The Germans who witnessed the atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians during the Ottoman period in Greece wrote: “The murder of the men and the drowning of the women was still not enough for a Muslim Turk thirsting for Christian blood; the poor innocent children were also to be sacrificed.
So he had the defenseless little ones seized and mercilessly hanged from a tree. Comfortably the monster smoked his pipe beneath them, had himself served with sherbet, and rejoiced in the cries of fear and the death agonies of the guiltless little ones, for they were, after all, only — Christian children”
“Gräuelscenen aus Griechenland”
“Atrocity scenes from Greece.”
From the 1820s by the Nuremberg publisher Friedrich Campe.
Picture: This is a Greek slave captured by the Muslim Turks during the Ottoman period. The sign writes: “ΡΟΔΟΝ ΕΤΩΝ ΙΗ ΠΩΛΕΙΤΑΙ ΜΝΑΣ Ω” which means: “Rose, eighteen years old for sale, for 800 mnas”.
If you want to support Homer Pavlos, please consider becoming a subscriber to his X account for only $2. He writes about the ancient, medieval, and modern history of Greece and what Christians went through because of Islam. Always with primary sources and historical facts. Thanks for reading and for all the support. – Homer Pavlos
In the 1.300 years of Muslim-Arab slave trade, approximately a million Greek Christians were sold as slaves. Greek girls who were pretty were forced into prostitution after being enslaved to Turks who took all their earnings.
Women captives were known to be subjected to sexual abuse. After Chios Massacre (March 30, 1822) where the Muslim Turks slaughtered 42.000 Christian Greeks, 52.000 women and children were sold as slaves in the markets of Smyrna & Constantinople.
On September 1, 1821, Samothrace was devastated by the Ottomans through a general massacre, 10.000 men & boys were slaughtered while women & children were sold also in the markets of Constantinople & Smyrna.
Only those who converted to Islam survived. On July 14, 1821, 486 Greeks of Cyprus were publicly beheaded because they didn’t convert to Islam.
On 13-22 September 1922, thousands of women (Greeks and Armenians) were mass raped and slaughtered in Smyrna from the Islamic horde, the Young Turks, who were motivated by racial and religious hatred. Only those who converted to Islam survived.
They aimed the Christians of Anatolia and tried to erase our Greek footprint. They failed. On 6-7 of September 1955, during the Constantinople pogroms, Muslim Turks committed rapes againt the Greek community of the City.
Hundreds of women expelled and raped. Now there is a minotiry of less than 2.000 Greeks living in the city that their ancestors found, Constantinople. In 1974, the Muslim Turks invaded the island of Cyprus and raped in the name of their god thousands of Greek women from 12 to 71 years old.
Even the Church of Cyprus had consented through its tolerance to the amendment of the legislation in 1974, so that the abortions of that period became legal. Women captives were known to be subjected to sexual abuse.
Male Muslims were given the right to have sex with female captives (slaves), which was phrased: “those men who guard their genitals, except with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for then there is no blame” (Quran 23:6), which granted men the right to have sex not only with their wives but also with female captive slaves.
Islam is an enemy for every woman. Anyone who willingly supports the Islamic invasion against native Europeans is a traitor to his or her own kind and ancestors.
The entire purpose of the Palestinian movement is to distract people from the Islamic takeover of the West by normalizing this.
They want everyone to be obsessed with Gaza so you forget who the real threat is. It was all planned by the Muslim Brotherhood. https://t.co/M0HYKdPYAC
We use the same words, but we don’t mean the same things. What they call bravery, we call savagery. What they call resistance, we call terrorism. What they call honor, we call monstrosity.
“Distraction,” historically has always been the way Muslims conquer.
There’s two divisions of the world according to Muslims:
dar al-Islam (territory of Islam)
dar al-harb. (territory of war)
The crusades happened because it was a response to Muslim conquest in Israel. yet Muslims kept moving to Europe. Why? Because it was (dar-al-harb) a territory of war to be conquered.
Today the world is distracted by the “Free Palestine movement.” Yet Muslims keep coming to the West. Why? Because it is a territory (dar-al-harb), a territory of war to be conquered.
The pattern is always the same.
Yet, Muslims missed the memo.
The West is tired of religious colonialism.
Rawan Osman
“Free Palestine.”
I grew up on those words.
In Lebanon, most people around me wanted a free Palestine for a very practical reason — to send the Palestinian refugees back. The civil war that tore my country apart was ignited in no small part by the Palestinian armed factions who turned Lebanon into their launching pad. “Free Palestine” meant: free us from them.
In Damascus, where my father’s family lived, the sentiment was different but equally self-serving. Palestine must be returned to the Arabs, its righteous owners. No one asked follow-up questions. No one was expected to.
Palestine was central to Islam, most Arabs are Muslim, therefore supporting the Palestinian cause was reflexive. A non-brainer in the most literal sense — no brain engaged at all.
Nobody stopped to point out that Palestine is not an Arabic word. Nobody found it strange that Jerusalem, the supposedly third holiest city in Islam, is not mentioned once in the Quran. Not once. Nor is Palestine. The entire theological and political architecture of this cause rests on a foundation that their own scripture doesn’t bother to acknowledge. Continue reading The focus on ‘Gaza’ is to distract people from the Islamic takeover of the West
The Germans who witnessed the atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians during the Ottoman period in Greece wrote: “The murder of the men and the drowning of the women was still not enough for a Muslim Turk thirsting for Christian blood; the poor innocent children were also to be sacrificed. So he had the defenseless little ones seized and mercilessly hanged from a tree. Comfortably the monster smoked his pipe beneath them, had himself served with sherbet, and rejoiced in the cries of fear and the death agonies of the guiltless little ones, for they were, after all, only — Christian children” “Gräuelscenen aus Griechenland” “Atrocity scenes from Greece.” From the 1820s by the Nuremberg publisher Friedrich Campe.
Every time someone trots out the Crusades to lecture Christians or the West, they leave out four centuries of history. I’m putting it back on the record.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐁𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲
Muhammad died in 632. Within three years, Muslim armies had taken Damascus (635). The next year, Antioch (636). The year after that, the entire Holy Land (637) — the spiritual center of Christendom, gone. Armenia became the first Christian nation fully conquered (639). Egypt, the Coptic Christian power, fell two years later (641). By 650, Muslim forces had reached southern Italy and Cyprus, taking thousands of captives as “𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴” and “𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘶𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴.” Then came Spain — Muslim armies crossed from North Africa in 711 and overran most of Iberia by 715.
In roughly 80 years, Christianity lost the Middle East, North Africa, and most of the Iberian Peninsula.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 — 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲
This was not exploration. This was conquest. In 717, Muslim forces besieged Constantinople itself — the capital of Eastern Christendom. The siege lasted a year before they were repelled. Had it succeeded, the path into Europe would have been wide open.
.
In 730, they invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours. In 792, the ruler of Al-Andalus called for a second invasion of France. Repelled. In 848, a third invasion of France. Repelled again.
.
In 827, Muslims invaded Sicily and Italy, persecuting monks and pillaging Christian communities. Sicily would remain under Islamic rule for 250 years. In 846, they invaded Rome itself and forced the Pope to pay tribute. By 909, they had taken Sardinia.
.
This was relentless, coordinated, and existential.
.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐭
In 937, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher — built over the site Christians believe is the tomb of Christ — was burned to the ground. More churches in Jerusalem were torched alongside it. In 1009, the Church of the Resurrection was destroyed. By 1012, Al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Christians had begun in earnest.
Christian pilgrims could no longer safely visit the sites of Christ’s ministry. The holiest city in Christendom was ruled by a hostile power systematically destroying the faith itself.
.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩
In 1071, Muslim Turkish forces shattered the Byzantine army at Manzikert and occupied most of Anatolia. Constantinople was now directly threatened.
In 1094, Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos sent envoys to Rome begging Western Christendom for military aid.
.
In 1095, Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade.
Dr. Thomas Madden, a professor of medieval history at Saint Louis University and a leading scholar of the Crusades, argues that the campaigns to the East must be understood primarily as defensive wars rather than acts of unprovoked colonial expansion.
By the time Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095, Muslim conquests had already taken much of the ancient Christian world, including Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa and large parts of Asia Minor. The Byzantine Empire, facing further Turkish advances, appealed to the Christians of Western Europe for military assistance.
Madden argues that Christianity had reached a decisive moment: it could defend itself or risk being gradually absorbed. In his words:
“I have no doubt that had there been no Crusades at all, western Europe would have been conquered by Muslims in much the same fashion as southeastern Europe was.”
The Crusades were not an attack upon a peaceful world. They were Christendom’s long-delayed response to a threat that had already conquered much of its historic heartland.
A new generation of Western scholars of the Middle Ages have been trying to put right the misconceptions that have grown up about the Crusades. As Jonathan Riley-Smith has argued “modern Western public opinion, Arab nationalism, and Pan-Islamism all share perceptions of crusading that have more to do with nineteenth-century European imperialism than with actuality.”1 Muslims in particular have developed “mythistories” concerning the putative injuries they have received at the hands of the Crusaders. The first point that needs to be emphasized is that the Crusades were proclaimed not only against Muslims, but also against many groups, and communities that the Catholic Church considered heretical, and enemies of the faith, groups such as the pagan Wends, Balts and Lithuanians, shamanist Mongols, Orthodox Russians and Greeks, Cathar and Hussite heretics.2Continue reading The Crusades
This is based on the fact that Greece was once part of the Ottoman Empire. Kalın and Erdogan are proceeding from the assumption that any land once ruled by Islam belongs by right to Islam forever, which is based on the Qur’anic command: “Drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191). This is the same rationale that the “Palestinians” use, and witless and/or opportunistic leftists fall for it eagerly. Watch for it also in Spain.
Kalın, of course, has it precisely backwards. While Greece was indeed part of the Ottoman Empire until 1821, the whole of the Ottoman Empire itself was on stolen land. Stolen from whom? The Greeks.
İbrahim Kalın, Tahirselim2016, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
“What Kalın’s Visit to Greece Means as Turkey Prepares for War,” by Christos Konstantinidis, Middle East Forum, September 16, 2026:
On August 28, 2026, İbrahim Kalın, head of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MİT), visited Athens without prior announcement to meet with his Greek counterpart, National Intelligence Service (EYP) Director Emeritus Themistoklis Demiris. Kalın’s presence, however, acquired greater significance when he then met privately with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at the Maximos Mansion, the official seat of the Greek premiership.
Turkish media subsequently revealed the purpose of Kalın’s mission. The pro-government newspaper Yeni Şafak reported that the MİT chief had spoken “openly and clearly” in Athens and delivered four messages: Turkey would not retreat from its positions; it would not allow Greece to create “faits accompli” in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean; it would not accept strengthening Greek islands’ defenses; and it regards Greece’s strategic partnership with Israel as the “wrong path.” This was effectively a Turkish ultimatum.
The timing of the visit was also significant. It took place as Greece and Israel were advancing an agreement on the “Achilles Shield,” a multi-layered air and missile defense system. At the same time, the Republic of Cyprus is strengthening its defenses with Israeli-made Barak MX systems, while the prospect of integrating the defensive shields of Greece, Cyprus, and Israel has come to the forefront once again.
Turkey fears a deterrence architecture that would restrict its ability to intimidate Athens, Nicosia, and Jerusalem separately. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan urged Greece not to deploy new weapons systems on the islands, adding that history is “a very good guide for those who draw lessons from it.” Mitsotakis responded that Greece does not accept instructions on how to defend its national sovereignty….
The 2024 Kasos incident demonstrated what happens when resolve gives way to fear of escalation. The Greek government appears to have realized—belatedly and under electoral pressure—that appeasement has not changed Turkey. It has merely given Ankara time, space, and the conviction that its pressure tactics work….
Christopher Hitchens: ”In 1786, when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary states, the states of the Ottoman Empire and North Africa. Tripoli, shores of Tripoli. Ships stopped, its crews carried off into slavery. We… pic.twitter.com/hbRRR4mCYP
Christopher Hitchens: ”In 1786, when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary states, the states of the Ottoman Empire and North Africa. Tripoli, shores of Tripoli. Ships stopped, its crews carried off into slavery.
We estimate 1.5 million European and American slaves taken between 1750 and 1815. Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said, why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind.
We weren’t in the crusades. We weren’t at war with Spain. Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people?
The ambassador said very plainly, Mr. Abdul Rahman said, because the Quran gives us permission to do so, because you are infidels, and that’s our answer.
Jefferson said, well, in that case, I will send a navy which will crush your state, which he did. Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It’s a lie to say so. It’s a masochistic lie, and it excuses those who are the real criminals, and blames us for the attacks made upon us.”
To the shores of Tripoli
The actual quote Hitchens cites is even more illuminating, tying the acts of the Barbary Pirates directly to the Koran:
When Jefferson and Adams asked “by what right the Barbary States made war on nations that had done them no harm, the ambassador responded that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, written in the Quran: all nations that did not acknowledge Muslim authority were sinners, and it was the right and duty of Muslims to wage war against them, enslave their people, and take their property. He added that any Muslim killed in battle would go to Paradise.”
This account is documented in a March 28, 1786, letter from Jefferson and Adams to Congress, describing the religious justification provided by the ambassador for the attacks on American vessels.
“Resist it while you still can and before the right to complain is taken away from you which will be the next thing ” – Christopher Hitchens
The Second Barbary War was a brief military conflict between the United States and Algiers in 1815, aimed at ending piracy and tribute demands from the Barbary States. The war concluded with an American victory, resulting in the cessation of tribute payments and the release of American captives.
The Second Barbary War, also known as the Algerine War, was a conflict between the United States and the North African Barbary States, primarily Algiers, in 1815. This war marked the end of the United States paying tribute to pirate states for safe passage of American ships.
The war was primarily fought against Algiers, one of the Barbary States, which included Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco.
02The conflict was sparked by the Barbary pirates’ practice of capturing American merchant ships and demanding ransom for their crews.
03The United States had previously paid tribute to the Barbary States to prevent attacks on their ships, but this practice ended with the Second Barbary War.
04President James Madison declared war on Algiers on March 3, 1815, marking the beginning of the conflict.
Commodore Stephen Decatur led the American naval forces during the war, earning a reputation as a national hero.
06Decatur’s squadron consisted of ten ships, including the flagship USS Guerriere.
07The first significant battle of the war occurred on June 17, 1815, when Decatur’s squadron captured the Algerian flagship Mashouda.
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STUNNED: ARAB DIPLOMAT CHALLENGES HISTORICAL NARRATIVE ON ISRAEL.
GENEVA — In a dramatic address delivered before the United Nations Human Rights Council, Jasem Aljuraid—an Arab political refugee speaking on behalf of UN Watch—challenged the assembly’s position on the Middle East, questioning popular claims regarding indigenous rights and historical colonization.
Directly addressing the Council, Aljuraid urged diplomats to re-examine regional history:
“A Jewish kingdom ruled in Judea for a thousand years. We, the Arabs, took this land. Who Arabized Egyptians, Phoenicians, Persians, and Amazighs? It was us, the Arabs. So why does the Council enshrine a lie by keeping a permanent agenda item on Palestine, while ignoring the indigenous heart of Israel returning home?”
He went on to criticize the Council’s permanent Agenda Item 7—a mandate dedicated specifically to scrutinizing Israel—arguing that the nation’s current military actions are counter-terrorism measures that protect the wider region.
Concluding his remarks, Aljuraid defended Israel’s operational role in the region:
“Today, Israel is a fighter for peaceful nations, freeing Gaza from Hamas, and saving Iranians from the Islamic Republic. What Israel is doing to the IRGC is a gift to humanity.”
Fairytales about Aboriginal history are annoying. The convicts did not encounter the mythical noble savage. This land was soaked in blood before the white man brought civilisation. Here’s another dose of reality.
“Welcome to Country” Historic Photo: Kerry & Co c.1901 – NSW Art Gallery.
BEFORE SETTLEMENT, A BLOOD-SOAKED LAND
Robert Hill – Quadrant Online, August 20, 2026
.
Australian history has been distorted by lies, fabrication, exaggeration and selective evidence. Out of that distortion has emerged one overwhelming story: that the British arrived in 1788 and turned a peaceful continent into a land of violence, massacre and war.
The truth begins in exactly the opposite place.
The British did not enter a peaceful continent.
They entered a continent occupied by peoples living in what, in the older anthropological sense, was one of the most materially primitive and socially fragmented forms of human organisation still surviving on earth: thousands of small, mobile, familial groups, without settled agriculture, cities, writing, courts, police or any authority standing above them capable of ending feud and revenge.
It is difficult to conceive of a substantially simpler enduring form of human social organisation. Below the small local group lies little more than the immediate or extended family itself.
But no human population could remain reproductively isolated at that level for generation after generation: sustained mating within such a narrow circle would inevitably produce repeated close-relative unions and increasing inbreeding. Survival therefore required some network of bestowal, female transfer, and contact between otherwise small and politically separate groups.
Revenge killing, payback, punitive expeditions, sorcery killing, ritual punishment, conflict over women and armed fighting between neighbouring groups were already part of the continent’s human landscape.
Within the societies in which these practices operated, much of this violence was not regarded as aberrant criminality but as culturally sanctioned conduct, expected, legitimate and, in some circumstances, obligatory.
I refer collectively to these recurring forms of socially embedded killing as “cultural lethal violence”. So too, in different places and circumstances, were infanticide, the abandonment or killing of elderly and incapacitated people, and other brutal responses to the material constraints of subsistence life.
Practices varied between regions, and no single pattern can be attributed uniformly to every Aboriginal group. But the underlying forms of violence are well attested.
There is nothing uniquely Aboriginal about this historical condition. For most of humanity’s existence, human beings everywhere lived in small family-based communities without states, police, courts, modern medicine, stored agricultural surpluses or institutions capable of protecting individuals independently.
Every civilisation emerged from materially and institutionally simpler forms of human organisation.
The distinction was historical, but profound. At the moment of sustained British contact, Aboriginal societies represented the continuation of a form of human organisation that had existed for tens of thousands of years largely outside the agricultural, urban, literate and state-based civilisations that transformed much of the rest of humanity.
The cultural lethal violence embedded in that older order did not largely disappear because thousands of separate communities independently chose to abandon it.
It was progressively displaced by the imposition of a new order: British law, police, courts and, ultimately, a state monopoly on legitimate force.
