International Sultan Erdogan whining about "Islamic heritage destruction" in Greece.

[MicroBrew]

Lovely. Their delusions don't have any bearings on reality. What an arrogant fucking moron. They didn't win any hearts in central Europe during their centuries of slaughter and slavery, I can tell you that much.

"Our ancestors regarded conquest as not merely taking more lands but winning over hearts," he said.

Not only that , they didn't win hears in Arabia either.

The Saudis are recently painting the picture of the Ottoman as oppressive conquerers. Saudis also destroyed Otttom era architecture in Mecca. Ostensibly it was claimed the Wahhabis were destroying things that would cause shirk, but Turks saw this as a convenient excuse to destroy Turkish heritage.

Saudi Arabia changes Ottoman ‘Empire’ to ‘occupation’ in school textbooks



Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education has made a series of modifications to its history textbooks altering the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and its former rule over parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

While the former curriculum taught the topic referencing the Ottoman Caliphate, the new curriculum will now cover the Empire’s “occupation”, crimes and subsequent collapse to pupils in the lower years of high school.

Among the crimes the Saudi text books will level against the Ottoman rule are “Fighting with the first and second Saudi states; supporting some local leaders against King Abdul Aziz; destroying Diriyah and surrounding towns; as well as many parts of Zahran and Asir, besides torturing Imam Abdullah Bin Saud, the last imam of the first Saudi state, and assassinating him after taking him to Istanbul.”

The curriculum also accuses the Ottoman government of having divided the Arabs of the Peninsula, stating: “The Arab land that came under the subjugation of the Ottoman administrative regime were divided into at least 15 states and each state was administered by a governor. The regime also sought to impose many taxes on the population and agricultural crops as well as on land, goods and services with collecting money to serve the Ottoman state and its sultans without leaving any significant revenues for these states.”The Ottomans, as the new narrative puts it, governed primarily by a policy of divide and rule, enforcing “political domination and sowing discord in order to prevent the Arabian Peninsula from being united, transferring skilled craftsmen and builders from Egypt and the Levant to Istanbul, building fortresses and forts to protect the state soldiers and their states, and prevalence of instability and insecurity within these countries and along the pilgrimage routes.”

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...man-empire-to-occupation-in-school-textbooks/

 

[Bacco]

Never the wrong answer lol

 

[tramendous]

Well the relaionship between the Greeks and the Turks is the former losing out to the later, with the later being the instigator. Any group that feels it has been wronged is prone to completely reject and oppose the opposing party. The opposing party being the conquering party doesn't need to have the same level of deep grievance.

I dont see it as a valid excuse. India for example has no right to burn down every Portugese church in Goa. At the end of the day, the Greeks too had empires where they were instigators over people they conquered.

 

[tramendous]

Not only that , they didn't win hears in Arabia either.

The Saudis are recently painting the picture of the Ottoman as oppressive conquerers. Saudis also destroyed Otttom era architecture in Mecca. Ostensibly it was claimed the Wahhabis were destroying things that would cause shirk, but Turks saw this as a convenient excuse to destroy Turkish heritage.

Saudi Arabia changes Ottoman ‘Empire’ to ‘occupation’ in school textbooks



Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education has made a series of modifications to its history textbooks altering the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and its former rule over parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

While the former curriculum taught the topic referencing the Ottoman Caliphate, the new curriculum will now cover the Empire’s “occupation”, crimes and subsequent collapse to pupils in the lower years of high school.

Among the crimes the Saudi text books will level against the Ottoman rule are “Fighting with the first and second Saudi states; supporting some local leaders against King Abdul Aziz; destroying Diriyah and surrounding towns; as well as many parts of Zahran and Asir, besides torturing Imam Abdullah Bin Saud, the last imam of the first Saudi state, and assassinating him after taking him to Istanbul.”

The curriculum also accuses the Ottoman government of having divided the Arabs of the Peninsula, stating: “The Arab land that came under the subjugation of the Ottoman administrative regime were divided into at least 15 states and each state was administered by a governor. The regime also sought to impose many taxes on the population and agricultural crops as well as on land, goods and services with collecting money to serve the Ottoman state and its sultans without leaving any significant revenues for these states.”The Ottomans, as the new narrative puts it, governed primarily by a policy of divide and rule, enforcing “political domination and sowing discord in order to prevent the Arabian Peninsula from being united, transferring skilled craftsmen and builders from Egypt and the Levant to Istanbul, building fortresses and forts to protect the state soldiers and their states, and prevalence of instability and insecurity within these countries and along the pilgrimage routes.”

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...man-empire-to-occupation-in-school-textbooks/

Not sure if killing rebellious wahabi leaders will be seen as a bad thing by Muslims. Especially with how low the standing of the house of Saud is in the Muslim world. This is just a response to Turkey reasserting itself in the Muslim Middle East. I also think we're discounting their hearts and minds approach. Had they been as hostile as suggested, they would have never ruled over the areas for as long as they did. They would have had too much rebellions to put down.

 

[rushbeg]

Never the wrong answer lol

Vlad is kind of overrated.
Skanderbeg and Hunyadi had much more success against Ottomans. Yet probably you have no clue about who they were lmao

 

[MicroBrew]

Not sure if killing rebellious wahabi leaders will be seen as a bad thing by Muslims. Especially with how low the standing of the house of Saud is in the Muslim world. This is just a response to Turkey reasserting itself in the Muslim Middle East. I also think we're discounting their hearts and minds approach. Had they been as hostile as suggested, they would have never ruled over the areas for as long as they did. They would have had too much rebellions to put down.

No doubt this is Saudi Arabia hitting back at Turkey and Turkish nationalism. But Arabs and Turks never got on, simply because Arabs have always wanted to rule over others so could never accept a non Arab Muslim power domination the region.

Turkey and Arabs both want to lead the Sunni Muslim world. Geopolitics of the region now sees Turkey against Egypt, Saudi and UAE . Qatar aligns with Turkey. Turkey supports the LNA in Libya while UAE and Egypt supports Haftar. UAE is involved in a lot of regional rivalries and machininations. Sisi, UAE and Saudi are obsessed with opposing the Brotherhood which Erdogan and Qatar are sympathetic to.

 

[MicroBrew]

I dont see it as a valid excuse. India for example has no right to burn down every Portugese church in Goa. At the end of the day, the Greeks too had empires where they were instigators over people they conquered.

Well maybee the Greeks saw the Mosques like African Americans see Confederate statues. I am not saying the Greeks were always innocent victims, just pointing out that when a group sees itself as the losing side in a war they did not instigate, they are going to want revenge or a balacing of the scales.

 

[Bacco]

Vlad is kind of overrated.
Skanderbeg and Hunyadi had much more success against Ottomans. Yet probably you have no clue about who they were lmao

I know both, i like history from classical age up to renassaince
Trust me on word as write down their bio could mean i just googled their wiki page lol

Pick Dracula works for two simple reasons: he's iconic af and when we talk about despise somebody he's the next level lol

 

[Bacco]

Turkey and Arabs both want to lead the Sunni Muslim world.

Let them bang imho

 

[ShinkanPo]

Turks are Hurrians, Uratians, Greeks, Armenians, people from the Caucasus, Levantines, Kurds, Jews, Slavs and some other Anatolian folks . The East Asian DNA is tiny. They speak and East Asian language and worship an Arab religion.

Original Turks likely looked similar to these folks

I honestly can't tell of the one in redia a woman or man.

 

[Supereem]

Well maybee the Greeks saw the Mosques like African Americans see Confederate statues. I am not saying the Greeks were always innocent victims, just pointing out that when a group sees itself as the losing side in a war they did not instigate, they are going to want revenge or a balacing of the scales.

most mosques were merely abandoned and not converted into Churches. Some converted into museums. Fact is there are not enough muslims to even use them.

Hagia Sophia and Constantinople isn’t some random church, for the Greeks it’s the equivalent to Mecca.

 

[rushbeg]

I know both, i like history from classical age up to renassaince
Trust me on word as write down their bio could mean i just googled their wiki page lol

Pick Dracula works for two simple reasons: he's iconic af and when we talk about despise somebody he's the next level lol

Sure , Dracula is iconic due to this viciousness and he also had some success against Ottomans. Not as much as Skanderbeg or Hunyadi though.
Even the Pope didn't have good words for Vlad because of how vicious he was lmao

Also don't get me wrong , when i said "you probably don't have a clue" I was refering to the fact that a large number of people have no clue about who they are.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Erdogan is not some lone wolf at the helm. Turkey which was a leading Islamic power for centuries was forced into secularization by ataturk and nationalists where Muslim identity was constantly suppressed and under siege in favor of a turkish nationalist ethnostate. What you are seeing is the backlash of Turkish Islamic identity. Its part of a much more complex phenomenon than simply wanting the Ottoman Empire back. Thats just pandering.

If anything as he's become more authoritarian he's actually reverted to a more typical Turkish nationalist stance. That's the irony of Erdogan, when he was presenting himself as an Islamist he was actually a reformist force and helped ease certain restrictions on the Kurds and reduce the power of the military. As he's become more authoritarian he's leaned more on the Ataturk playbook.

It shows that the West doesn't really care about freedom and democracy in the Muslim world, what it really wants out of Muslim majority countries are two things; compliance in international affairs and an effort to secularize and Westernize in the domestic sphere(usually to make the country more welcoming to Western tourists). If you can do both those things the West doesn't really care if you are a brutal ethnonationalist dictatorship.

No doubt this is Saudi Arabia hitting back at Turkey and Turkish nationalism. But Arabs and Turks never got on, simply because Arabs have always wanted to rule over others so could never accept a non Arab Muslim power domination the region.

Hmm, nah you don't really know what you're talking about here. Arabs accepted Ottoman rule for the vast majority of the Empire's existence. Its true that there were some tensions between certain Turkic speaking classes and Arab speaking ones but that's because the former were the military tax collecting caste and the latter peasants and when did peasants ever not hate tax collectors?

Overall the scholarly class accepted Ottoman rule just as they had accepted Mamluk rule for centuries despite their also being a foreign Turkic ruling class. The one time you see negative personal accounts by Arabs of the Ottomans it was literally right after the conquest of the Mamluk Sultanate. Which makes sense given it was a tumultuous time and well, having someone like Selim the Grim march through the gates could have some ugly consequences.

But they quickly got over that accepted Ottoman legitimacy. To the extent that there were problems it was problems with specific governors or rowdy troops from the capital but the problem of tyrannical governors and ruffian soldiers was not unique to the Ottoman Empire, was a general problem in Medieval times.

What's happened is that Arab nationalist historians had to create a historical narrative that justified the existence of their respective nation-states and due to Ottoman rule dominating the history of the region for four centuries they had to paint the Ottomans as stagnant oppressors. But even as late as the eve of WWI Arabs were not agitating for independence, the most radical claims they made were calls for a return to the more decentralized governance before the era of the Tanzimat reforms and the Young Turks. They wanted to be part of the empire(since it was the last great Muslim Empire), they just wanted less central control.

In fact despite the propaganda around the great Arab Revolt more Arabs fought for the Ottomans than against them and actually made up a huge chunk of the Ottoman army.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Erdogan forgetting about how the Ottomans tore down Justinians column to make cannonballs? Or how they used elements of the Great Palace and churches as a gunpowder magazine and they blew up?

 

[MicroBrew]

If anything as he's become more authoritarian he's actually reverted to a more typical Turkish nationalist stance. That's the irony of Erdogan, when he was presenting himself as an Islamist he was actually a reformist force and helped ease certain restrictions on the Kurds and reduce the power of the military. As he's become more authoritarian he's leaned more on the Ataturk playbook.

It shows that the West doesn't really care about freedom and democracy in the Muslim world, what it really wants out of Muslim majority countries are two things; compliance in international affairs and an effort to secularize and Westernize in the domestic sphere(usually to make the country more welcoming to Western tourists). If you can do both those things the West doesn't really care if you are a brutal ethnonationalist dictatorship.

Hmm, nah you don't really know what you're talking about here. Arabs accepted Ottoman rule for the vast majority of the Empire's existence. Its true that there were some tensions between certain Turkic speaking classes and Arab speaking ones but that's because the former were the military tax collecting caste and the latter peasants and when did peasants ever not hate tax collectors?

Overall the scholarly class accepted Ottoman rule just as they had accepted Mamluk rule for centuries despite their also being a foreign Turkic ruling class. The one time you see negative personal accounts by Arabs of the Ottomans it was literally right after the conquest of the Mamluk Sultanate. Which makes sense given it was a tumultuous time and well, having someone like Selim the Grim march through the gates could have some ugly consequences.

But they quickly got over that accepted Ottoman legitimacy. To the extent that there were problems it was problems with specific governors or rowdy troops from the capital but the problem of tyrannical governors and ruffian soldiers was not unique to the Ottoman Empire, was a general problem in Medieval times.

What's happened is that Arab nationalist historians had to create a historical narrative that justified the existence of their respective nation-states and due to Ottoman rule dominating the history of the region for four centuries they had to paint the Ottomans as stagnant oppressors. But even as late as the eve of WWI Arabs were not agitating for independence, the most radical claims they made were calls for a return to the more decentralized governance before the era of the Tanzimat reforms and the Young Turks. They wanted to be part of the empire(since it was the last great Muslim Empire), they just wanted less central control.

In fact despite the propaganda around the great Arab Revolt more Arabs fought for the Ottomans than against them and actually made up a huge chunk of the Ottoman army.

You say the peasants not accepting the tax collecting class is no surprise but then the same could be said of the Arab elite going along with the Ottoman elite, that elites looking out for their self-preservation didn't oppose the Ottoman elites. But more importantly the Turks, having adopted Islam, were advancing Arab cultural imperialism so why would the Arab elite support them. Isn't there some prophecy or wish from Muhammed to capture Constantinople, which the Turks ofcourse did?

My comment was mostly about how Arabs viewed Turks for the past 100 odd years. Penninsula Arabs joined forced with the Brits to kick the Ottoman out. If Arabs were content with Turkish rule why did they join hands with the infidels and revolt.