Fanon II,

Riddle me this.

Why is it Muslims are free to violently conquer lands anywhere and everywhere without a word of protest from American Muslims, or any Muslims or any liberals?

But if Jews have a legally established homeland Muslims and
Liberals and their ilk will never stop protesting against it? Why is this do you suppose? What explanation can be given other than as the Qur’an states repeatedly that Islam’s goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate in which all non-Muslims are
subjugated. And, of course, liberals are too dumb to know this.

For instance, Mohammed was born around 571 AD thousands and thousands of years after Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism existed. But within a few centuries of Mohammed’s birth Islam had violently conquered vast sections of Asia, all of North Africa and smaller sections of Southern Europe.

Now Muslims tell us that all this land belongs to them even
though, for instance, in Afghanistan they killed every last Buddhist who once lived there. According to Muslim logic per Israel shouldn’t this land belong to the Buddhists?

Or in North Africa all the Berbers have been forcibly converted to Islam or have been killed and now we’re told all this vast
landmass belongs to Islam. That’s interesting, if not completely hypocritical.

And what about Southern Thailand. Did anyone know that in
the last several years something like 5,000 Buddhists have been killed by Muslims because, or so we’re told, the land the Buddhists are on belongs to Islam. Gosh, I wonder, when did that land become part of the Caliphate?

Ah well, more dead Buddhists left in the wake of Islamic conquest.

And Southern Russia? Muslims are relentlessly waging a slow
reign of terror in Russia because, you guessed it, Russians are treating Muslims poorly and they should give up the Southern section of that country to Muslims since Islam deserves all lands.

Or, let’s take Sudan as another example. How many millions
have been killed in Sudan? How many babies and children have starved in Sudan while Islamists steal the food from aid compounds? How many women have Muslims gang-raped in Sudan all because that land belongs to Muslims and only Muslims. All other people can go somewhere else to live, I guess. Maybe they should flee to Israel?

And Kashmir? The same. Despite Hindus having lived there for 3,000 years – something like 2,000+ years before Mohammed was born – Muslims tell us Kashmir belongs to them. Amazing logic isn’t it? Muslim logic, I guess.

And that brings us to Israel. Israel also belongs to Islam
too. Did you know that? It’s true. Just ask a Muslim or a liberal if you prefer. Even though it’s no bigger than a small pimple on the caliphate’s ass it is still their land and they will fight to the death to prove their point.

Doesn’t the logic here make a lot of sense. Isn’t it as clear as day? Of course it does. The world belongs to Islam and we’re mere players on their stage.

A “Hasbara troll”?

That’s nice Fanon. Sounds like something the Third Reich would have coined. Is it PC?

How does it compare with a Muslim Jihadist who cries out “Allahu Akbar” before blowing himself up in, say, a vegetable market in Kabul?

…………………

“… to spread un-intelligible criticisms against Palestinian liberation movement and trying to change the subject to associating all Palestinians with the supposed sins of Muslim countries being linked to all Arabs.”
I apologize if I’ve done a poor job associating Islamic Jihad in Kashmir, Sudan, Thailand, Russia, China, Nigeria with the Palestinian Jihad against Israel.
But in my defense, Fanon, all one needs do is listen to what Palestinian shieks, Imams and leaders say to understand the association; for it is quite common for them to use the word Jihad in association with their holy war against the Israelis.
Are you deaf, dumb and blind? Are you denying this truth? Are you suggesting when a Palestinian Jihadist blows himself up on a bus in Jerusalem his motivations are different than a Pakistani Jihadist who does the same thing in Kabul?
If this is your logic then please explain where the difference lies?

Yes, Arafat was secular but he was as imbued with Islamic culture and understanding of and sympathy with its core tenets as one could get. His speeches in Arabic prove this to be so. And the same is true of most secular Palestinians.
Theirs is a holy war a grand Jihad and they have said these very words over and over again.
Fanon, you can do your best to obfuscate the Islamic tenets of jihad, caliphate, infidels, taqiyya as much as you want. You can pretend Islam’s core tenets do not cross borders. You can pretend what motivates Somalian Muslims when they murder UN workers is different than what motivates Nigerian Muslims when they murder polio workers, but I do not buy it.
Within 300 years of Mohammed’s birth, Muslim jihadists had violently conquered almost the entire Middle East and North Africa, huge sections of Asia, Spain and other smaller regions of Europe.
Now you would have us believe this had nothing to do with Islam’s core tenets. I guess you would tell us it had nothing to do with Islam, but not everyone is as dumb as you think they are.
Islam IS an aggressive, violent religion. Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, was an aggressive violent man. There was no “turn the other cheek” for Mohammed. There was no peaceful meditation for Mohammed.
Now you can fabricate anything you want about Islam but the facts on the ground as well as the historical facts on the ground prove yours to be a fanon fantasy.
The Qur’an, hadiths and Sunna support my argument, not yours; and so do the facts on the ground.
Israel could be populated by Hindus, Animists or Buddhists and the same thing would be happening, i.e., Muslims would be unable to contain their urge to invade and conquer just as they did in the 7th century.

“…Jews, Palestinians, and others have lived in Palestine for decades prior to the colonization of Israel for the most part peacefully.”
Peacefully? Really? I want what you’re smoking.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about nor of the history of Israel.
I might as well debate a little child who makes things up to suit his will regardless of the facts.

Having your identity linked to a specific area does not excuse them for colonizing the area. French argued they had an inexplicable link to Syria when demanding it’s territories post-World One, this does not excuse them controlling the land because Syria is tied up with Mennonites. Your arguments logic reminds me of sand: malleable, dry, and disinteresting.