Hell it won't...

What Muslims need to learn is to relax. Last night I watched some stuff on the Christian Puritant colonies in the States... My gosh, they were was messed up as "radical" Muslims.

Of course the show might have over-exagerated some stuff, but still.

Iraqi shiites don't know what FREEDOM means.
by their own hand, they systematicly deny anyone freedom, time and time again.
If they don't want a cold beer after a long day of camel herding, then they don't have to have one.
But just because they don't want one, doesn't give them the right to say I can't have one.
This is called freedom of choice.
Shiites think everyone should go "pray' to mohammed 5 times a day, in Iran, if you don't you can be killed. Is this freedom or democracy? No. Its a dictatorship.
There will not be another dictatorship in Iraq.

Bubba -

A-men. 'Eh?'

LOL...

Drink some more of that warm beer, will 'ya? And, CHILL.

It's Memorial Day weekend down here, and I aim to consume to my heart's content. Not excess, just content. Nice to be able to walk to the fridge, or...hop in my (American made, probably in CAN)SUV, and drive 3 blocks to the Safeway store and buy some when I run out. Of course, I'll have to stop by the Sinclair and put some of that good ol' imported petroleum bi-product in it, but HEY! WHAT A COUNTRY!

You can buy beer at safeway huh? Not here, you have to go to the beer vendor.
And beer is always cold here, LOL
Its fortunate that there is a bar nearby that I can buy beer at, otherwize I'd have to drive all the way back to town.
Ironic that the only store way out here in the middle of no-where is a bar, run by an East indian fella named " jug-dish"

Oh, and you AMericans call that stuff beer? LOL

Last night I watched some stuff on the Christian Puritant [sic] colonies in the States... My gosh, they were was messed up as "radical" Muslims.

Oh, really? And how many suicide bombings were carried out by those Puritans?

Bubba!
Part of the problem of goin' North to participate in the drinkin' game is that you're seein' double before you get started! ;-)

Andrew! You never did hear about dem Puritans lobbin' TURNIPS?

Stinkin' turnips, anyway...

Only if your on the American team, Dave.
It gets worse, You Americans start seeing double, then you fall off your chair and pass out.
The Canadian drinking team is just getting warmed up at that stage......
we need a bit more alcohol in our beverages, it's cold up here.....

Check out Jaqcues Barzun (I know, he's French, but he's 98 and he lives in Texas and I won't hear a bad word about him). In From Dawn to Decadence he shows that the Puritans' reputation is rather exaggerated.

And those who went to Massachusetts weren't quite like the ones who stayed in England, either... Oliver Cromwell was an examplar of tolerance, except where Catholics were concerned (and I concede that it is a VERY significant exception).

Speaking of Massachusetts, I once knew a man from Nantucket.

You never did hear about dem Puritans lobbin' TURNIPS?

They tossed tomatos instead... It was late, I can't remember for sure.

Andrew, point taken, no Puritants flew planes into buildings, they did do some other stuff. My point was that they were just as willing to imposse their beliefs on the community. I think some of the Puritants in their righteous zeal missed out on the "Jesus is Love" message and focused far to much on "Jesus hates sin". There is a balance, they were just a little to radical for me.

Gabe,

Is the next line; Whose wife had a cooch like a bucket?

Hasn't anybody in the Muslim world ever heard the expresion, "Live and let live"?

not when you have 67 virgins and 12 boys waiting for you.

That's it ! They been watchin' that there James Bond thingy - "Live and Let DIE" !

> Oh, really? And how many suicide bombings
> were carried out by those Puritans?

The puritans became dominant quickly in the British Isles, and the key leaders in that period (Cromwell, Willliam III) preached consensus and tolerance. Little need for desperate measures.

The Catholic church certainly has a reputation for suicide. Historian Félix Bourquelot stated in 1842 that in the twelfth century "a mania for suicide penetrated all classes of society." In Seville in the thirteenth century Franciscans taunted Muslims by shouting insults about Mohammed to become martyrs. The self-sacrifice of the burghers of Calais in 1347 was a mass suicide. The rules of the chivalric Order of the Estoile founded by King John II (Jean le Bon), the Knights templar, and other chivalric orders, forbade flight from battle. History books are filled with examples of suicidal charges by knights.

Direct, egotistic suicide was considered a cowardly act of avoidance and was severely punished by torturing the corpse. Indirect, altruistic suicide was considered an act of courage in conformity with chivalric honor, an example of unyielding faith unto martyrdom.

I also know enough examples of suicidal actions by calvinists during the 80 years war (here) in the Netherlands, and some textbook examples of more recent harakiri-like suicides in the Dutch navy (Captain Van Speijk who blew up his ship after it was boarded by the enemy in 1831, and a number of actions of Dutch navy vessels against the Japanese in WWII).

The morality is similar, the main difference is technology (knight had no bombs) and society factors (the U.S. being almost invulnerable except to suicide bombers). Christians in the same position would resort to the same tactics (in fact, Christian terrorsits - the protestant Laskar Kristus on the Moluccas for instance - do use random suicide attacks against muslims occasionally).

And, mankind used to club animals with sticks, and live in caves.

yelling at muslims about the truth of mohammed is hardly what I would call suicide, it probably prompted muslims to do stupid things, like get close to the fort so they could get a dousing of boiling hot oil.
lets stick to modern day man, and the backwards moving muslim, who use hommicide bombers to kill innocent people.
American troops are hardly vulnerable to these nut jobs. Wishfull thinking on your part.

Most disappointed will be the Kuwaitis who used to flock to Basra for their booze (and the girls).

And, there is no such thing as a christian terrorist, this is more BS out of the muslim clerics ass for muslim minions to follow

I like the Patton quote, "the arabs are living exactly as they were 700 years ago".

Any wonder?

> yelling at muslims about the truth of mohammed
> is hardly what I would call suicide, it probably
> prompted muslims to do stupid things, like get
> close to the fort so they could get a dousing of
> boiling hot oil.

It is if you are living in muslim-controlled Spain, and you are free to practice your Christian faith as long as you don't insult Islam. Muslim administrators left us historical accounts of this astonishing 'suicidal' behaviour of Christians who refused to reconsider their opinions on Islam in court.

My point about Catholics in the middle ages - when they were inferior to Islam in military terms - is that they made the same distinction between 'normal' suicide that leads to hell, and 'martyr' suicide that leads to heaven. And dying in a crusade erased all sins and crimes.

> American troops are hardly vulnerable to these
> nut jobs. Wishfull thinking on your part.

Because it is almost impossible to score a respectable military victory against the U.S. army, the payoff of killing anyone who is a credible proxy increases (paradise, status and money for your family). Killing an American civilian is relatively speaking easier than killing a soldier, and in historical perspective that is an exceptional state of affairs.

> lets stick to modern day man, and the backwards
> moving muslim, who use hommicide bombers to
> kill innocent people.

Suicide bombing is a modern doctrine developed (by the Tamil Tigers - Hindus) in response to a modern balance of power. The 'suicide bombings' of Japanese Kamikaze - Buddhists - and some Russian anarchists are wellknown precursors. 'Suicide bombing' was also used by jewish terrorists in the British protectorate of Palestine.

This captain Van Speijk I referred to in the previous post has dozens of streets named after him in the Netherlands, only because he blew himself up at the right moment after loosing his ship. That's the same 'suicide' morality to me.

You are talking about terrorism in general ('homicide bombers' and 'innocent civilians'), I am talking about this strange honorable suicide morality, which is certainly not specific to Islam.

Please, Dajak, point me to anything with these "historical muslim facts "
The historical muslim facts are they were and still are a band of murdering theives.

FACT!! Christrian faith denouces suicide

FACT!! Christians do not kill in the name of christ.

Now, I can point you, Dajak, to many, many hindu sites that have the records of the murders than Islam has done.
I can point also to YOU and ask you to tell me, what the hell were muslims doing in spain at that time? could it have been a muslim invasion?
I think so.
If you look at history, dajak, muslims didn't exist before mohammed, so how did the mid east suddenly become "muslim"??????????
The FACT is JAK, that ISLAM has killed and MURDERED for every inch of land they now sit on, so who, are the occupiers?

NOw, give me a fucking break here dajak,
if you muslims feel that strongly that you want to rule the world, have some fucking
HONER
HONER!!!! get on the battle field, and settle it like men, nevermind sending your kids with bombs tied on them, to blow up other women and children, be a MAN, and come meat ME on the battle field, and have a little RESPECT for yourself, otherwise, shut the fuck up and die. Fucking cowards

Those must be in the secret muslim files only Clerics can read, because there is no info at all on your BS, dajak-off

Allah says the earth is flat.
So, the little muslim boy, who still has a small amount of freedom of thought left asks his Cleric; "Why does the koran say the earth is flat? Americans fly around the world, they say it's round"
The cleric says "see here, little mohammed, the koran says these things and not to be known, and allah tricks the infidel, the earth is flat, he's just making them blind so they cannot see the heavens with all the virgins and young boys for martyrs to bugger"

Then the Cleric says, "do not question what the Koran says, these are sacred words of allah, if you question these things again, you will be stoned to death for blastphamy of the koran.
now go pray 10 times today, and 20 on friday"

One more thing:

the cleric says: "By the way, little mohammed, when you go home and see your father, tell him that because you questioned Allah and mohammed the prophet, I do not trust that he is raising your sister according to the koran, so tell him that I will take her at 6 years of age to be my wife so she can be raised properly"

There ya go DAJAK, don't ever try justifying the cult of islam to me, because I do know the cult quite well

aaaaah DAJAK? You still hangin'? Fascinating little article I just read this afternoon about a Muslim by the name of Zawahiri. Egyptian Doctor, and the INVENTOR of the modern Islamic idiot. He was a recruiter. Of course, he's such a chicken-shit, he wouldn't consider doin' what he's askin' others to do, which is blow themselves up. Now, I'll tune my rhetoric down just a skosh from Bubba, but I'm not about to turn it off.

From the Christian perspective, suicide is tantamount to damnation, for if you are killing yourself, you have despaired. You've been either listenin' to someone whose History grade was an 'F', OR, you've never cracked a book yourself. Which is it? BOTH?

The Muslims invaded Europe. They committed unspeakable atrocities under the onus of religious conviction.

The cult of suicide which I refuse to recognize as a religion, is a lie my friend. Plain and simple. This suicide thing started less than twenty years ago. Were you born yet? You been listenin' to some hip-hop cleric? Read a couple of European History books, and then revisit for a second stab at a good argument. Until then, your argument is unrealistic and unhistorical.

> there is no info at all on your BS, dajak-off

The phrase "A Chronicle Of Ordinary Suicide In The Middle Ages" gives a relevant listing in Google. Verbruggen is a good source on knight's psychology (and one of his books is translated in English). The phrase "Van Speijk" in Google gives the website of the Dutch battleship Hr.Ms. Van Speijk, and numerous Dutch sites about this questionable hero.

> I can point also to YOU and ask you to tell me,
> what the hell were muslims doing in spain at that
> time? could it have been a muslim invasion?

Of course. A question in return: What were the Christian Visigoths and Romans doing in Spain before that?

> If you look at history, dajak, muslims didn't exist
> before mohammed, so how did the mid east
> suddenly become "muslim"??????????

Largely by conquest, and because military succes is a very convincing theological argument for one's religion. When Islam met Christianity in the Balkans and Spain things really got ugly, because both fought with a similar mindset. Exactly how did Europe north of the Rhine, South America, Southern Africa, etc. become Christian? Same mixture of reasons. Why did Europe north of the Rhine mostly turn Protestant when the balance of power between north and south was changing?

> This suicide thing started less than twenty years
> ago.

For suicide *bombers* (or strategic use of "homicide by suicide") that is largely correct, excluding the early examples I mentioned.

> Were you born yet?

Yes.

> Read a couple of European History books

Being a European employed as senior researcher (Law) at a university, and able to read Dutch, English, French, and German you can be sure that I read lots of European history books. You obviously don't.

> FACT!! Christians do not kill in the name of christ.

Christians killed upto half the population of Northwestern Europe in the name of God in the 17th century, slaughtered Muslims in the Holy Land in the name of God, in Spain in the name of Santiago (St. Jacob), and numerous heathens in the colonies. Muslims have a similar record, less successfull in scale but more recent.

Nowadays over one third of Christians live in the affluent West and generally just want to be left alone by the outside world, so 'holy war' theology is not really attractive anymore (and the Bible has apparently proven flexible enough to accomodate both views). If your opinion is that the Bible does not condone killing, I agree. If a Muslim is of the opinion that the Qur'an does not condone killing, I will not contradict him. Why would I?

People like OBL are simply sociopaths serving a 'great cause'. If this great cause wouldn't be at hand, he would do something more mundane; Randomly raping, killing etc. Many Serbian and Bosnian war criminals in the Hague turn out to have typical sociopath histories, including rape and murder before the war. Read the obituaries for Arkan on Internet: crimes in Yugoslavija, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Sweden before the war.

Want to know what my call name 'Dajak' refers to? In Indonesia there are occasionally headhunting massacres by tribes like the Dajak directed against the muslim majority on the coasts. Unverifiable stories (debated whether it was ordered) relate that the Royal Netherlands Indies Army tried this tactic from Dajak headhunters to crush a 'Holy War' by muslims in Aceh (1873-1902; Dutch: Atjeh).

Why try this? Because they assumed many of those muslims shared an ancient superstition with the headhunters: If your head is taken, then your soul is captive and cannot go to paradise. It's one creative psychological tool to crush a Jihad, and a war that we are not proud of because it was pure terrorism that made us win it. As we found out during WWII btw, loyalty gained by terrorism disappears when you are weak and need the loyalty most.

Recent news (also on U.S. news sites) showed Indonesia invading Aceh to 'pacify' it. Again.

DAJAK ! You can read! Wonderful news.

I said: From the Christian perspective, suicide is tantamount to damnation, for if you are killing yourself, you have despaired.

The Crusades, as much as you'd like to think otherwise, were to address Muslim desecrations of sites considered to be holy by Christians.

There were NO (ZERO) suicides committed for Christ's sake, and you can read that however you want to.

I said: The Muslims invaded Europe. They committed unspeakable atrocities under the onus of religious conviction.

Prove me wrong with YOUR freakin' history book.

You said: Indirect, altruistic suicide was considered an act of courage in conformity with chivalric honor, an example of unyielding faith unto martyrdom.

I note your use of the word INDIRECT, and you place this on the field of battle.

That act my friend, is NOT considered suicide. They trusted in their GOD to carry the Day, in a righteous cause.

Do not glamorize the act of suicide by attributing to it what it does not deserve. Knights were acting on the field of battle as they were convicted to act. They did not blindly and indiscriminately slaughter innocent people (I won't even bring up women and kids) with the false goal of Eternal Happiness in mind.

You sir, are being duped.

The only martyr who left any written record was Eulogius.

The simple fact is Christians were Murdered for blastphemy, they didn't commit suicide, they were priests and monks. you can find truth here:

http://libro.uca.edu/martyrs/cm2.htm

Isaac was the first and probably most politically prominent of the martyrs.(spain) Approaching the emir's palace where he had once been employed, he asked the qâdî (judge) for some instruction in the fine points of Islam. No sooner had the official begun to elaborate on the life of Muhammad when the monk burst out with a vituperative attack against Islam, claiming that its "prophet" was languishing in hell for having misled the Arabs.

At the suggestion that he must either be drunk or mad to disparage Islam in the presence of a qâdî, Isaac assured him that the "zeal of righteousness" compelled him to speak out against Islam and that he was prepared to die for his indiscretion.

After arresting Isaac and reporting the case to cAbd ar-Rahmân II, the qâdî sentenced the monk. On June 3, 851 he was decapitated and suspended upside down for public viewing on the opposite bank of the river. His body was then cremated and its ashes cast into the Guadalquivir.

Isaac's case was apparently unusual. But it is important to realize that neither the crime nor the punishment themselves were new. Less than fifteen months before, the authorities had also condemned the priest Perfectus for blasphemy.

So, it's plain to see that it was murder, not suicide in that time.

Christians do not kill for god, it's just that simple.
It is technicly wrong to call those "christian crusades" They were crusades, sponsered by the government, who was the CHURCH, But we all know that in those times, the churches didn't exactly follow the NEw Testament to well, did they.
The actual crusaders were landowners, peasants, they weren't priests popes and monks.
I don't think they carried around their pocket sized bible with them. They were fighting for country, and for the most part, the crusades were a reaction to muslim invasion., and to retake the holy lands. They didn't massecure women and children, nor make forced conversion of faith, with death as the other option. The looted and plundered, yes, thats how armies moved in those days.
They were warriors, and just because their faith was christian, does NOT mean they killed in the name of God, for God. Thats just a broad assumption, a missguided one at that.

Now, I will agree that the CHURCHES in those times did some terrible things, But I don't think they were following scripture too closely at the time.

what was christianity doing in rome before that? simple, it was adopted by the ruler of rome at the time as the official church of rome and it's subjects,(the roman empire) somewhere around 93 ad, I'm not good with names and I don't have my history book handy, a female ruler I believe.
Christianity was established throughout Europe a good 600 years before mohammed came along.

As far as the scale of murder comparing Crusaders to Muslims, muslims by far have killed many, many tens of millions more.

Islam isn't a religion of "peace"
There are over 4,000 religious schools ("madrassas") in Pakistan alone which turn out thousands of militant radicals every year, each of whom believes in jihad (holy war) and an Islamic-dictated world system, and is willing to die for that vision. Teachers at Markaz-Uloom-e-Islamia, a combination of school and mosque, say they teach their students the Quran and the obligation to fight for Islam at home and abroad.
There are Muslim spokespeople who say Islam is a religion of peace and that what the Taleban are doing is un-Islamic. The fact is, however, that the Taleban are the true representatives of Islam. They do exactly what the Quran and Shriat (The Law) say.
Nearly every conflict in the world today has Islam at its root. From its very inception, Islam has employed violence as a primary means of spreading its influence. Read the Quran and the Hadiths, as soon as Mohammed got some military backing, he received a "revelation" from Allah that it was OK to go on his killing sprees',
Mohammed organized raids on passing caravans which, he says, are justified by God. He encourages his followers to assassinate political opponents. It is clear that true Islam isn't about "peace;" it's really a matter of zealously, unquestioningly doing whatever Mohammed tells you to do, and not shrinking from violence. Terror, intimidation, humiliation, revolution, social oppression, hostage-taking, military conquest, assassinations, and never-ending streams of misleading, manipulative propaganda; all are common and accepted means to the end of subjugating to world to Islam. Islam has never been about peace; it has always been about control, and it will continue to be.

Bubba !

Do you think this guy is convinced? NOT.

Na, he believes these people:
In 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished.
As far as idonisia goes, he's dead wrong(lying) about what goes on there, It's the muslims trying to purge the Christians and hindus . Here's some testimony:

AMBON, Indonesia (BP)-- "My scar healed quite fast, but the sad, humiliated feeling stayed. I feel like I'm no longer complete, both as a person and a woman."
That is the testimony of Christina Sagat, a 32-year-old Christian from Kasiui,
Indonesia, who endured genital mutilation by her Muslim neighbors and forced conversion to Islam. Unfortunately, as traumatic as her story sounds, hundreds of women have endured similar oppression.
"My niece, Cecilia, who at that time was eight months pregnant, was also circumcised," Sagat said. "My mother, who was in her 70s, was also circumcised. Teenagers, and even infants, were circumcised. I don't understand these people."
As Muslim jihad warriors press their efforts to kill or convert all Christians in Indonesia, many Christians are forced to choose between their faith and their lives.
Sagat, who is Catholic, was born and raised on Kasiui island with her seven brothers and sisters. Until recently, Catholics, Protestants and Muslims lived peacefully on the island, even helping each other build places of worship.
Then the fighting began.
"At first we did not believe when we heard about the bloody conflict in Ambon," she said. "We said it was impossible that our own friends and neighbors would attack us."
Jihad leaders from other islands began visiting Muslim villages on Kasiui last October. Christians did not realize until later that the leaders were pressuring local Muslims to attack their Christian neighbors. One of the first victims was Sagat's uncle.
While returning from a neighboring Muslim village, he was surrounded and attacked by a mob. Bleeding from numerous machete and spear wounds, he somehow managed to return home.
"Still he told us not to take revenge," she said.
But when Muslims murdered another Christian man, Sagat's Christian neighbors fled into the mountains. Sagat's family stayed in the village until late November, when advancing mobs forced all Christians to seek refuge in the mountains. More than 260 people hiked an exhausting three days to escape the Muslim forces.
On the fourth day, they were discovered.
Muslims urged the Christians to convert to Islam and promised them protection from the jihad fighters.
"It's very hard for us," Sagat said, "but we finally decided to follow the Muslims to their village and do whatever they told us to do in order to save our lives."
When the Christians filed into the Muslim village, they discovered their neighbors had lied. A crowd of people, including jihad warriors, lined the path leading to the mosque.
"I felt like we're just a group of hopeless sheep being led to a slaughter house," she said.
Once inside the mosque, Christians were forced to repeat the "Al Fatiha" prayer, which is recited when a person accepts Islam. They were then stripped of their clothes, given a ritual washing and re-clothed in traditional Muslim garb. Muslims searched the Christians' belongings and burned all copies of the Bible and rosary necklaces.
The women were sent to stay with local Muslim families while the men stayed in the mosque. It was then that the Christians were circumcised.
"All of us, men and women, young and old, even infants and pregnant women, were circumcised under threat," she said.
Ironically, none of the Muslim women living in the village had ever been circumcised.
Using only a kitchen knife and warm water, a female religious leader performed the procedure on the Christian women without anesthesia and left them to heal without antibiotics.
Widely called "female circumcision," the procedure actually is a genital mutilation, often performed with crude instruments. Though illegal in many places, it still is widely practiced. Human rights groups decry the practice, which is falsely believed to suppress a woman's sex drive and ensure chastity.
During the next two weeks, the government repeatedly tried to evacuate the Christians from the mosque. Each time, the government forces encountered Muslim resistance. Finally on the third attempt, Sagat was able to sneak aboard a government ship.
"The ship took off with only 41 people, including me," she said. "I saw my parents cry because they could not board the ship."
Sagat found refuge in Ambon. But she is far from secure.
"I don't know what to do with my future," she said. "I guess the first thing to do is to find a way to get my parents off the island. But I don't know how."
Southern Baptists need to pray for both the victims and the perpetrators of the violence in Ambon, said Charles Cole, a Southern Baptist representative who serves in Indonesia.
"Our hearts go out to Christians in Indonesia who are suffering injustice," he said. "We pray that God will comfort them and draw them closer to himself.
"But God also loves the people who are committing these acts. We need to pray that he would make his love known to them and help them understand the injustice of these horrible acts."

> Prove me wrong with YOUR freakin' history book.

I don't have to if I don't dispute the statement. Islam was mostly spread by violence, directly or indirectly, Christianity inside the Roman Empire mostly by word and example, outside also by violence. In Christianity and Islam both there is a strong taboo on suicide. And in both people have provided for a loophole for 'martyrs' at some point in time to attract those willing to die. Christian martyrs without fear of death were a very strong selling point for the power of the religion.

> So, it's plain to see that it was murder, not
> suicide in that time.

Thanks for the reference on that story. What makes something an 'indirect' suicide is the explicit choice to do something that will end in death, also the explicit choice to let oneself be murdered (voluntary euthanasia is also suicide) - which doesn't change the status of the murder btw.

> I don't think they carried around their pocket
> sized bible with them.

They even carried relics, and the relics were instrumental to winning battles according to some clerical sources (a rather funny report of Albert of Aix on the battle of Ramla, 1001, tells about such an incident).

Knights who stayed in the holy land organized themselves into religious orders (Knights Templar, of St. John, of Malta), and were considered a kind of monks. Today's terrorists would certainly like to claim that status.

The suicidal behaviour is morally equivalent to me, the target is not. Suicidal idiots who attack American tanks are however morally equivalent to knights like Raoul de Nesle (inasfar as they make a free choice, of course).

Suicidal idiots are familiar. People who massacre women and children too. The combination of both is fairly recent and especially repugnant because of the claim to being a hero 'martyr'. In the mind of supporters of these terrorists, apparently even killing American civilians is now comparable to slaying dragons.

> Now, I will agree that the CHURCHES in those
> times did some terrible things, But I don't think
> they were following scripture too closely at the
> time.

They certainly made different choices in interpretation than most churches would make today. I don't see why you insist there is a difference between churches as organisations and Christianity, if you don't allow a similar distinction between Islam and the power politics of Caliphs and Sultans, or the politics of terrorists.

Mohammed clearly preached with a sword in his hand, and Christ not, but I don't think it is fair to extrapolate that to the followers of the religions based on them.

Islam was founded by its first conqueror, Christianity first went through a period of 'organic growth' before conquerors assimilated it. When Roman Emperor Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky inscribed with the words, “In this sign thou shalt conquer” and defeated and killed his enemy, the false emperor Maxentius, after that, a large part of his army already consisted of Christians. I don't believe that miracle ever happened.

> They didn't massecure women and children, nor
> make forced conversion of faith, with death as
> the other option.

Yes, the crusaders did. And Charlemagne did force conversion in northern europe, and the Catholic church murdered masses of people in the Albigensian Crusade, and the Inquisition hanged thousands of protestants in my country.

Protestants also did lots of nasty things and justified them with religion (predestination & slavery, for instance), but most Christians are more or less inoculated against the 'holy war' meme since the religious wars (focus on scripture instead of Church authority, more tolerant to dissent etc.).

> Na, he believes these people:

If I want news from Ambon I will watch Dutch TV
or just ask a Moluccan - I used to know some. For people actually interested, here is a link that explains the exact relation between the Christian Moluccans and the Dutch, and the history of Christian Moluccan terrorism in the Netherlands:

http://www.nunusaku.com/Research/R3j.htm

On Ambon, you have competing organisations, Laskar Jihad and Laskar Christus, that fight each other. Laskar Jihad is the nastier organisation (in my biased Dutch view anyway) since it is reinforced by extremists from the outside, while the Laskar Christus is mostly defensive (but illegally supplied with weapons from the Netherlands). Both have murdered civilians.

"What makes something an 'indirect' suicide is the explicit choice to do something that will end in death"

No, your wrong, if someone says to you, " rape that woman, or I'll kill you" what will you do? rape that woman, or stand by your moral convictions?

it's not suicide, it's murder.

Mohammed didn't preach, he dictated, and murdered. Allah always had a way out for him. If you have ever studied the Koran, you will see that it's simply amazing how allah always came to justify mohammeds actions. But then, mohammed was "allah", It was fairly easy for mohammed to convince a bunch of brainless pagan arabs as long as the rewards were good. The califs that followed used death as the same way, do this or die, burn in hell, whatever.
Muhammad said Muhammad speaks for God, and since Muhammad is a prophet of God, then everything he says must be true... And if you dare to speak a word against him, be prepared to be cut into pieces by his zealot henchmen.

From what I read of his words and his deeds, I can see he was an egotistical, misogynistic, power-mad tyrant. He evidently stole a great deal language from the Bible (he was illiterate, but likely people had read parts of the Bible to him--there were Arabic translations of both Old and New Testaments by that time) and simply codified many of the existing Arab tribal laws and oral histories of his particular time and region (i.e.; folklore of Abraham and Ishmael, pilgramages to Mecca, etc.) and made up the rest as needed, to form his own religion centered around himself. He certainly contributed nothing new to theology; he simply twisted it to his own ends like petty cult leaders throughout history have always done and continue to do to this day.

He obviously was incapable of understanding the concept of spirit and soul, because every description he gave of the rewards of the afterlife is about bodily functions, such as having sex with virgins. He stripped the God of Judaism and Christianity of all His redeeming qualities and fashioned his own severe, bastardized form of monotheism, claiming to supercede all forms of religion that preceded it.

It took him over 20 years, but eventually Muhammad built his own cult following of 70 or so men, claiming to be the "Last and Greatest of God's Prophets," and finally gained the political and military clout he coveted when he relocated to Medina at an opportune time. It is Muhammad's victory in the ensuing battles, facilitated by the lust for loot, which made him what he became thereafter. Muhammad cobbled together the religion of Islam on an ad-hoc basis, designing it as a chariot to propel himself into the role of absolute ruler, using it as an instrument of total dogmatic control, recruiting a cruel army bent on world domination, exploiting worst of human nature to achieve his own selfish ends. Whenever Muhammad needed to justify any of his actions or desires, Allah was conveniently there to pronounce His unchallengable decree. The word "Islam" translates into English as "submission," and it is Islam's aim to literally subdue the earth under the insane tyranny of Muhammad.

There aren't even any serious or interesting claims of divine grace or miraculous power in the life of Muhammad, much less evidence for them anywhere in the Quran or the Hadiths--no healings, no raising people from the dead, no fulfilled predictions, no grace, no humility, no love, etc. None of the common signs (or "fruits of the Spirit") that have always marked everyone who has truly had contact with God. On the contrary; we simply read tales of the bloodthirsty Muhammad claiming to speak on God's authority or to have been given words by an angel ("And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light." -2 Corinthians 11:14), building his own self-centered empire around the power of fear, loyalty, zeal, and greed he inspired in his followers, somehow always managing to place himself squarely between everyone else and God, forcing everyone to come to him for every little question on how to live their lives. Creating religious laws to gain military strength and material wealth, making women simple property--merely "private parts" for the purpose of satisfying their husbands. Muhammad has his followers conquer and plunder caravans and cities, killing and torturing whom they desire, selling the vanquished as slaves and taking as wives what women they desire, making every form of selfish, violent barbarism conveniently lawful, even sanctioned by Allah, when in the context of war or in dealings with non-believers.

He claimed to be the last and greatest of God's prophets (that way, no one else can come later and try the same thing he did or contradict him!), but Muhammad not only contradicted God's previous prophets but relegated Jesus the Messiah to irrelevence compared to HIMSELF. What a frightening combination of arrogance and ignorance. Of course, like every quasi-biblical cult leader, Muhammad also denied every foundational Christian doctrine, including the Deity of Christ and His vicarious death and bodily resurrection; instead taking the typical tactic of setting himself up as the only reliable interpreter of God's word and making himself the absolute law-giver. How that can be seen as anything better than a setback to religious stone age is beyond me. Muhammad was no mere "prophet;" he was a clever warlord who made himself a virtual god above his faithful, obedient minions, ruling with a bloody sword rather than the proverbial iron fist.

> No, your wrong, if someone says to you, " rape
> that woman, or I'll kill you" what will you do? rape
> that woman, or stand by your moral convictions?

To make a choice you need two free options. If someone says to you "jump or I wil kill you", you will probably jump, but you had only one free option. You are offering none - you are offering an inescapable bind, a compliance conflict. If I were the judge I could not assign any intent to your behaviour whichever choice you make.

I don't even disagree on your description of Mohammed. I read the book about him from Karen Armstrong that rests on the following excuses:

1. Mohammed created a kind of social justice, for those belonging to the Umma anyway.
2. Those Arabs were very backward and violent. Mohammed's teachings really improved their morailty, and you have to judge Mohammed's choices in that context.

I don't accept 1; the important thing is how you treat the outsider. And that applies first to me and the way I think about those different from me (improve the world, start with yourself).

2 has some merit in relation to specific criticisms: It makes sense to point out that by taking a little orphan girl as wife you show solidarity in a society that could not conceive of better mechanisms. Immediate question is then why was Mohammed not capable of more visionary solutions then, if he could consult God himself. I remember Mohammed also made some errors in the Qur'an in references to Old Testament figures. 2 is not convincing for judging the merits of a religion today anyway.

What I think of Mohammed is not really relevant to the position of muslims. I know some very nice, well-educated, humane muslims. I also know there are a lot of frustrated ones, AND I can understand the frustration towards the Christian world from a historical and sociological point of view.

DAJAK - It fits the definition of a cult to a T. It continues to this day to exhibit same. End of story.

Dajak, get real.

Muslims kill, raid loot, non-muslims defend and kill right back.
I don't know where you get your shit from, must be a muslim site, full of lies .
go here, www.faithfreedom.org and let a ex-iranian muslim, and other ex-muslims tell you the real truth about Isalm, and muslims

OBTW

If you are referring to the cult-cretin, the name is: MUHAMMAD.

All other idiots pale in comparison.

I've probably slipped a few times and spelled it in some other fashion.

Mohammed didn't take some poor orphan girl as a wife, he took a baby from a family as a wife, a 6 year old girl to be percise. He was a pedophile.

He didn't give any order to people who were "bad" anyway.
He raided and killed established jewish and christian societies.took slaves, and FORCED people into his sick cult.

Little orphan girl, LMAO that little girl had a mother and father, a 50 year old man raped and buggered her when she should have been playing with dolls

As far as muslims having a problem with "christians" in the past,
They are damn lucky that the "christians" started fighting amoung themselves, or else they would have been organized enough to have finnished the job, and we wouldn't have to deal with this nutty cult today.

We "christians" will take back the holy lands, they are rightfully ours in the first place.

>>"They even carried relics, and the relics were instrumental to winning battles according to some clerical sources (a rather funny report of Albert of Aix on the battle of Ramla, 1001, tells about such an incident). "

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church.

>>Knights who stayed in the holy land organized themselves into religious orders (Knights Templar, of St. John, of Malta), and were considered a kind of monks. Today's terrorists would certainly like to claim that status.

What utter BS.
The knight or chevalier was the professional soldier of the time; in medieval Latin, the ordinary word miles (soldier) was equivalent to "knight." This pre-eminence of cavalry was correlative with the decline of infantry on the battlefield. Four peculiarities distinguished the professional warrior:
his weapons; his horse; his attendants, and his flag.
The career of a knight was costly, requiring personal means in keeping with the station; for a knight had to defray his own expenses in an age when the sovereign had neither treasury nor war budget at his disposal. When land was the only kind of riches, each lord paramount who wished to raise an army divided his domain into military fiefs, the tenant being held to military service at his own personal expense for a fixed number of days (forty in France and in England during the Norman period). These fees, like other feudal grants, became hereditary, and thus developed a noble class, for whom the knightly profession was the only career. Knighthood, however, was not hereditary, though only the sons of a knight were eligible to its ranks. In boyhood they were sent to the court of some noble, where they were trained in the use of horses and weapons, and were taught lessons of courtesy. From the thirteenth century, the candidates, after they had attained the rank of squire, were allowed to take part in battles; but it was only when they had come of age, commonly twenty-one years, that they were admitted to the rank of knight by means of a peculiar ceremonial called "dubbing." Every knight was qualified to confer knighthood, provided the aspirant fulfilled the requisite conditions of birth, age, and training. Where the condition of birth was lacking in the aspirant, the sovereign alone could create a knight, as a part of his royal prerogative.

Thats enough, your one fucked up dutch idiot, but I never met one who wasn't.
Pedophilia is acceptable to dutch, as is any form of sexual deviancy.
No wonder sexual diseases are rampant there. Maybe it's the use of drugs that have caused mutations in the dutch brain.

go study history better, you haven't done a good job. in 1001, those weren't "crusades" those were little squabbles that had nothing to do with religion, just greedy kings and lords

Dajak, for your info:
History of duchy-land:

In the fifth century a Germanic tribe, the Burgundi or Burgundiones, conquered from the Romans the fertile basins of the Rhone, the Saône, and the Loire, but were unable to maintain their sovereignty (Lyons, Geneva, Vienne) which in the next century they lost (534) to the Frankish successors of Clovis.
In the latter quarter of the ninth century this territory again acquired independence, first as the short-lived Kingdom of Arles, and then as the dual Kingdom of North and South (or Lesser) Burgundy, the latter including Provence or the lands between Lyons and the sea, while the former took in, roughly speaking, the territory north of Lyons, now divided between France and Switzerland. These kingdoms, known as Transjurane and Cisjurane Burgundy, were reunited (935) under Rudolf II.

The independence of this "middle kingdom", the medieval counterpart of modern Switzerland, was short-lived, for in 1038 Emperor Conrad II obtained the crown of Burgundy for his son (later Emperor) Henry III. For two centuries German influence was uppermost in the counsels of the Burgundian rulers, but little by little the growing prestige and power of neighbouring France asserted themselves, beginning with the annexation of Lyons by Philip the Fair in 1310 and ending with that of Savoy and Nice in 1860. During this time, in language, laws, and institutions Burgundy became regularly more closely assimilated to France, and finally an integral part of that nation when, on the death of Charles the Bold (1477), Louis XI incorporated with France the Duchy of Burgundy and extinguished thereby, in favour of the royal prerogative, one of the most important fiefs of the French Crown (G. Hüffer, "Das Verhältniss des Königreichs Burgund zu Kaiser und Reich, besonders unter Friedrich I", Paderborn, 1874; Reese, "Die staatsrechtliche Stellung der Bischöfe Burgunds und Italiens under Kaiser Friedrich I", Göttingen, 1885; cf. André Du Chesne, "Hist. des rois, ducs, et comtes de Bourgogne et d'Arles", Paris, 1619; de Camps, "De la souveraineté de la couronne de France sur les royaumes de Bourgogne Transjurane et d'Arles", in "Mercure de France", April, 1723; von Bertouch, "Burgund als Scheidewand zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich, eine historisch-politische Frage", Wiesbaden, 1885).

The medieval political vicissitudes of the Kingdom of Burgundy are accurately outlined in E. Freeman, "Historical Geography of Europe" (ed. Bury, London, 1903)

The Burgundian Kingdom, which was united with those of Germany and Italy after the death of its last separate king, Rudolf the Third [1032], has had a fate unlike that of any other part of Europe. Its memory, as a separate state, has gradually died out. The greater part of its territory has been swallowed up, bit by bit, by a neighbouring power, and the small part which has escaped that fate has long lost all trace of its original name or its original political relations. By a long series of annexations, spreading over more than five hundred years, the greater part of the kingdom has gradually been incorporated with France. Of what remains, a small corner forms part of the modern Kingdom of Italy, while the rest still keeps its independence in the form of the commonwealths which make up the western cantons of Switzerland. These cantons, in fact, are the truest modern representatives of the Burgundian Kingdom. And it is on the confederation of which they form a part, interposed as it is between France, Italy, the new German Empire, and the modern Austrian Monarchy, as a central state with a guaranteed neutrality, that some trace of the old function of Burgundy, as the middle kingdom, is thrown. This function it shares with the Lotharingian lands at the other end of the empire, which now form part of the equally neutral Kingdom of Belgium, lands which, oddly enough, themselves became Burgundian in another sense.

So you see, Dajak, the erra you mentioned had nothing to do with any "christian crusades".
Please learn to define the word "crusade" as it does NOT mean "religious wars" it simply means war.
The eastern Crusades are of a completly different nature and time period, so you should learn to separate them from earlier wars.

You call yourself "dutch" but you really don't know what you are, as it's a region so badly mixed it's lost it's identity. Italians, Spanish, Germans, Austrians, Sweds, French, Brittish, slavs, Belgiums, Or any combination thereof, take your pick, thats what you are. Now, your adding muslim to the mix, and loosing any stability regained over the last 200 years. Just look are the soaring crime rates, racial tensions sprouting up all over the netherlands, and mosks. Do they convert old windmills into mosks? LMAO

That doesn't mean the culture of the region is lost yet, You still make good choclate, wooden shoes, and grow tulips.

Karen Armstrong's book on the history of Islam is too kind, I think.

Read _What Went Wrong_ by Bernard Lewis for a more complete understanding.

I think it's 40 dinars , ask Dave, he keeps track of that.
It's impossible for me to try post all the trials of history, the church, islam, etc. Not only is it because I really don't have the time, but I don't think this site, CP, apreciates me posting endless miles of stuff people don't even read, taking up server space.
I'm done with this thread,
if anyone see's me type 500 words or more, kick my ass, ban me from this site.
I'll stick to short comments, and if I have an op-ed, I'll ask the boss to post it.

One more thing;
Dajak, I should apologize for being a bit rude,
I have my faith, and a good understanding of history,
So, even if you are a stinking muslim pretending to be dutch, I should have been more kind.
And, if yor not a stinking muslim trying to be dutch, I should have been sympathetic.
:o)

Bubba,

20 D yesterday. They're burnin' the stuff with Saddam's face on it as fast as they can collect it.

They should put that monopoly guys face on the new stuff, LOL, or just order a whole bunch of monopoly money.......

OH, and dave, I got a few of the new American 20$$ bills, they look almost Canadian, are they printed in Canada? LoL

> We "christians" will take back the holy lands,
> they are rightfully ours in the first place.

The holy lands mostly belonged to Christians before they converted to Islam. That does not make those lands "ours" if we are Christians.

> Please learn to define the word "crusade" as it
> does NOT mean "religious wars" it simply means
> war.

The religious wars are 80 year war (1568-1648), the 30 year war (1618-1648), the Dutch Wars (1672-1678), and King William's wars (1689-1697) in the 16th and 17th century between Catholics and Protestants generally. Those wars have nothing to do with the crusades, and were mostly intiated by Catholic kings who felt their claim on both worldly and religious power was slipping.

In Britain this war was mostly a cilivized affair between nobles and kings, in the Netherlands and Germany the first stages were a bloodbath (with war, failed harvests, huge numbers of refugees in walled towns, and infectuous disease halving the
population in large areas).

The crusades are part of an early struggle by Popes and Christian Kings over religious and worldly power; Kings were more or less forced to prove their religious leadership in the Holy Land. Some cynically view the crusades as a legitimate outlet for sociopathic knights and criminals. Your piece on the knight/vassal system is irrelevant to the crusades and the miilitary orders, and rather specific to England (which had an unusually rigid military nobility system, introduced late).

Two different concepts:
knight = knecht = servant/vassal (germanic), a relational concept
cavalier = chevalier = ridder = rider (french), a purely descriptive concept

crusade = named for the cross (crux) carried, a war undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, or those under the ban of excommunication (Catholic Encyclopedia)

> You call yourself "dutch" but you really don't
> know what you are, as it's a region so badly
> mixed it's lost it's identity.

Excuse me. These assertions are based on 17th-19th century propaganda from our big neighbours denying a prehistoric, ethnic existence of the 'nation' of the Netherlands, which is a trivial point because being British or French or whatever is also not an ancient 'ethnic' identity (the French only ended 'Frenchification' in the early 20th century). The Dutch were the first to explicitly claim sovereignty of the people in that age, a claim rejected by French and English kings for obvious reasons.

Are Americans 'badly mixed' according to you? It's a racist view on what constitutes a proper identity, I think. Will 'American identity' survive defeats, decades of foreign occupations, homegrown American tyrants, or does it identify completely with success?

I don't define being Dutch by an ethnic criterium. This mixing is nonsense. Empires moved their borders, it is hardly people that moved. France for instance never contained any significant number of 'ethnic' Franks (who lived in the Netherlands and Southwestern Germany). Dutch (Lingua Theodiscus, Diutisc, Duutsc, Diets, Deutch) was the name of the language of the Franks, and survived as a British reference (not used by us) to the language of inhabitants of the 'Netherlands', a loose geographic area comprising the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Artois in France, and western Germany. 'Belgium' is just the latin version of 'Netherlands' (United Netherlands = Belgica Foederata, Spanish/Austrian Netherlands, todays Belgium = Belgica Regium).

The Netherlands is often chosen as a site for genetic research because "the population of the Northern Netherlands represents the largest pool of
genetically homogenous people in the world" (NFIA). This point was also not lost on Hitler, who however saw it as a reason why the Dutch should be integral part of Germany (we may be 'homogenous', but there is no clear ethnic dividing line between Dutch and Germans, or Anglosaxons for that matter).

Read Boxer's or Schama's histories of the Netherlands for historical information on Dutch formation of national identity and patriotism in the 80 year war, early Dutch calvinism (the polders are given by God), and the property claim on the polders (our ancestors made our land, we maintain it, and without us it will be reclaimed by the sea). Today it is considered bad taste to say you are 'very proud' of Dutch nationality given the history taught on schools (20% in World Values Survey, as opposed to 72% U.S. and 92% Iran as upper limit), but that does not mean there is a no deeply ingrained sense of identity. It's just not a very positive one, and it includes aggressive anti-nationalism as a value since WWII.

> Just look are the soaring crime rates, racial
> tensions sprouting up all over the netherlands,
> and mosks.

Violent crime is in any case much lower that the U.S. (and we have consistently had near the lowest teenage pregnancy and abortion statistics for decades, although Muslim minorities now account for up to half of it). If you communicate with Dutchmen, maybe you have noticed that many Dutch are infatuated with scoring good on comparative international statistics. It's a substitute for straightforward nationalism. ;)

> Thats enough, your one fucked up dutch idiot,
> but I never met one who wasn't.

It's by now clear that the dirty trick of our government signing up for the 'coalition of the willing' at the last moment without consultation in parliament doesn't gain us any of the expected credit or profits. They will not make that mistake again.

Try to insult people in a more sophisticated way. It makes conversations last longer, and is more rewarding. A question: Do you get beaten up very often, or do communicate very differently in real life?

DAJAK - I could tell right away your eyeball (the one good one) was jaundiced. You know nothing of Church History OR Theology. I picked one sentence from among the many that you've spewed. This sentence tells it all. Others of your line have attempted over the years, and have miserably failed. I will not bother refuting your virtual spinning any longer:

"The Catholic church certainly has a reputation for suicide."

It has no such reputation in any context.

Refute it, with cites, or shut up.