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

Morality Games · Apr 12, 2010

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.

texmaster · Apr 12, 2010

Morality Games said:
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.

Agent Ferris · Apr 12, 2010

Morality Games said:
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.

Morality Games · Apr 12, 2010

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.

Morality Games · Apr 12, 2010

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.

mbig · Apr 13, 2010

Formerly Wikipedia, now [PC] changed.
Dar al-Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But still about Original at it's echo site Statemaster encyclopedia:
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Dar-al_Islam

Divisions of the world in Islam

In Islamic theology and legal interpretations, the Ultimate aim of Islam is to bring the whole World under the Dominion of Islam.
Accordingly each part of the world is given a descriptive status to delineate its Current state in regards to the Aims of Islam and to define the permissible conduct of Muslims in those regions.

Dar al-Islam
Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of Submission) is a term used to refer to those lands under Muslim government(s).
In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission and dar al-Harb, the house of war.
[...........]
Dar al-Harb
Dar al-Harb (Arabic: دار الحرب "house of war") is a term used to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. The term traditionally refers to those lands administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice. The inhabitants of the Dar al-Harb are called harbis.
[...........]
Dar al-Hudna
Dar al Hudna (Arabic: "house of calm"):The land of non-believers currently under truce which is in Respite between Wars. Truce is bought by tribute by harbis. If the harbis Refuse to pay Tribute in exchange for the Truce, hostilities are resumed. Furthermore, only treaties that conform to Islamic prescriptions are valid; if these conditions are not fulfilled the treaty is worthless.

Dar al-'Ahd
Dar al-'Ahd (Arabic: دار العهد "house of truce" or Dar al-Sulh "house of treaty") was invented to describe the Ottoman Empire's relationship with its Christian tributary states. The invention Dar al-Ahd was necessary, as the worldview prevalent at the time did not allow for a protracted peace with non-Muslim states, even those under Muslim domination.

Today, the term refers to those non-Muslim governments which have armistice or peace agreements with Muslim governments. The actual status of the non-Muslim country in question may vary from acknowledged equality to tributary states.

Dar al-Kufr
Dar al-Kufr (Arabic: دار الكفر, "house of infidels" or "domain of disbelief") is a term used by Muhammad to refer to the Quraish-dominated society of Mecca between his flight to Medina (the Hijra) and his triumphant return.

For much of Islamic history, the preferred term used to describe non-Islamic societies has been dar al-Harb, emphasizing various Islamic countries' aspirations to Conquer such territories and render them part of dar al-Islam.

A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim...."

Degreez · Apr 13, 2010

texmaster said:
Accoridng to someone as clueless as you are on this issue thats not much of a problem.

This coming from a person who spent hours debating a point that was already refuted from the same source article? I have a Bachelor's in Near and Middle East Studies from University of Houston. I think it is safe to say I know far more on this subject than you will ever know.

texmaster said:
Another lie. Take a look at the timeline again.

I am talking about pre-Rashidun conquest of the Levant. Christian oppression of Jews, pagans, and other minority Christian groups in the Byzantine Empire significantly outweighs so called 'Islamic aggression' that liberated these groups.

texmaster said:
HAHHAHA if you ignore the rape and pillaging of 400 years of Muslim aggression from Iran to Spain that might be relevant.

Great deflection Batman!
Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

texmaster said:
Again ignoring the 400 years of Muslim rape and pillaging.

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

Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

texmaster said:
Lets see the source on that one.

Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the "Church" and the Jewish People by Michael Brown
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades]History of the Jews and the Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

texmaster said:
When you are ready to actually debate the 400 years of rape and pillaging by Muslims and acknowledge it, let me know.

Why would I address a logical fallacy? That's like me asking you to address the massacre of Jews and Muslims by Christians in Jerusalem after the First Crusade so that we can continue discussing the topic we were already conferring about.

Agent Ferris · Apr 15, 2010

Morality Games said:
The "Islamic Empire" depicted on those maps is a geographic conception of certain Western historians,

Right and the dynasties which ruled over them and acquired that territory through warfare are just figments of our collective imagination.

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.

WTF are you talking about? Those are territorial empires headed by succeeding caliphate dynasties. Good god read a history book.

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.

Um those different caliphates occurred at different points in history. Get educated, you still seem to be thinking in terms of the nation-states fyi sport the nation-state didn't evolve as a concept until the late 18th/early 19th century, prior to that what consisted were multi-ethnic empires or dynastic states united under dynastic lines, empires; such as, the Islamic Caliphates which I have previously listed.

ludahai · Apr 15, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
fyi sport the nation-state didn't evolve as a concept until the late 18th/early 19th century, prior to that what consisted were multi-ethnic empires or dynastic states united under dynastic lines,

FYI - Actually, what we think of as a nation-state system evolved out of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

NoJingoLingo · Apr 15, 2010

ludahai said:
Historical ignorance at work. You do know that Pope Urban called for the firt Crusade as a DIRECT result of a plea made to him by the emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople to help against the advances of the Seljuq Empire through Anatolia, right?

Yes, I'm sure there was much hand wringing and nashing teeth over the decision.

So please tell us all about how meek christianity was for the 600 years prior to the founding of Islam. I'm sure there was no imperialism involved. :roll:

What about the 2nd through 8th crusades?

ludahai · Apr 16, 2010

NoJingoLingo said:
Yes, I'm sure there was much hand wringing and nashing teeth over the decision.

So please tell us all about how meek christianity was for the 600 years prior to the founding of Islam. I'm sure there was no imperialism involved. :roll:

What about the 2nd through 8th crusades?

Christianity was spread primarily peacefully prior to the Islamic offensive in many cases under significant persecution. Several states that had adopted Christianity did NOT do so through conquest, but through voluntarily conversion - for example Armenia, Aksum and later the Roman Empire itself.

NoJingoLingo · Apr 19, 2010

ludahai said:
Christianity was spread primarily peacefully prior to the Islamic offensive in many cases under significant persecution. Several states that had adopted Christianity did NOT do so through conquest, but through voluntarily conversion - for example Armenia, Aksum and later the Roman Empire itself.

I see, so in your version of history there was never a christian "convert or die" campaign across Europe. Got it. Oh and you forgot to mention those other 6 crusades.

Agent Ferris · Apr 20, 2010

NoJingoLingo said:
I see, so in your version of history there was never a christian "convert or die" campaign across Europe. Got it. Oh and you forgot to mention those other 6 crusades.

As an atheist I dislike Christianity as well, however, to be historically accurate things; such as, the persecution felt under the Spanish Inquisition were far less severe than parallel examples in the Muslim world; such as, the genocide of Buddhists and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent number easily into the tens of millions of slaughtered.

The Prof · Apr 26, 2010

no wonder 337 congress members signed a letter criticizing obama's blatant backhand to bibi

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...riticizing-obamas-israel-policy-89362967.html

the nsc guy is a fool

Breitbart.tv Obama’s National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants

schumer represents responsible, adult united states foreign policy

Schumer: Obama's 'counter-productive' Israel policy 'has to stop' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

obama has no idea what he's doing

NoJingoLingo · Apr 27, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
As an atheist I dislike Christianity as well, however, to be historically accurate things; such as, the persecution felt under the Spanish Inquisition were far less severe than parallel examples in the Muslim world; such as, the genocide of Buddhists and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent number easily into the tens of millions of slaughtered.

So then what we are talking about seems to be, which religion has been more cruel and killed more people? How many have to die before we stop counting and say it's all too much?

Hatuey · Apr 27, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
As an atheist I dislike Christianity as well, however, to be historically accurate things; such as, the persecution felt under the Spanish Inquisition were far less severe than parallel examples in the Muslim world; such as, the genocide of Buddhists and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent number easily into the tens of millions of slaughtered.

If you limit Christian expansion to the Inquisition, then are lacking the last 400 years of Christian history in South America and Africa which killed the majority of inhabitants (somewhere between 100-150 million people by most moderate estimates) in one continent(South America) and plundered the wealth of another for nearly 100 years(Africa).

NoJingoLingo · Apr 27, 2010

Hatuey said:
If you limit Christian expansion to the Inquisition, then are lacking the last 400 years of Christian history in South America and Africa which killed the majority of inhabitants (somewhere between 100-150 million people by most moderate estimates) in one continent(South America) and plundered the wealth of another for nearly 100 years(Africa).

Can't forget the slaughter of native South American Indians by the Spanish and the feuding in Ireland...

Hatuey · Apr 27, 2010

NoJingoLingo said:
Can't forget the slaughter of native South American Indians by the Spanish and the feuding in Ireland...

Don't forget 'Christian' expansion into Oceania. It is safe to say that the majority of Christians today are Christians because an European came to their land and killed a ****load of people in the name of Christian superiority. However because Muslims apparently attacked Christians back in the old continent a few centuries ago, we can safely blame them for whatever violence Christians feel like they need to pass the blame on for.

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

Morality Games

texmaster

Hippie Hater

Agent Ferris

Morality Games

Morality Games

mbig

onomatopoeic

Degreez

Agent Ferris

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

NoJingoLingo

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

NoJingoLingo

Agent Ferris

The Prof

NoJingoLingo

Hatuey

Rule of Two

NoJingoLingo

Hatuey

Rule of Two