ISIS blows up historic Mosque, same one Al Baghdadi gava a sermon at

NAMBLA has love in it...besides the fact that you can't control if you look like Marlon Brando...
mephisto.jpg














latest
 
I only saw your post. Whoever brings up the crusades has already lost their argument

Yeah, i also think 'but the crusades' is the lamest argument ever. I literally get embarrassed when i see some muslim apologist bring that up.
 
Yeah, i also think 'but the crusades' is the lamest argument ever. I literally get embarrassed when i see some muslim apologist bring that up.
Not directed at you in particular but the Crusades happened almost a millennia ago at this point.

People that bring it up as a "oh, but look what Christianity did" sorta thing need to account for the fact it's been almost 1000 years since the beginning of the first one.

You want to highlight fucked up shit about Christianity use something more relevant time wise like say the Salem witch trials or the fucking Inquisition or shit that lead into the French Revolution. Don't bring up shit from 1000 years ago when no one bathed, Richard the Lionheart was probably fucking one of his cousins, and the Scots were still trying to use rocks to make food.
 
Yeah, i also think 'but the crusades' is the lamest argument ever. I literally get embarrassed when i see some muslim apologist bring that up.
lol yep I've already sarcasticly used that same line in this thread
 
I wonder. I know there are proscriptions against the killing of innocents in Islam.
I'm sure the murder happy Christians of the crusades justified their killing using Christ's words somehow. Any religious claptrap can be used for other purposes.
You can't bring up the Crusades....Medieval Times and anything prior was a free for all. We have come along way from those eras. Well not everyone....
 
Obviously REAL muslims would never do this. Like I have been saying for a long time, it's clear who is really behind ISIS.
 
Not directed at you in particular but the Crusades happened almost a millennia ago at this point.

People that bring it up as a "oh, but look what Christianity did" sorta thing need to account for the fact it's been almost 1000 years since the beginning of the first one.

You want to highlight fucked up shit about Christianity use something more relevant time wise like say the Salem witch trials or the fucking Inquisition or shit that lead into the French Revolution. Don't bring up shit from 1000 years ago when no one bathed, Richard the Lionheart was probably fucking one of his cousins, and the Scots were still trying to use rocks to make food.

No doubt. There are probably even African Christians burning pagans as we speak. My opinion is that attacking Christianity to defend Islam is wrong. Muslims have to answer for their wrongdoings and don't play a blame game. However Christians with an ulterior motive attack islam and it's genocidal antics, yet if they could decide the whole world would have been Christians.
 
Fair enough, but what about the sacking of Constantinople, Lithuanian crusades, persecution of pagans and the cultural genocide of Europe?
I didn't say so called Christians were innocent , just that the Crusades was a response to Muslim expansionism and aggresion. The Crusaders did exploit the opportunity to attack other groups.

Islamic armies and societes have carried out a lot of cultural genocide too, and continue to do so.

Bringing up the Crusdes = reductivo ad Crusadum
 
Keep missing the point.
I'm an atheist, and anyone in my face saying that to me is saying "I dare you to knock my teeth down my throat" , and I will oblige.
It's an invitation to a fight, not a debate, as his tone wouldn't even be in question because you can't say what he proposes in a non inflammatory way. Which makes total sense given that it was DESIGNED to be inflammatory.
Mohamed WAS a murdering warlord who had no issues with rape/murder/and slavery provided it was his side doing it .

He was not a perfect man and i personally have no issue saying that to anyones face if someone is stupid enough to try to push the issue with me.
 
I thought I read the idea of not calling them Islamic State was to basically not give them any credibility as a "state", which is one of their goals (creating a new caliph, state of Islam). Kind of like if your crzazy neighbor Bob barricaded himself in his house and declared it the new state of Bobstonia, you wouldn't call it Bobstonia but just "where the crazy dude lives on my block".

Every Muslim person I know calls them Daesh because they say they aren't real Muslims. And I know hundreds of Muslims -- I spend 2-3 month a year in Morocco.
 
I think the term so called Islamic state is just a jab ISIS and the fact that they are soon to be history.
It's a deliberate attemp by Islam apologists to bamboozle the masses in the West .
 
Every Muslim person I know calls them Daesh because they say they aren't real Muslims. And I know hundreds of Muslims -- I spend 2-3 month a year in Morocco.

Ofcourse they would say that because:
a) the folks you talked to are repulsed by IS's atrocites and genuinely feel it is not the Islam they grew up with.
OR
b) the ones who know that the Quran does justify ISIS, will lie because they see it in their interest as ISIS =bad PR.
 
And I personally know Muslims who'd laugh and tell you how wrong you are.
They would also find it very interesting to have you instruct them as to what their religion says.

So you think just because they are Muslims, their opinion is worth more than facts.

Going by that logic:
An American who states that China is waging cultural genocide on the Uighurs and Tibetans is wrong if a Chinese person living in China says they are wrong.
A person from the US can state that Apartheid SA was racial tyranny but a person who lived in SA during Apartheid can say that was not the case.

Former Iman of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheik Adel Al Kalbani :

" ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency."

https://www.memri.org/reports/senior-saudi-salafi-cleric-isis-true-product-salafism

Dawkins, Harris , Hitches, Ayaan have all spoken about how Islam justifies violence. Muslims who claim otherwise are lying or embrassed to admit it or due to the discomfort associated with critical instrospection of their deeply held beliefs are averse to admitting to themselves the dark truth of their religion.
 
The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggresion against Christsendom.
Haha, even you're playing apologist for the Crusades? Atheists ain't what they used to be I guess.
 
Meanwhile you know what happened in Basra recently


53.9 degrees Celsius (129.02 Fahrenheit)



Fuck that

Who could feel like fighting as opposed to sitting in temps like that.
At least it's a dry heat.
 
I think the term so called Islamic state is just a jab ISIS and the fact that they are soon to be history.
Now that we're managing to shoot them from 3400 meters away.
 
Haha, even you're playing apologist for the Crusades? Atheists ain't what they used to be I guess.
Not apologist , just pointing out the fact ; because "But but the Crusades" is frequently trotted out to defend Islamic aggression.
 
The problem IS Islam itself. The good Muslims are good because they aren't followiing the behavior of Muhammed like the Jihadis.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
From your own article
It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.”
Not apologist , just pointing out the fact ; because "But but the Crusades" is frequently trotted out to defend Islamic aggression.
What is Christendom? Because the region's Christians preferred Muslim rule in a similar way that Ahmadiyas prefer living in Western countries over Sunni majority ones. Byzantium, this standard bearer of Christendom, persecuted the region's heterodox sects of Christianity like the Syriac and Coptics far worse than the Muslims who didn't care what kind of Christian they were as long as they paid the jizya. And in fact the jizya was a tax cut for them since the endless on and off wars between Byzantium and the Sassanian Persians led to soaring tax rates. The success of the early Islamic conquests and their durability in the face of the Crusades probably owed much to the region's displeasure with those two imperial powers and their preference for the less shitty newcomer.

So yes, the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression but a response by an imperial power that was seen as the greater evil even by the region's Christians when compared to Muslim rule. Its pretty disingenuous to paint the Crusades as this force fighting for Christendom when they were in fact fighting for the imperial interests representing only one Christian sect that persecuted other Christians when they had the chance.
 
And I personally know Muslims who'd laugh and tell you how wrong you are.
They would also find it very interesting to have you instruct them as to what their religion says.

There are Imams and Islamic clerics that would disagree with those Muslims that you personally know.

What's the point in the existence of moderate Muslims when they refuse to un-fuck their religion? Not to mention stay silent when in the presence of extremists?

But of course they will "laugh and tell you bla bla bla"
 
It was a stupid waste of your time and mine to post that. You're not convincing. You're not adding anything useful.
Go outside, away from your basement, and find a Muslim, say that shit, and report back, because I want to hear the wonderful result of your brilliant argumentation.

"A Muslim"? No problem. A single Muslim will just get butt hurt and do nothing. It's when they out number you 3 to 1 when it becomes a problem.
 
Back
Top