Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: Muslim Bus Rider Suffers Sudden Jihad Syndrome… Shoots Passenger Dead in Springfield

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,457
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 614 Times in 494 Posts
    Groans
    148
    Groaned 510 Times in 418 Posts

    Default Muslim Bus Rider Suffers Sudden Jihad Syndrome… Shoots Passenger Dead in Springfield

    Police in Springfield, Mo., were seeking a motive in the killing there on Thursday of a man waiting to board a bus for St. Louis.
    Justin Hall, 32, of Mount Vernon, Ohio, was preparing to board a Greyhound bus when he was shot in the back. Mohamed H. Dawod, 25, of Glendale, Ariz., was charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the shooting, the Springfield News-Leader reported.
    Witnesses told police that Dawod was trying to fire more shots but that his pistol, a .22-cal. semi-automatic, jammed. Other passengers subdued Dawod and held him until police arrived.
    The attack appeared to be unprovoked, according to court documents.
    Hall and Dawod had been on a bus traveling from Amarillo, Texas, to St. Louis that had stopped over in Springfield. Witnesses said Hall and Dawod had not talked to each other on the bus.




    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...9bb30f31a.html

    Another misunderstood muslim terrorist.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,534
    Thanks
    65,163
    Thanked 38,094 Times in 25,664 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    How like your bigoted self to make this a Muslim issue. If his name was John Smith, your sources would never say "Christian bus rider suffers sudden Crusade syndrome."


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,013
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 848 Times in 757 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 560 Times in 506 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    How like your bigoted self to make this a Muslim issue. If his name was John Smith, your sources would never say "Christian bus rider suffers sudden Crusade syndrome."
    The Crusades were a response to the muslim jihad during that time period.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    How like your bigoted self to make this a Muslim issue. If his name was John Smith, your sources would never say "Christian bus rider suffers sudden Crusade syndrome."

    Thats true....OUR sources would not say that ....YOUR SOURCES would say "Christian bus rider suffers sudden Crusade syndrome."
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alias View Post
    The Crusades were a response to the muslim jihad during that time period.
    No...
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (09-11-2011), Rune (09-11-2011)

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinn Fein View Post
    No...
    Alias knows history.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  8. The Following User Groans At Rune For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (09-11-2011)

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,013
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 848 Times in 757 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 560 Times in 506 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinn Fein View Post
    No...

    By Timothy Furnish

    Mr. Furnish, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, World History, Georgia Perimeter College.

    It's axiomatic among historians that winners write (or sometimes rewrite) history. How strange it is, then, that on the topic of Jihads and their Western analog, the Crusades, the losers in the post-1492 struggle for world mastery (the Islamic world) and their willing spinmeisters (academics and media pundits) are currently foisting their ahistorical views on the rest of us.

    That view, a two-sided coin of deceit, consists of the following contentions: 1) that jihad almost always means "moral self-improvement in order to please God" and, on the rare occasion that it does take martial form, it only does so as a desperate defensive measure against the Christian West; and 2) that the history of Christian-Muslim interaction is almost entirely one of invasion and exploitation of the latter by the former, exemplified by the Crusades.

    As examples, consider these recent propaganda gems:

    1) MSNBC, in a segment discussing the new PBS video "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" (Dec. 18, 2002), runs a graphic explaining that the true definition of jihad is "the struggle to please God."

    2) History Channel/A & E's recent (summer 2002) "Inside Islam" special presents the Crusades as the first violent struggle between Christendom and the Islamic world.

    3)U.S. News and World Report's cover story "The First Holy War" (April 8, 2002) does likewise, claiming that "during the Crusades, East and West first met--on the battlefield."

    4) History Channel/A & E's (otherwise fine) 1995 video series "The Crusades" (hosted by former Monty Python member Terry Jones) has Salah al-Din, the Kurdish Muslim leader who retook Jerusalem from the Crusaders, telling Richard the Lion Heart that "this land has always been ours" and it also avers that jihad only developed as a response to the rapacious Crusades.

    5) The PBS video "Islam: Empire of Faith" (2001) presents Islamic military expansion, both pre-modern and Ottoman, as natural and understandable and never calls it by its true name: jihad.

    Such examples could be multiplied many fold, if every self-styled expert on Islam who has been interviewed by any American newspaper since 9/11 were adduced. But sticking with the five aforementioned contentions, what is wrong with each of them?

    Re: 1) As Daniel Pipes and Douglas Streusand so convincingly point out, jihad does NOT mean primarily "the struggle to please God" but indeed--as both Islamic doctrinal writings (especially al-Bukhari's ninth c. CE collection of Hadith, or traditions) and Islamic history demonstrate--"holy war." The so-called "greater jihad," which emphasizes conquering one's sins, is actually a minority Sufi (Islamic mystic) view that is based on an untrustworthy, probably forged, tradition. Throughout most of Islamic history most Muslims, lay and scholar alike, have understood "jihad" in its Arabic dictionary--and Bin Ladinesque--sense of "holy war." (1)

    Re: 2) & 3) As Vincent Carroll so eloquently explains, only a historical ignoramus--or, I would add at the risk of redundancy, a tendentious PBS editor --could produce the claptrap statement that the Crusades marked the first time Islam and the West met on the battlefield. Islam began with one man in Mecca and, within less than two centuries, encompassed territory from the Iberian Peninsula to the Hindu Kush. This expansion did not happen peacefully. The Arab Muslim armies attacked and conquered Byzantine Christian territories in Syria and Egypt and, a bit later, Arab-Berber Muslim forces conquered the formerly Roman, but still Christian, cities and towns across North Africa and into what is now Spain and Portugal, ruling there for seven centuries. Muslim armies invaded the Frankish Kingdom, later to become France, in 732 and were defeated by Charlemagne's grandfather, Charles Martel. Over the next three centuries the Sunni Muslim Seljuq Turks further dissected the Byzantine Empire, beginning a process that would be completed by their cousins the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinople in 1453 and ruled southeastern Europe for centuries.(2)

    So the Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats, really fought BACK.(3)

    Re: 4) Salah al-Din's quote -- "this land has always been ours" -- seems almost an Islamic version of the old Soviet Brezhnev Doctrine: once you go Communist--or in the case at hand, Muslim--you cannot go back. "This land has always been ours?!" That would have been news to the two major erstwhile denizens and rulers of the Holy Land, Jews and Christians (not to mention Romans, Persians, Assyrians, Philistines, Canaanites, etc.). Muslims didn't conquer what is now Israel/Palestine until the mid-7th c. CE. And, as mentioned earlier, jihad existed in Islamic theory and practice long before the admittedly-nasty Crusaders showed up in the Middle East. The reason it took so long (almost two centuries) for the Muslim world to expel the Crusaders was NOT lack of a militant ideology but rather lack of a sufficiently strong and determined state--a deficiency which the Egyptian Mamluks rectified in the 13th c. CE.

    Re: 5) The Ottomans had as one of their long-term, explicit goals the complete conquest of Europe and often declared jihads in order to further this agenda. In 1529 and 1683 their holy wars took them to the gates of Vienna. In 1828 they declared an (unsuccessful) jihad against the Greeks' attempt to gain independence. The Crimean War of 1854 prompted a jihad against France and Russia. The Ottomans fought World War I as an openly-trumpeted holy war against the British, French, Russians and (later) Americans. Now, one might argue that by the 19th century Ottoman jihads were merely a cynical, defensive propaganda ploy by the leadership of a tottering Islamic empire. Perhaps. But when the leading political (sultan-caliph) and religious (shaykh al-Islam) figures of the planet's most powerful Islamic state call something a jihad, should we not take them at their word? Furthermore, it is worthy of note that far more people (mainly Armenians) died as part of that last Ottoman jihad against the Russians than died in all of the Crusades combined.(4)

    Two questions, to conclude: Why are influential segments of the American media perpetuating and, indeed, promoting, historically inaccurate views of two major post-9/11 issues: Jihad and the Crusades? And, more importantly, why does it matter?

    To answer the second question first: it matters because peoples' view of history shapes their cultural and political views. We Americans are constantly reminded to pay attention to the "Muslim street," lest we callously provoke those millions for whom, allegedly, the Crusades of almost a millennium ago are still festering wounds. Yet, as Carroll observes, "if the impact of the Crusades 'created a historical memory' for Muslims, why isn't the historical memory created among Christians by the Muslims conquests of the previous five centuries worth mentioning?" To that could be added: why aren't the Ottoman conquests and jihads of the subsequent six centuries worthy of report? Indeed, for centuries Christian Europe lived in fear of "the Turk" and Luther even had a prayer specifically asking for deliverance from the Ottomans. 1683 is a lot nearer to our time than 1099. Attacks have not been all from West to (Middle) East, and it is high time the "Muslim street" received the solid food of historically accurate teaching rather than the milk of Islamic propaganda. This is not merely a tu quoque spat but a matter of accurately and fairly addressing the issues that divide the civilizations produced by the world's two largest faiths, Christianity and Islam.(5)

    Ultimately, of course, modern Americans are in reality no more responsible for the Crusades than, say, modern Mongolians are for the Eurasian depredations of their ancestor Genghis Khan; less so, in fact (since many Americans are descended from societies which had nothing to do with the Crusades). What prevents this argument from becoming much ado about nothing are two things: 1) that Osamah bin Ladin and his ilk have been playing the "Crusades" card for a decade now, to no small effect; and, what's almost as disturbing, 2) many American college students have internalized the neo-Marxist, "blame the West first" attitude, presented in high school history classes, along with the requisite guilt. Garbage in, garbage out then holds sway.

    Regarding the Jihads of the last 14 centuries, the useful idiots at PBS and MSNBC also present an ahistorical view but take the opposite tack from that vis-à-vis the Crusades: rather than maintaining that the majority's erroneous view is accurate, in the case of the Jihads the apologists claim that the majority view of jihad as "holy war" is not the real one and that a minority, suspect view is to be preferred. Once again Islamic history is whitewashed and the hundreds of Muslim attacks upon, and conquests of, Christians and Christian territory are unquestioned or even glorified. Once again, Muslims and non-Muslims are force fed a false view of history, from which they then construct a false view of reality: one in which the Christian West has always been the aggressor and the Islamic world the supine victim.

    Why? Why do educated, allegedly objective members of the media attempt to inculcate such distorted views of history in Americans' minds? Several theories come to mind. One is that the leftward tilt of the media predisposes them to a critical view of the West, in particular in the realm of religious matters. Many in the media being themselves irreligious, are appalled by putative Christians fighting a holy war like the Crusades. And being critical of Western civilization, they automatically defer to non-Westerners when it comes to defining their own concepts, such as "jihad." Most journalists are rather ignorant of history but they do have some vague idea that European-American civilization has oppressed and exploited the rest of the world, particularly Muslims; this makes media types sympathetic to non-Westerners.

    None of this, of course, excuses such drivel as PBS, A & E and U.S. News have produced lately. And in fact "it would be funny, this journalistic malpractice, if it didn't buttress the convictions of the fanatics…." And, I might add, reinforce the anti-Western prejudices of our own young people.


    (1) Daniel Pipes, "Jihad and the Professors," Commentary (November 2002). Douglas Streusand, "What Does Jihad Mean?" Middle East Quarterly (September 1997).

    (2) Vincent Corroll, "Myths of the Crusades Hard to Kill," Rocky Mountain News (April 6, 2002). For a complete listing of Islamic conquests, see Paul Fregosi, Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998).

    (3)Thomas Madden, "Crusade Propaganda," National Review Online (November 2, 2001).

    (4)Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996), especially chapter 6, "Jihad and War Propaganda: The Ottoman Jihad Fatwa of November 11, 1914"), pp. 55-57.

    (5)For examples in the immediate wake of 9/11, see Alan Philips, "Ill-chosen Word [Crusade] Fuels Claims of Intent to Wage War on Islam," Daily Telegraph (London) (September 18, 2001); Eric Black, "Christian Crusades are Bitter Chapters in History of Islam," Star Tribune (Minneapolis) (October 21, 2001); Jonathon Phillips, "Why a Crusade Will Lead to a Jihad," Independent (London) (September 18, 2001).

    (6)Quoting Carroll, "Myths of the Crusades…."

    http://hnn.us/articles/1178.html

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Nice copy and past.

    I thought you said you know history.

    If you did, you could explain your mistatement in your own words.

    How embarrassing.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  11. The Following User Groans At Rune For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (09-11-2011)

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Rune For This Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (09-11-2011)

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,013
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 848 Times in 757 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 560 Times in 506 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Return of Dune View Post
    Nice copy and past.

    I thought you said you know history.

    If you did, you could explain your mistatement in your own words.

    How embarrassing.
    You haven't refuted anything in the article that states the Crusades were a response to Islamic Jihad. How embarrassing. All talk, no action.

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    Excellent post Alias....excellent.....
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,013
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 848 Times in 757 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 560 Times in 506 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bravo View Post
    Excellent post Alias....excellent.....
    Not bad for a dumb redneck Tea Party racist bigot, huh! How ya like this one?


  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    The crusades were started as an attempt to retake Jerusalem.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  17. The Following User Groans At Rune For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (09-11-2011)

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Return of Dune View Post
    The crusades were started as an attempt to retake Jerusalem.
    I see you base your knowledge of history, on what ever movie you've seen.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  19. The Following User Says Thank You to USFREEDOM911 For This Post:

    Cancel 2018. 3 (09-11-2011)

  20. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    dune is a retard that knows nothing of history

  21. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,457
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 614 Times in 494 Posts
    Groans
    148
    Groaned 510 Times in 418 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    How like your bigoted self to make this a Muslim issue. If his name was John Smith, your sources would never say "Christian bus rider suffers sudden Crusade syndrome."
    :lol:

    Not a muslim issue, he is a terrorist who happens to be muslim. Which just happens to describe all muslims.

Similar Threads

  1. La Tourette's syndrome?
    By Cancel8 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 11:49 AM
  2. Mayor of Springfield, Illinois, Commits Suicide
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 10:33 AM
  3. FBI: Unruly passenger blames medical pot cookies
    By Chapdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 04:20 PM
  4. What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
    By DamnYankee in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 07:12 PM
  5. Sudden Completely Spontaneous Effort to Discredit Greenspan Begins
    By Epicurus in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 06:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •