Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

[Reenk Roink]

Well that is infact what I was taught in school, so it seems you are calling the official version of history taught here one sided, not me.

No you were in fact, blatantly calling the Ottomans "aggressors" for their attack on Russia, and then to circumvent the fact that with that logic, Britain and France were "aggressors", you went ahead and said that the Ottomans fought on the sides of the "aggressors". We all know of the "War Guilt Clause" in the infamous Treaty of Versailles. Doesn't make it the case...

By the way, I learned that World War I was started amidst great tensions. Countries had formed many secret alliances with each other since the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Then a member of the Serbian group "The Black Hand" assassinated the Austrian archduke. Austria invaded Serbia (with a push from Germany), which had a treaty with Russia, etc...

Jerusalem, Tyre and Antioch all happen to be Christian Cities and you happen to have shown good reviews of Jerusalem and Tyre, and not only where those cities Christian but they where Crusader as well. There are also other Christian Cities he visited, I own a copy of his works I can get a list if you would like, but what made you think 12th century Tyre was a Muslim City?

I overlooked the dates of Benjamin's travels when I saw the statement "It is full of people whom the Mohammedans call" referring to Jerusalem. It was indeed a Crusader city at this time, as well as Tyre (Antioch was not mentioned in the excerpt).

There are still a couple of conclusions I drew from the excerpts.

Firstly, I don't think any of the reviews of cities excluding Baghdad were "positive" and any but Constantinople were "negative". Indeed, Baghdad and Constantinople were the only cities that Benjamin described in detail in this excerpt, including the treatment of the Jews. The other places he mentioned had only concise summaries, not much more than the number of Jews who lived there.

Secondly, the numbers of Jews living in the Muslim cities are much higher than in Christian cities. The contrast of Jewish population between Baghdad and Constantinople and Damascus and Tyre are quite noticable.

That is why I asked it as a question instead of accusing you of a double standard,

Prudent, as doing so otherwise would be slander...

so I ask you again would you give equal condemnation to people who call the actions of Crusaders atrocities as you do to Bat Yeor for using the same language on Jihads?

Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?

Or maybe some of those things where said in a fit of anger? Afterall they were human even in a fit of anger at Italy for joining Germany Churchhill said "It's only fair they sided with us last time", but the point is you only showed part of the picture of who those people were.

I don't know, there seems to have been a common thread between each Prime Minister.

Anyhoo, I advised you to look these quotes up in response to a statement about Arabs and Nazis or Arabs and genocide. You certainly went out of your way to show that some Arabs supported Germany because of their perceived Zionist threat, but you failed to mention that many Arabs fought with the British. You tried to bring up historical anecdotes of Muslim atrocity but then marginalized the Arab/Islamic achievement. There certainly is one-sided-ness in this discussion.

Considering how well this battle went? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

There is also the fact that it was on Byzantine Land, and Islamic Forces did regularly invade the Byzantine Empire in the centuries ahead untill Constantinople itself fell in 1453.

Mutah was a pre-Tabuk skirmish. Mutah saw a scouting party of 3,000 men on the Muslim side, Tabuk saw a 30,000 man army.

Yarmuk in 636 was the beginning of the Islamic conquests, into the Byzantine Empire. I think I have already mentioned this...