I'll be brief here as I have to go to work,

By Islamic standards they are not real Muslims, that is why they are being killed wherever they are found. Along with Christians and any other "Kafirs".

Exactly.

We've been trying to coexist with them for the last 1400 years. They aren't having any of it, the problem has only escalated, despite efforts at peace. Here's an analogy, if you're killing cockroaches and you "save" ones that you consider "good" how long will it be before they repopulate? How many of those will be "bad"?

BTW, 15% is just the estimated number of "participants". The estimates of those that support Jihad are around 50-60%.

By Islamic standards? There isn't exactly a single Islamic standard considering there are different sects of Islam.

Cockaroaches are a poor analogy. This 1400 years of conflict is so much more complex than just Islam vs the world. That completely ignores all of the politics, economics, etc that have gone into the middle east conflicts over the years. I also wouldn't say that we have been trying to "coexist" with them for 1400 years. Were the crusades just attempts to coexist?

The percentage number was just made up as it was just an example to illustrate my point that if we ignore hearts and minds we will only serve to increase that number.

Aloha Syrians
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30532863/governor-hawaii-would-welcome-syrian-refugees

 

They better cut CCW loose too !

Saw a flag something like this, who's is it ?

By Islamic standards? There isn't exactly a single Islamic standard considering there are different sects of Islam.

Cockaroaches are a poor analogy. This 1400 years of conflict is so much more complex than just Islam vs the world. That completely ignores all of the politics, economics, etc that have gone into the middle east conflicts over the years. I also wouldn't say that we have been trying to "coexist" with them for 1400 years. Were the crusades just attempts to coexist?

The percentage number was just made up as it was just an example to illustrate my point that if we ignore hearts and minds we will only serve to increase that number.

Ahh! The Crusades. I knew someone would bring it up.

Actually, since you put it that way, yeah, they kind of were! Unfortunately your view of the Crusades has been tainted by revisionist historians { most of whom are liberal fucktards }.

The first Crusade was begun in response to Muslim aggression. During their wars of conquest to expand their territory, Muslims had taken the Holy Lands { Jerusalem } which were originally populated by Christians. Having done this, they promised safe passage for Christians making a pilgrimage for the purposes of worship. Great right! Too bad it didn't last.
 Emperor Alexios I of Byzantine found his empire under siege and being destroyed by our friends the "peace loving Muslims" and also noted that they were now demanding a tax from Christian pilgrims, and slaughtering those that couldn't pay. He sent an emissary with a message to Pope Urban II citing this and asking for military assistance in defending his empire and retaking the Holy Lands in the name of the church.
The Pope saw this as an opportunity to repair a rift that had developed between the Eastern and Western factions of the church and unite them under him. So he sent forth an army, that eventually kicked ass and took the Holy Lands back. Now this didn't last either. There were numerous Crusades, all of which were destroyed by the Muslims, over the next 800 years until the 1600's when the agreement that pretty much stands to this day was reached wherein the Muslims controlled the Holy sites that mattered most to them and vise versa for the Christians.

This doesn't mean the Crusaders didn't commit atrocities, they just didn't commit them against Muslims. Most of them were committed against everyone's favorite whipping boy, the German Jews.

It also doesn't change the fact that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. They have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You're right, cockroaches are a poor analogy.

Pigs are better.

Ahh! The Crusades. I knew someone would bring it up.

Actually, since you put it that way, yeah, they kind of were! Unfortunately your view of the Crusades has been tainted by revisionist historians { most of whom are liberal fucktards }.

The first Crusade was begun in response to Muslim aggression. During their wars of conquest to expand their territory, Muslims had taken the Holy Lands { Jerusalem } which were originally populated by Christians. Having done this, they promised safe passage for Christians making a pilgrimage for the purposes of worship. Great right! Too bad it didn't last.
 Emperor Alexios I of Byzantine found his empire under siege and being destroyed by our friends the "peace loving Muslims" and also noted that they were now demanding a tax from Christian pilgrims, and slaughtering those that couldn't pay. He sent an emissary with a message to Pope Urban II citing this and asking for military assistance in defending his empire and retaking the Holy Lands in the name of the church.
The Pope saw this as an opportunity to repair a rift that had developed between the Eastern and Western factions of the church and unite them under him. So he sent forth an army, that eventually kicked ass and took the Holy Lands back. Now this didn't last either. There were numerous Crusades, all of which were destroyed by the Muslims, over the next 800 years until the 1600's when the agreement that pretty much stands to this day was reached wherein the Muslims controlled the Holy sites that mattered most to them and vise versa for the Christians.

This doesn't mean the Crusaders didn't commit atrocities, they just didn't commit them against Muslims. Most of them were committed against everyone's favorite whipping boy, the German Jews.

It also doesn't change the fact that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. They have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You're right, cockroaches are a poor analogy.

Pigs are better.

Thanks, edster. I'm so fucking sick of these idiotic Islamist apologists that use that old "Crusades" argument, which is nothing more than a logical fallacy in and of itself.

People that regurgitate that idiocy NEVER once mention that in 1095, when the First Crusade was called upon, the Iberian peninsula (modern day Spain, Portugal, and parts of southern France) had ALREADY been living under centuries of Muslim occupation and dhimmitude. What did the Visigoths or Franks do to deserve Muslim aggression, rape, theft, enslavement, forced conversion, and/or murder? It was only when Charles Martel and his Frankish fighters engaged the Muslims in military force that the poison of Islam was halted and eventually pushed back over the Pyrenees mountains. Long story short: Muslims are the ones that started with the unwarranted aggression, and the Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action to MUSLIM AGGRESSION.

Ahh! The Crusades. I knew someone would bring it up.

Actually, since you put it that way, yeah, they kind of were! Unfortunately your view of the Crusades has been tainted by revisionist historians { most of whom are liberal fucktards }.

The first Crusade was begun in response to Muslim aggression. During their wars of conquest to expand their territory, Muslims had taken the Holy Lands { Jerusalem } which were originally populated by Christians. Having done this, they promised safe passage for Christians making a pilgrimage for the purposes of worship. Great right! Too bad it didn't last.
 Emperor Alexios I of Byzantine found his empire under siege and being destroyed by our friends the "peace loving Muslims" and also noted that they were now demanding a tax from Christian pilgrims, and slaughtering those that couldn't pay. He sent an emissary with a message to Pope Urban II citing this and asking for military assistance in defending his empire and retaking the Holy Lands in the name of the church.
The Pope saw this as an opportunity to repair a rift that had developed between the Eastern and Western factions of the church and unite them under him. So he sent forth an army, that eventually kicked ass and took the Holy Lands back. Now this didn't last either. There were numerous Crusades, all of which were destroyed by the Muslims, over the next 800 years until the 1600's when the agreement that pretty much stands to this day was reached wherein the Muslims controlled the Holy sites that mattered most to them and vise versa for the Christians.

This doesn't mean the Crusaders didn't commit atrocities, they just didn't commit them against Muslims. Most of them were committed against everyone's favorite whipping boy, the German Jews.

It also doesn't change the fact that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. They have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You're right, cockroaches are a poor analogy.

Pigs are better.

I am not denying that muslim aggression was the cause there rather I am saying that I think it is very narrow minded to suggest that it was purely some good vs evil. What wars are ever that simple?

I am suspicious of any political argument that tries to frame a complicated situation as just some struggle between good and evil. It is a lot easier to get people on your side if you convince them it is black and white.

Thanks, edster. I'm so fucking sick of these idiotic Islamist apologists that use that old "Crusades" argument, which is nothing more than a logical fallacy in and of itself.

People that regurgitate that idiocy NEVER once mention that in 1095, when the First Crusade was called upon, the Iberian peninsula (modern day Spain, Portugal, and parts of southern France) had ALREADY been living under centuries of Muslim occupation and dhimmitude. What did the Visigoths or Franks do to deserve Muslim aggression, rape, theft, enslavement, forced conversion, and/or murder? It was only when Charles Martel and his Frankish fighters engaged the Muslims in military force that the poison of Islam was halted and eventually pushed back over the Pyrenees mountains. Long story short: Muslims are the ones that started with the unwarranted aggression, and the Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action to MUSLIM AGGRESSION.

You're welcome!

As I said in an earlier post, history answers a lot of questions, if we'll only listen.

Truth is our most potent weapon against evil. When you find people denying, twisting, or trying to hide it, you've more than likely found the seeds of evil trying to take root.

I am not denying that muslim aggression was the cause there rather I am saying that I think it is very narrow minded to suggest that it was purely some good vs evil. What wars are ever that simple?

I am suspicious of any political argument that tries to frame a complicated situation as just some struggle between good and evil. It is a lot easier to get people on your side if you convince them it is black and white.

I think it's a mistake to frame it as a "political argument".
Politics and politicians ever seek to muddy the waters and deny clarity. It's the wedge they use to find an advantage and capitalize on it to further their own self serving ambitions.

Almost always to our detriment.

I think it's a mistake to frame it as a "political argument".
Politics and politicians ever seek to muddy the waters and deny clarity. It's the wedge they use to find an advantage and capitalize on it to further their own self serving ambitions.

Almost always to our detriment.

I would say, to the contrary, politicians seem to love to make things black and white/good vs. evil because they can get more supporters that way. It is hard to convince a country to go to war over gray areas.

Of course they will use gray areas when it suits them though.

removed broken link

I know we've probably all made fun of the french at some point or another, but damn gotta give it to the guy that was behind this.  The next few buys in the stack were probably holding up his massive balls so they didn't drag on the ground.

I know we've probably all made fun of the french at some point or another, but damn gotta give it to the guy that was behind this.  The next few buys in the stack were probably holding up his massive balls so they didn't drag on the ground.

...
Saw that shield on the news yesterday.
At that point the phrase "terminate with extreme prejudice" came to mind.