Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
and when someone dare retaliate with the same tactics, they run home whining 'foul' to their mommies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is, of course, what makes the endless M whining about how he's CONSTANTLY 'mischaracterized' and 'misquoted' when he's challenged on the nonsense he spews so humorous. You can, in fact, present M with a quote and link to a thread where he says "Racism is dead", and he'll deny he said it, whining all the while about how he's just SO misquoted and mischaracterized -- with accompanying threats of suspensions and bannings if you don't sit in respectful silence.

He's all for letting the bombs fly over Mecca, but 'misquote' him, and here come the tears and cries of martyrdom; you'll forgive me if the constant arm-chair-muscle-flexing feels just a little bit tainted when accompanied by a near-constant-level-of-whimpering from you, M.

I thought the liberals was an ideology characterized by petulant whining, and the right-wingers were our tough-guy masculine overlords?

I can't believe the resident He-Men right-wingers of this forum haven't thrown him from their ranks yet. He represents their cause poorly.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut and his crew

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a crew? Clearly, I'm willing to argue with M more than most, as I'm clearly sadistic and foolish.

I assume most other people realize he's got a pathological fixation with Islam and have left him to his own devices, as most people are more than happy to let people with irrational fears, inane theories, and genocidal solutions enjoy the blissful cocoon of their own intellectual dysfunctions. So long as such people remain on the fringes of society and possess no influence, they're of no importance, except perhaps as a curious attraction.

There's a reason why M can only link to Islamo-phobic cluster [censored] groups as correspoding evidence for the wholly innaccurate histories he so dutifully cites.

The First Cursades were an attempt to push back the spread of Islam -- or the spread of religio-fascisto-Islamo-politico-liberalo-badguyo philosophies (or other such psuedo-intellecutal, silly terms he's managed to invent)? The best defense he could provide for such a claim? A link to an editorial on the oh-so-academic website "humaneventsonline.com", which has, on its ad banner, a link to "ConservativeMatch.com - Stop Dating Liberal Guys today! A site for 'sweet hearts', not 'bleeding hearts'!"

Israel was created to escape the crushing weight Arab oppression? (a claim he tried so hard to defend -- then when asked to provide evidence, he said 'it was coming'...we're still waiting).

Don't agree with the editorial? You must not be listening. No, no, it couldn't be due to the fact that he linked to an editorial to provide corresponding evidence to a debate about history -- no, it's because we just aren't listening.

[ QUOTE ]
You only have to read above regarding the words of the Koran on war, and realize that what is important is how Moslems understand and act on same and NOT how a non-Moslem apologist for their actions and political systems could choose to interpret them in the best, albeit false, light.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, clearly -- as has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and elsewhere, I'm sure -- that is not the only thing you have to do to understand such a complex problem.

Re: The Crusades
 

I love how MM claims to have "read the Koran."

What a tool. I didn't know he read Arabic, but I love his "absolutist" "fascist" positions he so circularly maintains.

Total [censored] tool.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" (the) massacre of civilian populations was always an integral part of US [warmaking strategy"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, now we can figure out the agenda of the manufacturers of the above patently ridiculous claim. For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Always" is certainly overstating the case. However, the cold war strategy of nuclear deterrence (fortunately never carried out) would have entiled massacre of civilian populations (on both sides). Sherman's march to the sea in the civil war also intentionally inflicted a lot of civilian casualties. I'm not sure we could have won WWII without killing a lot of civillians. That doesn't mean I like it, especially the firebombings in Dresden and Hamburg and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There seem to be two schools of thought as to how necessary the use of nukes in Japan was to securing Japan's surrender without invading (which would have killed a lot of American troops, Japanese troops and Japanese civillians. I'm not sure who I believe on this.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

The firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg seem to have been designed to inflict lots of civillian casualties as well, and IIRC, killed more civillians than the nuclear bombs in Japan.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

The firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg seem to have been designed to inflict lots of civillian casualties as well, and IIRC, killed more civillians than the nuclear bombs in Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW,the firebombing of Tokyo prior to Hiroshima & Nagasaki killed a minimum of 120,000 Japanese civilians.

Attacking civilian populations was a poitical decision carried out by the military of most of the major combatants of WWII.....Germany, Japan, Russia, England and the USA.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well actually Germany as well. Special bombs and bombing runs that were designed to kill workers and burn thier homes.

I believe there were other instances not in WWII. We did not have the ability to attack whole populations prior to WWII easily with bombs, and fire, but we did kill most of the indignious populations with biological weapons in the form of blankets deliberatly infected with small pox. Indians have very little immunity to the european diseases, STDs included, and so we exploited this weakness. Not that I gnash my teeth over it, but we need to remember it. We didn't do it because it was very difficult to do. When it is easy we seem to have a propensity to do it.

Re: The Crusades
 

The facts are all wrong. The Crusaders did not wipe out whole cities and eat their adversaries. They wiped out entire continents and ate billions of people alive while roasting marshmallows on spits and singing the Monty Python lumberjack song. And they all left their wives and children at home for decades to become rich in precious metals speculation which unfortunately fell apart with the dot com bubble burst. And contrary to archaelogical belief, the world was full of chocalate paved streets and lollipop lanes before the most viscious evil that ever hit the earth, Christianity, was conceived.