Afghanistan Crisis

[Ric]

1 minute ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Do left and right really mean anything in the context of perceived existential threats to national security? The Israeli Labour party were central to the Zionist project and discretely pushed for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arab populations that happened in 1948. Unfortunately the Israeli electorate subsequently favoured them over other parties of the left that wanted co-existance and a return of the expelled Arab population (intransigence on issues like that didn't start with Likud), and ethnic cleansing was reciprocated in the Arab world where Mizrahi Jewish populations were concerned. 

I mention the current political leanings purely as a reflection of how Israel has changed over the 70 odd years of it's existence. Today, there is definitely a ground swell of left leaning, integrationist, feelings which are far removed from the early Zionist motivations.

Modern day Israeli politics is very narrow, and really comes down to which flavour of right you want.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, TheJTS98 said:

Only if you don't know anything about the topic.

 

Got to say I don't fully agree with your reading of the situation, considering the moors were effectively Berbers from across the Gibraltar straight, who themselves were well known for their trade routes, it would be somewhat questionable for them to allow similar and successful trade routes to fall into disuse. You claim it was for a handy source of income and only because of that, whereas I would contend that the moors were happy for people to continue their lives rather than force a change. It is documented that the number of deaths of those holding an opposite religion to that of the rulers, was far higher under Christian rule than under the moors. In short, if you aren't Christian and the Catholics heard about it, you were in for some serious shenanigans. When the moors arrived, they pretty much said, "Yeah, alright."

What's more, it still doesn't answer the question as to how people can compare the moors invasion of Southern Spain to that of the Crusades, which was the initial point being made. I presume you don't prescribe to such a notion.

 

 

[LongTimeLurker]

8 minutes ago, Ric said:

...Today, there is definitely a ground swell of left leaning, integrationist, feelings which are far removed from the early Zionist motivations...

That's always been there to some extent. There were Marxist parties that were anti-Zionist and still had a sizable number of Jewish voters as late as the 1960s.

[Guest TheJTS98]

11 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

Got to say I don't fully agree with your reading of the situation,1) considering the moors were effectively Berbers from across the Gibraltar straight, who themselves were well known for their trade routes, it would be somewhat questionable for them to allow similar and successful trade routes to fall into disuse. 2)You claim it was for a handy source of income and only because of that, whereas I would contend that the moors 3) were happy for people to continue their lives rather than force a change. It is documented that the number of deaths of those holding an opposite religion to that of the rulers, was far higher under Christian rule than under the moors. In short, if you aren't Christian and the Catholics heard about it, you were in for some serious shenanigans. When the moors arrived, they pretty much said, "Yeah, alright."

4)What's more, it still doesn't answer the question as to how people can compare the moors invasion of Southern Spain to that of the Crusades, which was the initial point being made. I presume you don't prescribe to such a notion.

 

 

1) This makes no sense. The Moors had no incentive to disrupt the economy of their newly-conquered land. They just skimmed that economy and got rich(er) off it. Like the British Empire did.

2) I'm not really 'claiming' anything. What other reason do you think a government collects a tax other than to get income? Look up the Jizya and the consequences of non-payment. I strongly feel you've never heard of it before. - I'll save you the time. The consequences are being killed or becoming slaves. This remains true. You reckon the Moors displayed tolerance. You have no idea what you're talking about. The deal was convert or pay up, or we kill you or enslave you.

3) Only initially. Again, if you knew the topic, you'd know that it is far from settled exactly how well the non-Muslims were treated, but not disputed at all that in the 12th century persecution ramped up significantly.

4) Yeah, you're absolutely right. Apart from the parts about incomers with both religious and economic motivations moving in and subjugating the local population. Apart from that, there's no similarity at all. I'm curious as to how exactly you think the two events differ.

Edited August 27, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Ric]

Just now, LongTimeLurker said:

That's always been there to some extent. There were Marxist parties that were anti-Zionist and still had a sizable number of Jewish voters as late as the 1960s.

Israel is a very young country, and I can imagine the overwhelming nationalism from it's formation would have led to the position where criticising the government was seen as being against Israel itself.

That said, as we've seen in the States, if you take aim at right wing authoritarian governments you are automatically labelled unpatriotic, I fully expect that narrative to be played out against what is a small but growing minority who want to see, if not full integration, their government stopping being such c***s.

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I'm curious as to how exactly you think the two events differ.

 

Yeah, alright, so you are here to argue. It's not even close to a similarity.

 

 

[Guest TheJTS98]

5 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

Yeah, alright, so you are here to argue. It's not even close to a similarity.

 

 

I've told you that I see them as comparable because they were both invasions by force with economic and religious motivation that led to the locals being mistreated physically, politically, and economically.

Tell me what part of that you disagree with.

You keep saying they're different, and mentioning Jerusalem etc. But the Moors were clearly motivated by and guided by religion as well.

So, what's the difference?

Edited August 27, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I've told you that I see them as comparable because they were both invasions by force with economic and religious motivation that led to the locals being mistreated physically, politically, and economically.

Tell me what part of that you disagree with.

You keep saying they're different, and mentioning Jerusalem etc. But the Moors were clearly motivated by and guided by religion as well.

So, what's the difference?

^^ Enters into the discussion half way, decides to argue a separate point, making massive jumps of conclusion while doing so.

Nah, it's ok, I've dealt with your intransigence before when it comes to discussing things. I am not going to spoon feed you here, if you wish to continue believing these two things are equivalent then really that is upon you.

[Guest TheJTS98]

11 minutes ago, Ric said:

^^ Enters into the discussion half way, decides to argue a separate point, making massive jumps of conclusion while doing so.

Nah, it's ok, I've dealt with your intransigence before when it comes to discussing things. I am not going to spoon feed you here, if you wish to continue believing these two things are equivalent then really that is upon you.

No. I've read the conversation.

You've never once justified or even half-explained your stance in a way that demonstrates anything approaching an accurate understanding of the situation. Every post sees you bend over backwards to try and avoid confronting the reality that the more the conversation develops, the more your complete lack of understanding is exposed.

I'll leave you with a thought. You think the Moors were a tolerant mob because they allowed the Jews and Christians to go about their lives. What you clearly didn't know was that the Jews and Christians had to pay a tax to be allowed to do this, and that failing to do so would see them killed or enslaved.

Here's the thing. If ISIS successfully invaded the UK next week, this would be their exact policy for the residents of the UK. They wouldn't go around beheading everyone. They'd offer the chance to pay the Jizya in return for your life and (sort of) liberty. And the Jizya is designed as a temporary situation. It is a privilege that can be withdrawn at any time and the infidel simply killed or enslaved.

In that scenario, do you think you'd feel much more positively towards the ISIS invaders than the victims of the crusades? That was the exact situation in the most tolerable stretches for the non-muslims in Iberia.

Give this one up, Ric. You simply know nothing about the topic.

Edited August 27, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Ric]

As expected, you've misrepresented the point being argued then gone on to claim (for the third time in a row) that I am somehow unknowledgeable on the subject.

This is why I don't bother with your comments.

 

 

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

As expected, you've misrepresented the point being argued then gone on to claim (for the third time in a row) that I am somehow unknowledgeable on the subject.

This is why I don't bother with your comments.

 

 

I've read your contributions through twice now. I'm not misrepresenting them at all.

Explain how you think I am.

[Sergeant Wilson]

After the last few pages I think being in Afghanistan doesn't seem that bad.

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 hours ago, Ric said:

This is not a new thing, if you put it in context of the Crusades.

Maybe not bombing, and despite being a millennia ago, it was western powers trying to enforce their dominance upon the middle east (and the surrounding region).

Hi Ric.

Start with this one.

[Ric]

Painful. That's what that is.

Stop being needy and accept that because of your style and your insults I have no interest in engaging with you.

[Guest TheJTS98]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

Painful. That's what that is.

Stop being needy and accept that because of your style and your insults I have no interest in engaging with you.

I've simply asked you to state your position.

Why do you think the two things that you said cannot be compared cannot be compared?

You've not done this.

I've said you don't know anything about the topic because you're quite painfully showing this with every post on the thread. You actually said that a Jizya-imposing invader was 'open to other religions being practised' as if this is some kind of praise-worthy trait. It's barbaric!

Then when asked about this, you demonstrated that you've never even heard of the Jizya.

Then, when asked to explain your crusades reference in relation to this, you bizarrely start claiming to have been misrepresented. We can all see what you wrote. It's in black and white.

[Ric]

You have misrepresented my position several times, claimed I knew f**k all and are now demanding I spend time spoon feeding you. I have no intention of doing so.

What you believe is utterly irrelevant to me.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Ric

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

You have misrepresented my position several times

You keep saying this, but never explain it.

Because I haven't.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Maybe, just maybe, we could stop helping to bomb mainly Islamic countries back to the stone age? I'd be interested to see if anyone's done a study into the effect on terrorist threats to nations of compliance with US Foreign Policy.

To paraphrase a childhhod hero of mine - "Ain't no Afghan farmer ever called me Infidel"

Quoting oneself may sometimes be seen as bad form, but I'm amazed at the ripples created by the wee pebble that is the first sentence here. Especially as one of the posters picking up the ball and running with it keeps on saying how uninterested in the argument he is. 

[Ric]

4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Quoting oneself may sometimes be seen as bad form, but I'm amazed at the ripples created by the wee pebble that is the first sentence here. Especially as one of the posters picking up the ball and running with it keeps on saying how uninterested in the argument he is. 

I guess that is aimed at me, I'm not uninterested. My point was simply that it's not a new thing, which I am sure we both agree on. I wasn't chastising you for such an opinion, if anything I was agreeing with you.

[Fullerene]

53 minutes ago, Ric said:

That said, as we've seen in the States, if you take aim at right wing authoritarian governments you are automatically labelled unpatriotic, I fully expect that narrative to be played out against what is a small but growing minority who want to see, if not full integration, their government stopping being such c***s.

In the USA, the government is seen as "the People's government", democratically elected by the American People.  As such, if "our government" labels this country as a friend or that country as an enemy then it is considered unpatriotic and going against the will of the American People to disagree.  IMO.