They Want Israe...Spain?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why do Muslims move from their home countries to other countries? Then, when they get there, try to re-create their home country? [/quote]

I don’t have a clue? But here’s one for you though: Close the frontiers if you don’t want them in. It’s YOUR country, do whatever the fuck you want with it. Allow or disallow whoever you want inside it. But for God’s sake, stop bitching about Islam or Arabic culture.

Fair enough?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, they might not be able to conquer Spain in the next couple of generations, but how will that negate the horror of frequent terroristic acts? After all, Hamas has little to no chance of conquering Israel, yet they still send in suicide bombers. [/quote]

Who ever said that it negated the horror of Islamist terrorist attacks? I’m sure I didn’t. What I tried to say, is that you should stop taking fantasies at face value.

No silly. You have to distinguish between what you did in coordination with the rest of the world to weaken Al-Qaeda’s center of command, and attacking Iraq for no reason, jailing people indefinitely without charges, abducting suspects, etc…

Some of what you did (including the Afghan invasion) did give a blow to Al-Qaeda. But what’s making terrorists “wither” are the collective efforts of secular Arabs and intellectuals that discredit the blood-thirsty bastards. 9/11 and subsequent attacks were followed by massive mobilization of the Arab street against extremists and for good reasons. Discourse such as “kill 'em all”, while not even frowned upon before the attacks, is now absolutely intolerable because we saw what it leads to.

I’ll spit out for you: DON’T COMPARE IT TO ISRAEL. Doing so is outrageous!

Sometimes I wonder if your crush on Israel isn’t due to the historical similarities of the institution of the two countries. That is, getting somewhere, eradicating the locals under the guise that they’re savages and then claiming the land as yours. Any input on that?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why do Muslims move from their home countries to other countries? Then, when they get there, try to re-create their home country?

I don’t have a clue? But here’s one for you though: Close the frontiers if you don’t want them in. It’s YOUR country, do whatever the fuck you want with it. Allow or disallow whoever you want inside it. But for God’s sake, stop bitching about Islam or Arabic culture.

Fair enough?

[/quote]

That doesn’t answer the attraction. Why move among infidels and atheistic devils?

I actually don’t want a closed border. I just can’t fathom why Muslims want to move here. I know you don’t know but its fascinating. I have no desire whatever to move to an Islamic country, yet Muslims seem to want to move here.

I rip on Islamic countries because they turned their backs on individual liberty, science, women’s rights — a whole host of things. When an American woman can’t walk down a street w/o having to cover her face or has to hide the Crucifix around her neck, its disgusting. Muslim women can walk around here wearing all the stuff they wear, and we don’t get pissed at them.

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
Just one more reason these people should be taken off the earth(by these people I mean Islamic extremest). Fuck peace with these monsters lets destroy ever mother fucker that screams death to Israel and death to America.

before anyone gets smart saying why dont you fight, I just joined the army Im here to fight these monsters.(ill be gone today and tomorrow to take the tests).

Do you have any idea how you will distinguish between the “good” ones and the “bad” ones with all the language skills and cultural nuance you have time to learn in the exactly 10 days the Army will give you for its Iraq 101 introductory course?

What is the difference between “Death to USA” “Long live the USA” in Arab, especially if someone shouts it while firing his weapon in the air?

Good luck, but war means that you will shoot people that are probably not monsters or you will die.

Giving into terrorism equals safety,

Signed,

Spain.

Not giving in to justified demands leads to terrorism,

Signed,

Great Britain.

[/quote]

Extremist murders are justified just as long as they oppose the United States.

Iraq was better off with saddam.

Signed,

orion.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That doesn’t answer the attraction. Why move among infidels and atheistic devils? [/quote]

I’ll adventure a few guesses then. Could be because unemployment is running amock in their countries. Could have to do with the fact that ALL Arab countries are governed by dictators. Other than that, I can’t see any other reasons.

I can only give you the reasons people I know moved out of their countries to the US, Europe or elsewhere. Those are more compilations of my encounters with would-be immigrants than just wild guesses.

I am unaware of any country (besides Saudi Arabia) where you’d have to hide your crucifix to go in public. But anyway, if we restrict the debate to women hiding or displaying their sex-appeal, you can’t blame it on Islam. Jewish fundamentalists are just as much against women “whoring” than Islamists are. On a side note, have you ever heard of Mormons?

As for being against science, it’d be nice if you could give me examples of what you mean. I never experience anything of the sort living in an Islamic country. But since we’re on subject, I’m not sure your party line is very excited about stem cell research either.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Extremist murders are justified just as long as they oppose the United States.

Iraq was better off with saddam.

Signed,

orion.

[/quote]

I am not interested at all in real debate. I also have a tendency to oversimplify things, make baseless accusations and posts that are neither funny nor insightful.

Signed,

JeffR.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Extremist murders are justified just as long as they oppose the United States.

Iraq was better off with saddam.

Signed,

orion.

I am not interested at all in real debate. I also have a tendency to oversimplify things, make baseless accusations and posts that are neither funny nor insightful.

Signed,

JeffR.[/quote]

lixy,

In all seriousness, you cannot countenance nor explain away the Spanish situation.

That you are trying to tie everything to Iraq, makes you guilty of manipulating the facts to suit your theory.

I think your handlers would agree that that particular effort of yours wasn’t effective.

Please remember that we are fully aware that this is a global war against extremism.

We aren’t fooled by you.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Extremist murders are justified just as long as they oppose the United States.

Iraq was better off with saddam.

Signed,

orion.

[/quote]

The voices in my head overwhelm anything I might have read on a screen…

Dissent scares me.

Signed,

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Giving into terrorism equals safety,

Signed,

Spain.

[/quote]

How did Spain ‘give in’ to terrorism?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Why do Muslims move from their home countries to other countries? Then, when they get there, try to re-create their home country?

[/quote]

HH, why you are always wrong ?

In the early eighties, I lived in a black neighborhood in Saint Louis MO. We were literally the only non black family living there. Why were all the these people living together ? I could also ask you why you can find a Chinatown in every major US city ?

On North African immigration and France, you are completely clueless. A lot of what the French call “First generation immigrants” were forcefully taken from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to work in France. They were parked in shantytowns, they did not speak French and no effort was made to integrate them into French society. Today third generation immigrants still have a hard time getting out. Muslim extremists started taking advantage of this terrible economic situation in the mid nineties. Since no one else was trying to help, they were able to create a following.

I wanted to stay out of this, but:

“That is, getting somewhere, eradicating the locals . . . . and then claiming the land as yours. Any input on that?”

Something like the Muslims did back in 633? Right?

[quote]majicka wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Giving into terrorism equals safety,

Signed,

Spain.

How did Spain ‘give in’ to terrorism?[/quote]

Hey, always willing to help someone in need.

"The election was thrown wide open by a reported al Qaeda claim that it was responsible for Thursday’s Madrid train bombings to punish the government for supporting the Iraq war.

Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.blasts.election/index.html

JeffR

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Extremist murders are justified just as long as they oppose the United States.

Iraq was better off with saddam.

Signed,

orion.

The voices in my head overwhelm anything I might have read on a screen…

Dissent scares me.

Signed,

JeffR

[/quote]

Hey, my little austrian tulip!!!

Quick question: Were the July 7th, 2005 bombings in England justified?

Make sure yes or no is in your answer.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
“That is, getting somewhere, eradicating the locals . . . . and then claiming the land as yours. Any input on that?”

Something like the Muslims did back in 633? Right?[/quote]

I don’t defend the position of Al-Walid and the others if that’s what you’re referring to. Keep in mind that the conquest of Persia was the exception rather than the rule. Other Islamizations were a lot less violent. Meanwhile, I am not the one inconditionally supporting Israel.

So, I don’t see how your logic works. Is it a “since Muslims did it ten centuries ago, we, and our allies have to do it too” approach? If so, it doesn’t hold much water…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
“That is, getting somewhere, eradicating the locals . . . . and then claiming the land as yours. Any input on that?”

Something like the Muslims did back in 633? Right?

I don’t defend the position of Al-Walid and the others if that’s what you’re referring to. Keep in mind that the conquest of Persia was the exception rather than the rule. Other Islamizations were a lot less violent. Meanwhile, I am not the one inconditionally supporting Israel.

So, I don’t see how your logic works. Is it a “since Muslims did it ten centuries ago, we, and our allies have to do it too” approach? If so, it doesn’t hold much water…[/quote]

First of all, the expansion of the ottoman empire was everything BUT “less violent”, the myth of the peace loving, peaceful and tolerant muslims from 700-1400 is just that: a myth. The different empires were all imperialistic in nature and expanded with violent means when necessary.

Further: I don’t think you should speak very loud about inconditional support to factions in a conflict. You are very good at the “ofcourse there are two sides yadayadayada”-game, but in reality, you are as one sided as those you accuse… :slight_smile:

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
First of all, the expansion of the ottoman empire was everything BUT “less violent”, the myth of the peace loving, peaceful and tolerant muslims from 700-1400 is just that: a myth. The different empires were all imperialistic in nature and expanded with violent means when necessary. [/quote]

Again with the factual inaccuracies? The Ottoman empire was from 1299 to 1922 (pretty easy to make a mnemonic out of it!). Now that’s a LONG way from 633 the original poster was talking about.

I’m not saying Muslims were peaceful, but you can’t deny that they were welcomed in some countries. The one I’m most familiar with is the Islamization of Morocco. It was an allegedly descendant of Mohammad that came there with a handful of people, founded Fez and started teaching the local Berbers about Islam. Not a single drop of blood shed.

No. I don’t give my inconditional support to any side. However, if you follow closely, I thank the US for the many good things they did for science and culture, saying the day in WWII and many more things. Surely, you can’t call that inconditional. If you disagree, please elaborate on who exactly you see me give my inconditional support to.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
“That is, getting somewhere, eradicating the locals . . . . and then claiming the land as yours. Any input on that?”

Something like the Muslims did back in 633? Right?

I don’t defend the position of Al-Walid and the others if that’s what you’re referring to. Keep in mind that the conquest of Persia was the exception rather than the rule. Other Islamizations were a lot less violent. Meanwhile, I am not the one inconditionally supporting Israel.

So, I don’t see how your logic works. Is it a “since Muslims did it ten centuries ago, we, and our allies have to do it too” approach? If so, it doesn’t hold much water…

First of all, the expansion of the ottoman empire was everything BUT “less violent”, the myth of the peace loving, peaceful and tolerant muslims from 700-1400 is just that: a myth. The different empires were all imperialistic in nature and expanded with violent means when necessary.

Further: I don’t think you should speak very loud about inconditional support to factions in a conflict. You are very good at the “ofcourse there are two sides yadayadayada”-game, but in reality, you are as one sided as those you accuse… :slight_smile:
[/quote]

It all goes back to the same argument. “Yeah, terrorism isn’t really great, but those damn zionist Jews and Americans do bad things too, so it’s ok to target civilians because Israel and America done bad things too.”

This is real simple, the preponderance of violence in the world today are committed by Muslim extremists. Muslims have allowed these extremists to dictate their ideology and warp their morality. This has earned Islam the disdain of the entire world.

Hell, what do you expect when even a simple cartoon whips crowds in to murderous frenzy’s. Muslims need to clean their own house because nobody else can do it for them. One day, I imagine ,somebody who is influential in Islam is going to stand up and say enough is enough. Justifying the murderous actions of terrorists because Israel is bad or America is bad is nothing but a cheap and lazy cop-out.

The terrorists have kill more Muslims than anyone else, yet they are support by most Muslims. That is the sad part.

I thought the government lost the election because they spuriously tried to blame the bombing on ETA, then the electorate seized on this to turf them out?

Sorry if that’s an over-simplification but that’s basically what I thought happened.

[quote]majicka wrote:
I thought the government lost the election because they spuriously tried to blame the bombing on ETA, then the electorate seized on this to turf them out?

Sorry if that’s an over-simplification but that’s basically what I thought happened.[/quote]

Nope, they got attacked and the bravely tucked their tails between their legs and bravely ran away. They indeed let terrorism dictate their politics. Which is a huge mistake. They knew it wasn’t ETA with in 12 hrs. ETA always forewarns and tries to make sure buildings and such are empty before they blow them up.That is just their style.

My dad is working there and actually could have been on that train had he not overslept for work that day. You can bet I was in a panic trying to get a hold of him when that happened. Thank God I got a hold of him. I was scared shitless.

My dad said the Spanish consensus was that maybe they wouldn’t be attacked again if they conceded. Now spain is a whipping boy for terrorists. All they have to do is threaten and they cave.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
First of all, the expansion of the ottoman empire was everything BUT “less violent”, the myth of the peace loving, peaceful and tolerant muslims from 700-1400 is just that: a myth. The different empires were all imperialistic in nature and expanded with violent means when necessary.

Again with the factual inaccuracies? The Ottoman empire was from 1299 to 1922 (pretty easy to make a mnemonic out of it!). Now that’s a LONG way from 633 the original poster was talking about.

I’m not saying Muslims were peaceful, but you can’t deny that they were welcomed in some countries. The one I’m most familiar with is the Islamization of Morocco. It was an allegedly descendant of Mohammad that came there with a handful of people, founded Fez and started teaching the local Berbers about Islam. Not a single drop of blood shed.

Further: I don’t think you should speak very loud about inconditional support to factions in a conflict. You are very good at the “ofcourse there are two sides yadayadayada”-game, but in reality, you are as one sided as those you accuse… :slight_smile:

No. I don’t give my inconditional support to any side. However, if you follow closely, I thank the US for the many good things they did for science and culture, saying the day in WWII and many more things. Surely, you can’t call that inconditional. If you disagree, please elaborate on who exactly you see me give my inconditional support to.[/quote]

So, I’m factual inaccurate beacause I talk about something else than someone else? :wink:

We can start with what Muhammed did with the jews sheltering him when he gathered force… What happened with those?