“But, but, but” – Islam Means Peace, Doesn’t It? (NOT BLOODY LIKELY)

Free Britannia Journal ^ | February 23, 2002 | Greg Collins

[shetlan]

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29)

I appreciate having this quote from the Koran. Thanks.

[Anti-PKAD Reactionary Front]

Islam is to savagery, as gasoline is to fire.

Make them pay for their barbarism.

[mgc1122]

Personally, I just wish they'd pull their heads out of where ever they have them stuck, and recognize they are at their freest to practice this "religion" in the modern world than any other Islamic "paradise" on earth.

[Anti-PKAD Reactionary Front]

ping

[Michael2001]

our domestic populations in both America and Britain are the biggest concern of all.

Exactly. We are the most powerful country on earth. No country would dare attack us. The Muslims can do what they wish in their God forsaken wastelands. It is what they do here that frightens me. It wasn't Afghans or Iraqis or Iranians who killed 3,000 Americans. It was Muslims who lived for years in the good old USA. I am not scared of a Muslim in Somalia, I am scared of the Muslim who lives down the street.

[Michael2001]

They will have to work hard to win the hearts and minds, because the hate-mongers, here on FR and elsewhere, are working very hard to portray them all as enemies of all that is good.

I'm not the one who told them I'd give them 70 virgins if they killed Infidels. You want to blame someone for the image they have, blame Mohammed.

[Michael2001]

Christian Germany allowed the Nazis to rise to power, too. what does that tell you?

And of course the Nazis hated Christianity and wanted to destroy it.

[B Knotts]

Pick a side. It's not hard to do. Especially on this one. Either you're with us, or you're with the Islamic Terrorists.

Oh, for crying out loud, don't be thick-headed. You know what I meant.

I am not quite willing to condemn all Muslims, but am not giving Islam a free pass on being a "peaceful religion."

[Illbay]

And of course the Nazis hated Christianity and wanted to destroy it.

That's irrelevant. The vast majority of Germans were Christian, and it is THEY who allowed the Nazis to come to power, whatever their ultimate goal might have been. Nearly all of the German High Command, and the general officers, commissioned officers and enlisted men were Christians.

It was CHRISTIANS who persecuted the Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe for hundreds of centuries, and that persecution was based on Christian myths and prejudices.

This notion that "Hitler was a pagan" conveniently ignores the complicity of millions of Christians in what happend just sixty years ago.

[Bear Bottoms]

The point is that the Islamic leaders are not doing anything about it. They should be the leaders, out front, hunting down these Muslim terrorist criminals and the loudest voice against them. Yet there is silence. That form of conversation speaks the loudest.

[usconservative]

Oh, for crying out loud, don't be thick-headed. You know what I meant.

Other than your admission that you were "somewhere in the middle on this" no I don't know what you meant.

Try being a little clearer next time.

[usconservative]

This notion that "Hitler was a pagan" conveniently ignores the complicity of millions of Christians in what happend just sixty years ago.

Evil only triumphs when good men sit by and do nothing.

Given my in-laws escaped Germany during WW2 and actually LIVED that piece of history and *know* what it was all about, everytime one of you side-line quarterbacks comment on "what really caused WW2" without knowing what you're talking about, it really gets on my nerves.

WW2 was as much about getting out from under the economic persecution and overwhelming debt that was thrust upon Germany after WW1 as it was about singling out one group as being responsible for that "debt." Since the lie/perception during WW2 that was created by the Nazi's was that "Jews owned everything" and were somehow responsible for the daily misery that many Germans lived under, they were the scapegoats.

[mosby]

Your attempt to draw an analogy between radical Islam and "Christian" Nazi Germany is pathetic. (Not quite as incredibly stupid as the attempted analogy between Andrea Yates and Osama, but close). Are you honestly suggesting that Hitlers goal was to convert the world to Christanity? Are you honestly suggesting that the Nazi fanatics supported Hitler because of his strong Christian beliefs? The difference of course is that in the case of radical Islam religion is the pure motivating drive, and in fact draws its strength from the religious tenets of Islam. In the case of the Nazi's the Christian religion happened to be the religion of many of its adherents, but was not the motivating factor.

If you cannot appreciate this very fundamental difference, I would suggest you visit the many beautiful but sad war cemetaries scattered across Western Europe. Populated for the most part by Christian Allied soldiers. Died to stop the spread of Christianity? The absurdity of the statement indicates the absurdity of your argument.

[UberVernunft]

There's lots of blood and thunder in the Old Testament.

Yes, and that culture of war died off at least over 2500 years ago.

[Illbay]

Your attempt to draw an analogy between radical Islam and "Christian" Nazi Germany is pathetic.

That wasn't my point, and I suspect you know it. Rather my point is that it is just as ridiculous to lay the radical Islamist movement at the feet of "all Islam" as it would be to blame Christianity because Christian Germany allowed Hitler's rise.

What you people will not admit is that the picture is much, much more complex than you're trying to paint. I have no doubt there is a considerable amount of popular support for bin Laden, but I cannot believe it is universal.

You speak as if Islam happened a year ago. The fact is, it has been around for about 1,300 years. If "all Islam" was hell-bent on the destruction or forced conversion of all non-Muslims, it would have happened by now, or they would have been destroyed. Yes, some of that happened, but it also happened that Europeans under the guise of the Crusades and totally supported by the Roman Pope carved out chunks of the "Holy Land" for Crusader kingdoms, killing pretty much anyone who was not a European--including Christians and Jews as well as Muslims--in the process. So what? That was then, and evil as it was it does not describe "all of Christianity."

(Not quite as incredibly stupid as the attempted analogy between Andrea Yates and Osama, but close).

Sorry, that wasn't me, must have been someone else.

[Illbay]

I didn't mention World War II, that's a different topic. What I said wasn't really that complicated: Everyone knew what Hitler was, and what he was about. He didn't appear out of nowhere. His party and its creed were well-known, and the people of Christian Germany weren't forced to accept him, they did it willingly while they had the vote and could have chosen a different course.

The Nazi Party's view of the Jews was also well-known, but that wasn't considered a big deal because the Jew had been Central and Eastern Europe's straw-man for centuries.

These things are a matter of record, not of conjecture.

[denydenydeny]

Your logic:

The Islamic religious community produces murderous thugs.

Therefore, we have to fight against religious communities.

[quidnunc]

UberVernunft wrote:

Yes, and that culture of war died off at least over 2500 years ago.

My point exactly.

The West experienced the Enlightment; the world of Islam never did and it seems increasingly likely it won't for the forseeable future.

[mosby]

Ah, back to the Crusades again, are we? Last time I looked we were living in the 21st century, not the 12th. Fact of the matter is that the Crusade comparison is just as weak as the "Christian Nazi" comparison. The Crusades were an attenpt to take back "the land where Jesus walked", not an attempt to convert other nations at the point of a sword. Anything I know of the Crusades indicates that the crusaders had very little interest in conversion of the local populace. A analogy would be to a hypothetical situation where "infidels" occupied Mecca, and the Islamic nations of the world rallied to re-take it. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it is a different issue entirely than forced conversion of other religions. Again, you miss the fundamental point that forced conversion is a tenet of the Islamic faith, whereas the whole thrust of Christianity is voluntary acceptance - in fact if it is not voluntary it is meaningless. As for whether "all Islam" supports radical Islam, maybe not "all", but I suspect a solid majority. There is no way of proving it but I suspect that the great majority of Moslems in Indonesia, the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, certain of the Gulf States, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, and Palestine are supporters. I also suspect that not simply small minorities but substantial minorities are supporters in the Balkans, Egypt, Pakistan and Syria. The little ancedote that someone posted here earlier about 70% of new baby boys in parts of Nigeria being named "Osama" is one of those items that speaks volumes.

[quidnunc]

Illbay wrote:

Rather my point is that it is just as ridiculous to lay the radical Islamist movement at the feet of "all Islam" as it would be to blame Christianity because Christian Germany allowed Hitler's rise.

There is ample evidence that the Islamists enjoy very widespread support over the whole of the Muslim world.

There was widespread rejoicing over 9/11 among Muslims worldwide, including right here in the U.S.

Thomas Friedman in today's NY Times reports that in Saudi Arabia doctors and nurses — professionals and not the rabble of the 'Arab Street' — openly celebrated 9/11.

So I believe that Islamism does have to be laid at the feet of all Islam since Muslim voices speaking out against it are few and far between and they seem to be widely ignored by their co-religionists.

The fact is, it has been around for about 1,300 years. If "all Islam" was hell-bent on the destruction or forced conversion of all non-Muslims, it would have happened by now.

They tried and damn near succeeded.

Had the Ottomans not been stopped at the gates of Vienna the whole of Europe would have been converted to Islam.

And by the way, the Crusades were a reaction to Muslim attacks on Christianity, not an unprovoked aggression against peacefulMuslims by bloodthirsty Christians.