exatreide Posted May 15, 2002 Share Posted May 15, 2002 The Ottomans were much like the romans. They lived for war. They expanded yes, but they were not as ruthless as you make them...ok there ruthless...but not as bad as you put. Most of the territory conqured by sullyman the second. The enemies forces often were alowed after retreat to return to there stronghold and such. In general the Ottomans were Tolerent of Christianity and other religions. They lived for war. If you reamber the ottomans never captured modern day Sadiu Arabia. The Bediwin tribes faught the ottomans for a long while... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 i'm not an arabian nor an american.... i'm just plain dutch. And yes. I am sure i'm right. I did a study in this and made report about this for school and I got compliments for being so close to the historical facts. It is true that Christian priests ordered soldiers to kill those "heithens" (or however you spell it). here an example: A christian priest ordered the (i believe Incan) emperor to turn christian and showed him the bible. The emperor looked at it as it has never seen a book. But then threw it away because he didn't understand it and wanted to keep his old religion. As I've said, spreading the christianity was only a cover for their bloodsoaking materialism. That priest (Fernando de Luque if you don't know) was a classical type of "priest for money". Martin Luther's reformation was based on cleaning the Church from ones like de Luque was. Do you think, that Pizzaro attacked Incas for their "lack of religion"? No, only for their gold! But he received his punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 The Ottomans were much like the romans. They lived for war. They expanded yes, but they were not as ruthless as you make them...ok there ruthless...but not as bad as you put. Most of the territory conqured by sullyman the second. The enemies forces often were alowed after retreat to return to there stronghold and such. In general the Ottomans were Tolerent of Christianity and other religions. They lived for war. If you reamber the ottomans never captured modern day Sadiu Arabia. The Bediwin tribes faught the ottomans for a long while... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timenn Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 Results of the election:PvdA the former greatest and left party, from 45 seats to 23VVD, after the PvdA the largest, dropped from 38 seats to 23They were in the coalition. And Pim Fortuyn was against that coalition, after his murder, some people blamed the PvdA and VVD for it (mostly PvdA), wat is totally stupid.List Pim Fortuyn got 26 seats, way to many for my opinionAnd the CDA (christian democratic appel) raised 29 to 43Many people voted them because they didn't want to vote PvdA/VVD and also no LPF (List Pim Fortuyn)I think the murder did affected the results much, because PvdA got the blame from people, they were saying they were making Pim Fortuyn look like some rascist (but, not true >:()But though, a left party, SP (Socialistic Party) raised from 5 to 9 seats :)(You can see I'm supporting left)The full results:(some translation notes: 'Opkomst'means how many people (in %) did go to the pollsZetel = Seat) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 I voted for CDA :-) i chose the winners!! but anyways... the roman empire didn't fall to barbarians... well in a way your right yes. The romans were attacked by barbarians and was plundered. But the roman empire was already badly weakened by the corrupt senate and things like that.... the empire already fell apart. If it wasn't for that. The roman empire would've resisted the barbarians and perhaps (who knows) would still be alive right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 You voted for the winners ?That was also what I hated on the telly last night. They all thought they had whon. Yea right, it's politics, the political leaders arn;t playing a game "how to convince the most of the voters to vote for them", they should represent a certain percentage of the people. That's why we vote. So there is no winning, you just say what your view is and planes are and then you watch if other people [ and how mutch ] agree with you.I spoke to a guy today who voted CDA just because Pim Fortuyn was murderd. If he wasn't he would have voted LPF. [ Some poeple say that Pim Fortuyn wasn't a member of the party, he was the party. And I thend to agree with them on that. ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 I agree totally. Too many politicians are interested only in getting elected, and not in serving their country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 I don't think Balkenende is like that. I think he will try to do what's best for the country. not what's the best for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 I spoke to a guy today who voted CDA just because Pim Fortuyn was murderd. If he wasn't he would have voted LPF. [ Some poeple say that Pim Fortuyn wasn't a member of the party, he was the party. And I thend to agree with them on that. ]So this can show only thing. Fortuyn was a demagog. We have many here, if you want our Robert Fico, take him out, whole Slovakia would be soon glad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 Nice that you can tell who our politicians are from there, especially with the present media :)Even with the different forms of politics and sociology between The Netherlands and Slovakia.And there is almost never just one thing, just one option.In my opinion our politician Pim Fortuyn wasn't a demagogue. He "attacked" the current political system on basic and important points where it has gone wrong in the last 8 years. If he was just appealing to the feeling of the people instead of there reason, then why have most of the others politicians and political party's changed there priorety's to the one Pim Fortuyn stood for ?When you would comments that all our politicians then are, I do agree in a way. Look at my comment to "the winning politicians". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted May 18, 2002 Share Posted May 18, 2002 I didn't said he can use demagogic for honest purposes. Pity we can't see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon Posted May 18, 2002 Share Posted May 18, 2002 Yep, it's a real shame we'll never know if he could have changed our country the way he wanted to. :)[ but that's my opinion, there are also poeple who never whanted to see him change our country ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted May 19, 2002 Share Posted May 19, 2002 what's demagogic? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon Posted May 19, 2002 Share Posted May 19, 2002 A demagogie is a political leader who tries, by speeches appealing to the feelings instead of to reason, to stir up the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted May 19, 2002 Share Posted May 19, 2002 okidoki... thanx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.