Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 131 to 132 of 132

Thread: Opinions on Eric Zemmour?

  1. #131
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Laly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Youkali
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Quintessential Western Euro
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese, Walloon, Flemish, Dutch, German, Luxembourgish, English
    Country
    European Union
    Politics
    Lazy housewife
    Hero
    Oblomov
    Religion
    oblomovchtchina
    Gender
    Posts
    3,460
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,913
    Given: 4,926

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hektor12 View Post
    And i was talking about something else, The Thrace "Pogrom" which was against jews. When they are responsible, should i not blame them? NATO has no responsiblity in Ukraine war?
    NATO’s responsibility in the pogroms I mentioned is just your invention. Those pogroms and persecutions are age-old Turkish traditions and they are the result of an internal dynamics which is totally internal to Turkish history. It’s the last stage of eradication of those communities. This is well developed in historical studies by the way, including the ones I’ll mention here below in this post.

    Turks were muslims as well when they welcomed jews, or when they were living side-by-side with christians during centuries. Correct me if im wrong.
    Side by side maybe, but not equally, according to the Islamic status of dhimmitude. Muslims have always been happy to have people under this status in order for ex. to impose high taxes on them, to take advantage of them.

    I wouldnt praise something for its %1 of ingredients, but he was Hitler, we dont discuss his level of logic.
    So many Muslims praise Islam for its only 1% that is positive…

    It did. Its a direct implemention into Afghanistan by Usa-Saudi Arabia-Pakistan.

    Pakistan's President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq feared that the Soviets were also planning to invade Balochistan, Pakistan, so he sent Akhtar Abdur Rahman to Saudi Arabia to garner support for the Afghan resistance against Soviet occupation forces. A while later, the US CIA and the Saudi Arabian General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funnelled funding and equipment through the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) to the Afghan mujahideen.[94] About 90,000 Afghans, including Mohammed Omar, were trained by Pakistan's ISI during the 1980s.[94]
    What you quote doesn’t contradict at all what I’ve always said. Your quote mentions that there were already Afghan mujahideen and indeed, there are Deobandi jihadists in Afghanistan since the XIXth century. I had even mentioned that there were later other influences that were appended to that movement. But it doesn’t change anything to me. It’s pretty much like considering different varieties of apples.

    A few marginals on Durand Line. It was clearly unheard in most of the country before Taliban, period.
    No, Taliban was formed by some civil war warlords which were trained by Usa-Saudi Arabian-Pakistan colition.
    Sources state that Pakistan was heavily involved, already in October 1994, in "creating" of the Taliban.[105][106] Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), strongly supporting the Taliban in 1994, hoped for a new ruling power in Afghanistan favourable to Pakistan.[8]
    There is a clear continuity between Islamist movements in Afghanistan, for ex. since the 1960’. There are important influences from Egypt too, as I had already stated, with the Muslim Brotherhood.




    And Deoband was not “marginal” in Afghanistan like you say. There were no renowned madrassas in Afghanistan, so the students were sent, long before the war against the Soviets, to Pakistan, in order to study in prestigious Deobandi madrassas. These Islamist networks were very organised and particularly strong in certain areas in Afghanistan.





    https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3c6a3f7d2.pdf

    The movement developed across various regions of the Islamic World in the late 19th century as a response to European imperialism.[4][66][67][68][69] It was influenced by various 18th-century Islamic reform movements such as the Wahhabi movement in the Arabian Peninsula
    Egypt was a hotspot for the development of modern Salafism, with Muhammad Abduh. Anyway, there’s a continuity since the Middle Ages, when Salafism was conceptualised by Ibn Hanbal. I actually consider it is inappropriate to say that Salafism was born in the XIXth century.

    The reform movements born in the XVIIIth and XIXth c. in Islam were a response to European imperialism. At that time, the Muslim resentment regarding the West was crystallised, as the advances and the domination of Western society revealed the deficits of the Islamic civilisation. The Muslim world felt deeply threatened in its identity and Muslims thought that in order to be strong and proud again, they should return to stricter Islam, follow Allah’s path more closely.

    I can count "very different" sunni groups, but of course you know better than me and you will not accept anything.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School...ls_of_theology
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturidi
    You don’t contradict anything I say. I talk about the legal schools and you come up with theological schools lol. And theology has always been secondary in Islam, which is an orthopraxy. On the other hand, theology is of first importance in Christianity, which is an orthodoxy. I will even dare saying there is no real theology in Islam. Anyway, Maturidi theological school is linked to the Hanafi legal school, one of the four legal schools I was referring to, and they consider themselves mutually valid. So yeah, we always come back to the four legal schools…

    They were either destroyed or forcefully became part of it, both the same thing.
    Sure… Other just became totally insignificant. In particular circumstances, the jihadists brought people together.

    My 5 senses. Im inside.
    So legitimate…

    Atatürk was a non-muslim himself, to begin with.. He exchanged some christians with muslims, yes.
    You obviously know muslim-christian relations of the time better than him [Venizelos]. Respect.
    As long as historian is not an -ian or -opulos.
    Ahh, some jews as well, of course why not. Its post-Gaza flotilla afterall.
    If Atatürk intenionally harmed any single non-muslim after 1923, bring here evidence or youre a liar.
    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...ans-1.10354739
    Nice links, some funny comments there ive came across (:
    The irony of this work is that, not really any concern for the lives of Christians in Turkey, but the same kind of nationalist spirit that led to their deaths, is clearly driving it. It is hard to escape the sense that with this excoriation of the Turkish people, Morris is seeking to downplay the rapes and massacres he outed in the Israeli war of independence. Pathetic.
    why the Greek army went to Ankara in the first place?
    The Armenians and other Christian groups, in the context of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, had emancipation and nationalistic claims, and it doesn’t justify the treatment they were subjected to.

    And well, the book written by Benny Morris and Dror Ze’evi is really a reference, a pillar on the topic in the historiography, pointing out three phases in the genocidal process – in order to empty Anatolia of the Christians and to seize their goods, going back to the massacres of the XIXth century and being achieved by kemalism. In fact, whether it was pan-Islamism or Turkish nationalistic atheism, the successive governments have exploited the belonging of the majority of the population to Islam in order to mobilise the Muslim majority against the Christians and to order this majority to plunder and kill the Christians. Islam rallied Turks, Kurds, Circassians and Arabs against the Christians.

    In 1901, at Saloniki Congress, the Young Turks decided the ethnic Turkification of the State. They aimed at the Turkification of non-Turkish Muslims, but they were convinced that it would be impossible to convert Christians to Islam, so to Turkify them. They had to be converted by force, expelled or exterminated. Hence the paradox of an atheistic nationalism that could be built only with Muslims, based on Islam. For ex., in 1910, the Young Turks decreed, following the proposition of the notoriously atheist Ahmed Riza Bey, that the day of birth of the prophet Muhammad would be a national holiday. In 1904, Yusuf Akchura praised the “unity of Turkishness” and forbade the party to non-Muslims. This reveals once more all the ambiguity of a party based on secularism, but obliged to adapt itself to the particular context of a State with a majority united by religion. The Young Turks developed a demographic program (Taner Akçam), according to which Christians had to be deported to places of the Empire where they would be the minority.

    The Kemalist movement is a nationalistic movement in total continuity with the Young Turks. Mustafa Kemal’s policy, from 1919, continues that of the Young Turks (Kemalism only abandoned Pan-Turanism) and the priority of the Kemalists is to finish the Young Turks’ project of ethnic cleansing, through the destruction of Ottoman Greeks.

    One of the comments from the books you mentioned asked why the Greek army intervened in Turkey. Actually, from the time of the Armistice of Mudros, demobilized Turkish soldiers started to plunder Greeks from Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. Christians then asked the Allied powers for protection. And in March 1919, Venizelos informed the Allied of the impending extermination of the Greeks lead by Turkish officials. That’s why Greek troops were sent to Turkey. Turks started to massacre Greeks, with the endorsement of Mustafa Kemal, of the government, which didn’t do anything to help the Christians. There is a lot of negationism on Turkish side, a lot of false claims, but the reports from the time by the Westerners who were present in Turkey and other the eyewitnesses, clearly point out the responsibility of Mustafa Kemal, of the government, wanting to exterminate the Christians. I have many details on the numerous massacres. Many Christians also died during the deportations lead the Turks, which were true “death marches”. From 1922, with the opening of the negotiations, Mustafa Kemal decided that the disappearance of the Christians would be obtained, not anymore through massacres and deadly deportations inside the country, but through exile. It’s only after Greece welcomed the first refugees that Greece asked for an exchange of populations.

    In fact, Kemalists bring the final solution to the Christian question. The Kemalists finished the Young Turks’s job and they ensured the ideological continuity with the latter. Although it may be paradoxical, Kemalists had an ethno-religious conception of Turkishness. And they integrated in their ranks most of the members of the Special Organisation which concretely implemented the extermination of the Armenians. It should be noted that the economic factor was determining in the genocidal process, which aimed to take the possessions of the Christians, who controlled the trade and the finances of the empire.

    And as you wonder about sources, this is mine:



    Turkey to the Turks: Destruction of Christian communities of the Ottoman Empire

    armenoids havent brought us printing. Ottoman Empire banned printing for muslims but not for-non-muslims thats it. The reason for this was pressure from islamic calligraphers, as they would lose their jobs. Banning of printing for muslims is one of the important reasons in decline of Ottoman Empire.
    Printing is closely linked to modernity. And the fact that the Christians and the Jews accepted it, bringing it to Turkey, symbolises well the fact that they were the important vector of modernity in the Ottoman Empire.

    Ukrainians are majority in their country and they have right for self-determination, could you please call Russia out of Donbass and Crimea right now?
    The situation is not the same at all. Crimea was never Ukrainian historically, but it had been Russian during centuries. The people there consider themselves Russians. Donbass, historically, was rather Russian too. And the people of Donbass, who have legitimacy in Donbass, rebelled against Ukrainian State and don’t want to be Ukrainians anymore. Also, Ukrainians and Russians are actually consubstantial while, on the other hand, Turks are just colonists, interlopers having no legitimacy at all on European soil.

    The Greeks from Cyprus, who constituted, by far, the majority, wanted the enosis, that is joining Greece and Turkey refused. In the first place, Turkey should not have had to say anything. Cyprus is a Greek land. Period.
    Whats your stance, its more important currently.
    I think it was a huge mistake to colonise Algeria. French Algeria is a nonsense. Algerians had the right to get rid of the French. Yes to the self-determination for the Algerians. Charles de Gaulle didn’t see things differently.

    Its a peace operation and its totally legal. Proof=peace in Cyprus since 1974.
    You were the one who called UN corrupt and untrustworthy. Turkey, of course doesnt beg for mercy from some bunch of degenerated politicians for a part of its people.
    Turkey did whatever was needed to do, not more and not less.
    Of course, daily village massacres are good things.
    Turkey have never forced anybody to leave, they fled themselves. Turks from south also fled to north.
    You are right, I should not have referred to the UN. I should have simply said that what Turkey did is so illegal that Turkey is the only country recognising the Republic of North Cyprus.

    And sure, like the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks from Northern Cyprus left of their own free will… When Turkey was about to start a second invasion of Cyprus, totally unjustifiable in a legal point of view, the Greeks from the North fled, because during the first invasion, Turkish soldiers committed many atrocities.

    Turkey destabilised and attacked Syria] As a part of western-led coalition.
    No, the coalition was created at the request of Turkey, which had to insist because other countries were very timid and Turkey had already organised the war against Assad, equipping anti-Assad movements (cf. references in previous posts). Syria is greatly “Turkey’s war”.

    If Europe says "please accept Syrians, we will pay" and then rejects to pay, its not surprise that they get something inevitably.
    Turkey is greatly responsible for the flood of “refugees” from there. Europe has already paid colossal sums of money. But Turkey wants always more and uses these “refugees” on purpose to put pressure on European policies.

    Very wrong, christian communities in Turkey are growing day-by-day. Its mostly western people; British, German, Scandinavian, some central and eastern europeans and rapidly-growing of Russian and Ukrainian communities. More Russian immigration is currently expected due to sanctions against Russia and refugees from Ukraine are also coming.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_in_Turkey
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Turkey
    What a joke you come up with! You have eradicated the indigenous Christian communities from Turkey. Fact. And even those links you refer to point out that most of those Europeans in Turkey intermarry with Turks and assimilate Turkish culture. And even if the mother is Christian, the children will automatically be Muslim if the father is Muslim. And a Muslim woman can’t marry a non-Muslim man. I’m sure in most of the mixed marriages, the female is European (Christian) and the male is Turkish (Muslim). We have special words to call that kind of women you know…

    Turkey bombed ISIS and Assad forces when they attacked Turkish soldiers. Turkey is the only NATO country which directly fought ISIS. Turkey also uses high-precision laser-guided bombs and generally no colleteral damage is expected.
    The amorous liaison between Turkey and jihadists, for ex. ISIS, is well documented. I referred to articles evoking that in previous posts. The title of an academic article written in 2015 on the topic summarises well the situation: “Turkey and the Islamic State: from a marriage of convenience to an amicable divorce” (https://www.cairn.info/revue-outre-t...3-page-354.htm). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-le...ria-safe-zone/

    An ex. of the many articles on the topic: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-le...ria-safe-zone/

    I dont care about your opinion, German government asked Turkey for workers in 1960s.
    It’s not my opinion. All surveys show that the peoples of Europe don’t want immigration. Recently, I’ve read an article written by a Moroccan intellectual, Driss Ghali:



    And I can only agree with him. He says, for ex., speaking about Western Europe, that “having 20 years old nowadays, it’s facing the consequences of the casualness and the cowardice of the generations that made possible the immigration of colonisation, mass immigration, the great replacement."

    https://www.causeur.fr/le-grand-remp...u-monde-226515

    Its not directly coming from God?
    No. Don’t try to model Christianity on Islam. The modalities of the Revelation in Christianity and Islam are totally different. The uncreated Quran is verbatim the word of God. The Bible doesn’t have the same status at all. The Bible was created in history, it’s totally part of history, and it is permeated by the culture of the people who wrote it and who were divinely inspired. The authors of the Bible are true authors who wrote being influenced by their culture, their own personality.

    See for ex. the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...rbum_en.html):

    “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
    12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
    The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another." (8)

    Shamanism is definitely much older than Islam.
    I never said the contrary and that’s not the point.

    Ottomans were a small part of muslim "black slave trade" and it was not a significant part of Ottoman history. Slavery in Ottoman Empire was a very different concept anyways, it was more akin to long-term contracts.
    No. And there were different types of slavery that coexisted in the Ottoman Empire. The real specificities of Turkish slavery are sex slavery (as for all Muslim states) and the kul.

    Here is a Turkish source, concerning the XIXth century:



    https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/bitstre...-1&isAllowed=y

    Also on that period:



    https://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/amcdo...an_slavery.pdf

    1***Istanbul is totally different part of the Ottoman Empire. And muslims were a minority there.
    2***It says "but not a lot of darker tones" which contradicts your previous statements.
    3***Why would a muslim man kill his children because of dark skin?
    ____a-There was no racism or one-drop rule in Ottoman Empire, everybody would be the same citizen.
    ____b-Killing your children guarantees you a life in hell forever, why would a muslim do that?
    Lol, nothing I said is contradicted. And we have all the reasons to believe that these infanticides were generalised, not only in Istanbul, and blacks were a significant part of the slaves. “Not a lot of darker tones” is explained by infanticides and the fact the black male slaves were completely emasculated:



    https://books.google.be/books?id=i0s...ttoman&f=false

    And lol, Muslims have never been afraid to kill, including their own offspring, in order to “preserve their honour”. And people were certainly not equal in the Ottoman Empire, lol. By the way, there has always been a lot of racism in the Muslim world regarding blacks. The Arabic word “khel”, meaning “black”, is very pejorative and synonymous of “slave”.

    Traditional views in the Islamic world, Ibn Khaldun being an extremely influential person, considered to be the father of sociology:


    https://books.google.be/books?id=mzT...ations&f=false
    Last edited by Laly; 04-27-2022 at 10:59 AM.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-27-2024, 03:12 PM
  2. French politician Éric Zemmour wants to ban Muslim names
    By Östsvensk in forum France - English Entries
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-16-2021, 09:50 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2018, 05:00 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-17-2018, 12:46 PM
  5. Classify Eric Zemmour
    By Laly in forum Taxonomy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-12-2018, 09:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •