Turkish jihads 1

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jan 26, 2010 at 07:45

Turk from Turkey wrote :

> How about starting with the 100.000 Paulicans that Empress Theodora found the oppurtunity to show her compassion ? <

Will you also present to us the preceding century of the iconoclastic disputes and feuds, please, and the way the iconoclastic emperors dealt with their opponents ? You make us believe you're an expert in Byzantine history. So it's natural for us to ask for the favour, isn't it? And still, it's a very strange position taken by a Turk for whom Byzantium was just a legitimate object of aggression and conquest and contempt by the Turks to see out of a sudden a staunch Turkish defender of Paulicianism against Orthodoxy! Turkish "moral superiority" prefers not to speak of Turks raping monks and bishops and urinating in the church vessels. It concentrates on how eveil the monks and bishops had been and thus inidrectly hints at the "moral superiority" of Islam over the filthy Christian polytheism.

> So that we can further go with the slavery in ancient Greece , Medieval Europe and aspects of the slave population in Byzantium.<

I see...The Turks raping the monks, desecrating and changing churches into mosques and kidnapping children had always referred to "the slavery in ancient Greece , Medieval Europe and aspects of the slave population in Byzantium" to explain their behaviour. How knowledgeable of them! After all Christianity improved nothing in morals while Islam was such happiness to the entire world!

Christianity restricted and formally abolished slavery which -excepting serfdom- played no role in the Middle Ages comparable to the central institution of slavery in the Islamic world.After all Mohammed wa s amajor slave-holder.

The moment the slave-hunting was stoppedby the Russians in teh 18th century the Turkish slave markets (Ottoman Turkey was the greatest slave state in the world) and all the 'economy' based on them collapsed and the Moslem slave merchants had no alternative but African slave hunting whose amenities are well described by Livingstone.

Mark it also that it is the West that abolished the institution of slavery due to Enlightenment despite many moneyed interests that wanted to keep it intact. Domestic slavery exists in the Islamic world even now. Some even say it is developing successfully.

>But hold on there…How can' worthless nomads' , like Turks, can slave more 'valuable' races like Greeks..Damn, there is something wrong , an anomaly .. Is that what disturbs you Ianus ?<

No, it isn't. It is exactly what barbarity has always been all about. The barbarian hates civilization and teh cvilized man. His sadism needs to be gratified. And what is a greater pleasure than seeing a noble cultivated person humiliated and mistreated by an inferior illiterate brute ? The barbarian never looks into the mirror of civilization too. He breaks the mirror to live on in his ugly sadistic happiness of a parasite. It's anothe reason why the Turks react so furiously against all critcicism. Truth hurts, doesn't it? It's nothing for narcissists like the self-glorifying Turks and other Moslems.

In this context the question should be asked - what did the Turks contribute to world civilization? Nothing except barbarity, massacres, ignorance, abject poverty –horde, janissaries and genocide –that's their 'contribution'. Not a shadow of Enlightenment and Rationalism!

To take one drastic example of what civilization and its lack imply. Even today, Turks use 820 gr toilet paper per capita with disastrous health effects while in Europe it is6,4 kg , in Greece 15 kg per capita.

Let's quote more copiouly from the letter which only hints at all the horrors the Turkish Islamic beasts have brought to the civilized world : "

>The famous letter of 'poor and opressed Christian' whining to a larger Christian community far away strikes here once again.<

I know that this nauseating comment comes from the depth of your heart. The fact is that the advent of the Turk is the greatest disaster in the history of Europe and no pseudo-satire can change it. What is more, the Turkish threat is far from extinct bearing in mind population pressures inside Turkey, failed economy combined by its erratic jihadist and Pan-Turkic political ideals.

>It's a real mystery to me how Romanus found spare time to write such a tragic letter to Rober Count <

Not Romanus, but Alexius Comnenus. The former ruled between 1068 - 1071 , the latter between 1081 to 1118 and there were many and various sinister events lying between the two reigns. But you are not really interested in Byzantine history, are you, türk bilim adam?

> while he was supressing the riots in with naked sword in and in Thrace and in Epirus. Whine from one side , slaughter from the other. A real multi tasker..

I have never heard of him and his troops raping monks and bishops and changing churches into slaughterhouses as the great Turks used to do for which they being praised by apologists of barbarism like you. But if you assert the opposite is the case, I'll need more Islamic light from the Quran here without which nothing can be as perfectly distorted and denied as in your tales.

Alexios was an usurper himself and the state was torn by never ending internal wars intensified by Manzikert and the ambitions of the Byzantine aristocracy that finally succeeded in imposing a new self-destructive regime in Constantinople and in the provinces.

Alexios managed to stop for the time being the imminent disintegration of the empire. He beat off the Noramans, exterminated the Turkic Patzinaks, arranged for the 1^st crusade that helped destroy the Seljuk emirate of Nicaea. The lethal threat emerging from the Seljuk conquest and Islamization was averted for a long time thanks to him.

But do you insist on the points here only because you ahve something different in mind than the Bzyantine history? I mean your objective here is propgating the official historical Turkish BS, isn't it ?

>Anyhow, I have to confess that such letters of Romanus<

Of Alexios ...

>and his various other attempts turned out to be successful. He managed to start a series of crusades.<

Yes,The Byzantines were too weak after the decade of civil wars and defeats in Asia Minor to keep the Turks away from the capital. The crusaders helped Alexius in this task and had there been not so many intense divisions among the Greeks and the Latins the Seljuks would have for sure shared the fate of the Patzinaks. Again, his main success was the destruction of the emirate of Nicae and thwarting their plan to do what the Ottomans did some 300 years later.

"On 12 April 1204 A strong northern wind aided the Venetian ships to come close to the wall. After a short battle, approximately seventy crusaders managed to enter the city. Some Crusaders were eventually able to knock holes in the walls, small enough for a few knights at a time to crawl through; the Venetians were also successful at scaling the walls from the sea, though there was extremely bloody fighting with the Varangians. The crusaders captured the Blachernae section of the city in the northwest and used it as a base to attack the rest of the city, but while attempting to defend themselves with a wall of fire, they ended up burning down even more of the city The Crusaders took the city on April 12. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. The magnificent Library of Constantinople was destroyed. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared.."J.Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople

Sadly Romanus <

Romanus or Alexios?

> could not live that long to see how his civilized Christian brothers reached for his help… What do you call it Ianus ? An 'obscurantist parody' or a divine comedy ?

I call it pseudo-crusade. But first things first. The first crusade took place in 1095-1099. The fourth -the pseudo-crusade- more than 100 years later and two more crusades lay between the two events. I am not going to fill your scanty historical knowledge of what did happen in between and what didn't. Let me just say that had Barbarossa not drowned in the river Saleph, there would be no Turks in Asia Minor. He beat their Sultanate of Iconium and would finish the job if he had had time enough.

The mistake of Alexios was not to call for Western help. Quite the contrary. The westerners bore the brunt of the Seljuk attack and broke it for a long time. His mistake was the system of government he created. It was counterproductive and self-destructive. It decentralized the state, made local families more independent and the city lost its control. Long before 1204 the empire was divided between the big Byzantine magnates who were more jealous of each other than of external foes. In 1204 these divided conglomerate was conquered by a handful of Western adventurers and their Venetian sponsors.

The detailed history of this crusade is too complicated to be presented here. It had many fathers and stepfathers. Dandolo's private lust for revenge for an old outrage in Constantinople, Venice's dreams of controlling the whole Eastern trade, feuds in Byzantium with an escaped pretender starting the events that ended in April 1204. The penniless Western crusaders agree to be brought where the Venetian transport company wishes to see them andthey agree to do anything to pay their debts. And still the reason for the defeat just like in 1071 lay somewhere else than in the enemy. It was Byzantium itself and the defective family system created by Alexius was eroding with any new generation pretending to extra share of teh shrinking Byzantine heritage.

The interesting thing that this crusade turned out to be a short-lived nightmare and ended within 57 years with a bankrupt Latin emperor fleeing the city-empire without any land and resources as much inbt as in 1204. On the contrary, the bloody jihadist conquest of 1453 has lasted for more than 540 years now and its horrors which you will duly deny are much more traumatic than 1204.

There are different degrees of evil and Islam is supreme evil. So I spare you the redundant question which evil was worse- Christian or Turkish. I know it and anyone who knows Islam does know it too and it's nothing you might ever rationally care for, Turk.

Now for the Turk such things are simple taboo, not thinkable, therefore their historical reality must be consistently denied. But interestingly enough, this denial of reality suggests the Turks know what 'really' happened. But how can they know that ? They deny the extant sources and have nothing to support their happy pseudo-history with except their big-mouthed claims. But why bother? They hate history and despise its methods and results unless they can abuse history for their jihad and their missing historical identity.

No it's not .. But on the contrary to you , some of us also can also see the things that you know quite well <

Constantinople was the capital of the most civilized and advanced empire for c. 1200 years. Nowadays there is not a single museum in Istanbul, the name Constantinople being banned, devoted to Byzantium. But we have plenty of museums were holy knives are on exhibition with which this or that sultan, this or that sheikh-ul-Islam, this or that vizier was circumcised! This speaks volumes, doesn't it ?

And yet you come here and tell me , "some of us also can also see the things that you know quite well". Yes, I know what you "see" – jihad, Islam , triumphant Turkish tribalism - all your favourites and get angry when someone like me expose them!

You yourself live in a police state(although I don't exclude you maybe a police offcier yourself) which makes sure you see and admit only those things which this dysfunctional police state wants you to see and acknowledge. The rest is taboo punishable with 3 years in jail or beating, intimidation, killing...depending on who your Turkish listener happens to be. Too dangerous stuff to talk in public about. The old jihadist mental patterns have survived all the Kemalist masquerade of modernization!

> but opt to neglect due to your 'personal holly crusade' here.

Yes, I have opted to neglect to see the non-existent Byzantine Museums in Istanbul and my "holy crusade' is directed against this unholy Turkishness that is repsonsible for the most heinous crimes in medieval and recent history which it has never repented and paid for!

But wait ...How could I not see the sweetness of raping the monks, the glory of beheading a child –Lukas Notaras' son- who refused to become a prostitute in the male harem of great Mehmet II? How could I censure the noble objective of the Seljuk invasion of Asia Minor in the first place to enlarge dar al-Islam? The Byzantines provoked the good Moslems, didn't they? They were asked to convert to Islam and they refused and so it was their fault that the good Turks came to loot, skin and burn people alive or kidnap them, wasn't it ? It's Islamically so self-evident! Why bother ?

> We can also see the atrocities, colonialism and imperialism that Western Civilization is based on as well

This is another Oriental nonsense ! The Western Civilization is based on other princpiples which the Oriental slaves have not the slightest idea of. It is based on Enlightenment and Rationalism. And Enlightenment means i.al. that the crimes committed are not hidden and denied as in Ataturkistan and all other Moslem despotic states but are revealed and discussed in public. We don't have problems with our wrong-doings because we can blame the responsible. Just look at our libraries to see the point!

You can't do this because you have had no Enlightenment and thanks to Islam will never have it! Show me a single book freely available in your local library on the crimes of Ghazi Kemal or Mohammed the founder of the ... called Islam !!! As long as you can't do that, don't tell what our civilization is based upon ...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".