Israeli settlers kidnap and kill Palestinian teen in Jerusalem

[-SINAN-]

You implied that Turks were slaves,

Just to clear...early Turkic tribes that entered MEworked as Mercenaries... we know this is correct.

But We are Oghuz Turks, After the day we entered MiddleEast (1071)... forget being slaves we never lost our sovereignty to any other nation.

 

[KingMamba]

Babe, calm down! Do you want spaghetti hoops for dinner tonight babe?

@notsuperstitious you are right this dude is definitively a Pakistani false flagging troll.

 

[al-Hasani]

That maps included sphere of influence and client state. So it's accurate. All of those regions in Africa have been under either direct Arab rule or influence since the beginning of Islam. The map of the ME is also fully correct. Caucasus too. Europe as well. Only Central Asia can be discussed in terms of client states/sphere of influence.

What remains certain is that Arabs controlled large Turkic areas in Central Asia, Caucasus and much of modern-day Turkey.

Of course Arabs did not reach Mongolia and Siberia. Why should they? There was nothing there. Extremely sparsely populated. Landlocked etc.

The sphere of influence as I told was the entire traditional/historical ME (West Asia), all of Northern Africa and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa (Swahili coastline mainly - itself an word of Arab origin), Horn of Africa, nearby Southern Europe, Caucasus and those parts of Central Asia.

Later South East Asia through trade and settlement. A bit like South Asia overall. Islam was mainly spread by Arab travelers, traders, sufi and to a smaller extent Persian Muslims into South Asia.

An invasion never took place as South Asia was too populated and to far away to control. There were limits to how much land you could control being on already 3 continents and facing powerful opponents and enemies on all 3 continents.

Anyway I can feel your pain discussing with some of the Indians here. Man, at least our rivalries with the Persians are somewhat historical and we both tend to know about our region. I surely hope the Indians are not as clueless on South Asian matter as they are on Middle Eastern.

Surprisingly the Pakistani, Bengali etc. members are not like that. Sri Lankan's neither.

I don't know what they teach people in India.

@KingMamba

Believe it or not mate but the Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent was 3 (!) times bigger than the Ottoman Caliphate at its greatest extent. Let alone the client states and sphere of influence.

List of largest empires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was also surprised by that but it is nevertheless true.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

@al-Hasani

You Umayyads have beaten Turgesh and Khazars. Tell it to Sinan. You can be happy. No need for useless competition.

 

[Falcon29]

Here you go for Israelis in denial here:

Rocket volley bombards southern Israel; two downed by Iron Dome | The Times of Israel

As the investigation into the murder of Abu Khdeir continues, there are growing indications the killing was nationalistically-motivated, although a criminal motive has not been ruled out, according to Israeli media reports.

An official involved in the probe tells the Walla news website: “The assessment is that the attack was nationalistic.”

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

 

[KingMamba]

That maps included sphere of influence and client state. So it's accurate. All of those regions in Africa have been under either direct Arab rule or influence since the beginning of Islam. The map of the ME is also fully correct. Caucasus too. Europe as well. Only Central Asia can be discussed in terms of client states/sphere of influence.

What remains certain is that Arabs controlled large Turkic areas in Central Asia, Caucasus and much of modern-day Turkey.

Of course Arabs did not reach Mongolia and Siberia. Why should they? There was nothing there. Extremely sparsely populated. Landlocked etc.

The sphere of influence as I told was the entire traditional/historical ME (West Asia), all of Northern Africa and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa (Swahili coastline mainly - itself an word of Arab origin), Horn of Africa, nearby Southern Europe, Caucasus and those parts of Central Asia.

Later South East Asia through trade and settlement. A bit like South Asia overall. Islam was mainly spread by Arab travelers, traders, sufi and to a smaller extent Persian Muslims into South Asia.

An invasion never took place as South Asia was too populated and to far away to control. There were limits to how much land you could control being on already 3 continents and facing powerful opponents and enemies on all 3 continents.

Anyway I can feel your pain discussing with some of the Indians here. Man, at least our rivalries with the Persians are somewhat historical and we both tend to know about our region. I surely hope the Indians are not as clueless on South Asian matter as they are on Middle Eastern.

Surprisingly the Pakistani, Bengali etc. members are not like that. Sri Lankan's neither.

I don't know what they teach people in India.

@KingMamba

Believe it or not mate but the Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent was 3 (!) times bigger than the Ottoman Caliphate at its greatest extent. Let alone the client states and sphere of influence.

List of largest empires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was also surprised by that but it is nevertheless true.

Ummayads did invade India and were beaten by the Rajputs when they tried to go into Central India, Ummayads did conquer Sindh of modern day Pakistan but after the conquest they exhibited nominal control. Then the Abbasid revolt happened and much of the control over Sindh by Arabs was no more and Sindh was ruled by local dynasties which were Shiite in origin.

If that map is accurate then so is the one @Sinan posted and yes Ummayad caliphate was one of the world's greatest empires.

 

[al-Hasani]

Here you go for Israelis in denial here:

Rocket volley bombards southern Israel; two downed by Iron Dome | The Times of Israel

As the investigation into the murder of Abu Khdeir continues, there are growing indications the killing was nationalistically-motivated, although a criminal motive has not been ruled out, according to Israeli media reports.

An official involved in the probe tells the Walla news website: “The assessment is that the attack was nationalistic.”

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

I don't understand why the Western media are so silent. The 3 killings of those Israeli settlers (as bad as it was) got a lot of publicity but seemingly the following civilian deaths of Palestine did not let alone the current martyr killed by Zionists.

 

[RFS_Br]

Israel is now going after journalists covering its suppression of Palestinian protests in Jerusalem:

https://twitter.com/x/status/484272426050531329

 

[KingMamba]

I don't understand why the Western media are so silent. The 3 killings of those Israeli settlers (as bad as it was) got a lot of publicity but seemingly the following civilian deaths of Palestine did not let alone the current martyr killed by Zionists.

Actually they are discussing it as a possible revenge attack here on local news programs, this thing that some Israelis brought up about his sexual orientation is the first time I am hearing it though.

 

[al-Hasani]

Ummayads did invade India and were beaten by the Rajputs when they tried to go into Central India, Ummayads did conquer Sindh of modern day Pakistan but after the conquest they exhibited nominal control. Then the Abbasid revolt happened and much of the control over Sindh by Arabs was no more and Sindh was ruled by local dynasties which were Shiite in origin.

At that time the Umayyads were engaged in several wars and also internal revolts happened. If all troops had been mobilized into such an invasion then it would probably had happened at least partially but the question is whether the interest would have been there as logistics would have been a huge problem? Also South Asia was already heavily populated back then.

There were certain limits to warfare 1300 years ago and geography also played a role. Later invasions of South Asia were facilitated by geographic proximity, more advanced warfare and internal turmoil in South Asia. Nevertheless there were not any mass migrations or settlements into South Asia as it was already densely populated and people shoved little interest. I think that Alexander the Great already touched on those reasons. Apparently most of his army did not like the humid weather either. I am thinking predominately about India here when I say "South Asia". Not very accurate, I know.

On the other hand if South Asians were more interested in conquest and expanding (they also were but probably did not had the resources for it or unity) they could have poised a big danger to most of the world just due to sheer numbers. I always wondered why they never managed to do that.

The Chinese were somewhat similar. Largely confined to what is now China despite huge numbers too.

 

[KingMamba]

At that time the Umayyads were engaged in several wars and also internal revolts happened. If all troops had been mobilized into such an invasion then it would probably had happened at least partially but the question is whether the interest would have been there as logistics would be a huge problem. Also South Asia was already heavily populated back then.

There were certain limits to warfare 1300 years ago and geography also played a rule. Later invasions of South Asia were facilitated by geographic proximity, more advanced warfare and internal turmoil in South Asia which facilitated it. Nevertheless there were not any mass migrations or settlements into South Asia as it was already densely populated and people shoved little interest.I think that Alexander the Great already touched on thus reasons. Apparently most of his army did not like the humid weather either.

On the other hand if South Asian were more interested in conquest and expanding (they also were but probably did not had the resources for it) they could have poised a big danger to most of the world just due to sheer numbers. I always wondered why they never managed to do that.

Chinese were somewhat similar. Largely confined to what is now China despite huge numbers too.

That is because both South Asia and China were independent little kingdoms at war with one another and both were only united into one huge entity at certain instances historically before descending back into smaller kingdoms. The Chinese however did initially attempt to expand their influence through Zheng He's voyages but then they decided against it and chose a policy of isolation instead burning much of their own fleet, had they not done so we might have been speaking in Chinese with one another today.

 

[Targon]

Care to tell about this "sphere of influence" ? you can't be talking about those who are converted to Islam right ?

Let me sum it, Muslims got Persia, then they moved into Khorasan and surrounding areas, these lands were not Turkic lands, but lands of local Iranians who where vassals of Turkic khaganates, Turgesh waged war to secure vassal lands, bloody wars conducted, result was pretty much stalemate until Muslims managed repulse Turgesh at last war, after a while Turgesh went into civil war and finally destroyed by another Turkic people, thats the end of the story, in the end Muslims secured Sogdian lands, nothing more, they didn't conquered or subjugated anyone in Turkic lands.

 

[Falcon29]

@al-Hasani @Targon @notsuperstitious @Kaan

End this off topic discussion please.

 

[Hakan]

Before we start. We are applying 20th/21st century ideas to what happened in the past so all of this talk is empty.

Arabs controlled half of Turkey and more or less the entire Central Asia for a long time. Those areas were inhabited by Turks.

• In the 700's Turks were not living in Turkey.
• Central Asia according to your definition was inhabitted by Persians.

I just answered his "master" comment as nobody was any master back then. Nationalism did barely exist. It was about religion and the figurehead. In this case the Caliph.

Religion was the number one priority.

Who cares about that? Your entire system was Arab, your titles, your alphabet, your Ottoman Turkic language (the elite spoke that) was more Arabic than anything else.

Saying the entire system was arab is incorrect. The military system was Turkish, the legal system was shariah (Gods Law), administrative system was unique to the ottomans. (Millet system, devshirme, beyliks etc.)

They did use many arabic titles.

Also in terms of architecture there was heavy Arab influence. Clothing etc. I could go on. Iran itself was heavily influenced by Arabs after so many centuries of Arab rule. Your left your native religion(s) for a religion from the Arab world etc.
.

• Ottoman architecture was mainly influenced by the byzantines not the arabs although it did have some influence.
• Clothing was Turkish.

Turkish Clothes

• 
  

Arab clothes from the same time period

One could easily argue that the Ottomans were Arabized to an great extent. Also the same Ottomans seemed to intermarry with Caucasians and people from Balkan's a lot. Another proof of nationalism not being important back then. Sufism also came from the Arab world.

I believe that the ottomans were not arabized.Titles and arabic being used in ottoman turkish does not mean someone was arabized. Any adoption of arab traditions or titles etc. was all voluntary and not enforced on turks by arabs.

Also you seem to take pride in the ottomans using arabic titles but then at the same time you condemn the young turks for making things more turkish. So it is clear that you will always try to find something to piss us off therefore discussing these matters with you is a waste of time. Whatever we do you will never be happy. If we spoke arabic you would say ha ha you guys are arabized and if we banned it you would say that we are racist tyrants. We all know what you are upto.

Also sufism is a religious thing that isn't tied to any race.

 

[al-Hasani]

That is because both South Asia and China were independent little kingdoms at war with one another and both were only united into one huge entity at certain instances historically before descending back into smaller kingdoms. The Chinese however did initially attempt to expand their influence through Zheng He's voyages but then they decided against it and chose a policy of isolation instead burning much of their own fleet, had they not done so we might have been speaking in Chinese with one another today.

That's also that. This is why I always find it extremely hilarious when Indians here try to make it sound like India as we know it today (from 1947 and onwards) was one big chunk of united land while badmouthing Pakistan for being a recent creation why the reality is that there were NEVER any single South Asian empire that ruled all of current South Asia. Simply as you say because there were too many ethnic groups, small kingdoms etc. fighting against each other.

That's why (when I discussed this issue with Indians) always like to make this comparison. India is like if the entire ME united into 1 country. That's pretty much it. And in fact the ME has been united under various peoples and rulers many times.

At least the Chinese had a far longer history of central power. Mostly confined to what is now Eastern China.

Also where there any major ancient wars between what is now South Asia and China? If truth then I was not aware of that.