Now it is obvious you haven't even clicked the link I gave. All you had to was click the link and input any of the text from the quote I posted to find what page number it is in the book (it will also show the an image text of the book). Since you're too lazy to even open a link, I knew I would have to do it for you:
Here's the text I quoted:
After inputting "Greeks systematized" into the 'Search this book' part of the link on Google Books, it gave me this result:
It's hilarious that you accuse me of "throwing out book titles", when you are too lazy to even bother clicking a link.
Little tip in debate. You actually bring your evidence with you. You don't claim its in some link then run away.
Finally. Now I get to destroy your claims by giving you the real facts about the "golden age" of the Middle East.
I do love how your only evidence is a summary of someone else's opinion but I expected no less from you.
But in fact, much of the most common claims about the great achievements of Islamic culture have been exaggerated, often for quite transparent apologetic motives. The astrolabe was developed, if not perfected, long before Muhammad was born. The zero, which is often attributed to Muslims, and what we know today as "Arabic numerals" did not originate in Arabia, but in pre-Islamic India. Aristotle's work was preserved in Arabic not initially by Muslims at all, but by Christians such as the fifth century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. Another Christian, Huneyn ibn-Ishaq (809-873), translated many works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac. His son then translated them into Arabic. The Syrian Christian Yahya ibn 'Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic, and wrote one of his own, The Reformation of Morals. His student, another Christian named Abu 'Ali 'Isa ibn Zur'a (943-1008), also translated Aristotle and others from Syriac into Arabic. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate -- not by a Muslim, but a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia -- by Assyrian Christians.
The point here is simply that the great achievements of Islamic culture are being exaggerated for political and apologetic reasons today. For this sort of thing to go on at jihad-justifying Islamic websites is one thing, but an academic should know better. Emphasis on "should."
If anyone makes Dr. Adamson's lecture and he takes questions, these would be some facts that one might politely and respectfully ask him about.
Breaking news: the Muslims saved civilization! - Jihad Watch
See these are real dates, real people and real facts. Not summaries by another author. Go ahead, try and recover from that beat down. I'll bet you had no clue who those people were. You were so locked into your fantasy about the great Middle East Golden Age you had no idea where they really got their ideas or should I say stole them from
Let's see... British Mandate of Palestine. French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. British Mandate of Mesopotamia. Apparently you believe self-determination is an invalid concept.
Now watch carefully as a real debater destroys your pitiful attempts at justification for blaming Europe for the inadequacy of the Middle East.
British Mandate of Palestine
1920–1948
French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon
1920–1946
British Mandate of Mesopotamia
1920–1932
"Golden Age" of Middle East:
Now I'll be real nice here and give you an extra 400 years even though its factually incorrect
750 to 1500 A.D
First "Mandate" you cited: 1920
Thats 420 YEARS of NOTHING. Where is the European onslaught that kept Islamic nations back in the Middle East all this time? Where are they Degreez?
As usual, your arguments are so pathetic you don't even bother to research your own arguments before embarrassing yourself.
Seriously. This is really getting sad.
Do you blame the Europeans even today for the pitiful poor in the middle east? You are a one trick pony. Short on actually thinking about your facts and huge on emotional fallacies.
Where did I admit European weaponry and technology was superior? In case you wish to remain even more ignorant of relative history, it was British and Arab forces that overthrew Ottoman rule in the Levant. It was the British who promised Arabs independence for their support in defeating the Ottomans. It was only because of foreign imperialism that this did not happen:
McMahon-Husain correspondence - Report of Arab-UK committee - UK documentation Cmd. 5974 (excerpts)/Non-UN document (16 March 1939)
Once again you fail to read your own article. NO WHERE in any of that BS you cited does it even discuss weapons. Am I supposed to be shocked that a country from far away used local people to fight on their behalf? Have you ever read any history on warfare? Mercenaries have been used throughout history for thousands of years. How can you not be aware of such basic historical knowledge?
You claimed this proved the British did not have superior weapons. WHERE IS THAT PROOF? Where is the discussion of the weapons? Don't worry, I'll provide it and show you how sad your claims really are.
One more thing. Citing "foreign imperialism" is just another excuse for someone lacking superior weaponry. Your own works don't back your ridiculous claims.
The real reason the Ottoman's LOST world war one? Superior firepower.
Ottoman Empire Ottoman Empire
Handguns
* Smith & Wesson
* FN Browning M1903
* Mauser C96
* Pistole Parabellum 1908
Rifles
* Mauser Models 1887, 1889, 1890, 1893 and 1903
* Gewehr 88 (Sent by Germany late in the war)
* Gewehr 98 (Sent by Germany late in the war)
* Peabody-Martini
* Winchester M1866
Machine Guns
* Maxim gun
* Maschinengewehr 08
vs the British:
United Kingdom British Empire and Commonwealth
Handguns
* Webley Revolver
* Webley Self-Loading .455” Mark I (Royal Navy, since 1911, and later Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Flying Corps)
* Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver
* Colt M1911 (Royal Flying Corps and Royal Navy, Limited use)
* Colt New Service
* Smith & Wesson M1917 revolver
* Smith & Wesson Model 10
* Smith & Wesson Triple Lock
* Lancaster pistol
* Mauser C96
Rifles
* Lee-Enfield
* Lee-Metford
* Pattern 1914 Enfield
* Martini-Enfield
* Martini-Henry
* Ross rifle (Canadian units)
* Winchester Model 1894 (Royal Flying Corps, Limited use)
* Winchester Model 1895
* Winchester Model 1907
* Type 30 rifle
* Type 38 rifle
* Type 38 cavalry rifle
* Periscope rifle
Machine Guns
* Vickers machine gun
* Maxim gun
* Lewis Gun
* Hotchkiss Mark I
* M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun (Canadian units)
Shotguns
* Sawn-off shotgun (British and ANZAC trench raiders)
Anti-tank weapons
* Elephant gun
Grenades
* Grenade, No 1 Hales
* Rifle grenades, 2, 3, 4 Hales
* No.s 5, 23, 36 Mills
* No. 6 Grenade
* No.s 8, 9 Double Cylinder Jam Tin
* No. 13 Battye
* No. 15 Ball grenade
* No. 27 Smoke Grenade
* No. 34 Egg grenade
Mortars
* 2 inch Medium Mortar
* Newton 6 inch Mortar
* Stokes Mortar
* Livens Projector
Swords
* 1897 Pattern
* 1908 and 1912 Pattern Cavalry Swords
* Claymore
Bayonets
* M1917 bayonet
List of infantry weapons of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Superior Firepower. Hell, the Ottoman's best weapons were German only solidifying my point. Only someone completely devoid of any historical understanding of war would claim otherwise.
And I asked you for proof of where I admitted that. You are equating conquering with being more advanced.
You're damn right. Too bad you don't understand basic history.
By that logic, Nazi Germany was more advanced than Poland and France
Um, YEAH! LOL
Sigh. Your lack of understanding basic history just grows and grows.
Let's take the Germans and Poland for just a second. How about the invasion of Poland?
Polish lancers on horseback were slaughtered as they bravely, but ineffectually, charged columns of German tanks.
SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. The Polish didn't have tanks. It doesn't matter if they were given 10 years to prepare, the Germans had the superior technology.
How about France?
In 1940 it defeated the French army, which had the necessary weapons (tanks, aircraft, radio), but of lesser quality, and it didn't know how to use it because it totally neglected mobile warfare after World War 1
Blitzkrieg
So once again your incredible ignorance of basic history and the use of superior firepower to win wars is staggering.
It has to do with this laughable statement you made here:
LOL You deny women are still treated as property in Islamic countries in the middle east?
Quiz time. How many Muslim Countries in the middle East or even next door have equal rights for men and women? ONE. Turkey.
Your incredible lack of basic knowledge continues to amaze.
But go ahead, list all the countries in the Middle East that treat women by law as equals besides the dirty joos in Israel.
I'll laugh while I wait.
Great logical fallacy! You are making this too easy.
ah yes the classic tactic of the defeated. Pretend to falsely classify your opponent's argument when you can't argue the point. You were the one who made the argument Islam has greatly improved the treatment of women and you cited babies are no longer killed in the streets while ignoring the fact that women are still not treated as equals and are even allowed to be beaten according to clerics who cite Islamic law.
It really is sad to see you get defeated so easily by basic information. Almost takes the fun out of it. Almost
No, you quote someone then somehow post your pathetic interpretation of it. It's almost like you have a warped sense of reality. There's only one other person I can think of that has this similar problem and that is Glenn Beck.
LOL a Beck reference? Now I know you are in trouble. There is no interpretation. There is what you present and what you ignore. You make your own grave.
Check above where it's obvious you didn't even click the book link I had posted to Google Books. Pathetic and weak is you not taking the time to even bother checking a source someone provides and then proceeding to accuse them of not being able to verify said source when you clearly can.
Not only have I demolished your generalization from one book I've cited exactly where the Muslim "golden age" came from and who gave them the knowledge. Something you could never do.
Then I destroyed your pathetic excuse for trying to blame Europe for the Middle East living in the Dark Ages some 420 years after this supposed "golden age" was to have happened.
The Middle East was colonized because it lacked the superior knowledge and technology. Your sad attempts to equate the 1920s as an excuse for this inability to modernize despite being next door to it is really amazing.
And then my personal favorite your inability to understand how the Polish and France were conquered or even what weaponry they had and didn't have. Hell, your understanding of how World War II was won is hysterical alone.
*hint* it had something to do with a big boom. Google that in google books