A Terrorist - Nonetheless...

[Native American]

The Crusades were called into action by the Pope to oust the current settlers in the 'Holy Land'. The Europeans initiated the hostilities.

The 'retaliation' that you mention was in response that 'Christians' didn't happen to be settled in the area that was historically called Israel.

They armed up, traveled a few thousands miles, and said, "we are taking your homeland".

Maybe you should 'understand history' before you accuse others of not knowing it, Joe...

The Europeans initiated hostilities? Really? There is enough documentation of the Ismaelis (hardcore sect of Islam; the world's first documented political terrorists, and shia' and sunni islam) to easily figure that the Europeans did not initiate hostilities. In fact, I read one recent outstanding British-authored work on this subject during my time out in the Arab states. Not all of this news is old hat.

Part and parcel with history is context. The koran needs a lot of other "holy books" published "after the fact" (the timeline of the Koran's writing and mohammed's "inspiration" don't really give great historical or factual confidence). Gov't, the financial sector (banking), military action and religion are not easily separable in this case. More often, they are directed to act together (by the koran, more often by the sahih-al-bukhari) en force against non-believers, and this was applied during the islamic push westward all the way into Spain prior to either of the Crusades. Europeans didn't have to travel thousands of miles to find the confrontation. It made it to their shores and doorsteps before they acted.

Back on track from the brief historical accord...I agree that Reza's bonehead assault does not fit the legal description of a terror act primarily because of methods used and result. Correct (but politically incorrect) answer outside of legislated definition? I agree with Joe125g...It's a terror act by an inept idiot. Sadly, this bonehead's thinking is inline with the many Iranian young men who cross into Iraq each day to "wage war" there, as well. A friend of mine (civil contractor) has been killing them by the truckload each day, their last words being curses in Farsi when they find that the first bullet has immobilized them to the point where they can no longer detonate their vest of C6 and caps. Going out this way is almost like a field trip to them, in a sick sort of way.

People like that student hate our media, our freedom, and any other religion...because "it is written" to do so. Murderous methods are encouraged in islamic doctrine, mostly in the latter halves of the above-referenced "works". If Reza did it as a vengeance act, per his statement, then his understanding of what islam directs him to do and why is cloudy at best. It is not for revenge, but is directed, period. Sad to go to jail without him even knowing why he went through the trouble in the first place, and even sadder that my tax dollars will be feeding his dumb carcass. I hate paying for stupid, hateful people to continue wasting this planet's precious oxygen.

v/r, N-A

 

[125gJoe]

...
People like that student hate our media, our freedom, and any other religion...because "it is written" to do so. Murderous methods are encouraged in islamic doctrine, ... ...
v/r, N-A

It really is that simple!
I'm starting to believe people are seeing this fact. It just takes awhile for some to wake up and see what's going on.

______________

 

[Native American]

It really is that simple!


______________

Yes, it is, and sadly quite a number of islamic schools (like those in Indonesia) only teach these hateful, post-mohammed writings. The mohammed-era writings are, at best, not wholly historically supportable (only out-of-context pieces used in the koran, but not originating from it, actually meet historical muster, and these don't even support islamic doctrine because they are entirely used out of context), and the add-ons are unsupportable from a scholarly standpoint.

joe125g, your one line says it all.

v/r, N-A

 

[125gJoe]

To bad there's no effort at all to bring some people of the world -- out of the 14th century, and to tolerate others beliefs; to teach that killing is not the answer.
Will we/they, learn that we have to co-exist?

At this time, it doesn't look good....


_______________

 

[Native American]

No, it doesn't look good. The average muslim does not realize that this is a war on terror (not on the ideology of hate that spawns it; according to our Constitution, you have the right to simply believe in an ideology of hate), and the average European and American (north and south) does not realize that we can lose this war. Yes, we can. Also, we don't realize what the costs will be.

Losing the war on terror is not simply losing by political fiat (morons in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations come to mind) and reaping a cloud of low credibility for decades to follow. Losing this war will involve incalculable economic and political costs. The economy angle is easy to fathom...look what a small number of determined hijackers did, backed by an extensive training and financial network. The political angle is more difficult, but let me shed an example...Spain. The terrorists own them. A few well-placed bombs in their rail system, and the Spanish government has abdicated its efforts to fight terror. They are no longer in the mix with the GCTF (Global Coalition Task Force) that is fighting terror. Even though there are a lot of countries in the fight, any loss is critical.

The French Republic is fighting for all she is worth right now, and instead of lambasting them for initial inaction, we need to be 100% supportive of their efforts to rid themselves of the terrorists who are torching their cities and countryside.

The U.S. is spoiled. We have no idea what other countries are going through in this war, and it is a war, pure and simple.

v/r, N-A

 

[Watcher74]

Whatever group "initiated" the crusades is of little consequence. The underlying tenet is intolerance. Muslim intolerance, Christian intolerance, crazy whacko like Hitler intolerance, etc. All forms of intolerance must be removed. Starting with large group sanctioned intolerance and then trickling down to individual intolerance. If you disagree with that idea then you are contributing to the not only potential but probable extinction of our species.

Maybe the very near complete-extinction of humanity is an inevitability. But I would prefer to be an optimist for a brief moment on this fact and say that there is a direction we can take that is able to allow for our continued survival.

Should we argue over how people "feel" or take into account a "heritage","culture", "history"? Or say, "I'm going to see that my childrens or neighbors children survival is insured? We will discuss specific areas of discontent after that little matter is resolved."

Which is a better idea to survive to you? Or is humanity itself ready to commit suicide over fine points of little to no consequence?

 

[Watcher74]

The Europeans initiated hostilities? Really? There is enough documentation of the Ismaelis (hardcore sect of Islam; the world's first documented political terrorists, and shia' and sunni islam) to easily figure that the Europeans did not initiate hostilities.

In response, yeah. You have a point. The initial reaction by Europe to attack muslims was not initiated by the europeans. It was initiated by attacks made by muslims in Turkey. Seems like a certain pope decided to expand that attack to reclaim the "Holy" land beyond those borders.

So that's ok? You attack our land in Georgia so we "reclaim" Arkansas afterwards? Escalation. Prime example of how humanity will kill itself.

 

[125gJoe]

... .. All forms of intolerance must be removed. ...

I totally agree with that, and I don't need to point out, again, where it's now coming from.


It will be interesting to see the outcome of this crime.

_______________

 

[Native American]

All forms of intolerance must be removed.

You make an incredible number of hasty generalizations. I will never tolerate terrorism. Ever. That's why I've been out there to fight it in their own back yard as opposed to waiting for it to get over here. I think the Marines and Army know this more than anybody.

But I'm just intolerant.

Actually, I know what you meant (vs. what you wrote). I'm getting at something here, but this particular post is not the time to write it. News at 11 (that means later on, when appropriate).

In response, yeah. You have a point. The initial reaction by Europe to attack muslims was not initiated by the europeans. It was initiated by attacks made by muslims in Turkey.

I wasn't out to win a point in particular, but make it known that you were omitting an awful lot of history and the islamic doctrinal context it is set in. Also, it wasn't one single event or campaign of events in Turkey that triggered the crusades, or simply one pope's edict in response to it. (I think this was during that timeframe at the end of the reign of the Seljuq sultans in that region...? :read: ) European and non-Islamic populations (like Coptic Christians in Egypt; they have old roots from this time period and there's a long list of peoples like this) in what we call SW Asia expressed growing alarm over islamic encroachment over the centuries. Actually, those that weren't yet eliminated expressed growing alarm, and I use the term encroachment because of how it was accomplished (terrorism). The islamic doctrine that integrates the banking, religion, gov't and military (it should be called paramilitary, and I'll use that term in the future), especially that in post-mohammedan writings following the actions of the Ismaelis was used to great effect to slowly move westward, northward and south. When they employed finance in the name of islam, they could extort w/ every blessing "allowed" them; employing governmental ideas "allowed" them to discriminate, often violently. Using the paramilitary wasn't always the last resort, but killing infidels (like most of us in Europe and the Americas) was (and still is) highly encouraged, and not considered a last resort.

We'd call it terrorism if we were victimized by it, but according to islamic doctrine it was simply war and nothing else. That is the big failure of the west in that we don't view it the same way as they did back then. To the islamic people moving west, it was war. Not the type of war you and I may think of with uniformed troops engaging each other in massed land battle, but war nonetheless. joe125g's grasp of history here is 100% correct.

In military terms, you can clear a lot of towns and countries this way over the years. Winning our hearts and minds was not and still is not the goal of islamic doctrine; this is a gross oversimplification, but the goal is "make it happen or else".

So that's ok? You attack our land in Georgia so we "reclaim" Arkansas afterwards? Escalation. Prime example of how humanity will kill itself.

Good Lord, man...I know you can do better than this really abrupt generalization. I'm used to seeing this on CNN, not here. First you oversimplify the long train of events that led Europe (east and west) to engage in the crusades, then use it as a link to come to this "conclusion." It's a truly improper marriage of historical record and a somewhat scientific method. Again, I know you can do better than this because I've read some of your posts and on occasion thought "well, hey, that was some decent deductive and inductive reasoning by Watcher74," but that last one above was not one of those, though. Brother, I think humanity will do better than this!

Anyways, back on track...this doctrinal context that enabled this consistent, and oftentimes ruthless movement using terrorism centuries ago still exists as a focused doctrinal context framing terrorist actions today, and is thus used as the form of justification for every attack emplaced towards America and her allies. Well, almost every attack....Reza (that kid with the car) was so blinded with his hate that he forgot that he didn't even need vengeance as an "excuse", and that he was not just permitted, but directed by the absolute will of islamic doctrine to run over as many people as possible in his rented Jeep...because, as I wrote before, and as has been executed by actions over the centuries, it is still war according to islamic doctrine. This has not changed one bit.

Again, it's taken me way too many words to say what joe125g said in only one sentence: "It really is that simple!"

v/r, N-A

P.S. My last brood of ghost shrimp are doing really well. 12 from the last hatching, and they're getting bigger. Lots of molts. Had to throw that in, as this is a fish forum! :dance2:

 

[Soulmanure]

The islamic doctrine that integrates the banking, religion, gov't and military (it should be called paramilitary, and I'll use that term in the future), especially that in post-mohammedan writings following the actions of the Ismaelis was used to great effect to slowly move westward, northward and south. When they employed finance in the name of islam, they could extort w/ every blessing "allowed" them; employing governmental ideas "allowed" them to discriminate, often violently. Using the paramilitary wasn't always the last resort, but killing infidels (like most of us in Europe and the Americas) was (and still is) highly encouraged, and not considered a last resort.

We'd call it terrorism if we were victimized by it, but according to islamic doctrine it was simply war and nothing else. That is the big failure of the west in that we don't view it the same way as they did back then. To the islamic people moving west, it was war. Not the type of war you and I may think of with uniformed troops engaging each other in massed land battle, but war nonetheless. joe125g's grasp of history here is 100% correct.

In military terms, you can clear a lot of towns and countries this way over the years. Winning our hearts and minds was not and still is not the goal of islamic doctrine; this is a gross oversimplification, but the goal is "make it happen or else".

Native American,
I've been following your writing with interest, though here I got a bit lost. I'm not a historian so I'm curious about this point and was wondering if you could elucidate--how did the Spread of Islam up to and around the 11th century include terrorism? My understanding of the definition of terrorism (see my response earlier) is that it is fairly open and perspectival, meaning that a terrorist is the other guy. Also, as far as my understanding goes, terrorism as a concept wasn't introduced until the Jacobin Reign of Terror.

In any case, it would seem to follow from your description that any expansionist movement or act of war that involves increasing territory is terrorist. So Napoleon was a terrorist, the Crusades were terrorist, if reactionary, the U.S. was Terrorist (from the Native American perspective), and so on. But I assume I missed the definition.