and is on the same calibre of .exe. So he can say whatever he likes, and believe whatever he wants.

Oh, throughout the whole interaction on this thread, this has been your main point over and over again; that I'm an Islamophobe. The very fact that your one single point is this pseudo ad hominem, just shows how totally devoid of substance your argument is.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You can also think whatever you like. If you believe Rat Bag "beat me in a debate" and had "better arguments" then feel free to believe that. No one's stopping you.

Anybody who reads this thread would think so, even Muslims would say your performance was utterly poor. Its this own acknowledged inadequacy of yours that has so pissed you off in this case.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Chazzer66)
You didn't even respond to any of his comment at all? Please stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant. Accept you are wrong or put forward a case against Rat Bag. As far as I can see you need to get down off your horse and learn a) Some basic historical skills like argument and putting points logically
b) Basic history. And this comes from a history undergrad at Cambridge, your arguments just side-step the issue like politicians do, and you lack an overall ability to grasp trends, facts and evidence. If you have any qualifications in history given that last post I am worried for this discipline and if you do not then just give up arguing on the basis of political (ie Islamist, quite clearly) views.
You've had to concede that Arabs are imperialist so far and I think you have a lot more to accept, like the Taliban being terrorists for example.Yes, some of their actions may be 'fighting for freedom' but blowing up cafes full of bureaucrats is not. Likewise please accept that the Arab invasion of Iberia had no justification besides darwinian imperialism, as what sane country would demand en masse to be annexed? I await a cogent response!

Basically, the reason Perseveranze seems to have flipped on this occasion, is that he knows he's on the wrong side of morality. The years and years of indoctrination of the moral superiority of Islam, and the moral superiority it gives Muslims, have nurtured a deep sense of pride within some Muslims like Perseveranze. They basically live off this sense of moral superiority, and lap up the opportunities to take the moral high ground that is often given to them (West's support for Israel, America's invasion of Iraq, visible elements of social breakdown in Western countries etc etc). However, in this case, when shown the unequivocal proof of equivalence between the Arabs' colonialist and imperialist adventures in the Levant, North Africa, Iberia and America's colonialist and imperialist adventures in Iraq, the tables get turned. As much as he is loathe to admit it, somebody who isn't Muslim is able to take the moral high ground over him in their condemnation of the Arabs' invasion of Spain and America's invasion of Iraq, and there is nothing that he can do about it (except run away, freak out with endless ad hominems, and work himself up into the deluded state we find him in now). This is the bitter truth that is so painful for him to accept, and that's why he's behaving the way that he is.

But he's a good person at heart, and well intentioned. It's just he's locked himself inside what he thinks is this internally consistent ideology. The problem is his pride and ego. That's what he'll need to work on if he is ever to find a consistent truth and an inner peace (which he obviously lacks right now)

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
But he's a good person at heart, and well intentioned. It's just he's locked himself inside what he thinks is this internally consistent ideology.

I'm fairly convinced he would like to see Sharia law descend on the UK, would be apathetic to another holocaust, which he is a skeptic of (denier amonst his Muslims chums) anyway, is pretty homophobic, probably uses phrases like "our women", "your women".

For someone who is highly articulate I'm suprised they even believe in a religion so thoroughly, there are thousands of high IQ people and Geniuses who believe in "a" God of some sort, but usually the smarter people don't blindly follow a religion, luckily their intelligence can see through the childhood indocrination.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
.

What's this talk of 'genetic fallacies'? I don't see how this thread could get on to genetics.