Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 193

Thread: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    ... the Byzantine and Western empires weren't united. Before the Crusade, aristocrats from all over Europe were investing in military expeditions to carve out holdings out of the failing Byzantire Empire while the Turks occupied its intentions on the eastern fronteir. Successors to Emperor Manuel regretted their ancestor's initiative, because Crusading nobles were orchestrating land grabs all the way across the Empire while on their way to Jereusulam.

    Saying the Caliphates were united is like saying France and England were united, or that the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Poland were united.
    The Holy Roman Empire was United. The Ummayyad Caliphate was united, the Abbassid Caliphate was united, the Fatimid Caliphate was united, the Ottoman Caliphate was united, and they all fell over roughly the same territory. Which Islamic kingdom are you referring to which fell outside of their purview? The only one I can think of was the Cordoba Caliphate of Hispania which slip after the Ummayyad dynasty was overthrown by the Abbassids.

    Indeed, the relationship between the Turks and Arabs rather pretty close to the relationship of England and France.
    Um the Ottoman Caliphate encompassed the Arab states.

  2. #172
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    The Holy Roman Empire was United.
    The Holy Roman Empire was Germany. Do you mean the nations of Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire were united? They definitely were not.

    The Ummayyad Caliphate was united, the Abbassid Caliphate was united, the Fatimid Caliphate was united, the Ottoman Caliphate was united, and they all fell over roughly the same territory.
    What? The Ummayyads / Abbasids were in Iberia (aka Spain, Portugul, and Aragon) and in northern Africa are what we call "the Moors." They weren't united among themselves, let alone with the Fatamids (Arabs) or the Ottomons (Turks) who were in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. The Fatimids and the Ottomons did coordinate attacks on the Kingdom of Jereusulam and the Principality of Antioch, but they fought each other as well; same as England and France fought each other over the course of the crusades.

    You'll have to explain your sense of "united." They weren't politically united, had different militiaries and generals, fought each other, and had minimal economic ties, and followed different legal and philosophical schools of thought. If "united" means "occasionally worked together" and "weren't always fighting", then yeah, they were united.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-12-10 at 02:18 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  3. #173
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    No, it's an opinion that is held in low regards in the historical community.
    Accoridng to someone as clueless as you are on this issue thats not much of a problem.

    It's hypocritical to say it was Islamic aggression when the Christian oppression outweighs said 'aggression'.
    Another lie. Take a look at the timeline again.

    Christians banned Jews from entering their holy city for over five hundred years. Muslims conquered the land and allowed them back into Jerusalem. You can call that aggression all you want, but the historical consensus contradicts you.
    HAHHAHA if you ignore the rape and pillaging of 400 years of Muslim aggression from Iran to Spain that might be relevant.

    Hmm, let's see. The Byzantine Emperor made a request to the Pope. The Pope agrees to send help, in hopes of fixing the schism between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches and getting the East under his control.
    Again ignoring the 400 years of Muslim rape and pillaging.

    You would do anything rather than address that wouldn't you?

    And while you call it Muslim aggression, it was Jews and Muslims who fought against the Franks in the Siege of Jerusalem. However, the Crusaders were not "aggressors", right? They treated the conquered populace better than the Muslim "aggressors", right?
    Lets see the source on that one.

    Because Pope Urban II issued a Crusade against the Turks. He only mentions Arabs once.

    Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, according to Fulcherof Chartres
    When you are ready to actually debate the 400 years of rape and pillaging by Muslims and acknowledge it, let me know.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #174
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    You are the one being dishonest here:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058649631
    You can't even admit you lied? unbelievable.

    Next time try to be more accurate.
    Last edited by texmaster; 04-12-10 at 02:37 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  5. #175
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Your response is tangential to my point.
    Of course you would say that because you can't address those points in history of Muslim aggression against Christians.

    There was no Muslim Pope or Muslim Church.
    Its called a caliph.

    For the love of God do some basic research.

    The Muslim Pope and Muslim Church did not collect taxes or exercise authority (via excommunication) over Muslim nobles and "kings", because they did not exist.
    Thats right. They only did that to non believers. Its called the jizya.

    Again, read some basic history.

    Imams, who were scholars and interpreters, were the closest thing to an Islamic Clergy. Caliphs, depending on the size of their domain and personal finances were roughly analagous to European kings and dukes, and they or their vassals were the ones who paid Imams, so I guess they were the closest thing to a "Head of Church." Therefore, reducing these conquests to "Muslims" is a strawman; regardless of their religious sympathies, you can count on aristocrats to conduct their wars according to (1) national security and (2) profit. Your use of the term "Muslims" implies a unity that does not exist, and a motivation which had a comparatively peripheral existence before the Crusades and the invention of the Jihad concept.

    The Moors (Africa), the Turks (Asia Minor), and the Arabs (Egypt) were economically and politically disunited entities with their own interests and policies. Generally, they fought wars for the same reason the English and French aristocracies fought wars; to increase their territory and revenues. Usually, they fought against each other.

    The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.

    The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.

    The Arabs had minimal relations with the Europeans.

    And now, far as the period of rapid advancement prior to encroachments into Europe, those were Pagan territories, not European or Christian ones, and Christians have a similar history of expansion against Pagans in the lands they later came to dominate. Furthermore, the "Muslim conquests" were more like hostile take overs; Islam spread quickly and held fast because it had a more appealing vision of life than the prevailing Pagan religions, so most populations were receptive to conversion attempts and it was comparatively easy to form new Islamic nations out of the old Pagan kingdoms of the Middle East.



    Almost certainly bandits exploiting the defenselessness of people far from home, maybe the Turks suspicious of aliens passing through their lands. The Arab-Egyptian Caliphate could not obtain significant material resources from raiding tourists and was reputed for exercising religious tolerance toward Jews and Christians.

    In sum:

    A religious war against the Moors wasn't really justifiable. They weren't advancing into Europe and hadn't for several hundred years.

    A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, although their were a great many hypocrisies and ironies in the execution.

    A religious war against the Arabs was not justifiable.
    Absolutely nothing you spew here addresses the fact that Muslims invaded Christian lands and took over Christian cities for 400 years before the first Crusade.

    Until you can admit that there is nothing to discuss.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  6. #176
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Absolutely nothing you spew here addresses the fact that Muslims invaded Christian lands and took over Christian cities for 400 years before the first Crusade.
    Either you didn't read or you are a liar. I quote my post:

    The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.
    The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.
    Conflating the Moors, Turks and Arabs into Muslims is a strawman, because it implies unity and motivations that aren't real. My main point is that under the ethical conventions of medieval times the Iberians could justify a counter-attack against the Moors, but a religious war was dubious since it implied a religious ferocity and determination driving Moorish action that was no longer the case, and in any event had stopped being the case three centuries previously. However, employing religion as a means of mobilizing military and economic support from across Europe and justifying the ruthless measures necessary to regain southern Iberia was the campaign strategy the Iberian kings felt they needed in order to win. But saying the "Muslims are taking over" when the Moors stopped three hundred years ago and were occupied administering the territory they already had is hardly a legitimate claim.

    A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, since they were the only Muslims actively attacking territory held by Christians in mass in that phase of history, but if oppressing the poor Eastern Orthodox Christians warranted a Crusade, the nations of Western Europe were also deserving of being crusaded against, since Western nobles were exploiting the weakness of the Byzantine Emperors to carve out domains for themselves in the western frontier, in areas like Greece. There, on religious grounds (Catholic versus Orthodox), they established socieites of High Justice where treatment of the Eastern Orthodox Christians was inferior to what their lot would have been under Sharia Law; see Scotland under England in Braveheart to get an idea of what this High Justice entailed.

    More importantly, the Arabs had not orchestrated attacks Christians in any significant sense -- the closest they came to a real conquest was Sicily, and they took that away from Muslims who had already conquered and settled it -- so why they deserved to be crusaded against by Christians and have Jereusulam taken away from them is unclear. In this case, a religious war was not even potentially justifiable.

    Until you can admit that there is nothing to discuss.
    Admit your conflation of all Muslims into a single political-military entity was valid? No.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-12-10 at 02:58 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #177
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Either you didn't read or you are a liar. I quote my post:





    Conflating the Moors, Turks and Arabs into Muslims is a strawman, because it implies unity and motivations that aren't real. My main point is that under the ethical conventions of medieval times the Iberians could justify a counter-attack against the Moors, but a religious war was dubious since it implied a religious ferocity and determination driving Moorish action that was no longer the case, and in any event had stopped being the case three centuries previously. However, employing religion as a means of mobilizing military and economic support from across Europe and justifying the ruthless measures necessary to regain southern Iberia was the campaign strategy the Iberian kings felt they needed in order to win. But saying the "Muslims are taking over" when the Moors stopped three hundred years ago and were occupied administering the territory they already had is hardly a legitimate claim.

    A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, since they were the only Muslims actively attacking territory held by Christians in mass in that phase of history, but if oppressing the poor Eastern Orthodox Christians warranted a Crusade, the nations of Western Europe were also deserving of being crusaded against, since Western nobles were exploiting the weakness of the Byzantine Emperors to carve out domains for themselves in the western frontier, in areas like Greece. There, on religious grounds (Catholic versus Orthodox), they established socieites of High Justice where treatment of the Eastern Orthodox Christians was inferior to what their lot would have been under Sharia Law; see Scotland under England in Braveheart to get an idea of what this High Justice entailed.

    More importantly, the Arabs had not orchestrated attacks Christians in any significant sense -- the closest they came to a real conquest was Sicily, and they took that away from Muslims who had already conquered and settled it -- so why they deserved to be crusaded against by Christians and have Jereusulam taken away from them is unclear. In this case, a religious war was not even potentially justifiable.



    Admit your conflation of all Muslims into a single political-military entity was valid? No.
    Ok so we have established you want to separate the different Muslim sects into races so you don't have to honestly debate the points you were given.

    Did Muslims attack Rome, Spain, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Iran, Iraq and Egypt before the first Crusade?

    Yes or no?

    Real simple. Lets see if you can at least be honest enough to admit that.

    I see you ducked the jiyza tax. How convenient.
    Last edited by texmaster; 04-12-10 at 03:08 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The Holy Roman Empire was Germany. Do you mean the nations of Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire were united? They definitely were not.
    They were not united with one another but the territory which they claimed was united under the respective empires.


    What? The Ummayyads / Abbasids were in Iberia (aka Spain, Portugul, and Aragon) and in northern Africa are what we call "the Moors." They weren't united among themselves, let alone with the Fatamids (Arabs) or the Ottomons (Turks) who were in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.
    Wrong again bucko, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatamid, and Ottoman Empires were located on roughly the same territory those some extended that territory, and each one held the title of the Caliphate.

    Ummayyad Empire:



    Abbasid Empire:



    Fatimid Empire:



    Ottoman Empire:



    As you can see the Arab states fell within the purview of each of these Islamic Caliphates. I never mentioned the Moors though, however, the Ummayad empire did encompass the Iberian Peninsula, but after the Abbasid succeeded the Ummayad as the Caliphate the Caliphate of Cordobo continued the Ummayad dynastic line in the Iberian peninsula.

    The Fatimids and the Ottomons did coordinate attacks on the Kingdom of Jereusulam and the Principality of Antioch, but they fought each other as well;
    The Fatimid Caliphate ended in 1107; whereas, the Ottomans didn't claim the title of Caliphate until 1517 during which time the former Fatimid caliphate came within their territorial purview.

    same as England and France fought each other over the course of the crusades.

    You'll have to explain your sense of "united." They weren't politically united, had different militiaries and generals, fought each other, and had minimal economic ties, and followed different legal and philosophical schools of thought. If "united" means "occasionally worked together" and "weren't always fighting", then yeah, they were united.
    No I mean united as in united under the leadership of the Caliph which as head of the Ummah is the soul head of the aforementioned Islamic empires.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 04-12-10 at 03:51 PM.

  9. #179
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Ok so we have established you want to separate the different Muslim sects into races so you don't have to honestly debate the points you were given.
    I'm not attempting to emphasize their race so much as trace their politcal existence by means of their race. Moorish, Turkish, and Arabic populations spread over several nations a piece, nations who retained some of their ancient identities through various institutions and customs, so trying to relate to these Islamic political entities in terms of their geography (as I am with Western Europeans and the Byzantines) is problematic. Which Caliphs possessed which territories and countries fluctuated, but dominant ethnic groups from which these Caliphs emerged flucutated very little.

    If I was going to describe them in terms of geography, Moors would be Africans, Arabs would be Egyptians, and Turks would be south-eastern Asians.

    Did Muslims attack Rome, Spain, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Iran, Iraq and Egypt before the first Crusade?
    Yes or no?
    Yes, but it isn't relevant. Iberians attacking Moors is like Russians attacking France because Napolean invaded 200+ years ago. As societies undergo reformation, history gradually erodes the legitimacy of moral and political claims of those who were short changed to a token size. Furthermore, Christians in Western Europe didn't have the right to perceive themselves as under attack because Islamic civilization had reached an equilibirum where most conflicts were self-contained, the same as conflicts in Europe (between England and France) were self-contained. This had been the case for centuries. The exception was the Turks: however, their attacks on the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire, while perpetual, were gradual, and were something they had in common with the Western Christians.

    Real simple. Lets see if you can at least be honest enough to admit that.
    These personal attacks of yours on my honesty would be valid if I hadn't already discussed the Moorish and Turkish assaults at length.

    I see you ducked the jiyza tax. How convenient.
    You'll have to explain the nature of this ducking to me. I don't see what the Jizya tax has to do with our discussion.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-12-10 at 04:07 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #180
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Wrong again bucko, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatamid, and Ottoman Empires were located on roughly the same territory those some extended that territory, and each one held the title of the Caliphate.
    The "Islamic Empire" depicted on those maps is a geographic conception of certain Western historians, based on an understanding of Islamic civilization as solely religious comformity. The continunity envisioned by those maps only shows how far Islam was practiced in a cross-continental sense, not its military, national, cultural, or economic divisions. The map is a meaningful representation, but it does not suggest the kind of unity it takes to have a single, functional, geo-political force.

    Also, your phrase "roughly the same territory" seems to assert the authority of Caliphs over different countries overlaps, that different Caliphs rule the same areas. It's a bad way of describing the divison of territories.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-12-10 at 04:09 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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