I just received this small declaration of Islamic supremacism in the Hate Mail Bag — apparently the phrase “if he is a villain…” refers to Osama bin Laden, as this fellow wrote his message after reading a Jihad Watch post about a pro-Osama rally in Pakistan:
The message is:
Your Name: yyyshahid
Email: sniyaz835@gmail.com
Message: If he a villain then you must first recall Mr bush who slaughtered millions of people in Iraq Afghanistan and Muslim rich countries these attacks were planned to do in order to get command on oil rich land n sea .He is a real basterd Mr bush who sent a log of piosionous medicine in afghan n killer thousands of childrens to get a 1person or militant killed .he is a mother cunt.suppose Osama is not so much educated n modern having wide mindset but what did happen to bush why he bombarded these countries where mainly innocent people n childereds got killed.that time what happened to wise america .n why you not blaming him n his religion Christianity.you r people who do sex fuck drink alchohal n made religion as a joke n r been master to show people white black n black white….just chatter chatter chatter. We r going to over power u soon in shallahMessage was sent from: Pro-Osama rally in Pakistan: “Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed”
Senders IP address: 223.225.225.43
Veracious_one says
and people who think like this are exactly the type of people Obama wants to allow into the country through the immigration process.
Angemon says
“n why you not blaming him n his religion Christianity”
Well, mr. yyyshahid, do tell us why you think Bush’s actions are based on christian teachings.
Robert3 says
I’m not “mr. yyyshahid”, but us Americans all know that George Bush’s politics were based on Christian teachings.
http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/15/religion.register/
Tim says
No, George Bush was a Christian – Christianity was not leading any politics. There is no politics in Christianity nor is religion at all applied in the legal system or politics – so your comment make no sense whatsoever. Islam is a totalitarian system and implemented in the entire legal and political system. It’s an entire different ballgame.
john spielman says
There is NO command or teaching in Christianity, unlike Islam, that allows physical warfare or any retribution against anyone. in fact Jesus commands us to LOVE our enemies unlike Islam, and do good to those who persecute us( which Islam would misperceive as a dhimmi status since Islam teaches the supremacy of muslims over nonbelievers)
But the Bible teaches that followers of Christ Jesus are at war with the SPIRITUAL forces who control this world. That’s why we wage war with the “sword of the Spirit- which is the Word of God”, using the “breast plate of righteousness, the belt of truth, the shoes of the Gospel of PEACE, the shield of faith and the helmet of salvation”
Flying fish says
Don’t bother with him. He cannot cite the (suppossed) verses in the NEW TESTAMENT that inspired George Bush.
Those sick people like to use twisted logic and shameless lying to attack Christianity or other religions, because their unholy books tell them we are at fault for not kneeling down to be decapitated by them, for not submitting to them.
If someone defends themselves from muslims’ attacks, then that person becomes an aggressor or war-monger in their minds. It never crosses their minds that all traces that lead to violence between muslims and non-muslims can be traced back to muslims behavior and islamic ideology.
For muslims, a simple act just like breathing is a provokation by non-muslims.
Those words are another try to portray themselves as victims so they can justify their vicious hatred and the violence they commit against others. They are always searching for ways to justify their acts and their views on non-muslims.
Their mindset is so simple: we are evil, they are the victims.
mariam rove says
this type of stuff makes me laugh!!! As vile as they are….m
Conservative Mark says
We need to take a page from General Black Jack Pershing… dip our bullets in pigs blood before we shoot them so the ones that get away can tell the others, “You f*ck with Americans and they will send you straight to hell!”
Know Thy Enemy says
You give this suggestion because you know who the enemy is, and you understand them well. Unfortunately, president Bush did not!
Nor does anyone who is in power today 🙁
dlbrand says
Yup. Indeed. Rightly stated, on all accounts there.
Semeru says
Another stooped amerikan who insults won of amerika,s finest
The story of General Black Jack Pershing dipping bullets in blood is no more than urban myth, spread by uncouth morons like yourself
Geordie says
Semeru wrote: “The story of General Black Jack Pershing dipping bullets in blood is no more than urban myth, …”
Urban myths serve as propaganda.
Angemon says
During the siege of Malta in 1565 the Christian defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat, which set the turks’ robes alight when they were hit. Care to guess where said fat came from?
Geordie says
Angemon “During the siege of Malta in 1565 the Christian defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat, which set the turks’ robes alight when they were hit. Care to guess where said fat came from?”
I bet it smelt like Kermit’s fingers. Here piggy piggy.
Semeru says
Angemon, you need to be corrected, pig fat doesn’t ignite on impact.
During the siege of Malta the turks first attacked You have probably never heard of Fort St Elmo. It is a small star-shaped structure sited at the tip of what is now the Maltese capital Valletta on the north shore of Grand Harbour.
In late May 1565, it was where the full might of the Turk artillery was unleashed, a hellish crucible that would forge the future course of our modern age. For days the invaders pounded the tottering and crumbling edifice, reducing its limestone walls to rubble, creating a dust cloud. The knights refused to yield.
At night, Valette sent reinforcements from St Angelo by boat across Grand Harbour, in the knowledge they were heading to their deaths.
After the artillery, the attacks went in, wave upon wave of screaming and scimitar-wielding Turks, trampling over the bodies of their own slain, laying down ships’ masts to bridge the debris-filled moat into which the walls of St Elmo had slid.
Each time they were met by the ragged and diminishing band of defenders, fighting with pikes and battle-axes, firing muskets and dropping blocks of stone, throwing fire-hoops that set ablaze the flowing robes of the Muslims and sent them burning and plummeting to their deaths.
The fire-hoops – covered in flax and cotton, dipped in brandy and coated with pitch and saltpetre – were the knights’ own invention. Dropped blazing over the bastion walls, they could engulf three Turks at a time.
http://goo.gl/YsJHZb
More
Probably the most terrifying weapons developed by de Valette and the Maltese Knights were their incendiary devices. They developed an early form of hand grenades, clay pots filled with napalm-like Greek Fire and hurled at their opponents; the shards of clay would explode as shrapnel, and the Maltese kept piles of these to throw at their tormentors. They also invented fire hoops, which were wooden rings, about the size of a modern hula hoop, wrapped in layers of burnable material such as brandy, gunpowder, turpentine, and heavy cloth, then ignited and rolled down the hills towards attackers, by the hundreds. Perhaps most terrifying was the Trump, a hollow metal tube filled with flammable sulfur resin and linseed oil; when lit, a gout of flame several yards long would issue forth from the snout for as long as a half hour. The defenders stationed these primitive hand-held flamethrowers at doorways, portcullises, breaches, and other choke points to deter any approach; as the attacking Turks typically wore long, flowing robes, the effects of being set on fire were particularly devastating to them. One account of the battle records a lone Maltese knight in Fort St. Elmo, visible from across the harbor as he held off many Ottoman assaulters while armed with only a single trump.
http://historynuggets.blogspot.com/2012/05/malta-1565.html
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
“Angemon, you need to be corrected, pig fat doesn’t ignite on impact.”
You moron, why would i need to be corrected about something i never said? Oh, yeah, almost forgot that the strawman fallacy is one of the islamo-leftist favorite tactics.
“You have probably never heard of Fort St Elmo.”
Dumbass, how could I talk about the 1565 Siege of Malta and not know about Fort Saint Elmo? Turks said they’d take it easily in 4 days, it took them a month. The capture of Saint Elmo cost the turks a sixth of their troops, including most of their elite forces, the janissaries (who, BTW were children taken away from christian families living in anatolia and the balkan peninsula and forced to convert to, and fight for, islam), plenty of supplies, and Turgut Reis. Turgut was an infamous pirate, a high-ranked member of the ottoman navy and one of the turkish commanders, and he died during the battle for Saint Elmo. Besides the cost in troops and materials (Malta had very little natural resources the turks could use), the capture of Saint Elmo also cost the turks precious time, since not only it allowed the defenders to strengthen the defenses in Birgu, Senglea and Mdina, but also ended up contributing to dragging the fight up to winter, something the turks were not prepared for.
The turks killed the defenders in the fort (mostly by beheading or disembowelment), mutilated the bodies, nailed them to crosses and sent them into the water off Saint Elmo’s point where the currents would take them to Birgu, expecting to terrorize the remaining defenders. It had the opposite effect: La Valette forbade public displays of grief, buried the bodies with honor and gave a ringing speech bolstering the moral and resolve of the troops and civilians.
However, the fight to the death in Saint Elmo had a curious effect on the ottoman side: it caused some conscripted, forced converts to defect to the defenders. Among them was Mehmet Ben Davud, who had been taken by the ottomans as a child and forced convert to islam. He was so deeply touched by the heroic defence of Saint Elmo that he returned to the catholic faith. He was also privy to the ottomans’ attack plans, and his info proved to be very valuable to La Valette.
Yes, I know what fire-hoops are, and I also know that the defenders in Saint Elmo took to smearing their bullets with fat, which set the turks’ robes alight when they were hit. That’s because, unlike you, I can tell the difference between a bullet greased with fat and a barrel hoop covered in caulking tow and tar (BTW, fire-hoops were invented by a knight called Ramon Fortuyn). How about you take a nice, big, steamy, hot cup of STFU when you have no idea what you’re talking about? Ignorant dumbass.
Semeru says
Strange do do not link to your source
Which is Empires of the Sea, by Robert Crowley, page 122.
It is the only account of dozens than mentions fat smeared bullets,
http://goo.gl/8nEniw
Semeru says
If the christian defenders used fat (pig, lamb or cow) on there bullets, it was not for the same reason givens in the urban myth about Jack Pershing
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
“Strange do do not link to your source”
How can i link to a book i *own*, you idiot? Had anyone asked me i’d i got that info i’d say it. Now, did anyone ask where i got my info? No one did? Then why are you trying to make an issue out of it?
“Which is Empires of the Sea, by Robert Crowley, page 122.
It is the only account of dozens than mentions fat smeared bullets”
LOL! Have you read ALL the accounts? Because not long ago you were trying to convince me that i was mistaking fire-hoops with fat smeared bullets, and you had a blog post to prove it! It’s like you had no idea what i was talking about and had to scour the web for information or something. Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley: the Mediterranean is his passion. I expect him to know, and to share, bits and pieces of info others might overlook or dismiss as being irrelevant on the grand scheme of things.
Also, don’t post links to copyrighted work. If you want to read the book BUY IT and support the author.
“If the christian defenders used fat (pig, lamb or cow) on there bullets, it was not for the same reason givens in the urban myth about Jack Pershing”
And? For all purposes they were bringing hell to them. Turks got hit, turks started to burn. Close enough. No, wait, it’s even better because while one might not notice that the bullets hitting the guy next to him were smeared in blood, one would certainly notice if the bullets made the guy next to him burn.
Angemon says
Also, page 122 my ass. Go grab an ACTUAL COPY of Empires of the Sea then see what you get on page 122.
Semeru says
Angemon wrote
LOL! Have you read ALL the accounts?
I have read quite a few accounts which came up on a google search for bullets covered in fat, fire hoops, siege of malta
There only came one hit for bullets covered in fat, yet scores for fire hoops one of the hit was a book I read a few years back.
Ernle Bradford’s The Great Siege
Angemon continues
Because not long ago you were trying to convince me that i was mistaking fire-hoops with fat smeared bullets, and you had a blog post to prove it! It’s like you had no idea what i was talking about and had to scour the web for information or something.
I do know what I am talking about, because I not only linked to a blog, but I also linked to a book
The Siege of Malta, 1565 By Francesco Balbi
Angemon
<i.Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley: the Mediterranean is his passion. I expect him to know, and to share, bits and pieces of info others might overlook or dismiss as being irrelevant on the grand scheme of things.
Ernle Bradford’s magnificent history The Great Siege–paperback, from 1966, cost 5 shillings, and getting quite threadbare from rereading every few years. When one great book like this can spawn a 40-year interest in the subject, you know that you have an outstanding work indeed. Bradford’s book is almost entirely limited to the siege of Malta, whereas Crowley’s book covers this in under 100 pages. You get much more detail with Bradford, and a dramatic sense of the struggle, much more so than with Crowley.
Now, Francisco Balbi whose book I linked to above, was born in Correggio in the province of Province of Reggio Emilia, Italy, was an arquebusier who served with the Spanish contingent during the Siege of Malta. Little is known about him other than that he maintained a journal throughout the siege, which he afterwards published.
Balbi’s is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege (there is at least one other, in the form of a long poem by the knight Hipolito Sans), and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it, including that of Giacomo Bosio, the official historian of the Knights of St. John, whose massive account first appeared in 1588.
Balbi’s journal, apparently with some revisions after the fact, was first published in Spain in 1567. A second revised and extended edition was published in 1568. The first English translation appeared in 1961 by Henry A. Balbi, who might have been a distant descendent of the author. Another, less literal translation with some cuts was made by Ernle Bradford in 1965.
So we have a book written in 1965, and another book written by an eye witness, and neither have any mention of bullets covered in fat.
Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley he based his novel on the writings of Ernle Bradford and Francisco Balbi
Angemon gripes
Also, page 122 my ass. Go grab an ACTUAL COPY of Empires of the Sea then see what you get on page 122.
Whatever !! the page 122 at the link I posted leads directly to the quote The defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat; as the bullets hit their victims, they also set the Turks’ robes alight.
Here is the link again http://goo.gl/8nEniw
Angemon gripes about me violating copyrights, yet he can take a quote out of a copyrighted book without giving any reference
It would have sufficed with the page number, book and author
Angemon says
Semeru whined and spinned:
“I have read quite a few accounts which came up on a google search for bullets covered in fat, fire hoops, siege of malta”
So, you haven’t read ALL the accounts and you never heard about the fat smeared bullets until i mentioned it. Clearly I knew at least one account that you didn’t knew of. In fact, you even tried to convince everyone i was confusing bullets with barrel hops.
“There only came one hit for bullets covered in fat, yet scores for fire hoops one of the hit was a book I read a few years back”
Yeah, sure you read… sarc/off. Anyway, barrel hoops aren’t bullets, are they?
“I do know what I am talking about, because I not only linked to a blog, but I also linked to a book
The Siege of Malta, 1565 By Francesco Balbi”
When you try to convince everyone that by “bullets smeared in fat” i meant “barrel hops covered in flammable substances” you DO NOT know what you’re talking about…
“Ernle Bradford’s magnificent history The Great Siege–paperback, from 1966, cost 5 shillings, and getting quite threadbare from rereading every few years. When one great book like this can spawn a 40-year interest in the subject, you know that you have an outstanding work indeed. Bradford’s book is almost entirely limited to the siege of Malta, whereas Crowley’s book covers this in under 100 pages. You get much more detail with Bradford, and a dramatic sense of the struggle, much more so than with Crowley.”
Why are you copy/pasting from an Amazon review?
http://www.amazon.com/review/RAER6HUZAZZW8/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001BADGJA&nodeID=133140011&store=digital-text
Have you read a 1966 edition from The Great Siege? Is that the book you claimed to have read a few years ago? Is your copy getting threadbare from overuse? Are you David W. Straight? If not, why are you plagiarizing his review? And why did you try to downplay Crowley’s work by leaving out the last sentences? Here, let me correct that for you:
“The focus is narrower–so for breadth, turn to Crowley, for depth to Bradford. Both books will give you a look at the personalities involved, and both convey the aspects of warfare at the time. So this[Crowley’s Empires of the Sea] is a good addition to your history shelf.”
“Now, Francisco Balbi whose book I linked to above, was born in Correggio in the province of Province of Reggio Emilia, Italy, was an arquebusier who served with the Spanish contingent during the Siege of Malta. Little is known about him other than that he maintained a journal throughout the siege, which he afterwards published.
Balbi’s is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege (there is at least one other, in the form of a long poem by the knight Hipolito Sans), and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it, including that of Giacomo Bosio, the official historian of the Knights of St. John, whose massive account first appeared in 1588.
Balbi’s journal, apparently with some revisions after the fact, was first published in Spain in 1567. A second revised and extended edition was published in 1568. The first English translation appeared in 1961 by Henry A. Balbi, who might have been a distant descendent of the author. Another, less literal translation with some cuts was made by Ernle Bradford in 1965.”
Straight out of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Balbi_di_Correggio
How about we hear have something of your own, for a change?
“So we have a book written in 1965, and another book written by an eye witness, and neither have any mention of bullets covered in fat.”
God damn it, can’t you even read what you copy/paste?
“Another, less literal translation with some cuts was made by Ernle Bradford in 1965.
Not only the 1965 book is a “less literal translation” of Correggio’s account (and therefore counting it as a separate book is quite a stretch), did you notice the part where it says “with some cuts”? No, there are not “two books with neither of them mentioning fat covered bullets”, there’s one book an a less literal, abridged translation of it, which is the version you claim to have read.
Now, also notice what i said before regarding Crowley:
“I expect him to know, and to share, bits and pieces of info others might overlook or dismiss as being irrelevant on the grand scheme of things.”
You still haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever to why we shouldn’t trust Crowley’s account of fat smeared bullets.
“Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley he based his novel on the writings of Ernle Bradford and Francisco Balbi”
Firstly, Crowley’s book is not a novel. A novel is a narrative describing fictional characters and/or events. “Empires of the Sea” is an accurate account of recorded historical events. Before addressing it as a “novel” why don’t you provide evidence of the “fictional characters or events” you claim it contains? Or are you trying to sneak circular logic in?
Secondly, LOL! Here’s what Crowley had to say about his sources:
http://www.rogercrowley.co.uk/empire_why.htm
“What made the research so compelling was the abundance – sometimes the over-abundance – of vivid sources. The sixteenth century witnessed an explosion of printing and the serious collection of diplomatic archives. There is a wealth of startling contemporary accounts, in which the figures of the time spring to life in their own words.”
Now, would the account of a single defender and an abridged translation of that account count as ” abundance – sometimes the over-abundance – of vivid sources” or “a wealth of startling contemporary accounts”? Just so you don’t try to weasel your way out with a strawman, i’m not saying that Crowley didn’t use Correggio’s account in his research, i’m saying he used many sources. Now, the reason I’m certain Crowley used many sources while researching for his book is that his book doesn’t deal only with the Siege of Malta, and that’s something even you acknowledged ( try re-reading that plagiarized amazon review you copy/pasted). It starts in 1521 and it goes all the way to the aftermath and consequences of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Tell me, how would Correggio’s account be of any use for, let’s say, the capture of Rhodes or the Battle of Lepanto? Do you still maintain your claim that Crowley based his work on the writing of Ernle Bradford/Balbi? Are you sure you don’t want to try to save face and spin it into something like “oh, i just meant his account of the Siege of Malta is based on the writing of Ernle Bradford/Balbi, not his whole book”?
“Angemon gripes about me violating copyrights, yet he can take a quote out of a copyrighted book without giving any reference”
LOL! I stated a piece of info I read in a book. You provided a link to download a copyrighted book, therefore what you did was illegal since it violated copyright laws. Really, are you that desperate that you need to try to play the “false moral equivalence” card?
“It would have sufficed with the page number, book and author”
Did anyone ask me where i got that info? No one did, not even you? Then why are you making such a big deal out of an nonexistent issue? “Wah, wah, Angemon never said where he got his info wah, wah”. Cry me a river, you cheeky dickwaffle.
Semeru says
Angemon
Now, would the account of a single defender and an abridged translation of that account count as ” abundance – sometimes the over-abundance – of vivid sources” or “a wealth of startling contemporary accounts”
Balbi’s is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege, and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it, including that of Giacomo Bosio, the official historian of the Knights of St. John, whose massive account first appeared in 1588.,/b>
Now to start again, Angemon quoted Christian defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat Then care guess where said fat came from.
So we have to guess what fat that was used.
Now Crowley according to Angemon used an abundance of sources, and most probably found this
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.
Firstly I will point out that Crowley because of PC, changed out lard with fat.
Secondly, the quote comes from Melita Historica. : Journal of the Malta Historical Society.
[p.193] Psychological and Medical Aspects of the Siege of 1565 [Part II]
P. Cassar
Lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association on the 23rd October, 1952
Thirdly, under the heading Types of Wounds Sustained we find
(a) Fire-hoops (“cerchi di fuoco”). These were large wooden hoops covered with flax and coated with an inflammable substance. After the hoops were set on fire, they were hurled horizontally at the enemy from the height of the bastions. These hoops were so wide that they could encircle two or even three men. This kind of weapon was especially vulnerable for the Turks who went into battle clad in voluminous and light clothing that very easily caught fire. Once they found themselves trapped inside these fire-hoops, the Turks had no way of escape from the fire except by throwing themselves into the sea to extinguish it.108 ( BOSIO, I., op. cit. p. 555.)
(b) Fire-pipkins (“pignatte di fuoco”). These were half-baked earthenware pots containing an incendiary mixture made of gunpowder, camphor, saltpetre and pitch. They were provided with a wick and, after this was lighted, the pipkins were thrown among the attackers. On hitting a hard object, the vessel broke and the mixture caught fire.109 (BOSIO, I, op. cit. p. 562.) More than 30,000 of these pipkins were used during the siege. The “trombe di fuoco” and the “picche di fuoco” were similar contraptions, consisting of hollow cylinders of wood filled with inflammable material.
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.
Notice that (a) & (c) have citations, where as (c.) has no citation
Fourthly, both (a) & © lead back to Francisco Balbi through Bosio
Angemon says
The increasingly hilarious Semeru posted:
“Balbi’s is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege, and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it, including that of Giacomo Bosio, the official historian of the Knights of St. John, whose massive account first appeared in 1588.,/b> ”
And? You’re not answering my question. You said that Crowley’s work was based on the writings of Bradford and Balbi. I pointed out that Crowley used many sources. In fact, i pointed out why Crowley couldn’t have based his work on Bradford and Balbi’s writings alone:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1055978
“Now, the reason I’m certain Crowley used many sources while researching for his book is that his book doesn’t deal only with the Siege of Malta, and that’s something even you acknowledged ( try re-reading that plagiarized amazon review you copy/pasted). It starts in 1521 and it goes all the way to the aftermath and consequences of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Tell me, how would Correggio’s account be of any use for, let’s say, the capture of Rhodes or the Battle of Lepanto?”
“Now Crowley according to Angemon used an abundance of sources, and most probably found this”
Actually, it’s not “according to Angemon”, it’s according to Crowley himself:
http://www.rogercrowley.co.uk/empire_why.htm
“What made the research so compelling was the abundance – sometimes the over-abundance – of vivid sources. The sixteenth century witnessed an explosion of printing and the serious collection of diplomatic archives. There is a wealth of startling contemporary accounts, in which the figures of the time spring to life in their own words.”
“Firstly I will point out that Crowley because of PC, changed out lard with fat.”
Lard is pig fat. Just letting you know that. Look it up in a dictionary.
“Secondly, the quote comes from Melita Historica. : Journal of the Malta Historical Society.
[p.193] Psychological and Medical Aspects of the Siege of 1565 [Part II]”
Which can be consulted online here:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/19551.html
“Thirdly, under the heading Types of Wounds Sustained we find
[…]
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.
Notice that (a) & (c) have citations, where as (c.) has no citation
Fourthly, both (a) & © lead back to Francisco Balbi through Bosio”
Notice that (c) is the smearing of bullets with lard, and that Semeru can’t make up his mind regarding whether (c) has citations or not. But let’s overlook that for now, just like we’ll overlook for now that Semeru was busted plagiarizing a a review from Amazon. Fact is, what Semeru just posted actually STRENGTHENS my points while pulverizing Semeru’s points. Firstly, there’s the heading:
“Types of Wounds Sustained”
And right under it:
“The various types of wounds sustained by the belligerents may be classified under the following headings:—”
There’s not much to say about it. Those were the wounds sustained in combat by the parties involved.
Point 5 talks about burnings, which “were suffered almost exclusively by the Turks” and caused by several means invented by the defenders. Notice subheading (c):
“ (c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.”
Lard is pig fat. There’s no going around it, lard means “pig fat”. Look it up in a dictionary. It also explains how the clothing burned. Notice what Semeru stated before:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1055048
“Angemon, you need to be corrected, pig fat doesn’t ignite on impact.”
Now, unlike Semeru implies, I never said that pig fat ignited on impact. That’s because I know how an arquebus works, unlike Semeru. So, the description in 5 (c) demolishes Semeru’s argument regarding ignition on impact. But let’s take a look at heading 6:
“ 6. A few casualties, all of them fatal, are worth recording because they happened in a rather unusual way. ”
Heading 6 is “unusual casualties”. That proves the usage of lard on bullets to set the turks alight was usual enough to warrant a heading of its own and not be filled under “unusual casualties”.
As for not having a citation leading back to Francisco Balbi through Bosio, well DUH! Crowley himself stated that he used many sources. Semeru is the one making the claim that Crowley based his work on one account alone. Not leading back to Balbi actually PROVES Crowley used other sources.
So, what are we left with after Semeru tried to discredit the “bullets that gave them hell” point i made? Well, what i said before is proved to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1054956
“During the siege of Malta in 1565 the Christian defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat, which set the turks’ robes alight when they were hit. Care to guess where said fat came from?”
And thus the circle is complete. So much fuss only to end up where we began. Next time just assume whatever i’m saying is true, kid. It won’t only save your face, it will also save us both time.
Semeru says
Angemon
Lard is pigs fat
I very well know because as a lad I grew up in London just after the WW11, and Butter was rationed, so I had to eat a lot of lard spread on bread.
And thus the circle is complete. So much fuss only to end up where we began. Next time just assume whatever i’m saying is true, kid. It won’t only save your face, it will also save us both time.
Sorry, dickhead, I don,t assume anything I read here as truth, the same as I do not assume that moslems are telling the truth.
If you where so sure of yourself that pig fat was used during the siege, it raises the question as to why you could not provide a link.
I am still not convinced that fat was used in the siege, because the link I posted doesn’t not give any sources about the bullets, but does give the source about other incendiary devices.
If you want to use the story about the bullets covered in pigs fat for propaganda, at least I have given you a better source than Crowley, where lard is mentioned
But neither source gives conclusive evidence that fat was used.
Semeru says
Angemon
But let’s take a look at heading 6:
“ 6. A few casualties, all of them fatal, are worth recording because they happened in a rather unusual way. ”
Heading 6 is “unusual casualties”. That proves the usage of lard on bullets to set the turks alight was usual enough to warrant a heading of its own and not be filled under “unusual casualties”.
___________________________________
Yes Let us have a look at heading 6, and not the truncated version that Angemon tries to pass off
6. A few casualties, all of them fatal, are worth recording because they happened in a rather unusual way. A cannon ball fired from the Turkish batteries on Corradino Hill, smashed its way through some houses of Senglea and then passed over to Birgu. Here it ended its course by crushing into the house of Frà Luis Cortit, a Catalan knight. The knight, who happened to be at home at the time, was hit by the ball which amputated away both lower limbs. He died soon after.110
There is nothing to mention that lard covered bullets where used
Also the headind 6 is sourced back to official historian of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem Giacomo Bosio.
Angemon says
The infuriated Semeru posted:
“Sorry, dickhead, I don,t assume anything I read here as truth”
“Dickhead”? Lol, getting touchy, aren’t you? Protip: that kind of uncalled for insults do not help your case in any way. On the contrary, it makes you look angry, irrational and unwilling to have a rational discussion. Anyway, not my fault if the info you posted ended up strengthening my points while countering yours. Maybe you should have read and comprehend what you were posting before posting it, like when you plagiarized a review from amazon and left the last couple of sentences out to make it seem Crowley’s Empires of the Sea was somehow unreliable.
“If you where so sure of yourself that pig fat was used during the siege, it raises the question as to why you could not provide a link.”
Says the guy who’s been trying to prove it wasn’t but ended up strengthening my point. That’s another thing you and Mazo have in common. The reason i didn’t provide a link/source for what i said was because (and pay attention now, because i’ve said this several time before but you’re still having issues grasping it) NO ONE ASKED ME TO PROVIDE A SOURCE/REFERENCE.
“I am still not convinced that fat was used in the siege, because the link I posted doesn’t not give any sources about the bullets, but does give the source about other incendiary devices.”
If you’re not convinced that’s your problem. But notice that the link *I* provided was from a lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association, and the fat covered bullets part is filled under “Types of Wounds Sustained”, not “propaganda”. Types of wounds *sustained*. Now, if the fat smeared bullets was only propaganda, would the BMA considered as “sustained wounds”? In fact, it even explains *how* the bullets set the turks on fire (it was not because of exploding on impact, like you falsely claimed). No, the BMA attests to the veracity of the story.
“ If you want to use the story about the bullets covered in pigs fat for propaganda, at least I have given you a better source than Crowley, where lard is mentioned”
LOL! Nice spin! You tried to use that source to disprove what i said about the fat greased bullets. Since it blew up in your face, you’re trying to make it seem as if you were “giving me a better source”. Wake up and smell the coffee kid, no one is buying that.
“But neither source gives conclusive evidence that fat was used.”
Or, if you want to be unbiased, neither source gives conclusive evidence that the fat-smeared bullets *weren’t* used. Like i said, that was from a lecture delivered by the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association, and the fat covered bullets part is filled under “Types of Wounds Sustained”, not “propaganda”. Types of wounds *sustained*. Now, if the fat smeared bullets were only propaganda, would the BMA considered it as “sustained wounds”? Why would they dedicate a section of its own to it, going as far as to explain *how* the bullets set the turks on fire (it was not because of exploding on impact, like you falsely claimed). No, the BMA believes it to be true, and they probably used the same source as Crowley. If you choose not to believe it, that’s your prerogative. You can’t, however, dismiss it as “propaganda” just because it doesn’t come straight from Bosil. Notice that the lecture was given in 1952 and they quote from Bosio’s work, dated from 1602, meaning that 62 years ago there were even less published historical works about the siege than today, let alone 412 years ago. Here’s something for you to think about: maybe Bosil didn’t have access to all the sources Crowley and the BMA had access to.
But if your issue resides in the lack of footnotes/reference, let’s look at other things from that report that don’t have any source and/or reference:
“ 2. Incised, punctured and penetrating wounds were produced by blows from swords (single or double handed ones), scimitars or sabres, halberds, pikes and arrows.”
No source or reference for that. That must be propaganda too, going by your logic. Pikes and arrows producing penetrating wounds? Not without a reference they don’t.
“4. Eye injuries were caused by arquebus bullets and by arrows.”
Is that propaganda too? Must be. I mean, arrows and bullets causing eye injuries? And no reference for that claim? Inconceivable!
How about this one:
“Acute heart failure from excessive exertion was responsible for the death of a few Christian soldiers while they were pursuing, in hot sunshine, a number of Turks, some of whom also fell dead from the same cause.
A few cases of heat stroke with psychotic manifestations occurred at the beginning of September, which was exceptionally hot that year.”
Or this one:
“Wounds involving the soft tissues were sutured and the ligature of vessels had begun to replace the cautery as a haemostatic. After suturing, the wound was dressed with tow or with wool, soaked in a medicament. When a patient sustained a wound of the mouth which rendered the oral intake of food impossible, the necessary nourishment was administered by means of nutrient enemas.”
Careful about this one, it’s a doozy:
“The medicaments in common use were:
1. White of egg. This was regarded as being the most beneficial of the “simple medicaments,” because it promoted union by its bland drying action.
2. Black wine was also a favourite. It was applied to all types of wounds but being “cold and earthy” it was especially indicated for fractures. When taken internally wine creates “good blood” and when applied externally it dries, strengthens the injured part and prevents inflammation.
3. Other “simple medicaments” were oil of roses, honey of roses, digestive of turpentine and yellow of egg. The wounds were dressed with these substances in the form of ointments, cataplasms and emplastra; or else the wound cavity itself was filled with one of them.
4. Oil by itself was contra-indicated as it was observed that it prevented union and produced putrefaction and foul smells. When mixed with wine, however, it was alleged to exercise a beneficial effect because in combination with wine it lost its harmful properties while it neutralised the astringency of wine and relieved pain. Such mixture of two or more “simple medicaments” were called “composite or compound” medicaments.
5. Other compound medicaments in use were:— (a) Mixture of oil, wax and rust; (b) emplastra of oil, wax and litharge — especially recommended for fistulae, and indolent ulcers; (c) mixture of yellow of egg with oil of roses and digestive of turpentine.
6. Ointments containing ingredients derived from such plants as “ocymum basilicum,” honeysuckle, “betonica officinalis” and various species of “centaurea” also formed part of the surgeon’s pharmacological armamentarium.”
I could go on, but i believe i made my point clear enough. None of those excerpts have footnotes and/or references to their sources. Are they “propaganda” too? Should we not believe that sabers cause penetrating wounds or that arrows caused eye injuries because that document didn’t gave a source and/or reference for those claims either?
Like i said before, the circle is complete. So much fuss only to end up where we began. Next time just assume whatever i’m saying is true, kid. It won’t only save your face (and the way you grasp at non-existent straws is beyond pathetic), it will also save us both time.
Angemon says
The not-making.any-sense Semeru posted:
“Yes Let us have a look at heading 6, and not the truncated version that Angemon tries to pass off”
If i wanted to “try to pass off a truncated version” then i wouldn’t have posted a link to the source material. Moron.
“There is nothing to mention that lard covered bullets where used”
Lol @ Semeru, trying to say there’s no mention of lard covered bullets when it was addressed on 5 (c):
“ 5. Burns were suffered almost exclusively by the Turks and resulted from the following weapons devised by the Order’s troops:—
(a) Fire-hoops (“cerchi di fuoco”). These were large wooden hoops covered with flax and coated with an inflammable substance. After the hoops were set on fire, they were hurled horizontally at the enemy from the height of the bastions. These hoops were so wide that they could encircle two or even three men. This kind of weapon was especially vulnerable for the Turks who went into battle clad in voluminous and light clothing that very easily caught fire. Once they found themselves trapped inside these fire-hoops, the Turks had no way of escape from the fire except by throwing themselves into the sea to extinguish it.108
(b) Fire-pipkins (“pignatte di fuoco”). These were half-baked earthenware pots containing an incendiary mixture made of gunpowder, camphor, saltpetre and pitch. They were provided with a wick and, after this was lighted, the pipkins were thrown among the attackers. On hitting a hard object, the vessel broke and the mixture caught fire.109 More than 30,000 of these pipkins were used during the siege. The “trombe di fuoco” and the “picche di fuoco” were similar contraptions, consisting of hollow cylinders of wood filled with inflammable material.
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.
Like i said before, since it has a section of its own then it was frequent enough not to be considered a unusual casualty. Seesh, do you even read what you’re responding to?
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
Now Crowley according to Angemon used an abundance of sources, and most probably found this
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.”
That was taken from a lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association on the 23rd October, 1952. According to Mazo, that was “most probably” Crowley’s source for the usage of fat smeared bullets. Just for the heck of it, let’s check the bibliography of Empires of the Seas:
“Achard, Paul, La Vie Extraordinaire des Frères Barberousse, Paris, 1939
Anderson, R. C., Naval Wars in the Levant, 1559–1853, Liverpool, 1952
Attard, Joseph, The Knights of Malta, Malta, 1992
Babinger, Franz, Mehmet the Conqueror and His Time, Princeton, 1978
Balbi di Correggio, Francisco, The Siege of Malta, 1565, trans. Ernle Bradford, London, 2003
Balbi di Correggio, Francisco, The Siege of Malta, 1565, trans. Henry Alexander Balbi, Copenhagen, 1961
Barkan, Omer Lutfi, “L’Empire Ottoman face au monde chrétien au lendemain de Lépante” in
Benzoni
Beeching, Jack, The Galleys at Lepanto, London, 1982
Belachemi, Jean-Louis, Nous les Frères Barberousse, corsaires et rois d’Alger, Paris, 1984
Benzoni, Gino, Il Mediterraneo nella seconda metà del ’500 alla luce di Lepanto, Florence, 1974
Bicheno, Hugh, Crescent and Cross: The Battle of Lepanto 1571, London, 2004
Bonello, G., “An Overlooked Eyewitness’s Account of the Great Siege” in Melitensium Amor,
Festschrift in Honour of Dun Gwann Azzopardi, ed. T. Cortis, T. Freller, and L. Bugeja, pp.
133–48, Malta, 2002
Bosio, G., Dell’istoria della sacra religione et illustrissimia militia di San Giovanni
Gierosolimitano, vols. 2 and 3, Rome, 1594–1602
Bostan, Idris, Kürekli ve Yelkenli Osmanh Gemileri, Istanbul, 2005
Bourbon, J. de, “A brief relation of the siege and taking of the city of Rhodes” in The Principal
Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation by Richard Hakluyt,
vol. 5, Glasgow, 1904
Bradford, Ernle, The Great Siege: Malta 1565, London, 1999
Bradford, Ernle, Mediterranean: Portrait of a Sea, London, 1970
Bradford, Ernle, The Shield and the Sword: The Knights of St. John, London 1972
Bradford, Ernle, The Sultan’s Admiral: The Life of Barbarossa, London, 1969
Brandi, Karl, The Emperor Charles V, London, 1949
Brântome, P. de Bourdeille, Seigneur de, Oeuvres complètes, ed. L. Lalanne, vol. 3, Paris, 1864
Braudel, Fernand, “Bilan d’une bataille,” in Benzoni
Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans.
Siân Reynolds, 2 vols., Berkeley, 1995
Bridge, Antony, Suleiman the Magnificent, Scourge of Heaven, London, 1983
Brockman, Eric, The Two Sieges of Rhodes, 1480–1522, London, 1969
Brummett, Palmira, Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of Discovery, Albany,
1994
Büyüktugrul, Afif, “Preveze Deniz Muharebesine iliçkin gerçekler” Beleten, vol. 37, 1973
Caccin, P., and Angelo M., Basilica of Saints John and Paul, Venice, 2004
Caetani, O., and Diedo, G., La Battaglia di Lepanto, 1571, Palermo, 1995
Caoursin, Will, and Afendy, Rhodgia, The History of the Turkish War with the Rhodians,
Venetians, Egyptians, Persians and Other Nations, London, 1683
Capponi, Niccolò, Victory of the West: The Story of the Battle of Lepanto, London, 2006
Cassar, George, ed. The Great Siege 1565, Malta, 2005
Cassola, A., The 1565 Ottoman Malta Campaign Register, Malta, 1988
Cassola, A., The Great Siege of Malta (1565) and the Istanbul State Archives, Malta, 1995
Cervantes, Miguel de, El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, Glasgow, 1871
Cirni, A. F., Commentari d’Anton Francesco Cirni, Corso, ne quale se descrive la Guerra ultima
di Francia, la celebratione del Concilio Tridentino, il Soccorso d’Orano, l’Impresa del
Pignone, e l’Historia dell’ Assedio di Malta, Rome, 1567
Clot, André, Suleiman the Magnificent, trans. Matthew J. Reisz, London, 2005
Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España, vol. 3, Madrid, 1843
Crowley, Roger, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West ,
New York, 2005
Dani mend, I. H., Izahl1 Osmanh tarihi kronolojisi, vol. 2, Istanbul, 1948
Davis, R. C., Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary
Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800, London, 2003
Deny, Jean, and Laroche, Jane, “L’expédition en Provence de l’armée de Mer du Sultan Suleyman
sous le Commandement de l’admiral Hayreddin Pacha, dit Barberousse (1543–1544)” Turcica,
vol. 1, Paris, 1969
Elliot, J. H., Imperial Spain 1469–1716, London, 1990
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 11 vols., Leiden, 1960
Excerpta Cypria: Materials for a History of Cyprus, trans. Claude Delaval Cobham, Cambridge,
1908
Fernandez Duro, Cesareo, Armada Española desde la Union de los Reinos de Castilla y de Aragon,
vol. 2, Madrid, 1896
Finkel, Caroline, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923, London, 2005
Finlay, Robert, “Prophecy and Politics in Istanbul: Charles V, Sultan Süleyman, and the Habsburg
Embassy of 1533–1534” The Journal of Early Modern History, 1998, vol. 2
Fisher, Alan, “The Life and Family of Süleyman I” in Süleyman the Second and His Time, ed. Halil
Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar, Istanbul, 1993
Fisher, Sir Godfrey, Barbary Legend: War, Trade, and Piracy in North Africa, 1415–1830,
Oxford, 1957
Fontanus, J., De Bello Rhodio, Rome, 1524
Friedman, Ellen G., Spanish Captives in North Africa in the Early Modern Age, London, 1983
Galea, J., “The Great Siege of Malta from a Turkish Point of View” Melita Historica IV, Malta,
1965
Gazioglu, Ahmet C., The Turks in Cyprus: A Province of the Ottoman Empire (1571–1878),
London, 1990
Gentil de Vendosme, P., Le Siège de Malte par les Turcs en 1565, Paris, 1910
Ghiselin de Busbecq, Ogier, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq: Imperial
Ambassador at Constantinople, trans. Edward Seymour Forster, Oxford, 1927
Glete, Jan, Warfare at Sea 1500–1650, London, 2000
Goffman, Daniel, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge, 2002
Grove, A. T., and Rackham, Oliver, The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History ,
London, 2001
Guglielmotti, P. Alberto, Storia della Marina Pontificia, vol. 5, Rome, 1887
Guilmartin, John Francis, Galleons and Galleys, London, 2002
Guilmartin, John Francis, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean
Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge, 1974
Guilmartin, John, “The Tactics of the Battle of Lepanto Clarified” at
http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmartin.com
Güleryüz, Ahmet, Kadýrgadan Kalyona Osmanhda Yelken, Istanbul, 2004
Haëdo, Diego de, Histoire des Rois d’Alger, trans. H. de Grammont, Saint-Denis, 1998
Haji Khalifeh, The History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks, trans. James Mitchell, London, 1831
Hammer-Purgstall, J., Histoire de L’Empire Ottoman, vols. 4–6, Paris, 1836
Heers, Jacques, The Barbary Corsairs: Warfare in the Mediterranean, 1480–1580, London, 2003
Hess, Andrew, “The Battle of Lepanto and Its Place in Mediterranean History” Past and Present 57,
Oxford, 1972
Hess, Andrew, “The Evolution of the Ottoman Seaborne Empire in the Age of Oceanic Discoveries,
1453–1525” American Historical Review 75, no. 7 (December 1970)
Hess, Andrew, The Forgotten Frontier: A History of the Sixteenth Century Ibero-African
Frontier, Chicago, 1978
Hess, Andrew, “The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt (1517) and the Beginning of the Sixteenth-Century
World War” International Journal of Middle East Studies 4 (1973)
Hill, Sir George, A History of Cyprus, volume III: The Frankish period, 1432–1571, Cambridge,
1972
Housley, Norman, The Later Crusades 1274–1571, Oxford, 1992
Imber, Colin, “The Navy of Süleyman the Magnificent” in Archivum Ottomanicum, VI (1980)
Imber, Colin, The Ottoman Empire: The Structure of Power, Basingstoke, 2002
Inalcik, Halil, “Lepanto in the Ottoman Documents” in Benzoni
Inalcik, Halil, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600, London, 1973
Inalc1k, Halil, and Camal Kafadar, Süleymân the Second and His Time, Istanbul, 1993
Islam Ansiklopedisi, 28 vols., Istanbul, 1988
Jurien de La Gravière, Jean Pierre, Doria et Barberousse, Paris, 1886
Jurien de La Gravière, Jean Pierre, La Guerre de Chypre et la Bataille de Lépante, 2 vols., Paris,
1888
Jurien de La Gravière, Jean Pierre, Les Chevaliers de Malte et la Marine de Philippe II, 2 vols.,
Paris, 1887
Kamen, Henry, Philip of Spain, London, 1997
Kâtip Çelebi, The History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks, trans. J. Mitchell, London, 1831
Kunt, Metin, and Christine Woodhead, eds., Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age, Harlow, 1995
Lane, Frederic C., Venice: A Maritime Republic, Baltimore, 1973
Lesure, M., Lépante, la Crise de L’Empire Ottoman, Paris, 1972
Longworth, Philip, The Rise and Fall of Venice, London, 1974
López de Gómara, Francisco, Cronica de los Barbarrojas, in Memorial Historico Español:
Colección de Documentos, Opusculos y Antiguedades, vol. 6, Madrid, 1853
Luttrell, Anthony, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and Their Mediterranean World, Aldershot, 1992
Lynch, John, Spain Under the Hapsburgs, vol 1: Empire and Absolutism 1516–1598, Oxford, 1964
Mallett, M. E., and Hale, J. R., The Military Organization of a Renaissance State: Venice, c. 1400
to 1617, Cambridge, 1984
Mallia-Milanes, Victor, Venice and Hospitaller Malta, 1530–1798: Aspects of a Relationship,
Malta 1992
Mantran, Robert, “L’écho de la bataille de Lépante a Constantinople” in Benzoni
Maurand, Jérome, Itinéraire de J. Maurand d’Antibes à Constantinople (1544), Paris, 1901
Merriman, Roger Bigelow, The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New, vols.
3 and 4, New York, 1962
Merriman, Roger Bigelow, Suleiman the Magnificent, 1520–1566, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1944
Morris, Jan, The Venetian Empire: A Sea Voyage, London, 1980
Mulgan, Catherine, The Renaissance Monarchies, 1469–1558, Cambridge, 1998
Necipoglu, Gülru, “Ottoman-Hapsburg-Papal Rivalry” in Süleyman I and His Time, ed. Halil
Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar, Istanbul, 1993
Norwich, John Julius, A History of Venice, London, 1982
Parker, Geoffrey, The Grand Strategy of Philip II, London, 1998
Parker, Geoffrey, Philip II, London, 1979
Pastor, Louis, Histoire des Papes, vols. 17–18, Paris, 1935
Peçevi, Ibrahim, Peçevi Tarihi, vol. 1, Ankara, 1981
Petit, Edouard, André Doria: un amiral condottiere au XVIe siècle (1466–1560), Paris, 1887
Petrie, Sir Charles, Don Juan of Austria, London, 1967
Phillips, Carla Rahn, “Navies and the Mediterranean in the Early Modern Period” in Naval Policy
and Strategy in the Mediterranean: Past, Present, and Future, ed. John B. Hattendorf, London,
2000
Piri Reis, Kitab-1 bahriye, vols. 1 and 2, ed. Ertugrul Zekai Ökte, Ankara, 1988
Porter, Whitworth, The Knights of Malta, 2 vols., London, 1883
Prescott, W. H., History of the Reign of Philip the Second, King of Spain, 3 vols., Boston, 1855–58
Pryor, John H., Geography, Technology, and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the
Mediterranean, 649–1571, Cambridge, 1988
Rosell, Cayetano, Historia del Combate Naval de Lepanto, Madrid, 1853
Rossi, E., Assedio e Conquista di Rodi nel 1522 secondo le relazioni edite e inedite de Turchi,
Rome, 1927
Sandoval, Fray Prudencio de, Historia de la Vida y Hechos del Emperador Carlos V, vols. 2–4,
Madrid, 1956
Scetti, Aurelio, The Journal of Aurelio Scetti: A Florentine Galley Slave at Lepanto (1565–1577),
trans. Luigi Monga, Tempe, Arizona, 2004
Setton, Kenneth M., The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571, vols. 2–4, Philadelphia, 1984
Seyyd Murad, La Vita e la Storia di Ariadeno Barbarossa, ed. G. Bonaffini, Palermo, 1993
Shaw, Stanford, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1976
Sire, H.J.A., The Knights of Malta, London, 1994
Soucek, Svat, Piri Reis and Turkish Mapmaking After Columbus: The Khalili Portolan Atlas,
London, 1996
Soucek, Svat, “The Rise of the Barbarossas in North Africa” in Archivum Ottomanicum 3, 1971
Spiteri, Stephen C., The Great Siege: Knights vs. Turks MDLXV—Anatomy of a Hospitaller
Victory, Malta, 2005
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir William, Don John of Austria, vol. 1, London, 1883
Testa, Carmel, Romegas, Malta, 2002
Thubron, Colin, The Seafarers: Venetians, London, 2004
Tracy, James D., Emperor Charles V, Impresario of War, Cambridge, 2002
Turan, erafettin, “Lala Mustafa Pa a hakkinda notlar” Beletin 22, 1958
Uzunçar ili, Ismail Hakkı, Osmanlı Tarihi, Vols. 2 and 3, Ankara, 1988
Vargas-Hidalgo, Rafael, Guerra y diplomacia en el Mediterraneo: Correspondencia inédita de
Felipe II con Andrea Doria y Juan Andrea Doria, Madrid, 2002
Yildirim, Onur, “The Battle of Lepanto and Its Impact on Ottoman History and Historiography” in
Mediterraneo in Armi, ed. R. Cancila, Palermo, 2007
Zanon, Luigi Gigio, La Galea Veneziana, Venice, 2004
Notice that the source Semeru claims that Crowley “most probably” used is nowhere on the list, something Semeru could, and should, have checked for himself before stating that. So now we have TWO unrelated sources (Crowley and the 1952 lecture) attesting to the use of fat smeared bullets. Also notice what Semeru stated before:
“Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley he based his novel on the writings of Ernle Bradford and Francisco Balbi”
As you can see, despite what Semeru assures us, not only Empires of the Sea is not a novel but an accurate description of the 16th century power struggle in the Mediterranean Sea, but also Crowley used plenty more sources than just Bradford, Balbi or Bosio. But facts don’t matter because, according to Semeru, since item 5 (c) on the lecture (the usage of fat-smeared bullets) doesn’t link to Bosio, then it’s unreliable and used for propaganda only. Like the saying says, “the worst blind is the one who doesn’t want to see”.
Semeru says
Angemon
But notice that the link *I* provided was from a lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association,
You found the link after I had already posted
Melita Historica. : Journal of the Malta Historical Society.
[p.193] Psychological and Medical Aspects of the Siege of 1565 [Part II]
P. Cassar
Lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association on the 23rd October, 1952
All you have do was google the above info, Volla, you get the link.
Semeru says
After many posts from you have not be able to provide a source that confirms that pigs fat (lard) was used to cover bullets.
Crowley only mentions fat
And it was me that provided the source that mentions lard
Now give a source that conclusively proves that pigs fat (lard) was used.
Angemon says
The hopeless Semeru posted:
“You found the link after I had already posted
Melita Historica. : Journal of the Malta Historical Society.
[p.193] Psychological and Medical Aspects of the Siege of 1565 [Part II]
P. Cassar
Lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association on the 23rd October, 1952
All you have do was google the above info, Volla, you get the link.”
And? I posted the link, not you, even though you tried to make an issue of me not linking to a book i own. Double standarded hypocrite.
“After many posts from you have not be able to provide a source that confirms that pigs fat (lard) was used to cover bullets.
Crowley only mentions fat
And it was me that provided the source that mentions lard
Now give a source that conclusively proves that pigs fat (lard) was used.”
LOL! Semeru tries to pretend that there are no “conclusive” posts regarding the use of fat smeared bullets. Crowley mentions it, that BMA lecture mentions it, and they’re unrelated sources. The lecture is NOT in Crowley’s bibliography. What we have here is the exact opposite: after many posts from you trying to discredit the use of fat smeared bullets by the defenders (including plagiarizing a review in Amazon, going as far to leave the last sentences who vouch for Crowley’s work) you not only failed to do so, but you STRENGTHENED the case for its use. Remember that when you mentioned the medical lecture you also said that Crowley “most probably” found it and used it. You also tried to use it to discredit the use by saying “it lacked a source”. No amount of spin you can make it seem as anything else. Thing is, Crowley never used that lecture as a source (which can explain why one used “lard” and other used “fat” – both Crowley and the BMA used different sources) so we’re left with two sources making the same claim – fat covered bullets that burned the turks’ clothing.
But, according to semeru (the guy who doesn’t know how an arquebus works and tried to discredit it by saying that “pig fat doesn’t explode on impact”, lol!), two unrelated sources, one of them being the British Medical Association DESCRIBING the injuries sustained by the turks, are not “conclusive” evidence. I guess the guys at the BMA must bored out of their minds to make a lecture where they described non-existing injuries, right? Like i said before, “the worst blind is the one who doesn’t want to see”.
Angemon says
Notice the absurdity and despair oozing from semeru’s last ditch attempt: “but-but-but, Crowley only mentions fat, i was the one who gave a source for pig fat, now you give me a conclusive source for pig fat”. Poor thing, he doesn’t even trust what he posts, lol!
I think he must have scrolled back and accidentally read what he wrote, so now he thinks what he wrote is a lie. Like he said:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056722
“I don,t assume anything I read here as truth“.
Angemon says
Also notice i *gave* Crowley’s bibliography:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056863
Which is substantially larger than what semeru stated:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1055915
“Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley he based his novel on the writings of Ernle Bradford and Francisco Balbi”
Note that what he said there contradicts what he said earlier:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056208
“Now Crowley according to Angemon used an abundance of sources, and most probably found this
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.”
He even goes as far as to explain why Crowley and the BMA lecture use different terms:
“Firstly I will point out that Crowley because of PC, changed out lard with fat.”
Notice that even though he’s working on a conjecture (“Crowley […] most probably found this“) he’s telling us that “Crowley because of PC, changed out lard with fat“. But that lecture is NOT on Crowley’s bibliography, so semeru is clearly making stuff up – lying, if you prefer.
Anyway, i’m getting sidetracked here, semeru’s lies will be dealt with when necessary. I gave Crowley’s substantial bibliography and now I’m wondering if semeru went and check ALL of Crowley’s sources or if he’s just flapping around to avoid admitting he’s wrong regarding the use of of fat smeared bullets… Remember, although he likes to point out he’s the one who first mentioned the medical lecture describing the use of lard smeared bullets, he did so under the assumption Crowley used that info and only to point out that it couldn’t be traced back to Bosio, therefore trying to make it seem unreliable.
Semeru says
You can write a load of blag, but what about a quote and reference concerning pigs fat being smeared on bullets, a dedicate jihad watch like yourself should be able to find a reference.
It is rather pathetic that you cannot find any reference
All you have found so far is fat was used. and leaving every one else to guess that pork fat was used.
I personally doubt that fat was used, but, you now have a better reference than Crowleys.
The BMA. quote from I gave you is far better, as it actually mentions lard, where as Crowley only mentions fat. Also you can link to the BMA article, but you cannot link to your book
The lesson here, is, there is so much bullshit being spread about pig fat/blood, so much so that anti jihadi seem like blabbering fools, especially when using the Jack Pershing myth or bag of pork on Israeli buses.
You have not produced one single citation or link to support Crowleys claim, or your guess.
So where is your conclusive proof that pigs fat was used?
Angemon says
The desperate semeru posted:
“You can write a load of blag, but what about a quote and reference concerning pigs fat being smeared on bullets, a dedicate jihad watch like yourself should be able to find a reference.”
Lol @ semeru, trying to pretend there’s no quote or source regarding the usage of fat on bullets during the Siege of Malta in 1565 and that’s my word against his (who, i remind you, was caught lying before), even though he himself provided a source attesting to its use. Also notice that what he claims to be “a load of blag” would be more accurately described as “an exposition of semeru’s lies. erroneous assumptions, plagiarizing and quote mining”. But semeru is not one to let accuracy or facts get in his way, is he?
“It is rather pathetic that you cannot find any reference”
Once again, lol @ semeru, trying to pretend there’s no quote or source regarding the usage of fat on bullets during the Siege of Malta in 1565 and that’s my word against his (who, i remind you, was caught lying before), even though he himself provided a source attesting to its use. You mean, besides Crowley, who is considered as a reliable source? You know what’s pathetic? You trying to discredit Crowley’s work, going as far as to lie, only to end up proving his case.
“All you have found so far is fat was used. and leaving every one else to guess that pork fat was used.”
And you assured us that lard was used. Lard is pig fat. And since you were the one doubting… But thank you for assuring us (again) that indeed fat was used 😉
“I personally doubt that fat was used”
The question is: do you have any source/reference that flat out says that fat smeared bullets weren’t used? Another question is: do you have any reason to doubt either Crowley’s work or the BMA lecture you mentioned? The answer to both is a resounding “NO”, hence why you fall back to “I personally doubt“, despite all evidence pointing otherwise.
“you now have a better reference than Crowleys.”
Which is irrelevant since i was not the one doubting Crowley’s account. You were, and now you’re making a case against the case you started to made, lol!
“The BMA. quote from I gave you is far better, as it actually mentions lard, where as Crowley only mentions fat. Also you can link to the BMA article, but you cannot link to your book”
Of course i can’t link to a book i physically own, you moron! I *could* have linked to a version of the book online like you did, but the book is copyrighted and therefore it would be illegal. Seriously, you’re still going on about that? Are you that butthurt?
“The lesson here, is, there is so much bullshit being spread about pig fat/blood”
Notice that this directly contradicts what he said a few sentences ago:
“you now have a better reference than Crowleys.”
“The BMA. quote from I gave you is far better, as it actually mentions lard”
Better, far better, bullshit… All the same for semeru. And let’s not forget that he mentioned that lecture to try to discredit Crowley’s work by saying that the use of lard smeared bullets wasn’t referenced by Bosil and therefore was unreliable (which, once again, contradicts his later claims) despite Crowley’s extensive bibliography. How he considers something that, according to his own words, “has no citation” better/far better than something with several pages worth of sources is beyond me, but that’s beside the point.
“so much so that anti jihadi seem like blabbering fools, especially when using the Jack Pershing myth or bag of pork on Israeli buses.”
Notice that no one mentioned any bag of pork in Israeli buses on this topic. Why is he bringing that up? My guess is that he realized he can’t keep arguing against the use of fat smeared bullets as incendiary ammo (seeing how he provided evidence attesting its use) so now he’s trying to weasel his way out with an unrelated argument. In any case, what Conservative Mark said about Pershing reminded me of an account i read in a history book years ago. Semeru, on the other hand, had no idea what i was talking about, had to resort to google searches, made some ignorant comment regarding the pig fat exploding on impact, tried to pretend i mistook bullets with barrel hoops, ended up getting another mention of fat smeared bullets completely unrelated to my source (despite what he tried to claim, that BMA lecture wasn’t used by Crowley) and is still doubting the authenticity of fat smeared bullets.
“You have not produced one single citation or link to support Crowleys claim, or your guess.”
I gave you Crowley’s bibliography which is substantially larger than what you stated (not only you falsely assumed Crowley used the BMA lecture, which is no on his bibliography, you also assured us that Crowley based his work on Bradford and Balbi’s writings alone). Have you checked all of it? Can you assure us that there’s no mention of fat smeared bullets on any of the works he mentions? Anyway, I wasn’t the one doubting Crowley, so it’s you who should have provided some sort of evidence to cast doubts on Crowley’s work. You failed to do so. You made false assumptions, you lied, and you couldn’t cast a trace of doubt on Crowley’s work. In fact, you first mentioned the BMA lecture while trying to discredit Crowley, except that it ended up attesting to his work, lol!
“So where is your conclusive proof that pigs fat was used?”
Not only you failed to provide any evidence to Crowley being wrong, you also gave even *more* proof attesting that fat smeared bullets were used. Are you that desperate that you’re trying to go from arguing that “fat smeared bullets weren’t used” (i’m still lolling at your “exploding on impact” comment, that was pure comedy gold!) to arguing that *I* should have mentioned the BMA lecture in the first place?
*smh*
Like i said, the worst blind is the one who doesn’t want to see.
Semeru says
Tons of blag, but no link from Angemon confirming that lard was used.
Angemon says
The hilariously angry man-child semeru posted:
“Tons of blag, but no link from Angemon confirming that lard was used.”
LMFAO! Poor semeru is so angry and desperate he’s trying to go from arguing that “fat smeared bullets weren’t used” (i’m still lolling at his “exploding on impact” comment, that was pure comedy gold!) to arguing that i never posted any link to confirm lard was used. Clearly he’s not paying any attention at all. Let’s look at what i posted earlier:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056518
“[…]
Lard is pig fat. Just letting you know that.
[…]
Which can be consulted online here:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/19551.html”
Now, what is it that we can find on the link *I* posted?
“(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired.”
But, according to semeru, “no link from Angemon confirming that lard was used“. LOL! And that’s beside Crowley’s bibliography (more on that later). Once again, semeru is caught lying. Notice that what he tries to pass as “blag” would be more accurately described as “an exposition of semeru’s lies, erroneous assumptions, plagiarizing and quote mining”. But semeru is not one to let accuracy or facts get in his way, is he?
I feel it’s important to stress out what i said before when replying to his comment of “You have not produced one single citation or link to support Crowleys claim”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1057825
“I gave you Crowley’s bibliography which is substantially larger than what you stated (not only you falsely assumed Crowley used the BMA lecture, which is no on his bibliography, you also assured us that Crowley based his work on Bradford and Balbi’s writings alone). Have you checked all of it? Can you assure us that there’s no mention of fat smeared bullets on any of the works he mentions?”
I pointed out i gave him a large body of sources (Crowley’s biography) and i asked him if he checked all of those. It’s a big list, as you can see here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056863
Since he didn’t reply to any of my questions (Have you checked all of Crowley’s bibliography? Can you assure us that there’s no mention of fat smeared bullets on any of the works he mentions?) i’ll have to assume he DIDN’T and he preferred to rehash his material instead.
Also notice that the point he’s trying to argue is moot: it’s not whether i posted a link confirming lard was used (which i did, unlike he falsely claims), it’s that there’s unrelated sources attesting to it and not only semeru failed to prove any of them as being unreliable, he also admitted that he just doesn’t want to believe them:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1057616
“I personally doubt that fat was used”
Now, semeru, do you have any source we don’t know of that specifically claims that fat smeared bullets weren’t used? Is there any new reason to why we should believe your claim? Because all we have so far is that you’re a sore loser attempting to smear me for no apparent reason than me besting you. If you’re unable to stick to factual discussion backed by credible sources (thus allowing for logical progression) and instead prefer to interject lies, insults, and total derailments to the topic at hand then you have an issue and you need help.
So, do you have any source we don’t know of that specifically claims that fat smeared bullets weren’t used? Is there any new reason to why we should believe your claim? Or are you going to try to dodge the issue by focusing on me and making more false claims?
Semeru says
You still have not given us a link to pork fat being used
If you are so clever, why can’t you find the source to Crowley,s or the BMA,s article.
I very much doubt you would have found the link to BMA article, with my cut and paste from it.
I also doubt both Crowley and BMA, because I cannot find any sources that date earlier than 1955
So cut the blag and give us a a source and link.
Angemon says
The hilariously angry man-child Semeru posted:
“You still have not given us a link to pork fat being used”
LMFAO. Here’s from my previous post:
“Clearly he’s not paying any attention at all. Let’s look at what i posted earlier:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056518
“[…]
Lard is pig fat. Just letting you know that.
[…]
Which can be consulted online here:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/19551.html”
Now, what is it that we can find on the link *I* posted?
“(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired.”
But, according to semeru, “no link from Angemon confirming that lard was used“. LOL! ”
This is just HILARIOUS! Semeru claims i haven’t given him a link, i point out *I gave* said link and here he is again, saying i haven’t given a link. It should be clear now that semeru isn’t interested in rational discussion backed up be verifiable facts, he’s just pounding away is fury at the keyboard, hoping no one notices he’s rehashing his tired and debunked material.
“If you are so clever, why can’t you find the source to Crowley,s or the BMA,s article.”
LMFAO! I *gave* Crowley’s bibliography. In fact, i asked you TWICE if you checked all of it. You have yet to answer that question. More of the same here: semeru is pounding away is fury at the keyboard, hoping no one notices he’s rehashing his tired and debunked material.
“I very much doubt you would have found the link to BMA article, with my cut and paste from it.”
I don’t think you know how cut and paste works…
“I also doubt both Crowley and BMA, because I cannot find any sources that date earlier than 1955”
So you have no good reason to doubt Crowley or the BMA lecture since the BMA lecture was held in 1952 (just so you get it, that’s 3 years before 1955) and it’s completely unrelated to Crowley. In any case, you have yet to give any sort of evidence discrediting either Crowley or the BMA, even though i asked you several times. It just comes to you not believing for the sake of not admitting you’re wrong.
“So cut the blag and give us a a source and link.”
Once again: have you checked the link i gave you and ALL of Crowley’s bibliography? Let me refresh your memory:
Achard, Paul, La Vie Extraordinaire des Frères Barberousse, Paris, 1939
Anderson, R. C., Naval Wars in the Levant, 1559–1853, Liverpool, 1952
Attard, Joseph, The Knights of Malta, Malta, 1992
Babinger, Franz, Mehmet the Conqueror and His Time, Princeton, 1978
Balbi di Correggio, Francisco, The Siege of Malta, 1565, trans. Ernle Bradford, London, 2003
Balbi di Correggio, Francisco, The Siege of Malta, 1565, trans. Henry Alexander Balbi, Copenhagen, 1961
Barkan, Omer Lutfi, “L’Empire Ottoman face au monde chrétien au lendemain de Lépante” in
Benzoni
Beeching, Jack, The Galleys at Lepanto, London, 1982
Belachemi, Jean-Louis, Nous les Frères Barberousse, corsaires et rois d’Alger, Paris, 1984
Benzoni, Gino, Il Mediterraneo nella seconda metà del ’500 alla luce di Lepanto, Florence, 1974
Bicheno, Hugh, Crescent and Cross: The Battle of Lepanto 1571, London, 2004
Bonello, G., “An Overlooked Eyewitness’s Account of the Great Siege” in Melitensium Amor,
Festschrift in Honour of Dun Gwann Azzopardi, ed. T. Cortis, T. Freller, and L. Bugeja, pp.
133–48, Malta, 2002
Bosio, G., Dell’istoria della sacra religione et illustrissimia militia di San Giovanni
Gierosolimitano, vols. 2 and 3, Rome, 1594–1602
Bostan, Idris, Kürekli ve Yelkenli Osmanh Gemileri, Istanbul, 2005
Bourbon, J. de, “A brief relation of the siege and taking of the city of Rhodes” in The Principal
Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation by Richard Hakluyt,
vol. 5, Glasgow, 1904
Bradford, Ernle, The Great Siege: Malta 1565, London, 1999
Bradford, Ernle, Mediterranean: Portrait of a Sea, London, 1970
Bradford, Ernle, The Shield and the Sword: The Knights of St. John, London 1972
Bradford, Ernle, The Sultan’s Admiral: The Life of Barbarossa, London, 1969
Brandi, Karl, The Emperor Charles V, London, 1949
Brântome, P. de Bourdeille, Seigneur de, Oeuvres complètes, ed. L. Lalanne, vol. 3, Paris, 1864
Braudel, Fernand, “Bilan d’une bataille,” in Benzoni
Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans.
Siân Reynolds, 2 vols., Berkeley, 1995
Bridge, Antony, Suleiman the Magnificent, Scourge of Heaven, London, 1983
Brockman, Eric, The Two Sieges of Rhodes, 1480–1522, London, 1969
Brummett, Palmira, Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of Discovery, Albany,
1994
Büyüktugrul, Afif, “Preveze Deniz Muharebesine iliçkin gerçekler” Beleten, vol. 37, 1973
Caccin, P., and Angelo M., Basilica of Saints John and Paul, Venice, 2004
Caetani, O., and Diedo, G., La Battaglia di Lepanto, 1571, Palermo, 1995
Caoursin, Will, and Afendy, Rhodgia, The History of the Turkish War with the Rhodians,
Venetians, Egyptians, Persians and Other Nations, London, 1683
Capponi, Niccolò, Victory of the West: The Story of the Battle of Lepanto, London, 2006
Cassar, George, ed. The Great Siege 1565, Malta, 2005
Cassola, A., The 1565 Ottoman Malta Campaign Register, Malta, 1988
Cassola, A., The Great Siege of Malta (1565) and the Istanbul State Archives, Malta, 1995
Cervantes, Miguel de, El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, Glasgow, 1871
Cirni, A. F., Commentari d’Anton Francesco Cirni, Corso, ne quale se descrive la Guerra ultima
di Francia, la celebratione del Concilio Tridentino, il Soccorso d’Orano, l’Impresa del
Pignone, e l’Historia dell’ Assedio di Malta, Rome, 1567
Clot, André, Suleiman the Magnificent, trans. Matthew J. Reisz, London, 2005
Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España, vol. 3, Madrid, 1843
Crowley, Roger, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West ,
New York, 2005
Dani mend, I. H., Izahl1 Osmanh tarihi kronolojisi, vol. 2, Istanbul, 1948
Davis, R. C., Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary
Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800, London, 2003
Deny, Jean, and Laroche, Jane, “L’expédition en Provence de l’armée de Mer du Sultan Suleyman
sous le Commandement de l’admiral Hayreddin Pacha, dit Barberousse (1543–1544)” Turcica,
vol. 1, Paris, 1969
Elliot, J. H., Imperial Spain 1469–1716, London, 1990
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 11 vols., Leiden, 1960
Excerpta Cypria: Materials for a History of Cyprus, trans. Claude Delaval Cobham, Cambridge,
1908
Fernandez Duro, Cesareo, Armada Española desde la Union de los Reinos de Castilla y de Aragon,
vol. 2, Madrid, 1896
Finkel, Caroline, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923, London, 2005
Finlay, Robert, “Prophecy and Politics in Istanbul: Charles V, Sultan Süleyman, and the Habsburg
Embassy of 1533–1534” The Journal of Early Modern History, 1998, vol. 2
Fisher, Alan, “The Life and Family of Süleyman I” in Süleyman the Second and His Time, ed. Halil
Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar, Istanbul, 1993
Fisher, Sir Godfrey, Barbary Legend: War, Trade, and Piracy in North Africa, 1415–1830,
Oxford, 1957
Fontanus, J., De Bello Rhodio, Rome, 1524
Friedman, Ellen G., Spanish Captives in North Africa in the Early Modern Age, London, 1983
Galea, J., “The Great Siege of Malta from a Turkish Point of View” Melita Historica IV, Malta,
1965
Gazioglu, Ahmet C., The Turks in Cyprus: A Province of the Ottoman Empire (1571–1878),
London, 1990
Gentil de Vendosme, P., Le Siège de Malte par les Turcs en 1565, Paris, 1910
Ghiselin de Busbecq, Ogier, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq: Imperial
Ambassador at Constantinople, trans. Edward Seymour Forster, Oxford, 1927
Glete, Jan, Warfare at Sea 1500–1650, London, 2000
Goffman, Daniel, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge, 2002
Grove, A. T., and Rackham, Oliver, The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History ,
London, 2001
Guglielmotti, P. Alberto, Storia della Marina Pontificia, vol. 5, Rome, 1887
Guilmartin, John Francis, Galleons and Galleys, London, 2002
Guilmartin, John Francis, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean
Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge, 1974
Guilmartin, John, “The Tactics of the Battle of Lepanto Clarified” at
http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmartin.com
Güleryüz, Ahmet, Kadýrgadan Kalyona Osmanhda Yelken, Istanbul, 2004
Haëdo, Diego de, Histoire des Rois d’Alger, trans. H. de Grammont, Saint-Denis, 1998
Haji Khalifeh, The History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks, trans. James Mitchell, London, 1831
Hammer-Purgstall, J., Histoire de L’Empire Ottoman, vols. 4–6, Paris, 1836
Heers, Jacques, The Barbary Corsairs: Warfare in the Mediterranean, 1480–1580, London, 2003
Hess, Andrew, “The Battle of Lepanto and Its Place in Mediterranean History” Past and Present 57,
Oxford, 1972
Hess, Andrew, “The Evolution of the Ottoman Seaborne Empire in the Age of Oceanic Discoveries,
1453–1525” American Historical Review 75, no. 7 (December 1970)
Hess, Andrew, The Forgotten Frontier: A History of the Sixteenth Century Ibero-African
Frontier, Chicago, 1978
Hess, Andrew, “The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt (1517) and the Beginning of the Sixteenth-Century
World War” International Journal of Middle East Studies 4 (1973)
Hill, Sir George, A History of Cyprus, volume III: The Frankish period, 1432–1571, Cambridge,
1972
Housley, Norman, The Later Crusades 1274–1571, Oxford, 1992
Imber, Colin, “The Navy of Süleyman the Magnificent” in Archivum Ottomanicum, VI (1980)
Imber, Colin, The Ottoman Empire: The Structure of Power, Basingstoke, 2002
Inalcik, Halil, “Lepanto in the Ottoman Documents” in Benzoni
Inalcik, Halil, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600, London, 1973
Inalc1k, Halil, and Camal Kafadar, Süleymân the Second and His Time, Istanbul, 1993
Islam Ansiklopedisi, 28 vols., Istanbul, 1988
Jurien de La Gravière, Jean Pierre, Doria et Barberousse, Paris, 1886
Jurien de La Gravière, Jean Pierre, La Guerre de Chypre et la Bataille de Lépante, 2 vols., Paris,
1888
Jurien de La Gravière, Jean Pierre, Les Chevaliers de Malte et la Marine de Philippe II, 2 vols.,
Paris, 1887
Kamen, Henry, Philip of Spain, London, 1997
Kâtip Çelebi, The History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks, trans. J. Mitchell, London, 1831
Kunt, Metin, and Christine Woodhead, eds., Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age, Harlow, 1995
Lane, Frederic C., Venice: A Maritime Republic, Baltimore, 1973
Lesure, M., Lépante, la Crise de L’Empire Ottoman, Paris, 1972
Longworth, Philip, The Rise and Fall of Venice, London, 1974
López de Gómara, Francisco, Cronica de los Barbarrojas, in Memorial Historico Español:
Colección de Documentos, Opusculos y Antiguedades, vol. 6, Madrid, 1853
Luttrell, Anthony, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and Their Mediterranean World, Aldershot, 1992
Lynch, John, Spain Under the Hapsburgs, vol 1: Empire and Absolutism 1516–1598, Oxford, 1964
Mallett, M. E., and Hale, J. R., The Military Organization of a Renaissance State: Venice, c. 1400
to 1617, Cambridge, 1984
Mallia-Milanes, Victor, Venice and Hospitaller Malta, 1530–1798: Aspects of a Relationship,
Malta 1992
Mantran, Robert, “L’écho de la bataille de Lépante a Constantinople” in Benzoni
Maurand, Jérome, Itinéraire de J. Maurand d’Antibes à Constantinople (1544), Paris, 1901
Merriman, Roger Bigelow, The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New, vols.
3 and 4, New York, 1962
Merriman, Roger Bigelow, Suleiman the Magnificent, 1520–1566, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1944
Morris, Jan, The Venetian Empire: A Sea Voyage, London, 1980
Mulgan, Catherine, The Renaissance Monarchies, 1469–1558, Cambridge, 1998
Necipoglu, Gülru, “Ottoman-Hapsburg-Papal Rivalry” in Süleyman I and His Time, ed. Halil
Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar, Istanbul, 1993
Norwich, John Julius, A History of Venice, London, 1982
Parker, Geoffrey, The Grand Strategy of Philip II, London, 1998
Parker, Geoffrey, Philip II, London, 1979
Pastor, Louis, Histoire des Papes, vols. 17–18, Paris, 1935
Peçevi, Ibrahim, Peçevi Tarihi, vol. 1, Ankara, 1981
Petit, Edouard, André Doria: un amiral condottiere au XVIe siècle (1466–1560), Paris, 1887
Petrie, Sir Charles, Don Juan of Austria, London, 1967
Phillips, Carla Rahn, “Navies and the Mediterranean in the Early Modern Period” in Naval Policy
and Strategy in the Mediterranean: Past, Present, and Future, ed. John B. Hattendorf, London,
2000
Piri Reis, Kitab-1 bahriye, vols. 1 and 2, ed. Ertugrul Zekai Ökte, Ankara, 1988
Porter, Whitworth, The Knights of Malta, 2 vols., London, 1883
Prescott, W. H., History of the Reign of Philip the Second, King of Spain, 3 vols., Boston, 1855–58
Pryor, John H., Geography, Technology, and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the
Mediterranean, 649–1571, Cambridge, 1988
Rosell, Cayetano, Historia del Combate Naval de Lepanto, Madrid, 1853
Rossi, E., Assedio e Conquista di Rodi nel 1522 secondo le relazioni edite e inedite de Turchi,
Rome, 1927
Sandoval, Fray Prudencio de, Historia de la Vida y Hechos del Emperador Carlos V, vols. 2–4,
Madrid, 1956
Scetti, Aurelio, The Journal of Aurelio Scetti: A Florentine Galley Slave at Lepanto (1565–1577),
trans. Luigi Monga, Tempe, Arizona, 2004
Setton, Kenneth M., The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571, vols. 2–4, Philadelphia, 1984
Seyyd Murad, La Vita e la Storia di Ariadeno Barbarossa, ed. G. Bonaffini, Palermo, 1993
Shaw, Stanford, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1976
Sire, H.J.A., The Knights of Malta, London, 1994
Soucek, Svat, Piri Reis and Turkish Mapmaking After Columbus: The Khalili Portolan Atlas,
London, 1996
Soucek, Svat, “The Rise of the Barbarossas in North Africa” in Archivum Ottomanicum 3, 1971
Spiteri, Stephen C., The Great Siege: Knights vs. Turks MDLXV—Anatomy of a Hospitaller
Victory, Malta, 2005
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir William, Don John of Austria, vol. 1, London, 1883
Testa, Carmel, Romegas, Malta, 2002
Thubron, Colin, The Seafarers: Venetians, London, 2004
Tracy, James D., Emperor Charles V, Impresario of War, Cambridge, 2002
Turan, erafettin, “Lala Mustafa Pa a hakkinda notlar” Beletin 22, 1958
Uzunçar ili, Ismail Hakkı, Osmanlı Tarihi, Vols. 2 and 3, Ankara, 1988
Vargas-Hidalgo, Rafael, Guerra y diplomacia en el Mediterraneo: Correspondencia inédita de
Felipe II con Andrea Doria y Juan Andrea Doria, Madrid, 2002
Yildirim, Onur, “The Battle of Lepanto and Its Impact on Ottoman History and Historiography” in
Mediterraneo in Armi, ed. R. Cancila, Palermo, 2007
Zanon, Luigi Gigio, La Galea Veneziana, Venice, 2004
Have fun checking all of that, let us know when you finish 😉
Also, regarding your usage of the word “blag”:
Semeru says
Angemon is claiming he posted a link, that is true, but he fails to mention that I had posted just informed the forum about the article. It is very unlikely he would not have found the link with using what I had previously quoted
Journal of the Malta Historical Society.
[p.193] Psychological and Medical Aspects of the Siege of 1565 [Part II]
P. Cassar
Lecture delivered to the Malta Branch of the British Medical Association on the 23rd October, 1952
Giving this much information is as good as giving a link.
So your claim of giving a link is rather pathetic considering that I uncovered the article
All I am asking for is you to give a link to anything that can support Crowleys quote, or the BMA,s (British Medical Association) quote
Stop your blagging by cut and pasting more than 3 pages of bibliography (blag)
#1 Now you have chided me for posting an online link to Crowley,s book, but I notice you use the link so as to cut and paste his bibliography
#2 I have seriously searched for anything relating to pigs fat on bullets used in the siege, I have gone so far as to do searches in Italian, Spanish and Turkish, and all I uncovered was the BMA article, which, in honesty I posted here, even though it undermined my argument.
#3 Something you fail to notice,is that most of what anti jihadi,s write concerning is bullshit (blag) and can be easily debunked. But the BMA article is much harder to be trashed, it would even be much more difficult if there was a reference that goes back to the 16th century.
#4 Blag = a form of bullshit.
#5 You are not able to find a source other than the one I uncovered, and you are a so called dedicated anti jihadi. You have not been able prove that pigs fat was used. It is you that doesn’t know a thing.
Angemon says
The hilariously butthurt man-child semeru posted:
“Angemon is claiming he posted a link, that is true, but he fails to mention that I had posted just informed the forum about the article.”
Ugh, that grammar *shudder*.
Anyway, look at what i posted earlier:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056518
“Fact is, what Semeru just posted actually STRENGTHENS my points while pulverizing Semeru’s points.”
Again, semeru is caught lying.
“It is very unlikely he would not have found the link with using what I had previously quoted”
Once again, assumptions, assumptions. You also assured us that Crowley “most probably” used that BMA lecture as source, and we all know how that turned out…
“All I am asking for is you to give a link to anything that can support Crowleys quote, or the BMA,s (British Medical Association) quote”
All i’m asking you is to give any evidence to why Crowley’s work or the BMA lecture aren’t reliable. I’ve asked you that at least 3 times, and i still got no answer from you.
“Stop your blagging by cut and pasting more than 3 pages of bibliography (blag)”
Lol @ semeru, trying to pretend that by “blag” he meant “3 pages of bibiography” when he accused of of posting “blag” even when i didn’t post the bibliography. In fact, the first time he accused me of posting “blag” he was replying to this:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1057825
Nope, no bibliography in there. Anyway, i posted the bibliography because semeru asked for Crowley’s sources, so it’s completely relevant. HAve you checked all of Crowley’s sources yet?
“#1 Now you have chided me for posting an online link to Crowley,s book, but I notice you use the link so as to cut and paste his bibliography”
What part of “I own Crowley’s book” you have yet to understand? Once again, semeru tries to play the false morality card, trying to pretend that posting Crowley’s bibliography is the same as posting a link to get Crowley’s book for free.
“#2 I have seriously searched for anything relating to pigs fat on bullets used in the siege, I have gone so far as to do searches in Italian, Spanish and Turkish, and all I uncovered was the BMA article, which, in honesty I posted here, even though it undermined my argument.”
Do you want a medal or something? I just want to point out that once again, semeru tries to re-write history: he mentioned the BMA lecture when he *thought* it was evidence of Crowley being wrong. In fact, he told us that Crowley “most probably” used it and tried to discredit it.
“#3 Something you fail to notice,is that most of what anti jihadi,s write concerning is bullshit (blag) and can be easily debunked. But the BMA article is much harder to be trashed, it would even be much more difficult if there was a reference that goes back to the 16th century.”
And yet, you haven’t debunked the usage of fat covered bullets on the Siege of Malta…
“#4 Blag = a form of bullshit.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blag
Notice that semeru ASKED for Crowley’s sources, but he referrers to his bibliography as “blag” which, according to him, is “a form of bullshit”. So he got what he asked for and he now claims it’s “bullshit”.
“#5 You are not able to find a source other than the one I uncovered, and you are a so called dedicated anti jihadi. You have not been able prove that pigs fat was used. It is you that doesn’t know a thing.”
Notice how semeru reverts to petty personal attacks. *I* was the one first mentioning the use of fat smeared bullets. In fact, semeru had no idea what i was talking about, he went as far as making an ignorant comment regarding “pig fat exploding on impact” and even tried to convince everyone that i was mistaking bullets with barrel hoops. As of now, the usage of fat smeared bullets has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt (and semeru was the only one doubting it in the first place), despite semeru’s attempts to discredit crowley (he just admitted that his attempts to do so undermined his argument ). And yet, here he is, saying i know nothing. He goes as far as to linking knowledge of a historical fact (a fact *I* pointed out, not him) with being a anti-jihadi. That would only make sense if what he’s engaging on (trying to pretend that fat-smeared bullets weren’t used) was jihad. And if he considers that jihad, then what else does he consider as jihad? Were the lies he posted before considered jihad too? Does he consider jihad picking an argument with an anti-jihadi, regardless of the outcome? But more importantly, can a non-muslim engage in jihad? No, that off-the-hand comment was an important nugget of information that demands for a different view on everything semeru did and said so far.
Anyway, all this just shows how intellectually bankrupt he is. His argument shifted from “you have no evidence fat smeared bullets were used” to “if we take Crowley and that BMA lecture you have no evidence that fat smeared bullets were used even though you’re a so called dedicated anti-jihadi”. What we have here is a textbook case of a logical fallacy called confirmation bias, a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. We had semeru stating he *personally* doesn’t believe that fat smeared bullets were used, and he has to disregard all evidence presented so far to keep assuring himself he’s right. No, despite semeru’s ramblings, there’s enough evidence attesting to the usage of fat-smeared bullets.
Also, don’t forget what i asked you: have you checked all of Crowley’s info, even his non-digital sources? You’re the one making the claim that fat smeared bullets weren’t used so burden of proof is upon you.
Angemon says
Just to sum up what happened so far: I mentioned the use of fat smeared bullets in the siege of Malta, semeru didn’t believe that, (supposedly) scoured the web searching for info, and he’s still saying fat smeared bullets weren’t used despite having two unrelated sources attesting to it.
Semeru says
#1 Angemon, quotes Crowley that fat was used. and implied that pig fat was used,
#2 Angemon was clueless about the BMA article that mentions lard, until after I had informed him and the forum about it.
Angemon then tries to imply that I do not know what lard is, after the fact that it was me that brought the term lard into the debate.
Anyway, as it stands, Angemon assumes that fat was used based on citations written 400 years after the event.
Angemon still cannot give any reference with a link except the two that have already.
Posting 3 pages. twice of a bibleology which only about a third relates to the siege, doesn’t prove a damned that except you are not able to find a reliable source concerning the use of pigs fat.
In Crowleys book he acknowledges Dr Stephen Spiteri twice who wrote the book Arms and Armour during the Great Siege
Gave a lecture just recently, he said this
This new weapon had the advantage that it shortened the time needed to train people to fight, but the weapons were still in the first process of development and could not be used efficiently. To fire a rifle (or arquebuss as it was known) was a time-wasting process, as Dr Spiteri demonstrated when he showed the audience a clip from YouTube, which shows that the whole process of firing one shot took some two minutes. That was why the soldier who fired then had to be protected by two pikemen while he reloaded and repeated the procedure.
You can hear it at this link
http://campusfm.um.edu.mt/Convertedaudio/lectures12/lect5.wma
Nothing about lard
So how about a citation and link
Angemon says
The ever hilariously butthurt man-child Semeru posted:
“#1 Angemon, quotes Crowley that fat was used. and implied that pig fat was used,”
That just proves that *I read* Crowley (as opposed to to semeru, who had never heard of fat smeared bullets until I mentioned it) and know european history and conventions (unlike semeru, who gave us comedy gold in “exploding pig fat” form).
“#2 Angemon was clueless about the BMA article that mentions lard, until after I had informed him and the forum about it.”
Notice that this contradicts what he said before:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1058292
“It is very unlikely he would not have found the link with using what I had previously quoted”
Very unlikely, being 100% sure… all the same for semeru. In any case, it’s irrelevant. He’s the one doubting Crowley’s account and the link i provided for the BMA lecture in no way contradicts Crowley’s work, despite what semeru tried to argue.
“Angemon then tries to imply that I do not know what lard is, after the fact that it was me that brought the term lard into the debate.”
Just because you bring something up it doesn’t mean you know what it means. Case in point: “blag”, which, according to you, means “a form of bullshit“, and yet, it has a completely different accepted definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blag
It’s not that I tried to imply you don’t know what lard is, it’s just that I wanted to make sure we both meant the same thing when using the word “lard”. Anyway, that was a couple of days ago, why are you bringing that up now? Oh, wait, petty personal attacks because you have no arguments to deny the use of fat smeared bullets.
“Anyway, as it stands, Angemon assumes that fat was used based on citations written 400 years after the event.”
Lol, semeru tries to sneak in a big, fat lie. I don’t “assume” anything. There are two unrelated accounts attesting to the use of fat smeared bullets by the defenders. As for having being written 400 years later, that’s no proof that they’re incorrect. In fact, nowadays it’s much easier to consult and check various sources of information than it was 400 years ago. That means that Crowley had the chance to check sources and references unavailable for an historian who lived 400 years ago.
“Angemon still cannot give any reference with a link except the two that have already.”
Look at that. Semeru is stating i can’t give any reference except the two I gave. Remember when i said semeru was engaging in a logical fallacy called confirmation bias, which is a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs? Well, he’s doing it again. Anyway, semeru can’t give any evidence to debunk those two references, thus making further references unneeded. He said so himself, not believing is a personal choice of him. Why he keeps coming up with the most convoluted and asinine ways to try to shovel his personal belief down everyone else’s throats is beyond me.
“Posting 3 pages. twice of a bibleology which only about a third relates to the siege, doesn’t prove a damned that”
it proves that you’re unable to dismiss Crowley’s account on the basis of his bibliography. 4 pages, not 3, so even if only a third directly mentions the siege of malta by name then it’s still over one page worth of sources which you have yet to consult.
“except you are not able to find a reliable source concerning the use of pigs fat.”
Except for the two sources you acknowledged i gave and you have yet to prove as unreliable, and it’s not for lack of trying.
“In Crowleys book he acknowledges Dr Stephen Spiteri twice who wrote the book Arms and Armour during the Great Siege”
LOL! There’s no book by Spiteri called “Arms and Armour during the Great Siege”! A simple google search would have revealed that. But semeru couldn’t even be bothered to do that. He clearly has no idea what he’s talking about, he’s probably just copy/pasting from some website containing erroneous information and that should be enough to dismiss anything else coming from him.
Let me repeat that: semeru is trying to present Spiteri as an authoritative figure and yet he can’t even get the name of one of his books right. Does that sound like someone who know what he’s talking about?
“Gave a lecture just recently, he said this
This new weapon had the advantage that it shortened the time needed to train people to fight, but the weapons were still in the first process of development and could not be used efficiently. To fire a rifle (or arquebuss as it was known) was a time-wasting process, as Dr Spiteri demonstrated when he showed the audience a clip from YouTube, which shows that the whole process of firing one shot took some two minutes. That was why the soldier who fired then had to be protected by two pikemen while he reloaded and repeated the procedure.
You can hear it at this link
http://campusfm.um.edu.mt/Convertedaudio/lectures12/lect5.wma
Nothing about lard”
Congratulations, you just proved that Spiteri didn’t specifically mention fat smeared bullets (more on that later) on a lecture that’s not part of Crowley’s bibliography! It tell us nothing about Crowley’s sources. Now, for those who *actually* listened to the lecture, the title of the lecture was “The arms and armour of the siege”. Listen for yourself semeru, it’s around six seconds into the lecture. Six seconds. Despite telling us to listen to the lecture, Semeru couldn’t be bothered to listen to 6 seconds of it or use google to check the books by Spiteri. The title is similar to what semeru claimed to be the title of Spiteri’s books (Arms and Armour during the Great Siege), but that’s it. So semeru tells us to listen to the lecture but he doesn’t do what he preaches. Hilarity ensues.
Also, did Spiteri really say “”as Dr Spiteri demonstrated when he showed the audience a clip from YouTube“? Did he really referred to himself using the 3rd person during the lecture, and described what he was doing to the audience watching his presentation? Or are you just copy/pasting the abridged version of the contents of the lecture from the same place you copied the non-existent book by Spiteri? Because the idea i have is that you never heard the lecture. During the lecture, there’s one occasion where Spiteri makes it clear he’s not going to get into details because of time constrains, so he just gives the overall description of the weapons and armour used during the siege. Also, there seems to be no mention of the use of fire hoops. If you want to be consistent then you have to doubt that fire hoops existed or were used during the siege, even though you had this to say about them before:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1055915
“There only came one hit for bullets covered in fat, yet scores[of google results] for fire hoops one of the hit was a book I read a few years back.”
Now, remember when i said that all semeru proved was that Spiteri didn’t specifically mentioned fat smeared bullets? Around the 01:01:20 mark Spiteri says “a lot of use is made of incendiary devices”. That’s all the detail Spiteri gives regarding incendiary devices. Fat smeared bullets *were* an incendiary device, so semeru is wrong in assuming that Spiteri doesn’t mention them. For all we know they’re included in the “incendiary devices” he mentions. Semeru gave us no reason to think otherwise. But that’s what happens when he doesn’t check his own sources. LMFAO
Another thing to notice is that semeru doesn’t give us the date of the lecture, he just says “recently”. How convenient for him, that said lecture took place “recently”. Thing is, the title of the lecture was “The arms and armor of the siege” (not “Arms and Armour during the Great Siege”), and Spiteri had a 2003 book about the weapons and armor of the knights of Saint John:
http://www.amazon.com/Armoury-Knights-Collection-Storehouses-Hospitaller/dp/9993239453/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400090602&sr=1-1
That book (whose title it not “Arms and Armour during the Great Siege” but “Armoury of the Knights: A Study of the Palace Armoury, Its Collection, and the Military Storehouses of the Hospitaller Knights of the Order of St. John”) is alluded to around the 0:01:45 mark, when Spiteri is introduced and presented as an expert on fortifications and armor (for the record, he has two books about fortifications, one published in 1988 and another published in 2001). So, we can assume the lecture was given somewhere after 2003. We don’t know what semeru’s definition of “recently ” is. While it doesn’t really affect the irrelevance of the lecture to the subject at hand (like i said, all semeru proved is that Spiteri didn’t specifically mention fat smeared bullets on a lecture that’s not a part of Crowley’s bibliography), it would allow us to gauge the accuracy of semeru’s assumptions. So, when did that lecture took place? And did you listen to it at all? Because not only you mess up the title of the lecture (which is only six seconds in, FFS) you also confuse it with the title of Spiteri’s book.
“So how about a citation and link”
Besides the two unrelated sources attesting to the use of fat smeared bullets as an incendiary device you have yet to discredit? BTW, from which website did you get the wrong info about Spiteri’s book title and what was mentioned in the lecture? Because i’m willing to bet money that somewhere in whatever misinformed website you copied the erroneous info from there’s a date and time, and i’m willing to bet more money that we’d see that the lecture didn’t take place “recently”, which would mean you lied, once again. So, are you going to cough up the website or do i have to look it up myself?
Semeru says
The link you asked for
http://goo.gl/jJS8Av
As you can see there is no date visible, but I have notice that there is a date in the URL, something which is easily over looked.
You keep on about you have posted a link, but you had only posted the link to an article that I had found and posted here
And how about a citation and link to prove that pigs fat was used.
No matter how much you try discredit me, I was able to find and article concerning pigs, I was even honest enough to even post the results of my search even though it is damaging to my argument
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1056208
You have posted masses here trying to discredit me, but you have not been able to post anything to prove that pig fat was used. Yes you posted a link, but the link was to the article I had posted.
You have not been able to provide this forum with a citation and a link resulting from your research, that if you have done any research of your own.
Is it was difficult for you to give a another citation
So far You have given a citation from Crowley, it did not mention lard, it only mentioned fat. You left it to others to guess it was fat, you still have not given a citation confirming lard was used. Where as I did post a citation saying that lard was used,
For serious readers, a citation from an article from BMA (British Medical Association) written in 1955 carries far more weight than a citation from a book published 2008. What would carry even more weight is a citation from the 1600th century
Any way, your original post only mentioned fat, after a lot of blagging you have not given one single citation that mentions pig fat, pork fat or lard, excerpt when you re-quoted the citation I had posted earlier.
Now why don’t you try and out do me by finding a citation that dates further back than the BMA article I posted.
I say it doesn’t exist, bet you cannot prove me wrong
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
“The link you asked for
http://goo.gl/jJS8Av
As you can see there is no date visible, but I have notice that there is a date in the URL, something which is easily over looked.”
LOL! No visible date, he says. Here’s the first line from the article:
“5 years ago – Sunday, 01 March 2009, 00:00 , by NOEL GRIMA”
5 years ago – Sunday, 01 March 2009. That doesn’t sound “just recently” to me. 2009 is in “last decade” territory. But, according to semeru, “oh, there’s no visible date, except for the URL”. What a bald-faced lie. Not only he failed to check the source he tried to pass as authoritative, he tried to lie by telling the lecture took place “just recently”. Even if we believe semeru’s lame-ass excuse of “the date is only in the URL, which is easily overlooked” – and the date IS THE VERY FIRST THING stated on the article – then he still lied to us because he assured us the lecture took place “just recently” when he had no idea of when it took place.
“You keep on about you have posted a link, but you had only posted the link to an article that I had found and posted here”
And? *I* posted he link, didn’t I?
“And how about a citation and link to prove that pigs fat was used.”
You mean, like the link you just acknowledged i posted?
“No matter how much you try discredit me”
Here’s what semeru is trying to describe as me “trying to discredit” him: it’s me pointing his lies, fallacies and exposing his arguments for the fraud they are. But like any good mohammean, semeru must ALWAYS place the blame on anyone but him. To him, the issue is not that he’s been caught lying, misrepresenting info and being unable to make and prove a point, the issue is me, because i “try to discredit” him by pointing out his wrongdoings. If i were to shut up and take the BS he’s trying to shove down my throat then everything would be fine. Oh, why must i always point out when he lies or tries to pass erroneous info? Why? WHY?!?!?!?!?!
“I was able to find and article concerning pigs, I was even honest enough to even post the results of my search even though it is damaging to my argument”
And there goes semeru flapping around. Notice that his argument from the start is that fat smeared bullets weren’t used. So what’s damaging to his argument? Well, evidence that fat smeared bullets were in fact used. So we have him here saying he posted a result of a search that is damaging to his argument , meaning that it attests to the use of fat smeared bullets. And yet, semeru refuses to acknowledge its use. Just to add to that, *I* was the one who argued that the article was damaging to semeru’s arguments (and in a successful way, since even semeru acknowledges that). When he quoted from the article he tried to argue that the mention of fat smeared bullets didn’t link back to Bosil and was, therefore, unreliable. It’s not, like he falsely tries to claim, that he posted something that was damaging to his argument, it’s that he posted something he believed would be beneficial to his argument and it turned out to be damaging to his argument. He was not being honest then just like he’s not being honest now.
“You have posted masses here trying to discredit me, but you have not been able to post anything to prove that pig fat was used. Yes you posted a link, but the link was to the article I had posted.”
More repetition. This points were addressed earlier in my post.
“You have not been able to provide this forum with a citation and a link resulting from your research, that if you have done any research of your own.”
Notice that semeru is trying to move the goalposts. He’s trying to make the argument about me rather than about what he claimed. Fact is, not only he’s trying to move away from the use or not of fat smeared bullets to discussing my sources, he´s also assuming everything i know can be tracked back to an online source, which is, well, false. He’s trying to make it seem that i knew nothing about the issue at hand. Well, if i knew nothing then it must have been my lucky day because what i said turned out to be quite true, despite semeru’s attempts to disprove it. Think about it. Semeru is not trying to argue whether what i said was true or not, but if i made any research before posting about the use of fat smeared bullets. It’s a desperate and pathetic last-ditch personal attack irrelevant to the issue at hand, and it’s coming from the person whining about “attempts to discredit him”. What a hypocrite.
“Is it was difficult for you to give a another citation
So far You have given a citation from Crowley, it did not mention lard, it only mentioned fat. You left it to others to guess it was fat, you still have not given a citation confirming lard was used. Where as I did post a citation saying that lard was used,”
LOL! Semeru is rehashing his old material again, expecting to get a different response! Seriously, look at him:
“ You have given a citation from Crowley, it did not mention lard, it only mentioned fat. You left it to others to guess it was fat
So first I give a citation mentioning fat, then i leave others to guess it was fat. LMFAO!
Anyway, anyone who read Crowley’s Empires of the Sea knows that on several occasions he mentions bits of info by saying “according to legend”. For example, “according to legend, Maria the dancer was one of the first across“. So, Crowley’s actually debunking stories that are not true – or at least identifying them as something that can’t be verified. Now, did he said “according to the legend defenders smeared fat on bullets”? No he didn’t! His exact words are “The defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat; as the bullets hit their victims, they also set the Turks’ robes alight.“. Notice that nowhere in there says “according to legend”, so there’s enough evidence to convince Crowley fat smeared bullets were in fact used. Also notice: “The defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat“. It’s not something that the defenders did before the siege, Crowley’s words make very clear: it was something that they started to do as the siege went on. It was NOT part of standard warfare since it would be useless against european soldiers clad in metal armour, it was clearly something the Knights of Saint John came up with during the 1565 siege and only possible because of the clothing used by the turks.
“For serious readers, a citation from an article from BMA (British Medical Association) written in 1955 carries far more weight than a citation from a book published 2008.”
Really? Why is that? Hmmm, seems like semeru is still trying to discredit Crowley’s work not based on its merit or bibliography but on unrelated issues. Notice that he’s going by inverse logic: the older the reference, the more trustworthy it is, even though, like i stated before, the more recent a publication is the more likely it is to access to sources not available to older publications. Go and compare Crowley’s bibliography with the BMA’s bibliography, then tell me which is larger. Also notice that what semeru is saying is that the 1952 BMA lecture talking about lard is MORE reliable than Crowley’s 2008 book. And he says on the context of trying to argue that lard wasn’t used. LMFAO! We have semeru trying to make the argument that “there was no evidence lard was used, Crowley only mentions fat” only to say “the source mentioning lard carries far more weight than the source mentioning fat”! LMFAO! Talk about shooting himself on the foot… again!
“What would carry even more weight is a citation from the 1600th century”
1600th century?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I’m laughing so hard my sides are hurting!!!
Anyway, the inverse is true: semeru can’t give us a 16th century source saying that far smeared bullets weren’t used and the burden of proof is on him, not me. That’s the reason he’s been trying really, really hard to discredit Crowley. I say, let him keep trying! Not only i’ll be here to expose his fabrications, but also seeing someone falling flat on their face is absolutely hilarious. “Lard wasn’t used but the source mentioning lard is better than the source mentioning fat”. LMFAO!!!!!
“Any way, your original post only mentioned fat, after a lot of blagging you have not given one single citation that mentions pig fat, pork fat or lard, excerpt when you re-quoted the citation I had posted earlier.”
Notice that what he tries to pass as “blagging” (and i already proved it doesn’t mean what he thinks it means) is me debunking his arguments and exposing his lies. He has yet to prove that fat smeared bullets weren’t used. In fact, he even *acknowledged* the opposite. Another thing he casually tries to pass as “blag” is that he tried to present a lecture by Spiteri as being proof that fat smeared bullets weren’t used, but i called him out on several errors. For starters, semeru couldn’t even get the title of one of Spiteri’s books right. This shows how much effort he places on his “research”. Like i correctly guessed, he was copy/pasting from a website and, in fact, had no idea what the lecture said. For all we know, when Spiteri mentioned “incendiary devices” he included fat smeared bullets. Semeru just assumes there’s no mention of it because the abridged version he copied text from didn’t mention it. Not only he blundered that one, he also lied when he said that the lecture took place “just recently”. The first words in the article he copied erroneous info from are “5 years ago – Sunday, 01 March 2009”. It’s the very first thing one sees when reading the article, “5 years ago – Sunday, 01 March 2009“. The very first thing. But, according to semeru, there was no mention of date anywhere in the article, although there was in the URL and somehow he “overlook it” – that is, until he was asked about it. More lies. It doesn’t matter if he “overlooked” the very first thing the article said – the date – or if he “overlooked” the URL – just until he was asked about it, when he suddenly noticed it. He assured us that the lecture took place “just recently”, even though he supposedly didn’t knew the date of the lecture. There’s a lot of BS going on, all emanating from semeru, who once again was caught lying. In fact, that’s probably the reason he never assumes anything said here to be true – he lies so easily and so often that he assumes everyone else does the same.
You know what? It makes more sense that by “blag” semeru means “things that debunk my points and therefore are best left out”. The date in the article? It debunks his “the lecture took place just recently” statement so it’s blag – it debunks his point and therefore it was best left out. What a lying sack of lying crap semeru is turning out to be (although surprising no one). “No visible date” my ass.
In any case, look at the stunt the little weasel is trying to pull. He’s trying to change the issue from what i said being right to me not providing a source in my first mention of fat smeared bullets, which is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of my statement. I stand by what i said and what i said still stands, despite semeru’s barrage of lies and disinformation.
“Now why don’t you try and out do me by finding a citation that dates further back than the BMA article I posted.
I say it doesn’t exist, bet you cannot prove me wrong”
“Try and out do you”? Kid, i’ve done nothing but outdone you in this topic. I gave you a real event similar to Pershing’s use of blood smeared bullets, i debunked all your petty lies and fabrications to the point where something you posted to try to prove fat smeared bullets weren’t used ended up attesting to its use (and you acknowledged it), i’ve nipped your attempts to move the goalposts in the bud and i’ve been exposing you as the pathetic little liar you are. So, if we have you acknowledging to fat smeared bullets being used why are you still flapping around trying to make the opposite case? Either give us a source good enough to discredit Crowley and the BMA or stop before you make yourself look even more pathetic (which, by this point, would require a LOT of effort, certainly more than the effort you placed researching Spiteri’s lecture). Think about it, you’re trying to prove that what you acknowledge to have existed didn’t exist. Where’s the logic in that?
Also, i’m starting to doubt you even googled “bullets covered in fat”. You had this to say:
“I have read quite a few accounts which came up on a google search for bullets covered in fat, fire hoops, siege of malta
There only came one hit for bullets covered in fat”
You should have got more than one hit for “bullets covered in fat”, since there are several forums discussing fat as lubricant in weapons. Also, this:
http://nypost.com/2013/06/24/ammo-firm-markets-pork-covered-bullets-to-kill-islamic-terrorists-and-send-them-straight-to-hell/
Angemon says
Also, notice that the 2009 article semeru mentions actually *proves* what i said about more recent history books being more likely to have access to information unknown to previous historians.
The title of the article is “Unknown Details about the Great Siege found in notarial archives”
An excerpt from the article:
“Historians delving through the notarial archives have discovered details hitherto unknown about the mostly Maltese side of the Great Siege, it was revealed last week.”
If Crowley had published his book after 2009 then he’d been able to use those previously unknown details. And yet, semeru is trying to convince us that the older the account, the better. Lol.
Semeru says
AND STILL NO CITATION OR LINK FROM ANGEMON CONCERNING PIG FAT BEING USED, other than the BMA citation.
Yep we get long post after another about Semeru is a liar, blah blah blah.
Now why is this, is it to cover up that angemon or any other jihad watcher are not able to find any citation.
Angemon says
Semeru, being on the ropes, posted:
“AND STILL NO CITATION OR LINK FROM ANGEMON CONCERNING PIG FAT BEING USED, other than the BMA citation.”
And still semeru gives no reason to doubt the BMA or the use of fat smeared bullets. Did anyone else enjoyed the little touch? I’m talking about Semeru putting “Angemon doesn’t give us a link or citation” part in caps and the “except for the ones he gave” bit in lowercase. Seriously, i chuckled.
“Yep we get long post after another about Semeru is a liar, blah blah blah.”
Notice the stunt the little rat is trying to pull. It’s not that I keep making long post after long post calling him a lair (and if he thinks those posts were “long” i suggest him to stay the hell away from War and Piece), it’s that i address the points/comments he makes AND i point out when he purposely makes false statements – a.k.a., lies. For example, if he posts a link and says “there’s no date in the article” and the first thing in the article is the date then i can say he purposely made a false statement – he *lied*. Or if he says that i make long post after long post calling him a liar, i can tell he’s purposely making another false statement – he’s lying, again. But i guess it’s easier for him to pretend all i do is to call him a liar that it is to reply to what i *actually* say. It seems everything he tries to pass as evidence for his case ends up strengthening my case, lol!
“Now why is this, is it to cover up that angemon or any other jihad watcher are not able to find any citation.”
LMFAO! Notice what he said before:
“AND STILL NO CITATION OR LINK FROM ANGEMON CONCERNING PIG FAT BEING USED, other than the BMA citation
First i gave one citation, then neither me nor anyone else gave any statement at all… All the same for schizo semeru. So we have two contradicting statements from semeru, again. They’re mutually exclusive, which means one of them is a lie. Also notice i’ve asked him several times if he checked ALL of Crowley’s bibliography and if he has any new evidence discrediting Crowley and the BMA lecture. See, since he’s the one making the claim that fat smeared bullets weren’t used and since there’s evidence attesting to them being used, then logically, burden of evidence is upon him. However, in semeru’s bizarro world, he’s under the delusion that *I* am the one who needs to give more evidence, even though he can’t find anything wrong with all the evidence presented so far. It’s obvious by now that semeru is not susceptible to reason and he’s just repeating himself because he ran out of logicala rguments.
So, do you have any new evidence that discredits Crowley or the BMA lecture? Have you checked Crowley’s bibliography? Notice that some of the publications he mentions are NOT available online, so you better start looking for them in eBay or Amazon.
Angemon says
Damn Swiftkey auto-correct! It’s “War and Peace”, not “War and Piece”. LMFAO!!!
Lisa England says
Note the consistent, absolute foreign loyalty to their homelands.
He’s not an Islamic supremacist, though, of course, Robert, as you well know; he’s a Muslim speaking very typical, majority Muslim views.
Which begs the constantly-pondered question: Why in the name of fuck haven’t we mass deported these people yet?
dlbrand says
Lisa, you asked, “Which begs the constantly-pondered question: Why in the name of fuck haven’t we mass deported these people yet?”
Allow me to speak as the fool I am not (Satire alert!)
Lisa, have you forgotten??????
If we empower the Moderate, they will protect us from the “extremist.”
So we need them here, as we need them in Iraq, in Gaza, in Pakistan, in Nigeria, in Afghanistan, and around this globe, we need our Moderate Muslims as our friends, allies, protectors.
That, they (our elected officials and far too many of their supporters) state, is how we know we are winning this war. When they wave and smile at us–(never mind if they [“believers”] do so while they watch us walk into the death trap they have set for us …)
Why, you asked, because, in short, “we” are stuck on stupid, stuck on wishful thinking, gripping to our illusions of Islam and the adherents to it.
Jax Tolmen says
Has anyone else noticed that the ‘muslims’ commenting here on this site are all invariably incapable of writing English in a coherent matter. From this jack ass to ‘ibn Muslim’ and ‘Reza’ – none of them seem capable of constructing a proper sentience, or utilising correct punctuation.
I’m at a loss at to why; surely some of them live in English – dominated nations and thus should have studied it in the state schools that they get to attend. Whenever I read their comments, I always imagine some toothless, bearded dope screaming at his monitor and bashing his keyboard; spittle dribbling from his mouth as he curses the infidels for being smarter than he.
judi says
Because they are a bunch of illiterate morons.
Kepha says
Well, I have kin who speak and write a kind of messy English, too–foreign born, and from countries where English was at best a second language.
Know Thy Enemy says
@ Jax
It is because they spend far more time with the mullah at the madarasa than attending English classes! Result: F’ed in English yet no. 1 at jihad!
Will Doohan says
Yes, they definitely do not have ‘proper sentience’.
Geordie says
Will wrote: “Yes, they definitely do not have ‘proper sentience’.”
Very clever. They succumb to base instincts far too often and fail to empathise on a higher level.. Perhaps that is what happens when schooling consists of one magic book.
awake says
You know he is a liar. If not, then he is a time traveler. Simple historical chronology:
9/11 preceded Afghanistan which preceded Iraq. This moronic mohammedan is actually trying to use post-9/11 events to justify 9/11.
I’d say it is unbelievable, but then again, he is a mohammedan.
Myxlplik says
And that’s all I have to say about this..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/8544359/Hay-Festival-2011-Professor-risks-political-storm-over-Muslim-inbreeding.html
Jay Boo says
Credit where do
A special thanks goes out to our JW commenter (Brian H) for translating the original foreign language version into readable English.
Three cheers!
Salah says
“you r people who do sex fuck”?!
At least, *we* are ordinary people.
Now, let’s see what your “prophet” did with his daughter in law Zainab, with his maternal aunt Khaula or with his own daughter Fatima!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/02/muhammad-and-incest.html
Edward Cline says
yyyshahid: I think you need a crash course English composition. “in shallah”? Isn’t that one word, “inshallah”? Can you spell cat?
Nan says
Answer: C-a-t-e-i-e-i-o
alternate: d-o-g
Geordie says
Looks like Email: sniyaz835@gmail.com is a dyslexic chimp. Perhaps we are not all as evolved as first thought, BOAZ.
RG says
Ya know, all of you Bush-haters drive me nuts! Has anyone in America ever considered the fact that George Bush (2) was probably one of the finest (YES, I SAID “FINEST”) presidents since George Washington???
He put an end to Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror and drove a big hole in the strategy of Bin Laden!
And as for all of you imbeciles who still believe that Saddam didn’t have any WMD, let me assure you that the facts prove otherwise, not to mention, he had ample opportunities to MOVE his stockpiles of WMD into Syria when the UN inspectors got too close for comfort. WAKE UP!
DIVIDE AND CONQUER–the terrorists are very good at what they’re doing!!! We Americans don’t even know what side we’re on anymore!!!!!
Geordie says
RG wrote: “Ya know, all of you Bush-haters drive me nuts! Has anyone in America ever considered the fact that George Bush (2) was probably one of the finest (YES, I SAID “FINEST”) presidents since George Washington??? ”
As a British soldier I took part in the Liberation of Kuwait initiated by George Bush senior. I had great respect for him as a fellow warrior but none at all for his son. Bush two, poor sequel, only did the things you mention as a knee jerk reaction to 9/11. Worse still, he did it without proper planning and preparation which resulted in piss poor performance.
His lack or preparation basically gave Iraq to the fundamentalist muslims. Afghanistan much the same. With even a little thought, they could both have been valuable allies and FMA’s for defeating Iran.
dlbrand says
Well stated, Geordie.
Walter Sieruk says
Just how could the Muslim world consider Osama bin Laden a herio since he ,according so many Muslim scholars in America , acting as apologists for Islam, claimed that bin Laden wasn’t a real Muslim and that “he was just a hjacked the peaceful religion of Islam for politics.” Therefore, it needs to bre repeated just how could he then be a herio in the Islamic world if he wasn’t a true Muslim ? They need to get their story straight. For they made a real flip-flop then it comes to this subject.
Semeru says
Another two posts from angemon, seems he has great difficulty in supplying any citations, or references to pigs fat being used in the great siege.
After extensive searches using a great variety of keywords, there was only one result.
Due to the fact that I have only found one citation regarding lard/Siege of Malta, and angemon has not provided any reference or citation, then there hangs a big question mark as to whether pigs fat was used.
Angemon instead of posting a citation, posts a four page Bibliography, and then suggest ploying through all the books
No need because
All the quotations in the book are from primary and other sixteenth-century sources. References refer to the books from which the quotations have been taken, as listed in the bibliography.
Angemon, Crowleys book is in three parts, and the Siege of Malta is dealt with in part 2 EPICENTER: THE BATTLE FOR MALTA
In this part Crowley,s main sources are Francisco Balbi and Giacomo Bosio
And as I quoted before Balbi’s is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege (there is at least one other, in the form of a long poem by the knight Hipolito Sans), and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it
Francisco Balbi does not record the use of pigs fat on the bullets, now these strikes me as strange, because Balbi was an arquebusier who served with the Spanish contingent during the Siege of Malta.
If neither Balbi or Bosio record the use of lard, then this indicates that lard was not used.
There are one more dubious citation in his book
Having killed one Turk, they found a pig nearby and slaughtered it, then arranged the dead man at a convenient spot with the animal’s snout inserted into his mouth. Then they retired behind a wall. When fellow Muslims saw the body, they rushed forward with cries of horror and rage to rescue their fallen comrade from this final indignity—and were shot down.
Angemon says
Semeru posted, trying to rehash his debunked claims:
“Another two posts from angemon, seems he has great difficulty in supplying any citations, or references to pigs fat being used in the great siege.”
LMFAO! Schizo semeru can’t make up his mind. Sometimes he says i have to give MORE citations in addition to the existing ones, other times he says i gave no citation at all. Also notice that my second post is just me correcting a wrong word on my previous post. This, his constant rehashing of debunked material and his inability to answer my questions should be evidence enough that either semeru doesn’t bother to read what i write or he doesn’t comprehend it.
“After extensive searches using a great variety of keywords, there was only one result.
Due to the fact that I have only found one citation regarding lard/Siege of Malta, and angemon has not provided any reference or citation, then there hangs a big question mark as to whether pigs fat was used.”
Actually, that’s not how things work (and based on how he’s been acting until now, I seriously doubt he made “extensive searches using a great variety of keywords”). You don’t doubt things just because you don’t like the source. Is the source reliable? That’s the critical question that makes or breaks semeru’s case. Semeru can’t prove it isn’t so he’s changing his tactics and engaging in a logical fallacy called “argumentum ad populum”. Rather than presenting relevant material, he’s trying to make his case based on prejudice. “Oh, there’s only one source attesting to it therefore it’s unreliable”. There are no indications that the source mentioning lard is unreliable. In fact, schizo semeru attested to its reliability:
“http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1059182”
“For serious readers, a citation from an article from BMA (British Medical Association) written in 1955 carries far more weight than a citation from a book published 2008”
Also notice that schizo semeru is trying to shift the argument AGAIN. First he doubted that fat smeared bullets were used (because of exploding pig fat, lol!) and pretended that by “fat smeared bullets” i meant “barrel hoops doused in flammable substances”, then it was that i never posted a citation to prove they were used, and now he has issues with the fat used being pig fat, but not with fat smeared bullets being used. Three different cases he tried to make (and i probably left some out), three different times he fell on his face.
“Angemon instead of posting a citation, posts a four page Bibliography, and then suggest ploying through all the books”
Another strawman from schizo semeru. I suggested YOU checked Crowley’s bibliography because YOU are the one doubting Crowley’s work. And you have yet to provide any sort of evidence to makes doubt Crowley’s account. Thing is, not all of the works mentioned in Crowley’s bibliography can be found online, and semeru isn’t willing to do actual work to defend his case (like searching for a book in a library or bookstore), hence the precarious position he’s in:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1057616
“I personally doubt that fat was used”
To him, it’s a matter of personal belief. But rather than agreeing to disagree, he’s trying to shove his personal opinion down our throats. It’s not that I presented Crowley’s bibliography for the sake of it, like schizo semeru tries to claim, it’s that semeru ASSURED us that Crowley’s work was based on Balbi’s account. But that’s not the story the extensive bibliography tells us.
“All the quotations in the book are from primary and other sixteenth-century sources. References refer to the books from which the quotations have been taken, as listed in the bibliography.”
Notice that, once again, schizo semeru is shifting the argument. It’s no longer about lard being the fat used, it’s about Crowley’s sources. In any way, he’s confusing bibliography with source notes, which comes before it. The bibliography states which works Crowley used in making his book, the source notes state where from which of the works he used he’s taking his quotations from. For example, we have this in the epigraph:
“The inhabitants of the Maghreb have it on the authority of the book of predictions that the Muslims will make a successful attack against the Christians and conquer the lands of the European Christians beyond the sea. This, it is said, will take place by sea.
That is a quote from Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century arab historian. The source quote tells us from where that quotation came from – Brummet, page 89. But Brummet what? What’s the title of the book? When was it published? Here’s what Crowley says about the Source Notes section:
“All the quotations in the book are from primary and other sixteenth-century sources. References refer to the books from which the quotations have been taken, as listed in the bibliography.”
Notice that’s exactly what semeru posted, but he meant it in a different way (more on that). So the source notes section relies on the Bibliography for further info. Checking the bibliography we have:
Brummett, Palmira, Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of Discovery, Albany, 1994
That’s how the source quote is meant to be used. If Crowley states that someone said something he’ll post his source for the quote there, on the section aptly named “Source Notes”.
Now, notice at the stunt the weasel semeru is trying to pull. Remember when i told you he tried to use what Crowley said in a different way? He’s either too dumb to tell the difference between sources for the quotes and bibliography or he’s dumb enough to think we can’t. He’s trying to make the claim that Crowley only used Basio’s account because that’s one of the sources Crowley uses for quotes, even though he ADMITTED one third of Crowely’s bibliography is dedicated to the Siege of Malta. Don’t believe me? You don’t thing schizo semeru is that desperate/stupid? Look no further:
“In this part Crowley,s main sources are Francisco Balbi and Giacomo Bosio”
So, even though Balbi and Bosio and the main sources for quotes from people they’re not the main source for the chapters dedicated to the siege of Malta. In fact, this contradicts what schizo semeru tried to make us believe not long ago (that Spiteri was Crowley’s main source regarding the siege of Malta):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1058631
“In Crowleys book he acknowledges Dr Stephen Spiteri twice who wrote the book Arms and Armour during the Great Siege
Gave a lecture just recently, he said this
This new weapon had the advantage that it shortened the time needed to train people to fight, but the weapons were still in the first process of development and could not be used efficiently. To fire a rifle (or arquebuss as it was known) was a time-wasting process, as Dr Spiteri demonstrated when he showed the audience a clip from YouTube, which shows that the whole process of firing one shot took some two minutes. That was why the soldier who fired then had to be protected by two pikemen while he reloaded and repeated the procedure.
You can hear it at this link
http://campusfm.um.edu.mt/Convertedaudio/lectures12/lect5.wma
Nothing about lard
So, is Crowley quoting someone when he says that the defenders used fat-smeared bullets? Does using Balbi and Bosio as a source for quotations somehow negates that other sources attest to the use of fat smeared bullets? Does it somehow negates the part of Crowley’s bibliography dedicated to the Siege of Malta? No, no, and no. Like i said, it’s a sleight of hand, a piss-poor attempt to rehash old material. That’s right, if you had a deja-vu while reading schizo semeru’s latest work there’s a reason for it:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/we-r-going-to-over-power-u-soon-in-shallah/comment-page-1#comment-1055915
“Here’s the thing about Roger Crowley he based his novel on the writings of Ernle Bradford and Francisco Balbi”
That asinine claim was one of the reasons i posted Crowley’s bibliography. Schizo semeru has yet to check it for himself. He’s just claiming he did “extensive searches using a great variety of keywords”. What searches and which keywords? He never tells us. Remember, he told us that Spiteri’s lecture alluded earlier took place “just recently”. It turned out that “just recently” was over 5 years ago. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s just trying to rehash a already debunked claim. A turd in a different box is still a turd.
“And as I quoted before Balbi’s is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege (there is at least one other, in the form of a long poem by the knight Hipolito Sans), and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it”
And like i said before, Balbi isn’t Crowley’s only source. You acknowledged that, so there’s no logical reason for you to be focusing on Balbi alone again. You know that “best-known” isn’t the same as “only”, right? RIGHT? Also, notice that he says he “quoted before”, but he never gave us a source for the quote.
“Francisco Balbi does not record the use of pigs fat on the bullets, now these strikes me as strange, because Balbi was an arquebusier who served with the Spanish contingent during the Siege of Malta.
If neither Balbi or Bosio record the use of lard, then this indicates that lard was not used.”
Nope. Wrong again. For starters, notice that he’s copying text straight out of wikipedia (again):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Balbi_di_Correggio
Now, notice this bit he leaves out:
“Balbi’s journal, apparently with some revisions after the fact, was first published in Spain in 1567. A second revised and extended edition was published in 1568.”
Just a rehash of his old material. He tried to do the same with Bradford’s translation, when he first copy/pasted from wikipedia. This time he had the hindsight to leave out the bit of info that damages his point, but he was caught lying just as easily. He’s trying to present Balbi’s account as being the ultimate account from where all other accounts are based on, but even his source (wikipedia) states that Balbi’s account was revised, published, revised, extended and republished. And it’s not like i’m saying that Crowley never used Balbi’s account. Thing is, there’s over a page worth of book titles regarding the siege of Malta and schizo semeru once tries to make the case that Balbi’s account is the only source available and/or reliable. Now, if that were the case would Crowley need consult so many publications regarding the siege?
“There are one more dubious citation in his book
Having killed one Turk, they found a pig nearby and slaughtered it, then arranged the dead man at a convenient spot with the animal’s snout inserted into his mouth. Then they retired behind a wall. When fellow Muslims saw the body, they rushed forward with cries of horror and rage to rescue their fallen comrade from this final indignity—and were shot down.”
Whether that citation is dubious or not (and you gave us no reason to doubt it) it bears no significance to the use of fat smeared bullets in the siege of Malta, which was attested by two unrelated sources. Notice semeru’s arrogance: “oh, i searched extensively online and found no evidence for it, but there’s no way i’m going to check Crowley’s bibliography”. Not only he’s under the wrong assumption that all of Crowley’s sources are available online, he also has not read the 1567 or 1568 edition of Balbi’s account. I doubt he even read an english translation, even though he mentions the 1965 less literal translation, which had some material cut out. And yet, he’s assuring us that Balbi’s account somehow is the only reliable source for all things related to the 1565 siege of Malta (like i said, “best known” isn’t the same as “only”) with the same insane religious fervour of a mahommedan assuring us that the quran is the untouched word of god, despite all evidences to the contrary. So semeru, do you have any evidence that contradicts Crowley’s account or the BMA lecture? Have you checked ALL of Crowley’s sources? You have yet to answer this simple questions. In fact, things would go far much better if you replied to pertinent questions rather than trying to rehash old, debunked material. A turd in a different box is still a turd, and semeru’s material is just as smelly as ever. Dumb moron, can’t even tell the difference between sources for quotes and bibliography, trying to deceive us into believing Crowley base his account of the siege mostly on Basil’s account, even though he dedicates a large part of his biography to the Siege.
Hey, you complained before about my “long posts”. Did you notice my posts are shorter when i don’t have to debunk your crap?
Semeru says
Still no citation from you about pigs fat being used in the siege.
Angemon first post, was
During the siege of Malta in 1565 the Christian defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat, which set the turks’ robes alight when they were hit.
Yet angemon has not be able to uncover any other source that confirms that fat was used.
As angemon cannot give a citation, is a very good indication that fat was not used. Angemon has not proved that fat was used.
And angemon, you overlooked the fact that it was me who first mentioned the BMA article in an honest attempt to find out if lard was used, so I have come closer to finding out the facts than you.
Angemon says
The bullheaded semeru posted:
“Still no citation from you about pigs fat being used in the siege.”
Except for that link i posted, right?
“Angemon first post, was
During the siege of Malta in 1565 the Christian defenders took to smearing their bullets with fat, which set the turks’ robes alight when they were hit.
Yet angemon has not be able to uncover any other source that confirms that fat was used.”
Except for that link i posted, right? Thing is, there’s no need for further sources when you have nothing on the ones mentioned so far. You have not discredited Crowley or the BMA lecture, all you have done so far is engaging in Goebbelsian tactics while hoping no one notices that all your arguments are based on lies, misunderstandings, misinformation and personal attacks.
“As angemon cannot give a citation, is a very good indication that fat was not used. Angemon has not proved that fat was used.”
LOL! “Can not give a citation”? There’s Crowley and the BMA attesting to them being used. But going by semeru logic “there’s no mention of them being used and therefore they weren’t used”. LMFAO!!! A clear example of a Goebbelsian tactics – repeating a lie and expect everybody believes he wouldn’t have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Notice the idiocy of his “argument”: if i can’t give him another source attesting to what two other sources he can’t disprove attest to, then it didn’t happen. And he’ll keep repeating his “you gave no source/reference/link/citation” crap over and over because, well, pretending i haven’t or that’s not enough sources attesting to the use of fat smeared bullets is the only way he can keep his argument going. And if denying reality is the only way of keeping his argument going that tells us a lot not only about his argument but about his character as well.
“And angemon, you overlooked the fact that it was me who first mentioned the BMA article in an honest attempt to find out if lard was used, so I have come closer to finding out the facts than you.”
Now, that’s a nice bundle of lies. Where should i start? Did i ever denied he was the first one specifically mentioning the BMA lecture? No, i didn’t. Did he did so in a honest attempt to find out if lard was used? No, he tried to use it to prove lard wasn’t used. Has he come any closer to finding out the facts? Well, he mentioned a source talking about the use of fat smeared bullets while trying to prove they weren’t used, and he keeps saying that they weren’t used. Is that trying to find out facts? No, it’s confirmation bias and avoiding reality. The facts remain: semeru has yet to provide anything that could possibly cast suspicion on Crowley’s or the BMA’s accounts of the use of fat-smeared bullets. Two unrelated sources attesting to the same thing, and semeru has nothing on any of them, but instead of admitting that he persists on misrepresenting the truth and going on irrelevant tangents. It’s clear by now that no amount of evidence will ever change his mind.
Semeru’s posts are a dog-and-pony show shrouded in a smokescreen inside a hall of mirrors. He’s got nothing on Crowley and the BMA lecture, he hasn’t checked Crowley’s bibliography so he keeps changing the argument around only to keep asking more sources to something he can’t disprove. Also notice that while I address all the idiotic points he conjures to muddy the waters he hasn’t answered any of the questions I asked him several times: do you have any evidence that Crowley or the BMA are lying when they mention the use of fat smeared bullets? Have you checked Crowley’s bibliography?
Semeru says
Semeru’s posts are a dog-and-pony show shrouded in a smokescreen inside a hall of mirrors. He’s got nothing on Crowley and the BMA lecture, he hasn’t checked Crowley’s bibliography so he keeps changing the argument around only to keep asking more sources to something he can’t disprove.
And on the other hand angemon has been unable to prove that pigs fat was used, if anything I have have contributed more to this thread to prove that pigs fat was probably used. All angemon has contributed is a link to the citation I posted.
Angemon has not proved that the citation is based on fact, posting 4 page of a bibliography prove nothing.
Ho Ho
Except for that link i posted, right? Ho Ho, big deal, it was only a link to a citation I had posted previously.
Angemon asks people to guess what fat was used, but he did not have the answer himself. Now he has among other insults he has casted my way, I am the only person here who has attempted to come up with the correct answer. Prior the me giving the citation from BMA angemon was just as clueless as me.
So the situation is to find out he facts, either me or the jihad watchers here must ploy scores and scores of books. Angemon is not able and not willing to give a citation or link to prove that lard was used.
Also we must remember that Crowley only mentions fat, in his book there is no mention of pigs fat, So the odds that after going through Crowley.s bibliography, we are not going to find anything about pigs fat. Angemon expects us to ploy though books and books just to find if animal fat was used. That not a smoke screen, that a damned forest fire.
The truth is angemon cannot find a citation, he has only the citation from 1955, that I uncovered.
Over the years I have read a lot about the spread of islam, and if I recall correctly there is very little, or next nothing recorded in history about the use of pig blood or fat to deter muslims.
So now let me widen the goal posts for angemon, and all jihad watch posters
Give citations and links to any war or battle that happened before the urban legend about Jack Pershing began, which was roughly 1939, where pig fat, blood or parts where used
Now thats nearly 1400 thousand years of islam and probably several thousand battles.
So angemon lets see how many citations you can find where pig fat was used as a deterrent or weapon.
Now you have failed miserably to produce any citrons about p[gs fat connected the the malta siege, lets see how you do in finding citations from any battle involving islam prior to 1939, and lets see if you can do this without trying to discredit me.
Angemon says
Lol! Look at the garbled, steaming pile of taqiyya the little turd left here! He claims to be the only one coming up with the correct answer, but if we were to take all his claims as correct then we’d have a lot of mutually exclusive situations existing simultaneously. According to him fat smeared bullets weren’t used during the siege of Malta, but he proved that they were, but I didn’t knew it was lard smearing the bullets even though i said it and he proved that it was lard smearing the same bullets he said it weren’t used! Schizo semeru is living up to his namesake and blowing a lot of smoke and debris to the atmosphere. Anyway, if your self-proclamation of victory involves mutually exclusive situations existing simultaneously you ought to have your head examined. I know it means you’ll have to remove it out of your ass, but it’s the right thing to do. You need help, kid.
Also notice that, while he can’t discredit the sources attesting to the use of fat smeared bullets, he wants even more sources to prove that they were used. It’s kinda similar to islamic law, where a women needs to present 4 witnesses to prove she was raped. 3 aren’t enough, let alone 2.
Anyway, the little psycho ends up asking for “citations from any battle involving islam prior to 1939”
Ladies and gentlemen, i give you this nice video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuxqXjhl13Y
Those are battles involving islam in Europe and North Africa since the invention of islam in the 7th century until 1920. That’s what semeru asked for (battles involving islam until 1939), and it’s the last time i’ll dignify his attempts to change the subject with a reply. Notice what he said before:
“Over the years I have read a lot about the spread of islam”
Now, he claims to have read a lot about the spread of islam and yet he’s asking about battles involving islam before 1939. I don’t know what kind of sources he read that left out the military campaigns in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, India or Iran but clearly his sources are not to be trusted. Now, i’ve given him exactly what he asked for (battles from involving islam before 1939) even though it was completely unrelated to the siege of malta, so let’s see how he’ll try to spin it into pretending he asked for something completely different.
And now, a few questions of my own, some of which he never answered. Do you have any evidence to discredit Crowley’s work and the BMA lecture? Are you a muslim? Are you turk? Do you have any ancestors that died fighting for the turks in the siege of Malta? Is that why you’re unable to acknowledge that fat smeared bullets were used, because you’re afraid that by burning to death they weren’t admitted into paradise or got their 72 virgins and scores of young boys to sexually abuse with their magical erections? Are you afraid that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-uncle Mahound Mahire (and he’s not that great if he got burned to death, lol!) can’t sodomize young boys in paradise? Is that the source of your butthurtness? Is that why you step in day after day, with tear-filled eyes, pounding away at the keyboard, denying evidence, making personal attacks and butchering the english grammar? Think about it this way: if he was a janissary then he was a christian child taken away from his parents and forced to convert to islam, so there’s the slim chance that while burning away he returned to his original christian faith and he’s now on christian paradise.
And what’s the deal with citrons? Jews use it in the feast of tabernacles, but why is my production, or not, of citrons relevant to anything? Is semeru trying to link DA JOOOOS to his schizophrenic arguments, like muslims enjoy doing? And while we’re at that, what’s a “p[gs”?
Semeru says
Angemon has not been able to find any citations where pig fat was used, Crowley,s book only cites fat which could be cow, lamb horse or pig. Prior to me posting the citation from lecture given by the BMA, everything was guessing on angemon side, he had not given any citations or linx.
Crowley does not mention that pig fat was used, so it is highly unlikey that reference to pigs fat will be found in Crowley bibliography. We cannot rely on Crowley for any proof that the fat used was pigs fat. The question is, if there is any reference to pigs fat in Crowleys bibliography, why did he write only fat, and not mention pig fat?
The simplest is answer is as, Crowley did not mention pigs fat, so there most probably no mention of pig fat
So far there has been be one citation on this thread saying that pigs fat was used.
Other than the BMA citation which I found, there is no other reference either claiming or disclaiming that lard was used in the Malta Siege. Considering the amount of books written about the Malta Siege, and the large amount of anti-jihad bloggers there should be some reference to pig fat being used.
You have not been able find anything to prove that pigs fat was used, so you have resorted to attacking me..
Attacking me does not enlighten the anti-jihad movement. Just by me putting the spotlight on an obscure article, even to the point of citing enough, so you and other anti-jihadi could access it. By the way. you are a damned hypocrite, you chide me for linking to Browleys, yet you do the same thing by linking to the BMA article, which is both copyrighted and behind a pay wall
I have refrained from resorting to insulting and using bad language through out this thread, except on the occasion when calling you a dickhead, yet you have resorted to insults and bad language also attacking me so as to cover up the fact you have not been able to prove that pigs fat was used.
Now angemon distorts what I asked
Anyway, the little psycho ends up asking for “citations from any battle involving islam prior to 1939”
In fact I asked
So now let me widen the goal posts for angemon, and all jihad watch posters
Give citations and links to any war or battle that happened before the urban legend about Jack Pershing began, which was roughly 1939, where pig fat, blood or parts where used
Now thats nearly 1400 thousand years of islam and probably several thousand battles.
So angemon lets see how many citations you can find where pig fat was used as a deterrent or weapon.
Now what we see here is angemon, distorting what I actually write so to cover up the fact he is not able to find any citations about pigs fat being used as a deterrent or weapon in any war, conflict or battle
The reason I chose 1939 is because was roughly the date when the myth about pigs fat was started with the book Jungle Patrol
So the you go, you have not been able to find a single reference to pigs fat being used in the Siege of Malta, you have only resorted to attacking me.
Now lets see if you or any other anti-jihadi can find any reference to pig blood,fat or parts used against moslem in any of the wars, or the several thousand battles that have occurred since islam raised its ugly head
Yep, lets see how many references you can find. Ho Ho you will not find many.
Semeru says
Yo angemon, here is proof that I have read quite a bit about the history
http://timeglider.com/timeline/4e25938692f91730
Once you open the link you can expand the timeline by clicking on the + sign then open siege of Malta link. then look at the foot note
Jay Boo says
Just a quick historical aside.
What?
The “+” sign ?????
There is no concept of the ‘PLUS sign’ when referring to Islamic history.
Some will give credit to pre-Islamic societies for the number ZERO which equals nothing.
Muhammad of course is famously credited with refining the concept of ZERO with negative numbers to offer the world even less than nothing.
Angemon says
Lol @ semeru’s further descent into madness. Since most of his claims are rehashes of debunked material (repetition, repetition, repetition, Goebbels would be proud!) and since semeru has issues with long posts i won’t readdress them again – anyone who read the argument so far can easily tell where and why he’s wrong. There are, however, a couple of points who caught my attention and deserve discussion.
Firstly, he makes no mention of fat-smeared bullets being used to burn the turks. Since he so far provided no evidence to doubt their use, which has been attested by two unrelated sources, then that can only mean he takes it as a fact. That is attested to him saying that it could have been “cow, lamb horse or pig” fat. No argument about the use of fat smeared bulets, just the fat covering them – and if he thinks that horse, cow or lamb fat was available as readily as pig fat in medieval europe then he’s living in cloud cuckoo land. Pig fat was used in warfare centuries before the siege of Malta, both by defenders and attackers.
Then we have this personal attack:
“you are a damned hypocrite, you chide me for linking to Browleys, yet you do the same thing by linking to the BMA article, which is both copyrighted and behind a pay wall”
That’s a bald faced LIE. Semeru is lying once again. Firstly, I linked to an article that can only be found online (and for free, as i shall prove) while semeru PROVIDED a copy of a book that can still be found on stores. He might as well be stealing money from Crowley and the publishers.
Secondly, semeru never says where is the supposed “pay wall”, he just says it exists and we’re supposed to believe him, even though he was caught lying on several occasions. In fact, he’s being a hypocrite because although he asks me for sources/citations and citrons he doesn’t provide a source for his claim. Fact is, the article was made available to consult for free by the copyright holder, and I’ll prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, I’ll provide a step-by-step guide so that even semeru can understand it! And i expect an apology from him when i’m done.
The link I provided was this:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/19551.html
Notice the URL reads “mhs”. Also notice there’s no ‘s’ after the “http”. It’s “http”, not “https”, which is what one would expect to find in a website that required some sort of authentication.
Now check the article to see who holds the copyright:
“Copyright © The Malta Historical Society, 2005.
Source: Melita Historica. : Journal of the Malta Historical Society. 1(1955)4(193-2-6)”
Malta Historical Society – MHS. Interesting! There’s no reason to believe that the article is being provided for anyone else that the copyright holder or that’s behind some sort of access authentication. Anyway, this is the new MHS website:
http://www.maltahistory.eu/
You go there, click on “Publications” and you get the following page:
http://www.maltahistory.eu/publications.htm
There, you click on “Melita Historica” and a new browser window/tab opens with the URL
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/mindex.html
Does that url sound familiar? http://mhs.eu.pn/mh
Now, choose to sort by year and yet another window/tab opens:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/myear.html
Click on 1955 and you’re taken to an anchor in the page:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/myear.html#y55
Click on the very first article in 1955, the one that reads “Cassar, Paul Psychological and medical aspects of the siege of 1565, pp. 193-206”. A new window/tab opens:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/19551.html
Notice that is the exact same link i provided and that semeru claimed to be behind a pay wall. Now, did you had to go some sort of access restriction? Neither did I. Once again, i’ll point out that semeru never gave any source/reference to his claim of a “pay wall”, thus proving himself to be a hypocrite. But in the unlikelihood of someone actually charging money to access that document, the copyright holder made it available free of charge, so whoever payed any amount to access it was, in fact, a sucker. Semeru, you didn’t pay to access it, did you? Now, you OWE me an apology. You said i was infringing copyright by linking to an article behind a pay wall. Since that’s not the case, I expect you to act like a mature adult and apologize for making such an abhorrent false claim.
Now, it may seem like that was a pointless exercise in futility -it’s not like it was the first time semeru lied on something easily checkable- but it goes to show two things: one, semeru once again shows he can’t be trusted. He made a false claim for the sake of trying to make me look as bad as him but his hot air was blown away by the cool winds of truth, just like when he told us that Crowley’s work was based on Bradford and Francisco Balbi (Crowley has 4 pages worth of bibliography) and that Crowley used that article as source (which he didn’t, since it’s not mentioned on his bibliography). Two, it *proves* i didn’t find that article by googling it, like semeru suggested. I *knew* exactly where to find it and there’s no “pay wall” blocking the access to it. It’s available for free to those who want to read it.
Now, i proved that the article is available for free from the copyright holder, and i gave you their website. This is what it reads: “The Malta Historical Society is a non-governmental organisation founded in 1950.[…] Its aims are the study of the History of Malta, the diffusion of its knowledge, and the safeguarding of Maltese historical heritage.“. Did you catch that? The Malta Historical Society is a NGO whose purpose is to study, safeguard and spread the history of Malta. And that’s the source telling us that the defenders in the Siege of Malta in 1565 used lard-smeared bullets to burn away the turks. Let me repeat that for you: a maltese NGO whose purpose is to study and protect maltese history stated as late as 2005 that the defenders in the Siege of Malta in 1565 used lard-smeared bullets to burn away the turks. There’s no doubt about that: the lecture took place in 1952, was published in 1955 and copyrighted in 2005. The MHS has nothing to win by spreading info from false/dubious sources. In fact, it’s just the opposite: the MHS has a lot to lose if it comes to light that they’re using dubious/anecdotal sources. And yet, they sponsored a lecture in 1952 talking about the use of lard-smeared bullets, they kept that in the 1955 publication of their journal and they still kept it in there when they copyrighted the lecture in 2005. Once again, an impartial source whose aim is to study and protect the History of Malta attested to the use of lard-smeared bullets not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions.
Now let’s see what convoluted history semeru comes up with to counter that. I suspect one of three things is going to happen: a) semeru admits that he’s wrong and that in fact fat-smeared bullets were used to burn the turks in the siege of malta in 1565, thus making everything he posted so utterly pointless; b) semeru has another schizophrenic fit and tries to discredit the article he’s trying to take credit for, thus proving he has no game plan and is only posting for the sake of contradicting whatever i post, like a bull blindly charging at anything red; or c) he goes on an irrelevant tangent and tries to shift the argument away from what he set himself to prove while making up more lies and personal attacks, thus proving he’s not mature enough to be arguing anyone about anything. I’m guessing c), but let’s see how it turns out.
Oh, and i’m still waiting for that apology semeru. Don’t forget it because i won’t let you forget it either 😉
Semeru says
I mixed it up with another Article
The medical aspects of the 1565 Great Siege of Malta
http://jramc.bmj.com/content/160/1/79
What-ever! It was me that threw the spotlight on the article in the first instance, also you have not been able to uncover any citation about pig fats being used in the Siege of Malta or any other battle.
Interestingly Crowley,s book has no mention of pigs fat.
I conclude that due to the lack of references on the web, also angemon,s inability to post any references, then pigs wax was not used as a deterrent or as described in the BMA article.
I will repeat that the 1955 BMA article does state that lard was used.
5. Burns were suffered almost exclusively by the Turks and resulted from the following weapons devised by the Order’s troops:—
(a) Fire-hoops (“cerchi di fuoco”). These were large wooden hoops covered with flax and coated with an inflammable substance. After the hoops were set on fire, they were hurled horizontally at the enemy from the height of the bastions. These hoops were so wide that they could encircle two or even three men. This kind of weapon was especially vulnerable for the Turks who went into battle clad in voluminous and light clothing that very easily caught fire. Once they found themselves trapped inside these fire-hoops, the Turks had no way of escape from the fire except by throwing themselves into the sea to extinguish it.108
(b) Fire-pipkins (“pignatte di fuoco”). These were half-baked earthenware pots containing an incendiary mixture made of gunpowder, camphor, saltpetre and pitch. They were provided with a wick and, after this was lighted, the pipkins were thrown among the attackers. On hitting a hard object, the vessel broke and the mixture caught fire.109 More than 30,000 of these pipkins were used during the siege. The “trombe di fuoco” and the “picche di fuoco” were similar contraptions, consisting of hollow cylinders of wood filled with inflammable material.
(c) Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.
As we can see in point a) which describes Fire-hoops (“cerchi di fuoco”) and point b) which describes Fire-pipkins (“pignatte di fuoco”), both these citations have references, but point c) mentions bullets smeared in lard, yet unlike point a and c there is no reference.
So there is nothing that supports the BMA citation
One other point, the BMA reports that the Another invention was the smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired
This is very hard to swallow. If we go by the above statement, then the Knights of the Order invented bullet lube. It is nearly 100% certain that tallow was used as bullet lube long before the Siege of Malta, with out the use of bullet lube then the gun would seize up very quickly.
One other problem, if the fat caught fire, what about the fat that would be on the inside of he barrel, wouldn’t that also catch fire, thus making it very hazardous to reload very quickly.
So, lets see
a) semeru admits that he’s wrong and that in fact fat-smeared bullets were used to burn the turks in the siege of malta in 1565
Fat smeared bullets where not use to burn the turks.The bullets where smeared in fat so as to
lard or tallow was used as a lubricant. Without it, the lead will be directly deposited on the surface of the barrel. Each lubed bullet fired leaves a very thin coat of lubricant on the bore surface, and this helps the next bullet move down the bore smoothly. Without any lube either in the barrel or on the bullet. Lead will be deposited, and the next bullet will be very difficult to push through the barrel
Without lubricant, the lead shears off and adheres to the steel.
Also the role of bullet lube is that of a fluid gasket to seal the bullet/barrel interface.
Now you still have not given any citation about pig fat or blood being used against moslem any time within the last 1400 years of war fare.
Oh by the way have you any evidence that there where pigs( non islamic) in Malta
in the 16th century, by all accounts bacon was introduced Malta in the 18th century by the english
Angemon says
Lol @ Semeru. He’s trying to live up to his namesake and blow smoke in all directions. It’s time to clear up the air. Here are the FACTS so far:
– I mentioned that fat smeared bullets were used by the defenders in the Siege of Malta to burn away the turks. I also stated that it was a opportunistic event, since firearms were not yet commonly used by armies and the turks, fighting in summer, used light clothing, unlike europeans, who commonly fought with metal armour.
– Two unrelated sources attested that fat-smeared bullets were used. One of the sources is a NGO whose goal is to study and protect Maltese history, so there’s no reason to think they’d lie or use faulty/dubious sources of info.
– Semeru claims that fat smeared bullets weren’t used. He went on a lot of irrelevant tangents, but so far he hasn’t been able to discredit either Crowley or MHS.
There are only two ways Semeru can prove that fat smeared weren’t used: either he presents enough evidence to discredit Crowley and the MHS OR he provides evidence that flat out says that fat smeared bullets weren’t used. So far he did neither of those, preferring to go on idiotic, irrelevant tangents.
His latest LOL claim is that “bacon was introduced Malta in the 18th century by the english”. Now, does that tell us that there was no pigs and/or fat in Malta in the 16th century? Of course not. Even if there were no pigs in Malta in the 16th century, pig fat would be easy to buy and transport.
Another LOL claim is that, according to him, “bullets were smeared in fat not to burn the turks but as a lubricant”. So what? Does that mean that they wouldn’t burn the turks? Wouldn’t that be how it they were discovered? Once again, semeru’s irrelevant tangent (and i was the first one talking about pig fat as a lubricant) adds nothing to the discussion.
But the most asinine and ignorant of his claims is that “no other instances of using fat as a deterrent are recorded therefore fat smeared bullets weren’t used”. That’s a logical fallacy called “argumentum ad populum”, and it fails in more than one way. First, i never said the fat smeared bullets were used as a deterrent, i said they were used to burn the turks. Secondly, it was an opportunistic situation – the turks were fighting in summer and using light clothing who could be burned away.
Thirdly, and most importantly, his logic can be used to prove any number of other idiotic, baseless claims. You want examples? Hannibal marched over the Pyrenees and the Alps with an army that included elephants to attack Rome. Going by semeru’s logic, since no one else marched over the Pyrenees and the Alps with an army that included elephants to attack Rome then Hannibal never marched over the Pyrenees and the Alps with an army that included elephants to attack Rome. Did you catch that? Semeru’s logic can be used to prove that Hannibal never went over the Pyrenees and the Alps with an army that included elephants to attack Rome. Another example: Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who died in 2010 at the age of 93, is the only person acknowledged by the Japanese government as having survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings during World War II. Using semeru’s logic, since the Japanese Government did not acknowledged anyone else has having survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings during World War II then Yamaguchi didn’t survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings during World War II.
Notice a common element in ALL of semeru’s claims: he’s not directly attacking the credibility of the sources mentioning the use of fat-smeared bullets to burn the turks. That’s because he can’t. Instead he’s trying to use slight-of-hand to argue against them, he’s arguing about things that tell us nothing about the use of fat smeared bullets to burn away the turks, but none of his claims hold up to scrutiny. Now that semeru’s smoke is blown away, what are we left with? Two unrelated sources attesting that the defenders of the Siege of Malta in 1565 used of fat smeared bullets to burn away the turks, one from an historian who loves the Mediterranean and its history and another from a NGO dedicated to the study and protection of the history of Malta.
Semeru, either you have proof that both sources are wrong, in which case you provide that evidence to be scrutinized and judged, or you don’t, and thus you have to acknowledge that fat smeared bullets were used to burn the turks.
Also, you still OWE me an apology. It’s not “what-ever!”. YOU screwed up the name of articles (or so you claim, because you also accessed the MHS article, therefore you KNEW it wasn’t behind a pay wall), YOU accused me of something i didn’t do. You smeared my good name for no good reason, therefore you OWE me an apology.
Also, as someone who CAN access that article, i can tell you it only talks about from the point of view from the defenders. It talks about how the defenders set up their infirmaries and how they treated their patients, not how they set up their weapons to attack. For example, did you know that the doctors at the time thought the bullets from turkish arquebuses were poisonous and treated bullet wounds by dropping hot oil inside them? That is, until they ran out of oil, and were forced to use water. Then they noticed that the patients whose wounds were treated with water were healing up better than the patients treated with oil.
Don’t forget: evidence against Crowley and the MHS (if you have it) and an apology.
Angemon says
And Semeru, if you’re in an islamic country, you better be careful when searching for info regarding the Siege of Malta, let alone pigs, lard and bacon. That’s haram, and i wouldn’t want you to get killed for apostasy. Although it *would* make for an interesting entry in the Darwin awards…
Semeru says
You smeared my good name for no good reason
You did that your self, by not being able to post any citations about the use of pig fat against muslim
So where are the citations.
I notice you ignore the fact that fat is/was used as a lubricant, and if lard caught fire then it would not be much use as a lube
You really do not know much about islamic countries
And Semeru, if you’re in an islamic country, you better be careful when searching for info regarding the Siege of Malta, let alone pigs, lard and bacon.
Morocco
http://www.smh.com.au/news/africa/pig-farms-bloom-in-muslim-country-thanks-to-tourists/2008/04/01/1206850863399.html
Malaysia
http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/25525/demand-for-pork-products-prompts-price-increase
Indonesia
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/pork-supply-safe-strike-ends-indonesian-farm-20130917
And here is just one of the places I eat at when I go to visit friends
http://www.foodspotting.com/places/704216-pork-kee-surabaya
I think you will find pork in most islamic countries
The only citation regarding pig fat/lard in this debate was supplied by me.
Anyways, as you have not or will not provide any citations to the debate, I will not respond more. Furthermore you not being able to provide a citation regarding pig fat is good enough proof that pig fat was not used as weapon or deterrent.
Angemon says
ROFLMFAO! Look at semeru, threatening to stop posting! Turn tail and flee in disgrace and see if i care! You OWE me an apology, you little turd, and i’m not letting go of that. You LIED when you said i posted a link to a paid article, so yeah, you smeared my good name and you have yet to apologize for it, dumbass.
Truth is, you failed miserably to discredit Crowley or the MHS. Their statements regarding the use of fat-smeared bullets to burn the turks stand as solid as when they were first brought up. You made a lot of irrelevant tangents, false assumptions and ignorant comments, and i burst all of them like the bags of hot air they were. In fact, seeing how Crowley’s and MHS’ statements still stand there’s no need for further statements, so your “oh, you couldn’t give any more proof that fat smeared bullets were used besides the proofs we already have therefore you’re wrong” theory is almost as laughable as your “exploding pig fat” or “burning bullets” theory.
Also notice that semeru won’t cowardly flee in shame before blowing one last smokescreen. Firstly, i was the one who first mentioned that pig fat is still used as a lubricant, i guess he’s expecting i forgot about that and believed his “you ignore the fact that fat is/was used as a lubricant” ignoRANT comment. Secondly, he claimed that lard was just used as a lubricant and not to burn away the turks, so he’s in fact contradicting himself when he says ” if lard caught fire then it would not be much use as a lube”, LMFAO! Notice that I never stated that the bullets went on fire or catch fire, that’s about as stupid has his “exploding pig fat” theory. In fact, the MHS lecture explains it quite clearly:
http://mhs.eu.pn/mh/19551.html
“smearing of arquebus bullets with lard before they were fired. By this means the bullets retained so much heat when fired that when they hit the adversary, besides producing the usual gunshot wound, they also burned his clothing and set him on fire.”
Exploding fat and burning bullets. Lol, schizo semeru!!!
Thirdly, I never said that, or even hinted at, pork was banned in islamic countries. In fact, I made it quite clear that given semeru’s “extensive searches” involving lard his coreligionists could assume he was interested in eating haram food, which could be seen as apostasy, apostasy being punishable by death. More crap from the little turd, lol! Truth is, even though he still owes me an apology and has been insulting me since he started the argument, I was worried about his well being. And yet, he replies like i’m insulting him. No good deed goes unpunished.
Fourthly, look at how pathetically desperate he is. “Oh, you never mentioned lard, i was the one who first brought the MHS lecture mentioning lard”. Big effing deal! You were also the first to name Robert Crowley and his book Empire of the Seas, and yet you keep saying i was the one who brought it up. Once again, schizo semeru proves he’s a dual-standard bigot, if he were honest then he’d have to say he was the first one to bring up a source mentioning only fat, thus contradicting (one of) his other claim(s). I PROVED i knew about the MHS article anyway, and you never managed to prove the MHS article wrong, so for all intents and purposes you’re trying to claim credit for debunking your original argument that lard smeared bullets were not used, which is to say, you’re trying to claim credit for proving me right. L-M-F-A-O!!!!!
Fifthly, the little turd has the brazenness to say that lard was never used as a deterrent (thus denying something that never was brought up in the first place) or as a weapon, which is blatantly FALSE. Before the advent of gunpowder, pig fat was used as a weapon both by attackers and defenders in a siege, and there are records attesting to its use. But, according to schizo semeru, because I wasn’t the one who first brought up the MHS article then lard was never used in warfare ever, lol! Must be good to live in cloud cuckoo land.
Lastly, notice i already debunked most, if not all, of those claims. Semeru is simply rehashing old material, perhaps thinking that acting like a drama queen will somehow hide the barrenness of his intellect. Fat chance!
So schizo semeru, do you still believe fat-smeared bullets were not used to burn the turks? If so, where’s the evidence against Crowley and the MHS? And where’s my apology for the false claim you made? Da svidAn’ya, zalupa!