# 630 Years Ago Today at Kosovo



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## mariomike (15 Jun 2019)

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/


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

I knew someone would discount anything American. Its a great mag for conservatives. Been reading it for years.


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## dimsum (15 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## mariomike (15 Jun 2019)

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/


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jun 2019)

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).


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2019)

As an aside the Turks didn’t fare too well in Transylvania.


----------



## AbdullahD (16 Jun 2019)

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


----------



## mariomike (16 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## exspy (16 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## garb811 (16 Jun 2019)

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?


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jun 2019)

: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.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Jun 2019)

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 ,"*Roman*ia" and "*Roman*i", 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.


----------



## dimsum (16 Jun 2019)

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...  :


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Jun 2019)

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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## AbdullahD (16 Jun 2019)

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


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2019)

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.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jun 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Some of us also refer to The Media Bias Chart,


"Red Rectangle:  nonsense damaging to public discourse."  That's what I was trying to say.   ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2019)

>"Media Bias/Fact Check" regurgitation is basically ad hominem. 

It's the regurgitation that is ad hominem, not necessarily the organization itself.  Clearer?

Example: when Alan Dershowitz is published by a right-leaning organization (which has been happening more often in the past few months), I don't infer that the organization's biases have much to do with whatever Dershowitz chose to write, and read Dershowitz on his own merits.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jun 2019)

Clearly we're going in circles here... but one last attempt:

There are two aspects to Media Bias/Fact Check, and I've already acknowledged accepting media bias.  The second part, confirming facts, I thought I was also clear about, but was apparently mistaken.  If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies, regardless of whether the lying supports the left, right, or flying unicorns, it is a factor when assessing Dershowitz, Ibrahim, or whoever.  It's not remotely the only factor, but if posters understood that what they unthinkingly accept as gospel likely comes from a tainted source, then maybe.... _just maybe_… they might show more discretion in their reading material and any judgements they make. 

Now, if someone consistently quoted _The National Enquirer_,  and the only response ever was to simply repeat "Media Bias/Fact Check says they're junk," then that would likely qualify as regurgitation.  If people quote different sources, but it's pointed out that they all fall into the category of 'extreme bias conspiracy lies' then it's more a case of the poster preferring the echo chamber life to the challenge of reading more widely and thinking.

Personally, I'd prefer people just refrain from posting bullshit, ill-informed drivel, or uncritical political cheerleading.  Clearer?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jun 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Clearly we're going in circles here... but one last attempt:
> 
> There are two aspects to Media Bias/Fact Check, and I've already acknowledged accepting media bias.  The second part, confirming facts, I thought I was also clear about, but was apparently mistaken.  If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies, regardless of whether the lying supports the left, right, or flying unicorns, it is a factor when assessing Dershowitz, Ibrahim, or whoever.  It's not remotely the only factor, but if posters understood that what they unthinkingly accept as gospel likely comes from a tainted source, then maybe.... _just maybe_… they might show more discretion in their reading material and any judgements they make.
> 
> ...



It's just easier to consign any history written about places like Ireland, or the parts of Europe between Britain and Russia, that doesn't appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica as 'crazy talk'


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jun 2019)

European countries like Poland and Hungary should be able to decide who they let into their country (and when). It shouldn't be up to the European union to decide, nor threaten consequences.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> European countries like Poland and Hungary should be able to decide who they let into their country (and when). It shouldn't be up to the European union to decide, nor threaten consequences.



And that's one of the main reasons behind 'why Brexit'.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2019)

>If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies...

I don't think we're going in circles; I just start from a different position.  Mine is that the publisher's reputation is not the authors', and that authors are sources, and publishers are not.   Publisher bias determines what is selected for publication (ie. does it serve the preferred narrative), but an author stands on his own merits.  For me, the writer's name is everything and the publisher's is almost nothing.  I can't conceive skipping an article by someone I find interesting just because it appears in Mother Jones or American Greatness.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> For me, the writer's name is everything and the publisher's is almost nothing.



OK. 

Regarding the writer,



> The recent article by Raymond Ibrahim is in this author's opinion well-researched, factual in places but whose interpretation of taqiyya is ultimately misleading. It focuses on a very narrow use of the term taqiyya, which is sometimes used to refer to dissimulation allowed to Shias to preserve their own lives and the lives of others. It appears to be a polemical piece interspersed with cherry-picked citations from the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet and secondary works.
> https://web.archive.org/web/20110811212138/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Islamic-Affairs-Analyst-2008/Interpreting-Taqiyya.html
> 
> Islam is a universal religion that spans millennia of history and covers much of the earth's population. Islam, however, does not have a central canon, a pope, or a single body that can set doctrine. So, it is extremely difficult to generalise about what Islam as a religion believes except in its core beliefs. One can always find Muslim jurists who offer opinions about matters of doctrine such as taqiyya, but it is also possible to find other respected jurists who disagree. So any assertion about doctrine needs to be carefully circumscribed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jun 2019)

Congratulations.  You've discovered that historians disagree on interpretations, but are not necessarily liars.  Next up: "Montgomery: Genius or Buffoon"?

Who is the author ("in this author's opinion") who wrote the opinion for Jane's?  I could not identify one at the link.

[Add: So I suppose it is the "Michael Ryan" identified in Ibrahim's response.  And that still leaves the original article posted - essentially a recitation of events and quotations - substantially unchallenged.]


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You've discovered that historians disagree on interpretations, but are not necessarily liars.



The word used in Jane's was "misleading".

Full version,



> Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst
> 
> Key Points
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jun 2019)

You're still using (one) different article and round of discussion as a proxy for the one linked in this topic, for which the subject is clear and limited and the stated facts are easily verified.

And, the fact that Ryan disagrees with Ibrahim on matters of interpretation - what to interpret, and how representative it is - does not mean either of them is "misleading" or "wrong".

And, there's no general principle of "diffuse-therefore-inscrutable".  It doesn't necessarily follow that generalities can not be drawn from something that lacks a canonical point of reference.  And the Koran, at least, is widely represented by Muslims as essentially canonical.

So three things: a difference of opinions is not proof of being misleading or any other disreputable characterization; one item (or even a handful) does not establish a pattern; and - above all - if you want to take on an argument, the "best practice" is still and always to tackle it on its own terms.

And to be clear: since there is no apparent general policy of attaching "reputation assessments" to links as a comprehensive service to readers, I am left wondering what is the point of throwing them in occasionally if they are not intended as exactly what I suspect: a quick drive-by ad hominem/guilt-by-association attack.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And to be clear: since there is no apparent general policy of attaching "reputation assessments" to links as a comprehensive service to readers, I am left wondering what is the point of throwing them in occasionally if they are not intended as exactly what I suspect: a quick drive-by ad hominem/guilt-by-association attack.



Clearly we are going in circles. One last attempt. This goes for me, too,



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> 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.


----------

