Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

[Papewaio]

ROFL

There is a Gallopolli Mosque in Sydney...

[Louis VI the Fat]

A Gallipoli mosque?

Well have I ever...

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...

[Pannonian]

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.

[Papewaio]

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).

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.

[Horatius]

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.

[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...

[Horatius]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

[Leet Eriksson]

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.