Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina
No prob...  good luck...
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Crusades?
Well yeah, but again, the Crusades were a long time ago, so I don't see how that relates to modern Muslims.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
So, you're saying the Muslims essentially made the first move.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6962|Πάϊ

Turquoise wrote:

True...  I see similarities there, but I think it's better to be on the safe side and kill groups like Al Quida.  At least Muqtada can be reasoned with.
I agree... but still... Bin Laden seemed like a reasonable guy when he was fighting the Russians...




Pay no attention, I just had to get it out of my system
ƒ³
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

oug wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True...  I see similarities there, but I think it's better to be on the safe side and kill groups like Al Quida.  At least Muqtada can be reasoned with.
I agree... but still... Bin Laden seemed like a reasonable guy when he was fighting the Russians...




Pay no attention, I just had to get it out of my system
LOL... yeah... we fucked that up...  We should have just left Afghanistan the hell alone back then.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7044|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well yeah, but again, the Crusades were a long time ago, so I don't see how that relates to modern Muslims.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
So, you're saying the Muslims essentially made the first move.
The Crusades began in 1095. 400 hundred years earlier Muslim armies had already attacked Constantinople, Spain, France, Rome, and Egypt. In 652 Muslims began waging war against Sicilians and occupied them for over 200 years (Castrogiovanni Massacre). Of course both sides justified killing in the name of religion. The Siege of Jerusalem was just sick.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6962|Πάϊ
Of course you could take the conflict even further back, when there was no religion issue as such and things would be much less the same.
ƒ³
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
So, you're saying the Muslims essentially made the first move.
The Crusades began in 1095. 400 hundred years earlier Muslim armies had already attacked Constantinople, Spain, France, Rome, and Egypt. In 652 Muslims began waging war against Sicilians and occupied them for over 200 years (Castrogiovanni Massacre). Of course both sides justified killing in the name of religion. The Siege of Jerusalem was just sick.
Good points...
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7064|London, England

CDK3Y wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

CDK3Y wrote:

well im not Saudi, im Paki...but yea...we'd propably be burning flags by now and chanting slogans...
*nods*  Well, I hope you haven't taken anything I've said about Pakistan personally, but I really fear for what may happen if Musharraf falls.

What's your take on it?
Well Musharraf, he did some good for Pak, and he did some bad, mostly bad, he is a dictator, but because of him, our previous corrupt govt. has fallen. the govt. backed MQM had riots in Karachi and killed a whole bunch of ppl..since then I dislike him. I like him some way, because he led us in the Kargil war of 1999 and we achived some success
Didn't you guys lose the Kargil War, wasn't that the period in time where the world realised that Pakistan used militants/extremists to mess things up in Indian Kashmir.

Wasn't it (like all the other wars) started by Pakistan.

If anything, for you guys, it was a total disaster.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard