Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

It is estimated that Islam, since it's inception, has been responsible for perhaps over 100 million people. And that's a conservative number.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

How is that number even calculated?

The population of this planet has grown a lot. So all the deadliest wars were fought in the 20'th century... a time when the Islamic world was at it's weakest, since the dawn of Islam.

So I think it's an incredibly uninteresting statistic.

Add to that that the Ottoman caliphate conquering lands for Islam wasn't so much Islamic as the Ottoman sultans just wanting more land. So political rather than religious.

So few of the Islamic wars were especially Islamic

The muslim invasion of India alone claimed a conservative number of 80 million. Some scholars place estimates of over 400 million dead and enslaved. The West Pakistan slaughter of 2 to 3 million East Pakistani's in the late 70's. Buddhists the rough estimates are in excess of 11 million. Armenian genocide by muslim Ottoman's 1.5 million. In the last 1400 years the numbers of dead and enslaved are staggering. The enormity of the slaughters of the "religion of peace" are so far beyond comprehension that even honest historians overlook the scale. And this is just in the modern era. When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in history

The "Islamic" invasion of India was about as Islamic as the British colonization of India was a crusade. Due to promotion of science the Mughals had the worlds most technologically advanced military technology. And they put it to good use. That wasn't a gift from God. That was the result of hard work.

The Mughal emperors had famous drinking parties. One famously drank himself to death. The Mughals were famous for being extremely liberal. The first Mughal emperor who took the Quran seriously was the late Aurangzeb. It was the beginning of the end. It alienated the hindu Indians which opened up for the British take-over.

The Brits exploited religion to divide and conquer India. They did their best to encourage hate between the group's. That genocide was a result of British propaganda.

The Armenian genocide was nationalistic. If you read about it Islam is hardly mentioned anywhere. It was committed in a time when Turkey had an extreme anti-Islamic trend. The last Ottoman Caliph was seen as corrupt and incompetent. The Young Turks who rose to power after his fall were secular to the extreme. They banned Islamic symbols and Islamic wear. That was the kind of "Muslims" guilty of the Armenian genocide.

I question how Islam can be pinned on any of these.

I don't think Islam is the religion of peace. But hardly the religion of war. Humans seem to need very little encouragement to murder eachother. With or without religion

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in history

Trivially simple to disprove.

It's obvious that religion is a bigger killing machine than Islam.

- - - Updated - - -

THE INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ DOING THEIR JOB. It is a fantasy they were not.

Once again you show your ignorance.

When our army was over there poised to attack the inspectors were allowed to do their jobs.

When our army wasn't breathing down their neck Saddam threw roadblock after roadblock in their way.

The last time Saddam started cooperating when our army was breathing down his neck Bush decided that wasn't good enough.

 

[repoman]

 

[DrZoidberg]

The dictator is the one the US supported for years.

The dictator is the one that after the first Gulf War was allowed to put down a national rebellion, when the US ruled the skies over Iraq, that would have overthrown him.

Dictators are bad. Any kind of dictator is bad.

Invasions where you kill people, maim people, terrorize people, allow the historical artifacts of a people to be looted, cut off electricity FOR YEARS, and take innocent people from their homes and torture them, AND SO MUCH MORE HORROR IT IS UNIMAGINABLE are bad too.

War is a last resort to anyone with a moral sense. Only when there is no other choice. Not simply because you desire some dictator you helped get very powerful gone.

A war of aggression is a form of terrorism. Even if some people want to pretend it isn't.

Even the simplest child understands that two very bad things do not ever make something right.

Well... Saddam didn't seem to care when we gave him a stern talking to....

You seem to think the invasion only involved Saddam.

Yes, he was a dictator we helped gain power then convinced to invade our enemy at the time, Iran, and we supplied him and Iran weapons for a decade.

It was quite profitable.

And the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people, Saddam was one person among millions that were attacked and bombed and killed and maimed and tortured, was very profitable as well.

You believe the US has the right to do unthinkable things to people on a whim. It can support a dictator thus harming a population once and then to make up for it harm that population even worse. Destroy their country and set up a government of the terrorists choosing.

You firmly believe two incredibly bad things make a good thing.

It is disgusting.

I think USA handled the invasion and occupation incredibly badly. They should have waited for a stronger coalition. And waited until they had a plan for what to do afterwards. USA rushed into a war and occupation they were not ready for.

Still better than doing nothing and allow Saddam to stay in power. The democratically elected government executed him after a fair trial. That says it all regarding how the Iraquis felt about the man. Nobody misses that guy. Nobody. Not even his own family.

Get off your high horse. You're the one morally in the wrong. The one with disgusting moral values

 

[untermensche]

The US committed a massive crime against humanity by invading.

It had no moral justification for any act of violence against any person.

Nobody made or wants the imperialist US as an alleged protector of the world. The US is a terrorist nation that only looks after the interests of a tiny percentage of the American people.

The people that planned and ordered the massive immorality and crime deserved to be hung.

 

[untermensche]

When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in history

Trivially simple to disprove.

It's obvious that religion is a bigger killing machine than Islam.

- - - Updated - - -

THE INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ DOING THEIR JOB. It is a fantasy they were not.

Once again you show your ignorance.

When our army was over there poised to attack the inspectors were allowed to do their jobs.

When our army wasn't breathing down their neck Saddam threw roadblock after roadblock in their way.

The last time Saddam started cooperating when our army was breathing down his neck Bush decided that wasn't good enough.

Iraq was complying with UN inspectors before the terrorist attack.

These were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.

The US has no authority to act for the UN on it's own.

The US is a looter of the world, not a protector.

Nobody ever wanted or made the US a protector of anything.

 

[metacristi]

The muslim invasion of India alone claimed a conservative number of 80 million. Some scholars place estimates of over 400 million dead and enslaved. The West Pakistan slaughter of 2 to 3 million East Pakistani's in the late 70's. Buddhists the rough estimates are in excess of 11 million. Armenian genocide by muslim Ottoman's 1.5 million. In the last 1400 years the numbers of dead and enslaved are staggering. The enormity of the slaughters of the "religion of peace" are so far beyond comprehension that even honest historians overlook the scale. And this is just in the modern era. When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in history

The "Islamic" invasion of India was about as Islamic as the British colonization of India was a crusade. Due to promotion of science the Mughals had the worlds most technologically advanced military technology. And they put it to good use. That wasn't a gift from God. That was the result of hard work.

The Mughal emperors had famous drinking parties. One famously drank himself to death. The Mughals were famous for being extremely liberal. The first Mughal emperor who took the Quran seriously was the late Aurangzeb. It was the beginning of the end. It alienated the hindu Indians which opened up for the British take-over.

The Brits exploited religion to divide and conquer India. They did their best to encourage hate between the group's. That genocide was a result of British propaganda.

The Armenian genocide was nationalistic. If you read about it Islam is hardly mentioned anywhere. It was committed in a time when Turkey had an extreme anti-Islamic trend. The last Ottoman Caliph was seen as corrupt and incompetent. The Young Turks who rose to power after his fall were secular to the extreme. They banned Islamic symbols and Islamic wear. That was the kind of "Muslims" guilty of the Armenian genocide.

I question how Islam can be pinned on any of these.

I don't think Islam is the religion of peace. But hardly the religion of war. Humans seem to need very little encouragement to murder eachother. With or without religion

Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazny, Muhammad Ghauri and the religious motivated crimes / forced conversions of the Delhi Sultanate, Tamerlane, the enslavement and killing of Hindu dhimmis who could not pay the dhimma all over Islamic rule and so on tell you something? Even the Mughal period (leaving Aurangzeb aside) is not much more enlightened, for example Akbar killed 30000 surrended Hindu peasants because they supported his enemies, his son Jahangir wrote that about 500000 to 600000 Hindus were killed during his and his father's reigns, one of Akbar's generals claimed to have converted to Islam around 500000 Hindus and so on. Given the records left by muslims themselves (we are told repeatedly that even 100000 Hindus were killed for the murder of a single muslim etc) I would not be surprised that 60 to 80 million Hindu, Buddhists et altri were slaughtered by muslims mainly due to religious reasons.

The Armenian genocide took place indeed under the Young Turks. But I don't think it is so easy to exonerate Islam completely, given also that apart from a small elite very few were secular in Turkey at the time. Indeed hundred of years of Islamic contempt for the dhimmis inculcated in the population definitely left a consistent mark, after all the Armenians were accused of treason, forfeiting thus the dhimma, deserving even death under the Islamic law.

As for the policies of the British yes they exploited religion to their interest (no one deny that they made also big mistakes by the way) but the reality is that they found already there the animosity between Hindu and Muslims when they first came, it is a myth that Muslims and Hindu lived in peace before the arrival of the British as some rosy accounts claim. Finally some Hindu historians tell us the whole truth regarding the impact of Islam and that of the British in India:

Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu culture during their rule...pales into insignificance when compared with the achievements of the British rule...It is only by instituting such comparison that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.

- Majumdar Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi

Not ultimately yes humans need very little to kill each others but to make otherwise very good people to kill the 'infidels' basically without any remorsal one needs a religion of war, like islam. There is a reason that Hitler regretted that muslims were defeated at Tours in 732 and thus Germany did not have Islam in place of the 'weak' Christianity...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trivially simple to disprove.

It's obvious that religion is a bigger killing machine than Islam.

- - - Updated - - -



Once again you show your ignorance.

When our army was over there poised to attack the inspectors were allowed to do their jobs.

When our army wasn't breathing down their neck Saddam threw roadblock after roadblock in their way.

The last time Saddam started cooperating when our army was breathing down his neck Bush decided that wasn't good enough.

Iraq was complying with UN inspectors before the terrorist attack.

These were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.

The US has no authority to act for the UN on it's own.

The US is a looter of the world, not a protector.

Nobody ever wanted or made the US a protector of anything.

Iraq was complying at that time because our army was there breathing down his neck. If we had pulled back he would have gone back to his old tricks.

It's like a kid that behaves just in time to keep from getting spanked--over and over.

 

[untermensche]

Trivially simple to disprove.

It's obvious that religion is a bigger killing machine than Islam.

- - - Updated - - -



Once again you show your ignorance.

When our army was over there poised to attack the inspectors were allowed to do their jobs.

When our army wasn't breathing down their neck Saddam threw roadblock after roadblock in their way.

The last time Saddam started cooperating when our army was breathing down his neck Bush decided that wasn't good enough.

Iraq was complying with UN inspectors before the terrorist attack.

These were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.

The US has no authority to act for the UN on it's own.

The US is a looter of the world, not a protector.

Nobody ever wanted or made the US a protector of anything.

Iraq was complying at that time because our army was there breathing down his neck. If we had pulled back he would have gone back to his old tricks.

It's like a kid that behaves just in time to keep from getting spanked--over and over.

Iraq was complying before the troops left the US and traveled half way across the planet to attack and torture the Iraqi people.

The US has no authority to attack anyone based on UN matters.

The attack was a violation of the UN Charter.

Colin Powell told a pack of lies to the UN and the UN said no.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody made or wants the imperialist US as an alleged protector of the world.

I do. It doesn't have to be USA of course. Any democratic nation is free to step up and shoulder the burden. But Europe doesn't have the cash to do it. Neither does India. Doesn't leave many other options.

Your naivity of what would happen if USA would stop getting involved in world politics is cute. Right now both China and Russia are constantly testing the world to see what they can get away with. The moment they stop getting resistance bad things are going to happen.

The US is a terrorist nation that only looks after the interests of a tiny percentage of the American people.

While true. The wealth of that tiny percentage are intimately bound to USA staying free and democratic. And the world having free and unrestricted markets.

When they no longer see it as profitable for USA to get involved in world politics the world will be in danger again.

The people that planned and ordered the massive immorality and crime deserved to be hung.

The fact that the ruling elite of USA is letting you say things like this without you getting hung is remarkable. This degree of freedom is a historic anomaly. How about not taking it for granted? Be a little grateful that this is the age you live in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazny, Muhammad Ghauri and the religious motivated crimes / forced conversions of the Delhi Sultanate, Tamerlane, the enslavement and killing of Hindu dhimmis who could not pay the dhimma all over Islamic rule and so on tell you something?

It tells me that the Mughal rulers liked money and used whatever methods and excuses they can get away with for collecting it.

It's not like the Islamic population in general got to share Mughal wealth. Exploiting the Hindus didn't benefit the Muslims. It benefited a single family and their cronies.

Also worth noting is that the Mughals were, overall, exceedingly competent rulers of India. India was more industrialised before the British took over, than when they left. India was an extremely wealthy region back then. Mostly because the Mughals didn't fuck with it. India isn't exactly associated with great wealth today, is it? All thanks to the "civilizing" influence of British Christianity.

 

[angelo]

Europe and in particular the UK have already truly voluntarily submitted to Islam.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/...srupt-demonstration-against-muslim-rape-gangs

 

[angelo]

Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazny, Muhammad Ghauri and the religious motivated crimes / forced conversions of the Delhi Sultanate, Tamerlane, the enslavement and killing of Hindu dhimmis who could not pay the dhimma all over Islamic rule and so on tell you something?

It tells me that the Mughal rulers liked money and used whatever methods and excuses they can get away with for collecting it.

It's not like the Islamic population in general got to share Mughal wealth. Exploiting the Hindus didn't benefit the Muslims. It benefited a single family and their cronies.

Also worth noting is that the Mughals were, overall, exceedingly competent rulers of India. India was more industrialised before the British took over, than when they left. India was an extremely wealthy region back then. Mostly because the Mughals didn't fuck with it. India isn't exactly associated with great wealth today, is it? All thanks to the "civilizing" influence of British Christianity.

It's not because of their breeding like rabbits and having far too many people is it? It's because of Western Imperialism every time!

 

[angelo]

You seem to think the invasion only involved Saddam.

Yes, he was a dictator we helped gain power then convinced to invade our enemy at the time, Iran, and we supplied him and Iran weapons for a decade.

It was quite profitable.

And the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people, Saddam was one person among millions that were attacked and bombed and killed and maimed and tortured, was very profitable as well.

You believe the US has the right to do unthinkable things to people on a whim. It can support a dictator thus harming a population once and then to make up for it harm that population even worse. Destroy their country and set up a government of the terrorists choosing.

You firmly believe two incredibly bad things make a good thing.

It is disgusting.

I think USA handled the invasion and occupation incredibly badly. They should have waited for a stronger coalition. And waited until they had a plan for what to do afterwards. USA rushed into a war and occupation they were not ready for.

Still better than doing nothing and allow Saddam to stay in power. The democratically elected government executed him after a fair trial. That says it all regarding how the Iraquis felt about the man. Nobody misses that guy. Nobody. Not even his own family.

Get off your high horse. You're the one morally in the wrong. The one with disgusting moral values

GW Bush was assured by the CIA that the " Coalition Of The Willing " would be welcomed by the hoards like the Allies were in France in WW2. They expected to be welcomed by the flower throwing Iraqi population. Not realising who they were dealing with: a backward supremacist, barbaric ideology of Islam who never in their dreams would submit to anyone else but allah and his terrorist prophet Muhammad.

 

[angelo]

The problem has never been caused by anyone else but Islam itself. Only apologists of this
insane ideology blame everyone else but the real cause, islam!

 

[untermensche]

The problem has never been caused by anyone else but Islam itself. Only apologists of this
insane ideology blame everyone else but the real cause, islam!

The dictatorship in Saudi Arabia does not exist because of Islam.

It exists because the British wanted a monarchy, a dictaorship, to survive and took measures towards those ends.

It exists because of geopolitical forces, not religious forces.

The British used religion. They fanned the flames.

The Islamic State in Iran does not exist because of Islam.

It exists because the British and Americans took Iran off a secular democratic pathway and installed a dictator.

This led to the Islamic Revolution and Iran took a different path.

These two huge nations (Saudi Arabia and Iran) have been spreading fundamentalism in the region for decades.

Then more recently you have the US and British terrorist attack of Iraq which led to a strengthened ISIS.

All these forces have created quite a mess.

It is all fueled by US and British scheming and malfeasance.

To not see it is to not want to see it.

 

[angelo]

The problem has never been caused by anyone else but Islam itself. Only apologists of this
insane ideology blame everyone else but the real cause, islam!

The dictatorship in Saudi Arabia does not exist because of Islam.

It exists because the British wanted a monarchy, a dictaorship, to survive and took measures towards those ends.

It exists because of geopolitical forces, not religious forces.

The British used religion. They fanned the flames.

The Islamic State in Iran does not exist because of Islam.

It exists because the British and Americans took Iran off a secular democratic pathway and installed a dictator.

This led to the Islamic Revolution and Iran took a different path.

These two huge nations (Saudi Arabia and Iran) have been spreading fundamentalism in the region for decades.

Then more recently you have the US and British terrorist attack of Iraq which led to a strengthened ISIS.

All these forces have created quite a mess.

It is all fueled by US and British scheming and malfeasance.

To not see it is to not want to see it.

Barbarism of this supremacist, evil ideology started 1400 years ago in the desert of Saudi Arabia. At least a millimia before thereevenwas a UK or a US

 

[untermensche]

Barbarism of this supremacist, evil ideology started 1400 years ago in the desert of Saudi Arabia. At least a millimia before thereevenwas a UK or a US

No forces that existed 1400 years ago still exist in the region.

We are in the age of the powerful nation-state.

The region was controlled by Britain in the early 20th Century and then after the second world war Britain and the US worked vigorously to control the region.

One way they controlled the region was with religion.

They allowed Saudi Arabia to spread fundamentalism because it divided the population and removed the desires of the population from secular goals.

The great fear of Britain and the US who wanted to control the region after WWII was pan-Arab nationalism. This was secular Arabs coming together to try to form pan-Arab coalitions.

Iran was moving towards a secular democracy.

The way control was maintained was by putting dictators in control, like the Shah, or supporting dictatorships and protecting them from democratic forces, like in Saudi Arabia.

This sick playing with the lives of millions has led to quite a mess.

A mess that was caused to happen because of US and British meddling.

To deny it is to deny history.

Or focus on meaningless pre-Industrial Revolution history.

 

[Jokodo]

Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazny, Muhammad Ghauri and the religious motivated crimes / forced conversions of the Delhi Sultanate, Tamerlane, the enslavement and killing of Hindu dhimmis who could not pay the dhimma all over Islamic rule and so on tell you something?

It tells me that the Mughal rulers liked money and used whatever methods and excuses they can get away with for collecting it.

It's not like the Islamic population in general got to share Mughal wealth. Exploiting the Hindus didn't benefit the Muslims. It benefited a single family and their cronies.

Also worth noting is that the Mughals were, overall, exceedingly competent rulers of India. India was more industrialised before the British took over, than when they left. India was an extremely wealthy region back then. Mostly because the Mughals didn't fuck with it. India isn't exactly associated with great wealth today, is it? All thanks to the "civilizing" influence of British Christianity.

It's not because of their breeding like rabbits and having far too many people is it? It's because of Western Imperialism every time!

Your ignorance is showing again.

We've been over this more times than you can count.

The fact that a country (say, India) had a Total fertility rate (=lifetime number of children per women) of, say 6.5 when you heard about it in school doesn't mean that it has today.

It only means you're old.

India's TFR today is about 2.3-2.4, and there's precious few countries globally that have the same, or even anywhere near the same, TFR they had in the early 70s.

While there is considerable regional variation, this doesn't exactly help you either: By state, one of the highest TFRs in India today at 3.3 is found in  Meghalaya - a majority Christian region. The only two Muslim majority subnational entities, the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the Federal Territory of Lakshadweep (which you may now under its anglicized name "Laccadive Islands"), have TFRs of 1.7 and 1.5 respectively.

Source: 2016 census via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_fertility_rate
original source at http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital...t_2016/7.Chap_3-Fertility_Indicators-2016.pdf

Incidentally according to the same census, Jammu and Kashmir also has the highest mean reproductive age (=mean age of the mother at childbirth) of all major Indian states, at 31.5-ish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iraq was complying at that time because our army was there breathing down his neck. If we had pulled back he would have gone back to his old tricks.

It's like a kid that behaves just in time to keep from getting spanked--over and over.

Iraq was complying before the troops left the US and traveled half way across the planet to attack and torture the Iraqi people.

The US has no authority to attack anyone based on UN matters.

The attack was a violation of the UN Charter.

Colin Powell told a pack of lies to the UN and the UN said no.

Chanting lie, lie, lie doesn't make it so.

I'm not even going to say your position is a lie because that implies you know it's false and you're so blinded by your faith that you don't even realize you're wrong.

If Saddam was complying without our army being over there why did we send it over there repeatedly to get him to comply?