Terrorist attacks in London

[Flashermac]

<< This actually started with the first crusade. The Catholic church deciding that Muslims were barbarians. >>

 

 

Isn't it strange that everyone always wants to begin with the Crusades. Well, suppose we go it bit further back and see when it REALLY began.

 

Quite simply, Islam was spread by the sword. (Not to say that Christianity hasn't been at times too.) The Middle East and North Africa were largely Christian lands, before the Islamic armies poured out of Arabia -- bringing conquests and all too often forced conversion. Remember the "Moors" over running Spain and Portugal? The Muslims also tried to conquer France, but were stopped by the Christian armies under Charles Martel in 732 AD. Note that this was centuries before the Crusades. Muslims always like to cite the Crusades as the begining, but sort of "ignore" the previous Islamic attempts to invade and conquer the Christian west.

 

From the Wikipedia on line:

 

"Although he was Mayor of the Palace of the kingdom of the Franks, Martel (Martel means "the Hammer") is best remembered for winning the Battle of Tours in 732, which has been characterized as the salvation of Europe from the Arabs spreading their empire further than the Iberian Peninsula.

 

"Martel's Frankish army defeated an Arab army, which had swept through southern Asia and north Africa, before conquering most of the Iberian peninsula and much of southern France. Martel achieved lasting greatness by inspiring his Franks to do what was thought to be impossible.

 

"It was this battle that earned Charles the cognomen 'Martel,' for the merciless way he smote his enemies. Most historians believe that had he failed at Tours, Islam would probably have overrun Europe.

 

"The Battle of Tours probably took place somewhere between Tours and Poitiers. The Frankish army, under Charles Martel, consisted of veteran infantry, somewhere between 15,000 and 75,000. Responding to the Muslim invasion, the Franks had marched over the mountains and avoided the old Roman roads, hoping to take the invaders by surprise.

 

"From the old Arab accounts of the battle, the Muslims were indeed taken by surprise to find a large force opposing their sack of Tours, and waited for six days, scouting the enemy. On the seventh day, the Muslim army, consisting of between 60-400,000 horsemen and led by Emir Abd er Rahman, attacked. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. While western accounts are sketchy, Arab accounts are fairly detailed that the Franks formed a large square and fought a brilliant defensive battle.

 

"Rahman had doubts before the battle that his men were ready for such a struggle, and should have had them abandon the loot which hindered them, but instead decided to trust his horsemen, who had never failed him. Indeed, as previously noted, it was thought impossible for infantry of that age to withstand armoured mounted warriors. Martel managed to inspire his men to stand firm against a force which must have seemed invincible to them, huge armoured horsemen, who in addition probably badly outnumbered the Franks. But Rahman's death led to bickering between the surviving generals, and the Arabs abandoned the battlefield the day after his death, leaving Martel a unique place in history as the savior of Europe, and the only man to ever manage such a victory between such disparate forces.

 

"Although it took another two generations for the Franks to drive all the Arab garrisons out of what is now France and across the Pyrenees, Charles Martel's halt of the invasion of French soil turned the tide of Islamic advance, and the unification of the Frankish kingdom under Charles Martel, his son Pippin the Younger, and his grandson Charlemagne prevented the Umayyad kingdom from expanding over the Pyrenees."

 

 

 

The problem is that extremists will only see things from one perspective. You can "prove" almost anything using selective history. Fanaticism is dangerous, whether it is religious, political or anything else. When I mentioned the Islamic conquest of Iberia and the attempts to conquer the rest of western Europe to a Muslim colleague, his only reaction was to regret that it had failed. Though a decent enough fellow, as soon as religion is brought up he turns into a "true believer" again. And he was born and raised in the US. It is easy to understand how a less well educated "true believer" could become a fanatic capable of violence "in defence of the faith".

[pattaya127]

failing to understand the underlying reasons

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

 

I think we do, understand. there are a lot of many good books about it, and if not reading, just paying attention to these events, reading about it, Irak, 9/11, London, etc... we know what is the foundation of Islam terrorism.

 

Irak was a bad move, the post-war ( : conditions unprepared, unexpected. I agree with you, the target was moved, and that's because "we" played geo-politics, in the Middle-east at a crucial time when we should have limited the targets.

does not help either, that Bush, Cheney and Co, imitated the mode of thinking of these guys by feeling intensely personal about saddam. Not serious statesmanship, IMO. Haliburton may disagree with that premise....

[Lusty]

Good post!Remove the wests needs for middle eastern oil then we can sit back and watch the area return to a third world,poverty stricken shit hole in the sand.

[bibblies]

But we still need oil to make latex underwear. Damn...

 

Oh, hold on a minute - there's always rubber!

[Bkkbound04]

Well the flags are out, the bands are marching and the sun is shining!!

 

Few places in the world would have carried on with todays WWII commemorative events just 4 days after mass murder on its transport system. National pride is not something I am prone too but today is different.

 

Londons back to its its usual vibrant self..

 

JP

[Guest lazyphil]

Just got back from a village feast, hog/lamb roast, live rock N roll band knocking out classics, Lambretta/Vespas on show gleaming like a new pin, various real ales in the beer tent:drunk:, bowls, tug of war and a fly by of Spitfires and Lancasters from very nearby airshow (went on to London I think) and I saw what looked like a muslim family enjoying the day ::

[Steve]

ALHOLK said:

Hi!

 

The problem with alternative energy sources is that they are not economically viable.

 

Alholk, how do we know alternative energy sources are not economically viable? The problem is we haven't tried. There is NOTHING that couldn't be accomplished without a concerted effort from America, England and the EU if we all decided to ween ourselves from the teat of middle east oil. I suspect the oil industry would fight such a propostition tooth and nail. If the major car companies of America and Europe were assured there would be a market for a hybrid or fuel cel car or whatever, they'd do it. I think you underestimate the creativity of companies and people.

[Steve]

First of all, I can say that the one place I do not worry about at all to bounce back from tragedies such as this is England, London specifically. The various e mails I have received back from friends and acquaintences there echo what I've seen on the news and that is, 'it happened, deal with it as best you can and you get on with life'. Very admirable.

 

I would also like to commend the board as well . This is a very touchy issue. Its very personal to some and a topic that has no definite right or wrong answers. Heated posts are to be expected and you all have kept the thread relatively sane and done as well as any could hope with the 'wounds' of the tragedy still fresh. Being American, you can count on two things from me 1) I'll always have an opinion and 2) you'll always hear it...haha... :: that's how we are here that you all have found out by now. I like threads like these because I do learn something new. Sometimes things that will alter my views on things.

 

I'll repeat that the crusades are not the reason we are seeing this. The Ottoman Turks ran the middle east for a few hundred years. They sided with Germany and the axis powers in WW I and the area was carved up and arbitrary borders were placed by European powers. Oil made the region significant. The leaders they have in the middle east have been playing a very dangerous game for some time now. They act as if they are friends with the west and blame the poverty and strife of the people on the same west they speak through the sides of their mouths about. They are all, with no exception that I can think of, corrupt and/or incompetant. The Saudis are the best example of this. Lots of internal strife for a nation that practically floats on oil. Some important prince comes to the U.S. and meets with each president and says how they are great allies and friends of the U.S. and then teach their children how America and the west are the great satan and zionists and use our support for Israel to fuel the fire. The middle east leaders have successfully been able to blame America and the west for the people's own problems. Why do you think all their media is all state owned? There is no alternative views aloud. No debate like we have here in the west. And they tie hatred of the west to being a good moslem. I am not saying it to be hateful but saying what is. America has done itself no favor as well, by supporting tyrannical governments because they kept the oil flowing. Blame can be placed on all parties. They weren't talking about the crusades and all that when the Ottoman Turks held the region. It was forgotten. So why is it important now? Mark my words, leave the region alone and one of the first governments to come under pressure and may fall is the House of Saud. bin Laden speaks out against them. The Shi'ites in Iran do not see them as worthy hosts of the holy cities Mecca and Medina. The middle east is still about tribes and clans. The country borders mean nothing to them. Those borders were placed there by the west. In a recent article on Zaqarwi, he was on the run in Irag and the first thing they said when he goes into a region is 'which tribe or clan rules here? and is he friendly to us'.

[Steve]

The scary thing also is that bin Laden and others have successfully transformed the movement from a defense of Islam in moslem countries (Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq) to being proactive in taking the 'battle' to the west and converting westerners in their own countries. They have also successfully used foreign based moslems as a reason to go to the west. If your country has moslems and even if they are citizens of that western country and subject to domestic laws, the fact that they are moslems overrides any of those laws. For instance, the wearing of head pieces rule in France. Some groups were talking of terrorist acts over this. Citizenship means nothing, where ever a moslem is, their interpretation of islam is the ultimate law.

 

The moslems in America have different worries than the ones in Europe it seems. The children assimilate quickly and the fear of moslem immigrants is that their kids give up their old country ways. Many moslem girls here date American guys. I was talking to a persian gooner friend yesterday and he says that is the concern of moslem parents. From what I understand some of the moslem youth in England and the European continent have done the opposite. They are identifying themselves with being moslem first instead of English, French or German. Even though a lot of them were born in these countries and are citizens of that country and could find their way around Birmingham but couldn't get about Islamabad, Ryadh or Kabul to save their lives. Past immigrants wanted to become American, British and French, etc. Now they don't hold any loyalty to their adopted country. Yes, there are exceptions. There are a large number of them that are westernized and live as westerners but there are still a significant percentage, especially males that put much greater importance on being moslem than their citizenship and possibly wouldn't even want to defend their country of citizenship in any war, even if its justified.

[pattaya127]

I'll repeat that the crusades are not the reason we are seeing this

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

no, not the same people, of course, and logistics. The invasion of India by muslims had also nothing to do with the crusades too.

 

Of all the Great universal religions, Mohammad was the only founder who waged war to the world with his own Sword. Buddha did not do that, Christ did not do that, Hinduism stuck to India, add Confucianism maybe.

 

Still I believe the majority of muslims are just like us, they want to be able to go ahead in life and raise their kids decently. But they are being kept down by autocratic regimes and terrorists whose brain has not changed since the earth was found round, not flat.