Muslims Against Crusades aim to spoil the wedding
Discussion
Sheeda Pistol said:
toppstuff said:
And any apologists for them are equally stupid.
Just thought i'd add i'm not an appologist but merely attempting to understand their thought process. They don't believe in freedom of speech (yet defend their freedom of speech to the hilt), they don't recognise democracy, they don't recognise free will, and all the other things we take for granted in the UK.
There is very little common ground, so why bother to "understand their thought process".
You'd have more success understanding the thought process of a tomato than one of these morons.
Victor McDade said:
Anjem Choudary speaks highly of his brother muslims when he says it likely to be attacked by muslims then.If they had tried to protest, I don't think that the middles-classes attending the event would have been as restrained as the EDL who are all mouth. In fact, I reckon it would have kicked off big time with the MAC idiots getting a bit of a kicking..... shame they're not protesting as would love to see that 
There are still a number of good things about this country but they are diminishing rapidly, if not daily.
Why they hell, for example, are those who are truly British but 'dare' to wear something as traditional as a cross or display such in a work environment, picked on and discrimated against, yet at the same time tolerance is shown that is beyond belief to these imflammatory anti-British radicalised nutters on our own soil?
Something is wrong. Very wrong. So whose agenda is this fulfilling?
Why they hell, for example, are those who are truly British but 'dare' to wear something as traditional as a cross or display such in a work environment, picked on and discrimated against, yet at the same time tolerance is shown that is beyond belief to these imflammatory anti-British radicalised nutters on our own soil?
Something is wrong. Very wrong. So whose agenda is this fulfilling?
dandarez said:
There are still a number of good things about this country but they are diminishing rapidly, if not daily.
Why they hell, for example, are those who are truly British but 'dare' to wear something as traditional as a cross or display such in a work environment, picked on and discrimated against, yet at the same time tolerance is shown that is beyond belief to these imflammatory anti-British radicalised nutters on our own soil?
Something is wrong. Very wrong. So whose agenda is this fulfilling?
If an organisation or company doesn't want to be seen as identifying with a religious (in the case of the cross), political or any other cause and this means banning them wearing the cross on company uniform then I think that's fair enough.Why they hell, for example, are those who are truly British but 'dare' to wear something as traditional as a cross or display such in a work environment, picked on and discrimated against, yet at the same time tolerance is shown that is beyond belief to these imflammatory anti-British radicalised nutters on our own soil?
Something is wrong. Very wrong. So whose agenda is this fulfilling?
However you do have a point in that we are much less afraid of upsetting Christians than Muslims. And for good reason, generally no one gets murdered when Christians get upset and embassies don't get burned down.
k this event up is going to be pretty convincingly dealt with.
Has anyone ever read much about the Crusades?
The entire Christian world comes across as a bunch of incompetents; any achievements they carried off were more by fluke than by anything else.
About the only one that was a reasonable military success from start to end was the Fourth Crusade, and that wasn't directed at an Islamic power, but at Constantinople, thus hastening the demise of the one power most able to check the western expansion of Islam. Smart move.
You could set the entire thing to the Benny Hill music and it couldn't be funnier.
The entire Christian world comes across as a bunch of incompetents; any achievements they carried off were more by fluke than by anything else.
About the only one that was a reasonable military success from start to end was the Fourth Crusade, and that wasn't directed at an Islamic power, but at Constantinople, thus hastening the demise of the one power most able to check the western expansion of Islam. Smart move.
You could set the entire thing to the Benny Hill music and it couldn't be funnier.
Bing o said:
About time we set up Crusaders Against Muslims.
It’s a bit rich using the word crusades against the British. Our input was very restrained when compared to the French, Italians and some others. Much has been made of Richard’s involvement but he was born, lived and died a Frenchman. I think he only spent one fortnight’s holiday in England. And, of course, despite what Hollywood want you to think, he wasn’t Scottish, although to be fair, that might have been Connery’s attempt at a French accent. We’ll never know.The crusades were not a religious war as such but an attempt by the church – the Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the western catholic branch, a political entity that fought for control of Europe – to gather funds and political strength. The notorious fourth crusade was actually a war between the western catholic church and the eastern – now Coptic more or less – one.
The then western pope, on hearing of all the death, rape and pillaging that went on in the destruction of Constantinople, got a bit miffed, thinking that killing thousand of christians was not on the 4th’s to-do list but he was soon congratulating them when they came back with money for him.
There were crusades against Spain as well.
Most of the crusades were dreadfully organised with little thought for provisions and often made up of farmers and others who had never used weapons who followed the cavalry. That said, for the first crusade they practiced on Jews in Germany and France to get in the swing of things.
The British were normally reluctant to get involved in the crusades. Politically it was seen by the holy roman empire to be a bit of a troublesome neighbour, always fighting France but we appear to be making up for it now.
The crusades are still something current in the muslim world. They get all upset by them, so the use of the word crusades is clever advertising. It has little emotive effect on westerners as it is very little talked of outside Monty Python. I remember our history teacher describing the crusades, from a western point of view, as pointless and mad although for a time it did make a profit.
...and crusades against southern France (the Cathars).
Derek is right - the English were definitely a bit player in the Crusades.
Back to my Benny Hill theme - try reading up on the Children's Crusade. Even sillier.
IIRC the child in charge promised that transport to the Holy Land would manifest itself when the children reached the Med. When it didn't, they just walked along the coast until some various friendly sailors offered to take some of them there - and promptly sold them into slavery.
Derek is right - the English were definitely a bit player in the Crusades.
Back to my Benny Hill theme - try reading up on the Children's Crusade. Even sillier.
IIRC the child in charge promised that transport to the Holy Land would manifest itself when the children reached the Med. When it didn't, they just walked along the coast until some various friendly sailors offered to take some of them there - and promptly sold them into slavery.
Mr_B said:
Victor McDade said:
Anjem Choudary speaks highly of his brother muslims when he says it likely to be attacked by muslims then.Johnnytheboy said:
...and crusades against southern France (the Cathars).
Thanks for that. I forgot about them. But then, given how many christians the roman catholic church attacked, one cannot be expected to remember them all. There was Florence as well, although probably not quite a crusade. Just a murderous rampage.To quote from 'The Dark Side of Christian History' - not, it has to be said, a a fine example of a non-partisan approach to history, it says:
'Another means with which the church responded to the time [resentment against the church and its imposition of its version of sharia law] was an attempt to focus attention away fromt he tumultuous social changes and towards an outside enemy. . . The crusade provided an opportunity to vastly increase the influence of the RCC. . . . in 1095, many of the imperial powers were outside the church: [France, England, Germany] . . . The crusades were a means of uniting much of Europe int he name of christianty.
In other words the crusades were aimed at securing power over Europe.
From Aguilers, a chronicler:
Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded . . . others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days, then burned with flames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. In the temple of Solomon, the horses waded in the blood up to their knees, nay, up to the bridle. It was a just and marvelous judgement of god, that this place should be filled with the blood of umbelievers. [that's Jews and Muslims, and, to be fair, anyone else who got in the way so it wasn't just religious prejudice.]
It was said by a local christian that: Even the Saracens are merciful and kind compared to these men who bear the cross of christ on their shoulders.
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 30th April 07:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff