[Steve_Jay]

(09-27-2015 03:35 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 01:51 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 10:37 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:16 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 01:50 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

I never said anyone was nice. All I said was that it could have been worse and that those churches remained was mercy in and of itself. Granted to tax the population, but in and of itself preserving it. Just as the Hagia Sophia was.

Don't bring ancient facts into this because Christians were far less tolerant of "infidels".

Saying they could be treated worse isn't a really great argument for you to stand on. How much worse could a Syrian Christian in territory occupied by ISIS be treated today?

I am bringing up history to provide context to the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Middle East, which has been going on since the Islam started to spread by conquest in the 600s.

Christians had no reason to be tolerant of Muslims given they were having their homelands invaded and occupied for over a thousand years.

There is a historical reason why many in Eastern Europe and the Balkans don't like Muslims, and it has to do with Ottoman aggression against their ancestors and nations.

I'm saying they could have been treated worse is because that actually did happen when Christian nations retook territories that had been Muslim. There were Christians around in Moorish Spain and they seemed to have been treated well as long as they paid the imposed tax. Conversely Spain happened to expel all non-Christian populations including Jews the second they retook that land.

Granted yes they invaded Christian lands, but every country was expanding at that point. Unwarranted invasion was a standard for the time, and if anything it was perpetuated by everyone even among Christian nations themselves(see 4th Crusade).

Could you also provide sources or links showing said persecutions(excepting the Balkans as that's common knowledge due to the Ottomon slave trade)? There were no legal tenets proclaiming open persecution of infidels in Muslim conquered Middle East as far as I know. Please enlighten me to the culture of the time period through sources or ancient legal examples. I can bring up a thousand on Christian persecution on Non-Christians brought to you by the lovely father in our glorious totally not corrupt Vatican at the time period.

On the nature of ISIS and your cherry picked Syrian Christian argument. They are a rogue theocracy conquering established nation-states that are opposed by all sides(minus lovely Saudi involvement in that area). I highly doubt you could use them as an example of the average Muslim nation-state's thoughts on Christians. You have yet to provide any real concrete examples of open persecution of Christians in Muslim Nations between the founding of Islam until the 20th century in the Middle East.

Edit: Why persecute and wipe out populations if you can tax them? It was such a simple business model to the point it was separated from religious dogma. I don't believe half the sultans actually followed their own edicts after the Umayyad Caliphate. Power and luxury take precedence over any religious dogma.

Spain was a Christian land, there is nothing wrong with the Spanish expelling an invading population of Muslims. And as you know, the Jews primarily allied with the Muslims in Spain. It wasn't as though they removed the Jews for no reason. They held a prominent role in Spain under Islamic rule. So they were bound to be a target as well.

All the same were they not expelled? They weren't even given unfair peace terms or taxed, but completely expelled from their homes without exception. Not to mention later were tortured and killed in the Spanish Inquisition how benevolent.

Quote:

I understand that throughout history many nations conquer others. But I don't see your larger point here. Yes, people other than Muslims conquered others. But right now we are talking about the treatment of Christians by Muslims in the Middle East and Europe which has a history since the founding of Islam and remains to this day in the ideology of Sunni Wahaabism specifically. There is a reason many in Europe are hostile to Islam, and it has a history. And they don't appreciate being labeled aggressors by the anti-western Left when the Crusades(other than the 4th, which was against fellow Christians btw), were self defense against the Islamic expansion I mentioned.

So are we to blatantly label them all as warmongers and subversive terrorists? I've given the constant concession that historically they were invaders, but such is the nature of war. Are you going to simply boot them out and expel them simply due to the actions of others. Are individuals responsible for the actions of their governments or those before them?

Quote:

You can't just write off how those in the Balkans and Eastern Europe were treated by the Muslims. The Ottoman Empire wasn't the exception to the rule, they were the most prominent Muslim Empire in history. That is a concrete sample where millions were put into slavery and occupation and you can't brush it aside.

I gave you this. I told you yes this happened. Yes this was bad. I never brushed it aside and gave you that point since minute one. It would be like denying the Belgian Congo(which was much more recent than the events in the Ottoman Balkans) or the 4th Crusade(Where the West essentially destabilized the last remaining bastion of Eastern Christianity and allowed for the rise of the Ottomans) didn't happen.

Denying the 4th Crusade occurring for the blood and money of a fellow Christian nation would be something you brushed aside. The Crusades were just as motivated by money and power as the Islamic conquests.

Just because that did happen and all that cruelty did occur does not mean that inherently the entire regime for most of its history did not treat its captives as well as if not better than during Christian occupation of Muslim nations would be very much off base.

Quote:

As for treatment of Christians outside the Balkans. Here is a video that goes into the crimes against Christians in Islamic occupied Spain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhlvJ7jyYBg

First issue with the content of this video. Marrying into the local royal family was commonplace in the era, and marriages of convenience like that, even if forced, legitimized rule. All this nonsense of sex toys and forced marriage ignores the basic principle of marrying into local royalty. Marriages were not for "love" in this era. Who cares if her father was killed in combat against the Muslims.

Second issue all it mentions are the struggles of the nobles and royal families. Very common to destroy existing power structures such as nobility in order to not allow for remaining claims of authority should there be rebellion. That's effective leadership and even Machiavelli advocated for essentially wiping out all pockets of resistance of which the nobility is a big part.

Third issue unfair treaties were common. If you're the loser what rights do you have? They can impose any terms they want. Again taxation was infinitely preferable to death or expulsion. This guy exaggerates things way too much. Of course it wasn't peaceful and enlightening it was conquest, but not genocidal with mass rape and pillage.

I never said the conquest was peaceful which it wasn't, but the survivors lived under decent terms for foreigners for the time period rather than outright tortured and killed in "Western" countries of the time period. Latter day British and French Imperialists learned from these same tactics to effectively control populations and generate mass profits.

Quote:

Obviously ISIS represents a significant strain of Islam, a historic strain of Islam that is imperialist and aggressive. Not only do they have a level of popular support among Sunnis. They have the material support of Turkey, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia as you mentioned. To say they aren't "real muslims" is historically inaccurate and ignores the current geopolitical realities.

They are a strain but I don't see anyone preferring to live under them. The entire area is a blackout zone, and to say that they aren't gaining mass support but instead there's forced recruitment with threats on the families of those recruited wouldn't be far out of line. Would you say that the countries of Turkey, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia have unanimous support from their citizens?

They aren't exactly bastions of democracy, but the reason you don't have outcry is that in their own countries they allow concessions for "moderation" so the population could give less of a damn who their countries are funding or invading. In Turkey drinking is legal/has vibrant nightlife and the porta potty thread on Instagram models says enough about the UAE.

Support from state-governments from under the table is nothing new, and to say there's more to their reasoning for funding other than religious dogma. I'm pretty sure there's something to gain in the long run for them otherwise why do it. No nation-state does something simply based on their feelings unlike ISIS which is a theocracy.

Quote:

As for Muslim "nation-states", why isn't ISIS one? They cover a major portion of Syria and Iraq at the moment and the penalty is death for any Christian in this large area. But as for other nation states, try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia, see how long that lasts if you openly profess your faith or try to proselytize. Whereas Muslims in the West can openly espouse radicalism with no legal consequences.

ISIS isn't one as I've mentioned as it's a volatile mob that's expanded. As the entire place is a blackout area with no way to truly get the inside structure I'm of the opinion of forced recruitment and a subjugated population. As their borders are not legitimized with several nation-states claiming those areas it's not a legitimate nation-state. So both culturally and geographically they have not been proven to be a nation-state. They won't be able to claim to be one either until they can permanently take those lands away from countries such as Syria. That and get recognized by other countries around them as a legitimate state which even Saudi Arabia has not even done.

Also on the example of Saudi Arabia. Nice cherry picking. One specific example to somehow assure that it's the case across the board which it isn't. People always bring up the same few examples. Care to provide one different from the usual? It's a theocratic monarchy. Not even close to a democracy. Do you really expect them to allow that?

Bringing up Saudi Arabia is like bringing up several African countries where Christians still burn people alive on stakes for being witches.

Yea, the Jews were expelled, they helped an invading foreign force. European Christians have nothing to apologize for. The world isn't a nice place. When you collaborate with the enemy in an occupying regime you pay the price.

The Reconquista was an act of self defense. Whereas Islamic Expansion into Spain with Jewish support was an act of aggression.

No one said all Muslims are terrorists or subversives. That is a left wing strawman argument that is used to silence legitimate security concerns about disproportionate radical and terrorist activity among Muslims, more specifically Sunnis.

My view is that all current so called "refugees" should be expelled as they are illegals, not syrian for the most part and are primarily economic migrants just trying to get to the more generous Western European welfare systems. I think anyone that doesn't have concern about the social, political, economic and security implications of a low skilled, disproportionately radical, unassimilated, fighting age men(75% of all migrants are men) is naive.

I never brushed aside the Fourth Crusade, that was a tragedy. But that is a issue between European Christians. It is not relevant to the discussion of Islamic expansion into Christian lands throughout history and the Christian reaction to said aggression. The reaction and harshness being justified quite frankly. Our people were under occupation for centuries. From the 7th Century to the 20th century when the Ottoman Empire fell. So hostility to illegal Muslim migration is justified, and the West has nothing to apologize for in defending its own interests by stopping the flow of immigration.

You keep saying these crimes like the of raping the women are common. I am aware rape and taking wives from the conquered foes were standard, particularly for Muslims, but that doesn't make them less horrific. The idea that it was peaceful for Christians under occupation is false. So now you are shifting the goal posts from citing examples of persecution and atrocity against Christians to just saying the conquerors can do what they want.

Well you know what, they did what they wanted, pillaging large cities like Seville and abusing our women. They paid back that debt, with interests, with their expulsion and the Inquisition. You have to understand that their is blowback for such practices. There will be a military reaction to occupation, and particularly harsh occupation like the Muslims imposed on Christians in Spain.

That is simply incorrect, tens of thousands of foreigners from just Western countries alone have moved into their territory, so it is not a black zone and they are not an insignificant minority. They represent ideologically a more radical form of Wahhabism that is promoted by Saudi Arabia, a major muslim nation.

You are moving the goal posts again, moving from a significant strain of Islam to unanimous support. Of course there is not unanimous support for those governments. But support for ISIS is significant. ISIS is not manufactured, they represent a significant segment of the Islamic population, otherwise they wouldn't be this successful. There is far more support for Radical Sunni Islamism in Syria and Iraq than there is for western style secularism. The US has put billions of dollars into Syria with weapons and training, and they can only get 5 soldiers for their so called "moderate" force. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar are putting similar amounts if not more, and tens of thousands if not more have flocked to this army's banner, and they have a territory larger than most European countries. The ideology is potent and has a real foundation with a significant population in the Sunni Muslim world.

I never said they only support them for religious reasons. The primary reason is they want a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey that goes through Syria, and Assad would not go along with it, opting for an Iran-Iraq Syria pipeline of these Shia lead nations. I cite their material support as evidence that this style of Islamism has a significant base of support, both as far as population and state/political support.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopoli...ne/5337452

Saudi Arabia is a major muslim nation, so it is an apt comparison when we show how Muslims are treated legally in Western countries vs how Christians are treated in Muslim countries.

I am not defining a nation state by political recognition. Of course people are not going to recognize Islamic State, particularly at this moment. But they do have a defined core territory and are expanding. They have a leader, a police, some social services, some form of a legal system, and an army. That can fairly be defined as a State

Or look at places like the UAE. Christians can't marry Muslims. Muslims cannot convert to Christianity. Christian proselytizing of Muslims is not allowed. Obviously not as hardcore as Saudi Arabia, but a fair representation of treatment of Christians in the Muslim world. Can you imagine the uproar if a Western country did something like this? You would hear no end of it. But then we also have more hardcore persecution like the genocide of Christians in places like Sudan. So there is a broad range of persecution of Christians across the Islamic world. From places like Syria and Iraq, to places like Sudan, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, to Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Are you Muslim by chance? Why are you trying to defend them on this treatment of Christians?