Who Are The Palestinains?

[montelatici]

Well, then I guess slavery is ok with you. Not with me.

 

[toastman]

Well, then I guess slavery is ok with you. Not with me.

Why do you always put words in peoples mouths??

 

[Kondor3]

...historically speaking, I am glad that Charles Martell won at Tours and the Venetians at Lepanto.

One of the few things that we will ever agree upon.

Ditto.

Otherwise, Europe would have turned out to be be a Third-World shit-hole like most of the domains of Islam...

There goes the neighborhood...

Whew...

Two close calls, spaced nearly a millennium apart...

 

[aris2chat]

Well, then I guess slavery is ok with you. Not with me.

Why do you always put words in peoples mouths??

it amuses monty and draws attention.

Like the park pigeons, it is hard not to want to feed them when they come up to you, till they fly in your face, mess up your hair and shit on your dry clean only outfit. Then they are good only as dinner.

 

[montelatici]

Well, then I guess slavery is ok with you. Not with me.

Why do you always put words in peoples mouths??

it amuses monty and draws attention.

Like the park pigeons, it is hard not to want to feed them when they come up to you, till they fly in your face, mess up your hair and shit on your dry clean only outfit. Then they are good only as dinner.

You are justifying colonialism, indicating that it is a good thing. Colonialism was part and parcel with slavery in the Americas. Ok, what words did I put in your mouth?

 

[Kondor3]

Why do you always put words in peoples mouths??

it amuses monty and draws attention.

Like the park pigeons, it is hard not to want to feed them when they come up to you, till they fly in your face, mess up your hair and shit on your dry clean only outfit. Then they are good only as dinner.

You are justifying colonialism, indicating that it is a good thing. Colonialism was part and parcel with slavery in the Americas. Ok, what words did I put in your mouth?

It is true that European colonialism was responsible for slavery in the Americas.

This manifested, in part, by the Euro (mostly Spanish) enslavement of natives in Central and South America.

This manifested, in much larger part, by being tempted-by and corrupted-by and then gradually buying into and taking advantage of the centuries-old, pre-built, ready-to-hand Arab (Muslim) Slave Dealer Network lining the Western and Northern African perimeter regions, in which Muslims had been capturing Black Africans for centuries, and paying Blacks to sortie and capture other Blacks, to sell to the Muslim Slave Trader scum.

Compared to the Arab-Muslim Slave Network of those regions, the Euros were pikers and amateurs, despite the volumes in later decades.

 

[montelatici]

it amuses monty and draws attention.

Like the park pigeons, it is hard not to want to feed them when they come up to you, till they fly in your face, mess up your hair and shit on your dry clean only outfit. Then they are good only as dinner.

You are justifying colonialism, indicating that it is a good thing. Colonialism was part and parcel with slavery in the Americas. Ok, what words did I put in your mouth?

It is true that European colonialism was responsible for slavery in the Americas.

This manifested, in part, by the Euro (mostly Spanish) enslavement of natives in Central and South America.

This manifested, in much larger part, by being tempted-by and corrupted-by and then gradually buying into and taking advantage of the centuries-old, pre-built, ready-to-hand Arab (Muslim) Slave Dealer Network lining the Western and Northern African perimeter regions, in which Muslims had been capturing Black Africans for centuries, and paying Blacks to sortie and capture other Blacks, to sell to the Muslim Slave Trader scum.

Compared to the Arab-Muslim Slave Network of those regions, the Euros were pikers and amateurs, despite the volumes in later decades.

As I recall from high school history classes, at the time of the Civil War 60% of the slaves in the Americas were in the United States.

 

[Kondor3]

You are justifying colonialism, indicating that it is a good thing. Colonialism was part and parcel with slavery in the Americas. Ok, what words did I put in your mouth?

It is true that European colonialism was responsible for slavery in the Americas.

This manifested, in part, by the Euro (mostly Spanish) enslavement of natives in Central and South America.

This manifested, in much larger part, by being tempted-by and corrupted-by and then gradually buying into and taking advantage of the centuries-old, pre-built, ready-to-hand Arab (Muslim) Slave Dealer Network lining the Western and Northern African perimeter regions, in which Muslims had been capturing Black Africans for centuries, and paying Blacks to sortie and capture other Blacks, to sell to the Muslim Slave Trader scum.

Compared to the Arab-Muslim Slave Network of those regions, the Euros were pikers and amateurs, despite the volumes in later decades.

As I recall from high school history classes, at the time of the Civil War 60% of the slaves in the Americas were in the United States.

I have no clue and would not be overly surprised as we were (I believe) late in Abolishing vs many of the other New World countries who had done so earlier after their own breaks with their Old World motherships,.

Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[MJB12741]

Consider the facts. The slave trade was started by Muslims.


The Origins of the Slave Trade

 

[montelatici]

Consider the facts. The slave trade was started by Muslims.


The Origins of the Slave Trade

I see, so the slave trade in ancient Greece or Rome was started by Muslims? Oh wait, there were no Muslims in those days. Could you possibly be mistaken?

 

[Kondor3]

Consider the facts. The slave trade was started by Muslims.


The Origins of the Slave Trade

I see, so the slave trade in ancient Greece or Rome was started by Muslims? Oh wait, there were no Muslims in those days. Could you possibly be mistaken?

Correction:

The slave-trade iteration which was operative along the African Coast and the Mediterranean Basin during the opening years of the European Colonial Era and which fed slave to European Colonialists for 250-300 years after that launch, was the preexisting Arab-Muslim Slave Trade Network of that region, which existed for several centuries prior to advent of European Colonialism, and which had been enslaving Black Africans long before Europe reorganized itself into the nation-states of the modern era, and long before Europe ventured out into the Atlantic in an organized fashion.

 

[montelatici]

So, the terrible Muslims are the cause of slavery in the New World, the Europeans are poor innocents. And the Jews are saints. Oh wait, the Jews held slaves too. What do we make of this? Are the Muslims still the only bad guys?

 

[Kondor3]

So, the terrible Muslims are the cause of slavery in the New World, the Europeans are poor innocents. And the Jews are saints. Oh wait, the Jews held slaves too. What do we make of this? Are the Muslims still the only bad guys?

Nope.

But within the framework of Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, and Coastal Africa, at the advent of the European Colonial Era, the Arab-Muslim Slave Trader Network was the only pre-built, pre-existing, ready-to-hand, large-scale Slaver Network still on its feet and ready to start pimping blacks to the Johnny-Come-Lately Euros.

 

[montelatici]

So, the terrible Muslims are the cause of slavery in the New World, the Europeans are poor innocents. And the Jews are saints. Oh wait, the Jews held slaves too. What do we make of this? Are the Muslims still the only bad guys?

Nope.

But within the framework of Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, and Coastal Africa, at the advent of the European Colonial Era, the Arab-Muslim Slave Trader Network was the only pre-built, pre-existing, ready-to-hand, large-scale Slaver Network still on its feet and ready to start pimping blacks to the Johnny-Come-Lately Euros.

Romans were not Europeans?

 

[Kondor3]

So, the terrible Muslims are the cause of slavery in the New World, the Europeans are poor innocents. And the Jews are saints. Oh wait, the Jews held slaves too. What do we make of this? Are the Muslims still the only bad guys?

Nope.

But within the framework of Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, and Coastal Africa, at the advent of the European Colonial Era, the Arab-Muslim Slave Trader Network was the only pre-built, pre-existing, ready-to-hand, large-scale Slaver Network still on its feet and ready to start pimping blacks to the Johnny-Come-Lately Euros.

Romans were not Europeans?

The Roman slave trade had been dead for 1000 years (1500 A.D. - 500 A.D.) by the advent of European Colonialism.

The challenge here is not to identify the first Slavers in history.

The challenge here is to identify the Source for the Euro-Colonial brand of slavery.

It was not Euros or Christians with a centuries-old Slaver Network on the African coasts (north and west).

It was Arab-Muslims and Berber-Muslims and even Black African Muslims, doing the catching and transporting and warehousing and trading.

The Euros were merely the latest and most profitable Buyer that those ancient Muslim Slaver Networks found to feed upon, in selling large volumes of their age-old prey... hapless Black Africans.

 

[montelatici]

The Roman slave trade had been dead for 1000 years (1500 A.D. - 500 A.D.)

Actually no, as usual I have to correct you. The Roman Empire ended with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. And, the Romans (Byzantine is a later designation) still had slaves. The Muslims learned the trade (not a pun) from the Romans.

And, just to be clear, all of North Africa, at the time of the European slave trade, was part of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Kondor3]

The Roman slave trade had been dead for 1000 years (1500 A.D. - 500 A.D.)

Actually no, as usual I have to correct you. The Roman Empire ended with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. And, the Romans (Byzantine is a later designation) still had slaves. The Muslims learned the trade (not a pun) from the Romans.

And, just to be clear, all of North Africa, at the time of the European slave trade, was part of the Ottoman Empire.

I cannot believe that you are splitting hairs regarding the nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire - focused upon nominalism rather than realism - in a lame attempt to salvage your position in the matter.

Noted.

Rejected.

As to your assertion that the Muslims of the Mediterranean Basin and the Saudi Peninsula and the Middle East (including the Turkic peoples and the Persians, et al) and the West African coast all learned the Slave Trade from the Romans or Byzantines, directly or second-hand through the Ottomans...

I don't believe it for a moment...

Slavery existed in the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt and much of the rest of the North African coast (including early Carthage) while Rome was still a collection of mud-huts along the Tiber and the Etruscans were running things...

If you have anything substantive to serve-up to the contrary, then have at it, but, in light of your rather embarrassing and unworthy splitting of hairs regarding the nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire, I'm not expecting much.

 

[Indeependent]

Genesis 9 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Apparently, Servitude appears to hearken back quite a bit in time.
I wouldn't doubt that crossing the line from Servitude to Slavery was one of the reasons for the flood.

BTW, Talmudic Servitude is nowhere near Slavery.

 

[montelatici]

The Roman slave trade had been dead for 1000 years (1500 A.D. - 500 A.D.)

Actually no, as usual I have to correct you. The Roman Empire ended with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. And, the Romans (Byzantine is a later designation) still had slaves. The Muslims learned the trade (not a pun) from the Romans.

And, just to be clear, all of North Africa, at the time of the European slave trade, was part of the Ottoman Empire.

I cannot believe that you are splitting hairs regarding the nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire in a lame attempt to salvage your position in the matter.

Noted.

Rejected.

As to your assertion that the Muslims of the Mediterranean Basin and the Saudi Peninsula and the Middle East (including the Turkic peoples and the Persians, et al) and the West African coast all learned the Slave Trade from the Romans or Byzantines...

I don't believe it for a moment...

Slavery existed in the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt and much of the rest of the North African coast (including early Carthage) while Rome was still a collection of mud-huts alnog the Tiber and the Etruscans were running things...

If you have anything substantive to serve-up to the contrary, then have at it, but, in light of your rather embarrassing and unworthy splitting of hairs regarding the nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire, I'm not expecting much.

So, in your opinion, the evil of slavery was established by the evil Arabs even before there were any Arabs outside of the Arabian desert. If it is the way you cope having to defend the indefensible, well, I understand.

 

[Kondor3]

The Roman slave trade had been dead for 1000 years (1500 A.D. - 500 A.D.)

Actually no, as usual I have to correct you. The Roman Empire ended with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. And, the Romans (Byzantine is a later designation) still had slaves. The Muslims learned the trade (not a pun) from the Romans.

And, just to be clear, all of North Africa, at the time of the European slave trade, was part of the Ottoman Empire.

I cannot believe that you are splitting hairs regarding the nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire in a lame attempt to salvage your position in the matter.

Noted.

Rejected.

As to your assertion that the Muslims of the Mediterranean Basin and the Saudi Peninsula and the Middle East (including the Turkic peoples and the Persians, et al) and the West African coast all learned the Slave Trade from the Romans or Byzantines...

I don't believe it for a moment...

Slavery existed in the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt and much of the rest of the North African coast (including early Carthage) while Rome was still a collection of mud-huts alnog the Tiber and the Etruscans were running things...

If you have anything substantive to serve-up to the contrary, then have at it, but, in light of your rather embarrassing and unworthy splitting of hairs regarding the nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire, I'm not expecting much.

So, in your opinion, the evil of slavery was established by the evil Arabs even before there were any Arabs outside of the Arabian desert. If it is the way you cope having to defend the indefensible, well, I understand.

That, mine good colleague, is the lamest attempt I've seen at redirection and face-saving since 5th-Grade Debate Club. That is neither what I said nor what I was thinking nor even implying for the consideration of others.