Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

So constantinople was just a few villages? and you say I'm on crack HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If Byzantium was depleted at all in 1453 it was due to arab and turkish agggresion.

Yeah accidentally left open during a siege

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In any case it is amusing to call any city depleted against an army of 100,00-180,000 attackers that is an enormous army for the time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not universally - Mexico and C&S America, as well as the northern regions of NA, are significantly populated by the people who were there 400 years ago - those who survived the plagues.

Of course they have a different religion and associated cultural customs, but then most of the "multicultural" Ottoman empire did as well.

The contrast with India, in which 400 years of British oppression left the most culturally varied geographical area on the planet, is notable.

The contradiction between the "multicultural" virtues of the slavetrading, intellectually stagnant Ottomans and the "Islamic science" designation of the intellectual advances of those times and places remains unresolved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also Mehmet allowed looting to go on for weeks when the standard at the time was 3 days. No doubt the inhabitants had fun.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh and my attitude concerning the prophet.

Fuck him, he was an asshole warlord who participated in 19 military campaigns and left the world with his companions who participated in many more etc..

 

I think the Islamic-Abrahamic tradition arose as a kind of introspection of the "facts" - Abraham sired children because his missus was too old to have any, so encouraged the union of her husband with a serving-wench. The son was supposedly the patriarch of the Arab peoples.

So it's sort of a "legend" come back to haunt the world of Abrahamic traditions - i.e. Judaism, Christianity, the Copts, the Druze, whoever. The bastard child of Abraham looking for his place in the sun, type of thing. And good on him. Mohammed certainly wasn't the only "living prophet" in history, there were a lot of precedents.

But of course, I see religions as a failure to understand the message. Usually a religion is a political kind of structure; it gets hijacked by powerful people who have somewhat different ideas than "peace, love and brotherhood". What gets said and what gets done in the name of religion illustrates that we humans simply can't handle our own conceptions of "God" - who or what, where, or how, we're pretty bloody lost when it comes to the crunch.

But a religion is already on the "wrong path".

So there.

 

The slavetrading is still going on, only now its called structural adjustment policy.

So do you see the people in any part of the Americas reverting to the natives as they did in the Middle East?

I do not think the 200 years under the British left India undamaged. I think the damage to the Indian psyche and outlook was intense and widespread and may never be completely overcome. We are a different people than we used to be, before the British invasion. From a leading world economy, to a poor, starving, illiterate nation, divided. Our millions dead and killed received no compensation, no apology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whats happening in Iraq today? Same ole, same ole.

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/08/lessons-from-british-raj.html

As for the intellectually stagnant Ottomans, let's just say that 800 years of their Islamic rule did not produce a Saudi Arabia or an Iran, nor an Israel or a Palestine. There was no world wars, no holocaust, no structural adjustment policy.

Really? How much tax did Muslims pay? Do you know how zakat is calculated?

[/QUOTE]

Hmm not really, the Americans replaced the native population, language, culture and ethnicity.

Jihad? The Turks? You're kidding, right? The Romans decimated the Armenians before the Sassanid Persians did. The Turks were way down the line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_kingdom

As compared to the Romans, the Europeans and now the Americans, who liberated everyone quite thoroughly and continue to do so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The thing is this. We already went through all this 1 million times. Here's the short answer: Muslims were only ever defending themselves against the aggressive Persians and Byzantine and only then by handing out cotton candy and lollipops. It doesn't matter which way you go on this - - that's the answer. Rack it up to 4h2d or whatever the protein is.

So it's all well to just drop it and go back to the notion of Islamic Universalism and how it is related to the Islamic acceptance of polytheism such as the Japanese Shinto Gods and the Islamic delineation of people of the book from people not of the book.

MII

PS: If secular democratic India has a Golden Age in the future then we can all look back and thank the British and excuse every atrocity or better yet, just lie to ourselves and pretend they only handed out cotton candy and lollipops.

 

Who said the Turks were peaceful in acquiring land? We're talking about the 1400s, man: invading others was a routine way of life, both for the aggressors and the defenders. However, the Turks weren't particularly violent, either: Constantinople was conquered, alright, but the people within who resisted combat were not made into pincushions. Compare this to the Latin crusades and their invasion of Constantinople, and how they burned most of the city and robbed it of virtually all its wealth. Michael, who reconquered Constantinople, ordered massive reconstruction projects to take place, because the city was in ruins. Why bring up the Armenians, anyway? They sided with the Tsar of Russia in an attempt to win independence from the very Empire they lived in. Besides, from 1914 to the first half of 1915, Armenians directly or indirectly killed over 100,000 Turks - all of which occurred before a single Armenian was jailed or relocated. It was after these events the "genocide" began. All in all, Armenians themselves killed over 500,000 Turks. Lord knows how much that figure rises when the assistance to the Russians is included. It is important to note, though, that the majority of these so-called "genocidal acts" against Armenians were carried out by members of the Young Turk Movement, who were themselves opposed to the traditional Ottoman Empire.

By the way, I don't think Sam is attempting to sugarcoat the Ottoman invasions or say they didn't explicitly happen. What she's arguing is that the residents within the Ottoman Empire were treated fairly (perhaps not by today's standards), and that many non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities within flourished and benefited from the Ottoman rule. Also, the Ottoman Empire didn't harm the various cultures or languages of the people it conquered; such attributes were left untouched, as we can tell today, considering rich diversity still exists in the regions once administered by the Ottoman Turks.

You can't be serious. The Fourth Crusade, which was supposed to reconquer the holy lands from Muslims by invading through Egypt, decided instead to sack and conquer Byzantine's capital, Constantinople. Subsequently, Byzantine divided into three separate states, all of which competed with each other and fought to regain Constantinople. Luck would have it that one of the three states finally recaptured Constantinople from the Latins, although much of their territory in Asia minor was already lost by this time to the Beyliks. It was civil war from hereon in within what remained of the Byzantine Empire that led to its breaking point: the invasion of Constantinople by Turks. I'm not entirely sure how significant a role the Arabs played in all of this, but perhaps you're simply throwing their name around for some other sinister purpose. Essentially, the Turks merely took advantage of a Christian Empire divided by its own religious denominations and civil unrest.

You don't include the number of invading soldiers as part of the city's population. Most sources estimate that Constantinople was defended by well under ten thousand men - not exactly staggering, even for its time.

Kadark the Leader

 

This thread gets more bizarre every day.

SAM, that is an Indian family but what is it meant to show? You seem to be using it for quite a few threads.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As far as the British in India:

 

The fall from paradise is a common myth, often providing emotional sustenance when life seems to get too complicated and frightening.

 

Yes, put the blame on others for your inability to pull yourselves up out of the darkness. That's a fine quality to have. "Oh, woe is me!"

If your people had some respect for themselves, they would have rebuilt themselves just to spite their former oppressors.

 

This picture shows Americans who were obese in a former life

 

I don't see Indians blaming anyone for their difficulties. In fact, most history taught in schools in India is kinder to the British than it deserves to be and pretty fair minded in terms of their contributions. Many Indians weigh their achievements against the western standards. Its only when you study advanced Indian history, that you learn of all these gory details. Or when you talk to people in those regions where oral history has transmitted these oppressions through time.

The Indian holocaust is not played about like the Jewish one, nor do we clamour for that attention. But that does not mean it did not happen. Is it taught in British history anywhere? Notwithstanding their "we don't do body counts" mentality of the time, tens of millions of people died from starvation under British policy and administration, much of it during food surplus in other parts of the country. The most telling fact is that after they left, there has been no famine. Now we only have farmers committing suicide over British/IMF/WHO policies.

And we're not even going into the deaths from reprisals against our native "mujahideens" and insurgents.

 

All you've done is blame the British for you plight. Your last post was a whole "Look at what the British did to us! Waaaa!" crybaby symphony, and now you're going to pretend like you don't blame them? You've disqualified yourself from the conversation in the first sentence!

What a shock! More anti-semitism from the Jew-hating community. "We don't seek that kind of attention"? Give me a break. Maybe you'd get that attention if the Indian Holocaust (as you call it) actually happened.

But it didn't. Now stop blaming the rest of the world for how backwards your society is.

 

Heh, Holocaust denial. No surprises there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes I'm serious you do know when the fourth crusade occured right? Bapheus occured 100 years later and allowed the turks to overrun Brythinia which cut off byzantine cities in asia minor leaving them virtually defenseless.

There was never really any let up of the military pressure put upon byzantine by the ottoman turks who slowly tightened the noose around Constantinople over several centuries. As you cite it was in fact turks that occupied byzantine lands not internal power struggles and coups.

No it wasn't see above

Arabs, specifically muslim arabs waged war on byzantium incessantly besieging constantinople twice and invading and occupying byzantine lands.

Yes the garrison was well depleted as turks had conquered and occupied anatolia the most important manpower pool byzantium had.

as to numbers of attackers and defenders

It is estimated that 50,000 people inhabited constantiople in 1453, hardly a few scattered villages as you said

 

That is not slavetrading, SAM.

As I pointed out, most have - in the same manner as in much of the Middle East, of course, meaning often a new religion and new culture to replace the one destroyed.

The US ones haven't, but then the US ones were not conquered and oppressed by the British, and possibly in consequence, unlike for example the natives of India, were usually not able to hold on to their cultures, religions, etc.

We agree completely, including the inclusion of recent "structurla adjustment" and IMF/World Bank in this tradition of severe oppression.

Now, about the Islamic Ottoman empire as spread by the sword - - - -

SAM is referring to actual, very bad, events. If you want to point to railroads, etc, great - but the slave plantations on Haiti and Cuba brought the same benefits, as did Mao's Great Leaps and Stalin's industrializations.

The Brits had their virtues. But they established a colonial empire, and certain evils inevitably followed from that - and follow, from the IMF impositions, even today.

 

Well, I guess Sock puppet path is stupider than I originally suspected. First of all, I'm not interested in debating somebody who explicitly copies and pastes the work of another website without offering the sources (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553949/ottoman_empire.html - look familiar?). Secondly, you're not really addressing any of my arguments, in case you haven't noticed. Constantinople was sacked and reconquered all before any Muslim or Turk set foot in the city. Byzantine did in fact break into separate competing states, which took a toll on the land they administered. Your sources (which you don't cite) mention the era from 1300 onward; the problem with this is that the Byzantine Empire had been in serious decline since the year ~1200. Let me refer you to basic wikipedia information:

Manuel's death on 24 September 1180 left his 11-year-old son Alexios II Komnenos on the throne. Alexios was highly incompetent at the office, but it was his mother, Maria of Antioch, and her Frankish background that made his regency unpopular. Eventually Andronikos I Komnenos, a grandson of Alexios I, launched a revolt against his younger relative and managed to overthrow him in a violent coup d'état. Utilizing his good looks and his immense popularity with the army, he marched on to Constantinople in August 1182, and incited a massacre of the Latins. After eliminating his potential rivals, he had himself crowned as co-emperor in September 1183; he eliminated Alexios II and even took his 12-year-old wife Agnes of France for himself.

This troubled succession weakened the dynastic continuity and solidarity on which the strength of the Byzantine state had come to rely. The new emperor was a man of astounding contrasts. Handsome and eloquent, Andronikos was at the same time known for his licentious exploits. Energetic, able and determined, he had been called a "true Komnenos". However, he was also capable of terrifying brutality, violence and cruelty.

Andronikos began his reign well; in particular, the measures he took to reform the government of the empire have been praised by historians. According to George Ostrogorsky, Andronikos was determined to root out corruption: Under his rule the sale of offices ceased; selection was based on merit, rather than favoritism; officials were paid an adequate salary so as to reduce the temptation of bribery. In the provinces Andronikos' reforms produced a speedy and marked improvement. The people felt the severity of his laws, but acknowledged their justice, and found themselves protected from the rapacity of their superiors. Andronikos' efforts to rein in the oppressive tax collectors and officials of the empire did much to alleviate the lot of the peasantry, but his attempt to check the power of the nobility was considerably more problematic. The aristocrats were infuriated against him, and to make matters worse, Andronikos seems to have become increasingly unbalanced; executions and violence became increasingly common, and his reign turned into a reign of terror. Andronikos seemed almost to seek the extermination of the aristocracy as a whole. The struggle against the aristocracy turned into wholesale slaughter, while the emperor resorted to ever more ruthless measures to shore up his regime.

Despite his military background, Andronikos failed to deal with Isaac Komnenos, Béla III who reincorporated Croatian territories into Hungary, and Stephen Nemanja of Serbia who declared his independence from Byzantium. Yet none of these troubles would compare to William II of Sicily's invasion force of 300 ships and 80,000 men, arriving in 1185. Andronikos mobilized a small fleet of 100 ships to defend the capital but other than that he was indifferent to the populace. He was finally overthrown when Isaac Angelos, surviving an imperial assassination attempt, seized power with the aid of the people and had Andronikos killed.

Iconium is won by the Third Crusade. The reign of Isaac II, and, still more, that of his brother Alexios III, saw the collapse of what remained of the centralized machinery of Byzantine government and defense. Although, the Normans were driven out of Greece, in 1186 the Bulgars began a rebellion that was to lead to the formation of the Second Bulgarian Empire. The mismanagement of the Third Crusade clearly demonstrated Byzantium's weaknesses under the Angeli. When Richard I of England appropriated Cyprus from its ruler, Isaac Komnenos, he refused to hand it back to the Empire. And when Frederick Barbarossa conquered Iconium, Isaac failed to seize the initiative. The internal policy of the Angeloi was characterized by the squandering of the public treasure, and the fiscal maladministration. Byzantine authority was severely weakened, and the growing power vacuum at the center of the empire encouraged fragmentation. There is evidence that some Komnenian heirs had set up a semi-independent state in Trebizond before 1204. According to Alexander Vasiliev, "the dynasty of the Angeloi, Greek in its origin, [...] accelerated the ruin of the Empire, already weakened without and disunited within."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Decline_and_disintegration

As you can see, all of the above is internal conflict and civil unrest. Below that section is more of the same; read it if you want to learn more. You can blame it on the Arabs and Muslims until the cows come home, but it's blatantly obvious to everybody else that the most damage came from the Byzantine Christians within. The aftermath of Byzantine's internally caused decline is simple to observe - Ottoman domination. However, to understand the history of such a complex matter fully, you need to dig a little bit deeper.

Kadark the Magnificent

 

Oh ,ok I see now kadark, if a country is divided and or poorly governed it is ok to invade and occupy it, I should have seen it before, my bad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!