Like Muhammad.
Splinter: Hating Muhammad
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Like Muhammad.
Mohammed "eliminated" undesirables by including them.
e.g. constitution of Medina, which includes both Jews and pagans.
Rather different from "collateral damages", "human shields", "multiculturalism", "islamofascism", "evil Jews", and whatever other euphemism is au courant for justifiable genocide.
What sanctimonious bullshit, Islamic conquerers murdered all over the place for thousands of years. African civilizations built huge walls around their cities just to keep these bastards out.
We're discussing Mohammed. Feel free to point out where he was "eliminating the undesirables". As for "Islamic conquerers", they were welcomed in places where the westerners were busy eliminating undesirables. The Jews of Spain, for example, fought alongside the Moors against the existing tyrannical regime. The other "Islamic conquerers" like the Mongols or Taimur had a greater Muslim casualty list than a non-Muslim one.
Inspite of their utter ferocity, the Mongols are still recognised as an egalitarian culture. The Romans as an "advanced" civilsation and the Greeks as a civil race. But these were all militaristic groups that advanced by killing the other.
Inspite of their utter ferocity, the Mongols are still recognised as an egalitarian culture. The Romans as an "advanced" civilsation and the Greeks as a civil race. But these were all militaristic groups that advanced by killing the other.
Actually we're discussing Hitler.
But yeah Mohammed kicked some ass in his day...his philosophy needed Authoritah!
Huh?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mohammed chief consultant was Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, she wore the pants in that household. Later the Sunnis were united under Aisha, his youngest wife.
How many eliminated in the gulags at the same time?
And the Polish and gypsies do?
Mod Hat - Splinter notice
Mod Hat — Splinter notice
Alright, (Q) ... you're on. I believe the challenge before you is fairly basic:
This thread is splintered from "I respect what Hitler accomplished".
Mod Hat — Splinter notice
Alright, (Q) ... you're on. I believe the challenge before you is fairly basic:
"Feel free to point out where he was 'eliminating the undesirables'."
This thread is splintered from "I respect what Hitler accomplished".
Heh and some say if women ruled the world...there would be no war.
Gulags :shrug: I don't have a stat, do you?
A lot of people still laugh at how "easily" Poland was rolled. Which was not true at all. They fought the whole war as much as they could, nearly everyone who was able. Poland was pretty much the only country willing to stand up to Hitler's breaking the Versailles Treaty. They wanted to attack Germany in 33'. This was ingrained in the National psyche to present day as they supported a "pre-emptive" war in Iraq in 2002. Poles forgive, but do not forget.
And, who gives a flying fuck about Gypsies...seriously. I hate to admit it, but I don't. If you have ever had to deal with them, you know why they are pretty much the most hated group in the world, even today.
Considering that in 100 years the Arabs went from tribal loyalties to mega empire and had the entire Middle East speaking Arabic in schools, "some" might be right.
Yup:
I thought the Jews had that distinction.
Thirty days to war, and other strange notions
A comedian (honestly, I forget which) once made the joke that if women ruled the world there would be a war every thirty days.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read Montesquieu's Persian Letters? Admittedly, it was written by a French baron, and is often regarded as tongue-in-cheek, but historians and philosophers award the book much credit. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes:
The inherent commentaries on European and Muslim societies range between morbidly and openly hilarious, which is a fine frame for such broad indictments. And there are some fine bits about Usbek's wives in there.
____________________
Notes:
Bok, Hilary. "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 18, 2009. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
Nietzschefan said:
A comedian (honestly, I forget which) once made the joke that if women ruled the world there would be a war every thirty days.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read Montesquieu's Persian Letters? Admittedly, it was written by a French baron, and is often regarded as tongue-in-cheek, but historians and philosophers award the book much credit. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes:
When Montesquieu wrote the Persian Letters, travellers' accounts of their journeys to hitherto unknown parts of the world, and of the peculiar customs they found there, were very popular in Europe. While Montesquieu was not the first writer to try to imagine how European culture might look to travellers from non-European countries, he used that device with particular brilliance.
(Bok)
(Bok)
The inherent commentaries on European and Muslim societies range between morbidly and openly hilarious, which is a fine frame for such broad indictments. And there are some fine bits about Usbek's wives in there.
____________________
Notes:
Bok, Hilary. "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 18, 2009. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
And so? Most religions were spread by the sword, including Christianity.
I don't disagree.
It's a fun book, I think
If you're not up for Amazon or whatever, you can probably find a copy in the nearest university bookstore or library. My copy is the Betts translation for Penguin Classics, first published in 1973. There are a few extracts online. Such as the eleventh and twelfth letters from the University of Idaho, or the eighty-third from Fordham's Modern History Sourcebook.
I find it fun, but am dubious about placing any label like "enlightening" on it in terms of cross-cultural understanding. It is, certainly, philosophically enlightening, but, especially in its "fish out of water" moments, can sometimes read like a parody. Of course, all things must be taken in their context. Montesquieu did, after all, inherit and eventually sell his office as a Président à Mortier in the Parliament of Bordeaux. So his sensibilities are obviously a bit removed from our modern outlook.
S.A.M. said:
If you're not up for Amazon or whatever, you can probably find a copy in the nearest university bookstore or library. My copy is the Betts translation for Penguin Classics, first published in 1973. There are a few extracts online. Such as the eleventh and twelfth letters from the University of Idaho, or the eighty-third from Fordham's Modern History Sourcebook.
I find it fun, but am dubious about placing any label like "enlightening" on it in terms of cross-cultural understanding. It is, certainly, philosophically enlightening, but, especially in its "fish out of water" moments, can sometimes read like a parody. Of course, all things must be taken in their context. Montesquieu did, after all, inherit and eventually sell his office as a Président à Mortier in the Parliament of Bordeaux. So his sensibilities are obviously a bit removed from our modern outlook.
It's a human problem in general, but my point was it makes no sense to rant against the west for doing the same things that Muslims did. It's hypocritical.
What bullshit they had walls before hand and what about Zimbabwe? huh the muslims never got that far as conquerors. and how could islam kill people for thousands of years when it hasn't existed for thousands of years?