First, there is no such group as the Byzantines. Please, quite living living in a Western European dominated way of thinking. It was the eastern half of the Roman Empire. You are already showing a prejudice against historical reality. Spare me, please.
You mean the same Roman Empire that Christian Crusaders sacked in 1204?
Further, let's be clear, a large part of the call for the First Crusade was in response to the loss of Armenia and Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks afrer the Battle of Manzikert. This battle did not need to take place and only did because Romanos violated the terms of peace between them from a year prior. Also, the historical record shows that the Alp Arslan proposed a treaty that was highly favorable to the Romans prior to the battle but that it was rejected by Romanos. So, the battle took place. The Eastern Roman armies were crushed. And, the Seljuks took hold of large tracts of land in the aforementioned territories. It was in regard to the settling of these former Roman territories, which saw rather large scale Seljuk mirgration in the decades following 1071, that Alexios Komnenos called upon Urban to raise the crusader army.
So all of this to grudgingly admit that the Seljuk Turks provoked the war in a "gotcha" manner that allows you to flex you amateur wiki-historian muscle.
"I know history PA-RAI-AH!! *smile*"
Not quite.
Aside from your admission that Armenia and Anatolia was annexed without provocation from the Byzantine Empire (prior to your "yeah, but...Alps' peace treaty!"), Islamic culture had been expanding north since 636 AD. You really think it was going to stop on account of a peace treaty in the midst of a weakening empire? With time, it would just keep going.
Yes I do! Because I am that naive.
Ah. Okay.
Sources please. Show me millions. I can only grant you that if I grant smallpox revolutionary status.
If I were counting small pox I would have just given a solid number of 5 million.
The book escapes my grasp right now. I will look for it. But to clarify and ammend: at least 1 to 2 million were killed or simply executed either through mob behavior or the Napoleonic attempts to spread the revolution throughout Europe. I distinctly remember reading up on a number closer 2 million.
If you can't address points without going CAPSLOCKED crazy, don't expect a polite reply to your attempts at starting trolling points.
I can use quote boxes next time if you like. And instead of parodying you parodying MEM, I can just parody you saying, "Oh they're just religious. They'll get over it eventually."
The only reason you've broken your graemlin streak is because you think you have an easily addressed "you're prejudice" issue where you can just make claims of generalization while tossing out an "Occupy Wallstreet" reference here and there. So beg pardon for noticing.
You brought up the subject of Islam and Sharia Law. A comparison between western religion and theirs is needed in a discussion that wishes to explore the true, nonobjective sentiment of your points.
Actually, since Western culture's religions haven't followed a similar pattern and since Christianity doesn't have a kind of Shariah law combating governments the countries of which Christians occupy, no comparison is needed.
And I've never heard any major Muslim leader support terrorist bombings.
Before I pull up the names of influential leaders in the Muslim community that endorse terrorism, What do you define as a Muslim leader exactly? For instance, I imagine you're the kinda guy who'd deny members of the Palestinian parliament who're apart of Hamas could be categorized as leaders simply because you don't know them.
Not saying they haven't, just like I'm not saying the Christians support their own Extremists. There are Muslim Terrorists, and there are Christian Fanatics. There are outspoken anti-Christian zealots (some of them not American atheist reactionaries) and there are the Westboro Baptist Church nutbags. There are those in the Muslim community who cheer bombings, and there are those who condemn them. Depends on whether you only listen to one side of the debate. Comparing and contrasting the two is a functional tool in trying to suss out and narrow down the elements that may or may not personify Muslim Extremists as inherently worse than any other Extremist group.
"SHADES OF GREY!!"
Whoops. There goes the caps again.
I guess this skepticism on your part would mean you'd have absolutely NOOOO problem walking through one of the "Muslims only" sectors in Europe with your wife. You'd certainly see it as no different than walking through a Christian community since...you know, every religion has its share of "extremists" and we can't assume that any one is more filled with "extremists" than the other just because there's more prevalent examples of violence. That would be closed-minded......yeah.
In which case, might I suggest Albania as a vaction spot?
As yours don't quantify the spectrum of the Muslim community.
I don't have to speculate on consistent cases of violence and the subsequent cheering-on of violence carried out by Muslims against other religions in both Europe and the Middle East.
Who "applauds it"? The Extremist leaders of their factions?
Funny but sad: anyone who applauds it will be considered an "extremist" to you. And according your definition, that automatically puts them in a small minority.
Certainly not leaders in the Western Culture. I've never heard anyone "applaud" Muslim violence except for the violent Muslims.
Uh....Yeah. That's generally the people who would cheer on Muslim violence; other Muslims. Good on you for noticing Pro.
Everyone else has condemned violence.
Who is "everyone else?" CAIR? [insert lol here]
What country are you talking about? I assume you mean in the Middle East and Third World countries? Because none of that is happening in America. And I haven't heard about any roaming rape-gangs in England or such.
Tell you what, take any of those countries, magically advance them up to our cultural, economic, and technological level. I guarantee you would see the same Capitalistic overtones take hold as they have in the Western world. Once money gets involved, anyone's religion is suppressed (i.e. Christianity in this country). And they would evolve into us. Because that's all it is. Lack of education. Lack of social evolution. Poverty. Oppression. How could a world like that not begat violence? To judge them is to judge our own history.
Aside from Northern Middle Eastern countries--which are in fact on the same economical level as many countries in Europe--It's happening most notably in Sweden, Britain, Germany, and France right now.........Yeah. You've just made an ass of yourself.
And yes, currently in Egypt, Coptic Christian women are being raped with impunity by gangs of Muslims. This is on top of the burnings and such. And really, do you think Egypt lives in some kind of rut? That they're not subject to Capitalistic Western influences?
You have obviously been studying revisionist Christian propaganda. Christian history is one of the bloodiest in any culture's history. The Crusades and the Massachusetts "witch hunts" alone would certainly disagree with your claims.
The Crusades were a series of territory disputes fought in a religious venue. And the Salem witch trials didn't include honor killings, gang violence, and rape. They're apart of the inquisition violence I already referred to.
By the by, nice hyperbole their: "one of the bloodiest." Very weasel-wordy of you.
It's not about "pinning" anything. It's about the facts of life and history. I'm sure your strict-religious doctrine demands you believe in the perfection of man's expression of Christianity (otherwise you think you'll "burn in hell"). But, the truth is, Christianity at one point was the world's "Muslim Extremism". No amount of denial on your part changes the facts. History is written by the victors, and the Christians did a lot of Crusading and conquering. Were all Christians extremists? Absolutely not. Just like the Muslims now.
Again, this can't be proven doctrinally. You can say that a bunch of Christians killed some people at some place at some time. But you can't say they did it as "extremist" Christians (At least not in the way you've defined "extremist"). However, since violence is apart of the Muslim doctrine, you
can say it about them. And you also can't use any historical references to compare Christian methods/intentions to Muslims--and certainly not a body count.
If that were actually true, we would be fighting Muslim armies in the streets right now. Hyperbole does not serve your argument.
Reductio ad absurdem.
Sweden jails are overflowing with Muslim gangs right now with individuals arrested for arson, rape, and battery. Similar stories are being told in France, Germany, and Britain--and throughout Europe really. This is on top of terrorist attacks in general. You don't need an all out militia to have influence--as Youtube/Twitter/Facebook has shown us (see also: Anwar al-Awlaki's online sermons).
Dozens upon dozens of cases of honor killings are popping up throughout the continent to boot. It mostly has to do with daughters being tortured and killed for being too Westernized. This has happened in America as well.
Crime and civil unrest is more subtle and effective this day and age than war and insurrection.
UK judge endorses Sharia LawApparently capitalism and a relatively strong economy has made some great progress in leveling off Muslim belief systems in Europe after all!
Kind of like how people felt when they tossed the Old Testament for the New Testament as the Christian focal point?
I think you mean "Jewish focal point" since there were no Christians prior to Christ fulfilling the Covenant. But I suppose your desperation to criticize them will drive you to even greater feats of retardation than usual.
Interesting commentary though: so you're expecting a second coming of Muhammed to build on the Qu'ran?
Did you contact your Columbian Drug Lords to help her? Or did you and SEAL Team 6 go in and save her?
She wasn't helped.
[insert lol graemlin here] funny anecdote!
But that wasn't--
Yeah yeah! And the Columbians and the SEALs helped you rescue her! [insert rolleyes graemlin here]
But I--
Or was it you that had to do battle with the Columbians to save the girl from the SEALs? [insert lol graemlin here]
....What?
Uh huh, well I'm sure you saved the day! [insert thumbsup and/or shrug graemlin(s) here]
Yes. You are that predictable.
I'm really not surprised that you'll outright deny that Muslims target women of other religions for the sake of rape, conversion, and coercive marriages simply because I told you I've seen it for myself. rkmb memes are always an easy out for you after all.
Your arrogant racism is noted and proven. I'm not sure there's any point in continuing to attempt a dialogue with you. You have already made up the fantasy-enemy in your mind.
Race? Where did I mention race? We've been talking about culture and religion. If you don't know the difference, than it's no wonder you have such a difficult time grasping the topic at hand.
If you can't actually address the issue, why are you bothering trying to discuss this? Or is it because I gave you a rational, logical, polite answer, and you can't handle it? Either way, makes you look childish. No change there....
That they are Corporate shills following the will of whatever money tells them to do. Same as any and every politician the world over. Partisan lines keeps you distracted, confused, and angry. Let go of "Us vs Them" and try to find unity where it exists.
"Regardless, Obama and Biden offered up commentary and support of Egyptian protesters prior to Mubarak stepping down,
but no money was involved then. What does that tell you?"
I point out a non-sequitur on your part; you get pissy. Roger.