http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4366232.stm

Last Updated: Saturday, 22 October 2005, 02:19 GMT 03:19 UK


E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Three killed in Egypt church riot



Protesters threw stones at the Coptic church and police officers

Three people have died during a riot outside a Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt, after a protest against a play accused of offending Islam.

Police used sticks and tear gas to hold back a crowd of some 5,000 protesters who marched on St George's church.

Dozens of people were injured in the crush. One man who died was trampled and had inhaled tear gas, police said.

On Wednesday, a Muslim man stabbed a nun in protest at the sale of a DVD of the play, staged at the church in 2003.

The demonstration was the latest in a series of incidents at the church related to the performance of the play.

Entitled I Once Was Blind But Now I See, the drama tells the story of a poor young Copt who is drawn to Islamist militants who then try to kill him.

'Not insulting'

Coptic Christian leaders have said the play depicts the dangers of extremism, not of Islam.

"Copts would never tolerate anyone insulting Islam," Coptic Bishop Armia is quoted by Egypt's official Mena news agency as saying.

The Egyptian Interior Ministry described the protesters as "fanatic elements" who "escalated a negative reaction to a play", according to the Associated Press new agency.


A nun was stabbed at the church by a young Muslim on Wednesday


The ministry said the demonstrators gathered near the church in the Mediterranean port city after Friday noon prayers at local mosques.

Stones were thrown at the church and police officers, injuring 20, and cars were set alight before police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. Dozens of people were arrested.

Relations between Muslims and the Coptic minority - which makes up 5%-10% of Egypt's population - are generally calm, although tensions sometimes flare.

Copts remained the majority in Egypt for centuries after the 7th Century conquest of the country by Muslim armies.

Nowadays, they complain of discrimination in the workplace, restrictions on church construction and periodic fears that Christians are being forced to convert by Islamic extremists.


************
A lot of people in this forum say not all muslims are extremists, just a few, well here is 5000 so called just a few muslims attacking a church, and also stabbing a nun HOW BRAVE.

This all happened after
Friday noon prayers at local mosques, it seems to me that alot of these attacks whether in pakistan, or iraq, or other muslim countries happen after prayers, just what is being said to them to incite them to hate.

When catholics or buddhists come out of churches and temples, they are relaxed and good natured, so why are some muslims so angry after coming out of mosques?

Oh for Christ's sake, if you'll forgive an atheist for using a convenient expletive. There are more than a billion Muslims on this planet.

I would expect this kind of rant from an American because we have absolutely no sense of history, but not from an Englishman. Islam was founded about 600 years after Christianity and it has been tracking pretty closely. If you'll think back to what Christians were doing 600 years ago--yes even you well-mannered Englishmen--it looks pretty much the same. Repulsive and unforgivable acts were commonplace and committed in the name of God. The Renaissance and Reformation hadn't quite happened yet but they were around the corner. Many students of Islamic civilization believe that Islam is destined to undergo its normalizing movement very soon.

The crap that's going on now could be seen as the desperate attempts of men who like things the way they are (and it's always we men who do this) to reject outside influences or natural growth that's going to change them. The Inquisition was reactionary Christendom's attempt to do the same thing that the reactionary Wahhabi and other Muslims are trying to do today.

I wish I could live to see all of the Abrahamic religions run out of steam and become just quaint chapters in history. Monotheism has proven itself to be a sterile, constricting model of the human spirit that brings out the worst in men more often than their best. Patriarchy dismisses half of the human race and encourages the other half to make life into one endless fraternity hazing. Monotheistic, patriarchal religions were a bad idea in the first place and they keep getting worse.

This article should be titled, "5,000 Abrahamists storm Abrahamist place of worship in a country that has had multiple variants of Abrahamism imposed on it and stab Abramist religious leader of the gender that has been considered chattel throughout most of Abrahamist history."

That's not a bad idea. From now on I will simply refer to all of these maniacs as Abrahamists. In fact, Evola was a big fan of such a term and although he wasn't too popular (because of Abrahamist hatred) I think the term could come back in vogue.

"5,000 Abrahamists storm Abrahamist place of worship in a country that has had multiple variants of Abrahamism imposed on it and stab Abramist religious leader of the gender that has been considered chattel throughout most of Abrahamist history."

yeah, a small dose of objectivity puts a whole new spin on things.

I wish I could live to see all of the Abrahamic religions run out of steam and become just quaint chapters in history. Monotheism has proven itself to be a sterile, constricting model of the human spirit that brings out the worst in men more often than their best. Patriarchy dismisses half of the human race and encourages the other half to make life into one endless fraternity hazing. Monotheistic, patriarchal religions were a bad idea in the first place and they keep getting worse.


What should we do? Convert to wicca? /sarcasm off

What is bad about this "patriarchy" of which you speak? What is bad about this "monotheism" of which you speak? How is monotheism worse than polytheism? And did it ever occur to you once that mankind is patriarchal because of biology? Men are hunters, women are gatherers. Men provide/fight/lead and have the best systematizing abilities, women gather/care/follow and have the best empathizing abilities. You are just as naive as the feminists...

I would expect this kind of rant from an American because we have absolutely no sense of history, but not from an Englishman. Islam was founded about 600 years after Christianity and it has been tracking pretty closely. If you'll think back to what Christians were doing 600 years ago--yes even you well-mannered Englishmen--it looks pretty much the same.
You have no idea how islam is affecting the British and cut the condecending crap when you refer to the English. We do have a history and we have our own language which is more than you can claim. So when an Englishman states a point of view, take note. FYI Islam is still 600 years behind civilisation.

I wish I could live to see all of the Abrahamic religions run out of steam and become just quaint chapters in history.

Is 9/11 a quaint chapter in your history book?



This article should be titled, "5,000 Abrahamists storm Abrahamist place of worship in a country that has had multiple variants of Abrahamism imposed on it and stab Abramist religious leader of the gender that has been considered chattel throughout most of Abrahamist history."

Would you have prefered to have seen the headllines saying that "A few Abrahaminsts flew two planes into buildings consisting of other Abrahaminic people and athiests"?

Would that put the slant in history that you speak of?

Actually, stu43t, American Standard English is a recognised unique variant of English. So, the Americans do have their own language.

Ok, back to the topic...

A recognised unique variant of English is called an accent - not a language. So, no you don't have your own language.

Back to the topic....

Yeah, Abrahamists. I'm all for that term.

- N

A recognised unique variant of English is called an accent - not a language. So, no you don't have your own language.

But it's more than just an accent. Americans use different words for some things. And they have unique expressions they developed themselves.

But it's more than just an accent. Americans use different words for some things. And they have unique expressions they developed themselves.

I know that you would like to have something original in America such as a language of your own, but the truth is that you haven't.

According to the CIA and the 2000 census of the USA, the languages spoken are as follows:

English 82.1%, Spanish 10.7%, other Indo-European 3.8%, Asian and Pacific island 2.7%, other 0.7%

No mention of American language!

British English itself is a massive amalgam of other languages. Just look at the dictionary, and you'll see the origins of words - copied from old French, Latin, Norse, etc., with liberal borrowings from just about every other language (anybody for a "banana"?).

What the British call "crisps", Australians call "chips". What the British call a "tap", Americans call a "faucet". The list of differences between American and British English are well documented. Do you really want to continue with this discussion? If so, maybe you should start a new thread.

And, BTW, stu, I'm not American. I have another "language of my own", called Australian English.

fraggle rocker wrote...I would expect this kind of rant from an American because we have absolutely no sense of history, but not from an Englishman

I defend the right of the English to be as stupid, pig headed, ignorant or insular as any American!

A nun was stabbed at the church by a young Muslim on Wednesday

Finally, some muslim fanatic shows some sense and kills one of those brainwashing nuns.

Monotheism has proven itself to be a sterile, constricting model of the human spirit that brings out the worst in men more often than their best.

Atheism doesn't exactly have clean hands either. Ever hear of Stalin? Or how about Mao? Any system of government that allows absolute power to the government will result in a bloodbath, be it an atheist communist dictatorship or a "Christian" Divine right King. People need something to believe in. If it's not religion, it's "the party" or Mother earth or "the race" or something.

Ever hear of Stalin? Or how about Mao? Any system of government that allows absolute power to the government will result in a bloodbath,

Funny how people can't distinguish between 'atheistic' and 'secular'.

Oh for Christ's sake, if you'll forgive an atheist for using a convenient expletive. There are more than a billion Muslims on this planet.

I would expect this kind of rant from an American because we have absolutely no sense of history, but not from an Englishman. Islam was founded about 600 years after Christianity and it has been tracking pretty closely. If you'll think back to what Christians were doing 600 years ago--yes even you well-mannered Englishmen--it looks pretty much the same. Repulsive and unforgivable acts were commonplace and committed in the name of God. ."
So what you are saying is we have to wait for another 600 years before there religon becomes civilised, which by then our religons will have progressed another 600 years, so we have to wait another 600 years for them to progress further.

Muslims are men and women right, and all humans evolve the same way, we all know what is good and evil by instinct, we dont have to be taught this, like animals by instinct know there enemies, and hunting grounds.

So your concept of the religon being 600 years behind western religon, is stupid, THEY CHOOSE TO KEEP THERE RELIGON BACKWARD, THEY DONT WANT TO MODERNIZE IT, they could be on this planet for another million years and there religon will not change one bit, the reason being is there is no supreme muslim leader to show them the way.

British English itself is a massive amalgam of other languages. Just look at the dictionary, and you'll see the origins of words - copied from old French, Latin, Norse, etc., with liberal borrowings from just about every other language (anybody for a "banana"?).

What the British call "crisps", Australians call "chips". What the British call a "tap", Americans call a "faucet". The list of differences between American and British English are well documented. Do you really want to continue with this discussion? If so, maybe you should start a new thread.

And, BTW, stu, I'm not American. I have another "language of my own", called Australian English.

Good idea blue

Actually it would be interesting to hear views of this.

I'm from Yorkshire where (In places)the accent can be very strong - you wouldn't understand a word of it.

I couldn't understand Billy Connolly when he first hit the stage with his comedy act. He was told to calm his Scottish accent so that he would obtain communication to a wider audience. Now he has a very soft Glaswegian accent which is understood by all the English speaking world. I've heard of Gaelic and Welsh as languages, and that is correct - but never Scottish English or Welsh English or even Yorkshire English - the language is English.

I think this massive egypt church attack by muslims, is further proof of them victimising, and not tolerating other religons in there countries, whether its the christians in indonesia or lebanon or iran, or the harmless tea pot cult in malaysia

I think it only goes to prove how backward, dangerous and violent Islam is.

Guess what creates all the headlines of violence in the world - Islam!

Sick and tired of these stupid birtish whiners. They need to shut up and stop bad mouthing America, they should know that we can take over their pathic diseased country any day and any time and teach them a lesson of our own English. Pathetic Insects, arrogants A holes.Ya'll need to SHUT THE HELL UP. England is nothing but a toilet, freaking stinky toilet filled with patheitc arrogant birtons.

LONG LIVE USA, FREEDOM FOR ALL :mad: .

Sick and tired of these stupid birtish whiners. They need to shut up and stop bad mouthing America, they should know that we can take over their pathic diseased country any day and any time and teach them a lesson of our own English. Pathetic Insects, arrogants A holes.Ya'll need to SHUT THE HELL UP. England is nothing but a toilet, freaking stinky toilet filled with patheitc arrogant birtons.

LONG LIVE USA, FREEDOM FOR ALL :mad: .

Skywalker shows a good example of a muslims attitude.

Is 9/11 a quaint chapter in your history book?




Would you have prefered to have seen the headllines saying that "A few Abrahaminsts flew two planes into buildings consisting of other Abrahaminic people and athiests"?

Would that put the slant in history that you speak of?

Really, what difference would it have made if it were Abrahaminsts, Hamsters, little green men from mars or George Bush and the Neocon Army?

So your concept of the religon being 600 years behind western religon, is stupid, THEY CHOOSE TO KEEP THERE RELIGON BACKWARD, THEY DONT WANT TO MODERNIZE IT, they could be on this planet for another million years and there religon will not change one bit, the reason being is there is no supreme muslim leader to show them the way.
If you haven't noticed, fundamentalism is on the rise all over the world, among many different religions.

So your concept of the religon being 600 years behind western religon, is stupid, THEY CHOOSE TO KEEP THERE RELIGON BACKWARD, THEY DONT WANT TO MODERNIZE IT, they could be on this planet for another million years and there religon will not change one bit, the reason being is there is no supreme muslim leader to show them the way.


Two things here. First, What western religion? You mean Capitalism?

Second and this is the thing most people don't want to understand. Do you mean that Islam should be made modern like Christianity was/is? If those who profess to be Christian followed the book they claim to follow, it would be more regressive that Islam ever could be.

How does one go about changing a religion and follow the book which sets down laws that MUST be followed in order to be a believer? How does one do this and still claim to follow GODS word? Should they adapt it suite the times? Are should the times be adapted to what GOD wants?

Abortion is against GODs law yet how many abortions are done by those who wear that little gold cross around there necks? Murder? Rape? Is this how the faith of Islam should be changed? If that were to be done then you have no faith. Just ways of man and the world.

Granted, there are those who profess to be Muslim who first follow tribal law before GODs law. There are those who take the book out of context. They are the exception for if all Islam were like these, nothing would be left.

Three people have died during a riot outside a Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt, after a protest against a play accused of offending Islam.
Police used sticks and tear gas to hold back a crowd of some 5,000 protesters who marched on St George's church.

Dozens of people were injured in the crush. One man who died was trampled and had inhaled tear gas, police said. [so the one person killed in this attack was killed by the police.]
On Wednesday, a Muslim man stabbed a nun in protest at the sale of a DVD of the play, staged at the church in 2003. [by this posts header, it seemed as if 5000 muslims stormed a chuch, all holding the same knife and stabbed a nun to death.]

The demonstration was the latest in a series of incidents at the church related to the performance of the play.

Entitled I Once Was Blind But Now I See, the drama tells the story of a poor young Copt who is drawn to Islamist militants who then try to kill him.

'Not insulting'

Coptic Christian leaders have said the play depicts the dangers of extremism, not of Islam.

"Copts would never tolerate anyone insulting Islam," Coptic Bishop Armia is quoted by Egypt's official Mena news agency as saying.

The Egyptian Interior Ministry described the protesters as "fanatic elements" who "escalated a negative reaction to a play", according to the Associated Press new agency.


A nun was stabbed at the church by a young Muslim on Wednesday

The ministry said the demonstrators gathered near the church in the Mediterranean port city after Friday noon prayers at local mosques.

Stones were thrown at the church and police officers, injuring 20, and cars were set alight before police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. Dozens of people were arrested.

Relations between Muslims and the Coptic minority - which makes up 5%-10% of Egypt's population - are generally calm, although tensions sometimes flare.

Copts remained the majority in Egypt for centuries after the 7th Century conquest of the country by Muslim armies.

Nowadays, they complain of discrimination in the workplace, restrictions on church construction and periodic fears that Christians are being forced to convert by Islamic extremists.

No true muslim would force conversion one another. If one did then one has not understood the plain words of the Qu'ran.

Two things here. First, What western religion? You mean Capitalism?

Second and this is the thing most people don't want to understand. Do you mean that Islam should be made modern like Christianity was/is? If those who profess to be Christian followed the book they claim to follow, it would be more regressive that Islam ever could be.

How does one go about changing a religion and follow the book which sets down laws that MUST be followed in order to be a believer? How does one do this and still claim to follow GODS word? Should they adapt it suite the times? Are should the times be adapted to what GOD wants?

Abortion is against GODs law yet how many abortions are done by those who wear that little gold cross around there necks? Murder? Rape? Is this how the faith of Islam should be changed? If that were to be done then you have no faith. Just ways of man and the world.

Granted, there are those who profess to be Muslim who first follow tribal law before GODs law. There are those who take the book out of context. They are the exception for if all Islam were like these, nothing would be left.



No true muslim would force conversion one another. If one did then one has not understood the plain words of the Qu'ran.

You're another my gods better than your god - go away with your rubbish and take your kerrang with you.

Really, what difference would it have made if it were Abrahaminsts, Hamsters, little green men from mars or George Bush and the Neocon Army?

I was replying to fraggles post if you hadn't realised - But now you mention it - the difference is that it wasn't Abrahaminsts, Hamsters, little green men from mars or George Bush and the Neocon Army? It was fanatical muslims, which are on the increase much to the dismay of the peace wanting world.

.

Admit that we the USA are superior in everything, English or no English you britons are arrogant pricks and ya'll need a be taught a lesson that yall never forget.

And who is going to teach us Brits a lesson eh? Certainly not from a little upstart like you who resides in a country which never belonged to you in the first place.

Take your little tantrum to the school playground and go and find your teddy bear.

And who is going to teach us Brits a lesson eh? Certainly not from a little upstart like you who resides in a country which never belonged to you in the first place.

Take your little tantrum to the school playground and go and find your teddy bear.


see there goes arrogant prick attitude. This country is my home and they accepted me unlike your racist bigot country who just enjoys killing immgirants and hates any one non white. USA is still by far the best country to live and specially compare to your toilet country. USA is a true first world country with the very caring and loving people. There are minor problems here as well but we over come those problems instead of killing them we work with them, unlike your toilet country, which stole half the world wealth and robbed the world from India to Japan to USA, simply theives and robbers and now you call your self noble man. Pathetic sick mentality.

see there goes arrogant prick attitude. This country is my home and they accepted me unlike your racist bigot country who just enjoys killing immgirants and hates any one non white.

And the colour of the native American is Red - did they accept you?
USA is still by far the best country to live and specially compare to your toilet country. USA is a true first world country with the very caring and loving people.

Of course you are very caring and loving people - ask anyone from Iraq.

unlike your toilet country, which stole half the world wealth and robbed the world from India to Japan to USA, simply theives and robbers and now you call your self noble man. Pathetic sick mentality.

Ah yes - you refer to the British Empire. Terrible things happened in those days, but this country grew up. And as with any Empire - they fall. So I'll look forward to the day when America no longer rules the roost so to speak

Hmmm - I observe that you were asleep during history lessons. I cannot recall that Britain robbed Japan but I do remember that America murdered quite a few million in seconds.

You talk of Britain in history being theives and robbers - America is doing the self and same thing today. How many innocent lives have been taken in Iraq because of the illegal war your country declared.

It is people like you that make me detest America and all it stands for - It stands as the biggest oppressor in the world today.

Two things here. First, What western religion? You mean Capitalism?

Second and this is the thing most people don't want to understand. Do you mean that Islam should be made modern like Christianity was/is? If those who profess to be Christian followed the book they claim to follow, it would be more regressive that Islam ever could be.

Sorry but this is just a flatout lie. What you are referring to is the old testament (the torah) when did christ ever say it was alright to kill?? just find me examples. Christ said turn the other cheek muhammed not only didn't agree with that philosophy he actually fought wars to impose his will

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html Book 019, Number 4467:

There is no comparison christians need all sorts of moral gymnastics to justify killing (and there has been plenty of that) but muslims do not (they need only declare someone is an apostate or a heathen or an oppressor etc. etc.)


It has been narrated on the authority of Buraida (who heard the tradition from his father) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) conducted nineteen military campaigns and he (actually) fought in eight of them


How does one go about changing a religion and follow the book which sets down laws that MUST be followed in order to be a believer? How does one do this and still claim to follow GODS word? Should they adapt it suite the times? Are should the times be adapted to what GOD wants?

See above also most modern christians believe the bible was written by HUMANS inspired by god while the current muslim doctrine is that the quran IS the direct unblemished word of god (just ask them) so when the quran says

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection

It is gods word no ifs ands or buts

Plenty more where that came from just ask.
The rest of your post is nonsense and I will not respond to it

And the colour of the native American is Red - did they accept you?
Sure, they're doing fine what with all the casinos.

Of course you are very caring and loving people - ask anyone from Iraq.
Oh yes. We freed them from the rule of a brutal dictator, with the UK fighting by our side. How terrible.

Hmmm - I observe that you were asleep during history lessons. I cannot recall that Britain robbed Japan but I do remember that America murdered quite a few million in seconds.
They started it. That attack was made in the context of a declared war forced on the US by a cowardly sneak attack by the Japanese.

You talk of Britain in history being theives and robbers - America is doing the self and same thing today.
Stealing? We're stealing? Then why the hell is the war costing eighty billion dollars every few months? We must be pretty poor theives to lose money on the deal. Now England, your crown jewels were stolen from India and you squeezed the colonies for taxes so much we were obliged to rebel.

How many innocent lives have been taken in Iraq because of the illegal war your country declared.
And innocent life was completely safe under Saddam's rule. Hell, using your logic we shouldn't have bothered to save your asses from Hitler. How many innocent lifes were lost in WW2?

It is people like you that make me detest America and all it stands for - It stands as the biggest oppressor in the world today.

That is so ridiculous as to invalidate anything else you may say.

Vincent:

So your concept of the religon being 600 years behind western religon, is stupid, THEY CHOOSE TO KEEP THERE RELIGON BACKWARD, THEY DONT WANT TO MODERNIZE IT,

I guess by 'modernize' you mean 'westernize', which is happening against their will at the moment, at a pace faster than they can handle. Tell me, when the European countries 'modernized' (at their own pace), weren't there bloody wars, bloody revolutions, acts of terror, religious bigotry, and zealous fundamentalists? I guess that whole 'Dark Ages' thing didn't occur in Europe, while the Muslims in Spain and beyond passed their superior knowledge onto the ignorant Europeaners. Guess that the Muslims have always been violent, even when they lived together peacefully with the Jews and Christians in Spain, Khazaria and Palestine.

madan:

They started it. That attack was made in the context of a declared war forced on the US by a cowardly sneak attack by the Japanese.

I guess your primary school history class didn't explain that the U.S attempted to destroy Japan economically by imposing an oil and scrap metal embargo. Remember how angry America + other Western countries were when the Arab countries did the same thing? Then again, I bet that in your American history class, you learnt that the 'bad, greedy Arabs' denied America it's rightful share of oil, whereas the Americans never done the same thing to the evil yellow Japs.

Funny how you call the Japanese attack 'cowardly'. The America administration baited the Japanese with the oil embargo, and had naval superiority in the Pacific. The American admin WANTED war. It shouldn't have shocked them when the Japanese took out a naval base. That's what war is about.


And innocent life was completely safe under Saddam's rule.

Insurgents and rebels don't count as 'innocent'. Nor do groups conspiring to assassinate the head of state. Hey, I guess you honestly believe that if an American tried to assassinate a U.S president, they wouldn't be executed or imprisoned for life. You're an American after all, so I seriously doubt that you would have even minimal knowledge of your own history.


Hell, using your logic we shouldn't have bothered to save your asses from Hitler.

1. It benefitted America to 'save asses'.

2. The difference is that Hitler wasn't a Frenchman or Briton, he was a German. There is a difference between foreign occupation, and running your own country. Last time I checked, Saddam was an Iraqi, hence he can run his country however he damn well pleases.

And innocent life was completely safe under Saddam's rule. Hell, using your logic we shouldn't have bothered to save your asses from Hitler. How many innocent lifes were lost in WW2?


I dont want to get into this UK or US bashing debate, skywalker is not worth responding to, he is not able to debate on any level but ranting about how America rules the world.

As far as america saving uk asses in world war 2, you seem like a intelligent man anthony, so you would know that if America did not get involved in
world war 2, the germans would have developed the nukes 1st, and your country and mine would not exist as democracies today.
So along with the brits, america saved there own asses in world war 2, & japan attacking pearl harbour was the reason america entered the war, america did not enter the war on britains behalf, after japan bombed america, they finally realised this was a world war.

Although i criticise America, that does not mean i go along with the left wing loonies song of i hate America, i criticise the UK too.

America like the UK has achieved a hell of a lot, and the world with these 2 countries in it, is a much safer place.

2. The difference is that Hitler wasn't a Frenchman or Briton, he was a German.
Check again. He was from Austria, specifically the Innviertiel region, which belonged to Bavaria until 1779, when it was annexed by Austria.

So what you are saying is we have to wait for another 600 years before there religon becomes civilised, which by then our religons will have progressed another 600 years, so we have to wait another 600 years for them to progress further.

Muslims are men and women right, and all humans evolve the same way, we all know what is good and evil by instinct, we dont have to be taught this, like animals by instinct know there enemies, and hunting grounds.

So your concept of the religon being 600 years behind western religon, is stupid, THEY CHOOSE TO KEEP THERE RELIGON BACKWARD, THEY DONT WANT TO MODERNIZE IT, they could be on this planet for another million years and there religon will not change one bit, the reason being is there is no supreme muslim leader to show them the way.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but ALL RELIGIONS ARE BACKWARDS. THEY MAKE NO SENSE. You can't make a religion modernized, because it's a tired and ignorant concept to begin with. West, East, North, South. Who cares? All religion is stupid and pointless.

. He was from Austria, specifically the Innviertiel region, which belonged to Bavaria until 1779, when it was annexed by Austria.

I guess that stuff about Hitler becoming a German citizen when he became counselor of Brunswick didn't occur...

I guess my mother isn't an Australian, because she migrated here from Poland when she was about twelve...

I also suppose that Hitler didn't represent the German people, nor was his political party voted in democratically...

I also postulate that you are introducing a red herring. The fact remains that whether Hitler was Austrian or German is irrelevant to my argument. He was still a foreign occupying power/attempted invader, so comparing him to Saddam is a shitty analogy.

He was born an Austrian, naturalized as a German citizen, but the point is: he was from Austria.
It may be irrelevant to your arguement, but it is relevant to something else...I don't know.
But, yes. He was a foreigner occupying other nations. Saddam was terrorizing his own country. There are stark differences between the two.

He was born an Austrian, naturalized as a German citizen, but the point is: he was from Austria.

1. Big deal, he was made a German citizen. The German people willing made him one. Nationally, he was a German. Whether he was ethnically German is open to interpretation.

2. Austria and Germany's history are uncannily similiar. And during the 1st Reich, wasn't Austria a part of the German Empire? What exactly would you define as a German?

1. Big deal, he was made a German citizen. The German people willing made him one. Nationally, he was a German. Whether he was ethnically German is open to interpretation.

2. Austria and Germany's history are uncannily similiar. And during the 1st Reich, wasn't Austria a part of the German Empire? What exactly would you define as a German?
The swiss, austrians, and germans all speak german, they are all nazis at the end of the day, the swiss stole millions from the jews, the austrian government is or was made up of a neo nazi party recently, these 3 countries are just as bad as eachother. They have done nothing but bring mankind down to the gutter in there history.

Sure, they're doing fine what with all the casinos.


Oh yes. We freed them from the rule of a brutal dictator, with the UK fighting by our side. How terrible.


They started it. That attack was made in the context of a declared war forced on the US by a cowardly sneak attack by the Japanese.


Stealing? We're stealing? Then why the hell is the war costing eighty billion dollars every few months? We must be pretty poor theives to lose money on the deal. Now England, your crown jewels were stolen from India and you squeezed the colonies for taxes so much we were obliged to rebel.


And innocent life was completely safe under Saddam's rule. Hell, using your logic we shouldn't have bothered to save your asses from Hitler. How many innocent lifes were lost in WW2?

That is so ridiculous as to invalidate anything else you may say.

Typical comments from an American muslim - you give America a bad name (besides blowing it up).

Yes you did a great job in Iraq didn't you - look at it now - such a peaceful country - well done lads

As an observation Hitler was nothing like Saddam. Hitler tries in his own way to make Germany grow, he looked after his own people, he tried to make Germany the best country in the world, the action he took was repulsive to all outside Germany. This is very much different to the actions of Saddam who tortured his own people and suppressed his own country.

Also America nuked Japan not to save lives as often claimed. They nuked it so that Russia couldn't gain power over the asian islands

[QUOTE=stu43t] he looked after his own people, This is very much different to the actions of Saddam who tortured his own people and suppressed his own country.

[QUOTE]

so all the gypsies jews and disabled people weren't his own people?

stu43t:

As an observation Hitler was nothing like Saddam.

Really? Hitler never used violence to foil assassination attempts, crush rebellion, and maintain stability?


Hitler tries in his own way to make Germany grow

What would you call the invasion of Kuwait?


This is very much different to the actions of Saddam who tortured his own people

Funny how whenever people say this, they are referring to the Kurds, who technically AREN'T Saddam's 'own people'.


and suppressed his own country.

By putting down revolts and killing conspiring assassins? It's not like the American Govt. would execute/give life imprisonment to would-be-assassins, or use force to quell rebellion. Oh... wait.


Also America nuked Japan not to save lives as often claimed.

Hmm, agreed.


They nuked it so that Russia couldn't gain power over the asian islands

Very good observation, although that was only one of several factors...

my point is that Germany was a dying country - he did his best to put the country back on it's feet.

No more worse than America declaring war on Iraq to secure oil interests - look at Iraq now - great job - idiots.

Carpet bombing Afganistan to make way for pipelines - brill idea!

See the similarities

stu43t:

my point is that Germany was a dying country - he did his best to make put the country back on it's feet.

Accurate statement. Inflation was a shocker before Hitler's economic policies allowed German's money valuable, so that they wouldn't starve in the street. Hitler also caused unemployment to drop from six million to zero. He also wanted to make Germany 'one-nation', and strengthen the economy, by getting rid of Jews. Of course, you never hear THAT side of the story.


No more worse than America declaring war on Iraq to secure oil interests - look at Iraq now - great job - idiots.

Carpet bombing Afganistan to make way for pipelines - brill idea!

The American Government and media tend to be hypocrities who lack the ability to look in the mirror.

BOO, HITLER BURNED BOOKS AND CENSORED MATERIAL!!! LYKE OMG, BOOO HISSS!

As if America didn't do the EXACT SAME THING during the Red Scare. Ironic how Hitler censored Communistic material, and then the Americans did the same thing decades later. I still haven't seen the photos and video tapes of the abuse that occured in Abu Gharib. When is the American Government going to release them?

Christianity tries to keep its religion backwards with a fair amount of success, and few question that it was Christianity that brought about the Dark Ages. The Muslim world was scientifically enlightened before Islam came along. What I think happens is a huge step backward then a sort of belly crawl forward, with the religious leaders kicking, screaming, and murdering to try to slow it down.

Also America nuked Japan not to save lives as often claimed. They nuked it so that Russia couldn't gain power over the asian islands
Yes, but as a side-effect, it did save more lives than it cost.The total death toll of WW2 could have doubled if we actually went through with an invasion of Japan. We would, literally, have had to kill every man, woman, and child on that country to defeat it, because of thier whole "death before dishonor" thing. Especially if the coup in Tokyo had actually gone through.

2. Austria and Germany's history are uncannily similiar. And during the 1st Reich, wasn't Austria a part of the German Empire? What exactly would you define as a German?
Yes, Austria was the PRIME state of the H.R.E from the mid-1400s until it's demise.
The point is, there was no Germany then. There was no Germany until 1871. I define a german as someone Born in the country of Germany. Similar way with any other country.

Oh, and vince:
You realize that only a very small minimum of the German Populace in WW2 were nazis, right? Much less now. Austria has, since it's foundation as a Republic, been a mostly center-right nation, not far-right. They never had a naonazi party in control of them, because all hate groups are banned, illegal, in Germany, Austria, and Poland.

my point is that Germany was a dying country - he did his best to put the country back on it's feet.

No more worse than America declaring war on Iraq to secure oil interests - look at Iraq now - great job - idiots.

Carpet bombing Afganistan to make way for pipelines - brill idea!

See the similarities


Just to be clear the UK is involved in the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Do you think the British Gov't won't be getting any benefits from the "oil interests"? You're just as idiotic as us.

Christianity tries to keep its religion backwards with a fair amount of success, and few question that it was Christianity that brought about the Dark Ages.

I question it. ;) You don't think it might just have had something to do with the fall of the roman empire, the destruction wrought by the Alemani, goths, visigoths, huns, magyars etc. etc. ;) Religion may well have had a role in bringing about the dark ages but it is a stretch at best. Why for example did the eastern empire (Byzantium) not only survive but continue to flourish during the dark ages despite religion.

Just to be clear the UK is involved in the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Do you think the British Gov't won't be getting any benefits from the "oil interests"? You're just as idiotic as us.

Yeah I know - we always have to follow the bully of the world, riding on its back to reap some vile benefit out it all. It stinks, its shit, I hate it. We vote a goverment in - and guess what - they all break their promises and do what the fuck they like for 4 years. And then they wonder why there is such a small turnout at election time. The answer's easy - they all shit in the same bucket.

Bring the troops back out of that piss pot country Iraq - we had no right to be there in the first place.

Guess what creates all the headlines of violence in the world - Islam!

And that attitude would be why muslims don't like you.

And that attitude would be why muslims don't like you.

Why would he care? he is a arrogant birtish prick like vinnie. They are from toilet country and still think that they are the great empire BS. They need to look at their self and see how pathetic they are and how gutter has briton become because of them. VINNIE, YES! we are a better country than yours can ever be.

And that attitude would be why muslims don't like you.
Don't talk shite - Muslims don't like anyone who isn't a muslim - whats the word - kafir isn't it?

It is muslims who have an attitude problem - not me. But you're quite right - I can't stand them, they're nothing but trouble. Proof - look at all the violence in the world - it's islam based.

Don't talk shite - Muslims don't like anyone who isn't a muslim - whats the word - kafir isn't it?

It is muslims who have an attitude problem - not me. But you're quite right - I can't stand them, they're nothing but trouble. Proof - look at all the violence in the world - it's islam based.
i cant believe you are the same guy who thinks the moon landing was fake

and by the way...i dont really give a shit what color or religion a man is...if you hit me expect to get it back....and as far as us being in iraq...tuogh shit it was the best option to get over there and do something...anything...about the problem...we let it go too long

i cant believe you are the same guy who thinks the moon landing was fake

He only belives that cause America did it, if they were birtish he would have been screaming every day about it. Thats the problem I have been telling, they are arrogant a holes thats their problem.

America like the UK has achieved a hell of a lot, and the world with these 2 countries in it, is a much safer place.
Of course I'm aware that Roosevelt basically baited the Japanese into attacking us and made sure the sneak attack would succeed by not allowing any of the "purple MAGIC" machines to find there way to Pearl Harbor where they could have done some good. I also fully agree that it was in our best interest to stop Hitler. stu43t's post just pissed me off, so I was baiting him. To tell you the truth, I have great respect for England. Just not for stu43t.

I question it. ;) You don't think it might just have had something to do with the fall of the roman empire, the destruction wrought by the Alemani, goths, visigoths, huns, magyars etc. etc. ;) Religion may well have had a role in bringing about the dark ages but it is a stretch at best. Why for example did the eastern empire (Byzantium) not only survive but continue to flourish during the dark ages despite religion.

Religion was what destroyed technology as the "work of the devil." This technology included some use of electricity, mechanics, kinematics, chemistry, mathematics, physics, astronomy, dentistry, and surgery. The Dark Ages was brought about by the systematic destruction of knowledge, not by military conquests of any given empire, although sometimes these conquests were accompanied by massive book burnings. Even before anything that might be characterized as the "Fall of Rome" there was Christianization of Rome, which was not a thing that could be guaranteed to increase competence.

Religion was what destroyed technology as the "work of the devil." This technology included some use of electricity, mechanics, kinematics, chemistry, mathematics, physics, astronomy, dentistry, and surgery. The Dark Ages was brought about by the systematic destruction of knowledge, not by military conquests of any given empire, although sometimes these conquests were accompanied by massive book burnings. Even before anything that might be characterized as the "Fall of Rome" there was Christianization of Rome, which was not a thing that could be guaranteed to increase competence.

No doubt the roman church was usually a negative influence I wasn't disagreeing with that. I was simply disagreeing with the claim that the church was the main cause for the dark ages.

and by the way...i dont really give a shit what color or religion a man is...if you hit me expect to get it back....and as far as us being in iraq...tuogh shit it was the best option to get over there and do something...anything...about the problem...we let it go too long

I was talking about the British troops.....yours can do what they like - oh I forgot you always do.

Hapsburg:

Yes, Austria was the PRIME state of the H.R.E from the mid-1400s until it's demise.
The point is, there was no Germany then. There was no Germany until 1871. I define a german as someone Born in the country of Germany.

Ehh, that's BS. So if a British woman, and a French man, have a child in Germany, then that kid is German both nationally and ethnically? Nationally, perhaps. But ethnically?

Quite simply, merely because the 'modern' Germany did not exist in the 1700's did not mean that the German race did not exist.

You're another my gods better than your god - go away with your rubbish and take your kerrang with you.

I didn't state anything of the sort you silly little twit!

I was replying to fraggles post if you hadn't realised - But now you mention it - the difference is that it wasn't Abrahaminsts, Hamsters, little green men from mars or George Bush and the Neocon Army? It was fanatical muslims, which are on the increase much to the dismay of the peace wanting world.

Prove it! Show me the names of the highjackers on any of the planes manifest. Can anyone prove that these were muslims on these planes? Anyone? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM - JUST NEOCON BULLSHIT!

Sorry but this is just a flatout lie. What you are referring to is the old testament (the torah) when did christ ever say it was alright to kill?? just find me examples. Christ said turn the other cheek muhammed not only didn't agree with that philosophy he actually fought wars to impose his will.

First and foremost, the bible, in it's present form CONTAINS NO WRITTINGS BY JESUS [PBUH]. You are given thrid and forth hand accounts by Paul whom you christians follow. You DO NOT FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS - FOR IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD BE DOING JUST AS THE MUSLIMS ARE PRESENTLY DOING. FIGHTING THERE OPPRESSORS. JESUS NEVER TAUGHT THAT TURN THE OTHER CHEEK CRAP - THAT WAS PAUL. JESUS WAS NOT THE WIMP YOU PEOPLE MAKE HIM OUT TO BE.

Second, Muhammed NEVER imposed his will on anyone.

There is no comparison christians need all sorts of moral gymnastics to justify killing (and there has been plenty of that) but muslims do not (they need only declare someone is an apostate or a heathen or an oppressor etc. etc.)

ARE YOU KIDDING? CHRISTIANS HAVE AND DO KILL AT THE DROP OF A DIME. THIS CHRISTIAN COUNTRY CAUSE MORE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THAN ALL NATIONS ON THE EARTH COMBINED AND THE ONLY REASON NEEDED IS THEY HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT SO KILL THEM AND TAKE IT. REMEMBER ALL THE NATIVE AMERICANS WHO WERE HERE BEFORE YOUR LITTLE HAPPY BAND OF CHRISTIANS SHOWED UP? THERE BLOOD RAN RIVERS BY CHRISTIAN HANDS. REMEMBER THE LITTLE INCIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY CALLED THE SLAVE TRADE? CHRISTIANS! DROPPING NUKES IN JAPAN? CHRISTIANS! VIET NAM? CHRISTIANS...


See above also most modern christians believe the bible was written by HUMANS inspired by god while the current muslim doctrine is that the quran IS the direct unblemished word of god (just ask them) so when the quran says

LISTEN, THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN. AS FOR INSPIRED - WELL, THAT TAKES A LEAP OF BLIND FAITH.

THE QU'RAN, IN IT'S PRESENT FORM IS AS IT WAS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED TO MUAHMMAD [PBUH] BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. PERIOD.

First and foremost, the bible, in it's present form CONTAINS NO WRITTINGS BY JESUS [PBUH]. You are given thrid and forth hand accounts by Paul whom you christians follow. You DO NOT FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS - FOR IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD BE DOING JUST AS THE MUSLIMS ARE PRESENTLY DOING. FIGHTING THERE OPPRESSORS. JESUS NEVER TAUGHT THAT TURN THE OTHER CHEEK CRAP - THAT WAS PAUL. JESUS WAS NOT THE WIMP YOU PEOPLE MAKE HIM OUT TO BE.

Typical muslim bullocks the more difficult path is the peaceful path but that doesn't fit in with muhammeds aggressive behaviour so islam made up a new more violent jesus :p

Second, Muhammed NEVER imposed his will on anyone.

His whole life was about imposing his will on the arabian peninsula and as we see from history his successors carried on his work in grand style until the ottomans were driven back from Vienna in the 16th century.



ARE YOU KIDDING? CHRISTIANS HAVE AND DO KILL AT THE DROP OF A DIME. THIS CHRISTIAN COUNTRY CAUSE MORE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THAN ALL NATIONS ON THE EARTH COMBINED AND THE ONLY REASON NEEDED IS THEY HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT SO KILL THEM AND TAKE IT. REMEMBER ALL THE NATIVE AMERICANS WHO WERE HERE BEFORE YOUR LITTLE HAPPY BAND OF CHRISTIANS SHOWED UP? THERE BLOOD RAN RIVERS BY CHRISTIAN HANDS. REMEMBER THE LITTLE INCIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY CALLED THE SLAVE TRADE? CHRISTIANS! DROPPING NUKES IN JAPAN? CHRISTIANS! VIET NAM? CHRISTIANS...

You obviously aren't aware of the real destruction wrought by your co-religionists. familiarize yourself

In other parts of Asia and Europe, the conquered nations quickly opted for conversion to Islam rather than death. But in India, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith, the Muslim conquests were for the Hindus a pure struggle between life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)

more info here (http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi6.htm)

Here is some background from the centuries of islamic jihad in india alone I am sure you are aware of their march of conquest through the middle east africa and europe etc etc







LISTEN, THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN. AS FOR INSPIRED - WELL, THAT TAKES A LEAP OF BLIND FAITH.

THE QU'RAN, IN IT'S PRESENT FORM IS AS IT WAS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED TO MUAHMMAD [PBUH] BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. PERIOD.

You know so little of your own faith instead of relying on the present day quranic mythology do some research start with the Mutazili movement the official school of thought in the caliphate in the 10th century (they didn't agree with you ;)

Prove it! Show me the names of the highjackers on any of the planes manifest. Can anyone prove that these were muslims on these planes? Anyone? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM - JUST NEOCON BULLSHIT!

Two words - Islamic terrorism

They just want to "free" themselves from the Christian "occupation"... <sick>
Jihad Watch (http://jihadwatch.org)

here in Toronto there are lots of Coptic Christians from Egypt. my gf's boss and another co-worker, and my pharmacist is one. so i personally know at-least 3, considering they are a very small group.

this is where they go, other than Israel, when the Egyptian nazis cleanse their land of kufr filth.

anyway, i'm sure that nun deserved it...

Two words - Islamic terrorism

and the evidence is........... :o oh i forgot you are birtish, you enjoy shooting and killing innocent people in subways. ;)

Sock puppet path:

Typical muslim bullocks the more difficult path is the peaceful path but that doesn't fit in with muhammeds aggressive behaviour so islam made up a new more violent jesus

Nonsense. He attempted to reconcile the Christianity and Judaism.


“ Second, Muhammed NEVER imposed his will on anyone. ”

His whole life was about imposing his will on the arabian peninsula
More bullshit. Muhammed fought back against the Meccans, who refused to tolerate his new religion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Muhammad had hoped that they (the Jews) would recognize him as a prophet, but they did not do so. Some academic historians suggest that Muhammad abandoned hope of recruiting Jews as allies or followers at this time, and thus the qibla, the Muslim direction of prayer, was changed from the site of the former Temple in Jerusalem to the Kabaa in Mecca.

Non-Muslim settlements within Muslim territories were taxed rather than expelled. Muhammad drafted a document now known as the Constitution of Medina (ca. 622-623), which laid out the terms on which the different factions, specifically the Jews, could exist within the new Islamic State. In this system, the Jews and other "Peoples of the Book" were allowed to keep their religions as long as they paid tribute. This system would come to typify Muslim relations with their non-believing subjects and that tradition was one reason for the stability of the later Muslim caliphate or Khilafah. In this, the Islamic empire was more tolerant than the other great powers of the area, the Byzantine and Sassanid empires, which were actively hostile to any religions or sects other than the state-sponsored religions (Orthodox Christianity and Zoroastrianism).

Yeah, Muhammad sure did try to impose his will on everyone, which is why he allowed Jews and Christians in his empire to continue to practice their respective religions.

*cough* DUMBASS

Sock puppet path:

Nonsense. He attempted to reconcile the Christianity and Judaism.


Right he reconciled the jews and christians right out of existence in the arabian peninsula

Sahih Muslim.Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim

Book 019, Number 4363:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (God's Message to us). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I want this (i. e. you should admit that God's Message has been communicated to you), accept Islam and you would be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qisim, you have communicated (Allah's Message). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind).

from sunnah (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html)


009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. from the quran (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html)

he was a real holy man that mo :p



More bullshit. Muhammed fought back against the Meccans, who refused to tolerate his new religion.

Right he fought back everybody who didn't accept what he said (see above) in the entire arabian peninsula.

Yeah, Muhammad sure did try to impose his will on everyone, which is why he allowed Jews and Christians in his empire to continue to practice their respective religions.

Right this is the official Sweet deal non-muslims got under muslim rule :rolleyes:

The pact of Umar

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant
of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of
such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct
(aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our
community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries,
Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such
of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.



We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give
board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide
him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not
prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when
they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the
qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as
they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms
nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the
zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the
Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not
raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the
roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the
Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We
shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community,
and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety,
we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for
contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose
them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not
buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with
deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

Official third class citizens with no possibility of advancement and constant humiliation.

*cough* DUMBASS

Tsk tsk ad homs are not only unseemly and juvenile they are also against the TOC ;)

Originally posted by Dkb218
Prove it! Show me the names of the highjackers on any of the planes manifest. Can anyone prove that these were muslims on these planes? Anyone? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM - JUST NEOCON BULLSHIT!

Take a look at some of the video of the hijackers entering the plane, and one may quickly realize that they are obviously not IRA members.

Some confusion has spread as to who the hijackers really were. Many of the faces and names the FBI originally posted turned out to be alive and living elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.



Many have claimed that the FBI lied in order to cover up the fact that they were actually members of the Saudi airforce.

The truth is that we will never know who many of the attackers were, because they used fake identification...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been "relatively easy" based on their level of sophistication.

Conspiracy theorists have used that original list in order to prove that the government is a liar, attempting to cover up some vast truth. The reality is that the FBI threw the list to the public to quickly before checking facts. One can see how tempting it might be, however, since a crime trail stays hot for only so long, and the public may have seen some of these men.

These theorists have insinuated that the fact that these names were mistaken is some big cover up, but take a look at the source of the stories above. CNN and BBC? The FBI admitted they messed up days after it occured. Is this some big secret?

Take a look at some of the video of the hijackers entering the plane, and one may quickly realize that they are obviously not IRA members.

There is no video of the hijacklers entering the planes. You have people who appear to be middle eastern, walking through metal detectors. Does not prove who these people are, what airport these photos were taken in, when they were taken...





Many have claimed that the FBI lied in order to cover up the fact that they were actually members of the Saudi airforce.

The truth is that we will never know who many of the attackers were, because they used fake identification...

We will never know who any of the hijackers were - if in fact there were hijackers. With all this adminstration has lied about, with all the cover-ups into the facts of 9/11, with the rapid removal of the debris from the site of the WTC, which could have provided proof as to what really brought those towers down - cause it damn sure was not jet fuel - is very hard for me to even think about believing anything that comes for official channels.

Right he reconciled the jews and christians right out of existence in the arabian peninsula





from sunnah (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html)


from the quran (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html)

he was a real holy man that mo




Right he fought back everybody who didn't accept what he said (see above) in the entire arabian peninsula.



Right this is the official Sweet deal non-muslims got under muslim rule



Official third class citizens with no possibility of advancement and constant humiliation.



Tsk tsk ad homs are not only unseemly and juvenile they are also against the TOC

Nice mix of facts and fiction. Who are these people anyways? except for one authenticatic referrence 009.029 . I doubt all of it, written by some random guy and collected as hadith. Very easy stuff, sounds familiar? ;)

Narrated by, heard by, and all other hearsay.....sounds very familiar. By the way that referrence of 009.029 is in context of war not in your every day life. But anyways, it is fun copying and pasting. ;)

There is no video of the hijacklers entering the planes. You have people who appear to be middle eastern, walking through metal detectors. Does not prove who these people are, what airport these photos were taken in, when they were taken...

We will never know who any of the hijackers were - if in fact there were hijackers. With all this adminstration has lied about, with all the cover-ups into the facts of 9/11, with the rapid removal of the debris from the site of the WTC, which could have provided proof as to what really brought those towers down - cause it damn sure was not jet fuel - is very hard for me to even think about believing anything that comes for official channels.

Oh Jesus. We knew who the hijackers were, they used their real names to buy the plane tickets. Some of them took lessons in flying. They were known to be terrorists even before they showed up on the flight manifests, but we dropped the ball on that one.

The jet fuel, the fire, the collapse, there is little mystery about that. Jet fuel burns at a certain temperature, but the building was full of flammable material, and steel loses significant strength when heated long before it's melting point. Ever see a blacksmith at work?

The jet fuel, the fire, the collapse, there is little mystery about that. Jet fuel burns at a certain temperature, but the building was full of flammable material, and steel loses significant strength when heated long before it's melting point. Ever see a blacksmith at work?


So you are suggesting that Americans knew that the terrorist attack was coming and made the building vulnerable. But how could such a thing ever remain a secret? One mistake and names of involved people might've leaked. Not to mention that many people would be involved; Someone might be able to trace it back to the responsible individuals.

Originally posted by Dkb218:
There is no video of the hijacklers entering the planes. You have people who appear to be middle eastern, walking through metal detectors. Does not prove who these people are, what airport these photos were taken in, when they were taken...

Now you speak as a paranoid. You can use this explanation to deny any type of proof. Why not have Bush flying the airplane? A President cant even cover up a blow job, let alone something of this exent. Do you not think that eventually that would get out?

Bush does not have a dictators powers to take control of an airport's video tapes, and then convince all who work in that area to keep their mouths shut, including everyone in the FBI.

Originally posted by Dkb218:
We will never know who any of the hijackers were

Which is exactly what I said, but for different reasons than a conspiracy.

with the rapid removal of the debris from the site of the WTC

Boy, I cannot wait to see what wacky website claimed this....

which could have provided proof as to what really brought those towers down - cause it damn sure was not jet fuel -

Hmm... A building burning at thousands of degree's from jet fuel could not bring a building down? Do you know what happens to steel when it is heated up? I guess you know more than all of the architects who claimed otherwise.

if in fact there were hijackers

and now we are taking the straight, fast path to looney land.....

Originally posted by spidergoat:
Oh Jesus. We knew who the hijackers were, they used their real names to buy the plane tickets. Some of them took lessons in flying. They were known to be terrorists even before they showed up on the flight manifests, but we dropped the ball on that one.

Actually, if you read my Cnn and BBC articles, you will find out otherwise. Those news sources stated that some claimed hijackers, were indeed, alive. The director of the Fbi at the time stated that they used fake ID, which means they did not think the manifest would be accurate. Several others have been found alive that were originally thought to be on board since those articles were written. It makes sense that they would use bogus information.

Here are the two articles again...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/1559151.stm

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

Bush does not have a dictators powers to take control of an airport's video tapes, and then convince all who work in that area to keep their mouths shut, including everyone in the FBI.

Lawyers for Sibel Edmonds, the former translator for the FBI, have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case. Edmonds claims that she was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the bureau. The FBI hired Edmonds, who is fluent in Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. She was fired in 2002 and filed a lawsuit later that year arguing that her firing was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on other FBI officials. (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-08-05-sibelsupremecourt.php)

Hmm... A building burning at thousands of degree's from jet fuel could not bring a building down? Do you know what happens to steel when it is heated up? I guess you know more than all of the architects who claimed otherwise.

The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

Nice mix of facts and fiction. Who are these people anyways? except for one authenticatic referrence 009.029 . I doubt all of it, written by some random guy and collected as hadith. Very easy stuff, sounds familiar? ;)

Narrated by, heard by, and all other hearsay.....sounds very familiar. By the way that referrence of 009.029 is in context of war not in your every day life. But anyways, it is fun copying and pasting. ;)

That is from one of the most reputable islamic sites on the net The University of southern californias muslim students association they do not post hearsay sunnah. Yes 9.29 is in the context of war a war that has been going on for almost 1400 years ;)

edit: sorry forgot to give you the courtesy of a link
here (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/)

Oh Jesus. We knew who the hijackers were, they used their real names to buy the plane tickets. Some of them took lessons in flying. They were known to be terrorists even before they showed up on the flight manifests, but we dropped the ball on that one.

The jet fuel, the fire, the collapse, there is little mystery about that. Jet fuel burns at a certain temperature, but the building was full of flammable material, [really? like what? I kinda think that having a building FULL of flammable material would be against NYC building code] and steel loses significant strength when heated long before it's melting point. Ever see a blacksmith at work?


Really, we KNEW they were terrorist BEFORE 9/11? Really? And still we let them take flying lessons? Still be gave them VISA's to enter the country? You entire post sounds like a sound bit from the BUSH admin archives

Yes steel weakens after being heated long enough, you are so right about that. Now, considering I was standing 6 blocks from the WTC watching them burn on 9/11, let me ask you , will steal weaken and melt in less than 45 minutes? Remember, MOST of the jet fuel was burned up on impact [remember that huge orange ball raising in the air - that was jet fuel buring.].

That is from one of the most reputable islamic sites on the net The University of southern californias muslim students association they do not post hearsay sunnah. Yes 9.29 is in the context of war a war that has been going on for almost 1400 years ;)


The University of southern californias muslim students association is one of the most reputable islamic sites on the net? :eek:

The identity of the hijackers is, I guess, debatable. I didn't read the 9/11 report.



Yes steel weakens after being heated long enough, you are so right about that. Now, considering I was standing 6 blocks from the WTC watching them burn on 9/11, let me ask you , will steal weaken and melt in less than 45 minutes? Remember, MOST of the jet fuel was burned up on impact [remember that huge orange ball raising in the air - that was jet fuel buring.].
Jet fuel doesn't burn unless it's vaporized. It couldn't have all burned at once, considering the reports of fuel slashing down the elevator shaft, and yes, 45 minutes is plenty of time.

It didn't have to melt to fail, just weaken. Remember it's under a load from the floors above.

A deliberate demolition would not have started at the top, but would have taken out the lower floors first, like the first WTC attack.

Second, Muhammed NEVER imposed his will on anyone.

No, he just liked to screw some 6 year old girl named aisha.

By the way, how do you know? You weren't there to see it.

Oh wait a sec. You read it in a book. And the book states that it's content is based on the truth.

Wake up. Your religion is based on a book that could have been written by anyone.

No, he just liked to screw some 6 year old girl named aisha.

By the way, how do you know? You weren't there to see it.
.


And you were there to see all that? :o

That is from one of the most reputable islamic sites on the net The University of southern californias muslim students association they do not post hearsay sunnah. Yes 9.29 is in the context of war a war that has been going on for almost 1400 years ;)

edit: sorry forgot to give you the courtesy of a link
here (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/)

not sure if I cry or laugh at the most reputable comment, however you are right war is war 1400 or not, doesn't apply on every day life. ;)

Originally posted by Dbk218:
Lawyers for Sibel Edmonds, the former translator for the FBI, have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case. Edmonds claims that she was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the bureau. The FBI hired Edmonds, who is fluent in Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. She was fired in 2002 and filed a lawsuit later that year arguing that her firing was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on other FBI officials.


This story has to do with reports of bad security, not with who attacked during 9-11. Is this somehow supposed to prove a conspiracy of 9-11 is possible?

As for your other story....

If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.

Minor damage? A jumbo jet hit the tower at 400 miles per hour. The tower was smoking for 45 minutes after impact.... How is that minor?

The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag.

How does he presume this considering there was a pile of smoke coming out of the towers? Was he standing in the tower to feel it sag at the time?

The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either,

Here is an article that will prove this wrong...

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

Reynolds claim is that the hole was not large enough to fit the 155 foot wing span. The north towers hole was actually 204 feet.


No "inward-bending columns" were observed and it would be unlikely that each and every one would be reversed by subsequent explosion, and

This is simply not true. Reynolds confuses the columns with the aluminium cladding in the building. All of the columns, were indeed, bent inward....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/170105woman.jpg


Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames

Was he watching what the rest of the world was watching..???

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/docs/nt_col6502.jpg

Occam’s razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown perimeter columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges demolition experts use to slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures), as well as the rather-neatly shorn steel everywhere.

This is an example of Occam's razor? THis isnt stretching facts?


Here is an article from Thomas Eager, a professor of Materials at MIT that your article mentioned

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Unlike your hack article, the professor at MIT states...

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

A lot of people said, Well, the building failed. That's true, but nothing is indestructible. The question is, why did it fail? In this case, as I've explained, it was the fire covering the whole floor in a few seconds that made this different from any other fire that anyone had ever designed for.

Reynolds, by the way, is not a physicist.....

sock puppet:

Right he reconciled the jews and christians right out of existence in the arabian peninsula

Obviously bullshit, since Jewish and Christian tribes existed in Saudi Arabia during, and after, the rule of Muhammed.


Sahih Muslim.Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim


Either the narration here is screwed, or Muhammed was talking BS, since there were a large number of Christian and Jewish tribes in Saudi Arabia during, and after Muhammed's rule.

" O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (God's Message to us). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I want this (i. e. you should admit that God's Message has been communicated to you), accept Islam and you would be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qisim, you have communicated (Allah's Message). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind). ”

Jews and Christians continued to live in the Arabian Peninsula until the time of `Omar Ibn al-Khattab. So obviously what Muhammed supposedly said, and what he actually did, are two totally different things.

“ 009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. ”


Ohh, non-believers had to pay a special tax. How horrible! We all know that rival empires treated non-believers so much better. :rolleyes:


Right this is the official Sweet deal non-muslims got under muslim rule

Hang on a sec, I thought that non-muslims were expelled from the Arabian penisula? Yet there were still non-muslims under Muslim rule? That's an internal contradiction on your behalf, and it really hurts your credibility.



Tsk tsk ad homs are not only unseemly and juvenile they are also against the TOC ;)
Fuck you, asshole. Why don't you do a little reading and learn what actually constitutes an ad hominem before engaging in disguised condescension and sarcasm?
Either report my behaviour to the moderators if you find it so offensive, or get ye gone.

sock puppet:


Obviously bullshit, since Jewish and Christian tribes existed in Saudi Arabia during, and after, the rule of Muhammed.



Either the narration here is screwed, or Muhammed was talking BS, since there were a large number of Christian and Jewish tribes in Saudi Arabia during, and after Muhammed's rule.

Jews and Christians continued to live in the Arabian Peninsula until the time of `Omar Ibn al-Khattab. So obviously what Muhammed supposedly said, and what he actually did, are two totally different things.

Here is the fate of one jewish tribe at the hands of Mo
” Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

My point was in reply to dkb that mo and his religion had no intention of reconciling jews and christians. Try checking Bukhari volume4, book52, 288
one of Mos' dying wishes was that the unbelievers be expelled from the arabian peninsula something caliph Umar carried out in a decree of 641 or the year 20 by the islamic calander. Why don't you tell muslims that mohammed was bullshiting in hadith ;)

Ohh, non-believers had to pay a special tax. How horrible! We all know that rival empires treated non-believers so much better. :rolleyes:

The tax I don't really see as an issue it is the rest of it lets write it as if it were laws regarding muslims who had newly been conquered by hindus, blue commentary is mine.

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new mosques, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such
of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Hindus.

So muslims have to make do with what is already in place and even watch that slowly deteriorate into ruin

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give
board and lodging to all hindus who pass our way for three days.

So muslims in effect lose dominion in thier own homes

We shall not give shelter in our mosques or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide
him from the hindus.

We shall not teach the Veda to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not
prevent any of our kin from entering hinduism if they wish it.

Imagine that no head scarves (ever not just in school) no skull caps no muslim dress in public period. Converting to hinduism, obviously an attractive option for any muslim wishing to regain his dignity.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when
they wish to sit.

Do you know who Rosa Parks was?

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the
qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as
they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

A full body equivilent to having to wear the star of david on your arm

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms
nor carry them on our- persons.

Muslims must remain unarmed and on foot or donkey while hindus are free to arm themselves and mount horses (which they most likely got on the cheap from muslims who couldn't ride them any longer

We shall not engrave Hindu inscriptions on our seals.

Just to be sure the seals are from a muslim and not a noble hindu.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

So much for saturday night :p

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

Another star of david

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the
zunar round our waists

I assume you know by now

We shall not display the crescent moon or our quran in the roads or markets of the
hindus. We shall use only call the faithful to prayer in our mosques very softly. We shall not
raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the
roads of the Hindus or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the
Hindus.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Hindus.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Hindus

The tax is nothing M8


Hang on a sec, I thought that non-muslims were expelled from the Arabian penisula? Yet there were still non-muslims under Muslim rule? That's an internal contradiction on your behalf, and it really hurts your credibility.

No sport, what is hurt here is your reading comprehension, I never contradicted myself. I posted the "pact of Umar" in response to your claim that non-muslims had it good under muslim rule.


Fuck you, asshole. Why don't you do a little reading and learn what actually constitutes an ad hominem before engaging in disguised condescension and sarcasm?
Either report my behaviour to the moderators if you find it so offensive, or get ye gone.

If you don't wish to be condescended to try acting like an adult. As for getting gone not bloody likely

not sure if I cry or laugh at the most reputable comment, however you are right war is war 1400 or not, doesn't apply on every day life. ;)

Well, which hadiths do you consider invalid and by which authority? Why don't you take it up with the USC, MSA

Is palestinian Mountainhare referring to Muhammad's massacre of the Jews in Madina (that dare not convert to HIS 'religion') this particular city which they have actually build?

I think these islamic thugs (in Egypt and now all across Europe) are merely trying to demonstrate against the christian occputation... Huh palestinian propagandists out there?

Is palestinian Mountainhare referring to Muhammad's massacre of the Jews in Madina (that dare not convert to HIS 'religion') this particular city which they have actually build?

I think these islamic thugs (in Egypt and now all across Europe) are merely trying to demonstrate against the christian occputation... Huh palestinian propagandists out there?

LOL..hahah,... Run run run kiwi, they are coming after you.........boooooooo :D

skywalker, LOL...

Thanks but no worries this calm person is not like YOU paranoid.,

BTW if you are not 'muslim enough' they're after you too...
i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakisatan.

I think it only goes to prove how backward, dangerous and violent Islam is.

Guess what creates all the headlines of violence in the world - Islam!
The reform is only in their hands, I am tired of being told in the west to be more tolerant towards them and not 'offend' them by saying it is all about ISLAM, but their media continues to demonize us in the west.

A nun was stabbed at the church by a young Muslim on Wednesday
...
muslims attacking a church, and also stabbing a nun HOW BRAVE.

Smartest thing islamic extremists have done yet, if you ask me.

Hapsburg! You sure have an uplifted way of posting.

I tend to see the silver linings. Now that that nun is dead, that's one less person to spread bullshit myths and propaganda.

Shit Yeah Muslims Are Just Angry Sobs Who Totally Irrational And Killeveryone They Hate Us Cause Theyre Jealous Cause Their So Dumb They Should Like Smoke Some Hashish Know What Im ‘reeferin’ To? A Little Something Yo Ease The ‘chronic’ Mideast Aggression

Cause Christians Ahve Never Ever Committed Atrocites And Anyone Christian That Blows Up Abortion Clinics Or Captures And Rapes Little Girls Or Burns Niggers Aint Really A Christian Just Like A Muslim Killing Some Jews For Islam Means All Muslims Are Crazy Flesheating Babykilling Mongrels

Godbless You Bloodthirsty Zeppelins

Past Christians? Yes, but today in age, R. Muslims are the only ones that kill in the name of religion.