Western Victories Over Islamic Hordes

11/14/02 | Sparta

[Argus]

The absolutely best old time Christian Knights vs. Muslims smackdowns took place in Malta. It was considered the greatest siege in history until Stalingrad by most military historians

Knights of St. John: 1

Suleiman the Magnificent: 0

Siege of Malta, 1565. THE GREAT SIEGE by Ernle Bradford. Available from Amazon.

I would also suggest that the Battle of Tours, in which Charles Martel saved France from the Arab tide, is the single most important battle in world history.

[xJones]

There was a great big, loooong article this morning on FR on Mohammadism and the wars!! Verrry interestng.

Nnooooooooo kidding, and your link for this is equally appreciated.

[Burdened White Man]

Is Daniel Pipes an expert on World History? The statement that you agree with has significant subjectiveness in it. Beware of what you believe; ideas have power.

There's nothing subjective about the fact that militant Islam differs from a more traditional form. It's all about knowing your enemy. As for Pipes . . . hmm, let's see, a former instructor at Univ. of Chicago and Harvard.

[Sparta]

In Islamic socities, Christians and Jews were not allowed to spread their religion or even practice it in public. Many "infidels" were kept as slaves and were forbidden by law to be converted to Islam. The Inquisiton, which I'm assuming you are referring to, was an aberration to Western culture. Rome and Greece never practiced anything of the sort. There are no Westerners who support the inquisiton today, while many Muslims wish to kill or enslave all of us infidels.
As to not answering the question how this relates to today, I am attempting to establish a pattern of Islamofascist aggression toward the West and anyone who disagrees with the Islamofascists.

[billybudd]

The Islamic terrorist groups were and are being cultivated and funded by Middle Eastern governments seeking political control, a counterweight to the military dominance of the West. The problem is that the religious nature of the groups' political ideology has turned people like bin Laden (hasn't "been LaidIn" a long time) against their former sponsors. So the Saudi's Wahhabism has come back to bite them in the ass.
Look, my main point is that a lot of people here are confusing political ideology with religion. Sure, the radical Islam ("Islamism") has a religious form, but I really don't see how our present conflict is about theological differences. It just isn't. It's purely geopolitics.

[RLK]

There's nothing subjective about the fact that militant Islam differs from a more traditional form.

--------------------------------

I'm a little lost here. Was the first seige of Vienna in 1527 the traditional form, or the new form? When Mo was first started out and slaughtered a mess of people was that the old for, or the new form?

Do you mind if I ask you why you are defending this bull shit? There must be some sort of reason in the background.

[Burdened White Man]

The Islamic terrorist groups were and are being cultivated and funded by Middle Eastern governments seeking political control, a counterweight to the military dominance of the West. The problem is that the religious nature of the groups' political ideology has turned people like bin Laden (hasn't "been LaidIn" a long time) against their former sponsors. So the Saudi's Wahhabism has come back to bite them in the ass. Look, my main point is that a lot of people here are confusing political ideology with religion. Sure, the radical Islam ("Islamism") has a religious form, but I really don't see how our present conflict is about theological differences. It just isn't. It's purely geopolitics.

Why do you insist on biting yourself in the ass. Everthing you said in this papragraph was essentially sound until the last line. Political foeces in the middle east are manipulating their uninformed "Fundamentalist" masses. You cannot leave religion out of this and are fighting a losing battle to insist upon it.

[billybudd]

I'm not sure what you're referring to if you don't paste a quote. Also, I'm not sure what "party line" you're referring to. I never claimed to be an expert on Islamic culture. But I do know enough about history to know that the statement that "the West was traditionally tolerant and Islam was traditionally intolerant" is a bunch of Barbara Streisand. That is such an oversimplification spanning such a long period of time that it makes the statement meaningless. If anything, the West was more intolerant than Islam in the past. It is only in the past couple of hundred years that the West has become tolerant in any meaningful way.

[Burdened White Man]

Do you mind if I ask you why you are defending this bull shit? There must be some sort of reason in the background

If you think I'm trying to defend Islam you have me way wrong. In my opinion it's a pathetic religion (just covering the women proves that) and we should probably intern the lot of them. The only point is that Islam has a complex history with gradations of belief in the same way Christianity has evolved with fundamentalist and liberals and everything in between. To ignore this complexity and lump ALL Muslims together is an over simplified view of history and the world.

[mdmathis6]

THE BATTLE OF ALL BATTLES IS COMING.....keep your swords bright and your intentions true!

[MoGalahad]

There certainly is! The concept that militant Islam is an aberrant form of Islam is extremely subjective and is an idea I do not hear any reputable Islamic scholars putting forward at this time. The only scholars that seem to be putting that idea forward are Western scholars who are acting as apologists for Islam. How Islam was practiced most likely varied from place to place; depending the measure of power which Islam controlled. If you want to believe that Islam is a basically peaceful religion that has been hijacked by Osama Bin Laden and others like him be my guest, but don't tell me there is nothing subjective about one individual's interpretation of History even if he teaches at Harvard or U of Chicago.

[dsutah]

Also to consider is "Count Dracula", or Vlad Tepes(sp?)"The Impaler". He was of the order of "Dracul" or dragon. He was a prince of Walachia(sp?). He was kidnapped along with his younger brother by the Turks, then either got away or was ransomed. He went on to drive the Turks out of his lands. I got this from David Yeagley, who is now of "Badeagle.com". He had an article some months ago called: "Where Is Count Dracula When You Need Him?".

[Cacique]

Bump for later read.

[billybudd]

What, exactly, do you wish to bring religion into? My point is, and has been, that the poster of this post and many people on this forum wish to make the current conflict into a religious war, when in fact a religious war doesn't exist. Yes, the Islamic radicals care about religion - that's no reason we need to, except as it relates to the Islamics' desire to harm us. This I do agree with. What I disagree with is trying to relate the present conflict to historical conflicts between the West and Islam based on the superficial labels "West" and "Islam". The "West" and "Islam" do not mean the same thing today as they did 1000 years ago. Nor are the military conflicts today anywhere near the ballpark of what they were before.

Here's what it boils down to: people here want to feel comfortable with themselves and their country in the war on terrorism. The way they do this is by appropriating the very broad, very sweeping, very superficial terms "West" and "Islam" to say "The West was better than Islam before, so we'll beat them again." or "The West has advanced while Islam has declined, therefore we'll win." Of course, none of these comparisons actually say anything about how we'll solve the problem of terrorism, or any political question in the Middle East. But they are comforting thoughts.

[uncbob]

The heck with Moses and president of the NRA WE need heaton as EL CYD

[uncbob]

heaton!!!!
HESTON

[Burdened White Man]

What I disagree with is trying to relate the present conflict to historical conflicts between the West and Islam based on the superficial labels "West" and "Islam".The "West" and "Islam" do not mean the same thing today as they did 1000 years ago. Nor are the military conflicts today anywhere near the ballpark of what they were before

Sparta can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original intent of the thread was merely an historical exercise to bring a little encouragement to the war on terror.

And isn't it at least great that we all agree on WHO the enemy is?

[MoGalahad]

I doubt that you know enough History to be making such a statement as you made to Sparta. By the way, I disagree with your whole thesis that the West was more intolerant than Islam. Does that mean that I have the right to call you ignorant? NO, it just means that I interpret History differently than you do.

[RLK]

"Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191)

"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12) For newcomers, smite means chop off.

Do you have trouble interpreting those commandments? Is ther any way a person can be a Muslim and repudiate those commandments? Have I heard an authoritative repudiation of these and a hundred other such commandments?

[Burdened White Man]

"Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191)

Yes, this captures the essence of "fundamentalist" Islam. But some fundamentalist Christians handle snakes as well. This only proves that radicals take their book very seriously.