Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ottoman Empire Not Broken Up.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ottoman Empire Not Broken Up.

    While reading through a thread about why WW2 started and looking at the Treaty of Versalle. It occurred to me what would of happened if the Ottoman Empire was not broken up and stayed out of WW2. What impact would that be having in the world today.

  • #2
    Judging it's reactions to the Armenians and Greeks, I'd say lots and lots of dead Arabs and a low scale genocide of Kurds. However, I think that while Muslims never show much compulsion in slaughtering troublesome Kaffirs (even People of the Book), it might be seen by the Ottoman reformers gouache to slaughter their co-religionists. Then again, Arab nationalism would give them all the causus belli they'd need.

    Ataturk's forcible secularization would never have been tried, and so the military would not need to keep couping the Islamists elected by the will of the people. Turkey would probably be worse off, but not a whole lot, in terms of political and military power, although it's not out of the questions they'd be like Pakistan, a third world hole bound to traditional Islam, ignorance, misogyny, poverty, and bearing nuclear weapons as status symbols.

    The world is better off without the Ottoman state.
    The world would be a better place without Islam.
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Wolery View Post
      Judging it's reactions to the Armenians and Greeks, I'd say lots and lots of dead Arabs and a low scale genocide of Kurds. However, I think that while Muslims never show much compulsion in slaughtering troublesome Kaffirs (even People of the Book), it might be seen by the Ottoman reformers gouache to slaughter their co-religionists. Then again, Arab nationalism would give them all the causus belli they'd need.

      Ataturk's forcible secularization would never have been tried, and so the military would not need to keep couping the Islamists elected by the will of the people. Turkey would probably be worse off, but not a whole lot, in terms of political and military power, although it's not out of the questions they'd be like Pakistan, a third world hole bound to traditional Islam, ignorance, misogyny, poverty, and bearing nuclear weapons as status symbols.

      The world is better off without the Ottoman state.
      The world would be a better place without Islam.
      I wont say Islam needs to be gotten rid of but it does need an enlightment phase.

      Good point about the forcible secularization. Although could not of this just of been something that would of happened anyways. Although the Ottoman Empire was muslim it did have a lots of direct contact with the rest of Europe and may of learned from them, just wondering.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Wolery View Post
        The world is better off without the Ottoman state.
        The world would be a better place without Islam.
        Imagine what the Christian world would be like if people like Martin Luther hadn't come along to reform the church...

        Originally posted by craven View Post
        I wont say Islam needs to be gotten rid of but it does need an enlightment phase. Good point about the forcible secularization. Although could not of this just of been something that would of happened anyways. Although the Ottoman Empire was muslim it did have a lots of direct contact with the rest of Europe and may of learned from them, just wondering.
        Yep, Islam never got their version of the "Protestant Revolution."

        Although I've read that liberal factions of Islam were advocating an enlightenment phase during the 12th-13th centuries...until you know who came along - razing Baghdad to the ground, annihilating the Abbasids and Ayyubids Caliphates...and generally destroying any hopes of reform.
        Surrender? NutZ!
        -Varro

        Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death. -Sun Tzu

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wolery View Post
          Judging it's reactions to the Armenians and Greeks, I'd say lots and lots of dead Arabs and a low scale genocide of Kurds. However, I think that while Muslims never show much compulsion in slaughtering troublesome Kaffirs (even People of the Book), it might be seen by the Ottoman reformers gouache to slaughter their co-religionists. Then again, Arab nationalism would give them all the causus belli they'd need.

          Ataturk's forcible secularization would never have been tried, and so the military would not need to keep couping the Islamists elected by the will of the people. Turkey would probably be worse off, but not a whole lot, in terms of political and military power, although it's not out of the questions they'd be like Pakistan, a third world hole bound to traditional Islam, ignorance, misogyny, poverty, and bearing nuclear weapons as status symbols.

          The world is better off without the Ottoman state.
          The world would be a better place without Islam.
          I agree completely.
          A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Intranetusa View Post
            Imagine what the Christian world would be like if people like Martin Luther hadn't come along to reform the church...

            Yep, Islam never got their version of the "Protestant Revolution."

            Although I've read that liberal factions of Islam were advocating an enlightenment phase during the 12th-13th centuries...until you know who came along - razing Baghdad to the ground, annihilating the Abbasids and Ayyubids Caliphates...and generally destroying any hopes of reform.
            The last part is more or less correct, a further liberalization of the Islamic world was spinning up. Aside from the wave of destruction in the Middle East the Iberian pennesula underwent a destructive period of warfare during the Catholic Reconquista of the 14th & 15th Centuries, followed by the Inqusition. Between all that and the endless Crusades instigated in the west liberal Islam slid out of fashion. While some aspects of it were revived in the Ottoman Empire sponsorship of the Chaliphate and law that was all undone by the rise of the Wahabist movement and related 'fundamentalist' schools of thought.

            Back in 1980 my Middle Eastern studies professor spent a lecture making comparisons between "Mediaval Islamic law and social policy and the 20th Century version. The contrast was extreme, and of course got the Kuwaiti and Oman students in the class very excited. Unfortunatly for them the professor knew the points in question on Quran & Islamic law better than they did. I also recall he had to convince one of them the Free Masons were not behind every bad event in history.

            The Protestant reform did bring a wave of new thinking into Europe. It also was counter balanced by the fanatical Catholics turning the Inquisition into a rather destructive and socially retarding force, many negative effects of which carried over into the Spanish New World. Fortunatlly Catholicism and Protestantism have mellowed considerablly in the past couple centuries.

            Comment


            • #7
              Are you sure about the Free Masons not being behind every bad event. They are pretty sneaky you know

              So it really the mongols fault.

              Wish I knew more of that time period would make for some interesting pondering.
              Last edited by craven; 16 Mar 10, 00:57.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Intranetusa View Post
                Although I've read that liberal factions of Islam were advocating an enlightenment phase during the 12th-13th centuries...until you know who came along - razing Baghdad to the ground, annihilating the Abbasids and Ayyubids Caliphates...and generally destroying any hopes of reform.
                Monke Khan had ordered Baghdad to be spared if it surrendered. The Caliph not only refused, but went on to insult Hulegu. To make matters worst, among the Mongol forces were Christians including a lot of pissed off Georgians who had their capitol Tiflis destroyed by Muslims.
                Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                Prayers.

                BoRG

                http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                  The last part is more or less correct, a further liberalization of the Islamic world was spinning up. Aside from the wave of destruction in the Middle East the Iberian pennesula underwent a destructive period of warfare during the Catholic Reconquista of the 14th & 15th Centuries, followed by the Inqusition. Between all that and the endless Crusades instigated in the west liberal Islam slid out of fashion. While some aspects of it were revived in the Ottoman Empire sponsorship of the Chaliphate and law that was all undone by the rise of the Wahabist movement and related 'fundamentalist' schools of thought.
                  Really? And what the Hell where the Christians of Europe supposed to do. They were subject to Islamic slave raids all across the Med and beyond, their pilgrims were being enslaved, and Islamic forces west and east sought to subjugate and dhimmitize all of Europe. That the Europeans, after four damn centuries, decided to fight back and give the Muslims a taste of their own medicine was LONG overdue. I will criticize the Crusades for many things, mostly the treatment of Orthodox Christians, but slaughter of Muslims is not one of them. Payback is a .

                  In saying Islam has been in reaction mode is disingenuous. The foundation of the argument is that Islam would have moderated...as long as the Muslims could Jihad without consequence. That they could continue to spread their faith, which has all the vileness of 7th century Christianity and codified it. I'm not buying it. The problem is the Koran and the Hadiths, those keep Islam back far more than Helagu (my favorite Mongol) could ever have hoped to do. Islam is by it's design incapable of any kind of reform. The best you can hope for is a liberal Islam that doesn't take the Koran any more seriously than liberal churches heed the Bible. And then they will be slaughtered by the pious as apostates. Islam cannot be lived with unless you pack serious firepower and a willingness to use it. Islam cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed utterly, and while I'd like to think there's a peaceful way to do that, all of us know that ain't happening.
                  How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                  275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wolery View Post
                    Really? And what the Hell where the Christians of Europe supposed to do. They were subject to Islamic slave raids all across the Med and beyond, their pilgrims were being enslaved, and Islamic forces west and east sought to subjugate and dhimmitize all of Europe. That the Europeans, after four damn centuries, decided to fight back and give the Muslims a taste of their own medicine was LONG overdue. I will criticize the Crusades for many things, mostly the treatment of Orthodox Christians, but slaughter of Muslims is not one of them. Payback is a .

                    In saying Islam has been in reaction mode is disingenuous. The foundation of the argument is that Islam would have moderated...as long as the Muslims could Jihad without consequence. That they could continue to spread their faith, which has all the vileness of 7th century Christianity and codified it. I'm not buying it. The problem is the Koran and the Hadiths, those keep Islam back far more than Helagu (my favorite Mongol) could ever have hoped to do. Islam is by it's design incapable of any kind of reform. The best you can hope for is a liberal Islam that doesn't take the Koran any more seriously than liberal churches heed the Bible. And then they will be slaughtered by the pious as apostates. Islam cannot be lived with unless you pack serious firepower and a willingness to use it. Islam cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed utterly, and while I'd like to think there's a peaceful way to do that, all of us know that ain't happening.
                    Well I knew you were not simply iggnorant but so opposed to learning anything that a post like this could be predicted. What really jumps out at me is the misinterpretaion of text you dont like and the frequent twisting of others writing. You could be rude if you were not so inept.

                    bye

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wolery View Post
                      Really? And what the Hell where the Christians of Europe supposed to do. They were subject to Islamic slave raids all across the Med and beyond, their pilgrims were being enslaved, and Islamic forces west and east sought to subjugate and dhimmitize all of Europe. That the Europeans, after four damn centuries, decided to fight back and give the Muslims a taste of their own medicine was LONG overdue. I will criticize the Crusades for many things, mostly the treatment of Orthodox Christians, but slaughter of Muslims is not one of them. Payback is a .

                      In saying Islam has been in reaction mode is disingenuous. The foundation of the argument is that Islam would have moderated...as long as the Muslims could Jihad without consequence. That they could continue to spread their faith, which has all the vileness of 7th century Christianity and codified it. I'm not buying it. The problem is the Koran and the Hadiths, those keep Islam back far more than Helagu (my favorite Mongol) could ever have hoped to do. Islam is by it's design incapable of any kind of reform. The best you can hope for is a liberal Islam that doesn't take the Koran any more seriously than liberal churches heed the Bible. And then they will be slaughtered by the pious as apostates. Islam cannot be lived with unless you pack serious firepower and a willingness to use it. Islam cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed utterly, and while I'd like to think there's a peaceful way to do that, all of us know that ain't happening.
                      could not pre reform christianity be classified that way also or at least some of the more major sects.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                        Well I knew you were not simply iggnorant but so opposed to learning anything that a post like this could be predicted. What really jumps out at me is the misinterpretaion of text you dont like and the frequent twisting of others writing. You could be rude if you were not so inept.

                        bye
                        Inept? You didn't even refute my point. I've looked at the Koran, especially Sura 9. Shall we take a look, in part at what is in this lovely Sura? Remember too this is considered the last and therefore definitive Sura by date of composition, and as such anything that contradicts it is null:

                        [9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
                        Footnote

                        [9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.

                        [9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.

                        [9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

                        [9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

                        [9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

                        [9:7] How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.

                        [9:8] How can they (demand a pledge) when they never observed any rights of kinship between you and them, nor any covenant, if they ever had a chance to prevail. They pacified you with lip service, while their hearts were in opposition, and most of them are wicked.

                        [9:9] They traded away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. Consequently, they repulsed the people from His path. Miserable indeed is what they did!

                        [9:10] They never observe any rights of kinship towards any believer, nor do they uphold their covenants; these are the real transgressors.

                        Repentance: Cleaning the Slate

                        [9:11] If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), then they are your brethren in religion. We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

                        [9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.

                        [9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers.

                        [9:14] You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.

                        [9:15] He will also remove the rage from the believers' hearts. GOD redeems whomever He wills. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

                        The Inevitable Test

                        [9:16] Did you think that you will be left alone without GOD distinguishing those among you who strive, and never ally themselves with GOD's enemies, or the enemies of His messenger, or the enemies of the believers? GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

                        [9:17] The idol worshipers are not to frequent the masjids of GOD, while confessing their disbelief. These have nullified their works, and they will abide forever in Hell.

                        [9:18] The only people to frequent GOD's masjids are those who believe in GOD and the Last Day, and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and do not fear except GOD. These will surely be among the guided ones.


                        And what pray tell am I misinterpreting here? By traditional, and traditional before the Crusades, interpreations lead to the inevitable conclusion that Islam relates to the unbleiver through Jihad when peaceful conversion does not work. That is the ENTIRE history of Islam, and I dare you to find me one clerical organization within Islam with public credibility within the Muslim world that will appologize for destroying Persia and conquering most of the Byzatine one in campaign of pure agression with no provocation other than both Empires to convert to the relgion of .

                        Not that I care, because the last Muslim will die before I do, but please, enlighten my blighted soul.
                        How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                        275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am disgusted and appalled by some of the bigoted anti-Islamic
                          comments above . In fact neither moslems nor Christians
                          have clean hands as regards aggressive war and warlike actions,
                          including efforts to impose their religion and culture on the other,
                          among others (relatively benign- note I said relatively-
                          Islamic Spain and far less so the Ottomans in Europe, and by
                          Christians the crusades and the reconquista. It's why I found George Bush's
                          disingenuous generalistic portrayal of Islam as being a
                          "religion of peace" made no more sense then to make a
                          similar generalization about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
                          Various religions have had men/women of peace and also considerable
                          periods of aggressiveness towards other faiths, even and at times
                          all the more so, with fellow peoples of the Book. And, of course,
                          there is in addition intra-faith hatreds, strife, and attrocities.
                          Not limited to Shiite/Sunni alone. Just consider the western
                          (mostly French) sacking of Orthodox Constantinople in the
                          Fourth Crusade at the instigation of Venice.
                          Last edited by Tuor; 16 Mar 10, 18:41.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Did you read the frickin Sura. I'm not about to defend the misdeeds of Christianity, but Islam is evil. Dude, it's totally evil. Read the the Koran and know how it is organized. If you want the testimonies of former Muslims (now mostly atheists) and how they learned to interpret Islamic teachings, go to faithfreedom.org. They have LOTS of resources. Think all the ill you want of Christianity or relgion in general but don't think because most relgions have a soft side, a liberal streak, that Islam does too. That's so ignorant its ignant.
                            How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                            275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tuor View Post
                              I am disgusted and appalled by some of the bigoted anti-Islamic
                              comments above . In fact neither moslems nor Christians
                              have clean hands as regards aggressive war and warlike actions,
                              including efforts to impose their religion and culture on the other,
                              among others (relatively benign- note I said relatively-
                              Islamic Spain and far less so the Ottomans in Europe, and by
                              Christians the crusades and the reconquista. It's why I found George Bush's
                              disingenuous generalistic portrayal of Islam as being a
                              "religion of peace" made no more sense then to make a
                              similar generalization about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
                              Various religions have had men/women of peace and also considerable
                              periods of aggressiveness towards other faiths, even and at times
                              all the more so, with fellow peoples of the Book. And, of course,
                              there is in addition intra-faith hatreds, strife, and attrocities.
                              Not limited to Shiite/Sunni alone. Just consider the western
                              (mostly French) sacking of Orthodox Constantinople in the
                              Fourth Crusade at the instigation of Venice.
                              Although you are correct in your statements in the past of Christianity that does not explain Islams radical side in this day and age. When you have to start pointing out things 200 years in the past you end up using bad logic at some point in the arguement you finally end up at Kane in Able if you start back tracking too far in history. Also shortly after most of the things you point out Christianity moved the battlefield from war to a more ideas based battlefield. Granted there are times where people kill in the name of god but it on the fringes. (idiots will be idiots)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X