Author Topic: [NEWS] Feminists chant Allahu Akbar.  (Read 10726 times)

africa was also colonized in the name of civilization and christianity so you could probably make a case for all of their post-colonial border conflicts being christians' faults

They religiously persecuted the Native Americans and established probably the most brutal form of forced labor in American history, motivated by their 'god-given' mandate to conquer. I like how you guys rail off endlessly about Muslims driving trucks into crowds, but Spanish encomienda is 'loving cool'.

gg

You can't argue with results

You can't argue with results
[insert map of Islamic Caliphate at its height]

[insert map of Islamic Caliphate at its height]

Sorry desertcigarettes but powerful Spain has all the land people want

Sorry desertcigarettes but powerful Spain has all the land people want
humor aside, I do hope you actually recognize some of the hypocrisy here

The data are pretty much irrelevant because even if we come up with a completely fair standard for what constitutes 'religious violence', the raw numbers are still gonna be within an order of magnitude. The take-away here isn't "their religion is x% more violent than ours!", it's "violence is a complicated thing that isn't predicted solely by religious scripture."

"Timur frequently used his Islamic religion to achieve his military goals or domestic political aims" so thats 20 million already.

They religiously persecuted the Native Americans and established probably the most brutal form of forced labor in American history, motivated by their 'god-given' mandate to conquer.

I don't want to go find all the loving sources from 5 years ago but I read about the Spanish conquest of Mexico. The Tlaxcalians were the most brutal after the siege and the Spanish treated the city states that helped them win the war quite well. Even attempting to isolate people from Smallpox so they wouldn't get infected. Of course this is all very vague because I read this all 5-6 years ago.

but Spanish encomienda is 'loving cool'.

Genghis Khan is also my role model so suck it friend.

africa was also colonized in the name of civilization and christianity so you could probably make a case for all of their post-colonial border conflicts being christians' faults

We could also make the case that you're pants on head handicapped but that case is far more logical.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 02:29:42 AM by beachbum111111 »

"Timur frequently used his Islamic religion to achieve his military goals or domestic political aims" so thats 20 million already.
So did like everyone. You don't think there were famous and barbaric leaders in European history who used Christianity to further their goals?

I don't want to go find all the loving sources from 5 years ago but I read about the Spanish conquest of Mexico. The Tlaxcalians were the most brutal after the siege and the Spanish treated the city states that helped them win the war quite well. Even attempting to isolate people from Smallpox so they wouldn't get infected. Of course this is all very vague because I read this all 5-6 years ago.
I don't know what kind of history you read, but any narrative that paints the Natives as the 'aggressors' in the Spanish conquest is bullstuff. The Spaniards were brutal, violent monsters when it came to encomienda.

So did like everyone. You don't think there were famous and barbaric leaders in European history who used Christianity to further their goals?

20 million from one ruler? Thats more then the amount dead in the Thirty Years War. And were not even talking about the Mughals

I don't know what kind of history you read, but any narrative that paints the Natives as the 'aggressors' in the Spanish conquest is bullstuff. The Spaniards were brutal, violent monsters when it came to encomienda.

The Spanish never liked to admit that the natives helped them. The Tlaxcians did as we later found out.

20 million from one ruler? Thats more then the amount dead in the Thirty Years War.
I don't think that even constitutes religious violence tbh. You don't even know whether his soldiers were killing people in the name of Islam.

That's roughly equivalent to cherry-picking some quote from Bush where he cites Christianity as his 'political inspiration', and then tallying every death in the Iraq War as Radical Christian Terrorism.

The Spanish never liked to admit that the natives helped them. The Tlaxcians did as we later found out.
The Natives also weren't a monolith, they had wars of their own between different tribes.

I don't think that even constitutes religious violence tbh. You don't even know whether his soldiers were killing people in the name of Islam.

That's roughly equivalent to cherry-picking some quote from Bush where he cites Christianity as his 'political inspiration', and then tallying every death in the Iraq War as Radical Christian Terrorism.

"Timur frequently used his Islamic religion to achieve his military goals or domestic political aims"

Lets just say he didn't like Zoroastrians

That's roughly equivalent to cherry-picking some quote from Bush where he cites Christianity as his 'political inspiration', and then tallying every death in the Iraq War as Radical Christian Terrorism.
Lol, holy stuff. That was entirely hypothetical, but check this stuff out:

George Bush actually went on record as saying, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq."

https://www.quora.com/Did-George-W-Bush-really-say-God-told-me-to-invade-Iraq

Boom, 'Christian' terrorism, by your own definition.

Lol, holy stuff. That was entirely hypothetical, but check this stuff out:

George Bush actually went on record as saying, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq."

https://www.quora.com/Did-George-W-Bush-really-say-God-told-me-to-invade-Iraq

Boom, 'Christian' terrorism, by your own definition.

Difference being that wasn't the countries reason for going to war. Unlike the Timurids who waged religious wars against the Hindu's and persecuted and murdered religious minorities within their own border.

We could also make the case that you're pants on head handicapped but that case is far more logical.
i'm not saying you should reach that conclusion, but if you're using the same weak technicalities you might with a muslim death count as a christian death count, you'd have to.

Difference being that wasn't the countries reason for going to war. Unlike the Timurids who waged religious wars against the Hindu's and persecuted and murdered religious minorities within their own border.
This isn't unique to Muslims though. Christians have done the same thing countless times throughout history.

Remember that what I'm saying here isn't that Christians are religiously-violent, it's that religion isn't actually the key cause of these conflicts. There's historical context that's always missing.

i'm not saying you should reach that conclusion, but if you're using the same weak technicalities you might with a muslim death count as a christian death count, you'd have to.

Weak technicalities such as "they waged wars in the name of their religion" and "they killed and persecuted religious minorities within their own borders"

Are you being paid to be handicapped?