Arab-Israeli Conflict, v2: What the UN Jerusalem vote mean for Israel, the U.S, and Palestine

[tramendous]

You should look up "the Black Legend" of Spain. I'm almost certain you and I have had this exact conversation before, yet you're still putting forth this exact argument even though you know it isn't true.

And the Jannissaries were the product of a tribute paid from specifically christian lands. Boys who were deemed "pretty" enough were put into the Sultan's harem. I'm sure you know what that means.

I dont remember having this conversation. I am also strictly talking about the ottomans and Spanish comparatively. My question is how were the ottomans any worse? That is in totality. The Ottomans have also had their fair share of demonization. Harems just don't compare to wholesale expulsion and forced conversion and even the banning of a people's language/dress.

Here is crowley:

The Sultan regarded himself not only as a Muslim ruler but as the heir to the Roman Empire and set about reconstructing a multicultural capital in which all citizens would have certain rights. He forcibly resettled both Greek Christian and Turkish Muslims back into the city, guaranteed the safety of the Genoese enclave at Galata and forbade any Turks to live there. The monk Gennadios, who had so fiercely resisted attempts at union, was rescued from slavery in Edirne and restored to the capital as patriarch of the Orthodox community with the formula: 'Be Patriarch, with good fortune, and be assured of our friendship, keeping the privileges that the Patriarchs before you enjoyed'. The Christians were to live in their own neighbourhoods and to retain some of their churches, though under certain restrictions: they had to wear distinctive dress and were forbidden from bearing arms - within the context of the times it was a policy of remarkable tolerance. At the other end of the Mediterranean the final reconquest of Spain by the Catholic Kings in 1492 resulted in the forced conversion or expulsion of all the Muslims and Jews. The Spanish Jews themselves were encouraged to migrate to the Ottoman Empire - 'the refuge of the world' - where within the overall experience of Jewish exile, their reception was generally positive. 'Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of,' wrote one rabbi to his brethren in Europe. 'We possess great fortunes, much gold and silver in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered.'

 

[lfd0311]

Greeks had catamites and they set the foundation for western civilisation. What makes them qualitatively worse than any other empire. It's a power thing not a religion thing.

Is it cause it's two men, is that what bothers you?

Look at Hollywood today that's a cess-pit.

Does anyone outside the Spanish believe in the veracity of the "black legend" and how does it stack up against the archaeological record that shows the total destruction in the new world.

I thought we weren't going that far back in history? If not, what was your point about the year of the Jannissaries?

Is it cause it's two men, is that what bothers you?

Pedophillia is generally reprehensible, don't you think?

Does anyone outside the Spanish believe in the veracity of the "black legend" and how does it stack up against the archaeological record that shows the total destruction in the new world

What "archaeological record" would that be?

 

[lfd0311]

I dont remember having this conversation. I am also strictly talking about the ottomans and Spanish comparatively. My question is how were the ottomans any worse? That is in totality. The Ottomans have also had their fair share of demonization. Harems just don't compare to wholesale expulsion and forced conversion and even the banning of a people's language/dress.

Here is crowley:

The Sultan regarded himself not only as a Muslim ruler but as the heir to the Roman Empire and set about reconstructing a multicultural capital in which all citizens would have certain rights. He forcibly resettled both Greek Christian and Turkish Muslims back into the city, guaranteed the safety of the Genoese enclave at Galata and forbade any Turks to live there. The monk Gennadios, who had so fiercely resisted attempts at union, was rescued from slavery in Edirne and restored to the capital as patriarch of the Orthodox community with the formula: 'Be Patriarch, with good fortune, and be assured of our friendship, keeping the privileges that the Patriarchs before you enjoyed'. The Christians were to live in their own neighbourhoods and to retain some of their churches, though under certain restrictions: they had to wear distinctive dress and were forbidden from bearing arms - within the context of the times it was a policy of remarkable tolerance. At the other end of the Mediterranean the final reconquest of Spain by the Catholic Kings in 1492 resulted in the forced conversion or expulsion of all the Muslims and Jews. The Spanish Jews themselves were encouraged to migrate to the Ottoman Empire - 'the refuge of the world' - where within the overall experience of Jewish exile, their reception was generally positive. 'Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of,' wrote one rabbi to his brethren in Europe. 'We possess great fortunes, much gold and silver in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered.'

I'm the one who brought this book up, remember? Yes, there was plenty of forced conversion within the Ottoman Empire. Jizyah was strictly enforced within the Ottoman empire up into modern times. How do you avoid paying Jizyah?

 

[tramendous]

I'm the one who brought this book up, remember? Yes, there was plenty of forced conversion within the Ottoman Empire. Jizyah was strictly enforced within the Ottoman empire up into modern times. How do you avoid paying Jizyah?

then the ottomans were horrible at forced conversions then since greece and the balkans are still predominantly christian. You're telling me they had plenty of forced conversions but they couldn't get fucking greece to convert after 400 years? lmao

 

[The Merchant]

I thought we weren't going that far back in history? If not, what was your point about the year of the Jannissaries?



Pedophillia is generally reprehensible, don't you think?



What "archaeological record" would that be?

I brought them up because you said

"Maybe you should research what exactly the Jannissarys were" Since you were insinuating something rather than flat out stating it. I just mentioned when i thought they were formed and moved on. You brought them up vaguely in a "what about the janissaries".

We're going back cause you seem to think it was the preserve of Muslims, i'm pointing out pedophilia sadly isn't restricted to the believers of one Abrahamic Religion.

Pedophilia is not a gendered word and you were only using male-male pedophilia i was wondering if that it was male to male as opposed to male to female had any specific difference.

There's a wide amount of research done from 6000 CE till modern day. The established narrative by academia, as such as you would find in the encyclopedia Britannica, that doesn't include the premise that Spain didn't commit these crimes it was made up by everyone else.

 

[The Merchant]

I'm the one who brought this book up, remember?

and weirdly the only one in this conversation that doesn't have it in front of them to quote from.

 

[lfd0311]

and weirdly the only one in this conversation that doesn't have it in front of them to quote from.

I'm not at home. Stop acting like you own the book or know who he is. You quoted literally the first page from googling it on google books. Again, stop.

 

[lfd0311]

then the ottomans were horrible at forced conversions then since greece and the balkans are still predominantly christian. You're telling me they had plenty of forced conversions but they couldn't get fucking greece to convert after 400 years? lmao

That was an incredible dodge. What is Jizyah? How do you avoid paying it?

 

[lfd0311]

I brought them up because you said

"Maybe you should research what exactly the Jannissarys were" Since you were insinuating something rather than flat out stating it. I just mentioned when i thought they were formed and moved on. You brought them up vaguely in a "what about the janissaries".

We're going back cause you seem to think it was the preserve of Muslims, i'm pointing out pedophilia sadly isn't restricted to the believers of one Abrahamic Religion.

Pedophilia is not a gendered word and you were only using male-male pedophilia i was wondering if that it was male to male as opposed to male to female had any specific difference.

There's a wide amount of research done from 6000 CE till modern day. The established narrative by academia, as such as you would find in the encyclopedia Britannica, that doesn't include the premise that Spain didn't commit these crimes it was made up by everyone else.

Boy, you really don't know anything about the history of this religion that you're contantly defending, do you? Your ignorance is beyond impressive.

There's a wide amount of research done from 6000 CE till modern day. The established narrative by academia, as such as you would find in the encyclopedia Britannica, that doesn't include the premise that Spain didn't commit these crimes it was made up by everyone else

Drop some knowledge on me. Let's hear it.

 

[funcrusher2007]

Great video..really puts in perspective just how much of a clusterfuck this region is/has and will be.

I’m sure god loves all the murder in his name.

In regards to trumps decision to do this..

Religious/Jewish economic pandering at the expense of countless innocent lives.

Throwing rocks at beehives for the sake of politics,fucking idiot

 

[tramendous]

That was an incredible dodge. What is Jizyah? How do you avoid paying it?

Its not a dodge at all. Jizya is not the same as forcefully converting people since it inherently gives them a choice of paying a tax to keep their religion. Exemptions were given to the poor, the mentally challenged, women, children and those who enlisted in the military and also the clergy as well. If the goal was to forcefully convert people, then it is extremely illogical way of doing it.

Since our whole discussion is a comparative one, tell me how this is worse than the policies of the spanish and portugese to Muslims. Where within a generation they were turning every Mohamad and Abdul into Juan and Rodrigo where they could no longer even dress as Moors let alone speak Arabic. Who burned 1000s of Arab manuscripts, tore up the treaty of alhambra and then gave people who wished to live in Iberia a single choice: Baptism. They didnt even spare the Jews of this.

 

[The Merchant]

I'm not at home. Stop acting like you own the book or know who he is. You quoted literally the first page from googling it on google books. Again, stop.

This is just a lie. You're projecting hard. multiple passages have been produced, and for over 12 hours there has been the means to falsify my position. Facts speak for themselves you can't produce the text I can. What you say is a distraction reality speaks for itself.

I don't mind debating interpretations from books etc, but when you have someone just making shit up it's a waste of time. Totally entrenched mind, shown to be wrong can't admit it so cognitive dissonance kicks in and suddenly i dont know the book and i'm pretending when i;ve been offering since yesterday to type out any passage and have typed out more than one already.

Reality isn;t matching with your description of it.

saying "wrong" means nothing.

Also I was in this thread to discuss the thread title, not go down avenues and have to enumerate the archaelogical record of the Mayans and Incas, especially when Encyclopedia Britannica did it for me.

 

[lfd0311]

Its not a dodge at all. Jizya is not the same as forcefully converting people since it inherently gives them a choice of paying a tax to keep their religion. Exemptions were given to the poor, the mentally challenged, women, children and those who enlisted in the military and also the clergy as well. If the goal was to forcefully convert people, then it is extremely illogical way of doing it.

Since our whole discussion is a comparative one, tell me how this is worse than the policies of the spanish and portugese to Muslims. Where within a generation they were turning every Mohamad and Abdul into Juan and Rodrigo where they could no longer even dress as Moors let alone speak Arabic. Who burned 1000s of Arab manuscripts, tore up the treaty of alhambra and then gave people who wished to live in Iberia a single choice: Baptism. They didnt even spare the Jews of this.

When you don't address something, it's a dodge. The point of Jizyah was that over time the tax increased to the point where all that person's goods were siezed and they had only two real choices. Conversion to Islam or death. Or they could attempt to leave. So three.

At face value, what the Spanish were doing was not better than what the Ottomans were doing. No take into account that what you're talking about in Spain is called the ReConquista, not simply the Conquista. And where are you getting that Jizyah excluded the poor? That's simply not true. In fact, conversion was often highest amonst the lower classes because they could not afford to pay the taxes and they couldn't afford to move.

 

[lfd0311]

This is just a lie.

What page on google books was it then?

You're projecting hard. multiple passages have been produced, and for over 12 hours there has been the means to falsify my position. Facts speak for themselves you can't produce the text I can. What you say is a distraction reality speaks for itself.

You've produced exactly one. Why say something so easily verified as not true?

I don't mind debating interpretations from books etc, but when you have someone just making shit up it's a waste of time. Totally entrenched mind, shown to be wrong can't admit it so cognitive dissonance kicks in and suddenly i dont know the book and i'm pretending when i;ve been offering since yesterday to type out any passage and have typed out more than one already.

What did you say about projecting again?

Reality isn;t matching with your description of it.

So you quoted an objective passage from the book...... but don't think it's an objective book? Hit me up with what you're break down of the book is and why. I'd really like to hear how slanted ROGER (notice how you never even addressed the fact that you don't know the name of the author of a book you're supposedly holding) Crowley's opinions are. Point out his specific biases for me. Be sure to cite the page for me, so I can read it when I get home.

saying "wrong" means nothing.

I've pointed out about 10 things in which you've justobviously fallen flat. You're lying, and it's a really obvious and sad lie to make.

Also I was in this thread to discuss the thread title, not go down avenues and have to enumerate the archaelogical record of the Mayans and Incas, especially when Encyclopedia Britannica did it for me.

Whoooosh, yet another dodge. Nice try slick, but no dice.

 

[lfd0311]

None of these falsify my claim i have the book though, i can just google the answer. I was wanting to prove i have the book. Hence asking for specific passage question. Although it's approaching 5 here and i want a few beers rather than discussing Ottoman history.

He literally covers this in the first part of the book. It's why I suggested you read this book to begin with. You for some reason had to go off on this retarded "Oh, I just so happen to have that very book right here, yet can't get the author's name right or cite basic themes of the book" rant that has done nothing but waste time and made you look childish and stupid.

 

[tramendous]

When you don't address something, it's a dodge.

i gave you examples of people who didn't have to pay jizya. when you cant see the obvious it means you're blind.

The point of Jizyah was that over time the tax increased to the point where all that person's goods were siezed and they had only two real choices. Conversion to Islam or death. Or they could attempt to leave. So three.

This is not true. The point of Jizya was to allow people to be governed by their own faith "millets" in exchange for a sum of money that would go towards the state. If the objective was to forcefully convert people, then why would they put in the millet system? Why would they allow the churches to exist. Why would monks be exempt from Jizya?

The exemptions from Jizya is evident in Islamic history and repeated so by Jurists:

Islamic jurists required adult, free, sane, able-bodied males of military age with no religious functions among the dhimma community to pay the jizya,[4] while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves,[4][5][6][7][8]as well as musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands)[5] and converts to Islam.[58] Dhimmis who chose to join military service were exempted from payment.[1][6][11][12][13] If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything.[6][63][15] Sometimes a dhimmi was exempted from jizya if he rendered some valuable services to the state.[78]

The Hanafi scholar Abu Yusuf wrote, "slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax"[111] and states that jizya should not be collected from those who have neither income nor any property, but survive by begging and from alms.[111] The Hanbali jurist al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā states, "there is no jizya upon the poor, the old, and the chronically ill".[112] Historical reports tell of exemptions granted by the second caliph ‘Umar to an old blind Jew and others like him.[4][113][114][115][116][117][118] The Maliki scholar Al-Qurtubi writes that, "there is a consensus amongst Islamic scholars that jizya is to be taken only from heads of free men past puberty, who are the ones fighting, but not from women, the children, the slaves, the insane, and the dying old."[119]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Liability_and_exemptions

The Albanian Megaris who were Christians were also exempted from Jizya because they provided a militia to the state to guard some mountain passes.

At face value, what the Spanish were doing was not better than what the Ottomans were doing. No take into account that what you're talking about in Spain is called the ReConquista, not simply the Conquista. And where are you getting that Jizyah excluded the poor? That's simply not true. In fact, conversion was often highest amonst the lower classes because they could not afford to pay the taxes and they couldn't afford to move.

At face value, What the Spanish were doing was a lot worse than the Ottomans. Would you prefer to be treated as the Moors by the Spanish or the Greeks by the Ottomans? Would you prefer that I let you be governed by your own law "millet" and be exempt from mandatory military service in exchange for a tax or do you prefer that I simply put a sword to your face and say "Conversion or Exile?"

 

[lfd0311]

i gave you examples of people who didn't have to pay jizya. when you cant see the obvious it means you're blind.



This is not true. The point of Jizya was to allow people to be governed by their own faith "millets" in exchange for a sum of money that would go towards the state. If the objective was to forcefully convert people, then why would they put in the millet system? Why would they allow the churches to exist. Why would monks be exempt from Jizya?

The exemptions from Jizya is evident in Islamic history and repeated so by Jurists:

Islamic jurists required adult, free, sane, able-bodied males of military age with no religious functions among the dhimma community to pay the jizya,[4] while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves,[4][5][6][7][8]as well as musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands)[5] and converts to Islam.[58] Dhimmis who chose to join military service were exempted from payment.[1][6][11][12][13] If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything.[6][63][15] Sometimes a dhimmi was exempted from jizya if he rendered some valuable services to the state.[78]

The Hanafi scholar Abu Yusuf wrote, "slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax"[111] and states that jizya should not be collected from those who have neither income nor any property, but survive by begging and from alms.[111] The Hanbali jurist al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā states, "there is no jizya upon the poor, the old, and the chronically ill".[112] Historical reports tell of exemptions granted by the second caliph ‘Umar to an old blind Jew and others like him.[4][113][114][115][116][117][118] The Maliki scholar Al-Qurtubi writes that, "there is a consensus amongst Islamic scholars that jizya is to be taken only from heads of free men past puberty, who are the ones fighting, but not from women, the children, the slaves, the insane, and the dying old."[119]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Liability_and_exemptions

The Albanian Megaris who were Christians were also exempted from Jizya because they provided a militia to the state to guard some mountain passes.



At face value, What the Spanish were doing was a lot worse than the Ottomans. Would you prefer to be treated as the Moors by the Spanish or the Greeks by the Ottomans? Would you prefer that I let you be governed by your own law "millet" and be exempt from mandatory military service in exchange for a tax or do you prefer that I simply put a sword to your face and say "Conversion or Exile?"

Compulsory military service in in place of paying a tax. You don't see the issue there do you? These are conquored people. We've also been over the Millet System before, stop acting like we haven't. Lastly, you're also ignoring the yearly tribute in young boys to be provided to the Sultan.

 

[Black Helicopters]

At face value, What the Spanish were doing was a lot worse than the Ottomans. Would you prefer to be treated as the Moors by the Spanish or the Greeks by the Ottomans? Would you prefer that I let you be governed by your own law "millet" and be exempt from mandatory military service in exchange for a tax or do you prefer that I simply put a sword to your face and say "Conversion or Exile?"

It's retarded to compare the Spanish to the Ottoman's, considering the Ottoman's received a huge chunk of their Jewish population from Spain. The Ottoman's were clearly the better choice for the time.

 

[tramendous]

It's retarded to compare the Spanish to the Ottoman's, considering the Ottoman's received a huge chunk of their Jewish population from Spain. The Ottoman's were clearly the better choice for the time.

try telling that to ifd0311

 

[tramendous]

Compulsory military service in in place of paying a tax. You don't see the issue there do you? These are conquored people. We've also been over the Millet System before, stop acting like we haven't. Lastly, you're also ignoring the yearly tribute in young boys to be provided to the Sultan.

i dont see the big issue at all in the context of 1453 lmao. I've already been over the "harem" with you. A harem does not compare to the destruction of a culture. The people in Greece are still Greek, The people in Balkans are still Balkans with their own languages, cultures, religions. Where are all the Moors? I don't know where we went over the millet system. Quote it.