11
   

Waves of Anti-Semitic Rallies Hits Cities Across Germany

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:57 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
That's true I guess. But since I was not trying to read any Latin, I fail to see the relevance.
Then, this might be the reason why others have a way better knowledge. (Although, it should have been translated to English, since others know about those sources ....)
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 01:55 am
@oralloy,
Well, just for a start, there's that crapola to the effect that Muslims stole the Roman empire from "us." What's this "us" sh*t, have you got a mouse in your pocket? The Arabs in the 7th century took the middle east from the Sassanid empire, who were Persians, and whose state religion was Zoroastrianism. So the Arabs overran the Sassanid empire--not the Roman empire. They took it away from Zoroastrians, not christians or Jews.

Your comment about the west bank is irrelevant, but it glaringly points to the purpose of your goofy polemic.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:06 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:
That's true I guess. But since I was not trying to read any Latin, I fail to see the relevance.

Then, this might be the reason why others have a way better knowledge. (Although, it should have been translated to English, since others know about those sources ....)

If it makes you happy that you know more about Latin than I do, good for you.

But that does not justify untrue insinuations that I'm wrong about my facts.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:09 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
If it makes you happy that you know more about Latin than I do, good for you.
I don't mind how much Latin you know or don't know.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:09 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Well, just for a start, there's that crapola to the effect that Muslims stole the Roman empire from "us." What's this "us" sh*t, have you got a mouse in your pocket? The Arabs in the 7th century took the middle east from the Sassanid empire, who were Persians, and whose state religion was Zoroastrianism. So the Arabs overran the Sassanid empire--not the Roman empire. They took it away from Zoroastrians, not christians or Jews.

Your comment about the west bank is irrelevant, but it glaringly points to the purpose of your goofy polemic.

"Us" refers to the West. As I am part of Western civilization, I am comfortable using terms like "we" or "us" when referring to the West.

The following countries represent land that was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Israel, Syria, Turkey. There are probably a couple more I could add, but that's close enough.

The West Bank also was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims. It warrants mention apart from the other territories because the Romans did not legitimately own it either.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:11 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
But that does not justify untrue insinuations that I'm wrong about my facts.
"Untre" is perhaps the wrong term: you definitely neglect and/or disregard original sources, primary or (translated) secondary sources.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:21 pm
@oralloy,
You are completely blind to the polemical bias of the drivel you post. When you use the verb stolen, you are employing a pejorative term. Just to take one of your examples, when the Vandals took Tunisia away from the Roman Empire, was that theft? Had they stolen it? Or is it only theft when Muslims do it?

You are a disgusting bigot, and like all bigots, ignorance is your shield. I'm done talking to you.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:21 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:
But that does not justify untrue insinuations that I'm wrong about my facts.

"Untrue" is perhaps the wrong term:

It is exactly the right term. Your insinuations that I am wrong about my facts, are untrue.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
you definitely neglect and/or disregard original sources, primary or (translated) secondary sources.

It is not physically possible for a person to pay attention to every piece of data in existence. Everyone neglects data all the time.

This does not mean that I am wrong about any of my facts however.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:33 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
When you use the verb stolen, you are employing a pejorative term.

And rightfully so. We really should begin the Crusades again and drive all the Muslims out of Turkey and Syria.


Setanta wrote:
Just to take one of your examples, when the Vandals took Tunisia away from the Roman Empire, was that theft? Had they stolen it?

Yes.


Setanta wrote:
Or is it only theft when Muslims do it?

The Vandals were part of Western civilization. When they stole land, it remained in the hands of the West.

When Muslims stole land, that took it out of the hands of the West. That made it more objectionable.

Plus, Muslims are still trying to steal all of our land even today. The Vandals are no longer a threat to us.


Setanta wrote:
You are a disgusting bigot, and like all bigots, ignorance is your shield.

The bigotry allegation is likely untrue, but the ignorance allegation is the more objectionable one, so I'll focus on that.

If I am supposedly ignorant, how is it that you aren't pointing out any facts that I am wrong about?
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:45 pm
When i point out the facts you get wrong, you ignore it. Why should i waste my time?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 01:14 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
We really should begin the Crusades again and drive all the Muslims out of Turkey and Syria.
When you look at Western and Hebrew sources (Albert of Aachen and Solomon bar Samson are the best known examples here) you'll be astonished why "those whose hearts impelled them to undertake the pilgrimage to the sepulcher of their Messiah, to the point where they exceeded the locusts of the land ..." [Chazan: European Jewry and the First Crusade, University of California Press, 1987] started the crusades.

And you'll even more surprised that "we" can't do it. (Besides, you use "we" as a pluralis maiestatis and you are in reality the summus pontifex Ecclesiae Catholicae).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 09:59 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
When i point out the facts you get wrong, you ignore it. Why should i waste my time?

The facts you claimed I was wrong about, I was in fact correct about.

I did not ignore that you alleged that I was wrong. Rather, I replied by pointing out how I was actually correct.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 12:29 pm
@oralloy,
This is utter bullsh*t. Here's a fine example:

oralloy wrote:
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.


You completely failed to answer the question of who in Europe was invaded by Muslims in the period of the crusades. There's a good reason for that, and that's that there was no Muslim invasion of Europe in the period of the crusades. You were wrong, and you could not accept or admit that, so you just ignored that and babbled about battles in Anatolia, which is not in Europe. (I still find it hilarious that you claim that an event in 1009 "fueled support" for the crusades, which began 86 years later. Generations then ran under 20 years--the events of 1009 took place in the lifetimes of the great grandfathers of the crusaders.)

Then there's this:

Setanta wrote:
Well, just for a start, there's that crapola to the effect that Muslims stole the Roman empire from "us." What's this "us" sh*t, have you got a mouse in your pocket? The Arabs in the 7th century took the middle east from the Sassanid empire, who were Persians, and whose state religion was Zoroastrianism. So the Arabs overran the Sassanid empire--not the Roman empire. They took it away from Zoroastrians, not christians or Jews.

Your comment about the west bank is irrelevant, but it glaringly points to the purpose of your goofy polemic.


Yet you subsequently posted this:

Quote:
"Us" refers to the West. As I am part of Western civilization, I am comfortable using terms like "we" or "us" when referring to the West.

The following countries represent land that was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Israel, Syria, Turkey. There are probably a couple more I could add, but that's close enough.

The West Bank also was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims. It warrants mention apart from the other territories because the Romans did not legitimately own it either.


Libya and Tunisia were taken away from the Romans by the Vandals, not by Muslims (i had already alluded to the Vandals taking over Tunisia, which was, of course, the Roman province of Africa). Israel, of course, did not exist at that time. Palestine and Syria were taken away from the Romans by the Sassanids. They were Persians, they came from the east, not the west; although somewhat religiously tolerant, they were not Jews nor Christians. The Arabs took the territory of the middle east and Persia from the Sassanids, not from the Romans. The West Bank is a 20th century concept--nevertheless, the Arabs took it from the Sassanids, not the Romans.

When presented with real facts, actual, verifiable facts, you ignore it. That's because you're an anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist bigot and your purpose in posting here is to promote you anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist polemic.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 01:14 pm
No American should be smug about European anti-Semitism.

It's here too.

BOSTON

Quote:
Among other things, the shouts included “Jews back to Birkenau” and “Drop dead, you Zionazi whores,”


LA

SEATTLE


0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 01:28 pm
As i mentioned earlier in this thread, bigotry is deeply imbedded in American society, and very likely in all societies. I've heard both casual and virulent antisemitism all my life.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 01:41 pm
@Setanta,
True. But since the (written) history in Europe/the Near and Middle East is a bit older than that in e.g. America, the focus is more on us.
And especially on Germans and Germany.

Antisemitism on rise across Europe 'in worst times since the Nazis
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 01:50 pm
Well, Valter, we know we have to keep a close eye on you Dutchmen.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:13 pm
@Setanta,
It started when we (the Bructeri) formed an alliance with the Cherusci, the Marsi, the Chatti, Sugambri, and the Chauci, and then defeated the Romans ... Quintili Vare, legiones redde! ...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 06:24 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
This is utter bullsh*t. Here's a fine example:
oralloy wrote:
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.

You completely failed to answer the question of who in Europe was invaded by Muslims in the period of the crusades.

I did, however, give a factual list of the events that actually triggered the Crusades.


Setanta wrote:
There's a good reason for that, and that's that there was no Muslim invasion of Europe in the period of the crusades.

Yes. My list did not include any fictitious or imaginary events.


Setanta wrote:
You were wrong, and you could not accept or admit that, so you just ignored that and babbled about battles in Anatolia, which is not in Europe.

Hold on here. Just because I ignored imaginary invasions and battles, and instead focused on the invasions and battles that actually took place, how does that make me wrong about anything?


Setanta wrote:
I still find it hilarious that you claim that an event in 1009 "fueled support" for the crusades, which began 86 years later. Generations then ran under 20 years--the events of 1009 took place in the lifetimes of the great grandfathers of the crusaders.

It's been centuries now, and I still want to resume the Crusades and drive all the Muslims out of Turkey and Syria.


Setanta wrote:
Then there's this:
Setanta wrote:
Well, just for a start, there's that crapola to the effect that Muslims stole the Roman empire from "us." What's this "us" sh*t, have you got a mouse in your pocket? The Arabs in the 7th century took the middle east from the Sassanid empire, who were Persians, and whose state religion was Zoroastrianism. So the Arabs overran the Sassanid empire--not the Roman empire. They took it away from Zoroastrians, not christians or Jews.

Your comment about the west bank is irrelevant, but it glaringly points to the purpose of your goofy polemic.

Yet you subsequently posted this:
oralloy wrote:
"Us" refers to the West. As I am part of Western civilization, I am comfortable using terms like "we" or "us" when referring to the West.

The following countries represent land that was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Israel, Syria, Turkey. There are probably a couple more I could add, but that's close enough.

The West Bank also was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims. It warrants mention apart from the other territories because the Romans did not legitimately own it either.

Libya and Tunisia were taken away from the Romans by the Vandals, not by Muslims (i had already alluded to the Vandals taking over Tunisia, which was, of course, the Roman province of Africa).

The Vandals were wrong to do that, but it was less of a blow because it remained in Western hands. The land was just passing from one Western power to another.

When Muslims seized the land, they were talking it out of the hands of the West altogether.

If the Vandals still retained the land today, I believe I'd probably argue that they should return it to the Roman Empire.


Setanta wrote:
Israel, of course, did not exist at that time. Palestine and Syria were taken away from the Romans by the Sassanids. They were Persians, they came from the east, not the west; although somewhat religiously tolerant, they were not Jews nor Christians. The Arabs took the territory of the middle east and Persia from the Sassanids, not from the Romans. The West Bank is a 20th century concept--nevertheless, the Arabs took it from the Sassanids, not the Romans.

The Romans had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.

The Sassanids had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.

The Persians had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.

The Xians had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.

The Arabs had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.

The Muslims had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.

The Jews are the rightful owners of the West bank.


Setanta wrote:
When presented with real facts, actual, verifiable facts, you ignore it.

What fact am I supposed to be ignoring?


Setanta wrote:
That's because you're an anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist bigot and your purpose in posting here is to promote you anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist polemic.

I'm pro-Zionist definitely.

Maybe anti-Muslim but not really. I just want Muslims to stop murdering us and stealing our land.

Not really a bigot.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 09:41:57