_BiB_ Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Recruiting Keep in mind, I refer to the radicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Yes, well, the religion as a whole does more than its part in producing these radicals by condoning their behavior with silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wham Rocks Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The problem with Muslims is that they are stupid and laud a demon possessed pedofile as a prophet. We need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity just like Ann Coulter says. But nooooo, that's "offensive" to pointy headed liberals who think Islam is a religion of peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Huh. Well, I guess the Netherlands had it coming for all their imperialistic actions in the Middle East. If only they would have kept their troops out of the 'holy lands' this probably could have been avoided. Another small wake up call for Europe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The problem with Muslims is that they are stupid and laud a demon possessed pedofile as a prophet. We need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity just like Ann Coulter says. But nooooo, that's "offensive" to pointy headed liberals who think Islam is a religion of peace. 108467[/snapback] Lame Schtick. Try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The problem with Muslims is that they are stupid and laud a demon possessed pedofile as a prophet. We need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity just like Ann Coulter says. But nooooo, that's "offensive" to pointy headed liberals who think Islam is a religion of peace. 108467[/snapback] Well, it looks like Tenny's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Christianity had the Crusades! DING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Yes, well, the religion as a whole does more than its part in producing these radicals by condoning their behavior with silence. 108447[/snapback] They weren't silent, they were just difficult to hear over the din from Christians condeming the attacks by Jesus-freaks on abortion clinics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 I post these for a reason. Number two was the Clerics trying to say it was wrong for people to be Barbarians. A group of Muslim Clerics to say "This is wrong". Number three was to know your enemy. Look how easy it is, and how do you fight that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Huh. Well, I guess the Netherlands had it coming for all their imperialistic actions in the Middle East. If only they would have kept their troops out of the 'holy lands' this probably could have been avoided. Another small wake up call for Europe.... 108474[/snapback] Also, last month, Spanish police arrested several Muslim terrorists who were plotting to blow up courthouses in Spain. I thought they would be left alone after pulling out of Iraq. How did that happen? Also, Muslin terrorists threaten to make France run red with blood if they past a law making it illegal to wear religious head gear. The Islam community thought is was an attack on their religion. I guess they forgot it applied to Christians and Jews too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Christianity had the Crusades! DING! 108863[/snapback] From "The Real History of the Crusades" As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame? Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise. Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 They weren't silent, they were just difficult to hear over the din from Christians condeming the attacks by Jesus-freaks on abortion clinics 108879[/snapback] In terms of numbers, that is like comparing O.J. to Pole Pot (Islam terrorists being Pol Pot of course). Here is a some cheery news. Enjoy! (Rajeev Syal, Telegraph (UK)) An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 From "The Real History of the Crusades"As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame? Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise. Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For t 108886[/snapback] Got a link for the rest of that article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Got a link for the rest of that article? 109150[/snapback] Sure: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...rld/wh0055.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Sure: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...rld/wh0055.html 109187[/snapback] What a great article, and too true. Moral Relativism is one of the great weaknesses of 21st century academia. You cannot apply today's values to those of the medieval world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts