Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Turks aren't Arabs.

Go back further

You're conflating Arab with Muslim. Most of the troops that fought during the conquest of Anatolia were Greek Byzantine converts. Similarly, later conflicts were generally over religious differences rather than racial ones; at least once you move below the leadership. The only significant conflicts between Arab and Europeans took place during the Crusades.

dogma wrote:You're conflating Arab with Muslim. Most of the troops that fought during the conquest of Anatolia were Greek Byzantine converts. Similarly, later conflicts were generally over religious differences rather than racial ones; at least once you move below the leadership. The only significant conflicts between Arab and Europeans took place during the Crusades.

BINGO. I dont confuse Arab with Muslim.

Soladrin wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jack, it's not saying 'well if black people did it, it wouldn't be allowed because that's how racist the powers that be are', it's saying 'folks lining the streets with guns and talk of killing the president and overthrowing the elected government is a bad thing, yet we aren't stopping it, why the hell not'.

Then you must have read something else as me...

Well, as your response so perfectly demonstrates, English isn't your first language, so it's entirely feasible you've missed the point of the article. It does operate on several levels.

If he was saying what you are saying, then why the hell did he need to use black people to get that message across?

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Also MGS, how many presidents havent had death threats or near death experiences? XD
Comes as part of the job in my opinion.

Well, quite a few, but I suspect most for starting wars, causing economic depressions and the corrupt manipulation of legislation to line the pockets of cronies (a bit like the last one then ) ... Not for trying to ensure the poor have healthcare provided by the state...

MGS - There is a reason that the body guards will take a bullet for a president.
Its part of thier job.
So if its in the job description, it stands to reason they need protection

However, he has done nothing wrong yet, give it time, not a single president has gone full without a fuckup.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Well, quite a few, but I suspect most for starting wars, causing economic depressions and the corrupt manipulation of legislation to line the pockets of cronies (a bit like the last one then ) ... Not for trying to ensure the poor have healthcare provided by the state...

So rather than it being an issue of acceptable political discourse, it's wrong because you oppose their political agenda. At least you're not trying to hide it...

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
BINGO. I dont confuse Arab with Muslim.

Then why would you tell me to 'go back further' when my retort to your repair related directly to the first three Crusades?

Only the 5th, 6th and 8th Crusades included a majority of Arab combatants.

Because people dont know (or give a gak) Which countries actually count as being Arabian. (me among them )

The Umayyad Caliphate was Arabian, they participated in the 1st Crusade....

Interesting. We went from modern Tea Party to crusades in about a single page.

Sorry, its my favorite time period.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Well, quite a few, but I suspect most for starting wars, causing economic depressions and the corrupt manipulation of legislation to line the pockets of cronies (a bit like the last one then ) ... Not for trying to ensure the poor have healthcare provided by the state...

So rather than it being an issue of acceptable political discourse, it's wrong because you oppose their political agenda. At least you're not trying to hide it...

hmmm...

We were discussing reasons some people might wish to kill a president, the bracketed reference to the last one aside, and that frankly Obama had not committed a perceived transgression worthy of that level of ire.

I don't think killing presidents is ever an issue of acceptable political discourse. I don't believe protesting by shouting for the duly elected president to be struck dead whilst carrying firearms in public areas is appropriate, when then put in the context of what he's trying to achieve, it is doubly out of context and rational behaviour.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The Umayyad Caliphate was Arabian, they participated in the 1st Crusade....

No they didn't, they were overthrown by the Abbasids before the First Crusade began. The Abbasids were Persian.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Gabe said...

Imagine leftists letting go of their race cards for just one second. What card would they play then? Tired rhetoric is tired.

I like this guys response.

Thats because you didn't understand the article and apparently don't have a good grasp on what people believe about the tea party.

Oh, I forgot how conquering entities replace the conquered population of the places they conquer exclusively with their people. Just think of all those American Colonists in Iraq....


Not trying to be a dick, man. But saying that Arabs avoided European racism in the first 3 Crusades is ridiculous. Regardless of the ethnicity of the ruling dynasties Arabs lived in the Holy Land, and were persecuted for being Arabian.


On second go through, the Fatamids had retaken Jerusalem from the Seljuks the year before the Crusaders arrived there. The Fatamids were North African(Tunisian) originally, but were centralized in Egypt, and extended throughout the lower middle east. Its citizens were African, Egyptian, and ARABIAN, etc.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Oh, I forgot how conquering entities replace the conquered population of the places they conquer exclusively with their people. Just think of all those American Colonists in Iraq....

Wait, so non-militarized populations do the majority of the fighting in warfare? The Abbasid armies were primarily Persian, supported by Turkish mercenaries. By the time of the First Crusade they were almost entirely Turkish.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Not trying to be a dick, man. But saying that Arabs avoided European racism in the first 3 Crusades is ridiculous.

Only if you use the word 'racism' as a catchall for discriminatory behavior.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Regardless of the ethnicity of the ruling dynasties Arabs lived in the Holy Land, and were persecuted for being Arabian.

No, they were persecuted for being, or looking like, Muslims.

There's a line of argument which suggest that discussing anything with respect to race prior to colonialism is nonsense.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Oh, I forgot how conquering entities replace the conquered population of the places they conquer exclusively with their people. Just think of all those American Colonists in Iraq....

Wait, so non-militarized populations do the majority of the fighting in warfare? The Abbasid armies were primarily Persian, supported by Turkish mercenaries. By the time of the First Crusade they were almost entirely Turkish.

I believe the First Crusade was noted for the killing of non-combatants and letting the Good Lord do all the sorting....

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Not trying to be a dick, man. But saying that Arabs avoided European racism in the first 3 Crusades is ridiculous.

Only if you use the word 'racism' as a catchall for discriminatory behavior.

Your arguing about something that can never be proven a 100%...

There may have been aliens doing the killing and some guy wanted to blame humans and wrote it that way...

I love how people get their knickers in a twist over thing's that we can't ever be completely sure about in the first place. xD

What else is there to do on the internet?

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
I believe the First Crusade was noted for the killing of non-combatants and letting the Good Lord do all the sorting....

As were all conflicts of temporal proximity.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Which I was, so yes discriminatory behavior.

You should stop doing that, it confuses the meaning of the word. And its a pet peeve of mine.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
If you have I'd like to read it, it sounds like it'd be useful the next time I have to explain anything about ancient conflicts.

Foucault, particularly Society Must Be Defended, is a good place to start.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
I believe the First Crusade was noted for the killing of non-combatants and letting the Good Lord do all the sorting....

As were all conflicts of temporal proximity.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Which I was, so yes discriminatory behavior.

You should stop doing that, it confuses the meaning of the word. And its a pet peeve of mine.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
If you have I'd like to read it, it sounds like it'd be useful the next time I have to explain anything about ancient conflicts.

Foucault, particularly Society Must Be Defended, is a good place to start.

This is pretty cool. This is TWO arguments that have been worked out on the OT boards in the same week. Im getting better at this posting on Dakka thing.

Soladrin wrote:Your arguing about something that can never be proven a 100%...

There may have been aliens doing the killing and some guy wanted to blame humans and wrote it that way...

I love how people get their knickers in a twist over thing's that we can't ever be completely sure about in the first place. xD

First off, arguing is fun.

Second, you're taking the time to comment on a conversation that you can never be unequivocally certain represents a component of reality. Are you saying that you love something that might not be real? That's awfully delusional of you.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:We were discussing reasons some people might wish to kill a president, the bracketed reference to the last one aside, and that frankly Obama had not committed a perceived transgression worthy of that level of ire.

I don't think killing presidents is ever an issue of acceptable political discourse. I don't believe protesting by shouting for the duly elected president to be struck dead whilst carrying firearms in public areas is appropriate, when then put in the context of what he's trying to achieve, it is doubly out of context and rational behaviour.

Maybe I was being kind of a jerk; what I probably should have said was if you're condemning an action (such as saying you want the president to be killed) on the principle that it's unacceptable political discourse, you should probably avoid saying that it's 'extra unacceptable' on account of the partisan motivations for the action, because it alienates the people you most need to convince. They'll take the criticism as a disingenuous attempt to score political points.

Soladrin wrote:

There may have been aliens doing the killing and some guy wanted to blame humans and wrote it that way...

Alien vs Predator vs Crusaders FTW!!!

I don't think killing presidents is ever an issue of acceptable political discourse. I don't believe protesting by shouting for the duly elected president to be struck dead whilst carrying firearms in public areas is appropriate, when then put in the context of what he's trying to achieve, it is doubly out of context and rational behaviour.

I am always wondering when everyone will realise that humans are not rational beings? We have the ability to be rational, but we are not by nature.

Someone from New Zealand mentioned that they were astonished that they called themselves the Tea Party, that is because the Boston Tea Party (wiki it) is considered a major run up event if not the beginning action of the American Revolution where they threw out the British on account of over taxation. I think it's a wonderful name for their purpose, and I don't blame you for not knowing American history.

As to the OP, that is because a lot of people think black people with guns are dangerous gangsters, while white people with guns are just rednecks.

Honestly, I would like to see the Tea Party acheive their goals, obviously not in the revolutionary way that was espoused in the blog but they do most of their activities in a legal way.

Someone mentioned Geert Wilders, then called him a turd. I think he is probably the most liberal anti muslim guy you will ever find in the world, as he is against Islam because of the views it holds of Homosexuality and its anti-liberal manners in its current form. Now when this is said most people go on about how most Muslims don't really care, and that they support Liberal traditions and the like. What they tend to forget is that the extremes of the movement are almost always the leaders of that movement, it takes passion in yourself to inspire passion in others.

I LIKE TURTLES !

I'll go with what one of my History Professors told me once.

"What If? Is a fun game, but that is all it is. What Is is much more interesting and important."

What if the Tea Party were mostly black doesn't mean much because it isn't. You don't understand something by pretending it is something else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I'll go with what one of my History Professors told me once.

"What If? Is a fun game, but that is all it is. What Is is much more interesting and important."

What if the Tea Party were mostly black doesn't mean much because it isn't. You don't understand something by pretending it is something else.

The tea party would also be a tenth it's current size and largely irrelevant.