b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 2024280 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

I'd have stopped the Ottomans becoming such a dominant power.
Incidentally, to answer the previous thread, I'd have Jamie Oliver as both answers, with a special mention to that baker guy off that baking competition show. He gets og in a right old fizz. He's second-worst.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 13:51, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
Thank goodness for people like Vlad the Impaler, without whom we'd all be speaking Paki now.

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 13:52, Reply)
Without the Ottomans, it's likely we wouldn't have this tedious Middle East business today.

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 13:53, Reply)
And no place to keep the spare bedding

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 13:54, Reply)
An interesting point (well I think it is)
is that without the threat of Ottoman expansion into Eastern Europe the protestant church would never have got anywhere. The Protestant German princes were desperately needed for their armies to fight the Turks so their 'heresy' was tolerated as part of a deal with the Vatican.

Wow Monty that really *is* interesting!!!
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 13:54, Reply)
The combined ability of the Ottomans and the Mamluks
finally broke the back of the Byzantine Empire, which had formed a bulwark allowing the European nations to form coherent, powerful kingdoms. Had the Ottomans and Mamluks not been able to eventually destroy Byzantium, it's quite likely the Holy Land would have remained either in Christian hands or closely influenced by them. This may well have led to more tolerance between religions.

Alternatively it might have made everything worse, but I prefer to remain optimistic.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 13:57, Reply)
PAKIS OUT!

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:00, Reply)
You're using the wrong slur.
I believe the preferred term for people of Middle Eastern ethnicity is "sand-coon" or "rag-'ed"
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:00, Reply)
"dune coon"

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:02, Reply)
Alice Cooper'szzzzzzzzzzzzz

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:02, Reply)
The thing is, that on the whole, up to about 100 years ago Islam was infinitely more tolerant of other faiths than Christianity.
Look at Moorish Spain, in which all faiths, even the ever-popular Yids, were allowed free reign to practice their religions. The people they *really* hate are lapsed Muslims.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:00, Reply)
It's really kind of a shame.
Even Richard I was all "shit, these guys are alright and that Saladin is just dreamy"
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:03, Reply)
see, i don't know nearly enough about this, and i have a vague interest in history,
imagine how little the sort of people shouting about stuff and waving banners know.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:04, Reply)
To get even a tiny handle on what's going on in much of the world it truly is essential to know a little about its history.
Major example of this is this Syria business. There are thousand year old grudges being acted upon over there. Revenge for sectarian persecution going back generations.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:09, Reply)
nuke em all from space
it's the only way to be sure
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:10, Reply)
The Syria business is Serious Business

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:11, Reply)
Got this on my wishlist:
www.amazon.co.uk/Commander-Faithful-Life-Times-El-Kader/dp/0979882834/

It's supposed to be v good.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:31, Reply)
i read that as other fails
then realised you were talking about religion. so yer.
(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:15, Reply)
Are you RORY?

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:16, Reply)
*taps nose*

(, Tue 23 Jul 2013, 14:24, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1