50 Responses to criticisms of Israel

[Sanket]

Right. That's why so many of us become engineers and doctors. We're all at odds with science.

Islamic countries are doing wonders in Technology, medicine,etc.

From what I can see, you don't need a reason anymore. You've achieved that same blind ignorance that you accuse others of having.

Whatever i am trying to say is nothing against Islam. The hatred toward Muslim is increasing day by day.

---
Ed Balls spends £3m on office makeover... including massage room and Muslim prayer area
Last updated at 12:38 PM on 28th September 2009

Comments (226)

[andak01]

Whatever i am trying to say is nothing against Islam. The hatred toward Muslim is increasing day by day.

Yeah whatever.

WILMINGTON-- After surviving a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, 10 months ago, when armed men targeted westerners in two five-star hotels, Greenville resident Dennis O'Brien did not turn to hate.

Instead, he sought to understand the root faith the people behind the attacks claimed to practice and discovered it had been twisted by the gunmen.

Eventually, he came to embrace it.

On Sunday, standing before a crowd of thousands, following prayers to mark the end of Ramadan, O'Brien, a Catholic, embraced Islam in a testimony of faith called Shahada, where he publically declared that there was only one God and the Prophet Muhammad is his last messenger and servant.

O'Brien, who heads up the education committee of St. Anthony's Catholic Church in Wilmington, said the move was a surprise, even to him.
But said he was at peace with it.

"Today I feel free of sin," he said.

After several months of studies and asking questions of Muslim friends and associates, "I feel comfort in Islam," he said.

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...LIFE/909210320

[bararallu]

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

[scattergood]

But they were able if that's what they had intended to do! That's my point entirely, the Ottomans and Saladin and for that matter Muhammad (SAW) himself could have killed every Jew within their reach if that was their goal. It wasn't. It wasn't a religious obligation or even a desire among them.' Saying that is was is a dishonest exageration.

Um, no, as I have pointed out continuously, they were willing to let people who were not Muslims live, in total submission and humiliation, under their rule. It is good for tax collecting, it is good to get people to do jobs that Muslims don't want to do, and it is good to allow for some communication / trade with peoples outside of Muslim rule.

Further, over time, because of the humiliation and taxation and burdens and difficulty of practicing ones non Islamic religion, people eventually leave or become Muslim or both.

But your point is very comparable to the Nazis, Russian Communists, Catholics under the Inquisition, etc., and no I am not calling Muslims Nazis. What I am saying is that the Nazis, Russian Communists, Catholics under the Inquisition all COULD have killed every Jew under their power, but they didn't. But I would still call the Nazis, Russian Communists, and Catholics (in history) genocidal to the Jews.

If you can't see any difference between paying a tribute or having treaties or having taxes and being slaughtered that's your own problem. And anyone fool enough to be clouded about the difference, it's their problem. Islamic imperialism works just like any other imperialism and Islamic theocracy works just like any other theocracy. The request for tribute from powerful regiems or special taxes within theocracies is nothing unique to Muslims. Special taxes were levied against the Jews throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. America and China enact special trade levies that keep us at advantage over everyone else, but; since our basis of government isn't theocratic, the grounds for these unfair practices aren't theocratic either. Nevertheless, the duty of empire is to put oneself at an unfair advantage and taxes are a way to achieve that. Among medieval Europeans one such action which could be considered a tax was their periodic banishment of the Jews and seizure of all their goods in Europe. This was both condoned and encouraged by the church as was persecution of the Jews. But then, you know all that.

Um, since it is religiously and textually mandated that such treaties and taxes be conducted in a way that the people of the Book feel humiliation and submission, I think it is very different than say the Holland / USA treaty of peace and independence negotiated by John Adams. Neither side was religously mandated to humiliate the other.

But back to today, how many of 50 some odd Muslim nations actually maintain a jizah tax today? Indonesia? Morocco? Algeria? Turkey? Tunisia? I won't say it's impossible to come up with a single example (or claim to), but such is very rare.

Ha! How are those Coptic Christians doing in Egypt? Raped, murdered, unable to build or repair churches, etc. How about those Christians of Iran, KSA, Pakistan, Libya, Morocco. How are they doing?

By nearly every measure, religious freedom and equal rights are on average TERRIBLE in Muslim countries, but you don't seem to have a problem with that...wonder why, maybe because deep down, you don't really have a problem with it? You seem to defend and deflect so much and complain that people point this fact out, one can only conclude that it's a-ok with you!

[andak01]

Further, over time, because of the humiliation and taxation and burdens and difficulty of practicing ones non Islamic religion, people eventually leave or become Muslim or both.

As opposed to the European method which was "Leave so we can seize all your assets and come back in 50 years so we can start all over again!"

But I would still call the Nazis, Russian Communists, and Catholics (in history) genocidal to the Jews.

But whereas the Nazi and Russian pogroms killed millions of Jews, the occasional Muslim riots killed tens. And whereas, under the Nazis and the Communists, there was a decernable decrease in the Jewish population as a whole, the Jewish population in Arab lands was growing prior to 1948. In a word, it was growing during a period of Shariah rule which was much more strict than that found in most parts today. Did you know that there were more Christian diocese in Morocco at the end of the Middle Ages than before? And whereas, now the governments of those countries are much more secular, then they almost all ran under a caliph.

Neither side was religously mandated to humiliate the other.

You conveniently pick up the thread AFTER the abolishment of the theocratic Plymouth Bay Colony. The early European Christians absolutely humiliated the Indians. In the missions, Indian converts were forced to enter in a separate entrance crawling on their knees. The ones who didn't convert were cannon fodder. Prayer villages were set up where the Indians who didn't want to be genocided were forced to cut their hair in Western style and give up all vestiges of their culture. That's what a theocracy is like. You think they had freedom of speech in Plymouth?

Ha! How are those Coptic Christians doing in Egypt? Raped, murdered, unable to build or repair churches, etc. How about those Christians of Iran, KSA, Pakistan, Libya, Morocco. How are they doing?

You forgot to mention Iraq. There they were doing much better under the secular rule of Hussein as opposed to the Shiite regiem which came about under our watch.

By nearly every measure, religious freedom and equal rights are on average TERRIBLE in Muslim countries, but you don't seem to have a problem with that...wonder why, maybe because deep down, you don't really have a problem with it?

I have plenty of problem with it. Unlike yourself though, I'm not going to lie and pretend that every ill in those countries is the result of Islam. They have corruption and a host of other ills that are found in many non-Muslim countries. It's easy to focus on those ills as though they don't exist elsewhere, but they do. Slavery is found in India, women are mass murdered and mass raped in Mexico and the Congo. I have as much problem with that as I do with the same things that happen in Muslim countries.

You seem to defend and deflect so much and complain that people point this fact out, one can only conclude that it's a-ok with you!

I haven't defended anything. Just because you can't bend my arm enough to make me say that Islam is the cause of all the world's problems doesn't mean that I support those problems. That is disjointed and dishonest logic. No matter how many times you say that I've said I'm OK with it, it doesn't make it true. I've never said any such thing.

[scattergood]

As opposed to the European method which was "Leave so we can seize all your assets and come back in 50 years so we can start all over again!"

Um, well since I already stated that Christians have used force to spread their culture and religion, I don't really see your point. As you continue on your paranoid, delusional rant you really show how totally empty and pathetic your POV is. Basically you are saying 'hey the Christians did it, so it isn't so bad that the Muslims did and do it too!'.

But whereas the Nazi and Russian pogroms killed millions of Jews, the occasional Muslim riots killed tens. And whereas, under the Nazis and the Communists, there was a decernable decrease in the Jewish population as a whole, the Jewish population in Arab lands was growing prior to 1948. In a word, it was growing during a period of Shariah rule which was much more strict than that found in most parts today. Did you know that there were more Christian diocese in Morocco at the end of the Middle Ages than before? And whereas, now the governments of those countries are much more secular, then they almost all ran under a caliph.

You are pretty funny, sad, but funny. Prior to 1948? When from 1900-1948? What about say 700 - 1900? How were the Christian populations faring? How about that massive Hindu resurgence, or the Zororastrian explosion?

Did you know that at one point there were more Mosques than Churches in Spain? Wow! BTW, how about them Berbers, how are they doing in Morocco under Islam. After a few violent attacks by Islamic forces, they were finally subdued, and mainly converted to Islam. They then helped continue the expansion into Spain.

That there were moments of less subjugation than others in Muslim lands is immaterial. Nobody has said otherwise. If you liked such moments, then try to get the OIC to return to them, but stop pretending that the arc of history in Islamic lands is anything other than subjugation, humiliation, conversion, or death to non-Muslims.

You conveniently pick up the thread AFTER the abolishment of the theocratic Plymouth Bay Colony. The early European Christians absolutely humiliated the Indians. In the missions, Indian converts were forced to enter in a separate entrance crawling on their knees. The ones who didn't convert were cannon fodder. Prayer villages were set up where the Indians who didn't want to be genocided were forced to cut their hair in Western style and give up all vestiges of their culture. That's what a theocracy is like. You think they had freedom of speech in Plymouth?

Again,since I have said that Christians have used force, whose ignoring what? I was responding to your notion that, and I quote "If you can't see any difference between paying a tribute or having treaties or having taxes and being slaughtered that's your own problem." There is no religious mandate in Christianity to humiliate somebody in a treaty or while paying tribute. Thus the example I provided. But that some groups did humiliate others is of course true, as I have stated but you continually ignore. Again, i suggest some basic reading and logic classes.

You forgot to mention Iraq. There they were doing much better under the secular rule of Hussein as opposed to the Shiite regiem which came about under our watch.

Them Kurds might disagree. As as been proven time and again, Saddam was more EFFICIENT at killing his own people, something you seem to be totally ok with.

I have plenty of problem with it. Unlike yourself though, I'm not going to lie and pretend that every ill in those countries is the result of Islam. They have corruption and a host of other ills that are found in many non-Muslim countries. It's easy to focus on those ills as though they don't exist elsewhere, but they do. Slavery is found in India, women are mass murdered and mass raped in Mexico and the Congo. I have as much problem with that as I do with the same things that happen in Muslim countries.

Yes they are, but show me the religious texts that support, mandate, and allow for such actions in Hindu texts, or Christian texts and you might have a leg to stand on.

I haven't defended anything. Just because you can't bend my arm enough to make me say that Islam is the cause of all the world's problems doesn't mean that I support those problems. That is disjointed and dishonest logic. No matter how many times you say that I've said I'm OK with it, it doesn't make it true. I've never said any such thing.

Since I haven't said Islam is the source of ALL of the worlds problems, you live in a fantasy world of your own making.

However, silence on your part about Islam's part in the problems that do exist in Islamic lands, or caused by Muslim is complicity at best, and tacit support at worst.

[Mil]

Muslims have enough blood on their hands for things they did in the name of their own religion. A lot of blood.

[andak01]

Basically you are saying 'hey the Christians did it, so it isn't so bad that the Muslims did and do it too!'.

No. Basically I'm saying that hanging the adjective Muslim on everything negative is a crock. Anti-semitism is every bit as bad whether practiced by skinheads, KKK, Nazis or Muslims. Rape, murder, terrorism aren't worse crimes because a Muslim commits them. We should all be of one voice in condemning such things. However, I'm not going to condemn my own religion based on cultural and political factors that have nothing to do with it.

You are pretty funny, sad, but funny. Prior to 1948? When from 1900-1948? What about say 700 - 1900? How were the Christian populations faring?

You mean during the Crusades after Salidin took control? Much better than the Muslims or the Jews when the Christians took power. As you are aware, the Crusaders rode in blood up to their knees.

How about that massive Hindu resurgence, or the Zororastrian explosion?

I assume, in order for there to be a billion Hindus today there was a resurgence. That despite massive abortion campaigns against female children, for which you have no comment.

Did you know that at one point there were more Mosques than Churches in Spain? Wow!

And that all Jews and Muslims were terrorized into hiding under Christian rule?

BTW, how about them Berbers, how are they doing in Morocco under Islam.

Quite well, I assume you speak from experience, because I've socialized with a few personally. My father-in-law is a Berber, a Moroccan and a Muslim. He's proud of all three.

After a few violent attacks by Islamic forces, they were finally subdued, and mainly converted to Islam. They then helped continue the expansion into Spain.

And that's what happened to the Indians in South America after the Spaniards took over. But we don't hear Christianity mockingly referred to as "the religion of peace" after so many forced conversions there.

If you liked such moments, then try to get the OIC to return to them, but stop pretending that the arc of history in Islamic lands is anything other than subjugation, humiliation, conversion, or death to non-Muslims.

What would you say if I said exactly the same thing for the Indians of North and South America? The few that survived? What if I made that facit of history my entire basis for judging America? You'd say I was out of my mind! You already do when I bring up anything you don't want entered into.

Again,since I have said that Christians have used force, whose ignoring what? I was responding to your notion that, and I quote "If you can't see any difference between paying a tribute or having treaties or having taxes and being slaughtered that's your own problem."

You obviously can't, and yes it is your problem.

There is no religious mandate in Christianity to humiliate somebody in a treaty or while paying tribute.

There is no religious mandate in Islam to humiliate somebody in a treaty. Treaties are to be honored even when it is to the disadvantage of Muslims.

Them Kurds might disagree. As as been proven time and again, Saddam was more EFFICIENT at killing his own people, something you seem to be totally ok with.

I've never been OK with it. I've never remotely supported that scumbag. If it'd been up to me, we'd have had 100,000 troops in a coalition at the border of Iraq and spy drone planes in his toilet till he couldn't move.

Yes they are, but show me the religious texts that support, mandate, and allow for such actions in Hindu texts, or Christian texts and you might have a leg to stand on.

Would you like me to have a go at the Torah? God smiling while the Midianites are killed down to the last man, woman and child? Or Jesus quoting that he won't change a jot or tittle of Mosaic law?

However, silence on your part about Islam's part in the problems that do exist in Islamic lands, or caused by Muslim is complicity at best, and tacit support at worst.

I suppose you can invent anything you want to about what I don't say. You're pretty good about quoting me on things I've never said.

[scattergood]

No. Basically I'm saying that hanging the adjective Muslim on everything negative is a crock. Anti-semitism is every bit as bad whether practiced by skinheads, KKK, Nazis or Muslims. Rape, murder, terrorism aren't worse crimes because a Muslim commits them. We should all be of one voice in condemning such things. However, I'm not going to condemn my own religion based on cultural and political factors that have nothing to do with it.

Thanks for making your true believer status known to all. The Muslims that perform or support terrorist acts use the Islamic texts specifically to justify, religiously, their behavior. Your statement that it is 'cultural and political factors' is just a bunch of rubbish. In fact, every major Sunni school of jurisprudence, and hundreds of Islamic scholars past and present all disagree with you. Please take it up with them, show them how wrong they are, convince them that they aren't following Islam, please. And stop telling us that when we say, 'hey these guys think they are following Islam' that we are the bigoted and crazy ones.

You mean during the Crusades after Salidin took control? Much better than the Muslims or the Jews when the Christians took power. As you are aware, the Crusaders rode in blood up to their knees.

Yes I am. Are you aware that the Muslim conquers killed tens to hundreds of millions of Hindus? Are you aware that the Muslims have made the Arabian peninsula Judenfrei (except for a few hundred in Yemen who basically want to leave). Are you aware that the Muslims forced converted millions of Christian boys from the Balkans and then used them to form the backbone of their military? Are you aware that tens of millions of Christians were liquidated or forced to convert throughout the Levant, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Balkans, and the Iberian Peninsula? Are you aware that tens fo millions, far in excess of the trans Atlantic trade, of slaves were transported across Africa and the Indian Oceans?

You don't really want to get into a comparison vis a vis religiously motivated violence. For as bad as Christians acted, Muslims acted badly or worse. Further, the West / Christian countries have been able to grow beyond their violence, Muslims have not but seemingly embraced it in a truly frightening way.

I assume, in order for there to be a billion Hindus today there was a resurgence. That despite massive abortion campaigns against female children, for which you have no comment.

Since you bring it up, I am against forced abortions. However for their to be a billion Hindus there doesn't have to be a resurgence of Hindus in Muslim lands, but instead Hindus not living under Muslim control. Nice try though.

And that all Jews and Muslims were terrorized into hiding under Christian rule?

Again, I have never said anything different. Your constant refrain of 'but the Christians are just as bad' only show that you can't really defend Muslim actions, but to smear others.

Quite well, I assume you speak from experience, because I've socialized with a few personally. My father-in-law is a Berber, a Moroccan and a Muslim. He's proud of all three.

Thanks for making my point. That you are seemingly too dense to understand that you are supporting and accepting the very colonization, force conversion, and murder that you decry is pretty funny.

And that's what happened to the Indians in South America after the Spaniards took over. But we don't hear Christianity mockingly referred to as "the religion of peace" after so many forced conversions there.

Well, that's because Christianity never said it means peace. Islam does.

What would you say if I said exactly the same thing for the Indians of North and South America? The few that survived? What if I made that facit of history my entire basis for judging America? You'd say I was out of my mind! You already do when I bring up anything you don't want entered into.

Um your logic is very twisted. You DO use the facts that Indians were forced converted and that slaves were forced converted to inform your view of America. Seemingly it is informing your only view of America as you can say basically nothing else.


But we could also ignore the fact that I don't claim, as you do, that because Indians 'survived' and that they have their own Reservations and preferential treatment that things didn't go so badly for them.

You obviously can't, and yes it is your problem.

Great, the neeneer, neeneer, neeneer defense from you. Again, it only shows basically how pathetic your abilities are to defend your own points.

There is no religious mandate in Islam to humiliate somebody in a treaty. Treaties are to be honored even when it is to the disadvantage of Muslims.

Yeah, right, sure. Mohammed brokey plenty of treaties, when it was in his advantage. And as 'the perfect man' today's Muslims look to emulate that. The fact that there can be nothing more than a 10 year break from hostilities clearly shows that the status of peace isn't even sought after in Islamic theology. But nice try.

I've never been OK with it. I've never remotely supported that scumbag. If it'd been up to me, we'd have had 100,000 troops in a coalition at the border of Iraq and spy drone planes in his toilet till he couldn't move.

Nope, you just have stated that things were better under him...nice.

Would you like me to have a go at the Torah? God smiling while the Midianites are killed down to the last man, woman and child? Or Jesus quoting that he won't change a jot or tittle of Mosaic law?

Go for it. As I have said point to a major Rabbi or rabbic school that claims that group X is a group of Midianites and that Jews should go slaughter them. Again, I have said many groups used violence to pursue their ends. Muslims seem to be unable to move beyond it however.

I suppose you can invent anything you want to about what I don't say. You're pretty good about quoting me on things I've never said.

Since I quote you extensively, you don't have much of a place to hide.

[Sanket]

I assume, in order for there to be a billion Hindus today there was a resurgence.

Are you saying that the Muslims did not Kill Hindus ?

Lets talks which happened recently. How many Hindus were Killed in 1971 ?

Whats was the population of Hindus in Pakistan & Bangladesh in 1947 and what it is now ?

That despite massive abortion campaigns against female children, for which you have no comment.

This one i have to agree with you. Personally i think this trend will continue because poverty is going to remain.

Anyways its illegal to abort a girl or a boy and its illegal to do the sex test in India.

[andak01]

Your statement that it is 'cultural and political factors' is just a bunch of rubbish.

That's what you say, but without your relentless propaganda campaign, if you had to rely on actual facts, you couldn't prove that. Political Islam is just that, a political movement and terrorism served as a proxy war supported by many including Saddam Hussein that were very secular people. Support for terrorism has dropped while support for Islam has not. I know you'd like to deny both these facts, but your favorite Pew Research Center has the most recent data on that.

In fact, every major Sunni school of jurisprudence, and hundreds of Islamic scholars past and present all disagree with you. Please take it up with them, show them how wrong they are, convince them that they aren't following Islam, please. And stop telling us that when we say, 'hey these guys think they are following Islam' that we are the bigoted and crazy ones.

What, disagree that I have a religious obligation to kill all the Jews? If you believe that, then you are the bigotted, crazy ones. Well, actually not crazy, since it advanced your agenda to have everyone else believe that load of garbage.

Yes I am. Are you aware that the Muslim conquers killed tens to hundreds of millions of Hindus?

Actually I believe it was closer to a trillion. At least that's what the Hindutvahs say.

Are you aware that the Muslims have made the Arabian peninsula Judenfrei (except for a few hundred in Yemen who basically want to leave).

Judenfrei? Unless you're attempting to blur the distinction between six million Jews slaughtered and a million relocated with the help of the Jewish Agency, I'd prefer you didn't use that term. The Jews affected are almost 100% still among the living.

Are you aware that the Muslims forced converted millions of Christian boys from the Balkans and then used them to form the backbone of their military?

Millions??? What's your source on that?

Are you aware that tens of millions of Christians were liquidated or forced to convert throughout the Levant, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Balkans, and the Iberian Peninsula? Are you aware that tens fo millions, far in excess of the trans Atlantic trade, of slaves were transported across Africa and the Indian Oceans?

What is your source for that? I'm aware that the Ottomans enlisted Christian converts in their armies, but if what you say is true then the subcontinent and Asia should have more Europeans than Asians. Who are the descendants of these tens of millions?

You don't really want to get into a comparison vis a vis religiously motivated violence. For as bad as Christians acted, Muslims acted badly or worse. Further, the West / Christian countries have been able to grow beyond their violence, Muslims have not but seemingly embraced it in a truly frightening way.

Of course Christians haven't invaded a country since...help me out here. And the last country Muslims invaded was...again, I'm in need of assistance? I'm not talking about twenty Muslim terrorists, generally condemned among Muslims, flying a plane into a building or holding up a hotel, I'm talking about 50 to 100,000 Muslim soldiers crossing a border in an invasion force.

Since you bring it up, I am against forced abortions. However for their to be a billion Hindus there doesn't have to be a resurgence of Hindus in Muslim lands, but instead Hindus not living under Muslim control.

Well according to you there were 100s of millions genocided at a point in history when no more than 130 million people lived in India. All this by a Muslim minority and at a time when there were no WMDs and when a popular uprising could have ended it all.

Again, I have never said anything different. Your constant refrain of 'but the Christians are just as bad' only show that you can't really defend Muslim actions, but to smear others.

I only defend a realistic appraisal of history. It isn't a smear to say that Charlemagne beheaded over 4000 people at Verdens for the crime of being pagan, it's history. It isn't a smear to say that the American Indians were forced into prayer towns or that the slaves were forcebly removed from their religions, it's a fact.

Well, that's because Christianity never said it means peace. Islam does.

The word Islam is derived from the word for peace. Muslims are as peaceful as the Christians. That is to say they aren't.

Um your logic is very twisted. You DO use the facts that Indians were forced converted and that slaves were forced converted to inform your view of America. Seemingly it is informing your only view of America as you can say basically nothing else.

I'm not given quarter to say anything else. Whenever I make attempts at polite conversation outside of PMs, we must revert to the discussion of genocide, as though one of the world's great religions has nothing more to offer.

But we could also ignore the fact that I don't claim, as you do, that because Indians 'survived' and that they have their own Reservations and preferential treatment that things didn't go so badly for them.

Well yeah, they made millions while the oil sucked off their land made hundreds of millions. I'd call that a tax if I weren't a charitable man.

Yeah, right, sure. Mohammed brokey plenty of treaties, when it was in his advantage.

That's your own interpretation of history. It is not bourn out by any contemporary writings.

The fact that there can be nothing more than a 10 year break from hostilities clearly shows that the status of peace isn't even sought after in Islamic theology.

There are many, many examples of centuries long agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims. One example is Saint Catherine's Monestary. Nice try though. The monestary still exists and has never been attacked by Muslims.

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/charter1.html

Nope, you just have stated that things were better under him...nice.

For the Christians, they were. That's what I stated, nothing else.

Again, I have said many groups used violence to pursue their ends. Muslims seem to be unable to move beyond it however.

Plenty of Muslims have moved beyond it and more do everyday. Of course you don't recognize this majority. Again, that's your problem, not mine.

[Sanket]

Actually I believe it was closer to a trillion. At least that's what the Hindutvahs say.

Need a link for the above figure ? And who are Hindutvahs ? Please educate me.

I don't mind doing Jeehard on Hindutvahs...

[scattergood]

That's what you say, but without your relentless propaganda campaign, if you had to rely on actual facts, you couldn't prove that. Political Islam is just that, a political movement and terrorism served as a proxy war supported by many including Saddam Hussein that were very secular people. Support for terrorism has dropped while support for Islam has not. I know you'd like to deny both these facts, but your favorite Pew Research Center has the most recent data on that.

Um, no, that's what Mohammad, Ibn Kathir, the Muslim Hadith collection, and nearly every terrorist say.

We have gone round and round on this, and you have soundly and roundly been proven wrong time and again. One only need look at Ibn Kathir to see that his commentaries state unequivocally that non-Muslims must be fought, hounded, ambushed and resisted at all time in all places. But irrespective of if YOU admit that this is the case, tens of millions of your correligionists believe it is the case, so take it up with them.

What, disagree that I have a religious obligation to kill all the Jews? If you believe that, then you are the bigotted, crazy ones. Well, actually not crazy, since it advanced your agenda to have everyone else believe that load of garbage.

Yup, when presented with facts and logic you can't deal with, out comes the smear. As I have said, your problem is with your fellow Muslims, but since you cannot bear to deal with them (or passively support them), you blame me for point out the fact that they believe what they believe.

Actually I believe it was closer to a trillion. At least that's what the Hindutvahs say.

Well, I wouldn't claim a trillion, nor do you provide any source.

Judenfrei? Unless you're attempting to blur the distinction between six million Jews slaughtered and a million relocated with the help of the Jewish Agency, I'd prefer you didn't use that term. The Jews affected are almost 100% still among the living.

Ah this again. Jews leave their Muslim countries because of decades and centuries of butality and unlike their Arab cousins, they actually receive help from their correligionists. So, because they weren't put in utter and abject squalor, given no rights, no citizenship, and weren't kept in decades of limbo, it really is the Jews who took their fellow Jews out of the wonderful, great, perfect, loving embrace of the Muslim countries they were in? What a load of poo.

But of course, that wasn't what I was talking about, since most of the Jews you are referencing were from North Africa, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Millions??? What's your source on that?

It is pretty simple math. The Janissaries were around for 463 years. If one takes a pretty low average estimate of 50K in strength in any given year, and the average length of service ranged from 10 -20 years (again fairly conservative), then you end up with a total of forced conversions of young kidnapped boys of 2.3M down to 1.15M. Again, millions.

What is your source for that? I'm aware that the Ottomans enlisted Christian converts in their armies, but if what you say is true then the subcontinent and Asia should have more Europeans than Asians. Who are the descendants of these tens of millions?

Again, you are seemingly completely ignorant of facts and logic. Firstly, the Levant and North Africa aren't European, soe their descendants won't be European. Most of the descendants are now Muslim, having been mainly arabized throughout the millennia.

Of course Christians haven't invaded a country since...help me out here. And the last country Muslims invaded was...again, I'm in need of assistance? I'm not talking about twenty Muslim terrorists, generally condemned among Muslims, flying a plane into a building or holding up a hotel, I'm talking about 50 to 100,000 Muslim soldiers crossing a border in an invasion force.

Again avoiding the issue totally. Good to know you are so consistent.

Well according to you there were 100s of millions genocided at a point in history when no more than 130 million people lived in India. All this by a Muslim minority and at a time when there were no WMDs and when a popular uprising could have ended it all.

From the 8th through the 14th centuries, Muslims came and conquered and pillaged the Indian subcontinent and the Indus River valley. Certainly during those 600 years, more than 130M Indians lived there. But again, math seems to be a problem for you.

I only defend a realistic appraisal of history. It isn't a smear to say that Charlemagne beheaded over 4000 people at Verdens for the crime of being pagan, it's history. It isn't a smear to say that the American Indians were forced into prayer towns or that the slaves were forcebly removed from their religions, it's a fact.

Yes. And it is a fact that Muslims have butchered hundreds of millions of people in their peaceful spread of Islam.

The word Islam is derived from the word for peace. Muslims are as peaceful as the Christians. That is to say they aren't.

Thanks for making my point. Islam claims to be peaceful, hence that is why it is mocked in many cases.

I'm not given quarter to say anything else. Whenever I make attempts at polite conversation outside of PMs, we must revert to the discussion of genocide, as though one of the world's great religions has nothing more to offer.

Ahh, the traditional soft jihadist method. "I'm just trying to be nice", while I insult you, lie, change the subject, and refuse to answer basic questions. Nope, you don't get any quarter because in a battle of ideas, I'll fight you even though you seem to be an unarmed combatant.

Well yeah, they made millions while the oil sucked off their land made hundreds of millions. I'd call that a tax if I weren't a charitable man.

Again completely ignoring the point. Which is pretty consistent of you.

That's your own interpretation of history. It is not bourn out by any contemporary writings.

There are many, many examples of centuries long agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims. One example is Saint Catherine's Monestary. Nice try though. The monestary still exists and has never been attacked by Muslims.

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/charter1.html

Well,

1) that's not a treaty. It is a Charter. I'd be like saying that the Constitution is a Treaty. But notice that it has a clause to let them repair their buildings. Why? Oh, that's right, because everywhere else no non-Muslim can repair their house of worship without explicit, and hardly given, approval.

2) One only need to look at the statement in your link "This charter of privileges has been honored and faithfully applied by Muslims throughout the centuries in all lands they ruled" to know what kind of bs propaganda this is.

Plenty of Muslims have moved beyond it and more do everyday. Of course you don't recognize this majority. Again, that's your problem, not mine.

Since they aren't doing enough to stop the tens of millions of their correligionists from violence, no, I hold their feet to the fire for that one.

[andak01]

Um, no, that's what Mohammad, Ibn Kathir, the Muslim Hadith collection, and nearly every terrorist say.

Not many Muslim terrorists speak for one thing. When they do, they might quote bits of the Sunnah through the lens of Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood or through the lens of Al Qaida. That is not the only interpretation.

We have gone round and round on this, and you have soundly and roundly been proven wrong time and again.

No. You simply insist that you know more about Islam than Muslims. You insist that Islam isn't up for any interpretation that doesn't lead to terrorism. That's a lie no matter how many times you tell it. I'm not going to get angry at you anymore for lying. That's what you do.

One only need look at Ibn Kathir to see that his commentaries state unequivocally that non-Muslims must be fought, hounded, ambushed and resisted at all time in all places. But irrespective of if YOU admit that this is the case, tens of millions of your correligionists believe it is the case, so take it up with them.

Tens of millions? 1%! I'm not going to "take it up" with them. First off, I've never personally met anyone that interprets Islam in that way, and if I did, I'd take them up with the FBI. I don't have any more use for terrorists than you do.

Yup, when presented with facts and logic you can't deal with, out comes the smear. As I have said, your problem is with your fellow Muslims, but since you cannot bear to deal with them (or passively support them), you blame me for point out the fact that they believe what they believe.

But they don't actually believe that. Maybe in western Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maybe in Gaza, but not in most places.

Ah this again. Jews leave their Muslim countries because of decades and centuries of butality and unlike their Arab cousins, they actually receive help from their correligionists.

That's a wonderful thing. But don't then ignore that fact and claim the greatest ethnic cleansing in the 20th century based on that. It was an assisted ethnic cleansing if anything and far more Jews would still be in the Middle East without airlifts, illegal visas, etc.

So, because they weren't put in utter and abject squalor, given no rights, no citizenship, and weren't kept in decades of limbo, it really is the Jews who took their fellow Jews out of the wonderful, great, perfect, loving embrace of the Muslim countries they were in?

As I recall, I compared their situation to that of the post civil war blacks up to and including the lynchings. No picnic that and if a foreign government had supported ship after ship to remove them to Africa, we'd have ethnic cleansing in America.

But of course, that wasn't what I was talking about, since most of the Jews you are referencing were from North Africa, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Was there any place in the Middle East where a holocaust analogy isn't an insult to the people who suffered under the Nazis? The closest I know of is Iraq and the Kurds suffered far worse.

It is pretty simple math. The Janissaries were around for 463 years. If one takes a pretty low average estimate of 50K in strength in any given year, and the average length of service ranged from 10 -20 years (again fairly conservative), then you end up with a total of forced conversions of young kidnapped boys of 2.3M down to 1.15M. Again, millions.

Those were conscripted into service. I'm not sure of the strength of the force. But yes, it was as bad as Jews being conscripted into the Roman Army and forced to worship the Emporor or pagans inscripted into Charlemagnes army and told they'd have their heads cut off if they worshipped the old Gods. It's horrible and thank goodness the Ottomans are done for.

Again, you are seemingly completely ignorant of facts and logic. Firstly, the Levant and North Africa aren't European, soe their descendants won't be European. Most of the descendants are now Muslim, having been mainly arabized throughout the millennia.

But they would have semitic features. You said they were all shipped to India and other parts East.

Yes. And it is a fact that Muslims have butchered hundreds of millions of people in their peaceful spread of Islam.

I suppose you're right. And according to the method you use to calculate, the European Christians butchered over 100 million people in the 20th century. Since we can focus only on their religion and forget about any other motivation or circumstance.

Thanks for making my point. Islam claims to be peaceful, hence that is why it is mocked in many cases.

The people who mock it the most are a gas tank away from driving through a mosque.

"I'm just trying to be nice", while I insult you, lie, change the subject, and refuse to answer basic questions.

I'm glad you finally admit it. Now how about answering what special laws you would enact vis-a-vis Muslims in America. I've calmly asked you many times. And thanks in advance.

[scattergood]

Not many Muslim terrorists speak for one thing. When they do, they might quote bits of the Sunnah through the lens of Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood or through the lens of Al Qaida. That is not the only interpretation.

If you mean by the MB and AQ, the Al-Anzar university president, every Sunni school of Jurisprudence, and such tasfir and hadith of Ibn Kathir and al-Muslim, then you have a very strange view of who is the MB and who is AQ.

The point, that you finally seem to get to admit, is that the terrorists are quoting and using the above as support for their views. If you have an issue it is with the traditional and historical understanding of Islam, by the scholars and the practitioners, so take it up with them.

The point is that as much as you constant bring up the Midianites, there is no significant body of work in Rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah, Gemara, etc. that expounds that Christians are Midianites and thus must be killed, or that Muslims are Midianintes and thus must be killed. The same cannot be said for the Hadith and Sunna with regards to non-Muslims.

No. You simply insist that you know more about Islam than Muslims. You insist that Islam isn't up for any interpretation that doesn't lead to terrorism. That's a lie no matter how many times you tell it. I'm not going to get angry at you anymore for lying. That's what you do.

No, I just think that people like Ibn Kathir, and the Hadith of al-Muslim know more about Islam than you do.

Tens of millions? 1%! I'm not going to "take it up" with them. First off, I've never personally met anyone that interprets Islam in that way, and if I did, I'd take them up with the FBI. I don't have any more use for terrorists than you do.

This again? Go to the UK and deal with the 40% of college students who are Muslim who support Sharia. And stop with the lie of 1%. Studies show that support for terrorism ranges from the high teens to the mid 50's in such 'moderate' countries as Morocco that you like to point to.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/new...reply&p=309505

But they don't actually believe that. Maybe in western Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maybe in Gaza, but not in most places.

Yup, bury your head in the sand some more. Don't let your lying eyes deceive you with things like facts.

That's a wonderful thing. But don't then ignore that fact and claim the greatest ethnic cleansing in the 20th century based on that. It was an assisted ethnic cleansing if anything and far more Jews would still be in the Middle East without airlifts, illegal visas, etc.

Well we don't know now do we. The airlifts and escapes probably saved them from the horrors of their neighbors, a la Hebron in 1929.

As I recall, I compared their situation to that of the post civil war blacks up to and including the lynchings. No picnic that and if a foreign government had supported ship after ship to remove them to Africa, we'd have ethnic cleansing in America.

And who would have been the ethnic cleanser?

Was there any place in the Middle East where a holocaust analogy isn't an insult to the people who suffered under the Nazis? The closest I know of is Iraq and the Kurds suffered far worse.

Since I didn't bring up the Holocaust in this reference you of course are jsut trying to change the subject. But since you have, the Aremenians come to mind since the person who coined the term genocide had them in mind.

Those were conscripted into service. I'm not sure of the strength of the force. But yes, it was as bad as Jews being conscripted into the Roman Army and forced to worship the Emporor or pagans inscripted into Charlemagnes army and told they'd have their heads cut off if they worshipped the old Gods. It's horrible and thank goodness the Ottomans are done for.

Conscripted meaning kindnapped from their parents as young as 8, forced to convert, and then sent to war against their former Christian co-religionists. Futher, Jews weren't conscripted into the Roman army, although they did serve as auxillaries. Jews were not kidnapped en mass and Romanized.

But they would have semitic features. You said they were all shipped to India and other parts East.

Seriously put the bong down. I didn't say any such thing.

I suppose you're right. And according to the method you use to calculate, the European Christians butchered over 100 million people in the 20th century. Since we can focus only on their religion and forget about any other motivation or circumstance.

This of course is another flat out lie. The Communists and Nazis (those responsible for most of the 100M you quote) were anti-Christian, atheists, and in some cases pagans. They didn't kill people in Jesus' name.

The Muslim conquerors of the Indian subcontinent however, waged jihad, explicitly, and did so in the name of Islam.

The people who mock it the most are a gas tank away from driving through a mosque.

I am glad you are a mind reader now. I am sure that's why so many Mosques are burning cinders in the middle of the blocks in American cities. Seriously, the paranoia needs to get some attention.

I'm glad you finally admit it. Now how about answering what special laws you would enact vis-a-vis Muslims in America. I've calmly asked you many times. And thanks in advance.

Admit what? That I won't go easy on you because you can't seem to defend yourself? Ok, big deal.

As for my big secret plans for Muslims, who says I have any? I don't. You are free to spew whatever stupidity and garbage you want. I have never asked that you be thrown off this board, or to have your freedoms abridged in any sense. Of course, this is in direct opposition to what you have requested be done to me. I believe in freedom. I believe in you freedom to prove how stupid, illogical, petty, and dumb your point of view is. Congrats, you seem to be successful!

As to the general case of Muslims in the country at large, I would say no special treatment, anywhere. No accommodation.