Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A textbook 'I told ya so'

14567810»

Comments

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     


    Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.



     

    I see this thread is still going strong.  Too many new messages to go back and try to read them all.  But this one caught my eye.

    I always love when critics point back to the crusades as an example of Christian aggression against Muslims.  You need to brush up on your history.  Seeing as you place much veneration in age, why don't you go back close to four centuries before the Crusades.  It was the muslim Umayyads who invaded Europe through the Iberian Peninsula in 711 and crossed the Pyrenees into the Frankish Kingdom in 732.  The Franks were the only Europeans that had any chance of halting the Umayyad army, which they did at the Battle of Tours (or Poitiers).  Under the brillant leadership of Charles Martel (the hammer), the Franks defeated the muslim army and they never threatened Europe north of the Pyrenees again (until the present day).

    But had not the Franks won that battle, all of Europe likely would have fallen and would probably be an Islamic state today.  That would have meant no American Revolution and no democracy.  You'd probably be speaking Arabic and kneeling toward Mecca three times a day (or is is 6?) if it hadn't been for Martel.  Maybe you should just thank him.

  • qazymanqazyman Member Posts: 1,785
    Originally posted by Zindaihas

    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     


    Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.



     

    all of Europe likely would have fallen and would probably be an Islamic state today.  That would have meant no American Revolution and no democracy.  You'd probably be speaking Arabic and kneeling toward Mecca three times a day (or is is 6?) if it hadn't been for Martel.  Maybe you should just thank him.

    You could actually say this same sentence about half a dozen different times. The crusades were really the first time the west had the ability to go on the offensive. The fact we survived to do it is truly one of the marvels of history.

     

    Of course none of this matters today. Today the frontline is globalization and if it fails so do we!

  • NarugNarug Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Originally posted by Fishermage


    All they seem to know is how to attack people personally, call people names, and argue against straw men. We saw Dear Leader doing so last night to sell his pork plan.
    This is what he does. so this is what they do. It's the way they learned to argue (or not to argue, but to destroy conversation and thought) in school. They have not educated themselves enough outside of that system, so it seems to be all they know.
    I shall continue to teach them that ad hominem attacks, straw men, and namecalling is not the way decent people debate topics. Eventually, they'll get it. I have faith in them.



     

    hehe Supreme Commander herding his one party board into paying off his election enablers...

    If they can find ways to dismiss free thought and dismiss the other side as unintelligible then they don't have to deal with the reality of debating opinions. (claims last year on this board had Republican/Conservative thinkers as uneducated/under educated which was pure bull)

    If I'm able to overcome being a former demo and see the light of a Republic there may be hope for the other side.

    Nothing lasts forever though so they'd best enjoy those 8 years while they can.

    AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017

    Refugee of Auberean

    Refugee of Dereth

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Zindaihas
    Originally posted by popinjay  
     Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.

     
    I see this thread is still going strong.  Too many new messages to go back and try to read them all.  But this one caught my eye.
    I always love when critics point back to the crusades as an example of Christian aggression against Muslims.  You need to brush up on your history.  Seeing as you place much veneration in age, why don't you go back close to four centuries before the Crusades.  It was the muslim Umayyads who invaded Europe through the Iberian Peninsula in 711 and crossed the Pyrenees into the Frankish Kingdom in 732.  The Franks were the only Europeans that had any chance of halting the Umayyad army, which they did at the Battle of Tours (or Poitiers).  Under the brillant leadership of Charles Martel (the hammer), the Franks defeated the muslim army and they never threatened Europe north of the Pyrenees again (until the present day).
    But had not the Franks won that battle, all of Europe likely would have fallen and would probably be an Islamic state today.  That would have meant no American Revolution and no democracy.  You'd probably be speaking Arabic and kneeling toward Mecca three times a day (or is is 6?) if it hadn't been for Martel.  Maybe you should just thank him.



    A Muslim performs salat five times a day, but a devout Muslim can pray as much as he likes.


    As for the Crusades, I like the short answer on something that big.



    The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.

    The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.

    The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.


    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    A series of expeditions (11th -14th century) to secure Christian rule over the Muslim-controlled holy places of Palestine. (The term is by extension used to describe any religious war or even moral or political movement.) The wealthy powerful orders of Knights Hospitalliers and Knights Templar were created by the Crusades.


    The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II, and was provoked by the rise to power of the Seljuk Turks, which interfered with traditional Pilgrimage tp Palestine. The Pope promised spiritual benefits to warriors willing to fight under Christian banners. The Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 and massacred its inhabitants, establishing a kingdom there under Godfrey of Bouillon.


    The Second Crusade (1147-49) succeeded only in souring relations between the Crusader kingdoms, the Byzantines, and friendly Muslim rulers.


    The Third Crusade (1189-92), prompted by Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem , recaptured Acre but achieved little more.


    The Fourth Crusade (1202-04) was diverted by Venetian interests to Constantinople, which was sacked, making the gulf between Easter and Western churches unbridgeable, though some Crusaders benefited from the division of Byzantine territories known as the Latin empire of the East (1204-61). This briefly replaced the Greek empire at Constantinople until Michael VIII retook the city. Later expeditions concentrated on North Africa, but to little purpose. The fall of Acre in 1291 ended the Crusader presence in the Levant. All, except the peaceful Sixth Crusade (1228-29), were marred by greed and brutality : Jews and Christians in Europe were slaughtered by rabble armies on their way to the Holy Land. The papacy was incapable of controlling the immense forces at its disposal. However, the Crusades attracted such leaders as Richard I and Louis IX, greatly affected European Chivalry, and for centuries, its literature. While deepening the hostility between Christianity and Islam, they also stimulated economic and cultural contacts of lasting benefit to European civilization.


    Really interesting stuff to read.

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

     

     

    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.

    Wiki sure is a trust worthy site for facts..

    LoL

     

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by popinjay


     

     

     

    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.

    Wiki sure is a trust worthy site for facts..

    LoL

     

    I wouldn't laugh if I were you. I've gone to some of the sites you consider trust worthy.

     

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589
    Originally posted by keltic1701



    I wouldn't laugh if I were you. I've gone to some of the sites you consider trust worthy.

     

     

    Go ahead and post those links.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562

    Once again we see the disconnect here: if the Jihad conquered lands -- it is right and good and God's justice. If they consider certain lands to be "Muslim Lands" then that is what they are -- God has ordained this.

    If Christians try to take that land back -- that is aggression.

    If Muslims proclaim Saudi Arabia, and Mecca, Holy, and we anger some of them by stationing troops ther e at the request of their leadership.  They have the right to fly planes into buildings, because we have no right under God's will to be there, because that land is land belonging to the Jihad and we may not set our dirty Christian feet there.

    Now, if Jews on the other hand, want to do the same with THEIR Holy land, well then it is all right and good to murder them all, push them into the sea, because only Muslims have such rights.

    If anyone questions this way of thinking on these boards, they will be attacked. Nice. This is what people are saying and doing on this site.

    Basically they are saying that Islam, specifically the most militant branch of Islam, is right and good and proper; but Christianity and Judaiism are of the Devil. Amazing. Such a disconnect.

    Such hatred being propagated here by the left, and "independents" who attack from the left.

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247

    Obama is in big trouble...

    Hillary has already show that she can't handle this job.

    http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html

    begin quote of link...

     

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding that her job description is dissolving under her feet, leaving her with only a vestige of the power she must have thought she acquired when she signed on to be President Obama’s chief Cabinet officer.

     

    Since her designation:

    • Vice President Biden has moved vigorously to stake out foreign policy as his turf. His visit to Afghanistan, right before the Inauguration, could not but send a signal to Hillary that he would conduct foreign policy in the new administration, leaving Hillary in the role of backup.



    • Richard Holbrooke, the former Balkan negotiator and U.N. ambassador, has been named special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted on direct access to the president, a privilege he was denied during much of the Clinton years.



    • Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine), negotiator of the Irish Peace Accords, was appointed to be the administration’s point man on Arab-Israeli negotiations.



    • Samantha Power, Obama’s former campaign aide, who once called Hillary a “monster,” has been appointed to the National Security Council (NSC) as director of “multilateral affairs.”



    • Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s new national security adviser, has announced an expansion of the membership and role of the NSC. He pledges to eliminate “back channels” to the president and wants to grow the NSC’s role to accommodate the “dramatically different” challenges of the current world situation.



    • Susan Rice, Obama’s new United Nations ambassador, insisted upon and got Cabinet rank for her portfolio, and she will presumably also have the same kind of access to Obama that she had as his chief foreign policy adviser during the campaign.



    So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton?



    While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, one cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration.



    Hillary’s essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers — at the very least — know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they — and she — be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely.



    The fact is that the power of the secretary of State is not statutory, nor does it flow from the prestige of the post’s occupant. Former Gen. Al Haig, once supreme commander of NATO and chief of staff to President Nixon, found that out when he was undercut as secretary by the White House troika of Mike Deaver, James Baker and Ed Meese. Bill Rogers, Eisenhower’s attorney general and Nixon’s California confidant, found himself on the outs from the moment he became secretary of State, with Henry Kissinger soaking up all the power through his direct access to Nixon as national security adviser.



    The power of the secretary of State flows directly from the president. But Hillary does not have the inside track with Obama. Rice and Powers, close advisers in the campaign, and Gen. Jones — whose office is in the White House — all may have superior access. Holbrooke and Mitchell will have more immediate information about the world’s trouble spots.



    So what is Hillary’s mandate? Of what is she secretary of State? If you take the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan out of the equation, what is left? One would have to assume that the old North Korea hands in the government would monopolize that theater of action. What, precisely, is it that Hillary is to do? The question lingers.



    And for this she gave up a Senate seat?

     

    end quote

    can you imagine if anything like this happened under Condi rice? 

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by popinjay

     




     
     
    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.

    Wiki sure is a trust worthy site for facts..
    LoL
     


    You are always free to debunk anything I post from Wiki with any site with opposing information as it relates.

    Wiki usually does a good job capturing enough information to give the reader and anyone following an overview of a subject as a talking point, which is why I have no problem quoting it when I use it. It also is usually more than enough to use as a source with some of the lesser informed citizens who post here. If you have a problem with Wiki, meh.

    The problem comes usually when some people use personal opinion page blogs as gospel truth, or just post links without fully reading them and understanding. They Google, then see two words connected to something they believe so they link, not knowing the article actually dispels what they are trying to prove.

    This has happened to a few people in this thread who have been spouting red meat rhetoric without connecting dots.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by Precusor


    Originally posted by popinjay
     
     




     

     

    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.





    Wiki sure is a trust worthy site for facts..

    LoL

     

     



    You are always free to debunk anything I post from Wiki with any site with opposing information as it relates.

    Wiki usually does a good job capturing enough information to give the reader and anyone following an overview of a subject as a talking point, which is why I have no problem quoting it when I use it. It also is usually more than enough to use as a source with some of the lesser informed citizens who post here. If you have a problem with Wiki, meh.

    The problem comes usually when some people use personal opinion page blogs as gospel truth, or just post links without fully reading them and understanding. They Google, then see two words connected to something they believe so they link, not knowing the article actually dispels what they are trying to prove.

    This has happened to a few people in this thread who have been spouting red meat rhetoric without connecting dots.

     

    Or when someone makes a false claim that someone got something from somewhere, when the original person never said so (and never referenced the thing they falsely claiming they did), and then the uses that which they are pretending as a basis of argumentation, then follows up that straw man with various personal attacks, thus showing they really have no interest in the truth, just in attacking people on the internet.

    Then they wrap it all up in a nice anti-semitic/America-hating package all in the defense of tyranny.

    This has happened to a few people in this thread who have been spouting hate speech and personal attacks in the name of debate.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Faxxer
    Obama is in big trouble...
    Hillary has already show that she can't handle this job.
    http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html
    begin quote of link...
     
    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding that her job description is dissolving under her feet, leaving her with only a vestige of the power she must have thought she acquired when she signed on to be President Obama’s chief Cabinet officer.
     
    Since her designation:
    • Vice President Biden has moved vigorously to stake out foreign policy as his turf. His visit to Afghanistan, right before the Inauguration, could not but send a signal to Hillary that he would conduct foreign policy in the new administration, leaving Hillary in the role of backup.

    • Richard Holbrooke, the former Balkan negotiator and U.N. ambassador, has been named special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted on direct access to the president, a privilege he was denied during much of the Clinton years.

    • Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine), negotiator of the Irish Peace Accords, was appointed to be the administration’s point man on Arab-Israeli negotiations.

    • Samantha Power, Obama’s former campaign aide, who once called Hillary a “monster,” has been appointed to the National Security Council (NSC) as director of “multilateral affairs.”

    • Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s new national security adviser, has announced an expansion of the membership and role of the NSC. He pledges to eliminate “back channels” to the president and wants to grow the NSC’s role to accommodate the “dramatically different” challenges of the current world situation.

    • Susan Rice, Obama’s new United Nations ambassador, insisted upon and got Cabinet rank for her portfolio, and she will presumably also have the same kind of access to Obama that she had as his chief foreign policy adviser during the campaign.

    So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton?

    While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, (I)* cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration.

    Hillary’s essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers — at the very least — know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they — and she — be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely.

    The fact is that the power of the secretary of State is not statutory, nor does it flow from the prestige of the post’s occupant. Former Gen. Al Haig, once supreme commander of NATO and chief of staff to President Nixon, found that out when he was undercut as secretary by the White House troika of Mike Deaver, James Baker and Ed Meese. Bill Rogers, Eisenhower’s attorney general and Nixon’s California confidant, found himself on the outs from the moment he became secretary of State, with Henry Kissinger soaking up all the power through his direct access to Nixon as national security adviser.

    The power of the secretary of State flows directly from the president. But Hillary does not have the inside track with Obama. Rice and Powers, close advisers in the campaign, and Gen. Jones — whose office is in the White House — all may have superior access. Holbrooke and Mitchell will have more immediate information about the world’s trouble spots.

    So what is Hillary’s mandate? Of what is she secretary of State? If you take the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan out of the equation, what is left? (I)* would have to assume that the old North Korea hands in the government would monopolize that theater of action. What, precisely, is it that Hillary is to do? The question lingers.

    And for this she gave up a Senate seat?
     
    end quote
    can you imagine if anything like this happened under Condi rice? 



    *Fixed, as this is Dick Morris' personal opinion piece.


    If this is the same ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, I don't take too much of what he says seriously as he's a showman and could only find a job with Fox News after resigning in disgrace.


    He once said this about his future after his public shame: "You can't come back from scandal simply by spin -- you have to change," he said. "I feel that I have, significantly." Yep, he has. He found that neo-conservatives will pay him handsomely to bash people he had worked with for 20 years previous.


    If I wanted advice on where to get a good $200/hr hooker who sucks toes, then I might ask Dick Morris for his personal opinion, expertise and how he views things.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Obama is in big trouble...

    Hillary has already show that she can't handle this job.

    http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html

    begin quote of link...

     

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding that her job description is dissolving under her feet, leaving her with only a vestige of the power she must have thought she acquired when she signed on to be President Obama’s chief Cabinet officer.

     

    Since her designation:

    • Vice President Biden has moved vigorously to stake out foreign policy as his turf. His visit to Afghanistan, right before the Inauguration, could not but send a signal to Hillary that he would conduct foreign policy in the new administration, leaving Hillary in the role of backup.
     
    • Richard Holbrooke, the former Balkan negotiator and U.N. ambassador, has been named special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted on direct access to the president, a privilege he was denied during much of the Clinton years.
    • Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine), negotiator of the Irish Peace Accords, was appointed to be the administration’s point man on Arab-Israeli negotiations.
    • Samantha Power, Obama’s former campaign aide, who once called Hillary a “monster,” has been appointed to the National Security Council (NSC) as director of “multilateral affairs.”
    • Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s new national security adviser, has announced an expansion of the membership and role of the NSC. He pledges to eliminate “back channels” to the president and wants to grow the NSC’s role to accommodate the “dramatically different” challenges of the current world situation.
    • Susan Rice, Obama’s new United Nations ambassador, insisted upon and got Cabinet rank for her portfolio, and she will presumably also have the same kind of access to Obama that she had as his chief foreign policy adviser during the campaign.
    So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton?
    While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, (I)* cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration.
    Hillary’s essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers — at the very least — know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they — and she — be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely.
    The fact is that the power of the secretary of State is not statutory, nor does it flow from the prestige of the post’s occupant. Former Gen. Al Haig, once supreme commander of NATO and chief of staff to President Nixon, found that out when he was undercut as secretary by the White House troika of Mike Deaver, James Baker and Ed Meese. Bill Rogers, Eisenhower’s attorney general and Nixon’s California confidant, found himself on the outs from the moment he became secretary of State, with Henry Kissinger soaking up all the power through his direct access to Nixon as national security adviser.
    The power of the secretary of State flows directly from the president. But Hillary does not have the inside track with Obama. Rice and Powers, close advisers in the campaign, and Gen. Jones — whose office is in the White House — all may have superior access. Holbrooke and Mitchell will have more immediate information about the world’s trouble spots.
    So what is Hillary’s mandate? Of what is she secretary of State? If you take the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan out of the equation, what is left? (I)* would have to assume that the old North Korea hands in the government would monopolize that theater of action. What, precisely, is it that Hillary is to do? The question lingers.
    And for this she gave up a Senate seat?

     

    end quote

    can you imagine if anything like this happened under Condi rice? 

     



    *Fixed, as this is Dick Morris' personal opinion piece.



    If this is the same ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, I don't take too much of what he says seriously as he's a showman and could only find a job with Fox News after resigning in disgrace.



    He once said this about his future after his public shame: "You can't come back from scandal simply by spin -- you have to change," he said. "I feel that I have, significantly." Yep, he has. He found that neo-conservatives will pay him handsomely to bash people he had worked with for 20 years previous.

     



    If I wanted advice on where to get a good $200/hr hooker who sucks toes, then I might ask Dick Morris for his personal opinion, expertise and how he views things.

     

    Yes, just as Thomas Jefferson is not worth listening to because he owned slaves, Dick Morris is not worth listining to because he was caught with a hooker and works for Fox News. Ad hominem.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by popinjay


    You are always free to debunk anything I post from Wiki with any site with opposing information as it relates.
    Wiki usually does a good job capturing enough information to give the reader and anyone following an overview of a subject as a talking point, which is why I have no problem quoting it when I use it. It also is usually more than enough to use as a source with some of the lesser informed citizens who post here. If you have a problem with Wiki, meh.
    The problem comes usually when some people use personal opinion page blogs as gospel truth, or just post links without fully reading them and understanding. They Google, then see two words connected to something they believe so they link, not knowing the article actually dispels what they are trying to prove.
    This has happened to a few people in this thread who have been spouting red meat rhetoric without connecting dots.


     
    Or when someone makes a false claim that someone got something from somewhere, when the original person never said so (and never referenced the thing they falsely claiming they did), and then the uses that which they are pretending as a basis of argumentation, then follows up that straw man with various personal attacks, thus showing they really have no interest in the truth, just in attacking people on the internet.
    Then they wrap it all up in a nice anti-semitic/America-hating package all in the defense of tyranny.
    This has happened to a few people in this thread who have been spouting hate speech and personal attacks in the name of debate.

    Yeah, this can be unfortunate.

    But Wiki is a good enough source to use as a starting point and in plenty of cases, it can be a definitive answer. To pretend it isn't useful as a reference tool because its not reliable enough is a pretty silly assertion.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by popinjay

    *Fixed, as this is Dick Morris' personal opinion piece.

    If this is the same ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, I don't take too much of what he says seriously as he's a showman and could only find a job with Fox News after resigning in disgrace.

    He once said this about his future after his public shame: "You can't come back from scandal simply by spin -- you have to change," he said. "I feel that I have, significantly." Yep, he has. He found that neo-conservatives will pay him handsomely to bash people he had worked with for 20 years previous.
     

    If I wanted advice on where to get a good $200/hr hooker who sucks toes, then I might ask Dick Morris for his personal opinion, expertise and how he views things.


     
    Yes, just as Thomas Jefferson is not worth listening to because he owned slaves, Dick Morris is not worth listining to because he was caught with a hooker and works for Fox News. Ad hominem.


    From Merriam-Webster:


    Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
    Pronunciation: ?hi-p?-?krit
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokrit?s actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
    Date: 13th century
    1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
    — hypocrite adjective

    Jefferson railed on in "papers" about the evils of slavery while owning them his whole life and never having the humanity of freeing them upon his death, when he no longer had use for them.


    Information from hypocrites is always taken with a grain of salt, you never know if they are telling the truth at any point. You don't know if they believe what they say and are too cowardly to act, or if they don't really believe what they say but just would like you to think they do. He also had extra-martial affairs with one of his slaves while married, making him an adulterer. This is fine Christian gentleman? At best he was no more than a modern day politician no better than Clinton or Bush, at worst... he was a morally spineless coward.

    Jefferson was a hypocrite. An intelligent one, but one nonetheless. It's not usually good policy to quote known hypocrites, especially ones from a couple hundred years ago who have no understanding of today's matters because they are... dead.


    Morris' relationship with Fixed News? Quid pro quo.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Ah, more ad hominem. Let's not forget Morris is also Jewish, and we already know how you feel about them.



    And just exactly how do I feel about Jewish people?

  • NarugNarug Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     
     
    As for the Crusades, I like the short answer on something that big.


     

    The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.
     
    The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.
    The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.

     

     

    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.



     

    One problem with your post is that you're not admitting Islam actually commited the aggression first time around.  The first sentence of the second paragraph will admit Islam aggression to the careful reader.

    To "re-capture" Christian lands from Islamic rule there had to be an occupant.  That's why Alexius had to appeal for aid from the Pope. (Think the only alternative for NATO, UN, or Coalition of the willing at that time)

    Like I said earlier though Muhammad actually lays down the basis for their own Jihad by basically saying, "To die in glorious battle is entry into Heaven."  The attacks against Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Christians begins some time thereafter.  (For Muslims it's okay to create mischief/chaos under this ideology which only hurts the world in the end)  Not to mention these Arabic peoples were long pagans while these Eastern Roman Christians were monotheist before them.

    AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017

    Refugee of Auberean

    Refugee of Dereth

  • murdera2k6murdera2k6 Member UncommonPosts: 474
    Originally posted by Narug

    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     
     
    As for the Crusades, I like the short answer on something that big.


     

    The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.
     
    The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.
    The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.

     

     

     

    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.



     

    One problem with your post is that you're not admitting Islam actually commited the aggression first time around.  The first sentence of the second paragraph will admit Islam aggression to the careful reader.

    To "re-capture" Christian lands from Islamic rule there had to be an occupant.  That's why Alexius had to appeal for aid from the Pope. (Think the only alternative for NATO, UN, or Coalition of the willing at that time)

    Like I said earlier though Muhammad actually lays down the basis for their own Jihad by basically saying, "To die in glorious battle is entry into Heaven."  The attacks against Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Christians begins some time thereafter.  (For Muslims it's okay to create mischief/chaos under this ideology which only hurts the world in the end)  Not to mention these Arabic peoples were long pagans while these Eastern Roman Christians were monotheist before them.

    link please...evidence??

    "If they can make Penicillin out of mouldy bread, they can sure make something out of you," - Muhammed Ali

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Narug

    Originally posted by popinjay

     
     
     
    As for the Crusades, I like the short answer on something that big.

     



    The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.
     
    The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.
    The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.


     
     
    Sure sounds like a Jihad to me.

     
    One problem with your post is that you're not admitting Islam actually commited the aggression first time around.  The first sentence of the second paragraph will admit Islam aggression to the careful reader.
    To "re-capture" Christian lands from Islamic rule there had to be an occupant.  That's why Alexius had to appeal for aid from the Pope. (Think the only alternative for NATO, UN, or Coalition of the willing at that time)
    Like I said earlier though Muhammad actually lays down the basis for their own Jihad by basically saying, "To die in glorious battle is entry into Heaven."  The attacks against Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Christians begins some time thereafter.  (For Muslims it's okay to create mischief/chaos under this ideology which only hurts the world in the end)  Not to mention these Arabic peoples were long pagans while these Eastern Roman Christians were monotheist before them.


    The original point was that the Crusades were a holy war (jihad), just as we have the terrorists proclaiming Jihad today against what they feel is invading and occupying countries. (this is why I highlighted the parts above) The whole "who owned Jerusalum first" is a bit off point. Crusades were brought into the discussion to show how both sides of major religions can act just as stupidly in defense of dogma given by leaders.


    Another type of crazy jihadism was the Inquisition where thousands were tortured in the name of Christ. Jews, Muslims and others persecuted for different beliefs and burned at stakes alive. I think we all know how well Christianity treated may indigeous peoples of many islands around the world when brought by Europeans who took their lands forcibly.


    When talking about Muslim terrorist actions against what they percieve as agrressors against Islam (as supported by some religious clerics there) is akin to the Pope calling on all Christians to rise up and go slaughter the evildoers back then. There is little difference between them, and calling insurgents "crazy" is to call Christians crazy for doing the same.


    Killing in the name of God with a religious blessing attached and expecting rewards in the afterlife because of it. Same stuff, different century, different religions.

  • NarugNarug Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Originally posted by murdera2k6

    Originally posted by Narug




    One problem with your post is that you're not admitting Islam actually commited the aggression first time around.  The first sentence of the second paragraph will admit Islam aggression to the careful reader.
    To "re-capture" Christian lands from Islamic rule there had to be an occupant.  That's why Alexius had to appeal for aid from the Pope. (Think the only alternative for NATO, UN, or Coalition of the willing at that time)
    Like I said earlier though Muhammad actually lays down the basis for their own Jihad by basically saying, "To die in glorious battle is entry into Heaven."  The attacks against Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Christians begins some time thereafter.  (For Muslims it's okay to create mischief/chaos under this ideology which only hurts the world in the end)  Not to mention these Arabic peoples were long pagans while these Eastern Roman Christians were monotheist before them.

    link please...evidence??

    I was using my memory of reading history books as a hobby and my listening of theologians.

    Like last night when I looked up the word Assyrian, so I had at least was somewhere in the range of spelling that right, I will name a specific book and page where my application comes from.

    One such example is the Atlas of World History by John Haywood Ph.D. Page 37 (lower right last sentence of the second to last paragraph of that page)

    The quote:

    "Moreover, Arab soldiers were motivated by Muhammad's pledge that Islamic warriors who died in battle would win immediate entry to paradise."

    AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017

    Refugee of Auberean

    Refugee of Dereth

  • NarugNarug Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     
     
    The original point was that the Crusades were a holy war (jihad), just as we have the terrorists proclaiming Jihad today against what they feel is invading and occupying countries. (this is why I highlighted the parts above) The whole "who owned Jerusalum first" is a bit off point. Crusades were brought into the discussion to show how both sides of major religions can act just as stupidly in defense of dogma given by leaders.


    Another type of crazy jihadism was the Inquisition where thousands were tortured in the name of Christ. Jews, Muslims and others persecuted for different beliefs and burned at stakes alive. I think we all know how well Christianity treated may indigeous peoples of many islands around the world when brought by Europeans who took their lands forcibly.


    When talking about Muslim terrorist actions against what they percieve as agrressors against Islam (as supported by some religious clerics there) is akin to the Pope calling on all Christians to rise up and go slaughter the evildoers back then. There is little difference between them, and calling insurgents "crazy" is to call Christians crazy for doing the same.


    Killing in the name of God with a religious blessing attached and expecting rewards in the afterlife because of it. Same stuff, different century, different religions.

     



     

    I think the point was missed but I'll bite one more time and then try again when I feel I have something to add. (Instead of feeling like I'm repeating)

    My point is people will defend themselves and some will interpret the response as insanity. No matter if the cause of the chaos was the enabler in the first place.

    (Arabs occuping Byzantine lands, Arabs crashing planes into buildings, Arabs taking shots over American planes over no-fly zones - zones that resluted from getting involved in a war that had Arabs attacking Arabs ironicly but could intefere with trade not to mention disrupt a lone democracy in there, also to avoid the "wait to the last minute to do something" that was a temporary disadvantage of WWII)

    You could say the whole tragic moments with Christianity with the pre-Crusade and Crusade era could have been avoided had Islam not initiated such chaos.

    The Inquisition is its own seperate tragedy of course which we don't know would've changed one way or another. Since we're straying from the East vs West though I will contend that non-Christians are just as capable of tragedy. Russia with Stalin's Purge, China's Tieman Square incident, and the Nazi Party's final solution which also affected more peoples than the genocide against Jews.

    (I consider the Nazi party as non-Christian because there were reports of practicing pagan and occult research)

    AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017

    Refugee of Auberean

    Refugee of Dereth

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by Narug

    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     
     
    The original point was that the Crusades were a holy war (jihad), just as we have the terrorists proclaiming Jihad today against what they feel is invading and occupying countries. (this is why I highlighted the parts above) The whole "who owned Jerusalum first" is a bit off point. Crusades were brought into the discussion to show how both sides of major religions can act just as stupidly in defense of dogma given by leaders.


    Another type of crazy jihadism was the Inquisition where thousands were tortured in the name of Christ. Jews, Muslims and others persecuted for different beliefs and burned at stakes alive. I think we all know how well Christianity treated may indigeous peoples of many islands around the world when brought by Europeans who took their lands forcibly.


    When talking about Muslim terrorist actions against what they percieve as agrressors against Islam (as supported by some religious clerics there) is akin to the Pope calling on all Christians to rise up and go slaughter the evildoers back then. There is little difference between them, and calling insurgents "crazy" is to call Christians crazy for doing the same.


    Killing in the name of God with a religious blessing attached and expecting rewards in the afterlife because of it. Same stuff, different century, different religions.

     



     

    I think the point was missed but I'll bite one more time and then try again when I feel I have something to add. (Instead of feeling like I'm repeating)

    My point is people will defend themselves and some will interpret the response as insanity. No matter if the cause of the chaos was the enabler in the first place.

    (Arabs occuping Byzantine lands, Arabs crashing planes into buildings, Arabs taking shots over American planes over no-fly zones - zones that resluted from getting involved in a war that had Arabs attacking Arabs ironicly but could intefere with trade not to mention disrupt a lone democracy in there, also to avoid the "wait to the last minute to do something" that was a temporary disadvantage of WWII)

    You could say the whole tragic moments with Christianity with the pre-Crusade and Crusade era could have been avoided had Islam not initiated such chaos.

    The Inquisition is its own seperate tragedy of course which we don't know would've changed one way or another. Since we're straying from the East vs West though I will contend that non-Christians are just as capable of tragedy. Russia with Stalin's Purge, China's Tieman Square incident, and the Nazi Party's final solution which also affected more peoples than the genocide against Jews.

    (I consider the Nazi party as non-Christian because there were reports of practicing pagan and occult research)

    Yeah, The Nazi party was essentially a black magickal order. Hitler wasn't even a consistent pagan -- he worshiped power and drew all power tpo himself that he could with whatever he could -- he was a real garbage collector of evil. He was happy to use the Church when it suited him. It seems like it was all crap to him -- power was all that mattered.

    If  a religious person seeks to do evil, he will use religion tp justify that evil. If an athiest does, he will find some ideology to justify it. It's what we do as humans. We seek justification. Religion does not make one good any more than atheism makes one bad.

     

     

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Narug

     I think the point was missed but I'll bite one more time and then try again when I feel I have something to add. (Instead of feeling like I'm repeating)
    My point is people will defend themselves and some will interpret the response as insanity. No matter if the cause of the chaos was the enabler in the first place.
    (Arabs occuping Byzantine lands, Arabs crashing planes into buildings, Arabs taking shots over American planes over no-fly zones - zones that resluted from getting involved in a war that had Arabs attacking Arabs ironicly but could intefere with trade not to mention disrupt a lone democracy in there, also to avoid the "wait to the last minute to do something" that was a temporary disadvantage of WWII)
    You could say the whole tragic moments with Christianity with the pre-Crusade and Crusade era could have been avoided had Islam not initiated such chaos.
    The Inquisition is its own seperate tragedy of course which we don't know would've changed one way or another. Since we're straying from the East vs West though I will contend that non-Christians are just as capable of tragedy. Russia with Stalin's Purge, China's Tieman Square incident, and the Nazi Party's final solution which also affected more peoples than the genocide against Jews.
    (I consider the Nazi party as non-Christian because there were reports of practicing pagan and occult research)


    Yeah, The Nazi party was essentially a black magickal order. Hitler wasn't even a consistent pagan -- he worshiped power and drew all power tpo himself that he could with whatever he could -- he was a real garbage collector of evil. He was happy to use the Church when it suited him. It seems like it was all crap to him -- power was all that mattered.
    If  a religious person seeks to do evil, he will use religion tp justify that evil. If an athiest does, he will find some ideology to justify it. It's what we do as humans. We seek justification. Religion does not make one good any more than atheism makes one bad.
     

    And with these last two posts, I will end comment on this thread.


    You two couldn't have said anything better and in such a plain way anyone could understand (even cheerleaders, if you get my drift, Fisher^^)


    Nice wrap up and thanks for the comments that were expressed. It was fun reading amd posting.

Sign In or Register to comment.