Terrorists

[Michael]

I understand and I can appreciate where you are coming from. Historically. I mean, it's all quite removed isn't it? Academic really.

Let me ask you this.
In Mongolia a number of nomadic horseman, not unlike the Arabs, lived next to the Arab Empire. They had a gripe with the way they were treated too. Well, one day a (leader, perhaps similar to Khalid) rallied a bunch of pissed of Mongolians and conquered that Arab Empire - he then made himself and his kin the new leaders. Oh, they were pretty pissed off with China too. The Chinese had been thumbing their noses at them for millennial! Estimates suggest the Chinese population was reduced by 60 million following their conquest by the Mongolians.


So, that was a very very sweet revenge indeed.



Anyway, the Mongolians surely felt slighted by the Arabs and the Chinese. Was it therefor moral for them to conquer those Empires?


What of the civilians that died? Was their murder acceptable?

 

[scifes]

What of the civilians that died? Was their murder acceptable?

?

:roflmao:

are you on this planet we call earth?

civilians' death? acceptable murder?

why are you ignoring my previous post?

 

[Slysoon]

I understand and I can appreciate where you are coming from. Historically. I mean, it's all quite removed isn't it? Academic really.

Let me ask you this.
In Mongolia a number of nomadic horseman, not unlike the Arabs, lived next to the Arab Empire. They had a gripe with the way they were treated too. Well, one day a (leader, perhaps similar to Khalid) rallied a bunch of pissed of Mongolians and conquered that Arab Empire - he then made himself and his kin the new leaders. Oh, they were pretty pissed off with China too. The Chinese had been thumbing their noses at them for millennial! Estimates suggest the Chinese population was reduced by 60 million following their conquest by the Mongolians.


So, that was a very very sweet revenge indeed.



Anyway, the Mongolians surely felt slighted by the Arabs and the Chinese. Was it therefor moral for them to conquer those Empires?


What of the civilians that died? Was their murder acceptable?

I don't understand: why would the Mongols feel slighted by the Arabs? The Arabs had done nothing to warrant the Mongols' wrath aside from killing the odd messenger, especially to the extent of the damages caused by the Mongols. The Mongols did not have a bitter history with the Arabs, which is why the Arab conquest of Persia is incomparable to the Mongol conquest of Arabia, both in terms of war tactics and motivation.

The Mongols invaded the Persianate Khwarezmites by surprise after Genghis Khan himself had written a letter to their emperor saying "you rule the rising sun and I the setting sun", implying they were equals. Not only did the Mongols invade them by surprise without warrant, but they savagely destroyed cities and massacred whole populations. They were essentially destroyers of civilization. This is but one example of many examples as to how the Mongol invasions were oftentimes by surprise and without historical warrant. They were little more than barbarians who destroyed civilizations and stole their wealth. The fact that they were indeed barbarians is apparent when we see how quickly their empire faded, as they did not have the cultural and political sophistication or intelligence to administer diverse individuals and keep their own forces united.

The Arabs, on the other hand, conquered Persia and put a temporary end to centuries of conflict and rivalry which was oftentimes initiated by the Persians. They had legitimate motivation - one rooted in history - to conquer the Persians. When they finally accomplished their task, they did not destroy the rich Persian culture or forcibly tear down its contributions to civilization. They instead maintained many of the political and economic structures already in place in return for tax. What is interesting is that conquering the entire Persian empire was not the original plan of the Rashidun Arabs, who believed their army would be stretched far too thin in pursuing such a task. Caliph Umar was recorded as wishing for a "wall of fire" to separate the Arabs and Persians, and did not want to send his troops across the Zagros mountains. Strong Persian counterattacks forced Umar to push ahead.

In terms of moral justification, there is little to compare between the Arab conquest of Persia and the Mongol conquest of Arabia. The Mongol conquest of Arabia did not have a historical prelude; similarly, the Mongol conquest of the Khwarezmites involved surprise tactics and deception and lacked discernible historical justification. Both of these invasions displayed brutal military tactics which also saw the deliberate destruction of entire cities. The Arab conquest of Persia occurred during an era in which Persian ruling over traditional Arab lands was at its zenith; after the dust had settled, Persian political and economic structures were left largely unchanged, their religion and culture treated with surprising tolerance, and most importantly, their people unharmed and their civilization maintained.

I don't consider any of these conquests to be distinctly "moral" or "immoral", but it's fairly simple to see which ones were "more moral" than others. Hopefully this answers your question.

 

[Michael]

why are you ignoring my previous post?

Go back all of about three posts - I'm waiting for YOUR response!

civilians' death? acceptable murder?

Some people here, maybe not you? think it's perfectly fine to kill people, if they, for example, speak the same language and have the same culture as you. or if they live in you same city, then it's ok.

For example, suppose you were a Scientologist. You're leader told you that the local Mosque was actually suppose to be a temple to Xenu. Because this Mosque is in your city and because you live in this city, it perfectly fine for you to kill people to turn the mosque into a Temple to Xenu.

I know if sounds stupid but that's the dead honest truth. People on this board have said as much.

 

[Michael]

I don't understand: why would the Mongols feel slighted by the Arabs? The Arabs had done nothing to warrant the Mongols' wrath aside from killing the odd messenger, especially to the extent of the damages caused by the Mongols. The Mongols did not have a bitter history with the Arabs, which is why the Arab conquest of Persia is incomparable to the Mongol conquest of Arabia, both in terms of war tactics and motivation.

The Mongols invaded the Persianate Khwarezmites by surprise after Genghis Khan himself had written a letter to their emperor saying "you rule the rising sun and I the setting sun", implying they were equals. Not only did the Mongols invade them by surprise without warrant, but they savagely destroyed cities and massacred whole populations. They were essentially destroyers of civilization. This is but one example of many examples as to how the Mongol invasions were oftentimes by surprise and without historical warrant. They were little more than barbarians who destroyed civilizations and stole their wealth. The fact that they were indeed barbarians is apparent when we see how quickly their empire faded, as they did not have the cultural and political sophistication or intelligence to administer diverse individuals and keep their own forces united.

The Arabs, on the other hand, conquered Persia and put a temporary end to centuries of conflict and rivalry which was oftentimes initiated by the Persians. They had legitimate motivation - one rooted in history - to conquer the Persians. When they finally accomplished their task, they did not destroy the rich Persian culture or forcibly tear down its contributions to civilization. They instead maintained many of the political and economic structures already in place in return for tax. What is interesting is that conquering the entire Persian empire was not the original plan of the Rashidun Arabs, who believed their army would be stretched far too thin in pursuing such a task. Caliph Umar was recorded as wishing for a "wall of fire" to separate the Arabs and Persians, and did not want to send his troops across the Zagros mountains. Strong Persian counterattacks forced Umar to push ahead.

In terms of moral justification, there is little to compare between the Arab conquest of Persia and the Mongol conquest of Arabia. The Mongol conquest of Arabia did not have a historical prelude; similarly, the Mongol conquest of the Khwarezmites involved surprise tactics and deception and lacked discernible historical justification. Both of these invasions displayed brutal military tactics which also saw the deliberate destruction of entire cities. The Arab conquest of Persia occurred during an era in which Persian ruling over traditional Arab lands was at its zenith; after the dust had settled, Persian political and economic structures were left largely unchanged, their religion and culture treated with surprising tolerance, and most importantly, their people unharmed and their civilization maintained.

I don't consider any of these conquests to be distinctly "moral" or "immoral", but it's fairly simple to see which ones were "more moral" than others. Hopefully this answers your question.

I'm kind of running around, but, thank you for your answers. Let me ask your opinion on a couple of others. I might get back late, but, I am enjoying the topic.


(1) Do you think that the Mongolian invasion of China was warranted?
(Note that the Yuan Dynasty was successful and China flourished under the Mongolian Dynasty. As one historian put it: A rich and culturally diverse society developed in China during the Yuan Dynasty)



(2) I was under the impression that assassination and intrigue plagued the Arab Empire soon after it was founded?


(3) What is your opinion of the Arab wars in Spain?



Thanks
M



PS: This is just one big side note, and I don't want to detract from the above 3 questions. Even though from your point of view the Mongolian invasion was unwarranted and the Arab one was, when I asked two friends (both named Reza and ironically both are from Tehran), this exact same question (To compare the two). They both (at different times, these guys never met one another) said the same sort of thing.
Both said the Mongolians came and conquered them, but, the Mongolian didn't change their culture. That's important to them - to respect their "Persian" culture.
The Arabs on the other hand, did everything in their power to eradicate what it means to be "Persian". Their religion was changed. Their language was changed. Every aspect of their life was changed. And because of this they both said they feel the Arabs "raped" their Persian culture.


Now, this got me to thinking of a modern example. And I got to thinking of Modern day Tibet.

So, with one last question (#4). The Chinese have, over 1000s of years, controlled to some level Tibet. In the 1950s they solidified their control (mainly over worries the British were going to set up base). Tibet is a mass farm land for China. They are working hard to improve the lives of Tibetans. And they have too. YET, the Tibetans don't seem to agree? Funny that?

Do you feel China had the moral right to conquer and control Tibet?

 

[S.A.M.]

That's important to them - to respect their "Persian" culture.

Isn't Reza the athiest who speaks English eats pork and lives in Australia?? Ironic that. What part of Persian culture does he respect? Does he pray[Yasna] five times a day in Gah worship? While covering his head and facing the Kebleh [Atash Padshah]?

 

[Michael]

Isn't Reza the athiest who speaks English eats pork and lives in Australia?? Ironic that. What part of Persian culture does he respect? Does he pray[Yasna] five times a day in Gah worship? While covering his head and facing the Kebleh [Atash Padshah]?

Well, he speaks English but not perfectly so. He does speak Japanese fluently though, so fluently one of my Japanese friends just started, kind of dumb struck, because she had never met someone who was not Japanese and could speak just like a Japanese.

Reza has taken me to some Persian dinners and so of course food is an important Persian culture. He also volunteers at Persian cultural center every week no matter what. I've never actually been there. Even though I don't really like the stuff, I once got stoned smoking MJ with him - does that count? At a Persian dinner he sang Persian songs with the host family and played a guitar (is the guitar Persian or does that negate it?). He reads Persian books and watches Persian movies. He probably does more "Persian" things than I do "American". I don't even light crackers on the 4th anymore ...


The second Reza I haven't spoken to in a long while. I wonder how he is doing?


So? Were the Arab Muslim invaders and occupiers of Persia akin to Terrorists? You said as much about American "invaders" and the Australian "invaders" but you can't seem to apply the same logic to Muslims. Which is one of the reason why we are having war against Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Americans think exactly like you, only put the word "American" in for Muslim. Done and Done. You're pretty much an Indian version of George Jr. With all his "lets bring on the crusades...." Like two peas in a pod

 

[Slysoon]

(1) Do you think that the Mongolian invasion of China was warranted?

It certainly wasn't unprecedented. Northern nomadic tribes in the Mongol region had been attacking Chinese dynasties for centuries, long before Genghis Khan decided to siege war against China's Western Xia. The northern barbarians were so relentless throughout the centuries in their harassment of Chinese civilizations that Chinamen were prompted to build walls for protection, which culminated in the Great Wall of China. Nomadic Mongol tribes and Chinese dynasties engaged in nearly two dozen centuries worth of conflict; Khan's advances on China were thus expected.

(2) I was under the impression that assassination and intrigue plagued the Arab Empire soon after it was founded?

Whilst assassinations were commonplace during the initial stages of the Arab uprising, I would hardly refer to their occurrence as a "plague" on the empire for the simple reason that the Arabs nevertheless kept growing.

(3) What is your opinion of the Arab wars in Spain?

Quite impressive. To give credit where credit is due, the actual men who fought and conquered Spain were mostly Berbers, and not Arabs.

Both said the Mongolians came and conquered them, but, the Mongolian didn't change their culture.

The Mongols didn't seek to actively change the culture of the people they subjugated because they lacked the intelligence and cultural sophistication both to implement culture changes and discern their importance. The Mongols weren't necessarily tolerant of other cultures; they simply didn't see the importance in using precious time and resources to change the language and beliefs of their subjects to suit their own. They soon discovered, however, that military occupation could only be maintained temporarily, and that unless their subjects became culturally-binded to them and each other, they would revolt. Soon after their fiery rise, the Mongols faced rapid disintigration.

The Arabs on the other hand, did everything in their power to eradicate what it means to be "Persian". Their religion was changed. Their language was changed. Every aspect of their life was changed. And because of this they both said they feel the Arabs "raped" their Persian culture.

The Arabs kept the Persian civilization in tact to benefit themselves and changed elements of its culture to ensure Persian loyalty.

The Mongols did not introduce to their subjects a universal culture or religion. As such, their subjects largely retained their own cultures and religions, remained nationalistic, and viewed the Mongols as a distinct outgroup. The Arabs, on the other hand, introduced a universal religion, fostering group identification on the basis of Islam which allowed for various ethnicities - many of which were historical rivals - to be culturally-binded.

Do you feel China had the moral right to conquer and control Tibet?

I consider the Chinese conquest of Tibet to be morally superior to the manner in which Tibetan overlords treated Tibetan serfs.

 

[scifes]

Go back all of about three posts - I'm waiting for YOUR response!

#?

Some people here, maybe not you? think it's perfectly fine to kill people, if they, for example, speak the same language and have the same culture as you. or if they live in you same city, then it's ok.

ok, let's go through this..when you say "think it's ok to kill people", are you being realistic or not?

all people can say whatever they want, "killing people is not good", "we don't like killing innocent people and so we don't kill them", and so on..

that's what people can say, and they can say whatever they want.

second, what really happens, is that those people kill more people than whoever they're preaching, reality simply contradicts what they're saying ridiculously... so what do you do with those people? you either play the words game with them and rant on on how your people or culture or whatever didn't kill any people and how they're the good guys and adhere the morals to your people like they do, or become realistic, open our eyes to the bloodshed, and start scooping up the blood to see who have slayed more.

---

if you think it's not fine to kill people, i don't think it's fine either, if you kill people while telling me killing people is bad, i can kill people and tell you it's bad too, but i'll get tired of such lame joke and drop the mask and stand up to what i'm doing...admitting what i'm doing makes you no better than me, especially that you're doing it more but denying it.

For example, suppose you were a Scientologist. You're leader told you that the local Mosque was actually suppose to be a temple to Xenu. Because this Mosque is in your city and because you live in this city, it perfectly fine for you to kill people to turn the mosque into a Temple to Xenu.

ohh you mean like palestine?? now what has your people done towards those "scientoligists"? other than give them the guns to claim the temple of xenu?

now this is what i'm talking about, is the thing to discuss whether what's done right or wrong? does it make any difference what verdict we reach? it's done anyway, whether you like it or not, whether you like it or not, and whether you admit it or not.

I know if sounds stupid but that's the dead honest truth. People on this board have said as much.

the closest to honesty are those who get out of it and say humanity is evil.

 

[Michael]

Slysoon,

Thanks for your post. I think I have a better idea where you are coming from.


You are well versed in geopolitics so you probably know this area of land quite well. In Western China there are a people called the Uighurs. They are living in an area of China that has traditionally always been a part of China (since about 60 BCE after the Han took control). Therefor, Emperors of China have always exerted control over this area of land. 1000s of years. Historically it is China anyway.

China is unified by the ideology of Atheist Communism.
Just as the Arabs were united by Islam.

The Communist Chinese use Communism to unite their peoples.
Religious Arabs used Islam to unite their peoples.

Recently the Uighurs have been brought back under control - 1953 actually. The Han Chinese would like to see the Uighurs stand strong and united with the rest of Communist China.
In the same way that Arab Muslims used the ideology of Islam (and the conversion of Persians to Islam), the Chinese use atheist Communism and seek the conversion of Muslim Uighurs to Athiest Communism.

So, from your logic, I take it you see this is also moral.
Is that correct?

I mean, when we apply your logic against Muslims, it's still OK right? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander - right?

Not only that, but China is predicted to become the next superpower.
Part of this process is insuring a unified Communist China. Just as there was a unified Islamic Empire.
It's therefor important that the Uighurs be encouraged to stand unified with the rest of the Chinese.

You agree Right?


What are your ideas on the Communist Chinese conquest and conversion of Chinese Uighurs to atheist Communism?

 

[Michael]

Taliban head Mehsud 'may be dead'Pretty impressive hey? An American sitting in his office drinking his coffee and surfing porn while at the same time eliminating his enemy. Talk about multitasking

Westernizing the world one cup of coffee at a time.....

 

[Slysoon]

Michael

The Xinjiang region of China is not historically "Chinese". The region known as Xinjiang today was first conquered by the Chinese during the Tang dynasty in the eighth and ninth centuries; following the Tang, Xinjiang was lost to China until the Manchus solidified their dominion over the region a millennium later. Ethnically, Xinjiang was always populated by Turkic peoples (Uyghurs), who were written in ancient China as being tribes of the west and Silk Road.

Fifty years ago, less than one person in a dozen people in Xinjiang was an ethnic Han. In order to encourage the Uyghurs to assimilate and balance demographics, projects designed to settle ethnic Hans in the region were implemented, resulting in Xinjiang's demographics to shift in favor of the Han. As such, Xinjiang can hardly be considered "historically Chinese".

The Chinese people are not unified through atheistic communism; they are unified through Han ethnicity and culture, and fervorous nationalism. In fact, the psychological reason as to why China has shedded many of its former communist elements is because its people are extremely nationalistic and better geared towards rightwing authoritarianism rather than leftwing totalitarianism. This is simply the evolutionary nature of the greater portion of China. In terms of imposing a culture change on the Uyghurs, I do not care to comment on the morality behind it because I do not know how such changes would be implemented. In any event, the Uyghurs are fairly collectivistic and view the Chinese state as a distinct and threatening outgroup; as such, they would wage a war of cultural resistance in the event of state-imposed culture changes. The method the Chinese have instead undertaken is to play the demographics game and populate the region with Han people.

Your question -

What are your ideas on the Communist Chinese conquest and conversion of Chinese Uighurs to atheist Communism?

- I cannot answer because the premise underlying it is not logical. The Chinese Han themselves are not unified through "atheist communism" and would never seek to convert ethnic Uyghurs into such an ideology, mainly because they are well aware they would fail.

 

[Michael]

Slysoon,

That's a very interesting response. Do you suppose that the ideology of Islam took centuries to pervade Persian society or was instantaneous? Did it instantly unite Persians to stand with the Arabs in the new Arab Empire.

Here's a short wiki article regarding Xinjiang.

Xinjiang is the Chinese name for the Tarim and Dzungaria regions of what is now northwest China. At the beginning of the Han Dynasty (206 BC – AD 220), the region was subservient to the Xiongnu, a powerful nomadic people based in modern Mongolia. In the 2nd century BC, Han China sent Zhang Qian as an envoy to the states in the region, beginning several decades of struggle between the Xiongnu and Han China over dominance of the region, eventually ending in Chinese success. In 60 BC Han China established the Protectorate of the Western Regions (西域都護府) at Wulei (烏壘; near modern Luntai) to oversee the entire region as far west as the Pamir.

During the usurpation of Wang Mang in China, the dependent states of the protectorate rebelled and returned to domination in AD 13. Over the next century, Han China conducted several expeditions into the region, re-establishing the protectorate from 74-76, 91-107, and from 123 onward. After the fall of the Han Dynasty, the protectorate continued to be maintained by Cao Wei (until 265) and the Western Jin Dynasty (from 265 onwards).

At one point the area was populated by Caucasians.
OK. I'm Caucasian, maybe I have a claim over some of that land?
But, the Han, certainly have controlled that area of land at very times in history.

Well it's China now so it doesn't matter.

It seems like you would NOT agree that the Han Chinese have more of a claim over that land than the Arabs had over Persia? Now,I'm thinking.. come on, Ctesiphon was the Imperial capital of the Arsacids AND the Sassanids. It's about a 20 min drive from Baghdad. It and all the area around it was Persian. A lot Arabs migrated there. Just as a lot of Han Chinese are migrating to Western China.

I see it as no different when Han migrate to Western China as when Arabs migrated to Persian lands. It's the exact same to me. To you its different? maybe your Muslim? You sound a bit biased.


Anyway, you suggest that sometimes aggressive war (where you kill people, take their stuff and settle in their lands and change there culture) IS morally acceptable (or at least not unwarranted - which to me is the same as saying morally acceptible) sometimes.


I'm trying to figure when it's OK for you.


(1)
You said the Arab conquest of Spain was impressive.
Was it moral?

(2)
What about the Muslim conquest of Constantinople? Was that warranted? Was it moral?

 

[Slysoon]

That's a very interesting response. Do you suppose that the ideology of Islam took centuries to pervade Persian society or was instantaneous? Did it instantly unite Persians to stand with the Arabs in the new Arab Empire.

It is not a matter of supposition but rather of historical fact: the Persians became predominately Muslim about two centuries after the Arab conquests. Islam never did "pervade" Persian society in the sense that much of Persian culture remained unchanged after the introduction and acceptance of Islam in the Persians, possibly because their former Zoroastrian beliefs shared many fundamental elements with Islam. The changes in public ideology were not radical; they were instead very gradual, and had little effect upon existing cultural, political, and economic institutions.

Modern day
At one point the area was populated by Caucasians.
OK. I'm Caucasian, maybe I have a claim over some of that land?
But, the Han, certainly have controlled that area of land at very times in history.

Well it's China now so it doesn't matter.

I am not making the argument that people have a claim to land they populated at one point in time. Instead, I am striking down the notion that modern day Xinjiang was “historically Chinese”. Here is a map of the Han dynasty during its peak:

Notice it had no influence over modern day Xinjiang. As I stated, modern day Xinjiang was first conquered by the Chinese during the Tang dynasty in the eigth and ninth centuries, and was lost for nearly a thousand years until the Manchus reasserted their claim to the land. Sure, Xinjiang is a part of China today; however, we should still treat its history with the honesty we would any other area of land. Interestingly enough, “Xinjiang” itself means in China, “new territory”.

I see it as no different when Han migrate to Western China as when Arabs migrated to Persian lands. It's the exact same to me. To you its different? maybe your Muslim? You sound a bit biased.

In the two hundred years it took for Persians to reclaim independence from the Arabs - whilst retaining their belief in Islam - only a few Arab tribes were ever recorded as settling in mainland Persia. Most of the Arab settlements near Persia were in Iraq, where they founded and built great cities known today as Basra and Baghdad. Prior to the advent of Islam and its subsequent expansion, Persians conquered many traditionally Arab settlements and routes, some of which were pilgrimage sights and sea trading stations.

(1)
You said the Arab conquest of Spain was impressive.
Was it moral?

No, it was not distinctly “moral”. But it certainly was very impressive, and it is no doubt a subject of pride amongst Berbers, Arabs, and the greater Muslim population.

(2)
What about the Muslim conquest of Constantinople? Was that warranted? Was it moral?

It was neither warranted nor distinctly moral. But it certainly was very impressive, and it is no doubt a subject of pride amongst Turks and the greater Muslim population.

 

[Michael]

OK, thanks for that, it was a good post. I see that Han had some outposts but the civilization didn't extend that far.

Its normal to feel pride in accomplishments like the conquering of a major civilization. I know many Mongolians feel pride in the accomplishments of Ghangus Khan and of course the English have pride in their large empire. It's natural for Arabs to feel likewise. Its those very emotions why many Americans take pride in their conquest of Iraq. There's some sort of odd satisfaction people have in conquering other people.

But, as part of "keeping it real" lets not pretend that people are not murdered, people are not destroyed, families ripped apart and love ones lost. I kind of think, if we focus a bit more on this aspect, (or even acknowledge it) well, maybe it will happen less? Or maybe not? Who knows...

I have a question sort of related. In modern day Israel, a large number Europeans that are Jews are allowed to gain a visa (I think?) and migrate there. I mean, the government decides who can and can not live there. The people who were there before think this royally sucks. OK, I agree. It's bullshit.
But, I know a lot of Palestinians who live in the USA or in AU. They don't seem to think it's unfair for the Natives in those countries. I don't even think many stop to think they are living on land that was taken, by force, from some other people.
When I pointed this out to one guy, he stopped, thought and said - well, it's god's will to spread Islam to all countries and unlike Jews, Islam is for all people.

He didn't really see the hypocrisy. As if "Islam is for all people" suddenly erases any guilt. I mean, come on. I said well, so is Xianity, I guess the crusades were fine and dandy.

anyway... what are your thoughts?