Is This Real? DIRECTOR OF INDIANAPOLIS VA HOSPITAL APOLIGISES TO JAPANESE

[RockofStrength]

That is a good thing, because Christian beliefs are equally detached from reality and they are not at all interested in educating anyone, beyond putting some other variant of voodoo wizardry into their heads. People should oppose all this nonsense regardless of what the end game is.

I would think a rational person would want people to be willing to consider, rationally, any belief that they come across and test it for truth or lack thereof. You can never be more sure of the veracity of your own beliefs than when you've made the effort to understand the others surrounding it, hm?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Add in Tactics of the Crescent Moon subtitled Militant Muslim Combat Methods by H. John Poole. I found it at Half Price Books. Awesome read into the mind of an Arab and an Asian in battle.


But, I still have my muslim problem at the VA. First time I hear Allah Akbar...I am shouting back Jesus Akbar, Allah (spit on ground here) and assume the war has started.

Everyone heard about the 19 minute op with snipers on a power plant right? Probing. A test. Sleep tight.

I read Tactics of the Cresent Moon when it came out. I was actually in the Middle East at the time as a security contractor, so I was reading everything I could on tactics of the opposition.

Odd that you should recommend it and then immediately say the first time you hear "Allah Akbar" you'll assume a war has started. Maybe check out pg. 214-225 again.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The Crusades tend to get a bad rap in recent times, not unlike America's involvement in Vietnam did for years after the war. But the reality is that the Crusades were not all bad and did much to protect the world from advancing radical Islam during that time of history.

I missed that the first time around. No, they weren't all bad and they certainly weren't all good, either. If you're going to throw around "radical" let's examine the events of the first Crusade in perspective. Both sides were "radical" as we'd view them today, but were the Muslims "radical" for the time, and were the Christians? Then, let's look at the claim that it stopped Islam from advancing further.


1) The Muslims had not conquered any new significant territory for decades at the onset of the first Crusade, and internal struggles were causing them to collapse back in on themselves in many areas. The schism between the power base of Egypt/North Africa and the power base of the Turks were at each other's throats and the Crusades probably staved off their own "civil war". In fact, Jerusalem fell so easily because it had recently changed hands in an Inter-Islamic world war. The garrison was small and reinforcements had to come from North Africa, the home base of power for the current occupiers.

2) The Muslims were far from radical. Chrisitans and Jews were allowed to live in conquered territories, churchs and synagoges continued their religious services, etc. Christians and Jews were "People of the Book" and were supposed to be treated well. Now, polythiests and athiests were fair game for being put to death...but the same was true in Christian held lands so it wasn't so much "radical" as "how things are done" in that time.

3) The First Crusade was basically a border war, it never struck at the heart of Islamic power. Guess which side slaughtered Jews when they were found?

4) One of the reasons the Pope called for the first Crusade was to help the Byzantines against the encroaching hordes of Muslims, right? To help their Eastern Christian brethren. Yet who expels all of the Eastern Christians from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre after the fall of Jerusalem? Byzantines, Coptics, Armenians, etc. Christians who were previously allowed access were banned under the new Christian leadership. The very people they were supposedly Crusading to protect.

5) How many Muslim and Jewish noncombatants were slaughtered in the fall of Jerusalem after the siege was ended?

6) How many Emirs willingly conducted commerce with the invading force? Provided supplies and the like because the Crusaders weren't there to destroy them, they were there to conquer Jerusalem...and they didn't care because Jerusalem was already in the hands of a "foreign" power?

7) How did Antioch? Who betrayed it, a Christian or a Muslim?

8) When Jerusalem was besieged, what was done with the Christians living inside? Were they killed? (Hint, the US did the same thing with Japanese citizens during WWII as the Musims).


Now, let's look at the end effect. You say it helped stop the spread of Muslims conquering new territory. Do you think centuries of unsuccessful incursions did that, or internal issues? The Muslim world was never a unified body any more than "The Indians" were in the US. They occasionally banded together against outsiders, but they fought among each other a lot more. The Moors didn't care what happened to the Turks, and vice versa. It *still* isn't a unified body any more than "The West" or "Christians" are. Groups, yes, unified, no.

 

[Tired of Lies]

I read Tactics of the Cresent Moon when it came out. I was actually in the Middle East at the time as a security contractor, so I was reading everything I could on tactics of the opposition.

Odd that you should recommend it and then immediately say the first time you hear "Allah Akbar" you'll assume a war has started. Maybe check out pg. 214-225 again.

I was talking about the Muslim Woman's Advocate at the VA only.

And, believe it or not you actually heard that pretty regularly on the streets of NY and in 7/11's prior to 9/11. Maybe again now as most New Yorker's seem to have accepted the fact we lost the war. Right after 9/11 Muslims kept a low profile. The place I worked at was handing guys coming off jobsites on 9/11 5 gallon buckets, gloves, eye and breathing protection and 12 gauge shells.

I was very disappointed to hear Bush tell the public not to worry, shop and let the military take care of it. We should have heard on 9/12 that Medina was no more and the Muslim world told that unless they get their own crazies under control Mecca would be next. While we were at it we should have replaced the petrodollar with commodity units. A barrel of oil for a bushel of wheat. Don't like it? Starve.

I have been on the loading dock of the WTC while a Muslim male refused to count my load because I was a woman. I have met female Muslim's in NYC that were in hiding because their crazy brother thought they were embarrassing the family by dating an American and going to NYU. One part I disagree with. Muslim men hit women because they can. Give the balance of power to women and destroy Islam at it's barbaric core.

In that respect I think Poole got it wrong where he got it so right on tactics. Islam is a cancer and needs to be shown a hand of strength. A super power that refuses to lower itself to a terrorist's level will not last. What good came of your time in Iraq? We have no lasting peace there. All we did is wasted precious national wealth and blood. Afghanistan is not far behind. We would have been better to have congress use it's powers of Letter of Marque instead of sending soldiers. I totally disagreed with the idea of sending contractors at all.

Do you know why they hit the WTC? Twice? Read Why Buildings Stand Up and Why Buildings Fall down. I believe their future US targets are in it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Got to fact check myself, I made an error up thread. Peter the Hermit didn't die in a trial by fire, Peter Bartholomew did. I got my Peters mixed up. (Feel free to use that last sentence out of context if its funny.)

 

[Tired of Lies]

Got to fact check myself, I made an error up thread. Peter the Hermit didn't die in a trial by fire, Peter Bartholomew did. I got my Peters mixed up. (Feel free to use that last sentence out of context if its funny.)

Valentines Day Peter? Iron chair set on fire?


Vlad the Impaler needs his own holiday. He is credited with keeping Muslims out of Europe. Did 50k in one battle alone.