Hey yo-yo....as much as I hate to back up the col, you should go back and read! The key word you're looking for here is "liberate the Holy Land AND KILL Moslems"! You'll notice the first half of his sentence said the "same damn" thing you did.

What the fuck is your problem, Billy-Bob? When you capitalize a word, as Gene did with KILL, it has the effect of stressing the importance of that word. The point of the Crusades was to recapture the Holy Land for Christendom, not to begin a genocidal campaign against the Saracens. Given the context of our conversation, you'd see why he stressed the phrase KILL Moslems. If you insist on butting your unwelcome ass, DrMiler, at least have the fucking sense to understand the discussion up to this point.

No. Ask those who tried to stop the Taliban from destroying the 1500 year old statues of Buddha that used to be in Afghanistan. Ask the Christians in...was it Morocco? They were butchered and/or dismembered simply because they weren't Muslims. That happens all the time. Rioting, murdering Islamics killing anyone they don't agreewith, or vice-versa. and You have to admit that Islam has an exceptionally bloody history....even moreso than Christianity in some ways, and, with the Crusades....that's bad.

The Mohammedans in general, but more specifically the Arabs, are extremely fanatical when it comes to outsiders intruding upon anything or any place they perceive to be theirs. The lesson for the world is when it comes to Islam, as much as they fight among each other, they still tend reserve their most extreme hatred for infidels. Hence why you'll be lucky to hear a genuine criticism of their co-religionists at the behest of infidels.

Hey yo-yo....as much as I hate to back up the col, you should go back and read! The key word you're looking for here is "liberate the Holy Land AND KILL Moslems"! You'll notice the first half of his sentence said the "same damn" thing you did. What the fuck is your problem, Billy-Bob? When you capitalize a word, as Gene did with KILL, it has the effect of stressing the importance of that word. The point of the Crusades was to recapture the Holy Land for Christendom, not to begin a genocidal campaign against the Saracens. Given the context of our conversation, you'd see why he stressed the phrase KILL Moslems. If you insist on butting your unwelcome ass, DrMiler, at least have the fucking sense to understand the discussion up to this point.

I understand "just" fine jerk! The FIRST part of his sentence said what? "Liberate the holy land....." You made it sound like the "only" thing he said was to "kill moslems". Grow up! And just an FYI. If I were you, I'd watch my language. I "will" turn you in to admin. This thread is not marked as adult content and can be read by children. If you wish to call me names that's fine, I can deal with the ignorance. But do so "without" the foul language.

I understand "just" fine jerk! The FIRST part of his sentence said what? "Liberate the holy land....." You made it sound like the "only" thing he said was to "kill moslems". Grow up! And just an FYI. If I were you, I'd watch my language. I "will" turn you in to admin. This thread is not marked as adult content and can be read by children. If you wish to call me names that's fine, I can deal with the ignorance. But do so "without" the foul language.

Be my guest, Miler. Why you felt the need to butt in and defend Col Gene is beyond me. If you actually understood what was going on, instead of just saying you do, you wouldn't have butted in with a dumb response. "If I were you?" If you were me your responses would consist of more than "that's just your opinion," or "grow up." Maybe I should follow your lead and restrict my "ignorance" in the realm of name-calling to "yo-yo" like you.

Be my guest, Miler

You won't be the first, nor probably the last either. Why I do , what I do is actually no concern of yours and you need not understand it. And "for the record".... I "never" used the phrase "that's just your opinion" to you! Maybe "you're" the one that needs to have the sense to understand the discussion and keep track of the same up to this point.

You won't be the first, nor probably the last either.

Stop talking about it and do it, then.

Why I do , what I do is actually no concern of yours and you need not understand it.

The hell it isn't. If you're going to butt in a conversation I'm having that doesn't concern you and make idiotic comments, you've made it my concern. And I'm going to give you hell for it too, got that?

And "for the record".... I "never" used the phrase "that's just your opinion" to you!

You know why you haven't? Because I don't make it a habit of leaving baseless opinions without facts to back me up, or trying to pass off an opinion as fact.

Maybe "you're" the one that needs to have the sense to understand the discussion and keep track of the same up to this point.

I never claimed you said anything like that to me, just that you have a tendency to throw out comments like "that's just your opinion," or "grow up" when you have nothing of value to add.

But do so "without" the foul language.

---drmiler

I have to agree with him. We can discuss this without the bad language. And the name-calling, too, for that matter.


Good Point, you have to understand that the Col. loves anyone who opposes Bush. This includes the Muslims who want to destroy Anerica, but he often can't seem to grasp that fact.

Why I do , what I do is actually no concern of yours and you need not understand it. The hell it isn't. If you're going to butt in a conversation I'm having that doesn't concern you and make idiotic comments, you've made it my concern. And I'm going to give you hell for it too, got that?

Hey....I'll say this one time. If you do not want someone making comments on something you posted, then "don't" post at all. That is part and parcel to what this place is all about. So if you post something that I consider foolish then I will give "you" static on it. Whether you like it or not. You know, you remind me a lot of the last person that I helped to remove from this board for her use of foul langauge.

What was this article about again?

What was this article about again?

"Attitudes"

This shit has been going on since the early 7th Century, and it's about goddamn time we stop them for good.

The Crusades tried it to no avail.

It is not the radical Muslim terrorists but how our actions will impact the majority of Muslims. You're so right. Somehow we have to start communicating our understanding of the good side, yet not accept their treatment of women, of Islam as Bush himself acknowledges. I'm not against all talk radio but I wouldn't mind if Rush were rushed away from the mike.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't part of the reason that the crusades aimed to liberate the holy lands due to the fact that when the Muslims took control of that area they were denying access to Europeans, or something along those lines?

but wasn't part of the reason that the crusades aimed to liberate the holy lands due to the fact that when the Muslims took control of that area they were denying access to Europeans, or something along those lines?

--DemLocke

Yes, I believe so. I think European Christians were disallowed from visiting Jerusalem, or something like that.

And let's not forget the Muslim invasion of Southern Europe after the fall of Rome. They moved out from the Arabian Penninsula, swept across North Africa and eventually invaded Europe through Italy and Spain. They were only stopped at the Battle of Poitier in France. This was well before the Crusades. It was also, apparently, when France still knew how to do something besides surrender. Of course, it wasn't "France" yet then, either. It was, I believe, part of the Carolingian Empire, under Charles "the Warhammer" Martel, at the time.
The Muslim conquerors of Olde, however, though often cruel and barbaric in war, were a little more lenient toward the people they conquered than perhaps they would be today.
They required no conversion to Islam, for example, and imposed taxes that were often lower than those imposed under Rome.
Perhaps this difference results because Osama and his lot are of a purer breed?

My point is that I have often heard some people say that The Crusades bred, in the Middle Eastern people, such a strong and longstanding hatred for the Christian West that anything they do now is somehow justified by it. What of the Muslim invasions of Europe that pre-dated them? No one seems to mention them.

There are moderates and zealots of any faith or belief system, political, social or religious. It's simply the nature of things. My question is simply.....where are they? Where are these masses of moderate Muslims that live in Michigan, for example? The ones who draped American flags over their shoulders at services on and after 9-11. Where are they?

You have a point. It is very hard to find them in the west, and frankly I have no idea how many if any exist in the Middle-East - I've never been there and only know a handful of Middle-Eastern Muslims, all fairly westernised, so can't judge on that. And the news has a nasty habit of reshaping reality to suit the viewing public. But I have trouble equating the old woman who cleans my house with Azahari, or the family I spent Idul Fitri with for that matter.

In Indonesia you hear moderate opinions all the time, in the mainstream press, on tv, on the street - hardline views are very difficult to actually find. And I know - I've kept an eye for them the whole time I've been here. You really have to go into the smallest, most isolated villages with the most uninformed, least educated peoples to find them. So sure there are muslims who hate, but here at least it doesn't seem to be so bad.

But, I stand by my firm, if un-PC, belief that they worship a false god. Do they think differently of me and those of my faith or another? No.

Hey I'm not about to disagree with that . After 18 years of Catholic education I still instinctively consider anyone not Catholic to be a stupid heretic. You're not alone, everyone's like that, including all those self-indulgent atheists. Muslims are people too - they're not going to be any different, it's just it seems that some have trouble finding reasons not to act on such prejudices. Sort of reminds me of all those good Christians who slaughtered the aborigines in Australia. Intolerance always seems to leave a stain on the carpet. It's just a shame it always seems to be blood.

You've got to love the story out of moderate Indonesia where moderate moslems beheaded a couple Christian schoolgirls as they walkd down the road.

I think we have drastically different ideas of a moderate person. Spelling and punctuation too, but on the moderate idea I'd probably describe those guys as nutjobs rather than ordinary folk. Certainly the streets don't run with blood here, which you'd expect if all Muslims were just bursting for the opportunity to behead Christians. But I imagine your experience is more extensive than mine, presumably including a longer stint in the city in which I live, so I bow before your limitless wisdom.

Once again Col Gene has spoken out against the brutal and illegal occupation of Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do whatsoever with Al Qaeda, but by launching an illegal and brutal assault against Iraq, a new recruiting region has been created. In fact George Bush II is just the person AL qaeda would love to haVE AROUND FOR YEARS, BECAUSE IT WILL result in added membership for the organizatio.