Negative perceptions of Islam increasing

[Fuzzness 2]

The KKK consider themselves a christian organization and hate anyone who isn't white christian. Surely nobody can deny their violent history.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The point I was trying to make is that abominations are made every day in the name of many different religions, not just Islam.

I guess I have failed.

Examples?

The crusades for one. Dubya for another (God told me to do it). The Heaven's Gate cult.

The crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, and were a response to Muslim aggression, invasion, forced conversion, etc. By the 1500s, the Islamic invaders had Europe in a vice grip. Fortunately, they ulitimately failed in their conquest.

The Heaven's Gate cult committed mass suicide in 1997, killing themselves only, not people who refused to submit to their beliefs.

Neither of these is an example of abominations being committed "everyday"

President Bush didn't take us into Afganistan and Iraq because "God told him to do it," but as a proper response to years of Islamo-fascist aggression culminating in the mass slaughter of innocents on 9-11. The motive isn't to spread Christianity by force, but to protect this nation against a very real threat.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

President Bush didn't take us into ... Iraq because "God told him to do it," but as a proper response to years of Islamo-fascist aggression culminating in the mass slaughter of innocents on 9-11.

In case the "news" haven't reached your neck of the woods yet, Saddam may have been a lot of things. An Islamo-fascist he was not. Nor was he in any way involved in the attacks on the US on 9/11. I know it's tempting to repeat these things to justify the administrations actions. But no matter how often you or anyone else repeats them, they are, have been and remain false.

[Fuzzness 2]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

Iraq was behind 9-11? I guess I missed the press meeting.

The crusades were a long time ago, yes, but that still doesn't mean it was done in the name of the christian God and that many atrocities were not committed.

I know I'm going to get ###### for this, but St Patrick murdered many druids of Ireland in the name of the catholic church. History, of course, doesn't see it this way.

[internetkafe 0]

The Crusades were a response to Muslim agression, invasion, forced conversion?

Islamofascism?

Wow we have serious evangelist nonsense here.

I hope we get rid of this type of mentality soon. It is harmful for life on earth. It is serving Satan.

And also a form of mental masturbation.

Not healthy; not constructive...

Edited March 11, 2006 by internetkafe

[Fuzzness 2]

The Crusades were a response to Muslim agression, invasion, forced conversion?

Islamofascism?

Wow we have serious evangelist nonsense here.

I hope we get rid of this type of mentality soon. It is harmful for life on earth. It is serving Satan.

And also a form of mental masturbation.

Not healthy; not constructive...

Islamofascism? That's what the Taliban was doing right?

And as for serving Satan, I serve nobody but myself and my family.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The Crusades were a response to Muslim agression, invasion, forced conversion?

Islamofascism?

Wow we have serious evangelist nonsense here.

I hope we get rid of this type of mentality soon. It is harmful for life on earth. It is serving Satan.

And also a form of mental masturbation.

Not healthy; not constructive...

Islamofascism? That's what the Taliban was doing right?

And as for serving Satan, I serve nobody but myself and my family.

Partly correct to call Taliban Islamofascist--more correct to call it Pakhtunwalifascist.

Al-qaeda can be more correctly called Islamonazi (for the difference, see the differences between Hitler and Mussolini).

And, BTW, you either serve God or Satan (as Satan can easily trick you into THINKIN you're serving yourself--which you've just confirmed as already done-deal).

[Scott & Lai 12]

The Crusades were a response to Muslim agression, invasion, forced conversion?

Islamofascism?

Wow we have serious evangelist nonsense here.

I hope we get rid of this type of mentality soon. It is harmful for life on earth. It is serving Satan.

And also a form of mental masturbation.

Not healthy; not constructive...

Ah, so the Muslims were just minding their own business, leaving Christians and Jews and other "infidels" alone, till Christians one day thought, "Hmm...we're bored, let's go attack those peaceful Muslims."

The historical fact is that north Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor (Turkey) were Christian civilizations until the Muslims swept across those areas spreading Islam with the sword.

[internetkafe 0]

Nicetas Choniates

Destruction of Ancient Art in the Latin Sack of Constantinople

[op.cit., pp. 647-51]

From the very beginning they [the Latins] revealed their race to be lovers of gold; they conceived of a new method of plundering, which had completely escaped the notice of all who had [just] sacked the imperial city. Having opened the graves of those emperors which were in the burial ground situated in the area of the church of Christ's Holy Apostles, they stripped all of them during the night and, if any golden ornament, pearl, or precious stone still lay inviolate in these [tombs], they sacrilegiously seized it. When they found the corpse of the Emperor Justinian, which had remained undisturbed for so many years, they marvelled at it, but they did not refrain from [looting] the funerary adornments. We may say that these Westerners spared neither the living nor the dead. They manifested [toward all], beginning with God and his servants [i.e. the clergy], complete indifference and impiety: quickly enough they tore down the curtain in the Great Church [Hagia Sophia], the value of which was reckoned in millions of purest silver pieces, since it was entirely interwoven with gold.

Even now they were still desirous of money (for nothing can satiate the avarice of the barbarians). They eyed the bronze statues and threw them into the fire. And so the bronze statue of Hera, standing in the agora of Constantine, was broken into pieces and consigned to the flames. The head of this statue, which could hardly be drawn by four oxen yoked together, was brought to the great palace. The [statue of] Paris [also called] Alexander opposite it, was cast off its base. This statue was connected with that of the goddess Aphrodite to whom the apple of Eris [Discord] was depicted as being awarded by Paris. ...

These barbarians -who do not appreciate beauty- did not neglect to overturn the statues standing in the Hippodrome or any other marvellous works. Rather, these too they turned into coinage [nomisa], exchanging great things [i.e. art] for small [i.e. money], thus acquiring petty coins at the expense of those things created at enormous cost. They then threw down the great Hercules Trihesperus, magnificently constructed on a base * and girded with the skin of a lion, a terrifying thing to see even in bronze. ... He was represented as standing, carrying in his hands neither quiver nor arrows nor club, but having his right foot and right hand extended and his left foot bent at the knee with the left hand raised at the elbow. ... He [the statue of Hercules] was very broad in the chest and shoulders and had thick hair, plump buttocks, and strong arms, and was of such huge size, Ι think, as Lysimachus [Lysippus?] considered the real Hercules to have been -Lysimachus who sculpted from bronze this first and last great masterpiece of his hands. The statue was so large that the rope around his thumb had the size of a man's belt and the lower portion of the leg, the height of a man. But those [i.e. the Latins] who separate manly vigour from other virtues and claim it for themselves (considering it the most important quality) did not leave this Hercules (although it was the epitome of this attribute) untouched.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The base was perhaps shaped like a basket.

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/afieromata/1204/choniates2_en.html

-----------------------------

'The historical fact is that north Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor (Turkey) were Christian civilizations until the Muslims swept across those areas spreading Islam with the sword.'

'The historical fact' is not what you say it is. Christians living in Constantinople were not grateful for what their barbarian Christian brethren did. They welcomed Muslims because they knew that they would be safe; they would be respected....they would be free to practise their religion. They invited Muslims to liberate themselves from Christian tyranny.

I advise you not to invent 'historical facts of your own' in line with your ideology.

You can benefit from reading Fernand Braudel's 'The History of Civilizations'.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ah, so the Muslims were just minding their own business, leaving Christians and Jews and other "infidels" alone, till Christians one day thought, "Hmm...we're bored, let's go attack those peaceful Muslims."

No, the Christians attacked non-Muslims (even fellow Catholics) all the same. The crusades were not exactly defensive in nature.

Albigensian Crusade

The Albigensian Crusade was launched in 1209 to eliminate the heretical Cathars of southern France. It was a decades-long struggle that had as much to do with the concerns of northern France to extend its control southwards as it did with heresy. In the end, both the Cathars and the independence of southern France were exterminated.

...

Crusades in Baltic and Central Europe

The Crusades in the Baltic Sea area and in Central Europe were efforts by (mostly German) Christians to subjugate and convert the peoples of these areas to Christianity. These Crusades ranged from the 12th century, contemporaneous with the Second Crusade, to the 16th century.

Between 1232 and 1234, there was a crusade against the Stedingers. This crusade was special, because the Stedingers were no heathens or heretics, but fellow Roman Catholics. They were free Frisian farmers resented attempts of the count of Oldenburg and the archbishop Bremen-Hamburg to make an end to their freedoms. The archbishop excommunicated them and the pope declared a crusade in 1232. The Stedingers were defeated in 1234.

Source

But you go ahead and keep on blaming any and all violence and all the wrongs in the world to Islam (which most certainly has it's fair share of wrongs in the world past and present). It's neither accurate nor justified but it sure seems to make you and yours feel better.

[pedroh 21]

President Bush didn't take us into ... Iraq because "God told him to do it," but as a proper response to years of Islamo-fascist aggression culminating in the mass slaughter of innocents on 9-11.

In case the "news" haven't reached your neck of the woods yet, Saddam may have been a lot of things. An Islamo-fascist he was not. Nor was he in any way involved in the attacks on the US on 9/11. I know it's tempting to repeat these things to justify the administrations actions. But no matter how often you or anyone else repeats them, they are, have been and remain false.

Uber-PWNAGE!!

Wasn't Osama the bad guy?? I guess u still remember right, Osama Bin Laden?

hellooo

but not even Dubya remember who is he, and doesn't care

[Fuzzness 2]

Wasn't Osama the bad guy?? I guess u still remember right, Osama Bin Laden?

hellooo

but not even Dubya remember who is he, and doesn't care

PWNED!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point I was trying to make is that abominations are made every day in the name of many different religions, not just Islam.

I guess I have failed.

Examples?

The crusades for one. Dubya for another (God told me to do it). The Heaven's Gate cult.

The crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, and were a response to Muslim aggression, invasion, forced conversion, etc. By the 1500s, the Islamic invaders had Europe in a vice grip. Fortunately, they ulitimately failed in their conquest.

That's a little revisionist, to be fair. To correct you slightly, during the Dark Ages, the islamic world was actually a major cultural centre, which has contributed significantly to the subsequent european enlightenment.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, and were a response to Muslim aggression, invasion, forced conversion, etc. By the 1500s, the Islamic invaders had Europe in a vice grip. Fortunately, they ulitimately failed in their conquest.

That's a little revisionist, to be fair. To correct you slightly, during the Dark Ages, the islamic world was actually a major cultural centre, which has contributed significantly to the subsequent european enlightenment.

Your statement about Islamic culture at the time may be true, but it doesn't make what I said "revisionist." Are you saying the Muslims did not in fact attempt to conquer Europe? And please tell me what happened to the Christian civilizations of North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, and were a response to Muslim aggression, invasion, forced conversion, etc. By the 1500s, the Islamic invaders had Europe in a vice grip. Fortunately, they ulitimately failed in their conquest.

That's a little revisionist, to be fair. To correct you slightly, during the Dark Ages, the islamic world was actually a major cultural centre, which has contributed significantly to the subsequent european enlightenment.

Your statement about Islamic culture at the time may be true, but it doesn't make what I said "revisionist." Are you saying the Muslims did not in fact attempt to conquer Europe? And please tell me what happened to the Christian civilizations of North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor?

I don't see either side in that period of history as being particularly sympathetic.

While I don't profess to be an expert on medieval history, as far as I know the islamic world was relatively progressive up until the 12th century. Had not the Baybars risen to power, things might have turned out rather differently.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Fishdude