rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow
#51

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

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

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

Quote: (09-25-2015 11:36 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

Quote: (09-25-2015 11:24 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Quote: (09-25-2015 10:57 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

Istanbul? You mean Constantinople.

I wouldn't use the conquest of Constantinople as an example of Islamic tolerance of others.

Everyone was conquering everyone in that era and I would use it as an example of tolerance as anywhere else they would have been razed to the ground. 4th Crusade anyone? Where Venice looted the churches of Constantinople for promised war money even though the Pope said not too, but quickly shut his mouth when they got all that loot. Also it's Istanbul now because the Byzantines lost deal with it.

The losers had no rights in that era.
Well then be honest. First you say how nice Muslims are, than you talk about losers having no rights. Be consistent here.

Also, if you look at Constantinople, The Hagia Sophia was turned in a Mosque.

I understand the principle of losers having their history erased, the will to power, strongest survive etc. But don't tell me Islamic conquest and getting rid of Christian holy sites is tolerance though. That is just wrong.
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.

"Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,— 'Wait and hope'."- Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo"

Fashion/Style Lounge

Social Circle Game

Team Skinny Girls with Pretty Faces
King of Sockpuppets

Sockpuppet List
Reply
#52

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

Quote: (09-26-2015 03:02 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

[Image: Muslim-conquest-v-Crusade-battles.jpg]

Muslims are brainwashed into thinking everyone else is way more violent and evil than they are, especially in the past.

I talked to an Egyptian muslim a couple of months ago who tried telling me the Coptic Christians dying because of the Muslim brotherhood was "media propaganda".

Implying conquest was not a norm for the time period. Things like world peace are rather new concepts. Everyone wanted hegemony in that time period, and eventually Britain and the majority of Europe did have it over most of the world. They couldn't do it sooner because of military inferiority and inability to fight back as effectively.

Imperial nations just realized peace was much more profitable for them than war or arms racketeering(see opium trade, spice trade, and mercantilism) like the modern day military industrial complex. False dichotomies like this undermine the basic fact that power is universally wanted. There's a reason people like Caesar and Alexander the Great are considered heroes.

Edit: What I don't get is how a lot of you guys think that Christianity was even better at the time period. Would you say that half your lifestyles would have been acceptable in Catholic Spain or early Protestant England? Global culture has changed and agreed Islam has chosen to remain in the past. At the end of the day it's pushes towards secularism and rational thought that need to be promoted, and not dogmatic ideology believing that somehow irrational faith in Christian doctrine will magically create world peace with lots of hot bitches and fun. War and fights over influence/power have continued since time immemorial and will continue long beyond when we're all in the grave.

"Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,— 'Wait and hope'."- Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo"

Fashion/Style Lounge

Social Circle Game

Team Skinny Girls with Pretty Faces
King of Sockpuppets

Sockpuppet List
Reply
#53

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

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

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.

I am sorry here hwuzhere, but the crusades were mostly a defensive maneuver by the Christians back then.

Yes - everyone was fighting everyone, but that systematic warmongering by the Ottoman empire and the Muslim tribes was massive. They were also extremely big in slave trade - much bigger and much more endemic than the Christians. By the way - some of the biggest slave traders were Jews back in the day, but that is another matter.






Even some Muslim historians don't refute the fact that the attacks by the Muslims in those times were relentless - they attacked non-stop. And no - the so-called "golden time also in Spain" was not some wonderful time of great peace for the Christian majority.

Quote:Quote:

In his speech last week in Cairo, President Obama proclaimed he was a "student of history." But despite Mr. Obama's image as an Ivy League-educated intellectual, he lacks historical competency in both facts and interpretation. … Obama … claimed that "Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment." [In fact] medieval Islamic culture … had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values. Europeans, Chinese, and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation. … Much of the Renaissance, in fact, was more predicated on the centuries-long flight of Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars from Constantinople to Western Europe to escape the aggression of Islamic Turks. Many romantic thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to extend freedom to oppressed subjects of Muslim fundamentalist rule in eastern and southern Europe.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2757/g...e-of-islam

Quote:Quote:

Furthermore, the intellectual achievements of Islam’s "golden age" were of limited value. There was a lot of speculation and very little application, be it in technology or politics. At the present day, for almost a thousand years even speculation has stopped, and the bounds of what is considered orthodox Islam have frozen, except when they have even contracted, as in the case of Wahabism. Those who try to push the fundamentals of Moslem thought any further into the light of modernity frequently pay for it with their lives. The fundamentalists who ruled Afghanistan until recently and still rule in Iran hold up their supposed golden age as a model for their people and as a justification for their tyranny. Westerners should know better.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArti...RTID=21117

I am sorry, but the Muslim religion is good for conquest, unification, islamization and for keeping mankind in the perpetual Middle Ages. That is what it was designed to do for and it does it well.

There were great saints and poets like Rumi, Shams-I-Tabriz or Kahlil Gibran who were born into the religion but ultimately created something more divine similar to St. Francis of Assisi. However the system is not what I would describe beneficial for the progress of humanity. Religions come and religions go - it takes sometimes thousands of years for a religion to disappear. Islam won't be missed just like many others before it.
Reply
#54

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

Quote: (09-26-2015 11:07 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I am sorry, but the Muslim religion is good for conquest, unification, islamization and for keeping mankind in the perpetual Middle Ages. That is what it was designed to do for and it does it well.

There were great saints and poets like Rumi, Shams-I-Tabriz or Kahlil Gibran who were born into the religion but ultimately created something more divine similar to St. Francis of Assisi. However the system is not what I would describe beneficial for the progress of humanity. Religions come and religions go - it takes sometimes thousands of years for a religion to disappear. Islam won't be missed just like many others before it.

So we're making the same point then. Rational thought trumps both Christian as well as Muslim dogma in this context. Religions come and go so nobody should take a holier than thou stance on such things as conquest or domination. Fact of the matter is there's no such thing as a religion of peace.

Every religion or lack thereof(see the USSR under Stalin) is in the shitter. Rational thought and humane thinking on this is necessary not marginalization or alienation of one and promotion of another dogma which appears to be happening.

Sure the Crusades were defensive in nature, but wasn't the end game to conquer everything until the enemy was wiped out?

It's all about profits and power in the end game.

"Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,— 'Wait and hope'."- Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo"

Fashion/Style Lounge

Social Circle Game

Team Skinny Girls with Pretty Faces
King of Sockpuppets

Sockpuppet List
Reply
#55

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

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

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

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

Quote: (09-25-2015 11:36 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

Quote: (09-25-2015 11:24 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Everyone was conquering everyone in that era and I would use it as an example of tolerance as anywhere else they would have been razed to the ground. 4th Crusade anyone? Where Venice looted the churches of Constantinople for promised war money even though the Pope said not too, but quickly shut his mouth when they got all that loot. Also it's Istanbul now because the Byzantines lost deal with it.

The losers had no rights in that era.
Well then be honest. First you say how nice Muslims are, than you talk about losers having no rights. Be consistent here.

Also, if you look at Constantinople, The Hagia Sophia was turned in a Mosque.

I understand the principle of losers having their history erased, the will to power, strongest survive etc. But don't tell me Islamic conquest and getting rid of Christian holy sites is tolerance though. That is just wrong.
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.
Reply
#56

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

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

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

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

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

Quote: (09-25-2015 11:36 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

Well then be honest. First you say how nice Muslims are, than you talk about losers having no rights. Be consistent here.

Also, if you look at Constantinople, The Hagia Sophia was turned in a Mosque.

I understand the principle of losers having their history erased, the will to power, strongest survive etc. But don't tell me Islamic conquest and getting rid of Christian holy sites is tolerance though. That is just wrong.
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: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: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: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: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: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.

"Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,— 'Wait and hope'."- Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo"

Fashion/Style Lounge

Social Circle Game

Team Skinny Girls with Pretty Faces
King of Sockpuppets

Sockpuppet List
Reply
#57

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

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

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

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

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

Quote: (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: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: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: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: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: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?
Reply
#58

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

Quote: (09-27-2015 04:45 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

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.
Fair enough I'll give you that.
Quote:Quote:

The Reconquista was an act of self defense. Whereas Islamic Expansion into Spain with Jewish support was an act of aggression.
Here in lies my issue. The Visogothic Kingdom of Hispania was a separate entity from the later kingdoms of Spain and Portugal that came after it. In the end it was about conquest and glory not just self-defense. Defensive or not the end game is influence and power. Defense is no rationale for that base fact.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Agreed. Issue being that everyone is bringing in this argument to somehow show how Putin is weak for commemorating an age old Mosque that was rebuilt.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Bringing in something we weren't even arguing about. I'm all in favor for them to not be let in Western Europe. Instead local support for refugee camps in neighboring nations would be a much better idea.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Again I was never arguing for immigration. My example of the 4th Crusade is using the inevitable chase of power and influence as rationale for the invasions and subsequent counter invasions. You missed my whole point entirely. Christian or Muslim everyone was out for themselves. See my reply to Zelscorpion above.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Conqueror can do what they want and have on both ends. My entire point from the first minute and what I've been trying to argue is that religion shouldn't be brought in as the only excuse for discussions of geopolitics. It's much more complex than that. The Crusaders were guilty of more than their fair share of rape and pillaging even from Christian populations. I never shifted goal posts you just missed the intent of what I've been arguing.

On Christians in Muslim lands. I was saying that they were better off than being expelled or killed. Taxation is infinitely preferable to wiping out entire populations, mass torture through the Inquisition, or expulsion from lands. Fact of the matter was that it was RELATIVELY peaceful compared to Christian response to Muslims in occupied lands especially in Crusader states such as Acre.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Again fair point. All I'm saying was that the only motivation was not just revenge, but it was just as much the need to conquer and profit as it was to impose religious views. Both sides wished for power and influence and that was the root cause. Not some just righteous reclamation of supposed lost land.

Quote:Quote:

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.

It is a blackout zone for dissenting opinions. Tens of thousands does not compare to the millions that are being silenced living their with the threat of force and the deaths of families.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Billions of dollars into weapons and training for local villagers and supposed rebel armies against the secular state of Syria that was already existing. The United States wants to get rid of the existing secular state which is still fighting on by funding supposed moderate rebels which don't exist. Anyone who would be for a secular government is already siding with Assad. On the other hand your ISIS fanatics are supplemented by the radicals present in the aforementioned countries. Who would want to fight for Assad?

No moderate pro-Western resident of those countries would want to fight for secularism because they are already comfortable in their own countries. Getting people to fight for their radical points of view is much easier as these people are fanatics drunk of their own beliefs.

Quote:Quote:

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
There we go. Again those countries are anti-Assad not pro-ISIS. All about their own profits long term.

Quote:Quote:

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.

Saudi Arabian law is considered harsh even by Arabs. Most people that claim to be openly Muslim in the West and other places are not exactly fans of Saudi Arabia as everyone knows the decadent ruling family is only using religion as a means to secure their own power. Hence why it's not a good example. Indonesia, Egypt(a much bigger violator in this regard), UAE(more specifically Dubai), and Turkey would be better examples for counter points in that regard.

In those places, for the most part, Christians have no issues. In Egypt though the Coptic Christians are not doing so well and I consider that to be a rather big tragedy.

Quote:Quote:

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
That would be like considering the LRA led by the now deceased Joseph Koney(Koney 2012 was a rather potent scam and proof of how to easily exploit the "Liberal" left) would be considered a state. It's like the Confederate States of America instead, a belligerent entity.
Quote:Quote:

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.
Much better example. Considering the nature of that society though and the nature of Middle Eastern Culture. Anything "law" can be avoided with a suitable payment to certain "authorities" aka bribery. Still very common place. On Christian proselytizing of Muslims I will concede that, but that will change as more money flows in and secularization continues.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Africa is a whole different topic. There's still fundamental Christians in those areas whom burn Animists and Muslims. The Gulf States in general with the exception of Saudi Arabia on the other hand the change is slowly coming with the influx of money and economic gain. During my numerous stays in Dubai(often used it as midpoint to travel to other places in Asia or Eastern Europe), they could care less about what foreigners do when I was travelling with friends.

Quote:Quote:

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

Irrelevant to the discussion but I'll answer you over PM as that's a complicated question that involves a bit of my personal information that could give me away. I've put a bit too much personal information on the forum as it is.

Let's continue this discussion over PM as we've derailed the thread enough and no longer relevant to the topic of this thread.

"Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,— 'Wait and hope'."- Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo"

Fashion/Style Lounge

Social Circle Game

Team Skinny Girls with Pretty Faces
King of Sockpuppets

Sockpuppet List
Reply
#59

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

Quote: (09-27-2015 07:03 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Quote: (09-27-2015 04:45 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

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.
Fair enough I'll give you that.
Quote:Quote:

The Reconquista was an act of self defense. Whereas Islamic Expansion into Spain with Jewish support was an act of aggression.
Here in lies my issue. The Visogothic Kingdom of Hispania was a separate entity from the later kingdoms of Spain and Portugal that came after it. In the end it was about conquest and glory not just self-defense. Defensive or not the end game is influence and power. Defense is no rationale for that base fact.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Agreed. Issue being that everyone is bringing in this argument to somehow show how Putin is weak for commemorating an age old Mosque that was rebuilt.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Bringing in something we weren't even arguing about. I'm all in favor for them to not be let in Western Europe. Instead local support for refugee camps in neighboring nations would be a much better idea.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Again I was never arguing for immigration. My example of the 4th Crusade is using the inevitable chase of power and influence as rationale for the invasions and subsequent counter invasions. You missed my whole point entirely. Christian or Muslim everyone was out for themselves. See my reply to Zelscorpion above.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Conqueror can do what they want and have on both ends. My entire point from the first minute and what I've been trying to argue is that religion shouldn't be brought in as the only excuse for discussions of geopolitics. It's much more complex than that. The Crusaders were guilty of more than their fair share of rape and pillaging even from Christian populations. I never shifted goal posts you just missed the intent of what I've been arguing.

On Christians in Muslim lands. I was saying that they were better off than being expelled or killed. Taxation is infinitely preferable to wiping out entire populations, mass torture through the Inquisition, or expulsion from lands. Fact of the matter was that it was RELATIVELY peaceful compared to Christian response to Muslims in occupied lands especially in Crusader states such as Acre.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Again fair point. All I'm saying was that the only motivation was not just revenge, but it was just as much the need to conquer and profit as it was to impose religious views. Both sides wished for power and influence and that was the root cause. Not some just righteous reclamation of supposed lost land.

Quote:Quote:

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.

It is a blackout zone for dissenting opinions. Tens of thousands does not compare to the millions that are being silenced living their with the threat of force and the deaths of families.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Billions of dollars into weapons and training for local villagers and supposed rebel armies against the secular state of Syria that was already existing. The United States wants to get rid of the existing secular state which is still fighting on by funding supposed moderate rebels which don't exist. Anyone who would be for a secular government is already siding with Assad. On the other hand your ISIS fanatics are supplemented by the radicals present in the aforementioned countries. Who would want to fight for Assad?

No moderate pro-Western resident of those countries would want to fight for secularism because they are already comfortable in their own countries. Getting people to fight for their radical points of view is much easier as these people are fanatics drunk of their own beliefs.

Quote:Quote:

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
There we go. Again those countries are anti-Assad not pro-ISIS. All about their own profits long term.

Quote:Quote:

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.

Saudi Arabian law is considered harsh even by Arabs. Most people that claim to be openly Muslim in the West and other places are not exactly fans of Saudi Arabia as everyone knows the decadent ruling family is only using religion as a means to secure their own power. Hence why it's not a good example. Indonesia, Egypt(a much bigger violator in this regard), UAE(more specifically Dubai), and Turkey would be better examples for counter points in that regard.

In those places, for the most part, Christians have no issues. In Egypt though the Coptic Christians are not doing so well and I consider that to be a rather big tragedy.

Quote:Quote:

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
That would be like considering the LRA led by the now deceased Joseph Koney(Koney 2012 was a rather potent scam and proof of how to easily exploit the "Liberal" left) would be considered a state. It's like the Confederate States of America instead, a belligerent entity.
Quote:Quote:

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.
Much better example. Considering the nature of that society though and the nature of Middle Eastern Culture. Anything "law" can be avoided with a suitable payment to certain "authorities" aka bribery. Still very common place. On Christian proselytizing of Muslims I will concede that, but that will change as more money flows in and secularization continues.

Quote:Quote:

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.
Africa is a whole different topic. There's still fundamental Christians in those areas whom burn Animists and Muslims. The Gulf States in general with the exception of Saudi Arabia on the other hand the change is slowly coming with the influx of money and economic gain. During my numerous stays in Dubai(often used it as midpoint to travel to other places in Asia or Eastern Europe), they could care less about what foreigners do when I was travelling with friends.

Quote:Quote:

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

Irrelevant to the discussion but I'll answer you over PM as that's a complicated question that involves a bit of my personal information that could give me away. I've put a bit too much personal information on the forum as it is.

Let's continue this discussion over PM as we've derailed the thread enough and no longer relevant to the topic of this thread.

Now you are just nitpicking. Whether they were organized as the Visigoths or later as Aragon and Castille or later as Spain, they were always Christians Spaniards. How they organized themselves politically is irrelevant to how the defended themselves against invasion, resisted occupation, and regained their lands. It was an act of defense, not aggression or conquest to regain their own lands.

My issue was not with Putin. I support Putin here. Putin has been the most pro-Christian leader Russia has had since Czar Nicholas II. Russia is a country of many ethnicities and many faiths. Taking an anti-Islam stance would not be politically practical or intelligent. Putin has put a lot of political capital into supporting more moderate muslims in Chechnya like Kadryov. He has also been the only one to step up and protect the Christians in the Middle East by aiding Assad against ISIS. Anyone suggesting he is weak on radical Islam is a fool.

My issue was with people trying to suggest Christians are treated well in the Muslim world, in a manner similar to Muslims in Western Christian countries.

Your point is the Muslims were out for themselves when they were conquering Christians? Ok, I don't see where that comes into contradiction with what I am saying. Muslims and Christians have self interests.

Religion has to be brought into the conversation. It is not purely geopolitical. Because it wasn't Christians invading, raping, enslaving, and pillaging Muslim lands, it was the Muslims doing it to Christians as an act of aggression. So the expansionist and jihadist ideology in the Koran contributed to their imperialist/violent attitudes against Christians and other religious minorities for that matter. And that continues to this day, whether in Syria and Iraq or Darfur.

There are definitely millions being silenced and intimidated by ISIS in Syria and Iraq. But they aren't being intimated by a small minority, but a significant plurality with military and political power.

Assad is a secular dictator, the kind of government the US is trying to push is significantly different than that. There is more support for ISIS than an american style "moderate democracy". That was my point. Also, to be clear, I strongly support Assad. But my point is there is more support for an islamist state than an American style democracy. the point is, you can put all the money, weapons, and training you want into a movement, but if they have no popular support, they wont get off the ground. Saudi, Qatar, Turkey, and UAE are pushing ISIS for their geopolitical gains, but there is a strong support for Islamism in Syria and Iraq among the Sunni population. That is just a fact.

Lets go through your countries.

Indonesia had a terrible record ethnically cleansing the Christians of East Timor, sadly with US support under the guise of "anti-communism", and there is still violence by radical groups against Christians in the country to this day. Even the US Government recognizes they are treated as second class citizens there.

Quote:Quote:

In 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, for purposes of U.S. immigration law: "[T]he record compels a finding that Christians in Indonesia are a disfavored group."[44][45] The definition of this term is "a group of individuals in a certain country or part of a country, all of whom share a common, protected characteristic, many of whom are mistreated, and a substantial number of whom are persecuted" but who are "not threatened by a pattern or practice of systematic persecution." The court blamed the rise of anti-Christian sentiment on Suharto consorting with militant Islamic groups in the 1990s in order to maintain his power, noting that he had "purged his cabinet and army of Christians and replaced them with fundamentalist Muslims", and adding that support and protection for violent Islamic militia such as Laskar Jihad by the military and political elite had continued since Suharto's exit from power. According to the ruling: "Christian churches throughout Indonesia have been burned, bombed, and vandalized by Muslim extremists. These attacks are often accompanied by threats, such as: 'God has no son. Jesus could not help you. Until doomsday, Muslims will not make peace with Christians. Death to all Christians.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani..._Indonesia


As for Turkey, there aren't many Christians left there after the genocide, so not a great example of treatment of Christians in Muslim areas.

As for Egypt, you said so yourself, the treatment of Coptic Christians there is a tragedy at the moment.

As for the Gulf States, they might change, but that is in spite of Islam. That is due to them becoming less Muslim and more secular. So it still speaks to my point of how Christians are persecuted throughout Muslim societies. And the difference is clear as to how Muslims are far better treated in the West politically, legally, socially etc.
Reply
#60

Savior of Europe builds largest mosque in Moscow

Just saw your last sentence. Shoot me a PM if you want. I am not asking for your details. I was merely curious as to what perspective you are coming from. No need to provide personal details if that makes you uncomfortable.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)