One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for the Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of Islam.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do so for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of Vienna. "
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no democracy in the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The colonization of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and Holocaust. "
"Not supposed to say that although the war in Iraq was, in my opinion, wrong
and foolish, many Iraqis are acting like brutal and irrational thugs. Saddam
Hussein kept his country in order by ruling as a murderous tyrant yet faced
very little opposition. Where were these brave Islamic militants then? "
"Not supposed to say that while the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by
American soldiers was bad, it was nothing compared to the routine torture
that takes place in most of the Muslim world. Yes, most. Egypt, Iran, Syria,
Jordan and the rest. It was still wrong. Yet look at the reaction. "
"Not supposed to say that many of the excuses and explanations offered by
woolly thinkers to explain world events are invalid and fatuous. Not
supposed to say that some beliefs are ethically and intellectually superior
to others. Not supposed to say we should think outside of the boxes of both
left and right. "
.
|
|
| User: "eric davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
24 Aug 2004 02:02:29 PM |
|
|
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Ghandi.
eric.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
24 Aug 2004 09:57:22 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of *Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do so for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of Vienna.
"
...and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the Crusaders did
in the Middle East..
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no democracy in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed to kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm not as
bad as him?
"Not supposed to say that although the war in Iraq was, in my opinion,
wrong
and foolish, many Iraqis are acting like brutal and irrational thugs.
Saddam
Hussein kept his country in order by ruling as a murderous tyrant yet
faced
very little opposition. Where were these brave Islamic militants then? "
"Not supposed to say that while the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by
American soldiers was bad, it was nothing compared to the routine torture
that takes place in most of the Muslim world. Yes, most. Egypt, Iran,
Syria,
Jordan and the rest. It was still wrong. Yet look at the reaction. "
"Not supposed to say that many of the excuses and explanations offered by
woolly thinkers to explain world events are invalid and fatuous. Not
supposed to say that some beliefs are ethically and intellectually
superior
to others. Not supposed to say we should think outside of the boxes of
both
left and right. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
24 Aug 2004 11:02:07 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the "infidel".
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula! Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for hundreds of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the Crusaders did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does mention that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology, IMHO),
while the muslims have not apologized for their role. The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for any of it.
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no democracy in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the finger at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European descent, and,
especially Americans. Anyone else, and especially Arabs, can do the same or
worse with impunity.
"Not supposed to say that although the war in Iraq was, in my opinion,
wrong
and foolish, many Iraqis are acting like brutal and irrational thugs.
Saddam
Hussein kept his country in order by ruling as a murderous tyrant yet
faced
very little opposition. Where were these brave Islamic militants then? "
"Not supposed to say that while the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by
American soldiers was bad, it was nothing compared to the routine
torture
that takes place in most of the Muslim world. Yes, most. Egypt, Iran,
Syria,
Jordan and the rest. It was still wrong. Yet look at the reaction. "
"Not supposed to say that many of the excuses and explanations offered
by
woolly thinkers to explain world events are invalid and fatuous. Not
supposed to say that some beliefs are ethically and intellectually
superior
to others. Not supposed to say we should think outside of the boxes of
both
left and right. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 02:14:25 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WaUWc.20154$DG.921306@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of
Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the "infidel".
Pretty much what I said above..
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula!
I didn't say they were, I said the response to their miltary expansionism
was kicking them out of there.
Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for hundreds of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the Crusaders
did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does mention
that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology, IMHO),
Naturally.... you are bigoted against muslims as you have admitted several
times.
while the muslims have not apologized for their role.
Their role in having their own homelands invaded and their people
slaughtered?
The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for any of
it.
Who says? Of course, if you start saying the Arabs shoudl accept blame for
the imperial aspirations in Europe, doesn't that mean you also have to get
the Israelis to apologise for their territorial grabs in the Middle East?
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no democracy
in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the finger at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European descent,
and,
especially Americans.
He was talking about pogroms and holocausts, which WERE carried out by white
people of European descent. The Arabs had nothing to do with Hitler's
holocaust, you know. And he's saying it was OK to colonise and brutalise
Arab people because, hey, Jewish people had sufferd more! The man is clearly
a confused, racist idiot:
"The colonization of Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the
pogroms and Holocaust."
Anyone else, and especially Arabs, can do the same or
worse with impunity.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history) that
compares with the Holcaust?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 07:38:39 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:cghe32$rpg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WaUWc.20154$DG.921306@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for
the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of
Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam
was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st
Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the "infidel".
Pretty much what I said above..
I would say pretty much what you didn't say. You mention Jerusalem,
Saracens and Iberia (Spain). Jane mentions Turkey, Byzantine Empire
and Jerusalem. Pretty different in my view.
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula!
I didn't say they were, I said the response to their miltary expansionism
was kicking them out of there.
But you gave that impression.
Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for hundreds
of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do
so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the Crusaders
did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does mention
that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology, IMHO),
Naturally.... you are bigoted against muslims as you have admitted several
times.
Well, I am not to keen on muslims either. False prophet Mohammed was a
fascist urging his followers to conquer land and "convert" the people by all
means including violence. While Jesus Christ preached "love your
neighbours".
while the muslims have not apologized for their role.
Their role in having their own homelands invaded and their people
slaughtered?
No, for looting Greece for example and their fascist behaviour on the
Balkan for 500 years.
The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for any of
it.
Who says? Of course, if you start saying the Arabs shoudl accept blame for
the imperial aspirations in Europe, doesn't that mean you also have to get
the Israelis to apologise for their territorial grabs in the Middle East?
Israel is not Europe, you compare apples and oranges.
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews
and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no
democracy
in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm
not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the finger at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European descent,
and specially Americans.
He was talking about pogroms and holocausts, which WERE carried out by
white
people of European descent. The Arabs had nothing to do with Hitler's
holocaust, you know. And he's saying it was OK to colonise and brutalise
Arab people because, hey, Jewish people had sufferd more! The man is
clearly
a confused, racist idiot:
Problem is that muslims are no race. You have African muslims, Arab muslims,
Chines muslims, Indonesian muslims, Balkan muslims etcetera. Racism is to
discriminate races. Since muslims are no race you cannot be a racist if you
are
not fond of them or anti-islam.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
As long we oppress them a little it will not come to such an event.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 09:14:31 AM |
|
|
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:412c8837$0$3878$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:cghe32$rpg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WaUWc.20154$DG.921306@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for
the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile
Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of
Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam
was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st
Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the
muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the
"infidel".
Pretty much what I said above..
I would say pretty much what you didn't say. You mention Jerusalem,
Saracens and Iberia (Spain). Jane mentions Turkey, Byzantine Empire
and Jerusalem. Pretty different in my view.
The point is the crusades were launched to kick the Muslims out of
Jerusalem. The Turkey bit is something of a red herring as the Christian
kingdoms woudl have just as much liked to have conquered that from Byzantium
as the Muslims would.
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula!
I didn't say they were, I said the response to their miltary
expansionism
was kicking them out of there.
But you gave that impression.
I'm sorry you and Jane interpreted it that way. I thought the phrase "The
response to the "military expansion" of Islam was kicking the muslim armies
out of the Iberian peninsula." was pretty crystal clear, but obviously not..
Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for hundreds
of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do
so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the
Crusaders
did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does mention
that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology,
IMHO),
Naturally.... you are bigoted against muslims as you have admitted
several
times.
Well, I am not to keen on muslims either. False prophet Mohammed was a
fascist urging his followers to conquer land and "convert" the people by
all
means including violence. While Jesus Christ preached "love your
neighbours".
Heh, good thing no Christians ever conquered land and tried to convert the
people by all means including violence. Oh hang on, there's the Inquisition,
and the Crusades, and the Conquistadors and the slaughter of indigenous
people in America, Africa and Australasia to think about.
while the muslims have not apologized for their role.
Their role in having their own homelands invaded and their people
slaughtered?
No, for looting Greece for example and their fascist behaviour on the
Balkan for 500 years.
That was part of the crusades?!
The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for any
of
it.
Who says? Of course, if you start saying the Arabs shoudl accept blame
for
the imperial aspirations in Europe, doesn't that mean you also have to
get
the Israelis to apologise for their territorial grabs in the Middle
East?
Israel is not Europe, you compare apples and oranges.
What the? We are discussing expansion and conquest. The physical location is
somewhat by the by.
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews
and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no
democracy
in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed
to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm
not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the finger
at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European
descent,
and specially Americans.
He was talking about pogroms and holocausts, which WERE carried out by
white
people of European descent. The Arabs had nothing to do with Hitler's
holocaust, you know. And he's saying it was OK to colonise and brutalise
Arab people because, hey, Jewish people had sufferd more! The man is
clearly
a confused, racist idiot:
Problem is that muslims are no race.
Confused, bigoted idiot then. The point still stands - it was Europeans who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
You have African muslims, Arab muslims,
Chines muslims, Indonesian muslims, Balkan muslims etcetera. Racism is to
discriminate races. Since muslims are no race you cannot be a racist if
you
are not fond of them or anti-islam.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
As long we oppress them a little it will not come to such an event.
LOL! Now THAT's specious reasoning...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 10:39:42 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:cgi6mm$bp3$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
<snipped for convienience>
Well, I am not to keen on muslims either. False prophet Mohammed was a
fascist urging his followers to conquer land and "convert" the people by
all
means including violence. While Jesus Christ preached "love your
neighbours".
Heh, good thing no Christians ever conquered land and tried to convert the
people by all means including violence. Oh hang on, there's the
Inquisition,
and the Crusades, and the Conquistadors and the slaughter of indigenous
people in America, Africa and Australasia to think about.
The big difference here is that Jesus Christ did not preach to conquer land,
to convert the people there by all means, to loot nations etcetera. Fascist
Mohammed indeed preached that. So, the basics of Islam is very different
from the basics of Christianity. Yes, "Christians" have rampaged this planet
in the same way as muslims, but they were not the true followers of Jesus
Christ. They behaved in a way Jesus would certainly have condemned and
the pope, although not a representative of Christ in my book, has apologized
for such barbaric behaviour. Jesus Christ preaches "the ten commandments",
meaning "thou shalled not kill". Fascist Mohammed teaches: conquer land,
convert people by force and if that doesn't work kill them or enslave them.
<snip>
Israel is not Europe, you compare apples and oranges.
What the? We are discussing expansion and conquest. The physical location
is
somewhat by the by.
Israel has in no way performed such an expansion as the muslims did between
610 AC and now. In fact for years the jews lived in the "diaspora", until
1948
when the UN recognized Israel as an independent sovereign state.
<snip>
Problem is that muslims are no race.
Confused, bigoted idiot then. The point still stands - it was Europeans
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa fought
hard
against the Nazi occupiers either! It were the Brittish and Americans
chasing
Fieldgeneral Rommel there and not Arabs at all. A sort of silent approval
for
the Nazis?
You have African muslims, Arab muslims,
Chines muslims, Indonesian muslims, Balkan muslims etcetera. Racism is
to
discriminate races. Since muslims are no race you cannot be a racist if
you
are not fond of them or anti-islam.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
As long we oppress them a little it will not come to such an event.
LOL! Now THAT's specious reasoning...
Come on! If they had the tools and the means they would try to conquer
Europe again. As long we prevent them from having those tools and the
means such will not happen.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 11:09:01 AM |
|
|
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:412cb2a6$0$3559$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:cgi6mm$bp3$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
<snipped for convienience>
Well, I am not to keen on muslims either. False prophet Mohammed was a
fascist urging his followers to conquer land and "convert" the people
by
all
means including violence. While Jesus Christ preached "love your
neighbours".
Heh, good thing no Christians ever conquered land and tried to convert
the
people by all means including violence. Oh hang on, there's the
Inquisition,
and the Crusades, and the Conquistadors and the slaughter of indigenous
people in America, Africa and Australasia to think about.
The big difference here is that Jesus Christ did not preach to conquer
land,
to convert the people there by all means, to loot nations etcetera.
Fascist
Mohammed indeed preached that. So, the basics of Islam is very different
from the basics of Christianity.
I don't really give a ***** what EITHER of them said old boy. It's what their
followers did that counts. Or do you think it makes a difference if the guy
who is killing me is saying "I'm doing this for Christian brotherly love "or
"I'm doing this for Allah".
Yes, "Christians" have rampaged this planet
in the same way as muslims, but they were not the true followers of Jesus
Christ.
Muslims could and would argue the same...
They behaved in a way Jesus would certainly have condemned and
the pope, although not a representative of Christ in my book, has
apologized
for such barbaric behaviour.
It was various popes who suggeted and condoned it from the start, I really
don't see the difference.
Jesus Christ preaches "the ten commandments",
meaning "thou shalled not kill". Fascist Mohammed teaches: conquer land,
convert people by force and if that doesn't work kill them or enslave
them.
That's merely your interpretation.
<snip>
Israel is not Europe, you compare apples and oranges.
What the? We are discussing expansion and conquest. The physical
location
is
somewhat by the by.
Israel has in no way performed such an expansion as the muslims did
between
610 AC and now. In fact for years the jews lived in the "diaspora", until
1948
when the UN recognized Israel as an independent sovereign state.
Again, irrelevant. The question was whether conquerors shoudl apologise, it
has nothing to do with location or size of conquest.
<snip>
Problem is that muslims are no race.
Confused, bigoted idiot then. The point still stands - it was Europeans
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa fought
hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the Germans. But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
It were the Brittish and Americans
chasing
Fieldgeneral Rommel there and not Arabs at all. A sort of silent approval
for
the Nazis?
Not at all. There are countless documented incidents of North Africans
helping allied airmen and supplying information of German military
installations to the Allies. Their level of co-operatoin with the allies
compares favourably with most occupied European states. Or do you view the
lack of Dutch people engaging the Nazis in overt military combat as silent
approval for the Nazis?
You have African muslims, Arab muslims,
Chines muslims, Indonesian muslims, Balkan muslims etcetera. Racism is
to
discriminate races. Since muslims are no race you cannot be a racist
if
you
are not fond of them or anti-islam.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant
history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
As long we oppress them a little it will not come to such an event.
LOL! Now THAT's specious reasoning...
Come on! If they had the tools and the means they would try to conquer
Europe again.
Pure speculation on your part.
As long we prevent them from having those tools and the
means such will not happen.
Specious reasoning, as I said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 11:43:15 AM |
|
|
tw a écrit:
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:412cb2a6$0$3559$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:cgi6mm$bp3$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
<snipped for convienience>
Well, I am not to keen on muslims either. False prophet Mohammed was a
fascist urging his followers to conquer land and "convert" the people
by
all
means including violence. While Jesus Christ preached "love your
neighbours".
Heh, good thing no Christians ever conquered land and tried to convert
the
people by all means including violence. Oh hang on, there's the
Inquisition,
and the Crusades, and the Conquistadors and the slaughter of indigenous
people in America, Africa and Australasia to think about.
The big difference here is that Jesus Christ did not preach to conquer
land,
to convert the people there by all means, to loot nations etcetera.
Fascist
Mohammed indeed preached that. So, the basics of Islam is very different
from the basics of Christianity.
I don't really give a ***** what EITHER of them said old boy. It's what their
followers did that counts. Or do you think it makes a difference if the guy
who is killing me is saying "I'm doing this for Christian brotherly love "or
"I'm doing this for Allah".
Yes, "Christians" have rampaged this planet
in the same way as muslims, but they were not the true followers of Jesus
Christ.
Muslims could and would argue the same...
They behaved in a way Jesus would certainly have condemned and
the pope, although not a representative of Christ in my book, has
apologized
for such barbaric behaviour.
It was various popes who suggeted and condoned it from the start, I really
don't see the difference.
Jesus Christ preaches "the ten commandments",
meaning "thou shalled not kill". Fascist Mohammed teaches: conquer land,
convert people by force and if that doesn't work kill them or enslave
them.
That's merely your interpretation.
<snip>
Israel is not Europe, you compare apples and oranges.
What the? We are discussing expansion and conquest. The physical
location
is
somewhat by the by.
Israel has in no way performed such an expansion as the muslims did
between
610 AC and now. In fact for years the jews lived in the "diaspora", until
1948
when the UN recognized Israel as an independent sovereign state.
Again, irrelevant. The question was whether conquerors shoudl apologise, it
has nothing to do with location or size of conquest.
You won't see tw read and discuss the facts of the truth
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html
and recognize that Israel is in its right, since he is an anti-semite.
(Which text I won't post extracts from here, since he still has to
comment on the previous post of them concerning his lies. but he will
***** out as usual.)
<snip>
Problem is that muslims are no race.
Confused, bigoted idiot then. The point still stands - it was Europeans
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa fought
hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the Germans. But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
Again more lies.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler,
Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He
wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the
Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and
Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two
countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine.
Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the
right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other
Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the
same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were
his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for
a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was
not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which
he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and
to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The
Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies
as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:
Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally
included active opposition to the Jewish national home in
Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the
Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely
the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In
that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the
Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his
role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated
in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French
detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews
from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
(...)
It were the Brittish and Americans
chasing
Fieldgeneral Rommel there and not Arabs at all. A sort of silent approval
for
the Nazis?
Not at all. There are countless documented incidents of North Africans
helping allied airmen and supplying information of German military
installations to the Allies. Their level of co-operatoin with the allies
compares favourably with most occupied European states. Or do you view the
lack of Dutch people engaging the Nazis in overt military combat as silent
approval for the Nazis?
Care to document one?
You have African muslims, Arab muslims,
Chines muslims, Indonesian muslims, Balkan muslims etcetera. Racism is
to
discriminate races. Since muslims are no race you cannot be a racist
if
you
are not fond of them or anti-islam.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant
history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
As long we oppress them a little it will not come to such an event.
LOL! Now THAT's specious reasoning...
Come on! If they had the tools and the means they would try to conquer
Europe again.
Pure speculation on your part.
Nostradamus thinks that when they will have the means, in 20 years, they
will conquer Europe. But little fly ***** tw despise the Seer. Still, he
pollutes his NG.
As long we prevent them from having those tools and the
means such will not happen.
Yep, but in 20 years, it won't be enough. Maybe some economic crisis or
ecological catastrophes will contribute besides the continual building
up of weapons and search for WMD by them. Hard to tell.
Specious reasoning, as I said.
Yes we know where you stand.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
26 Aug 2004 03:30:24 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Dk3Xc.103916$y4.17847@news.easynews.com...
tw a écrit:
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:412cb2a6$0$3559$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:cgi6mm$bp3$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
<snipped for convienience>
Well, I am not to keen on muslims either. False prophet Mohammed was a
fascist urging his followers to conquer land and "convert" the people
by
all
means including violence. While Jesus Christ preached "love your
neighbours".
Heh, good thing no Christians ever conquered land and tried to convert
the
people by all means including violence. Oh hang on, there's the
Inquisition,
and the Crusades, and the Conquistadors and the slaughter of indigenous
people in America, Africa and Australasia to think about.
The big difference here is that Jesus Christ did not preach to conquer
land,
to convert the people there by all means, to loot nations etcetera.
Fascist
Mohammed indeed preached that. So, the basics of Islam is very different
from the basics of Christianity.
I don't really give a ***** what EITHER of them said old boy. It's what
their
followers did that counts. Or do you think it makes a difference if the
guy
who is killing me is saying "I'm doing this for Christian brotherly love
"or
"I'm doing this for Allah".
Yes, "Christians" have rampaged this planet
in the same way as muslims, but they were not the true followers of
Jesus
Christ.
Muslims could and would argue the same...
They behaved in a way Jesus would certainly have condemned and
the pope, although not a representative of Christ in my book, has
apologized
for such barbaric behaviour.
It was various popes who suggeted and condoned it from the start, I
really
don't see the difference.
Jesus Christ preaches "the ten commandments",
meaning "thou shalled not kill". Fascist Mohammed teaches: conquer land,
convert people by force and if that doesn't work kill them or enslave
them.
That's merely your interpretation.
<snip>
Israel is not Europe, you compare apples and oranges.
What the? We are discussing expansion and conquest. The physical
location
is
somewhat by the by.
Israel has in no way performed such an expansion as the muslims did
between
610 AC and now. In fact for years the jews lived in the "diaspora",
until
1948
when the UN recognized Israel as an independent sovereign state.
Again, irrelevant. The question was whether conquerors shoudl apologise,
it
has nothing to do with location or size of conquest.
You won't see tw read and discuss the facts of the truth
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html
and recognize that Israel is in its right, since he is an anti-semite.
Provably false. Jean is lying.
(Which text I won't post extracts from here, since he still has to
comment on the previous post of them concerning his lies. but he will
***** out as usual.)
<snip>
Problem is that muslims are no race.
Confused, bigoted idiot then. The point still stands - it was Europeans
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa fought
hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the Germans.
But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
Again more lies.
It was a question, you dumb *****. Try answering it.
<snip red herring>
It were the Brittish and Americans
chasing
Fieldgeneral Rommel there and not Arabs at all. A sort of silent
approval
for
the Nazis?
Not at all. There are countless documented incidents of North Africans
helping allied airmen and supplying information of German military
installations to the Allies. Their level of co-operatoin with the allies
compares favourably with most occupied European states. Or do you view
the
lack of Dutch people engaging the Nazis in overt military combat as
silent
approval for the Nazis?
Care to document one?
Sure
You have African muslims, Arab muslims,
Chines muslims, Indonesian muslims, Balkan muslims etcetera. Racism is
to
discriminate races. Since muslims are no race you cannot be a racist
if
you
are not fond of them or anti-islam.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant
history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
As long we oppress them a little it will not come to such an event.
LOL! Now THAT's specious reasoning...
Come on! If they had the tools and the means they would try to conquer
Europe again.
Pure speculation on your part.
Nostradamus thinks that when they will have the means, in 20 years,
That is YOUR interpretation of Nostradamus. And you are a crazy old
superstitious drug addict.
they will conquer Europe. But little fly ***** tw despise the Seer.
I have never met the guy, of course I don't despise him. I don't think he
was a propet and I feel nothing but ridicle for people who attempt to
tranlsate the words of a long dead fraud and twist them to suit their own
weird, druggy agendas.
Still, he pollutes his NG.
You are polluting MY newsgroup, you hash - crazed liar.
As long we prevent them from having those tools and the
means such will not happen.
Yep, but in 20 years, it won't be enough. Maybe some economic crisis or
ecological catastrophes will contribute besides the continual building
up of weapons and search for WMD by them. Hard to tell.
Specious reasoning, as I said.
Yes we know where you stand.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
26 Aug 2004 10:39:49 AM |
|
|
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Dk3Xc.103916$y4.17847@news.easynews.com...
tw a écrit:
<snip>
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa fought
hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the Germans.
But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
Again more lies.
It was a question, you dumb *****. Try answering it.
<snip red herring>
Answer:
<Unsnip NOT red-herring>
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler,
Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He
wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the
Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and
Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two
countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine.
Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the
right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other
Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the
same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were
his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for
a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was
not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which
he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and
to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The
Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies
as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:
Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally
included active opposition to the Jewish national home in
Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the
Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely
the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In
that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the
Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his
role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated
in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French
detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews
from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
(...)
You are a loser who always snip the replies and re-ask the same
questions instead of discussing tw. It is not my fault that you are such
a loser. You are here only to spread hatred, and when debunked, you snip
the reply and spread more of the same hatred until the good samaritan
gets tired and you think in your tiny 4 cells brain that you won.
Or else you make up totally idiotic stuff about the personal life of the
person who debunks you as if it was some reply.
You are an idiot, whether you think or not that only idiots support,
think, and act, like you.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
26 Aug 2004 10:48:42 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:9vnXc.170131$6p.36665@news.easynews.com...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Dk3Xc.103916$y4.17847@news.easynews.com...
tw a écrit:
<snip>
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa
fought
hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the Germans.
But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
Again more lies.
It was a question, you dumb *****. Try answering it.
<snip red herring>
Answer:
How does that answer the question
"How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of
the Arabs"
YOU dumb, dumb *****?
<snip one crazy old ***** reporting on well.known fact of another crazy
old ***** sending love letters to HItler>
You are a loser who always snip the replies and re-ask the same
questions instead of discussing tw.
LOL! How about that Woods thing eh?
It is not my fault that you are such
a loser. You are here only to spread hatred, and when debunked, you snip
the reply and spread more of the same hatred until the good samaritan
gets tired and you think in your tiny 4 cells brain that you won.
I refer you to the Woods incident, loser.
Or else you make up totally idiotic stuff about the personal life of the
person who debunks you as if it was some reply.
Like you and your anti-semitism claims?
You are an idiot, whether you think or not that only idiots support,
think, and act, like you.
LOL! Who agrees with your anti-semite assessment, loser?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
26 Aug 2004 04:49:10 PM |
|
|
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:9vnXc.170131$6p.36665@news.easynews.com...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Dk3Xc.103916$y4.17847@news.easynews.com...
tw a écrit:
<snip>
who
persecuted the Jews and carried out the holocaust, not Arabs.
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa
fought
hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the Germans.
But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
Again more lies.
It was a question, you dumb *****. Try answering it.
<snip red herring>
Answer:
How does that answer the question
"How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of
the Arabs"
YOU dumb, dumb *****?
YOU are the dumb *****. This wasn't what I replied to, dumbo. I replied
to your lie. Gee, you need to make an effort, or go back to elementary
school if reading is too hard for you. Below is the original post I
replied to and that you snipped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
That is a fact, but you cannot say that the Arabs in north Africa
fought hard against the Nazi occupiers either!
They certainly helped the allies far more than they helped the
Germans. But
again this is a red herring. How does EUROPEAN persecution of the Jews
excuse EUROPEAN exploitation of the Arabs?
Again more lies.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler,
Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He
wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the
Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and
Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two
countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine.
Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the
right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other
Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the
same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were
his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for
a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was
not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which
he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and
to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The
Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies
as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:
Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally
included active opposition to the Jewish national home in
Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the
Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely
the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In
that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the
Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his
role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated
in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French
detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews
from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
(...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My post was that you lied in your premises, it wasn't answering your
"question" which would have been sanctioning your anti-semite lie...
that you are so dumb that you need to snip out the lie before saying I
replied to your question shows your reading skills or your dishonesty,
or both.
The fact remains that saying that they helped the allies more than the
Germans is quite dubious, since their grand Mufti was in cahoots with
Hitler.
What do you have to say to that?
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 08:54:32 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cghe32$rpg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WaUWc.20154$DG.921306@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for
the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of
Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam
was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st
Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the "infidel".
Pretty much what I said above..
Not exactly. You only mentioned Jerusalem.
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula!
I didn't say they were, I said the response to their miltary expansionism
was kicking them out of there.
Sure sounded like you di say that!
Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for hundreds
of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do
so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the Crusaders
did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does mention
that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology, IMHO),
Naturally.... you are bigoted against muslims as you have admitted several
times.
No, I also do not apologize for slavery or the treatment of the natives by
Europeans. Why should anyone apologize for things that happened hundreds of
years ago? I am not guilty and I will never feel guilty because I am of
white, European descent!
while the muslims have not apologized for their role.
Their role in having their own homelands invaded and their people
slaughtered?
No, their role in invading Europe and slaughtering Europeans. Or are you
saying they just waltzed in and took over with no blood being shed?
The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for any of
it.
Who says? Of course, if you start saying the Arabs shoudl accept blame for
the imperial aspirations in Europe, doesn't that mean you also have to get
the Israelis to apologise for their territorial grabs in the Middle East?
No, Israel grabbed the territories in response to Arab attack.
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews
and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no
democracy
in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm
not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the finger at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European descent,
and,
especially Americans.
He was talking about pogroms and holocausts, which WERE carried out by
white
people of European descent. The Arabs had nothing to do with Hitler's
holocaust, you know. And he's saying it was OK to colonise and brutalise
Arab people because, hey, Jewish people had sufferd more! The man is
clearly
a confused, racist idiot:
Again with the "racist"! As I have said many times, islam is NOT a race!
"The colonization of Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the
pogroms and Holocaust."
Anyone else, and especially Arabs, can do the same or
worse with impunity.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
Nothing compares with the Holocaust! However, given the Arabs propensity
for blowing up buses, restaurants, airplanes, etc full of innocents and for
spreading tales like "Jews drink the blood of Arab children", the potential
is probably there, were they to gain enough power.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 09:36:47 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iS0Xc.15858$_H5.509102@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cghe32$rpg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WaUWc.20154$DG.921306@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes for
the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile
Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of
Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of Islam
was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st
Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the
muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the
"infidel".
Pretty much what I said above..
Not exactly. You only mentioned Jerusalem.
...which was the rallying point and stated aim of the first Crusade. The
carving up of Byzantium was something of a side issue . a struggle between
two emerging powers and a declining one.
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula!
I didn't say they were, I said the response to their miltary
expansionism
was kicking them out of there.
Sure sounded like you di say that!
I must be speaking a different language...
Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for hundreds
of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to do
so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the
Crusaders
did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does mention
that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology,
IMHO),
Naturally.... you are bigoted against muslims as you have admitted
several
times.
No, I also do not apologize for slavery or the treatment of the natives by
Europeans. Why should anyone apologize for things that happened hundreds
of
years ago?
Fair enough. So you think the Arabs for not apologising either then?
I am not guilty and I will never feel guilty because I am of
white, European descent!
Fair enough.
while the muslims have not apologized for their role.
Their role in having their own homelands invaded and their people
slaughtered?
No, their role in invading Europe and slaughtering Europeans. Or are you
saying they just waltzed in and took over with no blood being shed?
Well, conquest is a fact of life I'm not saying it's good or bad . it just
happens. Of course their conquest resulted in loss of life, but it doesn't
seem to have been as undisciplined and bloody as the behaviour of the
Crusaders.
It is also pertinent that when the Saracens ruled Jerusalem, Christians were
free to practice their religion there and make pilgrimages...
The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for any
of
it.
Who says? Of course, if you start saying the Arabs shoudl accept blame
for
the imperial aspirations in Europe, doesn't that mean you also have to
get
the Israelis to apologise for their territorial grabs in the Middle
East?
No, Israel grabbed the territories in response to Arab attack.
In 1967? I think you'll find the attackers were the Israelis there...Anyway,
the case can also be made that the Moors conquered southern europe in
response to European attacks and border tensions.
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel, Jews
and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no
democracy
in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm allowed
to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and I'm
not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the finger
at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European
descent,
and,
especially Americans.
He was talking about pogroms and holocausts, which WERE carried out by
white
people of European descent. The Arabs had nothing to do with Hitler's
holocaust, you know. And he's saying it was OK to colonise and brutalise
Arab people because, hey, Jewish people had sufferd more! The man is
clearly
a confused, racist idiot:
Again with the "racist"! As I have said many times, islam is NOT a race!
OK, a confused, bigotted idiot. The point still stands, regardless of this
red herring. Or do you disagree that pogroms and the holocaust were a
European thing?
"The colonization of Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the
pogroms and Holocaust."
Anyone else, and especially Arabs, can do the same or
worse with impunity.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
Nothing compares with the Holocaust!
I agree, it is the most distressing and abhorent event in European history,
but how does the suffering of the Jews under the holocaust justify the
suffering of the Arabs under colonialism as your fave DJ says, when you
admit the Arabs had nothing to do with the holocaust?
However, given the Arabs propensity
Ah, now you ARE flirting with racism.
for blowing up buses, restaurants, airplanes, etc full of innocents and
for
spreading tales like "Jews drink the blood of Arab children"
Christians/Europeans have done ALL of the above too, you know. The
Protocols of The Elders of Zion was European anti-semite propaganda, and
let's not get started on the IRA again (who YOU thought were just a bunch of
fun-loving charming Irishmen who never hurt a fly!) or various other
non-Arab terrorist organisations..
the potential
is probably there, were they to gain enough power.
"The potential is probably there" - now THAT's a strong argument...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Things we are not supposed to say |
25 Aug 2004 11:32:06 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgi80f$cc5$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iS0Xc.15858$_H5.509102@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cghe32$rpg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WaUWc.20154$DG.921306@news20.bellglobal.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cgfkr2$34t$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F_HWc.13209$_H5.358123@news20.bellglobal.com...
One of my favourite talk show hosts in Toronto who also writes
for
the
Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/08/21/595015.htm
l
A few exerpts:
"Not supposed to say that the Crusades were not some vile
Christian
slaughter, but a response by Europe to the military expansion of
Islam.
Ah,. but they weren't. They were an attempt to wrest control of
*Jerusalem*
from the Saracens. The response to the "military expansion" of
Islam
was
kicking the muslim armies out of the Iberian peninsula.
Ummm, Turkey had been part of the Byzantine empire before the 1st
Crusade.
The 1st Crusade was a response in part to losing Turkey to the
muslims,
along with wishing to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the
"infidel".
Pretty much what I said above..
Not exactly. You only mentioned Jerusalem.
..which was the rallying point and stated aim of the first Crusade. The
carving up of Byzantium was something of a side issue . a struggle between
two emerging powers and a declining one.
The muslims were not only in the Iberian peninsula!
I didn't say they were, I said the response to their miltary
expansionism
was kicking them out of there.
Sure sounded like you di say that!
I must be speaking a different language...
Eastern
Europeans...Hungarians, Romanians, etc...fought the Turks for
hundreds
of
years.
Muslim armies had invaded Christian lands and would continue to
do
so
for
hundreds of years. They moved into Spain and reached the gates
of
Vienna.
"
..and generally behaved a lot better in those lands than the
Crusaders
did
in the Middle East..
Debatable. In any case, if you read on in the column, he does
mention
that
the Pope has apologized for the Crusades (an unnecessary apology,
IMHO),
Naturally.... you are bigoted against muslims as you have admitted
several
times.
No, I also do not apologize for slavery or the treatment of the natives
by
Europeans. Why should anyone apologize for things that happened
hundreds
of
years ago?
Fair enough. So you think the Arabs for not apologising either then?
I don't care if anyone apologizes! The point of the article is the
double-standard that exists today vis. westerners and everyone
else...especially Arabs.
I am not guilty and I will never feel guilty because I am of
white, European descent!
Fair enough.
while the muslims have not apologized for their role.
Their role in having their own homelands invaded and their people
slaughtered?
No, their role in invading Europe and slaughtering Europeans. Or are
you
saying they just waltzed in and took over with no blood being shed?
Well, conquest is a fact of life I'm not saying it's good or bad . it just
happens. Of course their conquest resulted in loss of life, but it doesn't
seem to have been as undisciplined and bloody as the behaviour of the
Crusaders.
It is also pertinent that when the Saracens ruled Jerusalem, Christians
were
free to practice their religion there and make pilgrimages...
I'll grant you that one. I have said before that the muslims of hundreds of
years ago were in many ways more advanced than the muslims of today.
The point is, neither
side is innocent, but we are not allowed to blame the muslims for
any
of
it.
Who says? Of course, if you start saying the Arabs shoudl accept blame
for
the imperial aspirations in Europe, doesn't that mean you also have to
get
the Israelis to apologise for their territorial grabs in the Middle
East?
No, Israel grabbed the territories in response to Arab attack.
In 1967? I think you'll find the attackers were the Israelis
there...Anyway,
the case can also be made that the Moors conquered southern europe in
response to European attacks and border tensions.
The muslims were expansionist like everyone else. Still are today. Many
have the ultimate aim of a world-wide caliphate. (In their eyes, you do not
"convert" to islam, but "revert", as we are all born muslim. How arrogant
is that?)
"Not supposed to say that the United States, Europe, Israel,
Jews
and
Christians have little to do with the fact that there is no
democracy
in
the
Muslim world. Of course many of these countries were colonized
and
exploited, but then most of the world suffered such a fate."
"Not supposed to say that Israel has become the new
international
whipping
boy. Its people are broadly divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Ashkenazi
Jews were perhaps the most persecuted people in history. The
colonization
of
Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to the pogroms and
Holocaust.
"
So wrongs are OK if they're not as big as other wrongs? I'm
allowed
to
kill
someone because, hey, Richard Ramirez killed LOADS of people and
I'm
not
as
bad as him?
Not at all. The whole point is that we only seem to point the
finger
at
atrocities when they are committed by white people of European
descent,
and,
especially Americans.
He was talking about pogroms and holocausts, which WERE carried out by
white
people of European descent. The Arabs had nothing to do with Hitler's
holocaust, you know. And he's saying it was OK to colonise and
brutalise
Arab people because, hey, Jewish people had sufferd more! The man is
clearly
a confused, racist idiot:
Again with the "racist"! As I have said many times, islam is NOT a
race!
OK, a confused, bigotted idiot. The point still stands, regardless of this
red herring. Or do you disagree that pogroms and the holocaust were a
European thing?
No of course they were. The point is that the Arabs are not nearly as
down-trodden and ravaged by history as they believe themselves to be.
"The colonization of Arab nations by the West is nothing compared to
the
pogroms and Holocaust."
Anyone else, and especially Arabs, can do the same or
worse with impunity.
What have the "Arabs" done in recent history (or even distant history)
that
compares with the Holcaust?
Nothing compares with the Holocaust!
I agree, it is the most distressing and abhorent event in European
history,
but how does the suffering of the Jews under the holocaust justify the
suffering of the Arabs under colonialism as your fave DJ says, when you
admit the Arabs had nothing to do with the holocaust?
However, given the Arabs propensity
Ah, now you ARE flirting with racism.
for blowing up buses, restaurants, airplanes, etc full of innocents and
for
spreading tales like "Jews drink the blood of Arab children"
Christians/Europeans have done ALL of the above too, you know. The
Protocols of The Elders of Zion was European anti-semite propaganda, and
let's not get started on the IRA again (who YOU thought were just a bunch
of
fun-loving charming Irishmen who never hurt a fly!) or various other
non-Arab terrorist organisations..
Yes, but only the Arabs/ muslims do it on such a massive scale and then
whine when world opinion is not on their side. I don't think other
terrorists expect such sympathy and cry racism when they don't get it!
the potential
is probably there, were they to gain enough power.
"The potential is probably there" - now THAT's a strong argument...
Idle speculation, only!
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
