• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

630 Years Ago Today at Kosovo

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
64
Points
530
American Thinker article positing this historical event for Easter Europeans not being open to the settling of Muslim refugees in their countries.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/the_630_yearold_reason_eastern_europeans_dislike_islam.html

As Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán once explained:
We don't want to criticize France, Belgium, any other country, but we think all countries have a right to decide whether they want to have a large number of Muslims in their countries.  If they want to live together with them, they can.  We don't want to and I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country.  We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see[.] ... I have to say that when it comes to living together with Muslim communities, we are the only ones who have experience because we had the possibility to go through that experience for 150 years.
 
tomahawk6 said:
American Thinker

Media Bias / Fact Check had this to say,

Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/



 
I knew someone would discount anything American. Its a great mag for conservatives. Been reading it for years.
 
forget American Thinker, just open up a history book written before 1990.  Travel through Romania or Bulgaria or Serbia, you will find ample evidence to confirm the story as written.  Heck, read the history of Istanbul. 
 
tomahawk6 said:
I knew someone would discount anything American. Its a great mag for conservatives. Been reading it for years.

I don't think he was discounting it because it's American.  He was discounting it because it is "based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks" as the site states.  It even links to articles on the AT as evidence.
 
tomahawk6 said:
I knew someone would discount anything American.

No. Media Bias / Fact Check rated American Thinker "Questionable" because of this,

Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/



 
That is why I said to forget American Thinker and do some reading for yourselves.  Study some Armenian history, visit the eastern European countries that suffered under Turkish rule.  Talk to the Maltese, they have some real horror stories with respect Islam, far worse than any crusader sagas.  Finally, read the words to the Marine hymn in the U.S.  Barbary coast pirates were there very first off-shore excursion (except for beating the British of course). 
 
Islam in Europe a quick primer
http://m.islamicbulletin.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.islamicbulletin.org%2Fnewsletters%2Fissue_13%2Fislam.aspx&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F#2536

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe

Religion and communism/communist states or ex commie
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/religious-belief-and-national-belonging-in-central-and-eastern-europe/

https://classroom.synonym.com/happened-religion-during-communist-rule-russia-8352.html

The Hungarian leader.. has uh.. some detractors. But heck we hate on politicians until they say what we want to hear.. right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/16/why-president-trump-hungarys-authoritarian-leader-are-soulmates/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.027fbdc7284b

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_orb%C3%A1n

Religion in Hungary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Hungary

Crime in Hungary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Hungary

Crime in france
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_France

I think conclusions are being drawn, that do not hold water. I think communism has more to do with it then history. But looking at the percent of Muslims in different countries, crime reporting corruption and crime stats... more Muslims does not seem to purely indicate more crime.

Meh. I'm in my echo chamber, others are in theirs.

Abdullah
 
YZT580 said:
That is why I said to forget American Thinker and do some reading for yourselves. 

AbdullahD said:
But looking at the percent of Muslims in different countries, crime reporting corruption and crime stats... more Muslims does not seem to purely indicate more crime.

Thank-you for posting some reading material, Abdullah.
 
YZT580 said:
Travel through Romania or Bulgaria or Serbia...

Hamish Seggie said:
As an aside the Turks didn’t fare too well in Transylvania.

Just a quick aside. I used to work with a young Romanian woman. Very intelligent. Her and her husband were lawyers back home, came to Canada where both earned a law degree and were practicing lawyers. As I said, very smart and well to do.

Anyways, one day we were talking about Romania and its most famous citizen, Vlad the Impaler. Her opinion of Vlad was very different from that of the general western world's view, which is based on him being a vampire. She thought of him as a national hero who defended the country against the southern invaders. When I asked about all the people he impaled on spikes, she said something along the lines of, "it was okay, they were only Turks."

Several weeks later, when the same subject came up and I reminded her of what she said, she immediately denied it. But she said it. I never did get her to explain why she was offended by gypsies also being called the Romani.

Cheers,
Dan.
 
tomahawk6 said:
American Thinker article positing this historical event for Easter Europeans not being open to the settling of Muslim refugees in their countries.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/the_630_yearold_reason_eastern_europeans_dislike_islam.html
I'm sure that the author is supportive of no more Christian immigration to the Americas then?
 
              :not-again:
tomahawk6 said:
I knew someone would discount anything American.
Despite mariomike hand-feeding you the Media Bias/Fact Check site and their text critiquing American Thinker  credibility, you nevertheless presume that the issue is some hate-on for "American";  clearly their use of the term "Thinker" is where the problem lies.

Interestingly, American Thinker  gets pretty much identical ratings as your previously cited Gateway Pundit  for its extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, propaganda, and use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

Credibility has nothing to do with nationality.


Aside (irrelevant to most of us):  Media Bias/Fact Check is an American organization located in Greensboro, North Carolina;  NC voted for Trump.
 
Dan M said:
. . .  I never did get her to explain why she was offended by gypsies also called the Romani.

Other than a general attitude of prejudice towards an ethnic minority?

While there is a similarity in the name of the two ,"Romania" and "Romani", there is no connection.  In very simplistic terms "Romania" derives from the Latin romanus meaning "citizen of Rome" whereas "Romani" is Indo-Aryan with a greater connection to the Punjab region and its language and gene pool.  In the Roma language (or in most of its dialects) "Rom" means man (or husband) and "Romni" means woman (or wife).  While the Roma face intolerance in many parts of Europe, perhaps the history of the Roma people in Romania (or more specifically the hodge-podge of territories that now make Romania) is telling in that it was only a little less than ten years before the slavery of Africans was abolished in the USA that the slavery of Roma people in Romania was abolished.  There has been greater willingness and success in integrating African-Americans into the mainstream of American life than similar efforts and willingness in Romania.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
In the Roma language (or in most of its dialects) "Rom" means man (or husband) and "Romni" means woman (or wife). 

So Mitt Romney is...  ::)
 
YZT580 said:
That is why I said to forget American Thinker and do some reading for yourselves.  Study some Armenian history, visit the eastern European countries that suffered under Turkish rule.  Talk to the Maltese, they have some real horror stories with respect Islam, far worse than any crusader sagas.  Finally, read the words to the Marine hymn in the U.S.  Barbary coast pirates were there very first off-shore excursion (except for beating the British of course).

Well it wasn't always as bad as you suggest. Here is the article from the Encyclopedia Britannica on Bulgarian life under the Turks:

The “Turkish yoke”

The five centuries from 1396 to 1878, known as the era of the “Turkish yoke,” are traditionally seen as a period of darkness and suffering. Both national and ecclesiastical independence were lost. The Bulgarian nobility was destroyed—its members either perished, fled, or accepted Islam and Turkicization—and the peasantry was enserfed to Turkish masters. The “blood tax” took a periodic levy of male children for conversion to Islam and service in the Janissary Corps of the Ottoman army.

The picture was not entirely negative, however. Once completed, the Turkish conquest included Bulgaria in a “Pax Ottomanica” that was a marked contrast to the preceding centuries of war and conflict. While Ottoman power was growing or at its height, it provided an acceptable way of life for the Bulgarian population. It was only when the empire was in its decline and unable to control the depredations of local officials or maintain reasonable order that the Bulgarians found Ottoman rule unbearable.

Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period, for the Turks did not forcibly attempt to populate Bulgaria with Turks or to convert all Bulgarians to Islam. With the exception of the people of the Rhodope Mountains who were converted (and thereafter were called Pomaks) and some Catholic communities based in the northwest, the Bulgarian population remained mainly within the Orthodox church. Although Turkish administrators were established in the towns and countryside, Turkish peasants did not settle in Bulgaria in large numbers, and those who did immigrate were concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the country and in some of the valleys of Macedonia and Thrace. In the 15th and 16th centuries Turkish authorities permitted the immigration of Jewish refugees from the Christian West. While the majority were resettled in Constantinople and Salonika (now Thessaloníki, Greece), most Bulgarian towns acquired small Jewish communities in which newcomers mostly from Spain mixed with the already existent Jewish population.

Decline of the Ottoman Empire

The decline of the Ottoman Empire was marked by military defeats at the hands of Christian Europe and by a weakening of central authority. Both of these factors were significant for developments in Bulgaria. As the empire was thrown on the defensive, the Christian powers, first Austria and then Russia, saw the Bulgarian Christians as potential allies.

...................

Of greater significance, however, was the inability of the central government to keep the spahis and local officials under control. During the 17th and 18th centuries the spahis succeeded in converting their fiefs to çiftliks, hereditary estates that could not be regulated by the government. Owners of çiftliks were free to impose higher obligations on the peasantry or to drive them off the land. Turkish refugees from lands liberated by Christian states were frequently resettled on çiftliks in Bulgaria, increasing the pressure on the land and the burden on the peasantry. Occasionally, Turkish refugees formed marauding bands that could not be subdued by central authority and that exacted a heavy toll from their Christian victims.

One response among the Bulgarians was a strengthening of the haiduk tradition. The haiduks were guerrillas—some would say bandits—who took to the mountains to live by robbing the Turks. Although the haiduks lacked a strong sense of national consciousness, they kept alive a spirit of resistance and gave rise to legends that inspired later revolts.

So yes, there were periods of instability when Christians were persecuted, but for most of Ottoman rule the people were left alone. And as the article says it was towards the end of Ottoman rule that things got dicey (eg) the Armenian Genocide occurred during the last throes of Ottoman rule.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Well it wasn't always as bad as you suggest. Here is the article from the Encyclopedia Britannica on Bulgarian life under the Turks:

So yes, there were periods of instability when Christians were persecuted, but for most of Ottoman rule the people were left alone. And as the article says it was towards the end of Ottoman rule that things got dicey (eg) the Armenian Genocide occurred during the last throes of Ottoman rule.

Very nice read, thanks. I actually have not bothered to learn much of Eastern European history, but it does seem extremely interesting so in the future I may have to read more.

Thanks again
Abdullah
 
Did anyone bother to notice that the linked article at AT is by Raymond Ibrahim, and is based on one of his books?

For those who may not follow news very closely, Ibrahim is the fellow recently invited to speak at the US Army War College and then disinvited because CAIR objected.

"Ad hominem...is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

"Media Bias/Fact Check" regurgitation is basically ad hominem.  Those who don't support ad hominem here...should stop using ratings as a shortcut.  Read and digest and respond, or just ignore and remain silent.
 
Brad Sallows said:
"Media Bias/Fact Check" regurgitation is basically ad hominem. 
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you this time.

I consider Media Bias/Fact Check as a useful tool to assess a journalistic source's track record.  I accept that there are editorial biases, which most can pick out right away. I personally read material with a left and right bias to try and develop a more complete perspective.  I don't however accept some people believing that they can have their own objective truth.  Rather than an ad hominem attack, it's an effort to encourage people to read more widely and more legitimate sources (ie - beyond a self-reaffirming echo chamber), especially when a go-to media has a lengthy track record of false data and unsubstantiated conspiracies.

I know it's sounding like a broken record, but there are opinions and there are informed  opinions;  it's the latter that add value to the site. 
 
Journeyman said:
I consider Media Bias/Fact Check as a useful tool to assess a journalistic source's track record. 

Some of us also find The Media Bias Chart useful,

Infanteer said:
http://www.adfontesmedia.com/media-bias-chart-3-1-minor-updates-based-constructive-feedback/

FJAG said:
That's an excellent chart.

 
Back
Top