LA Times Op-ed: Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered

[Coco]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when Muslims beat infidels,

[/ QUOTE ]

Contempory example please.

[/ QUOTE ]




I dont think your example is on point.

To the victors go many of the spoils. Look at how muslims have been treated in India for a counter example.


How about Pakistan? They won independence around the same time that Israel did. Let's see how the Hindu's of that area like it:

Hindus in Pakistan

"During 1970 and 1971, huge massacres were perpetrated upon Hindus, by the Pakistani army. A proper study into the casualty figures has never been conducted. Estimates for the number dead are up to 3 million. Millions of Hindu women were raped and kidnapped in this period. It was one of the largest massacres in recent history, and also one of the most ignored.

In 1977, General Zia ul-Haq led a military coup in Pakistan. He introduced Islamic Law, which further excluded and marginalised Hindus.

In 1989 and 1992 over 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Many Hindus lost their homes. The largest outward migration of Hindus from Pakistan since Partition took place during these years."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement I was addressing was that people that live in Muslim ruled countries generally like being ruled by Muslims. Not that the Muslims mistreat others while others do not mistreat Muslims-- although I honestly don't know much about the Muslims in India.

Why is my response not on point? He asked for a contemperary example to which I gave him one. How Muslims are treated in India does not have any bearing on whether or not Hindus in Pakistan like the Muslims who rule them.

And I agree with you, in that part of the world the statement "to the victors go the spoils" (or "might makes right") holds very true. That is not modern WESTERN culture but it is over there-- and that is the whole point of the article. Unless the Muslims are the ones losing the spoils.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when Muslims beat infidels,

[/ QUOTE ]

Contempory example please.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont think your example is on point.

To the victors go many of the spoils. Look at how muslims have been treated in India for a counter example.




How about Pakistan? They won independence around the same time that Israel did. Let's see how the Hindu's of that area like it:

Hindus in Pakistan

"During 1970 and 1971, huge massacres were perpetrated upon Hindus, by the Pakistani army. A proper study into the casualty figures has never been conducted. Estimates for the number dead are up to 3 million. Millions of Hindu women were raped and kidnapped in this period. It was one of the largest massacres in recent history, and also one of the most ignored.

In 1977, General Zia ul-Haq led a military coup in Pakistan. He introduced Islamic Law, which further excluded and marginalised Hindus.

In 1989 and 1992 over 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Many Hindus lost their homes. The largest outward migration of Hindus from Pakistan since Partition took place during these years."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Wow the post is bad enough for someone to quote it is even funnier. (Edit I just noticed that the quote involved a refutation.)

Firstly we are talking about countries invaded by Muslims. Pakistan therfore dosnt qualify.

Also perhaps you should attempt some form of historical understanding. You dont think Hindus have comited atrocicities against Muslims? Perhaps you shoud have some understanding of the history of the independence and partition of India to know what a crap example Pakistan is.

The fact is that the most horrendous contempory example of persecution which I doubt any Islamic country will ever emulate sprung from a advanced western European nation e.g. Nazi Germany.

Aslo name 1 country were everyone "likes" who rules them. The fact is that most countries with Mulsim governements have a popualtion of mostly muslims.

[Coco]

The statement I was addressing was that people that live in Muslim ruled countries generally like being ruled by Muslims.

"Aslo name 1 country were everyone "likes" who rules them. "

None.. which makes the original statement I was addressing more absurd.

"The fact is that most countries with Mulsim governements have a popualtion of mostly muslims."

And if you live in a country that is ruled by muslims and aren't muslim you either 1) won't be living there much longer or 2) be punished for not being muslim.

[The once and future king]

The fact is that the vast majority of muslims generaly like being ruled by other muslims.

You have such a hard on for bashing muslims that yoou are only capable of making sweeping generalisations that have no basis in fact.

Your examples have all been rubbish and the idea that in all muslim countries you will be persecuted by the State for being non muslim is absurd.

[Coco]

Please enlighten me then. Every time you respond to one my statements all you say is: Well that's not true. Please give me the facts so I can be more enlightened.

[DVO]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the vast majority of muslims generaly like being ruled by other muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? That's true ever where. That's meaningless. A better question is: How do non-Muslims fare under Muslim rule?

For a group that always claims to be oppressed, they sure are brutal to the minorities in their midst.

Well, heck you DO have three choices I guess- convert, accept 2nd class citizenship....
or die. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when Muslims beat infidels,

[/ QUOTE ]

Contempory example please.

[/ QUOTE ]




I dont think your example is on point.

To the victors go many of the spoils. Look at how muslims have been treated in India for a counter example.


How about Pakistan? They won independence around the same time that Israel did. Let's see how the Hindu's of that area like it:

Hindus in Pakistan

"During 1970 and 1971, huge massacres were perpetrated upon Hindus, by the Pakistani army. A proper study into the casualty figures has never been conducted. Estimates for the number dead are up to 3 million. Millions of Hindu women were raped and kidnapped in this period. It was one of the largest massacres in recent history, and also one of the most ignored.

In 1977, General Zia ul-Haq led a military coup in Pakistan. He introduced Islamic Law, which further excluded and marginalised Hindus.

In 1989 and 1992 over 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Many Hindus lost their homes. The largest outward migration of Hindus from Pakistan since Partition took place during these years."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement I was addressing was that people that live in Muslim ruled countries generally like being ruled by Muslims. Not that the Muslims mistreat others while others do not mistreat Muslims-- although I honestly don't know much about the Muslims in India.

Why is my response not on point? He asked for a contemperary example to which I gave him one. How Muslims are treated in India does not have any bearing on whether or not Hindus in Pakistan like the Muslims who rule them.

And I agree with you, in that part of the world the statement "to the victors go the spoils" (or "might makes right") holds very true. That is not modern WESTERN culture but it is over there-- and that is the whole point of the article. Unless the Muslims are the ones losing the spoils.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont see why you limit the to the victors go the spoils to "over there". Israel won what is now Israel by terrorist means and as the victor is now the defacto "owner" of that land. We in the US "won" the war in Iraq and the spoils are certainly accruing to the stockholders of Haliburton at the expense of the Iraqi people. The invaders won the war in the US that took away the lands from the natives and now rule North America and the losers are in reservations. The list is endless in history from all over the world.

[ QUOTE ]
The statement I was addressing was that people that live in Muslim ruled countries generally like being ruled by Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is close to a tautology. Of course they do. As do people in Christian countries generally like being ruled by Christians. You may know about the fuss that happened because Kennedy was Chatholic.

My counter example supports the view that the victors rule the others, often with a iron fist and at the expense of the rulers. Ofter the losers have no choice but to fight back by kicking below the belt (read terrorism).

[Coco]

I consider Israel to be over there. I also disagree with the statement that they won the state by "terrorist" means-- but I am sure your definition of terroris means is different than mine.

"As do people in Christian countries generally like being ruled by Christians. You may know about the fuss that happened because Kennedy was Chatholic."

Actually, as an American I do not like being ruled by "Christians." So there is one. Many people do not like the Christian morals being pushed down their throats. I may be alone in that, but I would venture a guess that there are many like me.

[nicky g]

Cliff Notes on the article:

Some Muslims turned a church into a mosque 500 years ago. Some Jews didn't destroy a mosque 39 years ago. Therefore, Muslims are bad.

Maybe he should try comparing the actions of Muslim rulers 500 years ago to their Christian counterparts. Here's one hint - around the same time, Christians expelled all of the Jews (and Muslims) from Spain when they conquered it. Those Jews were invited and mostly went to the live in the Empire that turned the church into the mosque. By the way those Israelis who didn't destroy the Temple of the Rock did destroy the entire (inhabited) Moroccan quarter of Jerusalem so they could have a nice piazza in front of Jewish holy sites, making thousands of people homeless. They also made hundreds of thousands of people more generally refugees. Personally I find treatment of massive groups of people and their homes a bit more important than treatment of religious sites.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider Israel to be over there. I also disagree with the statement that they won the state by "terrorist" means-- but I am sure your definition of terroris means is different than mine.

"As do people in Christian countries generally like being ruled by Christians. You may know about the fuss that happened because Kennedy was Chatholic."

Actually, as an American I do not like being ruled by "Christians." So there is one. Many people do not like the Christian morals being pushed down their throats. I may be alone in that, but I would venture a guess that there are many like me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I would venture to state that there are muslims in muslim countries who do not want a muslim state. So what.

We in the US still vote based on Christian "values" generally. Follow the threads on the chances of Obama, then consider what would happen if the name was Ali, or Patel or Sharon.