1453 another "defensive" Turkish war !

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Sep 5, 2012 at 21:25

faruk ,

I have never doubted that your familiarity with history doesn't exceed the narrow limits of Wikipedia. Again, it's really hard to discuss anything with someone who knows so little and boasts of so much by quoting Wikipedia.

>It is in Türkish " Fetih Bayramı" not "Fetih Bayram" ( Celebration of Conquest" . And it is not liberation from foreign occupation. It is conquest of Konstantiniyye from East Roman Empire by Fatih Sultan Mehmet ( Mehmet II, Mehmet the Conqueror). ... It is normal when a people is proud for victories of his ancestors and ashamed for failure of his ancestors. ...As a Turk I am proud that Konstantiniyye is conquered in 1453.<

Technically, Constantinople in 1453 is another wretched victim of UNPROVOKED bloodthirsty jihadist aggression. As a Moslem you are very proud of EVERY unprovoked jihadist agression ,aren't you ? But anyway, will you kindly tell me a sweet lie of how the Greeks provoked and offended you poor Moslem bandits of Allah, because you Moslems never ever start wars, never attack anybody first, you always defend yourselves and Allah is great and massacring kafirs is all you Moslem barbarians are after and what you take so much pride in. But you can ALWAYS find a great excuse for your unprovoked aggressions , thefts, robberies, massacres,Asiatic sadism ...in short jihad . I am sure you know why the jiad of 1453 was another example of the never-ending Moslem "self-defence" against kafirs who wanted to keep their churches from being turned into mosques and their children from being robbed and made into braindead janissaries and their daughters from the filth and blight of your slave harems! Please, disclose this holy excuse for me and don't tell us about ancient Romans,ancient Greeks etc. etc. but explain why jihad in 1453 is OK and why it is always "self-defensive" , especially when it isn't ? If you don't know, ask your local imam or imam Erdogan himself ! He will definitely know, won't he ?

>I will not respond to the paragraph by Ianus. I will just quote from wikipedia. You , readers would decide.<

If you think that quotes are a good substitute for critical thinking , then below you will see that in your case it isn't at all.

>Latin Empire in Konstantiniyye between 1204 and 1262. ( Until 1930 this form is used formally by Ottoman Empire and Turkey)<.

I am afraid that you will never find a Wikipedia entry about how this change of name took place. But don't be afraid to learn it from Ianus (Poland) who once upon a time posted "Istanbul = a city created by the Turkish Postal Service Law on 28.03.1930!" It's amazing to see how you can create Turkish names and Turkish smoke and Turkish mirrors and call it "reality", isn't it?

Incidentally, no history book has ever heard of "The Latin Empire of Konstnatinyye". It is Constantinople, Turk , the city created by Emperor Constantine the Great who converted to Christianity , not to Islam. (Ask your local imam how Allah could permit that mistake! ) Check Wikipedia. It is not so hard to remember, is it ?

>"in 1262 When Michael VIII captured the city, its population was 35,000 people,"

"In 1453, when the Ottoman Turks captured the city, it contained approximately 50,000 people.^"

So Latins have 500.000 , Ottomans have 50.000 people to rape, to torture, to kill. What a shock !<

A "shock" for whom? Someone who has never been used or tempted to read and think on his own like you,Turk?In 1204 Byzantium had Western Asia Minor, the Balkans, the Aegean Islands and Greece. In 1453 it was just a city in a state of permanent blockade,siege,extortion and racket by the roaming bloody Turk. You can't see the difference though,can you? Why? Because you have no knowledge of history or no common sense - or both as I presume.

> "By the next day the Doge and the leading Franks were installed in the Great Palace, and the city was given over to pillage for three days....

Latins were Christians ( Crusaders : fighters for Christianity. They invaded , destroyed a Christian city where they come to protect against Muslims ! What a shock.) They liberated Constantinople !"

First, I see that the history of the fourth crusade is a bit too complicated for you to follow. Constantinople was not endangered by any Moslem power in 1204 in the first place.The Levantine cities were! It is where the crusaders wanted to sail. Now it was Venice and Dandolo who had personal scores to settle with the Byzantines that ran the course of events in their direction while the pope excommunicated the participants after they attacked Zara. So contrary to what you say , this was not a Christian crusade strictly speaking. Or did your imam tell you that a Catholic army excommunicated by the pope is "Christian Catholic" ? The next thing is that the incredible number of coincidences and accidents rather than a firm criminal intent led to the sack of Constantinople.It was not intended until late spring when a palace revolution overthrew the young pretender the Venetians brought with them. And even despite that it would have not happened if the Venetians had got their ransom from the city or debt had been paid them back by the crusaders. But you don't know or care to know about those details. You are a Moslem and a Turk, so it would be very very strange if you did know that.

The more important point you don't understand is though is that the last martyr emperor Constantine XI was a Catholic and so a Latin by faith and the city was defended essentially by 700 Latins under Giovanni Giustiniani with passivity from the local Orthodox population. Their passivity, Giustiniani's flight after being wounded and the earlier treason by the Hungarian engineer Urban who had built the big cannon for the homosexual Turkish sultan decided the outcome of the siege. Otherwise Mehmet II would have had ended as in Belgrade 3 years later - in 1456 - when he fled wounded in panic from the city walls where his janissaries were burnt alive without his pants on ... !

> Ottomans were Muslims.<

Oh, really? I thought they were Buddhists or at least "secularists" just like their later circumcised red sultan Ataturk.They were so tolerant of everything, weren't they? E.g. Mehmet II the life-long Child Abuser had a male harem and used to cut off the heads of those parents and boys who refused to be raped by him.

> Ianus you do not mind what your christian brothers did this beatiful city, but when Muslims did same thing you do not approve.<

The Moslems didn't do the same thing at all! The origins, nature and duration of the fourth crusade had nothing in common with the origin,nature and duration of Moslem jiahd. It was an unintended outcome and the Latin rule lasted for just 57 years only in part of Byzantium and the most important part - Western Asia Minor and Epirus - remained in Greek hands. The Moslem rule on the contrary meant unprovoked, permanent , intentional aggression and TOTAL political extermination of Byzantium, total social and religious enslavement of its population under shariah, Islamization and the occupation of the city of Constantine has lasted until now for 659 years. Don't you think, Moslem , that there is a difference between 57 years and 659 and the shariah and the laws of Justinian's Code or laws based on it ?

>At that time there was war everywhere. It was normal.<

Don't mix up "war" and "jihad", Moslem! Wars were everywhere but only the Turks were waging jihad.If wars are normal, then jihad is ABNORMAL !

>So Ottomans did not took Konstantiniyye form Greeks , took from Romans. Unlike europian way, turkish did not destroy the land they moved in. They embraced local culture.<

I have quoted before a document on what happened when the Turks came to a land. If you call it "embracing local culture", I call it "genocide and cultural regress and barbarisation".

A later example now. Will you kindly tell me how 300 000 Greeks that lived in Constantinople in 1918 were reduced to barely 4000 that live there today under constant threat and daily harassment? I see they provoked the Turks too by uprisings , terrorism, sabotage, unwillingness to embrace Islam ...didn't they ? Or where are the Armenians in their homeland in Eastern Anatolia? I see the Turks "embraced their culture" so much and it did disappear like an blueberry when embraced by a strong hand !

> That is why until 1930 İstanbul is formally called Konstantiniyye ( just Turkish pronuncation) Today names of many cities is kept . Like Edirne comes from Adrianapolis<

I can't remember any nomad barbarians building cities or towns. Will you name any for me? All cities in the so called "Turkey" are Greek or Armenian cities. Turkified names can't fool me or you about who founded them. The Turks never built a single one of them, even though they eventually stole them all together with their names or inventing Turkish names for what was never Turkish!

> And I am shamed for the defeat in Vienna.<

Why are you so ashamed , I wonder? Because your ancestors couldn't change St. Stephan's Dome into a mosque? How shameful! Because they were denied the Moslem right to pillage the city and build a mountain of human skulls as in Otranto? How shameful ! Because they were unable to hunt and herd Austrian slaves to mistreat and sell them on a slave market in Konstantinyye? How shameful! Because they were unable to kidnap Austrian children and make janissaries of them? How shameful! Because they couldn't conduct forced Islamization as in Albania? How shameful! Because they were denied the joy of sadistic massacres and tortures of captive Austrains and Lotharingians at Karlsplatz ? How shameful! Because they couldn't settle Yuruk nomads to ravage annually Burgenland and Niederösterreich as they used to do in Thessaly and Macedonia ? ... Well , I do understand how ashamed you are that all of that hasn't materialized !!!

> You say Ottoman made massacre in Konstanniyye

What do you think when Roman Empire or Crusaders invaded a muslim city.<

"Invaded a Muslim city"? I thought all Moslems were earlier Christians or Zoroastrians. All their so called "cities" were stolen cities. The Christians came to restore the possession of what was rightfully theirs. They have never lost their right to property robbed by Moslems. NEVER!

> What about Jerusalem. Crusaders liberated the city from muslims and murdered all residents muslim and christians. When Selahattin conquered the city, he allowed them to leave with their goods.<

First, if you are a Moslem, you must see that this was the will of Allah. And so you have to blame Allah for that , not the Crusaders ! Second, after all the horrors of Moslem tyranny in Asia Minor what else should they have done with these Moslems except giving them something of their own medicine , especially after all the resistance and fanaticism they put up ? The Moslems themselves sowed the wind and consequently they did reap the whirlwind.

And as to Saladin ,massacring the city was too perilous and risky for him. It is the Turkish massacres after 1071 that provoked the first crusade and who knew how the next crusade would end? He won the battle of Hattin by accident and another battle of Hattin with fresh and well-motivated enemy not brought down by thirst and heat could have had quite a different outcome. So don't make a virtue of necessity and don't consider cowardice wisdom , Moslem apologist.

So much for your lies, half-truths, Wiki quotes and cheap propaganda ...

---

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".