Miliant Islamists really DO hate freedom...

[Big Phil]

One-- Durandal, there was terrorism before the state of Israel was founded. Much of the terrorism was not directed against the United States at the time, though, so it goes historically unnoticed by us.

THAT'S THE GOD DAMN POINT. If the terrorists hate our freedom so damn much, then why were they not attacking us before we started supporting Israel? Christ all-fucking mighty. You don't actually believe this idiocy Bush is peddling do you? He's trying to oversimplify the situation for obvious reasons -- to give Americans a sense of righteousness. So instead of saying, "They're attacking us because we support Israel and are moving in on their culture," he says, "Duh, they hate our freedom." Do you not see a problem here?

I can't agree with you, Durandel. Let's start with the first fact we can all agree on here. Non-revised Islam is specifically authoritarian and opposed to the basic principles of democratic society. It rejects the concept of government as anything but a tool to administer Shariat and the Qur'anic concepts which are, due to the "uncreate" doctorine the literal direct will of God. These concepts are also the last, perfect words of God, never to be superceded (As Islam says to have done to Christianity and Judaism.)

At the base, we have this fact. Pure Islam is anti-democratic, and indeed can construe the concept of democracy as being heretical and opposed to God's will.

I've already acknowledged that Islam doesn't like democracy. Try reading my god damn post. The fact that Muslims do not like democracy does not mean that they will attack every state that practices it. What the fuck is so hard to grasp about this concept?

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

[Elfdart]

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

And how do you explain that between @1800 and 1950 the USA had ZERO problems with the Muslim world like we have now? So from James Madison to Harry Truman, we didn't have any kind of serious trouble from Muslims or Arabs. That's a whole kennel of dogs who didn't bark. So much for your theory.

[Darth Wong]

Simply acknowledging a factual statement by someone is not an endorsement of that person.

Yet again you demonstrate your profound stupidity, since it does not have to be an endorsement of the person. It only has to be a defense of his doctrine.

Thats mighty funny because the founders of this nation primarily were Christians.

Which is why the original Constitution had no human rights at all in it, and Jefferson (not a Christian) pushed through the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.

I briefly researched your point. I didn't find much. I never said that Militant Christians didn't exist, but they are far fewer in number and are just as guilty of perverting Christianity as Islamic Militants are.

I already answered this moronic point earlier. Answer my rebuttal.

Bullshit. Public opinion in Jordan is massively weighted in favour of crushingly oppressive social policies, you idiot. If you made it a democracy, these oppressive social policies would still exist.

Source? I tried to research this, but didn't find much. And your oppinion on what democracy might or might not do is strictly your oppinion.

You actually demand a "source" for the fact that Jordanian societal traditions are oppressive? The place where women are routinely executed for violating Sharia law?

There's this little trick that educated people use: it's called "reading". Try it sometime.

The sources I cited directly quoted from the Koran and how terrorists had perverted and twisted its meanings. They aren't simply stating "They have twisted the religion" without showing where and how.

They do this by ignoring the nasty parts themselves. See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html for more.

WRONG Jackass. You have missed the point entirely. They don't hate democracy for democracy's sake. They hate it because of the freedoms it could provide. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Its the fear that the majority of the people might choose "unislamic" laws. Its those fears that motivate them.

Oh wow, you're a mind-reader now? You can describe their inner motivations? That's an amazing talent; perhaps you should go to Las Vegas and use that talent to win high-stakes poker games for big bucks.

And when I started this discussion I was specifically targeting the "resistance" in Iraq. I simply wanted to point out that these groups aren't "fighting for their freedom", they are fighting to become top dogs in the next dictatorship. It is you and others who have broadend this to include "all anti US terror groups".

Your first post said nothing whatsoever about Iraq, but thanks for demonstrating that you will gladly stoop to backpedaling and bullfuckery.

Why do violent Christian radical groups have to be just as numerous or active as their Islamic counterparts in order to validate my point?

Um what is your point exactly?

My point is that George W. Bush can't condemn others for opposing "freedom" when he himself wants to shove his own religious values down the throats of others. And you can't say that democracy = freedom, no matter how much bullshit you fling.

I'm aware that democracy in and of itself is "no guarantee" of freedom. But, are you going to argue that a Sharia based society is more apt to provide freedom for its people? Democracy by its very nature has the mechanisms in place to provide personal freedom. Whether or not you believe human nature is inclined towards freedom is up to you.

Don't you realize that a democracy in a place like Jordan would lead to a Sharia based society?

The reason I brought up the whole "hating freedom" was the explanation provided by these groups. It wasn't simply the fact that the Iraqi people could choose their leaders. They feared the people having the freedom to make choices in their lives that went against Islamic tradition.

Of course they do; how is that different from Christians who complain that constitutional human rights guarantees can let people make lifestyle choices that go against Biblical values?

Militant Christians are no better than Militant Islamists. Again, this is not about "Christianity vs Islam".

It is about George W. Bush's rhetoric. You say it is validated by these statements. I say that A) it is not validated since democracy != freedom, and B) his constant rhetoric about "freedom" is grossly hypocritical.

Again, I'd need to see specifics to address what you are talking about. However, any "data" collected in a country where people have to fear reprisals should they "step out of line" would have to be considered suspect.

You really know nothing about Jordan, do you?

[tharkûn]

And how do you explain that between @1800 and 1950 the USA had ZERO problems with the Muslim world like we have now? So from James Madison to Harry Truman, we didn't have any kind of serious trouble from Muslims or Arabs. That's a whole kennel of dogs who didn't bark. So much for your theory.

Zero problems? I refer you to Mindanao in the early 1900's. Both on Mindanao and Solo Muslims waged guerilla warfare against US forces and committed various atrocities. Dato Ali was a leading "terrorist" of his day. I can cite lesser examples from Morrocco and South Asia, but this unbroken stretch is a figment of your imagination.

Essentially you have from Madison to Roosevelt and the reason for this is barbarically simple, during that time period the Islamic states outside of Persia and the Ottoman Empire and friggen Arabian desert were reduced to titular entities that were ruled de facto if not de jure by Britain and France. Not suprisingly the majority of Islamic strife during this period in time was directed towards the British and the French. Likewise a good bit of Muslim strife was directed towards the 'apostate' Ottoman regime.

There have been a long succession of scapegoats in the Islamic world who have been blamed for dismal state of the Islamic world. You have the Ottomans who became too enamored with wealth and pleasure as well as slipped in their devotion to the Quran. You had the French who ruled much of Islamic North Africa and had hangups about enforcing Sharia. You had the British, who were the largest supporters of Arabic Islamicists before and during WWI, but were then seen to be oppressors. The Jews and Americans are only the most recent targets. The Islamic world needs a scapegoat.



Again the logic that just because terrorism didn't become a big issue in America until after Israel was formed is BS logic. The USSR didn't break up until after Reagan was in office, therefore Reagan caused it to happen? The militia movement was laughable until Bill Clinton took office, therefore Bill Clinton is responsible for Oklahoma City? The truth of the matter is this type of logic is bankrupt BS. Historically the time of Israel's foundation is a watershead time in history. The would is now aligning in bipolar manner, decolonialism is happening at unheard of rates, Japan has been burnt to the ground, America controls an unbeleivable percentage of the world's wealth, technology is making unbeleivable progress in ludicriously short periods of time ...

To pluck out one event out of all the flux the world was undergoing and saying that THIS is what caused a massive social response is ludicrious. Particularly since violence to effect policy change has been the standard modus operandi in the Islamic world for over a century.

The idea that the Islamic world was some type of peaceful place prior to the establishment of Israel is a banality. The idea that the US was magically immune from Islamic violence prior to Israel is only slightly less idiotic.

[Darth Wong]

Israel does not have to be the sole cause of the Islamic world's particular anger at the United States in order to be a catalyst for that anger.

[tharkûn]

Israel does not have to be the sole cause of the Islamic world's particular anger at the United States in order to be a catalyst for that anger.

Israel is a pretext for the hardcore Islamic fanatics. They are like a lynch mob, their stated reason for doing what they do is whatever is convenient and will illicit the most popular support. The cause of the problem is not whatever BS excuse they serve up, but the underlying social problems. It is the same thing here; Israel is a popular rallying cry but at its black fanatical heart the problem is that Islamic world sucks and they either have to scapegoat or change their dogma.

[Darth Wong]

Israel is a pretext for the hardcore Islamic fanatics.

Even a pretext cannot function in a vacuum. There has to be some substance to the anger or the pretext would fail to motivate the masses.

[tharkûn]

Even a pretext cannot function in a vacuum. There has to be some substance to the anger or the pretext would fail to motivate the masses.

No it doesn't. What substance was there behind Hitler's pretixt that the Jews made Germany lose WWI? What substance was there behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? History is replete with bald faced lies that motivate the masses, most recently I keep hearing about substanceless move to bring back the draft that seems to motivate the left liberal base of American politics.

[Durandal]

Even a pretext cannot function in a vacuum. There has to be some substance to the anger or the pretext would fail to motivate the masses.

No it doesn't. What substance was there behind Hitler's pretixt that the Jews made Germany lose WWI?

The fact that Germany got ludicrously unfair treatment in the Versailles settlement. Germany's economy was suffering from open-ended reparations, and she was no longer allowed to have a military. The German people were miserable; all they needed was someone to blame, and the pervasive anti-Semitic view in Europe made Jews the perfect target.

In other words, Hitler wouldn't have been as successful if Germany hadn't gotten such a bad deal out of Versailles. He capitalized on their misery; he didn't pull "Let's kill the Jews!" out of thin air.

[Durandal]

Ofcourse, I guess its clear now. I guess I had you pegged wrong Durandal. You weren't defending the terrorists, rather you were simply doing your duty as a rabid bush hater, spreading hate to anything that might remotely be construed as "Bush support". I suppose its really not your fault, because I suppose asking you to not go into "bash Bush" mode would be like asking a monkey not to fling his feces.

Care to address my argument?

Why do you insist on trying to force me to argue something that I'm not?

You started out the thread by defending Bush's bullshit rhetoric, and that rhetoric states that Islamic extremists are attacking America because they "hate our freedom." What else am I to conclude?

You keep trying to make this about America and terrorists. My point was that the groups currently fighting in Iraq aren't doing so simply because of American Occupation. They are doing so because they find the very concept of Democracy (and the freedoms it provides) to be an affront to their religion.

Then you're simply naive. To the people of a country, rule by a native government is almost always preferable to rule by a foreign power. The insurgents are doing their thing because they want America out. They couldn't give two shits about what kind of government we're setting up because they simply hate us and want to set up their own government without our help.

[tharkûn]

The fact that Germany got ludicrously unfair treatment in the Versailles settlement. Germany's economy was suffering from open-ended reparations, and she was no longer allowed to have a military. The German people were miserable; all they needed was someone to blame, and the pervasive anti-Semitic view in Europe made Jews the perfect target.

I agree completely, however none of this gives substance to the Nazi mythos that the Jews delivered the stab in the back that cost Germany the war.

This is exactly how the Islamic fanatics are operating, they blame Israel and the Americans for problems that neither created in anyway.

In other words, Hitler wouldn't have been as successful if Germany hadn't gotten such a bad deal out of Versailles. He capitalized on their misery; he didn't pull "Let's kill the Jews!" out of thin air.

No he pulled it out of a grand tradition of anti-semitism that dates back well into the dark ages. However the accusations that the Jews stabbed the government in the back and thus losing WWII is without susbstance. A crapload of people beleived a baseless pretext, but it was still a baseless pretext.

[Admiral_K]

Simply acknowledging a factual statement by someone is not an endorsement of that person.

Yet again you demonstrate your profound stupidity, since it does not have to be an endorsement of the person. It only has to be a defense of his doctrine.

I disagree that aknowledging something as fact is the same as "defending" it. If Bush were to come out and say 2+2=4 and I said that he was correct, would you say I was "defending" his mathematical doctrine?

Thats mighty funny because the founders of this nation primarily were Christians.

Which is why the original Constitution had no human rights at all in it, and Jefferson (not a Christian) pushed through the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.

Jefferson may not have been a Christian in the traditional sense, but he thought very highly of the teachings and morality of Jesus.

I briefly researched your point. I didn't find much. I never said that Militant Christians didn't exist, but they are far fewer in number and are just as guilty of perverting Christianity as Islamic Militants are.

I already answered this moronic point earlier. Answer my rebuttal.

I have no comment on your rebuttal. You introduced this element into the discussion not me. I have constantly tried to shift this discussion back on the topic of Islamic militants opposing democracy and freedom and you keep trying to make this a "Christianity vs Islam" battle royal.

Bullshit. Public opinion in Jordan is massively weighted in favour of crushingly oppressive social policies, you idiot. If you made it a democracy, these oppressive social policies would still exist.

Source? I tried to research this, but didn't find much. And your oppinion on what democracy might or might not do is strictly your oppinion.

You actually demand a "source" for the fact that Jordanian societal traditions are oppressive? The place where women are routinely executed for violating Sharia law?

Well, I actually wanted a source for showing that the general populace (including WOMEN) was in favor of oppressive policies as you stated. But if you don't have anything, then thats ok since it is quite irrelevant as Jordan is NOT a democracy. Hell, I bet "public oppinion" would show very high approval ratings for Saddam Hussein's policies if he were still in power.

The sources I cited directly quoted from the Koran and how terrorists had perverted and twisted its meanings. They aren't simply stating "They have twisted the religion" without showing where and how.

They do this by ignoring the nasty parts themselves. See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html for more.

Religious texts are greatly open to interpretation. However, the militant islamic groups have twisted the religion by focusing on and embracing the violent "Death to the infidel" parts and completely ignoring the parts about free will, and the part about not killing other Muslims (which they do rather frequently in Iraq).

Oh wow, you're a mind-reader now? You can describe their inner motivations? That's an amazing talent; perhaps you should go to Las Vegas and use that talent to win high-stakes poker games for big bucks.

They clearly stated in their "press release" that they oppose democracy for fear that it could lead to the passing of un-islamic laws by the people. Now, unless the people had the freedom to vote for and pass un-islamic laws, this would be impossible. Perhaps you too can one day have this wonderful power known as reading comprehension and use it to your advantage as well.

And when I started this discussion I was specifically targeting the "resistance" in Iraq. I simply wanted to point out that these groups aren't "fighting for their freedom", they are fighting to become top dogs in the next dictatorship. It is you and others who have broadend this to include "all anti US terror groups".

Your first post said nothing whatsoever about Iraq, but thanks for demonstrating that you will gladly stoop to backpedaling and bullfuckery.

Backpedalling eh? Well lets look at what I wrote. First of all, I quote from a news article that referenced militant groups in Iraq and their opposition to democracy. Then I made the following comment:

Seems pretty clear to me. The Bush administration line about these groups "hating freedom" isn't without base. They aren't against democratic elections because of the American occuption. They are against democratic elections because they believe democracy is a crime against God.

Now, if the key phrase "American Occupation" didn't tip you off, then the part about elections should have. I obviously wasn't talking about Afghanistan since their elections have been completed. Now, if we put the pieces together we are left with what? Did you say IRAQ? Why thats absoutely right!. That darn reading comprehension seems to bite you in the ass again Mike...

Um what is your point exactly?

My point is that George W. Bush can't condemn others for opposing "freedom" when he himself wants to shove his own religious values down the throats of others. And you can't say that democracy = freedom, no matter how much bullshit you fling.

Why you are absolutely correct Mike. I can't tell you how bad its been here in the U.S. Since Bush made Christianity the only legal religion. And the torture for missing Sunday services at church is just brutal... Oh wait, none of those things have happened.

But I guess you are right in that Bush comdemning these groups is hypocritical. Surely everyone can agree that being in favor of laws against late term abortion, and gay marriage is equivalent to killing people who don't follow your religous doctrine.

Of course they do; how is that different from Christians who complain that constitutional human rights guarantees can let people make lifestyle choices that go against Biblical values?

It is different because the Christians in this country (with a few nutcase exceptions) aren't threatening to kill those who disagree with them. If these anti Democratic islamists managed to convince a majority of the people to vote their way then great! The problem is, they know and we know that is not likely to happen.

It is about George W. Bush's rhetoric. You say it is validated by these statements. I say that A) it is not validated since democracy != freedom, and B) his constant rhetoric about "freedom" is grossly hypocritical.

Believe it or not Mike, you CAN take parts of a rhetoric in context and yet not endorse the rest of the rhetoric or the actions taken based on that rhetoric. If for example in a speech Hitler would include statements about Germany's harsh treatment at the end of WWI by the allies would it be a validation of his actions to admit that the statement was true?

You really know nothing about Jordan, do you?

I know he won 6 NBA titles with the Bulls...

To be quite honest mike, its a red herring. One I shouldn't have bother to even address. Jordan is not a democracy, therefore any speculation as to how the populace would vote if it were is strictly that: Speculation.

[Admiral_K]

You started out the thread by defending Bush's bullshit rhetoric, and that rhetoric states that Islamic extremists are attacking America because they "hate our freedom." What else am I to conclude?

You mis-interpreted by post. Go back and re-read what I actually said. I personally think you saw the word "Bush" and then went on a Bush bashing rant completely blinded by your hatred of the man.

Then you're simply naive. To the people of a country, rule by a native government is almost always preferable to rule by a foreign power. The insurgents are doing their thing because they want America out. They couldn't give two shits about what kind of government we're setting up because they simply hate us and want to set up their own government without our help.

Sorry but that just doesn't jive. Their statement didn't say they "wanted America out" it said they didn't want a democracy established. The surest way to get America to leave would be to end the violence and allow Iraqi elections to proceed. The Iraqis ARE setting up their own government. Our military is there to make sure that its not another dictatorship at the ends of militant thugs.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I disagree that aknowledging something as fact is the same as "defending" it. If Bush were to come out and say 2+2=4 and I said that he was correct, would you say I was "defending" his mathematical doctrine?

YES!!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

By the way, that would be a false analogy fallacy. 2+2=4 isn't doctrine. It's an arithmetic statement. You are defending Bush's view on Islamic militants, which makes you a Bush apologist.

[Coyote]

Tharkun:

Ever since Martin Luther, anti-Semitism was "in vogue" in much of the German Confederation and later Reichs. Martin Luther was, in fact, the first to coin the term "Concentration Camp" as a place where Jews could be "concentrated in one place" where they could not spread theuir "corruption" to the masses... naturally I don't have my book with me, I believe it was written by a fellow named "Weiss" and documented centuries of how the German social mindset was conditioned to eagerly accept any conspiracy theory about Jews.

If this background had not existed, Hitler's sudden pulling from the air of "the Jews's fault" would have been met with curious snickers and questions like, "who's ass did he pull that out of?"



Admiral K:

Jordan. Monarchy. Honor Killings. Arab Society.

Those are your starting points. Mmm, education is tasty!

[Coyote]

Why you are absolutely correct Mike. I can't tell you how bad its been here in the U.S. Since Bush made Christianity the only legal religion. And the torture for missing Sunday services at church is just brutal... Oh wait, none of those things have happened.

So... anything short of full-on bloody Inquisition and Kristallnacht is not oppression? Are you actually implying this?

[Plekhanov]

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

Complete red herring the barbary pirates weren't “Muslim pirates” but pirates who happened to be muslims, they attacked shipping not because they hated freedom (wouldn't have mattered if they did as most of their victims didn't come from “free” societies anyway) or for any other political reason but because the liked money (there's kind of a clue about this in the fact that we call them Pirates) their violence was of a totally different nature to that of the current Jihadis.

[Admiral_K]

By the way, that would be a false analogy fallacy. 2+2=4 isn't doctrine. It's an arithmetic statement. You are defending Bush's view on Islamic militants, which makes you a Bush apologist.

That is incorrect. It is no longer just Bush's "view on Islamic militants". The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy because it would give people the freedom to pass laws that might be considered "un-islamic". As a matter of course, I would go so far as to say that this particular part of Bush's views is no longer simple rhetoric, but FACT admitted by the militants themselves.

[Admiral_K]

Why you are absolutely correct Mike. I can't tell you how bad its been here in the U.S. Since Bush made Christianity the only legal religion. And the torture for missing Sunday services at church is just brutal... Oh wait, none of those things have happened.

So... anything short of full-on bloody Inquisition and Kristallnacht is not oppression? Are you actually implying this?

No, I'm implying their are varying degrees of "oppression" if you will.

Anytime you have any sort of government, and the rule of law, then someone somewhere will be "oppressed" in some fashion at some point in their lives. You could feel oppressed because you have to obey the speed limit, or because you have to walk to the corner before legally crossing the street. While those issues are trivial, you aren't "free" to do whatever you want. The only alternative is anarchy.

I may not agree with all of Bush's politics, but I can understand them.

Bush views abortion, specifically late term abortion as murder. Quite honestly, from a biological standpoint that is a perfectly valid point of view. Babys are no less "alive" when in the mothers womb than they are when out of it, and you don't see many people advocating killing newborns should they become 'inconvenient'. On this particular issue I DO happen to aggree with Bush.

As far as "gay marriage" goes I really don't care either way. Bush seems to think that calling it "marriage" violates the sanctity of the instituation, and has offered the legally equivalent "civil unions" as an alternative. I do NOT consider this to be an issue worthy of the federal governments time. Definitions of words should be left up to Webster, not the executive branch of the United States.

Bush can have his viewpoints and I can have mine. You can have yours, and Mike can have his. We are fortunate enough to live in societies that afford us that freedom. We are also afforded the freedom to vote for our elected officials and to campagn for or against issues we feel are important. If the Militants in Iraq have their way, then those people will not have those freedoms.

[Big Phil]

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

And how do you explain that between @1800 and 1950 the USA had ZERO problems with the Muslim world like we have now? So from James Madison to Harry Truman, we didn't have any kind of serious trouble from Muslims or Arabs. That's a whole kennel of dogs who didn't bark. So much for your theory.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post - US merchant vessels were attacked by Muslims without provocation - 150 years before Israel's founding. This is not a new phenomenon, and it is not a result solely of the US's support for Israel or meddling in the Middle East.

[Plekhanov]

By the way, that would be a false analogy fallacy. 2+2=4 isn't doctrine. It's an arithmetic statement. You are defending Bush's view on Islamic militants, which makes you a Bush apologist.

That is incorrect. It is no longer just Bush's "view on Islamic militants". The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy because it would give people the freedom to pass laws that might be considered "un-islamic". As a matter of course, I would go so far as to say that this particular part of Bush's views is no longer simple rhetoric, but FACT admitted by the militants themselves.

So “The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy” have they?

How do you figure that, did all 200,000 of them sign a petition backing the websites position or something?

If not what evidence have you that the statements apparently posted on some web site or other (and we all know how difficult it is to set up a website) are in any way representative of the feelings many in the resistance have about democracy or their reasons for fighting the occupation?

[Plekhanov]

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

And how do you explain that between @1800 and 1950 the USA had ZERO problems with the Muslim world like we have now? So from James Madison to Harry Truman, we didn't have any kind of serious trouble from Muslims or Arabs. That's a whole kennel of dogs who didn't bark. So much for your theory.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post - US merchant vessels were attacked by Muslims without provocation - 150 years before Israel's founding. This is not a new phenomenon, and it is not a result solely of the US's support for Israel or meddling in the Middle East.

They were PIRATES you dumbass they attacked merchant vessels without provocation because they wanted to hijack them, nick the cargo and ransom/sell into the slavery the crew. Their motives weren't political or religious but mercenary, how is that in anyway equivalent to modern day Jihadi terrorism?

[Big Phil]

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

Complete red herring the barbary pirates weren't “Muslim pirates” but pirates who happened to be muslims, they attacked shipping not because they hated freedom (wouldn't have mattered if they did as most of their victims didn't come from “free” societies anyway) or for any other political reason but because the liked money (there's kind of a clue about this in the fact that we call them Pirates) their violence was of a totally different nature to that of the current Jihadis.

"The Barbary corsairs were privateers of the Ottoman Empire rather than pirates. While their exploits sometimes bordered on piracy and some naval captains and admirals had once been pirates, the objective of their raids altered from one of pure plundering and enslavement to a holy war waged against Rome and Christianity. The leading corsairs were Saracens or renegadoes--Christians who converted to Islam, either to legally plunder Mediterranean ships or to gain their freedom from slavery. Christendom deemed the Barbary corsairs pirates and terrorists, and treated them accordingly. In 1584 Venetians captured a galley bound for Tripoli. They killed everyone aboard--fifty Moors, seventy-five Turks, 174 renegadoes, and forty-five women."
http://www.cindyvallar.com/barbarycorsairs.html

If you can prove otherwise, please do so, but in a quick search I found dozens of web sites which all essentially restated the above in different manners. The Barbary Corsairs attacked Christian shipping throughout the Mediterranean. Your simple statement to the contrary is not sufficient to contradict accepted history.

In any case, the point of this thread has been lost long ago. The Iraqi insurgents explicitly stated their opposition to democracy, which then degenerated into an I Hate Bush/Christianity is bad/it's all the US's fault/No it isn't thread. The reasons for Islamic terrorism and opposition to the US should probably be the topic of another thread, one in which we can argue until we all turn blue in the face."[/img]

[tharkûn]

Ever since Martin Luther, anti-Semitism was "in vogue" in much of the German Confederation and later Reichs. Martin Luther was, in fact, the first to coin the term "Concentration Camp" as a place where Jews could be "concentrated in one place" where they could not spread theuir "corruption" to the masses... naturally I don't have my book with me, I believe it was written by a fellow named "Weiss" and documented centuries of how the German social mindset was conditioned to eagerly accept any conspiracy theory about Jews.

The first target of German crusaders at the onset of the first crusade was German Jewry. Anti-semitism long predates Martin Luther. Just because a baseless pretext has been indoctrinated into the populace for centuries doesn't mean it has any actual substance behind it.

My point is not that Hitler didn't tap a centuries old vein of BS, but rather that his pretext for hating the Jews had zilch for real substance backing it. Same thing with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which are STILL being cited by Anti-semetic bastards in the middleeast).

It gets tiring to hear the litany of "that doesn't count" the Barbary Corsairs were mercenaries (but let's ignore the cash bounties offered in Iraq) they don't count, the Philippines were an independence movement they don't count, the Palestine riots in the 30's they don't count, bloody Passover that doesn't count, the Algerian Dreyfus riots they don't count either ... The Muslim world has always had more than its fair share of violent Jihadis who try to force policy change through violence. They did it to the French, the Ottomans, the British ... is it really a surprise that they are doing it to the Americans?