past is past

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Feb 15, 2009 at 05:46

Nura writes:

".....Why can't I clump all Euro-Caucasians together when Muslims are clumped all together?

Muslims are not always "clumped together". When I think of 'Islamic terrorism" I most often expect them to be of Middle eastern descent rather than say Spanish or Indonesian. Most of the time that is the case

"....... There are more diverse peoples in Islam than in Europe. "

But there are less diverse peoples in the Middle east than in Europe. And of more relvance - there are more diverse peoples 'in' Christiuanity than in Europe. So what point are you trying to make again?

".....Or perhaps your arguments are isolated to Muslim-Arab expansions which would really damage YOU'R arguments "

I made the point of Muslim Arab expansionism fro the Middle east through the top of Africa - so how is that damaging my argument?

".....and thus becomes a racial issue after all! Let's not be hypocritical. "

As far as I see, Arabs are on top of the heap of the Muslim world (throwing theory aside) I've heard Muslims say Arabic was made by Allah Mecca is the centre of the world - so there is a racial/culture/linguistic bias in the Islamosphere.

" No, by not doing so, I am not writing a long drawn out response to European expansions, conquests, massacres,ect. I don't have time for that."

But you will agree that there were certainl tremendous teritorial disputes amongst Europeans.

".....You can pick up a history book and read all about it. Europeans fought for the right to occupy other lands! "

Yes, as surprising as you must find it - I'm afraid so - as did the Scythians, Persians Zulus, trines of Indians in your won country, the Japanese a little more than 60 years ago, etc etc.

"....Was not the French and Spanish in conflict over who colonized Morocco?"

Ah, simple rhetoric...how shall I answer such a loaded question? (BTW, Grammar ! it should have been 'were not...') But actually, the French and Spanish were at it way before then .

"....Are you saying that most European theft was among each other? Surely you can't mean that. Perhaps before they found out about the "New World."

Yes I am saying that - and way after the America's were discovered - Austro-Hungarian War, Russian-Swedish Wars, WW1 etc etc

"Anyway, I guess your point is that they were savages before they savaged the rest of the world. "

I don't see them as savages actually. Rome was a very disciplined state. The German states were very progressive. Germany, England, Portugal, Spain and France and Sweden/Norway and Russia achieved a high level of sophistication and great trading systems There were excesses though that cannot be denied.

There you go again - mixing up race and religion to prove a spurious point. Seeing Shinto Buddhism is the state religion of Japan - should we therefore say that WW2 was started by Buddhists when they attacked Pearl Harbour???

"....That is an enlightening question! Why don't you apply that wise thinking to the world of Islam? For example, why are all Muslim "terrorists" called Islamic terrorists? "

That's simple enough isn't it - terrorists who are Muslim practice the religion of Islam. Not all Muslims are overt terrorists

"......According to your argument, Algerian Terrorists should be called "Algerian Terrorists," Pakistani terrorists should be called "Pakistani terrorists"."

They could be called 'Pakistani terrorists' - and they were - but the point was noted that they were also Muslim terrorists driven by an Islamic agenda.

It is a different kettle of fish. The point has been made time and again that Islam is a political/religious system. Devoted Islamists think it is supreme - because the little green book tells them so. When terrorism against the West occurs - you'll get Muslims applauding from Indonesia to Morrocco.

When the Allies won WW2 against the Axis powers in WW2 - it was Christian vs Christian. Did religion come into it at all??? Was mentioned ever made of 'Christian Nazis' back then - or even 'Russian Orthodox' Communists in the Cold War?

The driving force aginst the West in the states you mentioned is the binding Islamic ideology - by people who habe the mistaken belief that the West is on some sort of Crusade against Islamic lands.

"We both know that's not how it works. Any Muslim who does anything, despite nationality is called an Islamic Terrorist, so it is not me who invented this racial/ religious grouping. "

It is not racial - you are playing the victim. Let's use the 'context' card - so often used by Muslims when explaiing the inexplicable.

A Turk in Turkey who rapes a Muslim woman would not be seen as a 'Muslim rapist'. But an Afghan in Bosnia - wh suicide bombs a serbian police checkpoint could be seen as an Islamic terrorist. The act was a terrorist act - the motivation was not Afghani - but more likel than not - it would be an Islamic motivation - 72 virgins, green cushions , killing Infidels etc etc

"Muslims are grouped as one people despite nationality."

Garbage.

"...... We are taking about the perceived threat of Islam to the free world. If the issue was as simple as your suggested question, then why is Islam or the people of Islam demonized as an unprecedented evil in the world?"

There are many answers. Why do we see posters such as 'Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answwr', 'Kill all jews' blah blah blah, ad infinitum? Why is it always Muslims with the problem, who think this way?

What do land rights for Arabs in Palestine have to do with Asians living in Djakarta? Why are Indonesian s protesting about Israel ?

" You so kindly listed every nation that you argue was conquered by "Islam", do you see how hypocritical you are? "

Not really
"Why not mention the nation who actually did the conquering?"
In North Africa's case there was no one nation - it was groups of Arabs from the all across the lands of the Middle East - there was no one country to blame.

"...It is simple, when Muslims expand, Islam expands, however, when any other people of religion expands it is only that nation who get's the credit."

Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political/legal system

"First, what Muslim land did Germany occupy? I was speaking of invasion and occupation not allied forces."

Algeria, Egypt, Libya were occupied by Axis powers initially.

"Second, Muslim lands were being occupied during these wars by the allied forces!

AFTER the Axis forces were there.

".....Who do you expect Muslims to align themselves with, their invaders?"

They did - especially after Mein Kampf was translated into Arabic

"You speak of the possible fate of Muslims under Germany, but let's examine what happed to them due to the allied forces: The Kaliphate was destroyed, which at that time was not engaged in military conflict with ANYONE. All of the lands were divided among the allied forces, this included a reign of tyranny and destruction at which these nations never experienced. The completion of the crusades, as boasted by a British colonial. A French Colonial actually visited the grave and put his foot on it saying "Saladin, we have returned." An era of puppet, corrupt dictators installed and supported by these countries, namely the British. The murder and displacement of the people of Palestine of which to this day have not been resolved. I could go on, and on, so I doubt if Muslims care about the possible outcome under Hitler. "

Rather than whinge about the British and French - would you have preferred Hitler to have won?. If Hitler had won - he would have first totally subjugated and decimated the Slavs. the Middle East would have been depopulated of Arab population.

There's no need to be non-Arab apologist for the lack of good governance of the Islamic countries of that time or since. The fact that dictators from various powerful tribes in the predominantly tribal societies can set them selves up so well speaks volumes of the necessity to separate mosque from state.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".