![]() |
German recognition of Armentian genocide - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: German recognition of Armentian genocide (/Thread-German-recognition-of-Armentian-genocide) |
RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - StLucieBengal - 06-10-2016 (06-10-2016, 02:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Actually, the goal of the First Crusade was not to "take back" Jerusalem for the Christians. The primary goal of the First Crusade was to respond to a request for aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos against the Seljuk Turks who were encroaching upon his border from the east. Many believe Pope Urban II's personal motivation was to reunite the Eastern and Western churches, which had separated 42 years earlier, under his own control. But Urban II had an additional motivation: to wrest influence from the secular rulers (the kings and leaders in Western Europe), whose power had been growing rapidly at the end of the dark ages. Oh I am well aware of the tension between east and west. But the initial crusade was yes going against the Turks. Jerusalem was part of the plan and there never would be a need to fight had Muslims not been so violent. I left the Turks out because I didn't want to write a book. Too much of a Hassle on my phone RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - BigPapaKain - 06-10-2016 (06-10-2016, 01:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Muslims constantly tried to take over lands. I know you are desperately trying to vindicate your Islamic buddies and prove Christians are the scourge of the world but it's just not the case. I remember learning about the Muslim conquest of Africa and the Americas. Not to mention their wholesale genocide of people in Boston in the 1800s. And that whole Spanish Inquisition thing. Can I stop now? Do we get it?! RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Rotobeast - 06-10-2016 (06-10-2016, 07:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I remember learning about the Muslim conquest of Africa and the Americas. Not to mention their wholesale genocide of people in Boston in the 1800s. And that whole Spanish Inquisition thing. Is it true that they caused Atlantis to sink and literally ate El Dorodo ? RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Bengalzona - 06-10-2016 (06-10-2016, 03:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Oh I am well aware of the tension between east and west. But the initial crusade was yes going against the Turks. Jerusalem was part of the plan and there never would be a need to fight had Muslims not been so violent. I left the Turks out because I didn't want to write a book. Too much of a Hassle on my phone Actually, Jerusalem wasn't part of the initial plan. The initial plan was to show that Pope Urban II was a great guy by getting troops to volunteer to go fight for the Byzantines, thus mending the rift between the two churches and bringing them back into the Pope's fold. He got more than he bargained for. He had no idea of the numbers of younger princes and nobles with little inheritance and seeking a kingdom of their own, as well as peasants seeking to strike it rich and get ahead in life. The idea of Jerusalem as an ultimate target developed later to focus the mob in a direction. And it was initially a mob. Urban had no idea that economically frustrated peasants would go off the rail before they even got to the middle east and start massacring Jews in Germany. The nobles came and eventually gave the mob a direction. The selection of Jerusalem as an ultimate goal further refined the direction. And BTW - The Muslims were no more violent than the Christians. RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - jason - 06-10-2016 (06-10-2016, 08:07 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Actually, Jerusalem wasn't part of the initial plan. The initial plan was to show that Pope Urban II was a great guy by getting troops to volunteer to go fight for the Byzantines, thus mending the rift between the two churches and bringing them back into the Pope's fold. He got more than he bargained for. He had no idea of the numbers of younger princes and nobles with little inheritance and seeking a kingdom of their own, as well as peasants seeking to strike it rich and get ahead in life. The idea of Jerusalem as an ultimate target developed later to focus the mob in a direction. And it was initially a mob. Urban had no idea that economically frustrated peasants would go off the rail before they even got to the middle east and start massacring Jews in Germany. The nobles came and eventually gave the mob a direction. The selection of Jerusalem as an ultimate goal further refined the direction.There you go letting historical facts get in the way of a good story. RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Bengalzona - 06-11-2016 (06-10-2016, 07:58 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Is it true that they caused Atlantis to sink and literally ate El Dorodo ? I remember when they killed Bambi's mother. That was sad, dude! RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - StLucieBengal - 06-11-2016 (06-10-2016, 08:07 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Actually, Jerusalem wasn't part of the initial plan. The initial plan was to show that Pope Urban II was a great guy by getting troops to volunteer to go fight for the Byzantines, thus mending the rift between the two churches and bringing them back into the Pope's fold. He got more than he bargained for. He had no idea of the numbers of younger princes and nobles with little inheritance and seeking a kingdom of their own, as well as peasants seeking to strike it rich and get ahead in life. The idea of Jerusalem as an ultimate target developed later to focus the mob in a direction. And it was initially a mob. Urban had no idea that economically frustrated peasants would go off the rail before they even got to the middle east and start massacring Jews in Germany. The nobles came and eventually gave the mob a direction. The selection of Jerusalem as an ultimate goal further refined the direction. And yet they would have had no targets had the Muslims been peaceful. I don't debate whether the Christians were violent. Ofc they were you can't defeat evil with happiness and sunshine. Repeated attempts of Islam to push into christian territory kept this going. Yes there were other things that branched off ... That's what happens in war. But that does not change why the Byzantines needed help in the first place... Because of Muslim aggression. Heck the Muslims even fought along side of Hitler. These are not good people.... The problem is they haven't changed since before the crusades. The rest of the world has moved forward except them. And until they have a reformation they can't be trusted. RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Bengalzona - 06-11-2016 Quote:StLucieBengal Dude. You put two empires next to each other and they fight. That's the way history rolls. The whole term 'empire' defines a group of people that can't be satisfied with just their own borders and feel they have to continually invade other kingdoms. You are aware that the interactions between the Byzantines and the Turks were more complex than "good guys, bad guys", right? First off, and this may come as a shock, not all Turks... were Muslim. And the Seljuk Turks were quite different from the Ottoman Turks or the modern Turks. At one time, the Seljuk Empire stretched from Anatolia to China (1092). While most Seljuk Turks were Muslim, the expansion of their empire had nothing to do with seeing another religion and attacking them. It had everything to do with expanding the power of the empire itself as a political entity, in exactly the same manner that Alexander the Great expanded his empire beyond Macedonia. The truth is that most of the expansion of the Seljuk empire was through Muslim lands and 80% of the fighting they did was against Muslims. Like most empires, the Seljuks had a wide range of ethnic groups and religions living within their empire (Kurds, Armenians, Georgians, Persians, Christians, Zoastrians, Hindus. Jews, etc.). And, as with most empires, they did not try to convert subjects. As long as the subject people obeyed their laws, they were okay with them living there and worshiping as they pleased. What they did import, however, was Persian culture. Life in the Seljuk Empire was quite different for Christians and other minorities than it was for folks in the Iberian Peninsula. A big part of that was because the Caliphate of Cordoba was led by Syrian Arabs, former rivals of the Seljuks (from the Umayyad Caliphate). The Syrian minority leadership in Cordoba were not nice people and believed wholeheartedly in their racial and religious superiority over others, even other Arabs and Muslims. Those types of exclusive attitudes prevent a group from ever creating an empire and was a reason why the Seljuks were able to successfully create an empire and the Syrians were not. The Byzantine Empire also had a plethora of ethnic groups and religions, including Turks, Arabs, Muslims, etc. The Byzantines also hired Turks, Arabs, Muslims, Bulgarians, Russians, Vikings, English, etc. to fight for them at various times in their history. They really weren't too particular about who did the fighting for them. RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - StLucieBengal - 06-11-2016 (06-11-2016, 02:09 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Dude. You put two empires next to each other and they fight. That's the way history rolls. The whole term 'empire' defines a group of people that can't be satisfied with just their own borders and feel they have to continually invade other kingdoms. Wasn't This all about how this started? I realized it mushroomed into something crazy... And certainly it's not Christians were great and Muslims were bad. I am just pointing out how the religion of peace has conducted itself not only back then but throughout modern history. Would the crusades had started if Muslims were actually peaceful.... Probably. But it wouldn't have been a religious centric war. It would have been your typical war of empires. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that Christians are no longer fighting a holy war over lands they think are theirs. I used to think Sykes-Picot was wrong but it was done to contain them to just fighting one another. RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Bengalzona - 06-11-2016 (06-11-2016, 02:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Wasn't This all about how this started? I realized it mushroomed into something crazy... And certainly it's not Christians were great and Muslims were bad. I am just pointing out how the religion of peace has conducted itself not only back then but throughout modern history. Nobody was peaceful back then. Even the Hindus and Buddhists had nasty wars (really nasty). If you were peaceful then, you were run over by a Mack truck. And most of the fighting was against people of the same religion. The Arabs/Muslims were exactly the same as the Western Europeans. As for the Crusades being religious-centric, I think you'll find they were far less centered on religion and more on economics and politics in the end. Religion sometimes starts wars, but politics and economics always crop up as the real causes. RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Rotobeast - 06-11-2016 (06-09-2016, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So it's interesting how vitriolic things are becoming between Turkey and Germany over this. Definitely something to keep an eye on. What do you think would happen if Claudia Roth became Chancellor ? RE: German recognition of Armentian genocide - Belsnickel - 06-11-2016 (06-11-2016, 11:00 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: What do you think would happen if Claudia Roth became Chancellor ? She is advocating for Merkel to take a firm stance with what is going on. I think even the notorious pro-Turkey politician is rather unhappy with the most recent turn of events. I don't know how far she would go, but if Turkey keeps going with what they started I would not be surprised to see her move against including Turkey in the EU. |