The Briefing Room
General Category => World News => Topic started by: famousdayandyear on September 06, 2013, 05:04:27 pm
-
http://weaselzippers.us/ (http://weaselzippers.us/)
Syrian Al-Qaeda Rebels Try To Force Christians To Convert To Islam After Seizing Control of Their Village…
Yes, still moderates.
Via Telegraph:
In the early hours of Wednesday morning, rebel groups, a mix of the extremist Jabhat al-Nusra and the more moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA), attacked with full force.
“First they took a brick factory owned by a Christian guy, who is now missing,” said the resident. “Then at around 5.30am, a car bomb detonated at the checkpoint at the entrance to the village.
“Some of the rebels entered a home near the checkpoint belonging to Yousef Haddad, a Christian. They tried to force him to convert to Islam.”
A nun living in a convent in the village told the Associated press that 27 orphans living in the convent were taken to nearby caves for shelter.
Video footage posted on YouTube showed rebel fighters on a pick up truck with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back firing erratically from inside the mountain town.
Christians, who make up approximately 10 per cent of Syria’s population, have increasingly become targets in the conflict as sectarian-minded foreign jihadists gain influence in the opposition ranks. Almost a third of the Syriac Christian population has fled the rebel-held northern town of Hassakeh after Christians became targets for kidnappings and assassinations.
-
You cannot force someone to believe something they know is not true. Islam is based on indoctrination, while Christianity is base on faith, and belief in the Holy Scripture. It is personal for Christians, whereas Islam is a so-called religion/political cult that is taught rather than 'felt'.
-
The problem is: Convert, or get your head cut off in a slow protracted manner. Islam doesn't give a fig about how you 'feel' about anything. You are right: total subservience is the objective.
-
It takes a stupid mind to follow a "religion" that is so violent with a total lack of compassion to anyone. :thumbsdown:
-
You cannot force someone to believe something they know is not true. Islam is based on indoctrination, while Christianity is base on faith, and belief in the Holy Scripture. It is personal for Christians, whereas Islam is a so-called religion/political cult that is taught rather than 'felt'.
Some history. When the Catholics forced Jews and Muslims to convert during their Inquisitions, many did so. (Protestants, too-Huguents fled wide and far, to escape the Catholic church in France.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converso
In some cases the conversion became permanent, and in some cases it was false.
It is intellectually dishonest, to ignore this historical period, and the results thereof.
BTW there were Inquisition, in France and Italy, too.
-
Some history. When the Catholics forced Jews and Muslims to convert during their Inquisitions, many did so. (Protestants, too-Huguents fled wide and far, to escape the Catholic church in France.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converso
In some cases the conversion became permanent, and in some cases it was false.
It is intellectually dishonest, to ignore this historical period, and the results thereof.
BTW there were Inquisition, in France and Italy, too.
Shall we go back to Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours?
-
Some history. When the Catholics forced Jews and Muslims to convert during their Inquisitions, many did so. (Protestants, too-Huguents fled wide and far, to escape the Catholic church in France.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converso
In some cases the conversion became permanent, and in some cases it was false.
It is intellectually dishonest, to ignore this historical period, and the results thereof.
BTW there were Inquisition, in France and Italy, too.
You are entirely correct.
However, none of that is occurring in the 21st century in Christianity.
Forced conversions are de rigeur in present-day Islam, as are beheadings of women who refuse to cover themselves, and wholesale murder for no reason other than that "they can."
-
These kind of "yes, but those miserable Catholics" distractions do not add anything to the conversation.
-
You are entirely correct.
However, none of that is occurring in the 21st century in Christianity.
Forced conversions are de rigeur in present-day Islam, as are beheadings of women who refuse to cover themselves, and wholesale murder for no reason other than that "they can."
We can be "right" because we live in the 21st century, while they are "wrong" because they live in the 7th or 14th centuries.
Nonetheless there are a lot of them. And we can't excuse or deny away, their impact on the world today.
-
These kind of "yes, but those miserable Catholics" distractions do not add anything to the conversation.
Actually the point is that the muslims feel some historical justification, for forcing conversions. And they have very long memories.
Sweeping history aside, does "not add anything to the conversation," either.
-
We can be "right" because we live in the 21st century, while they are "wrong" because they live in the 7th or 14th centuries.
Nonetheless there are a lot of them. And we can't excuse or deny away, their impact on the world today.
You are now attacking Catholics who are being slaughtered and attacked all over the Middle East for absolutely no reason that I can discern. Please explain to this forum your honest motive in doing so. This is a recurring tactic with such posts--and I believe it is done for the sole purpose of invoking emotional responses from members.
-
Actually the point is that the muslims feel some historical justification, for forcing conversions. And they have very long memories.
Sweeping history aside, does "not add anything to the conversation," either.
I have referred you and yours to the Battle of Tours. I am not sweeping history aside. This is a tired, old, odious tactic employed to distract and engage in exceptionally meaningless postings.
I do hope this forum recognizes and deplores such tactics. Keep crucifying Catholics. We're here.
-
Actually the point is that the muslims feel some historical justification, for forcing conversions. And they have very long memories.
Sweeping history aside, does "not add anything to the conversation," either.
You could apply the same "historical justification" reasoning to the current black rage in our society, for enforced slavery, because they have very long memories too.
I never see you trotting out that argument on behalf of the "low IQ" crowd, however. I guess its because it doesn't fit into your religion-bashing template.
-
You are now attacking Catholics who are being slaughtered and attacked all over the Middle East for absolutely no reason that I can discern. Please explain to this forum your honest motive in doing so. This is a recurring tactic with such posts--and I believe it is done for the sole purpose of invoking emotional responses from members.
If the facts of history are "attacks on Catholics" to you, I suggest you find a way to shield yourself from reality.
I'm not attacking anybody. I am stating the reason muslims feel justified in what they do. Nothing more. Nothing less.
My wife of 45 years is Catholic, along with most of her family. One is a nun. A man who made a huge impact on my life was a priest. I have absolutely nothing against Catholics or Catholicism.
I am however, able to examine the history books, and come to grips with long term implications.
-
If the facts of history are "attacks on Catholics" to you, I suggest you find a way to shield yourself from reality.
I'm not attacking anybody. I am stating the reason muslims feel justified in what they do. Nothing more. Nothing less.
My wife of 45 years is Catholic, along with most of her family. One is a nun. A man who made a huge impact on my life was a priest. I have absolutely nothing against Catholics or Catholicism.
I am however, able to examine the history books, and come to grips with long term implications.
Tell us more about the current situation, if you can pull yourself away from the wayback machine. History books are full of crap from all sides. Do you want to discuss the War of Northern Agression while we're at it. So fill us is with your "long term implications". Are you saying by your totally distracting posts, that we should all convert to Islam? Be clear. I don't really care about your family members, respectfully.
-
thank you Imam Obama
-
You could apply the same "historical justification" reasoning to the current black rage in our society, for enforced slavery, because they have very long memories too.
I never see you trotting out that argument on behalf of the "low IQ" crowd, however. I guess its because it doesn't fit into your religion-bashing template.
I deplore muslims attacking Christians in the Middle East, or anywhere. I side with the Christians and the Jews.
Then I could say nuke all of islam. That would be a popular post, to please the echo-chamber mentality of some forums.
I once thought this forum was more sophisticated, and was able to deal a bit more with the real world.
-
I deplore muslims attacking Christians in the Middle East, or anywhere. I side with the Christians and the Jews.
Then I could say nuke all of islam. That would be a popular post, to please the echo-chamber mentality of some forums.
I once thought this forum was more sophisticated, and was able to deal a bit more with the real world.
There it is forum! The echo chamber justification for a meaningless, distracting post. Happens all the time. Odious and without any intellectual content. And they accuse YOU of being so UN sophisticated, YOU just are too stupid to GET IT. I say--ENOUGH. If you post provide something other than an emotional based argument.
-
There it is forum! The echo chamber justification for a meaningless, distracting post. Happens all the time. Odious and without any intellectual content. And they accuse YOU of being so UN sophisticated, YOU just are too stupid to GET IT. I say--ENOUGH. If you post provide something other than an emotional based argument.
Ceasefire. Timeout. De-escalate. Peace. I stated:
"I deplore muslims attacking Christians in the Middle East, or anywhere. I side with the Christians and the Jews."
-
Ceasefire. Timeout. De-escalate. Peace. I stated:
"I deplore muslims attacking Christians in the Middle East, or anywhere. I side with the Christians and the Jews."
Nice try. Do not employ this distracting tactic again.
-
Nice try. Do not employ this distracting tactic again.
Actually I'll continue to post as I please.
-
Actually I'll continue to post as I please.
Of course. That is not the issue. Post with a modicum of honesty that reflects the current state of events. If you distract and distort, that does not add to the debate. Is that too much of a burden for you? And labeling all of us as too unsophistocated to "get" your point, why bother?
-
This thread is one village that's on fire, already. lol
I see both sides. The Catholics were known in history for forced conversion of anyone who was not Catholic. That goes for all over the world, including what is now known as Europe, Mexico, the M.E. and Polynesia.
However, that was centuries ago and what the savage Muslims are doing is here now today and it must be stopped. Hell, if we should be supporting a side in this thing we should be helping Assad exterminate these animals, and not helping the brutal barbaric throwbacks from the 7th century.
All I can say is, I agree with all of you.
-
This thread is one village that's on fire, already. lol
I see both sides. The Catholics were known in history for forced conversion of anyone who was not Catholic. That goes for all over the world, including what is now known as Europe, Mexico, the M.E. and Polynesia.
However, that was centuries ago and what the savage Muslims are doing is here now today and it must be stopped. Hell, if we should be supporting a side in this thing we should be helping Assad exterminate these animals, and not helping the brutal barbaric throwbacks from the 7th century.
All I can say is, I agree with all of you.
LOL. Laughing out loud. At what? The defense of a few Christians who want to live? Please fill us in. My guess your "LOL" is the distracting junk from our friend.
-
LOL. Laughing out loud. At what? The defense of a few Christians who want to live? Please fill us in. My guess your "LOL" is the distracting junk from our friend.
Oops, I'm sorry. Yes. You caught me. I was laughing and making fun of dead Christians. That's exactly what I was doing. I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
I understand you are upset. And I understand why. I really don't feel like engaging you now in this mood on this. Calm down a little and maybe we can discuss this more another time in another forum.
I wrote what I wrote and it speaks for itself. Deal with it, or don't. I don't care either way.
-
Oops, I'm sorry. Yes. You caught me. I was laughing and making fun of dead Christians. That's exactly what I was doing. I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
I understand you are upset. And I understand why. I really don't feel like engaging you now in this mood on this. Calm down a little and maybe we can discuss this more another time in another forum.
I wrote what I wrote and it speaks for itself. Deal with it, or don't. I don't care either way.
You're telling me to "deal with it, or don't". Where you coming from veteran? Are you saying I can't defend a position, or that I am so crazy I can't calm down?
-
I am now seeing a pattern.
-
I am now seeing a pattern.
The reason you see a pattern is because you created one. Distract and defend a useless position.
-
Some history. When the Catholics forced Jews and Muslims to convert during their Inquisitions, many did so. (Protestants, too-Huguents fled wide and far, to escape the Catholic church in France.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converso
In some cases the conversion became permanent, and in some cases it was false.
It is intellectually dishonest, to ignore this historical period, and the results thereof.
BTW there were Inquisition, in France and Italy, too.
Your history lesson is a leftist fall-back argument as to why Muslims aren't to blame for their wholesale slaughter of Christians.
They use it all the time.
What happened during the Inquisition is not relevant to the situation we're in now.
You're not going to get away with using it on a conservative forum.
-
I deplore muslims attacking Christians in the Middle East, or anywhere. I side with the Christians and the Jews.
Then I could say nuke all of islam. That would be a popular post, to please the echo-chamber mentality of some forums.
I once thought this forum was more sophisticated, and was able to deal a bit more with the real world.
Don't presume to lecture this forum on "sophistication" while you trot out a "nuke all of islam" strawman in place of actual discussion.
Much easier to default back to those Captain Queeg "echo-chamber mentality-true conservatives-Akin-O'Donnell-Mourdoch-Christians" marbles you endlessly fumble about in your hand.
-
This thread is one village that's on fire, already. lol
I see both sides. The Catholics were known in history for forced conversion of anyone who was not Catholic. That goes for all over the world, including what is now known as Europe, Mexico, the M.E. and Polynesia.
However, that was centuries ago and what the savage Muslims are doing is here now today and it must be stopped. Hell, if we should be supporting a side in this thing we should be helping Assad exterminate these animals, and not helping the brutal barbaric throwbacks from the 7th century.
All I can say is, I agree with all of you.
Bingo.. Time to stop focusing on the past and focus on the present..
-
For students of history: The Battle of Tours (Year: 732 AD)
The Battle of Tours (October 732), also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء (ma‘arakat Balâṭ ash-Shuhadâ - Battle of the Palace of Martyrs) was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, in north-central France, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille, about 20 kilometres (12 mi) northeast of Poitiers. The location of the battle was close to the border between the Frankish realm and then-independent Aquitaine. The battle pitted Frankish and Burgundian forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus.
The Franks were victorious. ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi was killed, and Charles subsequently extended his authority in the south. Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus ("The Hammer"), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus ("The Hammerer") of the Maccabean revolt. Details of the battle, including its exact location and the exact number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived. Notably, the Frankish troops won the battle without cavalry.
Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe; according to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, "most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe. Leopold von Ranke felt that "Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."
-
For students of history: The Battle of Tours (Year: 732 AD)
The Battle of Tours (October 732), also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء (ma‘arakat Balâṭ ash-Shuhadâ - Battle of the Palace of Martyrs) was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, in north-central France, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille, about 20 kilometres (12 mi) northeast of Poitiers. The location of the battle was close to the border between the Frankish realm and then-independent Aquitaine. The battle pitted Frankish and Burgundian forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus.
The Franks were victorious. ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi was killed, and Charles subsequently extended his authority in the south. Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus ("The Hammer"), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus ("The Hammerer") of the Maccabean revolt. Details of the battle, including its exact location and the exact number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived. Notably, the Frankish troops won the battle without cavalry.
Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe; according to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, "most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe. Leopold von Ranke felt that "Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."
and the Catholic Church almost called Charles Martel a heretic.
-
Some other facts about the Battle of Tours and its consequences.
After the battle the Muslims retreated back beyond the Pyrenees and, with the exception of some small provinces in the northwest, ruled Spain for over 700 years. The Spanish struggle to regain control of their land and oust the invaders (for that is what they were) ended with the fall of Grenada in 1492. One can say all he wishes about the Inquisition, much of it actually anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda, but the Reconquista (as it was called) became inextricably combined with a Catholic identity. The Inquisition was the institution which was tasked with making certain no non-Catholics remained within Spain. By our standards the Inquisition's methods of investigation were reprehensible, though not really that different from those prevailing in other parts of Europe, and when considered in the context of the times, make better sense.
I should also like to point out the imperialistic nature of Islam did not end at Grenada. As late as 1571 a confederation of Christian maritime nations, led by Spain (yeah, them again), defeated a Turkish fleet at Lepanto which was driving westward in order to extend Turkish (Muslim) control into the western Mediterranean; and even later the Turks were defeated at the very gates of Vienna in 1683 (just over 300 years ago) by a coalition of Germanic principalities. If the Turks had not been defeated at Vienna, the probability is they would have overrun western Europe. The Turks presence there always explains the very recent troubles between Christians and Muslims in Serbia/Bosnia as they had already occupied that area until driven out in the 19th century (which then gave rise to nationalist fervor throughout the region, which then led to attempts to break away from the Austrian Empire, which then led to an assassination, which then led to WWI. I love history).
-
Take a look at this:
Islam's China Wars-751 A.D-Battle of Talas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtqphtX_ops
-
Some other facts about the Battle of Tours and its consequences.
After the battle the Muslims retreated back beyond the Pyrenees and, with the exception of some small provinces in the northwest, ruled Spain for over 700 years. The Spanish struggle to regain control of their land and oust the invaders (for that is what they were) ended with the fall of Grenada in 1492. One can say all he wishes about the Inquisition, much of it actually anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda, but the Reconquista (as it was called) became inextricably combined with a Catholic identity. The Inquisition was the institution which was tasked with making certain no non-Catholics remained within Spain. By our standards the Inquisition's methods of investigation were reprehensible, though not really that different from those prevailing in other parts of Europe, and when considered in the context of the times, make better sense.
I should also like to point out the imperialistic nature of Islam did not end at Grenada. As late as 1571 a confederation of Christian maritime nations, led by Spain (yeah, them again), defeated a Turkish fleet at Lepanto which was driving westward in order to extend Turkish (Muslim) control into the western Mediterranean; and even later the Turks were defeated at the very gates of Vienna in 1683 (just over 300 years ago) by a coalition of Germanic principalities. If the Turks had not been defeated at Vienna, the probability is they would have overrun western Europe. The Turks presence there always explains the very recent troubles between Christians and Muslims in Serbia/Bosnia as they had already occupied that area until driven out in the 19th century (which then gave rise to nationalist fervor throughout the region, which then led to attempts to break away from the Austrian Empire, which then led to an assassination, which then led to WWI. I love history).
Also unlike the Christianity, Islam has yet to go through a reformation..
-
Also unlike the Christianity, Islam has yet to go through a reformation..
Perhaps killing a couple million of them will get their attention for another 500 years. :pondering:
-
Perhaps killing a couple million of them will get their attention for another 500 years. :pondering:
I doubt it...
-
I doubt it...
Well...evidence suggests that's been the case with them over the past two thousand years. :laugh:
Get brutal....and they slink away.
-
Perhaps killing a couple million of them will get their attention for another 500 years. :pondering:
September 11, 2001 gave us the perfect justification for doing that or more. We didn't do it then, and it is less likely we will do it.
-
September 11, 2001 gave us the perfect justification for doing that or more. We didn't do it then, and it is less likely we will do it.
I don't think that would have been justification....because it wasn't a specific government that was represented. That's the problem when you don't have a "Pope".....a single person that can speak on behalf of the religion with authority and confidence.
-
[[ Shall we go back to Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours? ]]
If The West desires to survive, it may have no choice.