1 No 2nd Amendment, no firearms, no concealed carry, no protection from assault, no freedom in Germany or any other place in Europe for that matter. What a travesty!

It may be Jews today, but soon Germans will be assaulted for daring to speak German in these Islamic slums. Enjoy your multi-culturalistic relativism, Euros, because the Muslims are about to have their way with you, and apparently you think playing nicey-nicey with them will help you. You better think again, and for God's sake, read and study your own history. The last time the Muslims invaded Europe(in 711 starting with Spain) they stayed for 1100 years, killed millions, enslaved millions more, and caused misery beyond belief.

I guess you want some more of that.

2 Perhaps playing nice is not exactly what they have done in Germany. Most Muslims in Germany are Turks (or Turkish Kurds). They were invited in as arbeiters, guest workers. They were denied any ability to become German, and were expected to work and return home. However, as the years turned into decades, solitary men brought over families, and soon you had second and third generation arbeiters. Yet still denied assimilation. Entire neighborhoods in Berlin and Frankfurt are Turkish speaking. The second and third generation are caught--neither Turkish nor German, they are in limbo. As in France, they are much more likely to turn to Islamo-fascism than are immigrants to the US, simply because here, they are assimilated and welcomed. It is no accident that some of the worst islamo-terrorists are part of this European diaspora.

It is not "nicey nice" to deny people citizenship who have lived and worked their entire lives in your country. And it leads to extremism. Our way is much better. That's what the Europeans should learn--not some bizarre lesson from the Crusader era!

3 And even on the history, I'm not sure you are right, Joe. The Ottoman turks, for example, made life significantly better for many of the areas they captured in Europe. The Moors in Spain were also an improvement in terms of humanity over the Goths they beat. In many parts of Europe during Feudalism, the common folk didn't much care who ruled them. Jews were significantly BETTER off if they happened to be conquered by Muslims than by Christians (remember where the Sephardim went when the Christians took total control over Spain and starting slaughtering Jews).

4 I thought "Bush" was the real threat to our freedoms.

5 Saint Nunilo:

Memorial
22 October
Profile
Sister of Saint Alodia. Muslim father and a Christian mother, she was raised Christian. When her father died, her mother married another Muslim man who persecuted the girls, imprisoned them, and turned them over to die during the persecution of Abdur Rahman II. Martyr.
Born
Huesca, Spain
Died
beheaded 851 at Huesca, Spain
Patronage
child abuse victims, martyrs, people ridiculed for their piety, single laywomen

6 "The Ottoman turks, for example, made life significantly better for many of the areas they captured in Europe. "

That is not the impression I get from reading De Busbecq's "Turkish Letters".

And if things were so nice under the Turks, how come the Greeks, the Armenians and the Kurds were or are so anxious to be free of them?

7 If this had happened in i say KENNESHAW GEORGIA there would have been a few mulim thugs laying on the coranors table with a few bullet holes in their foreheads

8 jd, where in the World did you get your information on the Turks being benovolent imperialists? I was a history major in college, and I learned that the Turks were among the most brutal of all the conquerers with perhaps the exception of the Huns and Monguls, but as they were related peoples, perhaps the brutality was shared.

You might broaden your reading list to include some of the eyewitness accounts of the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, the depopulation of Hungary, the successive invasions of India that slaughtered tens of millions, the enslavement, murder and rape of the Balkans, the wars of conquest waged against Russia, Austria, Greece, most of the islands in the Mediterranean, and need I go on?

I doubt whether most of these people considered the Turks a fair master, as the people of the book were forced to pay the tax, beaten if they wore green, not allowed to own a horse, not allowed to even protect themselves if attacked by a Muslim, and need I go on?

My point, jd, is that you have only a surface knowledge of Islam. Open your mind, seek the truth, and learn the true legacy of Islam. It is not a religion of peace.

9 jd, what is your problem? Do you hate yourself so much you want to be a moon god worshipper?

You keep telling some lies about history. We all know there were some very nasty men who used religion to harm people. That does not give the Muslims a right now to be insane.

STFU

10 The massacre of Armenians was long after the period I was referring to. The Ottomans eventually became the "sick man of Europe" in that their backwards system could not compete with the rest of Europe, and with emerging nationalism. My point was not that living under Islamic rule was a picnic for non-Muslims. My point was that, compared to contemporaneous Christian practices, Islam was often better for minority religions. The comparative advantage under Islam vanished as the West underwent renaissance and reformation. But for centuries, it was much better to be a Jew in Damascus than a Jew in London, or Paris, or Madrid.

I don't see what hating myself has to do with debating historic treatment of religious minorities in Europe and the Middle East, but then, Leatherneck, I often don't understand your posts. In that, I think we establish some mutuality.

11 This is from wikipedia, a source I approach with some trepidation, but it agrees with what I've read elsewhere that is not electronic. I think you'll concede that this sounds a hell of a lot better than the fate of even CHRISTIAN minorities under most Christian rulers at the time. In conquest (and in particular in its treatment of rebellious Serbs), the Ottomans were capable of exceptional brutality. In that, they were no different from Christians at the time. Please also note that the Ottomans establish separate courts, endorsed by the Sultan, upholding different religious laws made by Jews and Christians, carried out by them, interpreted by them.
***
Under Ottoman rule the major religious groups were allowed to establish their own communities, called millets, each retaining its own religious laws, traditions, and language under the general protection of the sultan...

From an early date, Greek citizens of Constantinople were able to achieve high positions in the fields of commerce, politics, religion, and the military. The Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, developed a great degree of power, both religious and political, but was still very tightly controlled by the state. The Phanariot Greeks worked as the sultan's statesmen in Western Europe and as local rulers in the Balkans; and Aegean Greeks were granted wide commercial rights and also developed a fleet that quickly became the empire's maritime weapon. In fact, some Greek citizens prospered to such a degree that they eventually opposed the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831, afraid to lose their privileged position in the imperial capital. On the other hand, the Christian population in the Balkans was practically devoid of any rights preventng it for centuries to develop above the level of peasantry. Any signs of dissent were harshly suppressed (e.g. see April Uprising).

The Ottoman Jews enjoyed similar privileges to those of the Phanariot Greeks, and indeed came to enjoy some of the most extensive freedoms in Jewish history. The city of Thessaloniki, for instance, received a great influx of Jews in the 15th century and soon flourished economically to such an extent that, during the 18th century, it was the largest and possibly the most prosperous Jewish city in the world. By the early 20th century, Ottoman Jews—together with Armenian and Greeks—dominated commerce within the Empire.
***

12 Yes, the Turks were such kind masters that even other muslims hated them, and generally still do. Muslims hate, it's what they do, and the only way to stop them is to kill them.

13 I think the Arab antipathy for Turks that you reference has less to do with Turk brutality (which did exist--I'm just saying it was no worse and in some ways better than the rule of many contemporaneous Christians--a nuanced point that seems to be eluding many here) than it does with the emergence of Arab national identity, under delayed influence from European romanticism. Pan arabism grew up first in opposition to Turkish rule, and then in opposition to western colonialism. You're right, though, that even today, the Arab world looks with suspicion at Turkish hegemony, particularly given the historically close relations between Turkey and Israel. The Islamic world, which can appear monolithic, is truly a mosiac of sects, races, ethnicities, and regions. For what it is worth, Iraq is at the intersection of Arab, Persian, Kurdish, and Turkish spheres of influence, as well as a key intersection between Shia and Sunni Islam. Add oil to that mix...and you've got the recipe for a major conflagration. Too bad we had such simpletons running our national government when they invaded..."greeted as liberators"...uh, right.

14 jd, you write like everyone is below you. The leaders of our country are not simple. Nor do they think all Muslims are Arab.

I doubt if anyone on the blog has anything to do with going to war in Iraq. However, it appears almost everyone supports the troops there.

I wish we were not in Iraq. I do think the people of Iraq do not want Suddam, and sons back. Now, Hamas does because their little moon god worshipping bomber's families got $20,000.00 for blowing up those nasty Jeeeeewwwwwwsssss.

ROPMA

15 I don't think people here are below me. Far from it. The point of engaging in dialogue is to learn. I might know more about some things, but others know more about others.

And I don't think our leaders were ignorant, just insufficiently sensitive to the volatile nature of Iraq and the explosive history of the region. Wolfowitz and Rummy are not stupid. Neither was Bob McNamara. On this website, the phrase "leftard" is often thrown about, as if all liberals/leftists were stupid. Some people on the hard left and hard right are damn brilliant. I just disagree with both, but that doesn't make them "retarded". I'd say the same about Wolfowitz. He's brilliant. And almost 100% wrong on Iraq, since 1996. Being smart is no guarantee of being right. As William F. Buckley put it: I'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book than the faculty of Harvard. When he said that, he was aware that the faculty of harvard were "smarter" than the first 100 names in the phone book.

16 You make some valid points JD, but if you're going to tell us that everyone in power is wrong and you're right, you might want to tell us why, otherwise you'll be taken as just another effite liberal crackpot who confuses indonctrination with intelligence.

17 Why, IM, that's the most moderate posting I've ever seen you do. Did you wake up on the right side of the bed today? I'm not telling you that everyone in power is wrong, and I'm right--far from it. I was right on Iraq's occupation, but I was one of those idiots who thought it would be tougher to take Baghdad. Military expertise is not one of my strong suits.

Effete...oh, occasionally. Liberal, ditto. Crackpot? Possible. Indoctrinated? Doubtful.

18 IM's " A Beautiful Mind " facet ...