11
   

Waves of Anti-Semitic Rallies Hits Cities Across Germany

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:16 am
@BillRM,
You have absolutely no basis to say that's true. You continue to ignore how expensive organized warfare was then (and still is). If going to war doesn't provide a profit, you won't be in the making war business for very damned long. Religion is always a poor excuse to go to war, and wars in history which lasted for any length of time had an economic factor which outweighed any religious hysteria.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 07:57 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
No it is not horseshit or any other **** for that matter and if it was not for the Byzantine Empire and the fortified city of Constantinople holding out until 1453 the Western world would now likely be Muslim by way of the sword.


The Christians won the Western world by way of the sword. Given the genocides, slavery and brutal wars that happened in the Western world, do you think they did a good job?

Christian societies don't have a very good track record.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 02:36 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The Christians won the Western world by way of the sword. Given the genocides, slavery and brutal wars that happened in the Western world, do you think they did a good job?

Christian societies don't have a very good track record.


As an atheist in good standing do you think I am going to defend the history of Christianity any more then Islam?

It just that as this moment in history Christianity is more "civilized" when a large percent of Islam.

Christian nations do not put out hit contracts on authors of books they do not care for, nor does major Christian religion leaders call for mass murders and Christian nations laws do not call the execution of anyone who was a Christian changing their religion to being an non-Christian.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:57 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I see you're changing your story now.

I don't see how.


Setanta wrote:
You're also ignoring that the crusaders plundered Hungary, plundered the Empire, ignored the Turks in Anatolia, and then marched into Syria and Palestine to carve out fiefs for themselves.

Well, I did remove the Fourth Crusade from the praise I heaped on the other crusades.

But in general I don't see how it matters. It's a great argument that the Crusades were ineptly run, but I still see the Crusades as a reaction to Islamic aggression.


Setanta wrote:
You also continue to portray Muslims as a part of some monolithic threat to Europe. There's just no basis in fact for that claim.

I wonder what the people who were conquered thought about the threat.


Setanta wrote:
Like Bill, you want to suggest that the Turks were motivated by a rabid desire to spread Islam at the point of the sword because they were all religious fanatics, while poor, innocent christians were just defending themselves.

I don't think it matters what the motivation of the Islamic invaders was. They were still invading people who didn't want to be invaded.

Yes, I see the poor innocent Xians as waging a just war of self defense.

After Byzantium fell, they even had to install that Dracula guy in Wallachia in order to check the Islamic advance.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 05:40 am
You're just peddling far right-wing, anti-Muslim polemic. Tell me who in Europe was invaded by "Muslims" ( a vague enough term) during the period of the crusades. You're going to come up short there, because the Ottoman Turks didn't begin their assault on the empire until the end of the 13th century, almost a century after the fourth crusade. You just don't have any historical facts on your side--you've just got your propaganda.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 10:18 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You're just peddling far right-wing, anti-Muslim polemic.

Far?

I'm a moderate Democrat.


Setanta wrote:
Tell me who in Europe was invaded by "Muslims" ( a vague enough term) during the period of the crusades. You're going to come up short there, because the Ottoman Turks didn't begin their assault on the empire until the end of the 13th century, almost a century after the fourth crusade.

The first event that ultimately triggered the Crusades was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009. This provoked widespread public outrage that fueled popular support for the Crusades.

Muslims then resumed attacking the Byzantine Empire starting with the Battle of Kapetron in 1048. This was followed by the First Battle of Manzikert in 1054, the Battle of Caesarea in 1067, and the Battle of Iconium in 1069.

After winning the Second Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Muslims flooded in and took over the heartland of the Byzantine Empire.

In 1095, the Byzantine Emperor appealed to the West for aid in driving those Muslims invaders out. This appeal provided the legal justification for the Crusades, and it directly kicked off the First Crusade.


Setanta wrote:
You just don't have any historical facts on your side--you've just got your propaganda.

I'm comfortable with the facts on my side.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 10:22 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The first event that ultimately triggered the Crusades was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009. This provoked widespread public outrage that fueled popular support for the Crusades.
In Germany (see title of this thread) the call for the First Crusade (aka German Crusade of 1096) came after the Rhineland massacres.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 12:53 am
@oralloy,
You really have a hard time keeping your story straight. Now you're saying that an event in Palestine so outraged Europe that it lead to the crusades--86 years later? Dude, get a cup of coffee and introduce yourself to reality.

You continue to ignore that the crusaders did nothing to turn back the Turks. In fact, they just came to Syria and Palestine to attempt to carve out fiefs for themselves. Do you allege that the people living in Anatolia then (chiefly those we now call Armenians) were more content to have Frankish soldiers rape their wives and daughters, slaughter or drive off their livestock and plunder their homes rather than see the Turks do so? Is that because they'd rather they were plundered by christians than by Muslims.

Really, you don't have an historical leg to stand one.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 12:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Really, you don't have an historical leg to stand one.
Not only re history.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:06 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You really have a hard time keeping your story straight.

No perceived difficulties on my end.


Setanta wrote:
Now you're saying that an event in Palestine so outraged Europe that it lead to the crusades--86 years later?

That is what I said before as well, except the nuances are off a bit. I say that the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was only one of multiple triggering events.


Setanta wrote:
Dude, get a cup of coffee and introduce yourself to reality.

Reality and I are close allies.


Setanta wrote:
You continue to ignore that the crusaders did nothing to turn back the Turks.

I acknowledged that there was a good argument to be made that the Crusades were very poorly run.


Setanta wrote:
In fact, they just came to Syria and Palestine to attempt to carve out fiefs for themselves.

In fairness to the Crusaders, that was also land that Muslims had stolen. The theft had just taken place centuries earlier.


Setanta wrote:
Do you allege that the people living in Anatolia then (chiefly those we now call Armenians) were more content to have Frankish soldiers rape their wives and daughters, slaughter or drive off their livestock and plunder their homes rather than see the Turks do so?

I do not so allege.


Setanta wrote:
Really, you don't have an historical leg to stand one.

I seem to still be standing.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:10 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Not only re history.

You have a big mouth for someone who is perpetually unable to show a single error on my part.

All hat, no cattle.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:13 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I say that the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was only one of multiple triggering events.
For which the Jews were blamed - previous to the Rhineland massacres, in what is now France.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:14 am
@oralloy,
You can't blame me that your Latin is so bad to read the original sources.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 02:24 pm
@Miller,
Quote:
According to Pew polls of European opinion, the vast majority has a favorable opinion of Jews, while those with an unfavorable opinion have decreased consistently over the decades. Specifically, the unfavorable to favorable split in a poll released in May was 5 percent to 82 percent in Germany, 7 percent to 83 percent in the UK, and 9 percent to 89 percent in France. In Spain, it was 18 percent to 72 percent, in Italy 24 percent to 65 percent, in Poland 26 percent to 59 percent, and in Greece 47 percent each.

However, opinions about Israel are much more critical. A Pew poll in 2013 found 44 percent of the British had an unfavorable opinion of Israel, 62 percent in Germany, and 65 percent in France. In other words, opposition to Israeli government policies has been rising throughout most of Europe, while anti-Semitism has declined.
In polls taken since the most recent Israeli invasion, the British public thinks both Hamas and the current Israeli government are guilty of war crimes in almost equal shares. In Germany, another poll showed more than half of the population splits the blame between Hamas and Israel. Europeans are also critical of their governments for their pro-Israeli bias. Close to 90 percent of Germans said their government should not publicly defend Israel.
Source
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 02:31 pm
@oralloy,
Self delusion knows no bounds.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 02:59 pm
The clear evidence that you're peddling polemic is your accusation of the land being stolen. It was once a part of the Akkadian empire based on Babylon, and when that collapsed after the great aridity event about 4000 years ago, the Assyrians took over much of the middle east, although the western region became a "no-man's land" between the Egyptians and the Hittites. Having defeated the Hittites definitively, the Egyptians withdrew, allowing the Assyrians to step into the void. Under pressure from the Cimmerians and the Medes, the Assyrian empire began to collapse, and the Chaldeans stepped into that power vacuum and took Babylon and the western middle east. The Medes then overran the Chaldeans and Babylon, but then withdrew, allowing the Chaldeans to attempt to rebuild their empire. However, the Persians then overran the Chaldeans, and just about everyone else in the region, and became the new landlords. The Greco-Macedonian "empire" of Alexander then took the region (not much of an empire), and when that collapsed, it became a part of the Seleucid Empire. They fell to the Romans, and when Rome's power waned, the Persian Sassanid empire took over. They fell to the Arabs, who were in their turn overrun by the Turks.

So it appears you only see territorial "theft" when Muslims are the successful power. You are typical of an anti-Muslim bigot.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 03:30 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
this just could be some kind of one off thing, i mean, i'm pretty sure nothing like this has happened before in Germany

I don't think it's a one-off thing because there's a sizeable Muslim population in Germany.This minority has been tending to be anti-Israel for a fairly long time; recently a fringe within it has turned hostile to Jewish individuals living in Germany. I expect that the members on this fringe will continue to act out their hostility. Meanwhile, German authorities have always arrested the perpetrators of such antisemitic hostility --- a fact that the article in the original post is not disputing --- and I expect them to continue that, too. Overall, I think, the article's Germay-is-having-at-it-again undertone is quite uncalled for.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:37 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
So it appears you only see territorial "theft" when Muslims are the successful power. You are typical of an anti-Muslim bigot.

The Jews are the legitimate owners of the West Bank area. All other claims are illegitimate.

As for the rest of the Roman Empire, if there is an indigenous populace somewhere with a plausible claim that they are the original owners of a given piece of land, I'll likely be sympathetic to the claim.

But nothing ever gave any Muslims any right to steal the Roman Empire from us.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:37 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
You can't blame me that your Latin is so bad to read the original sources.

That's true I guess. But since I was not trying to read any Latin, I fail to see the relevance.

I also can't blame you for the fact that I can't read Linear A, or Old Elamite.

But I can certainly blame you for insinuating that I am somehow wrong without actually pointing out anything that I am supposedly wrong about.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:37 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Self delusion knows no bounds.

Let me know if you see any facts that I am wrong about.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 12:00:36