(February 14, 2016 at 7:25 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 6:26 am)paulpablo Wrote: Is your argument that the Mongolian empire didn't kill people and take their stuff?

No, my argument, as always, is to not be simplistic. Everyone conquered their weaker neighbours at that time, which, by the way, covers a span of about a 1000 years between the rise of Islam, the Mongolian expansion and the peak of the Osmanic empire. The only distinctive element between certain empires are their administration, their social structure and their willingness to embrace science. And that's where the Islamic realms as well as the Mongolians beat the Western realms by a lightyear. At least up to the 16th century.

I thought that may have been a typo the first time you posted "Osman" - so it's this, and not "Ottoman"?

(February 14, 2016 at 11:06 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: I thought that may have been a typo the first time you posted "Osman" - so it's this, and not  "Ottoman"?

We call them Osmans. After Osman I.

(February 14, 2016 at 11:09 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 11:06 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: I thought that may have been a typo the first time you posted "Osman" - so it's this, and not  "Ottoman"?

We call them Osmans. After Osman I.

Who is "we", if you don't mind my asking?

(February 14, 2016 at 11:14 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Who is "we", if you don't mind my asking?

German language. Maybe others too.

(February 14, 2016 at 10:42 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: So, if only France had just laid down their weapons and accepted your Islam, then there would have been no violence? Don't you wonder how, under such terms, Mud Ham Mad was able to go and find himself a battle to fight so frequently, which he passionately loved doing?

Islam truly has an interesting definition of "peace"!

Also, we can do the big red letter trick too! Hey, look, mine are bigger!

Thank you for providing an example on the gymnastic skills; they can be seen underlined and in bold, in my quotation to your words.

So, every Musliim (along with the religion itself) has to pay for the last French events?
Don't try to change the subject, by making an ignorant act of generalization that is worthy of savage, uncivilized mobs.

The only people in the world who deny these obvious verses, are you, ISIS, rightist media groups, the rightist extremist groups...don't you see a pattern here?

I won't apologize for what happened in France; because "simply; if you haven't noticed", I'm not responsible for anything? nor Islam?
But generalizing mob mentality led you -rudely enough- to count me in the ranks of ISIS, and put me in the shoes of the aggressor ?

I won't apologize, but I will show and display my saddness, and I will shed tears on the fine young boys and girls who died, just because our leaders -either Arabs or European or French or American or Wahhabies- are  playing with fire, and have no problem in burning innocent people for a small political price.

Perfect example on gymnastic skills. Just like the extremist Jews and Christians who blame the Quran for the stoning of people who commit adultery during marriage, while in reality, it's a biblical sentence that doesn't even exist in the Quran.

(February 14, 2016 at 1:10 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Don't try to change the subject, by making an ignorant act of generalization that is worthy of savage, uncivilized mobs.

Such as the savage, uncivilized mobs who brutally stone teenaged girls? That's in your holey book too.

Quote:The only people in the world who deny these obvious verses, are you, ISIS, rightist media groups, the rightist extremist groups...don't you see a pattern here?

You are posting on an atheist forum, where most of us happen to be atheists. Why in fuck then do you think your utterly stupid and violent holy book should mean anything whatsoever to us?

Don't bother answering, all you can do is waste server space - we're done here!

Bill Warner does a good job of blending fact with fiction. But he highlighted an issue or two which I think needs more attention. Europeans being taken as slaves by Arabs is not something that is often talked about (Africans suffered way worse at the hands of Arabs, mind), so appreciated that at least. I am so glad Arabs don't have Mamluk in widespread numbers anymore (I guess al-Saud's henchmen in Iraq and Syria could be considered Mamluk). And given the history of Saqaliba, I think the Eastern Europeans do have a right to be bitter.

al-Saud uses people who perpetuate the victimhood narrative in the West (like DawahMan) to drive naive Westerns to go into Iraq and Syria to be Mamluk. Like lambs to the slaughter. al-Saud's henchmen are modern day Mamluk.

(February 14, 2016 at 1:48 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Europeans being taken as slaves by Arabs is not something that is often talked about (Africans suffered way worse at the hands of Arabs, mind), so appreciated that at least.

Because it didn't happen that often. Usually when Europeans tried to invade or actually invaded muslim countries. POWs, the term actually didn't exist back then, were often sold into slavery. Unless they converted to Islam. The Ottoman empire, which lasted longest, followed a Roman policy. They integrated the peoples they conquered. As long as you paid your taxes, you could believe whatever you wanted. And some christians made it into very high administrative positions.

But make no mistake. Europeans weren't any better in that department. Richard the Lionfart put the whole garrison of Akkon to the sword. After not getting the desired ransom. Business as usual in the Middle Ages with no international treaties in place.

Yeah the Crusaders were a mess. That is a part of history I am very sad about. And all because Yaweh told them to (supposedly).

But I thought the Popes talked to Jesus!

Who's country would Jesus invade, rape, pillage, enslave, and commit genocide in?