Define conservatism

[palerider]

The crusades were not initiated by Muslims; they were initiated by one of the popes of my church.

If you mean that the muslims didn't twist the pope's arm and force him to respond to islamic aggression, then I suppose you are correct. But if you are suggesting that the crusades were not a response to islamic aggression, then you are patently wrong. Historical fact is difficult to argue with and your 19th century romantic authors were hardly historians.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2006/crusades-0706.htm

And if you don't like the sources, too bad. Prove them wrong or accept what they are saying as the truth.

 

[Dave]

Good afternoon Dave; just very quickly and I can elaborate on these replies as soon as I have more time;
you wrote:



In my opinion it was not coincidence; the anti-western (and specifically anti-US) stance was the result of our multiple interferences.
In those cases, the nationalization of a country's resources was a setback for business interests in the US, so the US would send what were known as "jackals" to do a little persuading ...failing that there was more forceful action.





The crusades were not initiated by Muslims; they were initiated by one of the popes of my church.
:/
For one example of a time when Jews have posed a fatal threat to people based on a religious rationale, you need look no further than the book of Exodus [ I think it's that, or maybe it's the book of Deuteronomy ...whichever one of them tells of Joshua's leading the Israelites into the Promised Land].
Please recall the words "...and kill every man, woman, child, and animal".
Note that present day Jews asserting their rights to a State in Palestine regard themselves as having a direct lineage down from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were the progenitors of Joshua, etc. In fact, that is the grounds of their claim to the land (that God gave it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

For examples of Christians posing fatal threats to people, apart from the Crusades, one could cite the treatment of Cathars, Hugenots, pagans of varying stripes, American Indians, probably more when I have additional time.


Yes, bin Laden has long been antagonized by the faulty observance of Islam by Saudi Arabia and about the continuing interventions of the US and our unsolicited presence in their lands. But his antipathy began actually at the age of thirteen, from a conversation he had with his father.


That is where I must disagree with you. It is not hatred for non-Muslims per se. All you have to do to see that is to research the very friendly relations - even affection and love - between Muslims and Neturei Karta Jews, for example.
It is the contempt for non-Muslims who interject themselves into Muslim affairs, invade Muslim lands, and so forth.
Hope to talk again soon; have a good Friday night,
Lilly

There is difference between destroying a city and destroying a people as a whole. You cannot compare the exploits of Joshua to what fundamental Isalm is trying to do to all Christian, Jewish, and pretty much all white people today. Jews and Christians weren't setting out with the sole purpose of destroying an entire people in the examples you provided. Muslims today are. If you want to look at why we have such a difference in religions today, we have to look at their founders. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all peaceful people. Jesus constantly taught peace. Muhammad led countless military campaigns, and set a precedent of violence for the Islamic religion.

Fundamentalist Muslims have made it clear that the Middle East is their land, and they are not willing to share it with anyone. Because they consider it their holy land, they will not have any non-muslim set foot on this land. That is why bin Ladin began his campaign against American, and why Arabs will never allow a peaceful Israel to exist.

I can hardly call the Gulf War unwanted interference in Muslim affairs. We were invited there by Muslims, and defended Muslims with every step. The problem comes when bin Ladin came to the conclussion that if a Muslim is willing to work with an infidel, then he is not a true Muslim and should therefore die.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

It wasn't supposed to. It was just a list of terrorist attacks over the past half century or so. It illustrates that islam is responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in the modern world.

Go to your link. Count the total number of terrorist attacks. Now count how many were from Muslims.

Not just against US interests either as you have suggested.

WHERE did I suggest that they were "just" against US interests? I stated that the ones against US interests were most commonly reactions to post WWII US foreign policy.

Islam is an equal opportunity terrorizer. They gladly go after people who haven't "invaded" their countries. Their only requisite that their target not bow to mecca 5 times a day.

When are you going to stop representing that Muslims ardently seek to kill everyone who isn't a Muslim ? Your contention has already been shown insupportable, multiple times in this thread ...not only by the existence of the dhimmi laws, but also by the Muslim presence at the conference on coexistence, which I substantiated.

I have checked them out. The last thing I would want is to post information and have someone be able to prove that it was incorrect. I believe that if my positions aren't formed on rock solid facts, then they aren't worth expressing. You should have guessed that about me by now.

You have not reinforced your "rock solid facts" with input from any unbiased source.
Like most people who insist on being hardliners about a topic, you sometimes fall short also because of generalizations.
For example, there was an occasion last month on which you made a statement using the word "always", which I was able to demonstrate as incorrect.
That is a common problem for uncompromising ideologies; the real world simply does not conform to rigorous stereotyping.

I had an OK Easter. Thanks for asking. How was yours? (how is that for "chit chat?)

*Mine was lovely, thank you;
*That is very commendable.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

If you mean that the muslims didn't twist the pope's arm and force him to respond to islamic aggression, then I suppose you are correct. But if you are suggesting that the crusades were not a response to islamic aggression, then you are patently wrong. Historical fact is difficult to argue with and your 19th century romantic authors were hardly historians.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2006/crusades-0706.htm

And if you don't like the sources, too bad. Prove them wrong or accept what they are saying as the truth.

Irony alert:
You reject sources as "romanticists" if they provide information contrary to your own, and you tell me that the various authors of the accounts I've quoted "are not historians" even though they were, with the exception of one who was a journalist.
Yet,
When anyone points out that your sources consist entirely of Islamophobic hate sites, you complain of "ad homs".

In other words,
You challenge people to stop dismissing your sources with ad homs; instead of berating your sources - you say - people should work on proving them incorrect.
However,
when anyone brings contrary evidence, no matter how respectable the scholarship, YOU dismiss THEIR source with ad homs.
Think about it.

***********************

Now, looking over your first source, theamericanthinker ...even though it is blatantly hostile to Islam from the outset, it shows your theory about Muslim intentions to be inaccurate.
Why?
Here is the first entry in their 'timeline':


630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

Note, as I've said numerous times, if Muhammed's unswerving desire is to kill anyone who did not adopt his religion ("bow to mecca", etc), that he would hardly have bothered hammering out 'agreements' with the northern tribes for paying the jizya.

*************************

By the way, here is something you should know, palerider: thanks to the Iraq invasion, the situation for Christians in Iraq is now more bleak than it has been in decades. I hope you and Mr. Winn are very happy about that.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Dave, I'll be back in a little while to read your reply ...

 

[Lilly Marlene]

There is difference between destroying a city and destroying a people as a whole.

Let me remind you of what you wrote in post #259:

"When have Christians and Jews posed a "fatal threat" in the past? Other than the crusades, which was initiated by Muslims, I cannot think of a time when Jews and Christians have fought to completely destroy a people based on religious grounds."

I have shown you some of those times.
In each case, it was not a matter of just "destroying a city". In the case of Joshua and the invading Israelites, it was a matter of killing "every man, woman, child, and animal" ...as I already reminded you and if you don't believe me, take a look at a Bible.
Likewise,
the extermination of Cathars, Hugenots and various pagan groups was about eradicating people, not cities.

You cannot compare the exploits of Joshua to what fundamental Isalm is trying to do to all Christian, Jewish, and pretty much all white people today. Jews and Christians weren't setting out with the sole purpose of destroying an entire people in the examples you provided.

I just did compare them.
As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what Jews and Christians were doing in each of the examples I gave you; did you read the post ?

Muslims today are. If you want to look at why we have such a difference in religions today, we have to look at their founders. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all peaceful people. Jesus constantly taught peace. Muhammad led countless military campaigns, and set a precedent of violence for the Islamic religion.

Says you, palerider, and the Jihad Watch site. And any evidence to the contrary - from no matter how distinguished a scholar - is dismissed as "romanticizing". Yes, I've heard the whole routine by now.

Fundamentalist Muslims have made it clear that the Middle East is their land, and they are not willing to share it with anyone. Because they consider it their holy land, they will not have any non-muslim set foot on this land. That is why bin Ladin began his campaign against American, and why Arabs will never allow a peaceful Israel to exist.

Incorrect, on several levels.
First, Jews have lived among Arabs in the Middle East for centuries with no apparent rancor - which proves you wrong (so have a minority of Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus by the way).
Please realize,
The discordant relations began at the end of the 19th century when European Jews started migrating in significant numbers for the first time, under the leadership of Theodore Hertzl.
From there it got worse in the early 20th century, when Great Britain reneged on its agreements with Arabs about the area known as Palestine.
And of course the really punishing blow was in 1948.
Uhm,
How you can write the words "a peaceful Israel", presumably with a straight face, is beyond my comprehension.

I can hardly call the Gulf War unwanted interference in Muslim affairs. We were invited there by Muslims, and defended Muslims with every step. The problem comes when bin Ladin came to the conclussion that if a Muslim is willing to work with an infidel, then he is not a true Muslim and should therefore die.

Bin Laden's problem with the Saudi government was the blatant corruption - for instance the way they conduct legal affairs, exonerating the guilty based on degree of wealth as opposed to using the same standards for all, as their religious ("Sharia") law would prescribe.
Dave,
The nations in the Middle East have every right to want us out of their affairs.
I don't know how neocons ever got the idea that the entire globe is theirs to prosecute or reward, but it is a disastrous idea and the blowback has already begun to burn.

 

[Dave]

Lilly, I honestly don't care what happened thousands of years ago with regards to this issue, as it makes no difference about what is happening today. If a suicide bomber is actually thinking about Cathers when he goes to blow himself up, then I guess I'm giving him too little credit, but I don't think that is the case.

What exactly are you disputing about my claims that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus were peaceful while Muhammad was a militaristic leader? I have never heard anything to the contrary, and I have done quite a bit of research on the foundation of religion, so I do find it hard to believe that the majority of scholars look at the subject differently.

You say that Jews and Christians lived in peace with Arabs until the 19th century when there was a mass migration, but do you even remember the crusades? The wholesale slaughter of the Rhineland Jews? How far do you want to go back? Come on Lilly, there has been violence in that region for many centuries due to the fact that Muslims refuse to allow the existance Jews on what they have been told was their land.

You say that Israel is not a peaceful state, but I would challenge you to provide examples of Israeli violence which was not provoked by Palestinian terrorist actions. You can argue that Israel overreacts, but the fact is that all of there aggression is still a reaction.

Bin Ladin did not attack "corrupt" governments. He attacked religiousely moderate governments. Iran had high forms of corruption, yet they were safe from the terror attacks of bin Ladin. He chose to go after the moderates in Egypt for not adopting fundamentalist law. His is a holy war, nothing more.

I do not believe that the globe is America's to prosecute, but when other countries refuse to prosecute those within their borders, then America is justified to step in to protect itself and its allies.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Lilly, I honestly don't care what happened thousands of years ago with regards to this issue, as it makes no difference about what is happening today. If a suicide bomber is actually thinking about Cathers when he goes to blow himself up, then I guess I'm giving him too little credit, but I don't think that is the case.

I doubt that the suicide bomber is thinking about the Cathars ...I mentioned those examples only because you asked me for some.

What exactly are you disputing about my claims that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus were peaceful while Muhammad was a militaristic leader? I have never heard anything to the contrary, and I have done quite a bit of research on the foundation of religion, so I do find it hard to believe that the majority of scholars look at the subject differently.

If you look at my post, you will see that that is the one thing you wrote which I did NOT dispute.

You say that Jews and Christians lived in peace with Arabs until the 19th century when there was a mass migration, but do you even remember the crusades? The wholesale slaughter of the Rhineland Jews? How far do you want to go back?

Didn't you just tell me that you don't care what happened a thousand years ago ?
I am telling you that Jews, Muslims, and a minority of other religions including Christians ...have lived as neighbors in the regions of Asia Minor for centuries since the Diaspora.

Please see:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

Come on Lilly, there has been violence in that region for many centuries due to the fact that Muslims refuse to allow the existance Jews on what they have been told was their land.

On the contrary, they have not only allowed the Jews' existence, but they have formulated laws called "dhimmitude laws" to regulate the living together. I am not going to pretend the Muslims have been great guys, I never have said that. But it is simply untrue that they have sought single-mindedly to kill others down through the centuries solely on the grounds of being non-Muslims.

You say that Israel is not a peaceful state, but I would challenge you to provide examples of Israeli violence which was not provoked by Palestinian terrorist actions. You can argue that Israel overreacts, but the fact is that all of there aggression is still a reaction.

Is that why the ratio of Palestinian deaths is so high compared to Israeli deaths ?
Dave,
the "aggression" of Palestinians is very similar to the aggression you would be likely to show if some Norwegian people came to your town and took over because they said their God gave it to them five thousand years ago.
You tell me that Israel's violence is "provoked" by that aggression ...as though it is just normal for people to go and occupy inhabited land and not expect to get any grief for it.

Bin Ladin did not attack "corrupt" governments. He attacked religiousely moderate governments. Iran had high forms of corruption, yet they were safe from the terror attacks of bin Ladin.

No, Iran did not have the type of worldly corruption with which bin Laden takes issue (they are governed by Shariah since Khomenei).
On the other hand,
The Saudi government is not 'religiously moderate'; it is actually religiously apostate according to a fundamentalist like bin Laden.

I do not believe that the globe is America's to prosecute, but when other countries refuse to prosecute those within their borders, then America is justified to step in to protect itself and its allies.

Well, HOW is the US military protecting me right now by being in Iraq, for example ?
How.
The beneficiaries of nearly every foreign war or "intervention" of the US government since the 1950s have been corporations, and the State of Israel.

Dave,
Please also see this thread which contains some interesting information from an additional source on the mideast (I've linked you to page 4 or 5 because before that it's mainly just quibbling between a new person and someone who was a bit under the weather that day):

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802&page=4

I will probably have to wait to see your thoughts til Monday, because I'll be gone tomorrow.

Have a great Sunday,
Lilly
<br>

 

[Dave]

I doubt that the suicide bomber is thinking about the Cathars ...I mentioned those examples only because you asked me for some.

If you look at my post, you will see that that is the one thing you wrote which I did NOT dispute.

Didn't you just tell me that you don't care what happened a thousand years ago ?
I am telling you that Jews, Muslims, and a minority of other religions including Christians ...have lived as neighbors in the regions of Asia Minor for centuries since the Diaspora.

Please see:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

On the contrary, they have not only allowed the Jews' existence, but they have formulated laws called "dhimmitude laws" to regulate the living together. I am not going to pretend the Muslims have been great guys, I never have said that. But it is simply untrue that they have sought single-mindedly to kill others down through the centuries solely on the grounds of being non-Muslims.

Is that why the ratio of Palestinian deaths is so high compared to Israeli deaths ?
Dave,
the "aggression" of Palestinians is very similar to the aggression you would be likely to show if some Norwegian people came to your town and took over because they said their God gave it to them five thousand years ago.
You tell me that Israel's violence is "provoked" by that aggression ...as though it is just normal for people to go and occupy inhabited land and not expect to get any grief for it.

No, Iran did not have the type of worldly corruption with which bin Laden takes issue (they are governed by Shariah since Khomenei).
On the other hand,
The Saudi government is not 'religiously moderate'; it is actually religiously apostate according to a fundamentalist like bin Laden.

Well, HOW is the US military protecting me right now by being in Iraq, for example ?
How.
The beneficiaries of nearly every foreign war or "intervention" of the US government since the 1950s have been corporations, and the State of Israel.

Dave,
Please also see this thread which contains some interesting information from an additional source on the mideast (I've linked you to page 4 or 5 because before that it's mainly just quibbling between a new person and someone who was a bit under the weather that day):

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802&page=4

I will probably have to wait to see your thoughts til Monday, because I'll be gone tomorrow.

Have a great Sunday,
Lilly
<br>

The point I was trying to make about your examples is that it seemed as though you were trying to excuse what Islam is doing right now because other religions have had a violent past. I was saying that these things do not matter to me because they are well in the past. What I was saying about the crusades was to counter your argument that there had been peace in the region until Jews began moving there in mass. The history of the slaughter of Jews during the crusades and afterwards proves my point that there has never been a long standing peace with Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine.

The death rate of Palestinians compared to Israelis is the poorest determination of aggression I've ever heard. If a Palestinian blows himself up in a cafe and kills 15 people, it is very easy for Israel to launch air strikes at a training camp and kill 30. By your logic that puts Israel as the aggressor just because they killed more. That is simply nonsense. I am still asking for you to provide one example of an Israeli offensive that was not provoked in some way by Palestinians.

To say that Iran was not corrupt after the revolution is laughable. Bin Ladin did not attack them because he saw eye to eye with them on building an Islamic state, and states that did not practice religion the way he saw fit were standing in the way of that. Egypt was certainly a religiousely moderate government, and it became the first target of bin Ladin when he set up shop in Sudan.

The U.S. military is protecting you right now in Iraq by taking down a government that allowed Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders. You can argue all you want about what you think the motives for this war are, but saying that nearly all foreign wars or interventions since 1950 have benefitted corporations of Israel is going a bit too far. Lets see...
First Gulf War-protected Muslims
Somalia-protected Muslims
Bosnia-protected Muslims
Afghanistan-liberated Muslims
Iraq-liberated Muslims
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

 

[palerider]

You have not reinforced your "rock solid facts" with input from any unbiased source.

Fact doesn't require an unbiased source. It is either true, or it is not. In this case, what is there is true. Suggesting bias doesn't constitute a valid argument on your part since the information is true.

Like most people who insist on being hardliners about a topic, you sometimes fall short also because of generalizations.

I haven't generalized. I have freely admitted that not all muslims are out killing whoever doesn't worship allah. I have pointed out that only good muslims are out doing allah's business. Those who aren't are being quiet as church mice so that the good muslims don't identify them as the infidels that they are and go after them as well.

For example, there was an occasion last month on which you made a statement using the word "always", which I was able to demonstrate as incorrect.

HOLY CRAP!!!! In all that has been written in this thread and on others you got me using always when I should have said nearly all of the time? Well hell, I guess I should just concede the debate huh?

That is a common problem for uncompromising ideologies; the real world simply does not conform to rigorous stereotyping.

Good muslims are stereotypes.

 

[palerider]

In other words,
You challenge people to stop dismissing your sources with ad homs; instead of berating your sources - you say - people should work on proving them incorrect.
However,
when anyone brings contrary evidence, no matter how respectable the scholarship, YOU dismiss THEIR source with ad homs.
Think about it.

Respectable scholarship does not dismiss historical fact. The myth of andalusia REQUIRES that one dismiss massacres, nearly constant uprisings, mass crucifictions, lopsided law, etc., etc., etc.

Note, as I've said numerous times, if Muhammed's unswerving desire is to kill anyone who did not adopt his religion ("bow to mecca", etc), that he would hardly have bothered hammering out 'agreements' with the northern tribes for paying the jizya.

If one lives for conquest, theft, rape and pillage as mohammed did, one can hardly go about killing all of one's victims can one? And even today, the number of muslims or their armament isn't adequate to kill all who don't worship allah. But you must give them credit, because they are killing us off as quickly as they can.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

The point I was trying to make about your examples is that it seemed as though you were trying to excuse what Islam is doing right now because other religions have had a violent past.

I have never "excused" violent acts by Muslims.

I have tried to explain what the motivation is. Israel is supplied with cutting edge weaponry, with which it can take down many people at a time. The only response Palestinians can think of as a parallel way of fighting, is the suicide bombing ...because they do not have a superpower arming them.

I was saying that these things do not matter to me because they are well in the past. What I was saying about the crusades was to counter your argument that there had been peace in the region until Jews began moving there in mass. The history of the slaughter of Jews during the crusades and afterwards proves my point that there has never been a long standing peace with Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine.

I'm afraid that does no such thing as 'prove your point'.

The slaughter of Jews was chiefly by Christians in the Crusades; that fact is borne out by so much historical research that if I were you I'd just drop my contention right now.
It was not Muslims who stuffed "nostrils full of nails, and stomachs full of feathers", as the Jewish poem recounts.

Muslims most certainly DID abide in peace beside Jews and other minorities in the Near East - most of the time - for centuries. It is true that they imposed dhimmitude codes which taxed a tribute from non-Muslims, but it was not a draconian tax, and taxing is not specifically an act of war in most circumstances.

I have given you three sources which document what I say here, and if you want to argue with it, then I'll need more than your opinion. Show me a source which contradicts mine.

The death rate of Palestinians compared to Israelis is the poorest determination of aggression I've ever heard. If a Palestinian blows himself up in a cafe and kills 15 people, it is very easy for Israel to launch air strikes at a training camp and kill 30. By your logic that puts Israel as the aggressor just because they killed more. That is simply nonsense. I am still asking for you to provide one example of an Israeli offensive that was not provoked in some way by Palestinians.

LOL
Is it my birthday, that you should ask me such an easy one ??
One example of an Israeli offensive that would not have been provoked in any way by Palestinians ...is the act of European Jews moving into their country and getting the UN - out of sympathy about the Holocaust - to declare that area to be "the State of Israel".

To say that Iran was not corrupt after the revolution is laughable.

Dave, the only thing laughable is your incorrect paraphrase of what I wrote.

I told you that Iran was not corrupt (apostate) in the observance of Islam in the way that the Saudi government was. Any other corruption that may or may not have existed in the Iranian government was not a topic of my post.

The U.S. military is protecting you right now in Iraq by taking down a government that allowed Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders. You can argue all you want about what you think the motives for this war are, but saying that nearly all foreign wars or interventions since 1950 have benefitted corporations of Israel is going a bit too far.

Another misquote. I did not say "corporations of Israel". Go back and reread my post please.
Soooo...
Iraq was allowing Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders, eh?
Prove it.
And if you CAN prove it, then after that show me that there are FEWER Islamic terrorists operating inside the borders now, after four years of this "intervention".

Lets see...
First Gulf War-protected Muslims
Somalia-protected Muslims
Bosnia-protected Muslims
Afghanistan-liberated Muslims
Iraq-liberated Muslims
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

The pattern is that they are not stupid and they know dang well that the "protection of Muslims" is a cover story.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Fact doesn't require an unbiased source. It is either true, or it is not. In this case, what is there is true. Suggesting bias doesn't constitute a valid argument on your part since the information is true.

I've already told you that I'm willing to carry on as though all those incidents from a thousand years ago are true, simply because I don't have time to visit the library and hope there is a book on "Debunking Accusations Against Muslims from Islamophobe Websites".

What do I care ?

It doesn't affect my argument even if Muslims DID do horrific things in the first centuries of their religion

...Christians were still burning people at the stake for much longer than a thousand years after the inception of Christianity also.
Are you even able to imagine what kind of death that is ?
To be on fire but be tied up so you can't run ?
To feel your eyelids burning off you ?

HOLY CRAP!!!! In all that has been written in this thread and on others you got me using always when I should have said nearly all of the time? Well hell, I guess I should just concede the debate huh?

Yes, you should.

And it wasn't an occasion when you should have said "nearly all the time". It was an occasion when you should have said "now and then".

[And incidentally thanks loads for your help on that other discussion - we managed to muddle through surprisingly well so no worries.]

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Respectable scholarship does not dismiss historical fact. The myth of andalusia REQUIRES that one dismiss massacres, nearly constant uprisings, mass crucifictions, lopsided law, etc., etc., etc.

Whoops, you forgot to substantiate that ...all you did was furnish a quote from "Jihad Watch" which SAID it.
On the other hand,
I provided you with video from the history channel which utilized archaeology as well as personal accounts from that time period on the Iberian peninsula.

If one lives for conquest, theft, rape and pillage as mohammed did, one can hardly go about killing all of one's victims can one? And even today, the number of muslims or their armament isn't adequate to kill all who don't worship allah. But you must give them credit, because they are killing us off as quickly as they can.

Yes, well if we can't villify then let's demonize, okay got it.
Just keep spreading fear and loathing, I'm sure that is WJWD, right ?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

I see that my friend palerider is on; since the subsequent thread has seemed to be assessed in a definite way by some, I'm going ahead and whacking this one up for Mr. Rider.

Have a good afternoon everybody !