Poll: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 121 to 147 of 147

Thread: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

  1. #121
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Although I think that the implementation of Pape's ideas would be tough it seems a very fair handed way of approaching matters. Intolerance to those that are intolerant, fairness to the fair. It also stops terrorists and extremists using the laws of the very country they are trying to destroy to escape deportation or other sequalae of their actions.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  2. #122
    Member Member Horatius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Firstly, how on earth does any of this make it "incorrect" that the Ottomans were attacked by the Allies? It's a war, both sides attacked each other, Allied and Central.
    The Ottoman Empire did not join the war untill they thought Germany was about to win, and then bombarded the Crimea without any provocation from the Russians, and when Russia demanded that the crew that did it be punished the Ottomans formally declared war, they launched the first stone, hence they where agressors during World War One.

    The Arabs do have a pretty good reason to hate the redrawn borders. Ethnic and religious groups never meant to live with each other are suddenly put in the same nation (Iraq), while others are separated.

    Now, there is fault of Arab nations of not being able to unite, though western hands aren't totally blameless either.
    In other words you acknowledge the total failure of Baathism? Mesopatamia should not have been unified, however that is hardly the case of most Arab Countries. Baathism is not popular amongst most Arabs and so every Baathist ambition is doomed to failure.

    The fall of the Ottoman Empire was in retrospect, a pretty significant event.
    Certainly no more significant then the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    A humiliation of the Muslim world, a destruction of the remnants of unity (ever disintegrating since the 10th century), and the opening of the floodgates to many conflicts (both between Muslims and others). After all, the Ottoman Empire was much better in playing down differences between various groups. And perhaps most relevantly, it led to the downfall of traditional Sunni authority among Muslims (no more Caliph, scholars have their power destroyed). The subsequent failure of Pan-Arab nationalism led to the current ideology: a mix of the literalist brand Wahabi/Salafi Islam and 20th century revolutionary ideas, from Qutb to Azzam to bin Laden...
    I am going to concede that Ottoman Authority was best at playing down differences between the groups (Turk, Arab, Muslim, Armenian, Muslim, Kurd, Jew, Shia etc etc etc) however internal events before World War One especially concerning the House of Saud and the rise of the CUP had already made that start to disintegrate (ever heard of the Armenian Genocide, or the wars between the Sauds and the local Shias?), and the rise of Wahhabism was linked to the durability of the House of Saud and their exporting of their ideology with oil money.

    In response to: "failed to honor their promises for complete autonomy following WW1,"

    This is a very poor argument.
    No it isn't, do you even know what the treaties between the Hashashem's and Britain said? Perhaps you should read it yourself.

    I'm sorry, but how is this the other option to: "fought wars (WW2 & Colonial spats) in Muslim Africa wherein the natives were casual targets for stray rounds,"
    Yes it was such a crime of Britain to prevent Nazi Germany from conquering North Africa, that is such a legandery crime against humanity every Briton much apologize, note the extreme sarcasm. The fact that Nazi Germany wanted North Africa made fighting them there more then just, unless of course you wouldn't mind Germany winning the war since keeping the Suez Canal open was vital, I don't care what the collateral damage was Nazi Germany had to be stopped anywere and at any cost.

    Nice character assassination though, but you failed to mention Germans.
    ? Did you even read what I said? the Nazi Revoly in Iraq also showed that they did have plenty of support in the Arab World, unless of course you are claiming Winstin Churchill lied in his memoirs which were given a positive review by George Orwell.

    This is blatantly false.
    No it isn't, unless of course you believe that 538,000 Jews is less then 397,000, while I am no Einstien I am sure that 538,000>397,000.

    Now this is a loaded statement.
    As is saying the Battle of Manzikert triggered the Crusades, that the Prophet Mohhamad massacred Jews at Khaybar, that the Ottomans commited the first Holocaust of the 20th century, however unfortunatley all of those statements are historical facts as well as loaded statements.

    Well, I'd advise you to look up the scores of threads on the topic for more information.
    Other people agree with my view is not an argument, it isn't even relevant to whatever the topic is.

    While you're at it, look up the statements of some early Zionist leaders as well...
    The forged one that many on your side bring up or authentic ones? You will be unpleasantly surprised by the authentic quotes.

    See above...
    Your above argument was not a good one, there are many who agree with my views as well may I use that as my argument as well?

    Also, it is interesting, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world coincided with the rise of Zionism and peaked with the creation of Israel. It just wasn't there before that...
    To quote you a patently false statement, you should broaden your horizen and read some accounts of the Arab World written by Jews both Medieval (Benjamin of Tudela) and modern (Bat Yeor) you may find that your generalization is not sufficiently accurate or helpful.

  3. #123
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    The Ottoman Empire did not join the war untill they thought Germany was about to win, and then bombarded the Crimea without any provocation from the Russians, and when Russia demanded that the crew that did it be punished the Ottomans formally declared war, they launched the first stone, hence they where agressors during World War One.
    The Ottoman Empire joined the War in October 1914, because of the Ottoman-German Alliance signed shortly before the war. The deal was to enter the war on Germany's side.

    Russia was also a longtime enemy of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, some groups in the Empire wanted to side with the allied powers instead, but could not accept allies of Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    In other words you acknowledge the total failure of Baathism? Mesopatamia should not have been unified, however that is hardly the case of most Arab Countries. Baathism is not popular amongst most Arabs and so every Baathist ambition is doomed to failure.
    Pan-Arab nationalism is a failure. I have mentioned that before. I don't see where this is going.


    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Certainly no more significant then the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
    But of course. One only has to look at the current state of the Balkans. However, I don't see where you are going with this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    I am going to concede that Ottoman Authority was best at playing down differences between the groups (Turk, Arab, Muslim, Armenian, Muslim, Kurd, Jew, Shia etc etc etc) however internal events before World War One especially concerning the House of Saud and the rise of the CUP had already made that start to disintegrate (ever heard of the Armenian Genocide, or the wars between the Sauds and the local Shias?), and the rise of Wahhabism was linked to the durability of the House of Saud and their exporting of their ideology with oil money.
    Of course. There is a reason why by the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was known as the "sick, old man of Europe."

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    No it isn't, do you even know what the treaties between the Hashashem's and Britain said? Perhaps you should read it yourself.
    No, it is a poor argument because you do not take into account the magnitude and effect of the failure of respecting the treaties.

    The Ottoman Empire was dissolved after World War I.

    Not giving autonomy to the regions in the Middle East had dire consequences, and the effects can be felt today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Yes it was such a crime of Britain to prevent Nazi Germany from conquering North Africa, that is such a legandery crime against humanity every Briton much apologize, note the extreme sarcasm. The fact that Nazi Germany wanted North Africa made fighting them there more then just, unless of course you wouldn't mind Germany winning the war since keeping the Suez Canal open was vital, I don't care what the collateral damage was Nazi Germany had to be stopped anywere and at any cost.
    I see now that our paradigms are so irreconcilable...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    ? Did you even read what I said? the Nazi Revoly in Iraq also showed that they did have plenty of support in the Arab World, unless of course you are claiming Winstin Churchill lied in his memoirs which were given a positive review by George Orwell.
    The Arab world was divided during the War. Many Arabs fought with the British army, others supported Germany because they were already worrying about Zionist and British control.

    By the way, I'm no fan of Churchill...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    No it isn't, unless of course you believe that 538,000 Jews is less then 397,000, while I am no Einstien I am sure that 538,000>397,000.
    Lets have a look:

    1917: Population of Palestine alone (not including Transjordan)

    700,000: total

    574,000: Muslim

    74,000: Christian

    56,000: Jewish

    30 years later, 1947:

    1,845,000: total

    1,237,000: Arab

    608,000: Jewish

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    As is saying the Battle of Manzikert triggered the Crusades, that the Prophet Mohhamad massacred Jews at Khaybar, that the Ottomans commited the first Holocaust of the 20th century, however unfortunatley all of those statements are historical facts as well as loaded statements.
    Oh yes, we can go back far into history for reasons as to why this or that happened.

    As to your first point, we can go back on the reasons for Manzikert and all Muslim-Byzantine struggles, both Arab and later Turkish to 630 AD, when the Byzantines grew wary of Islam's rising power in Arabia and decided to conquer it. They took their Christian Arab allies to fight a proxy war. When the Arabs marched to Tabuk, the Byzantines had broken camp. Then on to Yarmuk and further...

    Your second point is quite incorrect. The incident where the Muslims executed about 600 fighting age men is the siege of the Bani Qurayza, not the Battle of Khaybar. You call it a massacre, Muslims call it a victory. After all, the primary source, Ibn Ishaq, claims that the Qurayza formed an alliance to attack the Muslims with the Meccans, even though they had previously signed treaties with Muhammad stating that they would fight alongside him. After a sandstorm forced the Meccans to break their siege of Medina, Muhammad had the camp of the Bani Qurayza besieged. The Bani Qurayza then asked for a man who they thought would rule favorable for them to judge their fate. Now the man, ibn Muadh, ruled that all adult males would be executed. Some say he chose this because this was in the Torah, others because he was wounded by an arrow.

    But we can go on and on about atrocity commited by Muslims. The historical record has many anecdotes. It will not change two things:

    The fact that all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have commited what we would deem atrocity in our age. You seem to have been concentrating only on Muslim ones.

    The fact that Muslims, and all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have good records. Need I remind you of the relative tolerance, advancement of civilization, philosophy, science, technology, architecture, etc that the Islamic and Arab world can boast of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Other people agree with my view is not an argument, it isn't even relevant to whatever the topic is.
    Your inference of my statement is incorrect. This was your statement: "Israel won all of it's wars on it's own, and it has not stolen any land, land captured in defensive wars that the enemy wants to commit genocide is not theft."

    Much has been written about it, many facts given, that would argue against your points. I have not the time nor will to rehash them for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    The forged one that many on your side bring up or authentic ones? You will be unpleasantly surprised by the authentic quotes.
    You will find that these are quite authentic:

    Prime Ministers of Israel

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Your above argument was not a good one, there are many who agree with my views as well may I use that as my argument as well?
    See two points above...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    To quote you a patently false statement, you should broaden your horizen and read some accounts of the Arab World written by Jews both Medieval (Benjamin of Tudela) and modern (Bat Yeor) you may find that your generalization is not sufficiently accurate or helpful.
    I have never heard of the medieval author, but have skimmed through Bat Yeor and her selective polemic. But it is the hysterical cries of a mythical "Eurabia" that really damage her credibility. As I've said before, there are anecdotes of persecution, but there are also many anecdotes of tolerance, and even benevolent treatment. This is maybe why most historians consider the early, and medieval Islamic world to be at least a place of relative tolerance.

    But besides historical attitudes, attitudes in the past 100 years have changed in the Arab world. Israel is the reason. Arabs are to blame as they simply have not learned to accept it (it was they who were defeated, and lost their land by right of conquest), and Israel is also to blame for its actions.

  4. #124
    Member Member Horatius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    The Ottoman Empire joined the War in October 1914, because of the Ottoman-German Alliance signed shortly before the war. The deal was to enter the war on Germany's side.
    In other words they had agreed to attack Russia when Germany needed the help, and then waited for when the time seemed right and launched an unprovoked attack on the Crimea on behalf of Germany. Sorry but that counts as agression.

    Russia was also a longtime enemy of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, some groups in the Empire wanted to side with the allied powers instead, but could not accept allies of Russia.
    So what?

    Lets have a look:

    1917: Population of Palestine alone (not including Transjordan)

    700,000: total

    574,000: Muslim

    74,000: Christian

    56,000: Jewish

    30 years later, 1947:

    1,845,000: total

    1,237,000: Arab

    608,000: Jewish
    Those figures are simply not accurate, and even if they where you should factor in that 30,000 Jews got killed by orders of Jemal Pasha who put many on death marches similar to the ones he put Armenians on.

    As to your first point, we can go back on the reasons for Manzikert and all Muslim-Byzantine struggles, both Arab and later Turkish to 630 AD, when the Byzantines grew wary of Islam's rising power in Arabia and decided to conquer it. They took their Christian Arab allies to fight a proxy war. When the Arabs marched to Tabuk, the Byzantines had broken camp. Then on to Yarmuk and further...
    Funny that the Arab and Turkish sources of the time disagree with you and tend to blame the servant of Heraclius for the invasion of the Byzantine Empire by saying it was his rudeness combined with the refusal of Heraclius to convert to Islam that provoked the invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Historians all agree on the fact that Arabs and later Turks were the agressors against the Byzantines not the other way around, the fact is all of the battles were fought on Byzantine owned land. It was not just Byzantines who got targetted for Medieval Jihad though, India was also a rich and frequently attacked target.

    But we can go on and on about atrocity commited by Muslims. The historical record has many anecdotes. It will not change two things:

    The fact that all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have commited what we would deem atrocity in our age. You seem to have been concentrating only on Muslim ones.

    The fact that Muslims, and all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have good records. Need I remind you of the relative tolerance, advancement of civilization, philosophy, science, technology, architecture, etc that the Islamic and Arab world can boast of?
    In terms of architecture there is not especially much that can be directly attributed to Islamic Civilizations since it was mostly taken from the already advanced Byzrianantine and Persian Zorastrian Civilizations, in terms of science and mathematics the only thing attributable to them is algebra which I grant them credit for, however they took a lot of credit for oriental accomplishments because they introduced them to Europe. Besides in my opinion Algebra is no more Islamic then the Theory of Relativity is Jewish, or the way gravity works and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is Christian.

    Your inference of my statement is incorrect. This was your statement: "Israel won all of it's wars on it's own, and it has not stolen any land, land captured in defensive wars that the enemy wants to commit genocide is not theft."

    Much has been written about it, many facts given, that would argue against your points. I have not the time nor will to rehash them for you.
    That response once again confirms my original response to your original statement that you say other people support your view therefore I am correct, unfortunately for you that is not an argument.

    You will find that these are quite authentic:

    Prime Ministers of Israel
    A website that advocates boycott of Israel is not a reliable source of information, sorry but your source is no more credible that the BNP website on the topic of should we allow immigration?

    See two points above...
    See my rebuttel

    I have never heard of the medieval author,
    That means you are very uninformed about Medieval Jewry since he is a primary source used today in studying their status, he went from place to place with Jews (Apart from Western and Northern France and Germany the few places he didn't spend parts of his life in) and recorded the status of the Jewish Communities and some other things on politics, and you would be shocked if you bothered to read it.

    but have skimmed through Bat Yeor and her selective polemic.
    Which one the one about her life as a Dhimmi and later as a refugee? If you mean that one then you have shownplenty of bias in dismissing it simply because it doesn't confirm your beliefs, if you mean The Decline of Eastern Christendom under Islam perhaps you can debate with her sources which are reliable and well sourced.

    But it is the hysterical cries of a mythical "Eurabia" that really damage her credibility. As I've said before, there are anecdotes of persecution, but there are also many anecdotes of tolerance, and even benevolent treatment. This is maybe why most historians consider the early, and medieval Islamic world to be at least a place of relative tolerance.
    That can be said about Catholic Europe as well.

    But besides historical attitudes, attitudes in the past 100 years have changed in the Arab world. Israel is the reason. Arabs are to blame as they simply have not learned to accept it (it was they who were defeated, and lost their land by right of conquest), and Israel is also to blame for its actions.
    So why is it that so many Turks, Malaysians, and Indonesians, Persians, Afghans, Albanians, Bosnians, and Muslim converts see the reason to share Arab Tribal sentiments? That is not consistent with your explanation is it since those groups have no part in the regional conflict.

  5. #125

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Those figures are simply not accurate,
    Come on Horace publish some census figures that will back up your claim , there are none not even from the Zionist federation or Aliyot studies groups that will back up your claim .
    You are correct that Reenks are not accurate , that is simply because census figures always have a degree of innacuracy involved .
    But there are none from anything that could be described as an even remotely reliable source that will back up your claim ....unless of course they count differently on your planet .
    Blimey even an old die-hard like Gawain eventually came round to the fact that the claims of a Jewish majority were false .

  6. #126
    Member Member Horatius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Lets just for a moment concede that those are the figures for 1917.

    1. How is it relevant when the ones that count are the 1948 figures?

    2. By 1948 the state of affairs in Mandate Palestine was similar to that in todays Iraq, 1/3 of the Population was Jewish and they wanted independence, the way the Kurds today are seeking statehood in Iraq.

    The Druze and Circassions fought on Israel's side, and there was an Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem so perhaps counting it as just Jews and Arabs is misleading?

  7. #127
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    In other words they had agreed to attack Russia when Germany needed the help, and then waited for when the time seemed right and launched an unprovoked attack on the Crimea on behalf of Germany. Sorry but that counts as agression.
    And so the fact that France and Britain attacked the Ottomans in the Middle East is also "aggression". No, no. In World War I, I'm afraid I can't sympathize with any side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    So what?
    You were unable to grasp the implicit conclusion from that statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Those figures are simply not accurate, and even if they where you should factor in that 30,000 Jews got killed by orders of Jemal Pasha who put many on death marches similar to the ones he put Armenians on.
    They come from the UN website. Please give your figures. Also, there was atrocity on both sides in the years leading to Israel's independence, but we can safely say that the number of Arabs killed, displaced, and villages depopulated were more than the other side.

    Of course you simply choose to be one-sided and selective in your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Funny that the Arab and Turkish sources of the time disagree with you and tend to blame the servant of Heraclius for the invasion of the Byzantine Empire by saying it was his rudeness combined with the refusal of Heraclius to convert to Islam that provoked the invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Historians all agree on the fact that Arabs and later Turks were the agressors against the Byzantines not the other way around, the fact is all of the battles were fought on Byzantine owned land. It was not just Byzantines who got targetted for Medieval Jihad though, India was also a rich and frequently attacked target.
    Oh really? http://ccminc.faithweb.com/iqra/articles/9704tabuk.html

    The Muslim army's march to Tabuk was in response to reports of a Byzantine mobilization with Ghassanid allies. The Byzantine army was nowhere to be found when the Muslims reached Tabuk.

    Yarmuk is the battle that led to the invasion of Asia Minor and Egypt by the Muslims. Yarmuk is the stage for the Islamic military expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    In terms of architecture there is not especially much that can be directly attributed to Islamic Civilizations since it was mostly taken from the already advanced Byzrianantine and Persian Zorastrian Civilizations, in terms of science and mathematics the only thing attributable to them is algebra which I grant them credit for, however they took a lot of credit for oriental accomplishments because they introduced them to Europe. Besides in my opinion Algebra is no more Islamic then the Theory of Relativity is Jewish, or the way gravity works and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is Christian.
    Wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    That response once again confirms my original response to your original statement that you say other people support your view therefore I am correct, unfortunately for you that is not an argument.
    No, it has nothing to do with the fact that other people agree with me. It is their arguments. Continuing to dismiss my statement as an example of argumentum ad populum is just wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    A website that advocates boycott of Israel is not a reliable source of information, sorry but your source is no more credible that the BNP website on the topic of should we allow immigration?
    They have cited the places the quotes are taken from. Do you actually want to dispute them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    See my rebuttel
    See two posts above...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    That means you are very uninformed about Medieval Jewry since he is a primary source used today in studying their status, he went from place to place with Jews (Apart from Western and Northern France and Germany the few places he didn't spend parts of his life in) and recorded the status of the Jewish Communities and some other things on politics, and you would be shocked if you bothered to read it.
    Firstly, your tone is rude, and unnecessary.

    By the way, I did search a bit on Benjamin of Tudela, and on my own University webpage, this is what I found:

    http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldrea...nofTudela.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Spain
    I journeyed first from my native town to the city of Saragossa, and thence by way of the River Ebro to Tortosa. From there I went a journey of two days to the ancient city of Taragona with its Cyclopean and Greek buildings. The like thereof is not found among any of the buildings in the country of Sepharad. It is situated by the sea, and two days’ journey from the city of Barcelona, where there is a holy congregation, including sages, wise and illustrious men, such as R. Shessheth, R. Shealtiel, R. Solomon, and R. Abraham, son of Chiasda.

    This is a small and beautiful city, lying upon the seacost. Merchants come thither from all quarters with their wares: from Greece, from Pisa, Genoa, Sicily, Alexandria in Egypt, Palestine, Africa and all its coasts. Thence it is a day and a half to Gerona, in which there is a small congregation of Jews. (59)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyre
    There is no harbor like [Tyre] in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city. It contains about 500 Jews, some of the scholars of the Talmud... The Jews own sea-going vessels, and there are glass-makers amongst them who make that fine Tyranian glassware which is prized in all countries. In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all over to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and sea ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market places, streets, and palaces, in the bed of the sea. New Tyre is a busy place of commerce, to which merchants flock from all quarters. (79)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerusalem
    Jerusalem is a small city fortified by three walls. It is full of people whom the Mohammedans call Jacobites, Syrians, Greeks, Georgians, and Franks, and of people of all tongues. It contains a dying-house, for which the Jews pay a small rent annually to the king,on condition that besides the Jews no other dyers be allowed in Jerusalem. There are about 200 Jews who dwell under the tower of David in one corner of the city. [He goes on the describe some landmarks and gates of the city.] (82)
    Quote Originally Posted by Damascus
    Damascus, the great city, which is the commencement of the empire of Nur-al-din, the king of the Togarmin, called Turks. It is a fair city of large extent, surrounded by walls, with many gardens and plantations, extending over fifteen miles on each side, and no district richer in fruit can be seen in all the world. From Mount Hermon descend the rivers Amana and Pharpar; for the city is situated at the foot of Mount Hermon. The Amana flows through the city, and by means of aqueducts the water is conveyed to the houses of great people, and into the streets and market places. The Pharpar flows through their gardens and plantations. It is a place carrying on trade with all countries. Here is a mosque of the Arabs called the Gami of Damascus; there is no building like it in the whole world, and they say that is was a palace of Ben Hadad. Here is a wall of crystal glass of magic workmanship, with apertures according to the days of the year, and as the sun’s rays enter each of them in daily succession the hours of the day can be told by a graduated dial. In the palace are chambers built of gold and glass, and if the people walk around the wall is between them. And there are columns overlaid with gold and silver, and columns of marble of all colours... Three thousand Jews abide in this city, and amongst them are learned and rich men. (90-91)
    Quote Originally Posted by Baghdad
    Baghdad, the great city and royal residence of the Caliph Emir al Muminin al Abbassi of the family of Mohammed. He is at the head of the Mohammedan religion, and all the kings of Islam obey him; he occupies a similar position to that held by the Pope over Christians...

    There the great king, Al Abbassi the Caliph (Hafiz) holds his court, and he is kind unto Israel, and many belonging to the people of Israel are his attendants; he knows all languages, and is well versed in the law of Israel. He reads and writes the holy language (Hebrew). He will not partake of anything unless he has earned it by the work of his own hands... He is truthful and trusty, speaking peace to all men.

    Within the domains of the palace of the Caliph there are great buildings of marble and columns of silver and gold, and carvings upon rare stones are fixed in the walls. In the Caliph’s palace are great riches, and towers filled with gold, silken garments, and all precious stones... [During the parade of Ramadan] He is accompanied by all the nobles of Islam dressed in fine garments and riding horses, the princes of Arabia, the princes of Togarma and Daylam (Gilan), and the princes of Persia, Media and Ghuzz, and the princes of the land of Tibet, which is three months’ journey distant, and westward of which lies the land of Samarkand... Along the road the walls are adorned with silk and purple, and the inhabitants receive him with all kinds of song and exultation, and they dance before the great king who is styled Caliph...

    He built, on the other side of the river, on the banks of an arm of the Euphrates which borders the city, a hospital consisting of blocks of houses and hospices for the sick poor who come to be healed. Here there are about sixty physicians’ stores which provided from the Caliph’s house with drugs and whatever else may be required. Every sick man who comes is maintained at the Caliph’s expense and is medically treated. Here is a building called Dar-al-Maristan, where they keep charge of the demented people who have become insane in the towns through the great heat in the summer, nad they chain each of them in iron chains until their reason becomes restored to them in the winter-time. Whilst they abide there, they are provided wth food from the house of the Caliph, and when their reason is restored they are dismissed and each one them goes to his house and his home. Money is given to those that have stayed in the hospices on their return to their homes. Every month the officers of the Caliph inquire and investigate whether they have regained their reason, in which case they are discharged. All this the Caliph does out of charity to those that come to the city of Baghdad, whether they be sick of insane. The Caliph is a righteous man, and all his actions are good.

    In Baghdad there are about 40,000 Jews, and they dwell in security, prosperity and honour under the great Caliph; and amongst them are the great sages, the heads of Academies engaged in the study of the law. In this city there are ten Academies... In Baghdad there are 28 synagogues, situated either in the city itself of in Al-Karish on the other side of the Tigris; for the river divides the metropolis in two parts.

    The city of Baghdad is twenty miles in circumference, situated in a land of palms, gardens, and plantations, the like of which is not to be found in the whole land of Shinar. People come thither with merchandise from all lands. Wise men live there, philosophers who know all manner of wisdom, and magicians expert in all manner except witchcraft. (95-102)
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Which one the one about her life as a Dhimmi and later as a refugee? If you mean that one then you have shownplenty of bias in dismissing it simply because it doesn't confirm your beliefs, if you mean The Decline of Eastern Christendom under Islam perhaps you can debate with her sources which are reliable and well sourced.
    I read Eurabia. I don't doubt the fact that she has her sources. Her methodology is what is criticized. Taking a string of anecdotes (atrocity by Muslims), and then using them to interpret Jihad and "Dhimmitude" (not even a word...) is just dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    That can be said about Catholic Europe as well.
    Certainly. It is fallacious to say that Europe was only about inquisition, etc...

    However, I think most historians agree that medieval Islamic tolerance was much, much better than medieval Christian tolerance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    So why is it that so many Turks, Malaysians, and Indonesians, Persians, Afghans, Albanians, Bosnians, and Muslim converts see the reason to share Arab Tribal sentiments? That is not consistent with your explanation is it since those groups have no part in the regional conflict.
    Look up some polls from Pew Global attitudes. You will see that anti-Israeli, and anti-Jewish sentiments wane the farther away from Israel.

    Still, Muslim countries are no fans of Israel, probably because they sympathize with their Muslim brethren. It’s quite an easy explanation.

    In Lebanon for example, Muslims have favorable views of Christians, and Christians have favorable views of Muslims. But neither Muslim nor Christian has favorable views of Jews. It is 0%.

    Also, non Israeli Jews or evangelical Christians have no part in the regional conflict either, why do they then support Israel? The answer is obvious.
    Last edited by Reenk Roink; 08-23-2006 at 22:44.

  8. #128
    Member Member Horatius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    And so the fact that France and Britain attacked the Ottomans in the Middle East is also "aggression". No, no. In World War I, I'm afraid I can't sympathize with any side.
    It would have been had the war not been started by Germany in the first place, so Ottomans attacking Russia for Germany was joining the agressors.

    No, it has nothing to do with the fact that other people agree with me. It is their arguments. Continuing to dismiss my statement as an example of argumentum ad populum is just wrong.
    Do you even know about their arguments or just that they are there?

    I read Eurabia. I don't doubt the fact that she has her sources. Her methodology is what is criticized. Taking a string of anecdotes (atrocity by Muslims), and then using them to interpret Jihad and "Dhimmitude" (not even a word...) is just dishonest.
    So do you equally condemn speaking with anecdotes like atrocity about the Crusades or is it only Jihads that it is dishonest to describe as an atrocity? Dhimmitude is a word, and read her other books before just dismissing her.

    Certainly. It is fallacious to say that Europe was only about inquisition, etc...

    However, I think most historians agree that medieval Islamic tolerance was much, much better than medieval Christian tolerance.
    So does that mean you are conceding the point that there always was anti-semitism in the Islamic World? Also note that the status of Jews between Christendom and Islam does not appear to have a wide gap in his works, and I did not call you ignorant to offend, so I am sorry for doing that.

    Look up some polls from Pew Global attitudes. You will see that anti-Israeli, and anti-Jewish sentiments wane the farther away from Israel.
    Which polls lots of them have been done, and are you saying that things are better between Iran and Israel then lets say Egypt and Israel (Let us also remember that people who aren't Arab or Muslim don't seem to have a problem, Greek Cyprus has pretty good relations both between the populations and government with Israel)?

    Still, Muslim countries are no fans of Israel, probably because they sympathize with their Muslim brethren. It’s quite an easy explanation.
    Unless they have no problem with Muslim's in other places, does Malaysia and Iran even care about Russian overkill in Chechneya? Even bigger have they heard of Chechneya?

    Also, non Israeli Jews or evangelical Christians have no part in the regional conflict either, why do they then support Israel? The answer is obvious.
    Family in Israel, investments, religion together.

    They have cited the places the quotes are taken from. Do you actually want to dispute them?
    So does this one, I guess each of the zionists had multiple personality disorder, and this one does not advocate boycotting Arabs and Muslims.

    http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionist_quotes.htm

    The Muslim army's march to Tabuk was in response to reports of a Byzantine mobilization with Ghassanid allies. The Byzantine army was nowhere to be found when the Muslims reached Tabuk.
    Medieval Armies were impossible to miss, so either the Muslims were too stupid to investigate first (Unlikely since they had very capable commanders), or it was agression and the claim of a Byzantine Army preparing to attack was propaganda.

    Yarmuk is the battle that led to the invasion of Asia Minor and Egypt by the Muslims. Yarmuk is the stage for the Islamic military expansion.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmuk

    And it was an invasion of Islamic Forces into the Byzantine Empire, and Asia Minor was not to be conquered for centuries to come.
    Last edited by Horatius; 08-23-2006 at 23:17.

  9. #129
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    It would have been had the war not been started by Germany in the first place, so Ottomans attacking Russia for Germany was joining the agressors.
    I'm sorry but I cannot grasp how one sided this is...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Do you even know about their arguments or just that they are there?
    I know of their arguments and they are there...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    So do you equally condemn speaking with anecdotes like atrocity about the Crusades or is it only Jihads that it is dishonest to describe as an atrocity? Dhimmitude is a word, and read her other books before just dismissing her.
    This is a twist on the argument I'm afraid. Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    So does that mean you are conceding the point that there always was anti-semitism in the Islamic World? Also note that the status of Jews between Christendom and Islam does not appear to have a wide gap in his works, and I did not call you ignorant to offend, so I am sorry for doing that.
    First:

    From what I have gathered in the reading excerpts of Benjamin of Tudela, most of the areas he visited were Muslim. The only Christian area on that link I provided is Constantinople and here is what he has to say of it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Constantinople
    Constantinople is a busy city, and merchants come to it from every country by sea or land, and there is none like it in the world except Baghdad, the great city of Islam. In Constantinople is the church of Santa Sophia, and the seat of the Pope of the Greeks, since the Greeks do not obey the pope of Rome. There are also churches according to the number of days of the year. A quantity of wealth beyond all telling is brought hither year by year as tribute from the two islands, and the castles and villages which are there. And the like of this wealth is not to be found in any other church in the world. And in this church there are pillars of gold and silver, and lamps of silver and gold more than a man can count. Close to the walls of the palace is also a place of amusement belonging to the king, which is called the Hippodrome, and every year on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus the king gives a great entertainment there. And in that place men from all the races of the world come before the king and queen with jugglery and without jugglery, and they introduce lions, leopards, bears, and wild asses, and they engage them in combat with one another; and the same thing is done with birds. No entertainment like this can be found in any other land.

    This King Emanuel built a great palace for the seat of his government upon the seacoast, in addition to the palaces which his fathers built, and he called its name Blachernae. He overlaid its columns with gold and silver, and engraved thereon representations of the battles before his day and of his own combats. He also set up a throne of gold and of precious stones, and a golden crown was suspended by a gold chain over the throne, so arranged that he might sit thereunder. It was inlaid with jewels of priceless value, and at night time no lights were required, for every one could see by the light which the stones gave forth. Countless other buildings are to be met with in the city. From every part of the empire of Greece tribute is brought here every year, and they fill strongholds with garments of silk, purple, and gold. Like unto these storehouses and this wealth there is nothing in the whole world to be found. It is said that the tribute of the city amounts every year to 20,000 gold pieces, derived both from the rents of shops and markets, nad from the tribute of merchants who enter by sea or land.

    The Greek inhabitants are very rich in gold and precious stones, and they go clothed in garments of silk with gold embroidery, and they ride horses, and look like princes. Indeed, the land is very rich in all cloth stuffs, and in bread, meat, and wine.

    Wealth like that of Constantinople is not to found in the whole world. Here are also men learned in all the books of the Greeks, and they eat and drink, every man under his vine and his fig-tree. (71)

    They hire from amongst all nations called Loazim (Barbarians) to fight with the sultan Masud, King of the Togarmim (Seljuks), who are called Turks; for the natives are not warlike, but are as women who have no strength to fight. (71)

    No Jews live in the city, for they have been placed behind an inlet of the sea. An arm of the sea of Marmora shuts them in on the one side, and they are unable to go out except by way of the sea, when they want to do business with the inhabitants. In the Jewish quarter are about 2,000 Rabbinite Jews and about 500 Karaïtes, and a fence divides them... And amongst them are artificers in silk and many rich merchants. No Jew there is allowed to ride on horseback. The one exception is the king’s physician, and through whom the Jews enjoy considerable alleviation of their oppression. For their condition is very low, and there is much hatred against them, which is fostered by the tanners, who throw out their dirty water in the streets before the doors of the Jewish houses and defile the Jews’ quarter. So the Greeks hate the Jews, good and bad alike, and subject them to great oppression, and beat them in the streets, and in every way treat them with rigour. Yet the Jews are rich and good, kindly and charitable, and bear their lot with cheerfulness. The district inhabited by the Jews is called Pera.(72)
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Which polls lots of them have been done, and are you saying that things are better between Iran and Israel then lets say Egypt and Israel (Let us also remember that people who aren't Arab or Muslim don't seem to have a problem, Greek Cyprus has pretty good relations both between the populations and government with Israel)?
    It is only a basic relationship, and certainly not by any means rigid. Also, though the Arab governments of Egypt and Jordan may have better relations than Israel than Indonesia, the populace of Indonesia has more favorable views of Jews than the populace of either of the Arab states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Unless they have no problem with Muslim's in other places, does Malaysia and Iran even care about Russian overkill in Chechneya? Even bigger have they heard of Chechneya?
    Well, the government of Iran is very friendly with Russia, but I'm sure the people must feel some solidarity. Israel is always going to take the headlines, because it is the holy land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Family in Israel, investments, religion together.
    Religion it seems would be the strongest bind. After all, Evangelical Christians in America are extremely strong supporters of Israel, because of the Biblical prophecy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    So does this one, I guess each of the zionists had multiple personality disorder, and this one does not advocate boycotting Arabs and Muslims.

    http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionist_quotes.htm
    I really don't know. Maybe they said different things to different audiences. Maybe they changed their minds. All I know is that those quotes are authentic; they are well cited from reputable sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Medieval Armies were impossible to miss, so either the Muslims were too stupid to investigate first (Unlikely since they had very capable commanders), or it was agression and the claim of a Byzantine Army preparing to attack was propaganda.
    The synopsis of the battle was that the Muslims arrived to an abandoned camp. The Byzantines and their Ghassanid allies were there, but they withdrew.

  10. #130

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    It would have been had the war not been started by Germany in the first place, so Ottomans attacking Russia for Germany was joining the agressors.
    Damn I thought it was Austria that started the war over a Russian backed Serbian terrorist action .
    Just goes to show you can learn something new every day , thanks Horace, keep 'em coming .

  11. #131
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    When was the timeline of Gallopolli in all this?
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  12. #132
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    When was the timeline of Gallopolli in all this?
    The battle of Gallipoli occurred when the Turks made an unprovoked attack on Australia. I think. Must stop reading these threads.

  13. #133
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    ROFL

    There is a Gallopolli Mosque in Sydney...
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  14. #134
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re : Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    A Gallipoli mosque?

    Well have I ever...
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    The name of the mosque - Auburn Gallipoli Mosque - reflects the shared legacy of the Australian society and the main community behind the construction of the mosque, Australian Turkish Muslim Community.
    mosque

    I'm sorry, but I find that a most peculiar name. 'Gallipoli' would be the last name I'd give a mosque in Sydney.
    I know I'm missing something here, but I don't know what...
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  15. #135
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Re : Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    A Gallipoli mosque?

    Well have I ever...mosque

    I'm sorry, but I find that a most peculiar name. 'Gallipoli' would be the last name I'd give a mosque in Sydney.
    I know I'm missing something here, but I don't know what...
    The Turks and Australians won respect for each other over the their gallantry at Gallipoli. The Turkish general who saved the position at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal, later founded the modern Turkish nation. Kemal (later Ataturk) saw westernisation as the aim of the new Turkey, and made Gallipoli and the Australian link an important symbol of this. If you visit Gallipoli around the time of Gallipoli day, you'll see the reverence the Turks have for Australia and the Australians, as decreed by Ataturk.

    Presumably the Australian Muslim population sees this relationship with the last Caliphate as something to celebrate, as the native Turks and many Australians do.

  16. #136
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Gallipoli (thanks for the spell check)

    As much as Europeans have a greater grasp of irony then Americans.

    Australians have a greater grasp then most Europeans (with the exception of Brits... this too is an ironic statement as we all know they ain't Euros).

    Anyhow...

    The main national day of Australia and New Zealand is ANZAC day, 25th of April, which celebrates that defeat (yes we celebrate our defeats more then our victories).

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    On the Turkish side, the meteoric rise of Mustafa Kemal began at Gallipoli. In 1934, Kemal, now Kemal Atatürk, president of the new Turkish Republic, wrote this tribute in remembrance of the Anzac soldiers:

    "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

    It has actually resulted in forging a bond between Turkey and Australia. The Gallipolli mosque is a nod to this shared bonding.

    Now down the road from this mosque is a confectionary shop (named aptly the Turkish Delight) which is rather nice to visit.
    Last edited by Papewaio; 08-24-2006 at 03:38.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  17. #137
    Member Member Horatius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Re : Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    I'm sorry but I cannot grasp how one sided this is...
    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.

    First:

    From what I have gathered in the reading excerpts of Benjamin of Tudela, most of the areas he visited were Muslim. The only Christian area on that link I provided is Constantinople and here is what he has to say of it:
    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?

    This is a twist on the argument I'm afraid. Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?
    That is why I asked it as a question instead of accusing you of a double standard, 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?

    It is only a basic relationship, and certainly not by any means rigid. Also, though the Arab governments of Egypt and Jordan may have better relations than Israel than Indonesia, the populace of Indonesia has more favorable views of Jews than the populace of either of the Arab states.
    There is also the issue of where the emphasis is during education, might the fact that evil Jooos are emphasized during every subject in Egyptian Public schools in ways that would get a teacher arrested under EU anti-rascist legislation have something to do with it? Nobody is born rascist it is imbued by family, friends, and education, although Indonesian Schools are not much better in what they teach about Jews they are significantly better.

    Well, the government of Iran is very friendly with Russia, but I'm sure the people must feel some solidarity. Israel is always going to take the headlines, because it is the holy land.
    Are you sure about that? I have spoken to plenty of Iranians here in Britain who care deeply about Israel and want it destroyed and the Jews exiled or killed who don't care at all about Chechneya. Of course I am not trying to generalize and am sure there are plenty of Iranians who find those views repulsive but I am telling you what I have seen with my own two eyes.

    Religion it seems would be the strongest bind. After all, Evangelical Christians in America are extremely strong supporters of Israel, because of the Biblical prophecy.
    The strongest bind for the Evangelicals but you also asked about the Jews and I do think that to many people not just Jews Family comes first.

    I really don't know. Maybe they said different things to different audiences. Maybe they changed their minds. All I know is that those quotes are authentic; they are well cited from reputable sources.
    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.

    The synopsis of the battle was that the Muslims arrived to an abandoned camp. The Byzantines and their Ghassanid allies were there, but they withdrew.
    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.

  18. #138
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink earlier
    Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    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...

  19. #139
    Member Member Horatius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    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...
    Well if France sent a frigate to bombard Irish Cities when Ireland did nothing to France would that qualify as unprovoked agression? Would you at least concede that Germany's plan to invade Belgium was unprovoked agression?

    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...
    France was not yet involved untill the Kaiser formally declared war on France, and sent the bulk of his forces to invade Belgium and France, which is how Britain got involved, You also never answered why the extreme lateness of an Ottoman Declaration of War if it was just the Alliance working? The Ottomans just waited untill they thought it was clear Germany would win.

    Prudent, as doing so otherwise would be slander...
    So the answer would be yes?

    I don't know, there seems to have been a common thread between each Prime Minister.
    Would you mind reading the fake quotes part of my link then? The Majority of your quotes are not only FAKES but they come from Israel hating sources. Let us inspect some of your experts who provide the sources of your website for the quotes.

    1. Noam Chomsky-You are bloody ignorant of what that man stands for and his politics if you for a second think he is a reliable source on anything Israel.

    2. All of the Golda Mier Quotes are infact true, there was no Arab Peace Partner in 1969, the idea of a Palestinian People was extremely new Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordon prior to 1967.

    3. Some are simply only part of the conversation to spin what was being talked about for example We walked outside,
    Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
    -- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
    I read that part the first time I saw it he was discussing a conversation he had during the 1948 Arab Israeli War, where the Arabs were trying to "Drive all the Jews into the sea".

    Anyhoo, I advised you to look these quotes up in response to a statement about Arabs and Nazis or Arabs and genocide.
    Yes statements I made and stand by in response to Tribesmen accusing Britain of commiting atrocities by fighting World War Two in North Africa, so are you standing by Tribesmen attacking us for refusing to allow the Nazis to march to the Suez Canal?

    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.
    Yes it is going out of your way to say who's side people were on in World War Two when that is the subject, note the sarcasm. Many Arabs fought against the British, it was not just in Iraq, but Haj Amin Al Hussienei ever heard of him? Most Muslims who fought fought on the Soviet Side so were anti-Nazi, however you are acting like expressing clear historical fact if a one sided propagandaising. You also purposely distorted what I first wrote. I first wrote many, however since you and a few others insist on debating that I have responded with historical facts, the leaders of Arab Nations and most Arab Public Opinion was with Germany. I would probably also get attacked for pointing out that untill the mid 1930s Iran's name was still Persia but the name was changed to the Persian word for Aryan. You also are way exxagerating accomplishments in Islam. What architectural innovations do we owe to the Arabs since you wanted to bring that up?

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=775

    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.
    Both happen to have been sheer agression motivated by Greed like Manzikert was, and the men Mohhamad sent on the Mutah expedition where not men that would be sent on a minor skirmish.

    Yarmuk in 636 was the beginning of the Islamic conquests, into the Byzantine Empire. I think I have already mentioned this...
    Yes so you now acknowledge who was attacking who right?

    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.
    There is more to his reviews, you only read a small excerp from each city. Antioch he reviewed in great detail since he was very surprised to see the Jews owning many of the ships and prospering through overseas trade.

    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.
    He gave negative reviews to Persian Cities as well as to Constantinople, and you are right there where more Jews living amongst the Muslims. HOwever he does record mistreatment of Jews by Muslim and Christian and there is almost no gap between the Persians and Byzantines, and the gap between Arabs and the Crusaders are larger but still not the vast difference that people like to think existed.
    Last edited by Horatius; 08-24-2006 at 17:22.

  20. #140

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Yes statements I made and stand by in response to Tribesmen accusing Britain of commiting atrocities by fighting World War Two in North Africa, so are you standing by Tribesmen attacking us for refusing to allow the Nazis to march to the Suez Canal?

    Wow not only from a different planet it appears Horace is from a different forum entirely
    Keep 'em coming Horace , you are priceless

  21. #141
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatius
    Yes it is going out of your way to say who's side people were on in World War Two when that is the subject, note the sarcasm. Many Arabs fought against the British, it was not just in Iraq, but Haj Amin Al Hussienei ever heard of him? Most Muslims who fought fought on the Soviet Side so were anti-Nazi, however you are acting like expressing clear historical fact if a one sided propagandaising. You also purposely distorted what I first wrote. I first wrote many, however since you and a few others insist on debating that I have responded with historical facts, the leaders of Arab Nations and most Arab Public Opinion was with Germany. I would probably also get attacked for pointing out that untill the mid 1930s Iran's name was still Persia but the name was changed to the Persian word for Aryan. You also are way exxagerating accomplishments in Islam.
    Man this is funny.

    Hajj Amin al Husseini was just a minority amongst the palestinians in aiding the nazis, the palestinians never openely aided the nazis, while some jewish gangs in palestine did. (i.e Stern Gang)

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/A.../Story420.html

    Mind you, it might sound like propaganda, but the sources used are almost all isreali. Check the section "Related Links" about Benny Morris:

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/A.../Story596.html

    Also geewiz, can you provide proof that most arab public opinion was with germany? I recall most arab states were allied with the west and are still till today allied to the west. Infact the only 3 independent Arab states in the arab world Saudia, Yemen and Oman were and are still allied to Britain and the US.
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  22. #142
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Double Post
    Last edited by Reenk Roink; 08-24-2006 at 20:19.

  23. #143
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Arguing about this with you is just absurd now...

    You are incorrect when it comes to Mutah and Tabuk, you continue to deny the fact that the quotes of Israeli Prime Ministers are authentic, you continue your character assassination of the Arabs and Muslims while trying your best to gloss over any Western atrocity, fault, or blame.

  24. #144
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    correction on the last line, the only independent arab countries during WW2.
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  25. #145
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    On Ottoman entrance into the First World War:

    Turkey sought a formal alliance with England in 1910/1911. The English -- with Churchill as their representative -- turned them down. WC informed the Turkish leadership that, though England woudl not ally with them, the Turks would do well not to alientate British friendship.

    Germany sought alliance with Turkey during the run-up to World War One, putting on specific efforts for an alliance in July of that year.

    Turkey asked for a secret offensive/defensive alliance on 28 July 1914 in the event of either going to war with Russia. The offer was telegraphed to Berlin, signed, and telegraphed back within 12 hours. Turkey hesitated to sign.

    That same day, Churchill, in his capacity as 1st Lord of the Admiralty, siezed two Turkish battleships -- the Sultan Osman and the Reshadieh -- which had been completed by early July, for which the builders had been paid the first installment of monies due, and for which Turkish transport crews were already in England ready to man these vessels. No compensation was offered but the PM Grey expressed regret and said the matter would be given "due consideration." [a very POLITE _________ you charlie.]

    Turkey signed the alliance upon receipt of this Telegram.

    On August 10th, having evaded the British fleet, German Admiral Souchon, with the Battlecruiser Goeben and cruiser Breslau entered Istanbul and were subsequently "sold" to the Turks as a replacement for the missing ships confiscated by England.

    Still, while German influence in Turkey was growing, the Ottoman Empire hesitated to come actively into the war against Russia.

    Annoyed with this dithering, Germany had Souchon, still in command of the Goeben and Breslau even though they were technically Turkish, proceed to Russia where, on 28 October 1914, he bombarded Odessa, Sevastopol, and Feodosia killing several Russian civilians and sinking one Russian gunboat. He then returned to Istanbul and anchored in the Golden Horn...well within range of the Turkish leadership.

    Russia declared war on 4 November 1914, along with Britain and France the next day.

    Source: Tuchman, B.W. (1962). The Guns of August. New York: Bonanza. esp. Chapter 10, "An Enemy Then Flying."
    Last edited by Seamus Fermanagh; 08-24-2006 at 20:32.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  26. #146
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Also about the renaming of Persia to Iran, thats the choice of Reza Shah Pehlavi, and had nothing to do with Hitlers Aryan race theory.
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  27. #147

    Default Re: Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

    Seamus , you missed out a town in that piece , also no mention of the Russians mining Turkish waters (thats a bit of a provocation isn't it so there goes another "fact" from planet horace out the window) though Turkish vessels were not the target , it was intended to stop the Central powers navies interfering with Russian shipments to Serbia .

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO