Terrorists

M

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
from another thread:
But invaders [meaning the USA and Australia] and occupiers are akin to terrorists because to them, anyone who gets in their way are collateral damages.
Click to expand...

The author of the initial quote refers to Americans and Australians as Terrorists. There is zero difference between an American GI who unintentionally and accidentally shoots a Muslim woman dead in Afghanistan and the Muslim Terrorist in Mumbai that placed a gun against the back of the head of a 28 year old Chinese Singaporean human rights lawyer and, while listening to her beg and cry and plead for his mercy, blew her brains out the front of her face (he then let a couple of Turkish Muslims go free, that happened to be standing next to the, then dead, Singaporean girl, because they were Muslims and so didn't deserve to dead).


OK, so that's their view. Fine.

Now, lets apply this SAME rational to Muslims and War (as they did with Americans and Australians and War). Lets measure things equally shall we?

invaders and occupiers are akin to terrorists
Click to expand...

Background:
- The Persian Empire was first invaded by Muslims in 633 under general Khalid ibn Walid.
- Following the transfer of Khalid to the Roman front in the Levant, Muslims eventually lost Iraq to Persian counter attacks.
- A second Muslim invasion of Persia began in 636 under Saad ibn Abi Waqqas.
- Caliph Umar ordered a wholesale invasion of the Sassanid Persian Empire in 642.
- The invaded Persians fought long and hard against the occupying Muslim Arabs. To this end the Persians began engaging in a culture war of resistance against the Muslim Arabs.(see reference list)



Now, as you can see, after losing to the Muslims initially, the Persians fought back and retook Persia. They forced the Muslim Arab occupiers from Persian lands. But, as we know, in successive years they lost and were occupied by the Muslim Arab invaders..



My question is:
Were the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia, akin to Terrorists?







References
- Milani A. Lost Wisdom. 2004 ISBN 0934211906 p.15
- Mohammad Mohammadi Malayeri, Tarikh-i Farhang-i Iran (Iran's Cultural History). 4 volumes. Tehran. 1982.
- ʻAbd al-Ḥusayn Zarrīnʹkūb (1379 (2000)). Dū qarn-i sukūt : sarguz̲asht-i ḥavādis̲ va awz̤āʻ-i tārīkhī dar dū qarn-i avval-i Islām (Two Centuries of Silence). Tihrān: Sukhan.
 
Last edited:
Asguard said:
does it make a difference to the dead women?
Click to expand...
It may make a difference to their family. Their children. For the Pakistani Terrorist who murdered the young Singaporean girl, his friends and family think he is a Hero.

He is not a Terrorist, he is a Muslim Hero.
His actions were not heinous, they were Heroic.
He is a great Defender of Islam.
He will be rewarded in Heaven with women and the angel will sing praise of his wonderful deeds.




I'm simply interested in knowing if the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia were Terrorists?
 
and the bomber who drops a bomb on a weding by "acident". How are THEY treated?

Right:rolleyes:
 
If they drop the bombs and kill the wrong person, on accident, then they are pardoned. They are, in effect, no different than the Indian Police Officer who shot at the Terrorists in Mumbai and accidentally hit and killed a civilian.

As you well know IF they murder a civilian they are sent to prison. Many American GI's are in prison for such crimes. The sick twisted American GI f*ck face who raped that 15 year old Iraqi is HATED by Americans. He is NOT A HERO for harming an innocent person.

You know this Asguard.


What of the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia were they akin to Terrorists???
 
When they get on the planes filled with bombs and go drop them on a home, do they not know that innocent people will die? The only difference between a suicide bomber and a missile throwing pilot is that the pilot goes home because he has a plane.
 
S.A.M. said:
When they get on the planes filled with bombs and go drop them on a home, do they not know that innocent people will die? The only difference between a suicide bomber and a missile throwing pilot is that the pilot goes home because he has a plane.
Click to expand...
I can see a similarity.See if you agree.

USA
(i) the home contains an enemy of the USA.
(ii) The USA drops a bomb on the house and kills their enemy.
(iii) The USA attempts to not kill non-enemy's (when possible). But, they know they will sometimes murder women and children in the process of murdering their enemy.
(iv) The USA does not deliberately attack Civilians.


Muslim Pakistani in Mumbai
(i) the hotel is full of non-Muslim civilian guests, these are enemy's of Islam (for this Muslim Pakistani).
(ii) the Muslim Pakistani shoots as many non-Muslims as possible. Including a 28 Singaporean girl, as she, being non-Muslim, is therefor an enemy of Muslims.
(iii) The Muslim Pakistani will sometimes murder Muslim women and children in the process of murdering non-Muslims.
(iv) If possible the Muslim Pakistani does not deliberately attack Muslims.


Would you like to add any additional similarities? Or does this about sum it up?



So, now that I've answered your question, what was your opinion on my question:

Were the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia akin to Terrorists???
 
I think the similarities are sufficient at : bombs civilians indiscriminately.

Anymore is just cherry on the icing. Or berries on the Pancake
 
the ruskies were also seen as terrorists when they invaded afghanistan, while the current terrorists were hailed as freedom fighters.

it's just which glasses you are wearing.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think the similarities are sufficient at : bombs civilians indiscriminately.
Click to expand...
If you think that the USA bombs civilians indiscriminately then that's your opinion.

So? Were the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia akin to Terrorists?
 
the first references to terrorism were about countries attacking countries

hitler threw a hissyfit because them terrorist allied forces (USA/UK) were firebombing innocent civilians (cities).
 
Michael said:
My question is:
Were the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia, akin to Terrorists?
Click to expand...

To refer to each individual in an invading army as a "terrorist" completely bastardizes the word. If the Rashidun Arabs who waged war on Persia were "terrorists", then so too were Napoleon's Frenchmen, George Washington's troops, Mehmet II's Turks, and so on. There is something very unsettling about referring to these great commanders and their loyal followers as "terrorists".

The Arabs who battled with Persia following the advent of Islam were certainly invaders and occupiers. The people they were invading - the Persians - were themselves very sophisticated and culturally rich invaders and occupiers. In fact, many areas of the Sassanid Empire were historically Arab settlements which were invaded by Persian Kings such as Hormizd and Khousrau. Khousrau I annexed southern Arabia when Prophet Muhammad was only a baby and made other various conquests over Arab lands. The Arabs as an ethnic group had a distaste for Persia which predated Islam. If you're going by the timeline of the events, the Arab invasion of Persia following Islam's advent was actually a counterattack and not an unwarranted invasion.

Here is a map of the Sassanid Empire during the year 610, the year in which Muhammad received his first revelation:

Sassanid-empire-610CE.png


Do you see the shaded regions under Persian rule which were historically Arab?
 
Last edited:
I would like to know more about the history.

My Persian friend (of course he's Iranian so he is biased) said Arabs were nomadic and that the shaded areas along the "Arabian" coast were in acuality Persian settlements. Founded, built and maintained by the Persians for commerce. The Arabs had no claim over this land - it did not "belong" to Arabs at all. Persians still argue about it to this day.

There were a number of Christian monasteries along the east coast as well.



That aside, do you see an ethical difference between the founding by war and conquest of the Arab Empire with the founding by war and conquest of other Empires?
 
first two points:

1-
NG30.jpg

what do you know of Nagasaki? ever heard of atomic bombs? the history of their usage on human beings?


2-i was planning on asking this in the politics forum, but meh;
saudis were allowed to do jihad in afganistan when the russians were there, they were even supported to do their dirty work for them.

now, well, i don't know where to start.

besides, back in the good old days war was war, it was faced in a manly manner. nowadays, some side has hold of all the televisions, so everyone opposing it at is a terrorist.

2nd beside, muslims have a code of conduct to war unlike any other nation has, you need to look it up in history books unfortunatly, as muslims today not only aren't in much of a war, and they don't stick much to whatever conduct they have, unlike the good old days, as a result, people lived better in their muslim occupied country and had it run better and more satisfactory then when their own people ran it.
 
Last edited:
Slysoon said:
If you're going by the timeline of the events, the Arab invasion of Persia following Islam's advent was actually a counterattack and not an unwarranted invasion.
Click to expand...
Would you then say that the US counterattack on Afghanistan is similarly not an unwarranted invasion?
 
scifes said:
2nd beside, muslims have a code of conduct to war unlike any other nation has, you need to look it up in history books unfortunatly, as muslims today not only aren't in much of a war, and they don't stick much to whatever conduct they have, unlike the good old days, as a result, people lived better in their muslim occupied country and had it run better and more satisfactory then when their own people ran it.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that NOW that things are not that "good old days" and the USA has a code of conduct that appears to result in the murder of less civilians than say the Afghanistan resistance fighters. Well then, if we, the USA, wire the place for electricity, build schools, blah blah blah that their USA occupied country and had it run better and more satisfactory then when their own people ran it. I mean, surely the USA can run Afghanistan MUCH better than it was ran before we invaded.

Right?


Is this correct Scifes? you are arguing FOR the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the USA?
 
Last edited:
Many more people died of the fire bombing raids than the nuclear bombs. (in case you were curious). I've lived in Japan. So, yeah, I know all about the bombs.
 
Michael

Your Persian friend is wrong. Hormizd and Khousrau, among other Persian emperors, killed hordes of Arabs to annex various Arab settlements and Southern Arabia in order to control sea trading routes, all before Muhammad was born. While it is true there existed nomadic Arabs, many of the regions they travelled across historically were conquered by Persians. Also, many Persian regions in the map had been settled by Arabs who were previously nomadic, a trend made popular by Qusayy, a man of the Quraysh, who also happened to be Muhammad's great great great grandfather.

If you're asking which side was more ethical, I would say the Arabs, because they were finally extracting revenge upon a people they had been helpless against for so long. It was this historical gripe which made the Arab conquest of Persia all the sweeter. The Persians have never forgotten the Arab conquests, even to this very day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top