On for the Commies

That's why its my country, right or wrong.

History is history and that's too damn bad. I gotta live now. I am gonna live now.

To the vanquished, sorry, but that's just how it is.

Life goes on, until the day comes when you also conquer or are conquered.

Resist, fight, and never be conquered.

 

Nice set of bumper sticker arguments there. How about answering the question, why is Colonisation by Muslims a holy war but if the West does it it's just ''history is history''?

 

Yeah, there are now more illegal aliens just within a single county (Los Angeles) than there were Native Americans living in the entire area that is today the United States.

 

Because you want to win and preserve your way of life, and you want them to lose their Jihad. Winning is everything.

If you think the Islamic way of life is better than your way of life, just go ahead and convert now. That will strengthen them and help defeat the West.

 

Forget the strawman/ad hom and answer the question.

 

What does that have to do with the post you responded to.

 

A lot

 

OK, list some.

 

1801, May

 

What about the colonization by force of Western Europe by Romans? Most Europeans today would say that it was the one of best things that ever happened to their civilizations.

Western civilization is the arguably the best civilization to ever exist in the world. There need not be apologies for it, the proof is in the architecture, the literature, the science, the technology, the medicine, the music, the human rights, the law and the art.

 

You're not making sense. Is that deliberate?

 

Are you just playing dumb, or do you actually not have a brain to figure it out?

 

Still not answering the question.
I'll try again.
Was colonisation by western powers a holy war or is it only when Muslims colonise that it is Jihad?

 

That is a date not a list.
I was hoping for ''a lot'' of examples of Islamic terrorism before western interference in the ME.
ps...The Crusades were long before 1801 if we are going back that far.

 

Not that I care that much but of course colonization was not a holy war. It was rich powerful elites trying to enrich themselves. This is blindingly obvious, they are still pulling up ships full of gold from the ocean.

In much the same way, the importation of cheap workers who will work below market value in Western countries is all about elites making more money by cheapening the value of labor and getting more consumers. They could care less about the citizens of their own countries, they really never have throughout history.

The peak of Western civilization was probably the 50s and 60s when labor reached something like parity with capital. It has been downhill every since and is accelerating now. Countries like Japan and South Korea are the best hope for humanity's future.

PS: Colonisation is spelled colonization.

 

Do you not know the significance of the date?

 

It's a shame that you cheer nonsense name calling. The forum should focus on more mature dialogue.

 

Not if you are English.
Civilisation is also spelt with an s.
Not saying that spelling words incorrectly is wrong but it isn't the English language when you do.

Back to the point.
If you concede that not all colonisation is a holy war then would you agree that this statement from Jay Runner is a misrepresentation of history for some ulterior motive?...

 

Well, you could be talking about the siege of Cairo during the French revolutionary wars where the English allied with the Ottomans kicked the French out of the Egyptian capital.
Or maybe you mean the War of the Oranges where the Spanish and French invaded Portugal in a precursor to the Peninsular wars. Ultimately ending with the English taking the cane out of the cupboard once more and giving the French coalition a damned good thrashing. Delivered by Winston Churchill's ancestor John Churchill (first Duke of Marlborough).
You could be referencing the Action of 6th of May a minor naval engagement between the Spanish 32 gun frigate El Gamo and the much smaller English 14 gun frigate HMS Speedy. The skirmish is notable for the large disparity between the size and firepower of El Gamo and Speedy – the former was around four times the size, had much greater firepower and a crew six times the size of Speedy, which had a reduced crew of 54 at the time of the engagement. Yes, you've guessed it, yet another English victory where against the odds El Gamo was captured.
However, I think you are referencing the beginning of the First Barbary War between a coalition of America and Sweden and the Barbary States as payback for pirate ships seizing American merchant ships and demanding ransoms for the crews.
Nothing to do with Islamic terrorism no matter how you try to spin it as such.

 

Barbary piracy was absolutely Islamic terrorism no matter how much you may want to deny it.

 

Nope, it was piracy with the intention of extorting money in ransom payments. No political or religious motivation.
You don't get to redefine the word terrorism to suit your agenda. It's called propaganda when you do that.

 

There most certainly was political and religious motivation. The piracy was justified as part of building the global caliphate called for in the Koran, and non-Muslims - Americans and Europeans numbering over a million between 1530 and 1780 - were enslaved because doing so was called for in their understanding of their holy book.

 

No that's just you re-interpretting their banditry to suit your anti-Islamic agenda.
To build their caliphate they would have had to take land.They never did. They sometimes raided coastal towns in order to pillage but they never tried to hold land taken from another country.
Their motivation was simply financial. They declared war on the States for refusing to pay them a tribute like the French and British did.
The West had no moral highground against piracy either. Many European powers commissioned privateers to attack each others merchant shipping.
As for slavery I suggest you look up who America was buying its African slaves from.

 

That's not what they said. They justified their terrorism by reference to their holy book. You may want to speak for them because you are afraid of being seen as an anti-Muslim bigot, but they speak for themselves despite you. It's ok; you can recognize the obvious without hating their entire faith or demonizing every Muslim on earth. Don't be afraid of the plain truth just because you don't want to be labeled.

 

Thomas Jefferson himself kept a copy of the Koran to learn about an enemy that WAS motivated by a radical interpretation of their faith - just like their posterity to this day.