Breaking--Hamas Accepts New Cease Fire

a reply to: jofafot

Past exchange sums up dealing with you…

originally posted by: jofafot
a reply to: Lazy88

I didn't know you could "read" the damn video.

originally posted by: Lazy88
You realize there are other sources and multiple news articles other than your “video”?

Are you the one that can’t read? Have to rely on video?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: Lazy88
Did you watch the video that you demanded to see?

originally posted by: jofafot

Were ottomans not muslims?

They were rather a larger conquering nation, much like the Mongols, were the Mongols peaceful? I'm sure there were pockets of peace, so not sure what point you are making in comparing the Ottoman Empire to what Muslims in the ME today (noticed how I said, "in the ME" and not your neighbor Muslim).

I gave you a good number of examples where Muslims in the ME today will easily war among themselves, maybe even more than the West or Jews.

originally posted by: jofafot

Indicating it was not me who wants to talk about the past, I am only pointing out the history where palestine was peaceful. .

You got your point across, and it means nothing that you are for some reason wanting to debate it 100 times now. As the Ottomans rampaged across the world leaving destruction in their path they left peace in the aftermath, OK happy...lol geez

Not sure what you are trying to say as per the OP other than your opinion and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

So maybe come forward now into the last 30 years or so.

a reply to: Xtrozero

They were rather a larger conquering nation, much like the Mongols, were the Mongols peaceful?

Your claim was muslims can't be peaceful. We've already talked about this. You keep running in circles. Ottomans were muslims and under their control palestine was peaceful. I've already given my source to backup my point. You tried to pass it(your point) off as a universal truth. I've proved your point is moot.

So maybe come forward now into the last 30 years or so.

So, you made a point, which I proved it is not a universal truth, and now you are saying "nooo, don't look at that part of history, look at this part of history where I am right". Am I understanding you correctly?

Edit: I am open to discussing the last 30 years by the way. Let me know if you want to realize your point is not an universal truth in the last 30 years either.

originally posted by: jofafot
Your claim was muslims can't be peaceful.

I have always talked about ME Muslims, and not all, and peaceful or not wasn't my words... I said that Muslims hate each other as much as they hate Jews or Christians. I'm talking about current-day events here.

If you want to say that isn't all then I would agree, but it is a large percentage of them.

originally posted by: jofafot
a reply to: Lazy88
Did you watch the video that you demanded to see?

Video?

Vs rearing various news articles because I don’t need to rely on hearing one video?

originally posted by: jofafot

Did you watch the video that you demanded to see?

Quote where I demanded your specific video since I can read news articles?

You post very disingenuous arguments. You derail threads. Are you a flat earther?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I have always talked about ME Muslims, and not all

Ottomans were... European muslims?

and peaceful or not wasn't my words

From page 20:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AliceTheSmall
There was peace in the middle east during the Ottoman empire....after the crusades and before WWI. Left to themselves, the Muslims were peaceful and not just with each other but with everyone.

That is untrue. It's like saying Iraq was peaceful under the extreme dictatorship of Saddam. Muslims are also not peaceful, they would easily kill each other over religion and ideological differences.

If you want to say that isn't all then I would agree

This has been what I was saying all along but I am not surprised you didn't pick it up sooner considering you admitted you weren't reading every reply before.

originally posted by: jofafot
Ottomans were... European muslims?

I guess the question was whether the Ottoman was a peaceful nation or not. You say they brought peace to the lands they conquered. They were a warring nation that rivaled the Mongols, so this is where I'm confused as to what you want to say. One of their common tactics was to raid towns and villages and basically kill anyone that resisted and take it over, repeating 1000 times.

To say they had peace afterward was mainly because there was no one left to challenge them in their wake of conquest.

There was peace in the middle east during the Ottoman empire....after the crusades and before WWI. Left to themselves, the Muslims were peaceful and not just with each other but with everyone.

The vast majority were nomads, clans without a ruler, so you can say there was peace in that sense. The reason why the Kurds didn't get their own country was because the Brits could not find a ruling class to prop up in a position to rule as they did in Iraq and Jordan.

This has been what I was saying all along but I am not surprised you didn't pick it up sooner considering you admitted you weren't reading every reply before.

I didn't go back to the beginning of this thread to read and memorize everything everyone said. There are 25 pages of posts. So, do you think Muslims in the ME are naturally peaceful and it's the West that has turned them into radicals? I think over some time they have radicalized their religion into a politically and culturally controlling tool. This is why Sunni and Shia would kill each other when given the chance to do it. Then you have the Warlords like the Talian and many in Africa that practice an extreme form of Islam for control. We can say the same thing in Iran as they are extreme to maintain control over the population.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess the question was whether the Ottoman was a peaceful nation or not.

I never said ottomans were a peaceful empire. I said palestine under their control was peaceful and provided sources multiple times that support my point. You can go back and read few previous pages to realize that. I see no reason other than you ignoring/not reading those messages whether on purpose or not for you to fail to realize this despite me making the same point so many times.

I didn't go back to the beginning of this thread to read and memorize everything everyone said. There are 25 pages of posts.

No one is asking you to "memorize" everything. But I do expect you to "memorize" atleast the last few pages where I DIRECTLY replied to you. It is time for you to read.

I think over some time they have radicalized their religion into a politically and culturally controlling tool.

I think it is not them who radicalized their own religion. I know of a lot of muslims in real life and none, not even a single one of them agreed with isis for example. Knowing this always makes me wonder where were all those isis members coming from(their reasoning for joining isis) because to me it is clear religion has nothing to do with it. If religion was the common cause then majority if not all muslims should've supported isis's so called "jihad". That's why I think there is some other cause for those people to join isis. But I am not sure what it is exactly. I suspect mental health problems. Sick people with sick fantasies. Gathered together and turned into an organization then used as a tool by someone/something for someone's agenda.

This is why Sunni and Shia would kill each other when given the chance to do it.

There are places in the world such as turkey where all of them are living in peace together despite having every chance to "kill each other" in real life indicating what you are saying is probably not because of religion but because of conflicting interests of nations.