Why have you marked such a third rate post to me?

I have no desire to get embroiled with some half-baked poor Gulf War I vetran.

Just good luck

Jerusalem had been in the hand of Muslims and it will be, very soon, completely under their control only. Because, the Jews and Christians have lost their authority, by the laws of Almighty Allah, to patronize the holy city.

this is EXACTLY what im talking about! if I may ask just how do you think it would fall into muslim hands?

you said "since"and it implies this is still going on,and thats not true.

but this is my whole point "gunpowder" is the reason its not going on anymore.whether it be the will of current Muslims or not the ability to over power the Christians is gone.that is a source of friction for some because there are some who don't want it gone. OBL for example did hijack Islam.his followers carried out the sept.11 attacks claiming it was a great victory for Islam.was it??? no given Americas rage over the attacks it doomed many many Muslims to death.osama was hiding in Afghanistan and when the US invaded.the taliban found out they weren't as tough as they thought they were.there were schools in Pakistan.they answered osamas call for jihad.thousands and thousands of Pakistanis poured over the boarder to fight the Americans.they had no idea what waited for them they believed they were doing gods will and cannot lose because god it on their side.they got annihilated.OBL resorts to terrorism because he cannot fight straight up.and his followers bomb markets,schools,police stations,hotels,restaurants and the list goes on.they they claim its Allah's will. they put their face on Islam and they keep doing it again and again weather they cut the head off and unarmed civilian or use children as a shield so they can say "Americans kill children" when we shoot back.all in the name of Allah whether you agree or not this is the image of Islam Osama and al-zaqarri have created for all to see.and what makes this hijacking of Islam so deplorable is that many other Muslims hear this message and  think its the right path also.so they travel to Iraq to help the insurgents.only they mostly end up killing other Muslims or die themselves.even people who are not in AL Queda now put Osama's face on Islam.like it or not.

kenski70 wrote: since its inception Islam has been a religion spread by force.

Now Kenski that is not really accurate, if you read the quran it speaks about the migration of the prophet and the faithful out of Mecca where they were persecuted to Medina where they were greeted warmly, the meccans kept on persecuting and killing the muslims while they were in Medina through raids, so then the quran specifically states at one point "the given permission to fight those who fight you", the meccan pagans lost a battle against the faithful who had now the permission to defend themselves and this enraged them even more so they started forming alliances(the confederacy) against the faithful and at this point it became an obligation for the faithful to fight, simply because if they did not they would be forced to leave their faith or be killed by these intollerant opressors, the Pagan Meccans and their allies who also happened to be christian and jewish tribes, this did not mean all christians and jewish tribes chose to ally with these opressors, this is why in the quran Allah says that it is not forbidden to act justly and kind to those who do not fight the faithful for their faith.

kenski70 wrote: across Africa and into Spain.the invaders forced the defeated foes to either conform to Islam or die.it was the Seljuk turks invading Greece that prompted pope urban II to launch the crusades.after those were done and Sultan Baibar's took Jerusalem the crusaders were expelled from the area.did that stop the wars? nope the Muslims began invading Europe........ again.taking Constantinople and renaming it Istanbul the constant invasions went on for several hundred years.until gunpowder that is.thats when things began to fall apart for Islamic empires like the Ottomans.

This all happened after the prophet's death and the death of many faithful followers of the prophet by the hands of expansionalist dictators, the majority of muslims stopped fighting the west once the west implemented religious freedom in their nations, simply because this is why the prophet and the faithful fought for too, to be able to practice the faith and call to it without the threat of being persecuted and killed for it. You see the prophet and the faithful faced the same kind of opression from the Pagans and thus they had to fight for their religious freedom.

Do not confuse the faith with the worldly desires of leaders and their esteblishments.

Allah does not give success to the unjust He says in the koran, so once the west implemented religious freedom and some states kept on fighting them they lost and where eventually over powered.

A small point for some of you is that the Ottomans where wrong in fighting the west with guns that use gunpowder, because Allah states in the koran "fight them as they fight you" so the right way would have been that when someone fights you with swords you fight back in the same manner. But ofcourse the Ottomans fought for something other then the faith, but rather for geo political reasons. And thus they lost.

Community, we are trying to establish peace here. But your statements are not conducive for Peace. You state

But ofcourse the Ottomans fought for something other then the faith, but rather for geo political reasons. And thus they lost.

As if the other bastards were fighting for something higher + greater than the geo political reasons?

Turkey was attacked by 11 vultures under whatever pretext. Are you trying to tell us that the Turks should not have responded to the attack and just laid down and enjoyed being occupied?

Kindly explain what you are trying to tell us here.

The topic of this string is bogus. It flatters Israel and the US as if Muslims hate them both. Muslims just pity the US for a nmber of reasons, which I am willing to discuss with reasonably educated persons.

The starter of this string is utterly bogus. He needs treatment not responses and statements like:

Now Kenski that is not really accurate, if you read the quran it speaks about the migration of the prophet and the

Whisper wrote: Community, we are trying to establish peace here. But your statements are not conducive for Peace. You state But ofcourse the Ottomans fought for something other then the faith, but rather for geo political reasons. And thus they lost. As if the other bastards were fighting for something higher + greater than the geo political reasons? Turkey was attacked by 11 vultures under whatever pretext. Are you trying to tell us that the Turks should not have responded to the attack and just laid down and enjoyed being occupied? Kindly explain what you are trying to tell us here.

I will explain, The Ottomans persisted in fighting the west even after the west esteblished religious freedom in their nations, Turkey was never occupied to my knowledge but their dreams of expansion in europe came to an end. And afterwards the states they occupied where taken away from them by western powers. That is all i am saying.

I believe this is the reason why Europe still hesitates to let Turkey become a member of the EU, because they still pride themselves in the age of The Ottoman Empire, it seems they did not leave that part of colonialism behind them like Europe did and does not really wish to talk about except in educational fashion.

Turkey was attacked and occupied. Kemal Ata Turk started from an area as small as Ankara. Turkey fought for its freedom like anything.

Just need to understand what the Muslims should do when they are attacked fro geo-political reasons? Just sit back and invite the inavader to candle lit dinners?

Turkey was attacked and occupied. Kemal Ata Turk started from an area as small as Ankara. Turkey fought for its freedom like anything.

really?so just how did Constantinople become Istanbul?Constantinople was the center for orthodox Christians.are you telling me the country around them (Turkey) was Muslim? no it was Christian. the Muslim invaders forced the locals to convert and  bam modern Turkey.

Whisper wrote: Turkey was attacked and occupied. Kemal Ata Turk started from an area as small as Ankara. Turkey fought for its freedom like anything. Just need to understand what the Muslims should do when they are attacked fro geo-political reasons? Just sit back and invite the inavader to candle lit dinners?

The question you should consider is wether a true muslim is teritorial or understands this world and it's resources belongs to everyone and especially to those who only wish this worldly life while we hope for a place in the shade of Allah and a place where no hunger nor thirst touches us and where we will have whatever our souls desire. Why not let them in and welcome them, invite them so that they may learn what they do not know. Is it not the best thing for a true faithful person to be a good influence on others by being amongst them with his good charachteristics? maybe this is too much for someone who thinks in teritorial terms but i believe this will have to come to an end for mankind to live together in peace with eachother. Is it not the reason that people carry guns and drop bombs because they are not welcomed? Whisper understand i am not trying to say that injustice done by some people in militaries is justified, but are the Americans really out to create enemies or do they have a keen interest in a healthy Afghani society that makes it possible for some of them to run oil pipelines through your country without it being blown up by terrorists? is this not only possible when the afghans are not opressed? i am sure no one wishes for this conflict to go on forever.

Whisper,

You should read history and try to take out the subjectivity of it. With your logic, do you think the Turks could expand without agression?

Fox

With your logic, do you think the Turks could expand without agression?

Sir, I wonder if I have disputed that or even condoned it in any manner? We are tackling the earlier quarter of the 20th century here. I will grateful if you could suggest some authentic historical reference of that period.

The question you should consider is wether a true muslim is teritorial or understands this world and it's resources belongs to everyone and especially to those who only wish this worldly life while we hope for a place in the shade of Allah and a place where no hunger nor thirst touches us and where we will have whatever our souls desire.

My friend the poet in me loves your dream madly.

But sometimes we have to face the sad realities of life and, at times, with eyes absolutely wide open. It�s simply not possible for the fiercely freedom loving Afghan tribesmen to receive the invading armies with open arms and then arrange moon lit BBQs for the marines.

(with the obvious exception of our Karzai and some 23 or perhaps 30 others of his ilk)

In another post, just the other day, you established my point that the Americanos step into a country just and only for their own interests and agenda. And, now suddenly they have become terribly interested in my �oppressed� society?

This poor Afghano terribly lost!

We agreed to set up the pipeline for them in July 2001.

But we would have done it at �actual costs�. This would not have left any room for the corporate bosses to post Balance Sheets with huge expenses and siphon off billions for their wives, mistresses, kids and campaign contributions.

I am glad to note that the US is not interested in making enemies and also that the Pentagon has now been converted as the Head Quarters of the International Friends Society, chaired by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Whisper wrote: We agreed to set up the pipeline for them in July 2001. But we would have done it at �actual costs�. This would not have left any room for the corporate bosses to post Balance Sheets with huge expenses and siphon off billions for their wives, mistresses, kids and campaign contributions.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/18/MNG10FQFP91.DTL&hw=Ex+Con&sn=002&sc=779 - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/18/ MNG10FQFP91.DTL&hw=Ex+Con&sn=002&sc=779

Of neo-cons and ex-cons, what a mess.  Here is another case in point, and this bloke is only a bit player. 

Servetus