[anasawad]

the crusades were ordered by the highest christian authorities..
al-qaeda and ISIS are hostile to practically all muslims in the world and
their direct enemies are all muslims ...

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Just look at what NATO has achieved in the region over the past 15 or so years. Islamic groups defeated - 0, viable WMD's found in Iraq - 0, secular non-religious extremist regimes eliminated - 2. Why are they there?

[Zamuel]

Just look at what NATO has achieved in the region over the past 15 or so years. Islamic groups defeated - 0, viable WMD's found in Iraq - 0, secular non-religious extremist regimes eliminated - 2. Why are they there?

I'm not sure NATO is the best perspective to see it from ... but in the sense of "western powers" I guess they're an acceptable designation. They / We are there to enable greater world unity by removing the primary road block to further progress. As a concerted course of action this process can be traced back at least to WWII, with a hiatus for the cold war that ended with Russia's failed agenda in Afghanistan and their subsequent collapse.

The last 15 years may not seem to have accomplished much ? Until you consider the unification against a common enemy that has and is taking place and the cooperative effort that will result in an eventual solution.

Saying al qaeda and ISIS are not Muslims is like saying the crusaders weren't christian

You do realize that's EXACTLY what happened to the Templars ?

Zam

[Rich]

the crusades were ordered by the highest christian authorities..
al-qaeda and ISIS are hostile to practically all muslims in the world and
their direct enemies are all muslims ...

Yes so I suppose under your theory the French resistance in world war II had nothing to with French nationalism. In the early days of the Vichy regime opposition was confined to a small extremist minority. The dominant fom of Islam in the last hundred and fifty years has been Vichy Islam. Collaborators and compromisers. Those that will twist the biography of the Prophet and the Koran to have an easy life.

[Hong Wu]

Most of the crusades were pretty different in character than each other crusade. I'm not sure they can be called full scale wars either, although there were sieges and battles. Their shared trait is that they were almost never fought by organized armies on the Christian side but were instead mobs of usually armed volunteers taking various routes towards Jerusalem. The Muslims usually preferred to fight against each other than engage with the crusaders, who had the reputations of crazy fanatics that could beat enemies several times their size, resort to cannibalism when without food and yet could be safely ignored when you weren't near Jerusalem or the route leading towards Jerusalem.

The exceptions to this were the 4th crusade (which was manipulated into attacking Byzantium by the Venetians) and the German Kaiser Frederick's crusade which actually had an organized army and therefore never had to fight the Muslims because they cut a deal with him for access to Jerusalem rather than get into a full scale war.

[Zamuel]

Yes so I suppose under your theory the French resistance in world war II had nothing to with French nationalism.

Actually ... the bulk of the French Resistance in WWII were communists. There were a few De Gaulle sympathizers, mostly in the unoccupied territories, but they were fighting the communist resistance at LEAST as much as the Germans. Unfortunately, Muslims (aside from the Kurds) have mounted no such popular resistance to extremism.

Zam

[Harmattan]

Actually ... the bulk of the French Resistance in WWII were communists. There were a few De Gaulle sympathizers, mostly in the unoccupied territories, but they were fighting the communist resistance at LEAST as much as the Germans.

You mean after 41, when they stopped collaborating with the Nazis as initially requested by the USSR?

So by 42 the communists indeed became an important source of resistance, once the Nazis started killing them, especially through strikes under fake pretenses and sabotages, and even though they remained independent, disorganized and refused to join the rest of the resistance and its hierarchy.

But afaik it is incorrect to say they were "the bulk" of the French resistance. The resistance was mostly very diverse, ranging from Jews to antisemitic nationalists, from communists to soldiers and policemen, from high-profile civil agents and radical catholics to marginals, misfits, thieves and criminals.

There is only one thing I am sure of. You needed to be ready to risk your life and your family's, which is more often encountered among radicals or people with nothing to lose, you needed to be a man willing to dirty his hands and face danger, and you needed to be connected to one social network or another. This is not your average man.

[anasawad]

Muslims (aside from the Kurds) have mounted no such popular resistance to extremism.

so a couple 100 thousands of fighters and a few 10s if not 100s of millions directing wealth to fight them does not count ??

interesting

[Rich]

There is only one thing I am sure of. You needed to be ready to risk your life and your family's, which is more often encountered among radicals or people with nothing to lose, you needed to be a man willing to dirty his hands and face danger, and you needed to be connected to one social network or another. This is not your average man.

Indeed and the occupants of the channel Islands, Attu and Kiska proved to every bit the surrender monkeys as the French.

[Zamuel]

Actually ... the bulk of the French Resistance in WWII were communists. There were a few De Gaulle sympathizers, mostly in the unoccupied territories, but they were fighting the communist resistance at LEAST as much as the Germans.

You mean after 41, when they stopped collaborating with the Nazis as initially requested by the USSR?

There wasn't any real resistance happening until then ... Vichy was popular to begin with, Petain was a hero. The French communists were divided about respecting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

So by 42 the communists indeed became an important source of resistance, once the Nazis started killing them, especially through strikes under fake pretenses and sabotages, and even though they remained independent, disorganized and refused to join the rest of the resistance and its hierarchy.

Yeah, they refused to take orders from De Gaulle puppets sitting on their hands in Southern France or US / British intelligence eager to expend French blood to further their own agenda's. But they had the experience (from fighting in Spain) that De Gaulle and his handful of unreliable French officers lacked. They had their party organization already established and emplaced. And they had the numbers, especially when you consider the 3,500 escaped Spanish Maquis allied with them.

you needed to be a man willing to dirty his hands and face danger, and you needed to be connected to one social network or another. This is not your average man.

It was however, you're "average" communist ... and it definitely wasn't limited to MEN.

I expect that you are aware that De Gaulle seized control of France only thru Allied Military support, openly persecuted communists, and HEAVILY edited the history of the French resistance. France is still recovering from "Le Charles." His meddling in N. Africa and the ME created MANY problems and much ill will that have led to a general Muslim dislike for the French ... reflected in the response to the recent Paris attack.

Muslims (aside from the Kurds) have mounted no such popular resistance to extremism.

so a couple 100 thousands of fighters and a few 10s if not 100s of millions directing wealth to fight them does not count ??
interesting

Tell us what they have accomplished ? Besides lining their own pockets and whining about the US being responsible for all their problems ? They've got ISIS outnumbered, out gunned, and have had all the air support they could ask for ... and they can BARELY hold their own ?

There is no public outcry, no popular rejection of extremism, no acts of defiance or disruption. It looks like the Shia Militia's are only effective against women and children ... maybe the occasional old man. Not very inspiring is it ?

Zam

[anasawad]

and it seems 'll have to put the same statement again and again ...
for a start...the US specially can stop sending weapons to syrian rebels who are joining ISIS and giving them those weapons..

the US also can stop protecting saudi arabia and qatar who their sheikhs are recruiting thousands of fighters to join ISIS
and the NATO as whole specially the US can kick turkey out and stop protecting it while it publicaly support ISIS and funding them...
the reason they're lasting this long is because your governments are making them stand and this is a proxy war between 2 very large coalitions in the world ..
not just a little rouge group....

and BTW ...no ....its in reality the american army proven it self to be only brave when facing women and children just like half your allies...
all it takes a barely armed fighter to scare the shit out of your soldiers...
thats what you get when half your soldiers join for money ....

here is an interesting video

[Zamuel]

and BTW ...no ....its in reality the american army proven it self to be only brave when facing women and children just like half your allies

Well I have to admit, Most of the Taliban, and Saddam's troops did fight like a bunch of little girls ...

Zam

[anasawad]

which is exactly why we fucked saddam when he fought us even with you and all arabs supporting hem ...

[yoyoman2]

Funny enough there is a guy in Israel that has an agenda of convincing Palestinians that they are actually Jews and that we should become one nation.

I can't remember his name damn