11 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

That is my point daisy. Biffen is carrying on endlessly about the barbarity of the Ottomans or whatever other category he chooses to use to calumniate Muslims (in their entirety) and in order to do so he's also endlessly whitewashing European interferences in the rest of the world let alone the massacres, pogroms, genocides and so on at home. There is no vantage point of moral superiority on which to stand. The complexity of the history that leaves us where we are today needs to be accepted as such before anything is likely to be solved. 

Simplistic cause and effect relationships and caricatures/stereotypes/generalisations etc are the stuff of propaganda. I'd have thought better of Biff than to trade in them.

You really are clutching at straws.

"Jumble of Claims" indeed.

I'm over the argument because Ive presented historical facts and you come back with allegations of racism , though slightly veiled.

I think I've won the discussion.

Choke,Deiter,Yourself and Stuie keep bringing up race all you like which shows your ignorance of What was an international trading zone .

Youve all made false claims and historical inaccuracies in a race to discuss race.

It's a boring cop out when we have been discussing the many races involved and I have acknowledged the barbarism on all sides of history .

This childish finger pointing at presumed slurs is demeaning to us all.

I have never tried to get personal here because those of you on the "Biff is racist" ticket are not worth the steam.

I doubt you would know my ethnicity and it's totally irrelevant to what became a discussion of history.

9 minutes ago, Biffen said:

You really are clutching at straws.

"Jumble of Claims" indeed.

I'm over the argument because Ive presented historical facts and you come back with allegations of racism , though slightly veiled.

I think I've won the discussion.

Choke,Deiter,Yourself and Stuie keep bringing up race all you like which shows your ignorance of What was an international trading zone .

Youve all made false claims and historical inaccuracies in a race to discuss race.

It's a boring cop out when we have been discussing the many races involved and I have acknowledged the barbarism on all sides of history .

This childish finger pointing at presumed slurs is demeaning to us all.

I have never tried to get personal here because those of you on the "Biff is racist" ticket are not worth the steam.

I doubt you would know my ethnicity and it's totally irrelevant to what became a discussion of history.

I haven't concerned myself with race at all, veiled or even hidden and if all you've got is accusations framed at that level you demean yourself even more than you have already.

But pat yourself on the back as much as you like about whatever victory you think you've achieved. I wasn't aware that there was any competition going on but there you go. When I want a history of the Levant i'll ask the historians.

18 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

That is my point daisy. Biffen is carrying on endlessly about the barbarity of the Ottomans or whatever other category he chooses to use to calumniate Muslims (in their entirety) and in order to do so he's also endlessly whitewashing European interferences in the rest of the world let alone the massacres, pogroms, genocides and so on at home. There is no vantage point of moral superiority on which to stand. The complexity of the history that leaves us where we are today needs to be accepted as such before anything is likely to be solved. 

Simplistic cause and effect relationships and caricatures/stereotypes/generalisations etc are the stuff of propaganda. I'd have thought better of Biff than to trade in them.

well he is entitled to discuss muslim barbarity and its roots. islam is a religion where much (not all) of it today is clearly rooted in the past and not progressive with a certain racist intolerance (infidel and schismatic) element. additionally and more worrying is its often desire to either dominate or supplant the secular in a more fundamentalist and regressive fashion (some might say even barbaric). biffo is not alone even among academics in believing islam (or more particularly powerful elements it harbours) is a threat to the world order (particularly the western world). i'm not saying he has expressed his pov very eloquently but i'm just defending his right to legitimately argue it without pc interference

i just think it doesn't serve much point in this discussion getting into tu quoque arguments of historical equivalence. it just becomes a pizzing competition. For example christianity today is unrecognisable from the christianity of yore, whereas islam as practised in many parts of the world today could be taken directly out of any medieval history book.

 

38 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well he is entitled to discuss muslim barbarity and its roots. islam is a religion where much (not all) of it today is clearly rooted in the past and not progressive with a certain racist intolerance (infidel and schismatic) element. additionally and more worrying is its often desire to either dominate or supplant the secular in a more fundamentalist and regressive fashion (some might say even barbaric). biffo is not alone even among academics in believing islam (or more particularly powerful elements it harbours) is a threat to the world order (particularly the western world). i'm not saying he has expressed his pov very eloquently but i'm just defending his right to legitimately argue it without pc interference

i just think it doesn't serve much point in this discussion getting into tu quoque arguments of historical equivalence. it just becomes a pizzing competition. For example christianity today is unrecognisable from the christianity of yore, whereas islam as practised in many parts of the world today could be taken directly out of any medieval history book.

 

I don't disagree ... except for the proposition about tu quoque argument. Biff's assertions wander backwards and forwards over all sorts of justifications for/glossing over/ whitewashing of western barbarism. He's relied all along on reading Islam through a comparative moral lens and in those circumstances it's entirely appropriate to raise barbarities of other sorts. Nor do I think that there's anything like a 'pizzing competition' to it. That's why I said barbarism is barbarism. Giordano Bruno's death would still be an act of barbarity with or without the Inquisition's subsequent expansion in Spain and beyond.

It's the extremism of Biff's language that worries me. 

My only knowledge of much of the above discussion comes from a wonderful and informative piece  called " The Lustful Turk". It was written around  200 years ago.

Social history I suppose. 

Edited January 11, 20178 yr by Bitter but optimistic
typo

47 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

I haven't concerned myself with race at all, veiled or even hidden and if all you've got is accusations framed at that level you demean yourself even more than you have already.

But pat yourself on the back as much as you like about whatever victory you think you've achieved. I wasn't aware that there was any competition going on but there you go. When I want a history of the Levant i'll ask the historians.

You accused me of  creating stereotypes and caricatures.

Ive been as eloquent as possible on an iPhone4 with a cracked screen.

Numerous red herrings have been posted whenever I might actually have  a surprising truth to add to the discussion.

Im not obsessed with anything or concerned about winning the debate .

You guys win.

White invader bad

Muslim invader good.

No grey areas.

Im going to get a souvlaki.

Extremism of any kind should not be tolerated, but to suggest radicalisation of Muslims is endemic is simply wrong.  As with any religion/sect/cult there will always be extreme views, but much of that emanates from other personal choices, over and above any religious text, such as a feeling of disenfranchisement, where the misguided believe radicalism somehow empowers them, when otherwise they would feel emasculated.

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

You accused me of  creating stereotypes and caricatures.

Ive been as eloquent as possible on an iPhone4 with a cracked screen.

Numerous red herrings have been posted whenever I might actually have  a surprising truth to add to the discussion.

Im not obsessed with anything or concerned about winning the debate .

You guys win.

White invader bad

Muslim invader good.

No grey areas.

Im going to get a souvlaki.

When you can come up with some evidence for you claim that I called you a racist feel free to get back to me.

As for the rest of this tripe it only confirms that you react to posts without bothering to read them.

50 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Extremism of any kind should not be tolerated, but to suggest radicalisation of Muslims is endemic is simply wrong.  As with any religion/sect/cult there will always be extreme views, but much of that emanates from other personal choices, over and above any religious text, such as a feeling of disenfranchisement, where the misguided believe radicalism somehow empowers them, when otherwise they would feel emasculated.

iva, it's not just the good guys and a minority group of radicals. more concerning is a bigger group in between who provide succour, tacit acceptance, finance, apologia and shelter to the radicals whether out of ignorance, frustration, racism, a sense of religious duty or admiration. without them the radicals would wither or be more ineffective  

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

iva, it's not just the good guys and a minority group of radicals. more concerning is a bigger group in between who provide succour, tacit acceptance, finance, apologia and shelter to the radicals whether out of ignorance, frustration, racism, a sense of religious duty or admiration. without them the radicals would wither or be more ineffective  

Yep, like the GOP and those who refer to themselves a the 'silent majority' = Trump

13 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Yep, like the GOP and those who refer to themselves a the 'silent majority' = Trump

why do you have to shift the goal posts like that with trite poorly based equivalence arguments. are you in all seriousness drawing a parallel between radical extemist terrorism and the gop or are you just trolling me?

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

why do you have to shift the goal posts like that with trite poorly based equivalence arguments. are you in all seriousness drawing a parallel between radical extemist terrorism and the gop or are you just trolling me?

WTF?  Short answer is yes, the GOP which supports Trump, is probably the most dangerous thing that has happened in the world in more recent history.  Not trolling at all

What you learn on Demonland - thanks Daisy...

A  tu quoque argument

1/ Have looked it up and now know what it means

2/ Goal for the week is to use it in conversation ( can you call someone a tu quoque'ist ?)

On 12/01/2017 at 4:58 AM, nutbean said:

What you learn on Demonland - thanks Daisy...

A  tu quoque argument

1/ Have looked it up and now know what it means

2/ Goal for the week is to use it in conversation ( can you call someone a tu quoque'ist ?)

Seems we have some inconsistent arguments .

But at least we are speaking in Latin and not Arabic.

 

On 14/01/2017 at 2:22 PM, Biffen said:

Seems we have some inconsistent arguments .

But at least we are speaking in Latin and not Arabic.

 

Al-Hayat

On Ngày 16 tháng 01 năm 2017 at 10:44 AM, iv'a worn smith said:

Al-Hayat

is cheap .

28 minutes ago, Biffen said:

is cheap .

Well googled

I googled this one too.

 

https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/invade-turkey-again/

Edited January 24, 20178 yr by Biffen

12 minutes ago, Biffen said:

I googled this one too.

 

https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/invade-turkey-again/

You google too much. The Australian Spectator is bad for your mental heath. You already have Kneemonia, Toesolitis and probably Richardtheria and to have to subsequently take antidepressants on top of the Anti-inflamatories ( Anthrax tablets, in my language ) would tipple you way over the edge.

Stay moderate, young man.

Anyway, Ataturk is yesterday's man.

40 minutes ago, dieter said:

You google too much. The Australian Spectator is bad for your mental heath. You already have Kneemonia, Toesolitis and probably Richardtheria and to have to subsequently take antidepressants on top of the Anti-inflamatories ( Anthrax tablets, in my language ) would tipple you way over the edge.

Stay moderate, young man.

Anyway, Ataturk is yesterday's man.

Herr Diets,

Would you let your daughter spend New Years Eve in Cologne or Koln as you say?

Ze German police adopted the Schulz approach too.

"I see nussing".

17 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Herr Diets,

Would you let your daughter spend New Years Eve in Cologne or Koln as you say?

Ze German police adopted the Schulz approach too.

"I see nussing".

As in Eau di Cologne? As in Waters of Babylon? No thanks, I'd rather have an eau di Vie.