• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

Lets not forget ALL the democrats voted for the iraq war

Lets look at the end result...a mass murderer and his two mass murdering sons...who killed hundreds of thousands of their own people and tortured unknown numbers of their own...ARE GONE and iraq has a democratic society...with the right to VOTE who they want to lead them.
Iraq is a huge success and the Iraqui' can than George Bush for that
 
Lets not forget ALL the democrats voted for the iraq war

Lets look at the end result...a mass murderer and his two mass murdering sons...who killed hundreds of thousands of their own people and tortured unknown numbers of their own...ARE GONE and iraq has a democratic society...with the right to VOTE who they want to lead them.
Iraq is a huge success and the Iraqui' can than George Bush for that

Were Democrats like the Politicians of the UK possibly given wrong information.

No one thinks Saddam was a good person but it is to do with International Law. Once that is given up it is a free for all.
 
No, I have other things to do.

The UN says it was unlawful. The UN is the final speaker on UN Law.

Actually, the International Court of Justice is the final speaker on international law, not the Secretary General. That would be like the President of the US being the final speaker of U.S. law.
 
Were Democrats like the Politicians of the UK possibly given wrong information.

No one thinks Saddam was a good person but it is to do with International Law. Once that is given up it is a free for all.

And this was legal according to international law. UN Security Council resolutions 667 and 678 gave authorization for the use for force for those and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT resolutions.
 
Absolutely Christianity has caught up.
The endless wars, crusades, civil wars that had religion as a factor. Heck we can even go modern if you want with the Catholic church and its erm ... "indiscretions"

The Crusades, including the Reconquista, were all in response to Islamic aggression. Islam also had religious wars. Are you familiar with the wars and massacres in the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman empires?

Stop deluding yourself about your religion.

I am not "deluding" myself about my religion. I never claimed that it was perfect. However, its spread does not even BEGIN to match the violence of the spread of Islam -- especially considering the violence conducted by Muslims against Christian lands.

It is as violent as mine however much spin you wish to put on it.

There is no basis in reality for that statement.

The basis of your religion is on a man apparently "crucified" to his death. Lovely and that is supposed to represent forgiveness.

It is supposed to represent forgiveness, but that was not violence committed by Christians. Islam's very foundation was violent. The Battle of Mecca ring a bell?

It's in Muslim countries and it is going to stay there unless Christians wish to become aggressive and attempt to reclaim it.

I would not advocate that, but you can't deny that it came under Islamic control through aggression. Ideally, all people would have free access to all sites, regardless of one's faith.

It's illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity.

According to Islamic religious law. It ought not be the policy and law of the state, which it is in several Islamic countries.

But those already Christians (businessmen who travel there or immigrants who move there for work) can be Christian. They just aren't allowed anywhere near the holy cities.

But Saudi citizens in Saudi Arabia are NOT EVEN PERMITTED BY LAW to be any religion but Muslim. It is forbidden for Muslims in Malaysia to convert to any other faith, but it is ok for people to convert to Islam.

What Muslim Government is insisting rights for Muslims in the West?

The latest being the Libyan and others insisting on the right to build minerets in Switzerland.

No.
Not unless the Non Muslim has come into the Mosque seeking information.
It is not there, you cannot accept that.

It isn't as obvious as it is with Christianity, true. However, that is completely irrelevant as to the violence of the spread of Islam.

Christianity constantly needs to pull out the propaganda sheet about how Jesus is so loving and Christianity is all about forgiveness and whatever other lines are usually added because it is losing believers and people are leaving Churches.


Islam does not and never will have that problem.

Because it is illegal in many Muslim countries to leave the faith.


Aw, because Christianity can't compete with Islam? Figured but sure, it's not going to stop it.

We can, and do, compete with Islam, thank you very much. And we can do it without the force of law and threatening to kill everyone around us and force people to submit to Sharia law.
 
There were numerous UN resolutions that provided support for that invasion. You compare apples and oranges much?
Just as there were numerous bodies of people who welcomed the Muslim invaders over the oppressive Christian empire. Does that somehow give it more legitimacy.

Relevance being?
Relevance being that you were disputing the historicity of this man.

Relevance being?
Relevance being these were groups oppressed by your precious Christian empire.

Not hypocrisy. The Levant became Christian now due to invasion, but to mostly to voluntary conversion in an empire that was once very hostile to the religion.
Voluntary conversion? :rofl

Even when the Roman Empire became Christian, the majority of the Levant was "Jews and heathens" (according to the Christian monk, Bar-Sawma).
It was only later that the Roman Empire became Christian and it was the then-Christian Roman Empire that the Arabs attacked.
And liberated all the non-Christian groups that were oppressed in the region.
I guess by your definition, the invasion of the Aztec Empire by the Spaniards wasn't aggression either.
Who likes to compare what to what now?

:roll:
 
Just as there were numerous bodies of people who welcomed the Muslim invaders over the oppressive Christian empire. Does that somehow give it more legitimacy.

No. Ever heard of state sovereignty?

Relevance being that you were disputing the historicity of this man.

His relevance to denying that it was Muslim aggression would be?

Relevance being these were groups oppressed by your precious Christian empire.

And this somehow chances the fact that it was Islamic aggression?

Voluntary conversion? :rofl

Even when the Roman Empire became Christian, the majority of the Levant was "Jews and heathens" (according to the Christian monk, Bar-Sawma).

Relying on the word of someone who lived in the twelth century?

And liberated all the non-Christian groups that were oppressed in the region.

And resulting in the oppression of Christian groups. Still doesn't deny the fact that it was aggression.

Who likes to compare what to what now?

Because according to your logic, it isn't aggression because there were people who supported the invaders. Well, the groups who were being brutally oppressed (in FAR worse a fashion than anyone was oppressed by the Roman Empire in the 7th century) worked together with the Spaniards to bring down the Aztecs.
 
No. Ever heard of state sovereignty?
I have, but you display hypocrisy when you call it Christian lands, knowing full well that those lands were predominantly non-Christian until the Byzantine Empire became Christian and started persecuting everyone else. It's pathetic and disingenuous.


His relevance to denying that it was Muslim aggression would be?
Oh, Julian was a Muslim now? :rofl

And this somehow chances the fact that it was Islamic aggression?
By your logic, Iraq has every right to execute a retaliatory strike on America for their "aggression". Same with the Vietnamese. Oh, and don't mind the time frame, the 'response' can come hundreds of years later. :roll:


Relying on the word of someone who lived in the twelth century?
Apparently you don't even know who Bar-Sawma is. He was born in Samosata and lived in Palestine during the 5th century.


And resulting in the oppression of Christian groups. Still doesn't deny the fact that it was aggression.
The oppression of which Christian groups? The Nestorians, a Christian group that was persecuted by your precious Christian Roman Empire? No, the Nestorians expanded the most in their history under Islamic rule.


Because according to your logic, it isn't aggression because there were people who supported the invaders. Well, the groups who were being brutally oppressed (in FAR worse a fashion than anyone was oppressed by the Roman Empire in the 7th century) worked together with the Spaniards to bring down the Aztecs.
That is your logic. I asked you if you consider the invasion of Iraq to be aggression and you went on a tangent while saying an irrelevant body (the UN) approved of the invasion. So what if the UN 'approves' of something. State sovereignty has no meaning when we talk about the United Nations?
 
I have, but you display hypocrisy when you call it Christian lands, knowing full well that those lands were predominantly non-Christian until the Byzantine Empire became Christian and started persecuting everyone else. It's pathetic and disingenuous.

No, I don't. I have claimed Arab Muslim aggression, something that you have NOT been able to disprove. This region had been part of the Roman empire for more than six centuries prior to Arab Muslim aggression.

Oh, Julian was a Muslim now? :rofl

Did I ever say he was? Who came to rule Spain for hundreds of years and why did it take a five-hundred-year Reconquista to get rid of them if it wasn't aggression.

By your logic, Iraq has every right to execute a retaliatory strike on America for their "aggression". Same with the Vietnamese. Oh, and don't mind the time frame, the 'response' can come hundreds of years later. :roll:

Like to keep up with apples vs. oranges? There was no U.S. aggression. There was legal sanction for BOTH U.S.-led invasions. You can't compare international law today with the reality 14 centuries ago.

Apparently you don't even know who Bar-Sawma is. He was born in Samosata and lived in Palestine during the 5th century.

A more polite response on your part would have been "you don't know which Bar-Sawma I am refering to because the one I am referring to lived in Palestine during the 5th century." Obviously, notions of politeness in debate are lost on you and the reason that this will be the last time I response to you in this thread. BTW, this is still not relevant to the fact that Arab Muslims committed an action of aggression on the Roman Empire.


That is your logic. I asked you if you consider the invasion of Iraq to be aggression and you went on a tangent while saying an irrelevant body (the UN) approved of the invasion. So what if the UN 'approves' of something. State sovereignty has no meaning when we talk about the United Nations?

It isn't a "tangant", there was legitimate UN backing for it. State sovereignty is NOT the same today as it was in the 7th century. Iraq was a member of the United Nations, it repeatedly violated international law, and that organization which was legally authorized to enforce security passed multiple resolutions against it, all with the legal recourse to the use of force.

Notice how you have dropped your rediculous challenge to the Aztec comparison.

Now, since you have already shown you can't show mutual respect in a discussion with your reaction above, this will be my final response to you. I just find it disgusting that you would go to such lengths to justify and defend THIRTEEN CENTURIES of Muslim aggression against the Christian world.
 
Are you Muslim and/or far left because only those two groups are stupid enough to keep using the Crusaders line.

I got news for you little buddy. As ludahai has stated to you, your apologist attitude for 400 years of rape and pillaging of Christian and Muslim cities before the first Crusade and your excuses for modern day Muslim terrorists don't help your persona.
Is the Shrub a Muslim or far left? Not to mention that your first sentence is a logical fallacy. FAIL
 
Obama seemingly has no respect for our allies. I think he wants to snub Israel to gain better relations with Arab countries.
 
Is the Shrub a Muslim or far left? Not to mention that your first sentence is a logical fallacy. FAIL

It's ok to call President George W. Bush "Shrub" but it isn't ok to refer to President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. by his legal middle name? Something is not right with this.
 
It's ok to call President George W. Bush "Shrub" but it isn't ok to refer to President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. by his legal middle name? Something is not right with this.
Please link to me stating that it isn't OK to refer to the President, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., by his legal middle name.

Then try and figure out why ONLY the anti-Obama people find it necessary to use his middle name. Let us know when you think you have the answer. :waiting:
 
Is the Shrub a Muslim or far left? Not to mention that your first sentence is a logical fallacy. FAIL

Don't use big words you don't understand. It is absolutely true Muslims and far left apologists do use the Crusaders argument far more often than any other 2 groups so your claim is patently false.
 
Please link to me stating that it isn't OK to refer to the President, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., by his legal middle name.

Then try and figure out why ONLY the anti-Obama people find it necessary to use his middle name. Let us know when you think you have the answer. :waiting:

Check with some of the mods on here...
 
Don't use big words you don't understand. It is absolutely true Muslims and far left apologists do use the Crusaders argument far more often than any other 2 groups so your claim is patently false.

When they ignore, for example, that the Crusades were merely a counter-attack to ongoing Islamic aggression.
 
Don't use big words you don't understand.
Which "big word" did I use and not understand?

It is absolutely true Muslims and far left apologists do use the Crusaders argument far more often than any other 2 groups so your claim is patently false.
But that's not what you said. You said:
Are you Muslim and/or far left because only those two groups are stupid enough to keep using the Crusaders line.
Did you want to change that to the quote above that one? Nice try.
 
When they ignore, for example, that the Crusades were merely a counter-attack to ongoing Islamic aggression.

... that's a gross mis-characterization of the Crusades. The Jews, the Lithuanians, and Eastern Orthodox Christians were hardly aggressors, and they were butchered or had exploitative Western European Crusader overlords set over them. Furthermore, only the Turks were marching on the Byzantine Empire. The Moors had stopped advancing on the Iberian Pennisula several centuries previously, and Jereusulam was a possession of the Arab-Egyptian Caliphate, who had minimal relations with Europe.
 
Last edited:
Which "big word" did I use and not understand?

Logical fallacy. Again, don't use big words you don't understand.

But that's not what you said. You said:

Did you want to change that to the quote above that one? Nice try.


LOL Are you incapable of reading carefully?

It is absolutely true Muslims and far left apologists do use the Crusaders argument

Are you Muslim and/or far left because only those two groups are stupid enough to keep using the Crusaders line.

Exactly how are those different statements?
 
... that's a gross mis-characterization of the Crusades.

Wrong. Its dead on accurate.

The Jews, the Lithuanians, and Eastern Orthodox Christians were hardly aggressors, and they were butchered or had exploitative Western European Crusader overlords set over them.

That has absolutely no bearing on Muslim agression before the Crusades nor does it provide any reason for the Crusades other than the one already provided.

Furthermore, only the Turks were marching on the Byzantine Empire. The Moors had stopped advancing on the Iberian Pennisula several centuries previously, and Jereusulam was a possession of the Arab-Egyptian Caliphate, who had minimal relations with Europe.

Why are you looking at this as racial? Islam is not a race.
 
Logical fallacy. Again, don't use big words you don't understand.
You consider 'logical fallacy' to be a big word? Holy :rofl Batman!


LOL Are you incapable of reading carefully?

It is absolutely true Muslims and far left apologists do use the Crusaders argument

Are you Muslim and/or far left because only those two groups are stupid enough to keep using the Crusaders line.

Exactly how are those different statements?

You see that part that I made bold? I know reading comprehension is difficult, so I highlighted an area to help you.

In which way is discussing the Crusades a solely Muslim and/or far left 'argument'? If this holds true, then it is only Christian apologists who say the Crusades were a response to Islamic "aggression" (despite being 400 years too late).
 
Back
Top Bottom