I don't have criticisms. I'm sure he was no worse than Richard the Lionheart. They both thought they were carrying out God's will. I don't understand why you demonise the British Army for certain things, but you base your life on the teachings of someone who had blood on his hands in a similar way. It's hypocritical. It's like me saying that Ryan Giggs is a great bloke, only to slate John Terry for adultery.
Only difference being its not like that With king dick it was a case of him being the lionheart and saladin being evil, yet who attacked who and who kicked whose arse and who was the most benevolent True history tells us if anything it was the other way around. Yet most on here would argue against that because thats not what the history books told them and that is the issues raised, of course some of you cant accept that truth and call it hatred. The war in Iraq is illegal, as was the killing of unarmed innocent Irish folk I would like to know which battles you refer to in terms of Muhammad
Only difference being its not like that With king dick it was a case of him being the lionheart and saladin being evil, yet who attacked who and who kicked whose arse and who was the most benevolent True history tells us if anything it was the other way around. Yet most on here would argue against that because thats not what the history books told them and that is the issues raised, of course some of you cant accept that truth and call it hatred. The war in Iraq is illegal, as was the killing of unarmed innocent Irish folk I would like to know which battles you refer to in terms of Muhammad[/QUOTE] Well, the "Demolitions" of Suwa, Manat and Yaghuth sound pretty brutal. Demolish brings to mind the cruise missile attacks perpetrated by western forces recently. And the "Assassination of Abu Rafi" sounds a bit dodgy, something the SAS could've done. As for Richard vs Saladin, I don't think anyone really romanticises that **** any more. It's pretty commonly these days.accepted that the Crusades were exercise in vanity and futility. Us English don't hold up Richard I as some kind of deity. But Muslims do so with Muhammad, yet they both did similar things.
Buddha is a canny lad. The Fat Buddha restaurant in Durham is quality. Note to Jesus and Muhammad if you want to be cool start a food chain. Otherwise you are still both complete cock munchers.
Well, the "Demolitions" of Suwa, Manat and Yaghuth sound pretty brutal. Demolish brings to mind the cruise missile attacks perpetrated by western forces recently. And the "Assassination of Abu Rafi" sounds a bit dodgy, something the SAS could've done. As for Richard vs Saladin, I don't think anyone really romanticises that **** any more. It's pretty commonly these days.accepted that the Crusades were exercise in vanity and futility. Us English don't hold up Richard I as some kind of deity. But Muslims do so with Muhammad, yet they both did similar things.[/QUOTE] you do realise these were not real people, but statues right?
Saladin was by all accounts a great man, in one battle he saw Richard lose his horse from under him and he sent one of his men with a horse to give to Richard. He was also very considerate when pilgrims travelled in the Holy land allowing them to move unmolested.
you do realise these were not real people, but statues right?[/QUOTE] And I'm sure the people whose statues they were just stood and watched? Or did they attempt to defend them and get defeated? Was Abu Rafi a statue too? Because you don't assassinate statues do you? It's pointless you arguing. Muhammad waged war. He killed people, including innocents. He invaded other lands that did not belong to him. Whatever the excuse, he is no different in this respect to any other military leader. To think he fought any more fairly than the British Army, just because he's your prophet, is naive to say the least.
And I'm sure the people whose statues they were just stood and watched? Or did they attempt to defend them and get defeated? Was Abu Rafi a statue too? Because you don't assassinate statues do you? It's pointless you arguing. Muhammad waged war. He killed people, including innocents. He invaded other lands that did not belong to him. Whatever the excuse, he is no different in this respect to any other military leader. To think he fought any more fairly than the British Army, just because he's your prophet, is naive to say the least.[/QUOTE] As I thought. assertions/claims etc beginning with the phrase 'its pointless to argue' I have given Iraq and Ireland as examples, you have named 3 statues lets see what you know about abu rafi, care to explain?
As I thought. assertions/claims etc beginning with the phrase 'its pointless to argue' I have given Iraq and Ireland as examples, you have named 3 statues lets see what you know about abu rafi, care to explain?[/QUOTE] The list of Muhammad's military campaigns is pretty extensive Fan: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad Are you saying that in all these operations, not a single innocent was killed? Nor any countries invaded illegally?
The list of Muhammad's military campaigns is pretty extensive Fan: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad Are you saying that in all these operations, not a single innocent was killed? Nor any countries invaded illegally?[/QUOTE] Not saying that at all, however have you read the link? where were the illegalities etc? I am curious as to the details you are obviously aware of, or are you?
