Yet more things to ignore

[Godobeyer]

WW1: Ottomans supported Germany and therefore lost, if Ottomans had superior firepower the casualties may have been different.

WW2: Grand Mufti supported Hitler against the Jews. No major muslim empire left, ergo no ability to design, manufacture and use an Atomic bomb: USA got there first.

Extermination of natives: Armenian Genocide commited by Ottomans.

Slavery: African and Barbary Slave Trade established and supported by Ottomans.

Ottomans (Turkey now) , most of Muslims countries were under occupation/oppression of West (France/Great Britian)
-I don't blame Ottomans for put their hands with Nazis,because Hilter promise them the independent.

btw Algerian fought with allies(France) against Nazis, because France promised the Algerians independent after winning the war.

I like "supported by Ottomans" .

you miss this : USA bombed Japan by supported by Ottomans


You know what,Hilter,and mussolini...etc were Muslims and born in Istanbul

Every major power (muslim or kuffar) has taken territory and stolen resources when given the chance, it was no different with the muslim powers.

to be fair, by historic facts the West do it more (especially by France and GB).

I don't know,how much the Muslims stolen from Spain in past !

In a different thread you recently claimed to make a clear separation between politicians and the people (when I pointed out that westerners protested every major western-led conflict in recent times), though now you appear to be lumping us all together again?

In conclusion what I am trying to say is that muslims are no better (or necessarily worse) than non-muslims: all humans are capable of behaving like beasts.
Non-muslim nations created more carnage during both world wars simply because we had (and still have) better technology and industrial capabilities.

By facts and numbers wars and casualties ... the Western history bypass the Muslims for sure.
hopeful the historic records are exist

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That was an OPINION snatched from your deep dark recesses.

Just because I post something without a link doesn't make it an opinion, and you probably shouldn't assume I'm posting an opinion if I don't post anything to suggest it is an opinion of mine.
This link keeps track of police killings, and gives their source for each one. It is over 1000 for the years 2014 and 2015.
http://www.killedbypolice.net/
And here is for the murders in America.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Now answer WHY Chicago is such a violent city.

It's still the fact that Americans are killing more Americans than Muslim Extremists.

 

[jeager106]

Just because I post something without a link doesn't make it an opinion, and you probably shouldn't assume I'm posting an opinion if I don't post anything to suggest it is an opinion of mine.

Fair 'nuff.

It's still the fact that Americans are killing more Americans than Muslim Extremists.

Never was a doubt about that.
Our society needs address criminal Americans killing Americans, no doubt about that.

Somehow I doubt police killing Americans is murder.
Self defense or the defense of another comes to mind.
I was a police officer for 22.5 years before being disabled with my 4th broken
back.
I was also the S.W.A.T. commander and designated anti-sniper sniper.
I fully realize how horrible it would be to kill another.
Believe me I saw a LOT of senseless, violent, intentional, homicides.
And other nasties. Ever interview an 8 year old girl with syphilis for the THIRD time?

I found ways to resolve dangerous issues without bloodshed.
(Thank you God for that.)
I was sent to schools that dealt with hostage and critical incidents with
S.W.A.T action being the very last resort.
In just one school I spent over a week learning to blow peoples heads off
from up close and personal to far, far, away distances.
Had I wanted to kill I could have and been justified (by man's law).

 

[Aquitaine]

@Godobeyer I've just realised we are completely derailing this thread. If you'd like to continue this discussion then feel free to make a new one.

 

[Godobeyer]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ves-islamist-extremists-report-thinktank-rusi

Lonewolf right wing (read white) extremists kill more people than single Islamic extremists. How are we supposed to twist this into "Islam is the worst"?

@Godobeyer I've just realised we are completely derailing this thread. If you'd like to continue this discussion then feel free to make a new one.

We are almost in same track. "who kill more"

Nazis killed more than all Islamic extremists during all time .

 

[Aquitaine]

We are almost in same track. "who kill more"

Fair enough.

Nazis killed more than all Islamic extremists during all time .

I don't think it is possible to accurately tally up the total number of deaths caused by muslim and non-muslim empires throughout history: who knows how many lives the British and Ottomans claimed, for example?
Besides, even if it is the Nazis who have the highest body count. . . who supported them, and who opposed them?

 

[Godobeyer]

Fair enough.



I don't think it is possible to accurately tally up the total number of deaths caused by muslim and non-muslim empires throughout history: who knows how many lives the British and Ottomans claimed, for example?
Besides, even if it is the Nazis who have the highest body count. . . who supported them, and who opposed them?

Indeed it's possible , they already counted. WW2 was the most deathly war in history of human being.

I don't expect that we would stay alive in next war (WW3),because more effective weapons as nuclear weapon ..;etc.

For empires, British empire was larger more than Ottomans. take control on Muslims, not consider as ulgy occupation for majority of Muslims. as considered West (France,GB,Italy) and recently USA.

 

[Aquitaine]

Indeed it's possible , they already counted. WW2 was the most deathly war in history of human being.

I don't expect that we would stay alive in next war (WW3),because more effective weapons as nuclear weapon ..;etc.

There will not be a WW3 precisely because we have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons between developed nations = peace.

For empires, British empire was larger more than Ottomans. take control on Muslims, not consider as ulgy occupation for majority of Muslims. as considered West (France,GB,Italy) and recently USA.

Could you rephrase this sentence please? I don't quite understand what you're saying in the second half.

 

[LuisDantas]

There will not be a WW3 precisely because we have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons between developed nations = peace.

That is... wildly optimistic.

 

[Aquitaine]

That is... wildly optimistic.

Before nuclear weapons we had two World Wars in roughly 30 years. The moment the world's two remaining superpowers got their hands on nukes, suddenly there was no more direct conflict between them.
Isn't that such an amazing coincidence that the countries stopped directly fighting with one-another the moment they acquired nukes. . .

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite frankly, that is irrelevant to me. Settling for the current situation is very nihilistic indeed.

 

[idav]

Before nuclear weapons we had two World Wars in roughly 30 years. The moment the world's two remaining superpowers got their hands on nukes, suddenly there was no more direct conflict between them.
Isn't that such an amazing coincidence that the countries stopped directly fighting with one-another the moment they acquired nukes. . .

People recognize a zero sum end game when we see one.

 

[idav]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ves-islamist-extremists-report-thinktank-rusi

Lonewolf right wing (read white) extremists kill more people than single Islamic extremists. How are we supposed to twist this into "Islam is the worst"?

No other religions have more state and continue to push for oppression. Plus these states are opposed to the progression rights and freedoms as found in the rest of the world in the west and euro nations.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You know, I can't help but think, in light of all the events attributed to Islam, this is a Muslim version of an attempted version of the Christian crusades. There are religious and political taints involved.

I do wonder, had the U.S. not intervened in any middle eastern action like allowing Saddam Hussein to take Kuwait, or assisted in the assassination of Quadaffi, what would we be experiencing had any U.S. involved war not occured? Would we still be seeing what we are seeing now?

 

[Godobeyer]

There will not be a WW3 precisely because we have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons between developed nations = peace.

.

Nuclear weapons = peace !

(in future) I think when it's would be use the peace disppears

Could you rephrase this sentence please? I don't quite understand what you're saying in the second half.

I meant

Ottman empire did not consider for most of Muslims as occupation or bad in that time, on contrary of Britsh or France occupation to Muslims (or world). it's ulgy and sometimes evil.

 

[LuisDantas]

People recognize a zero sum end game when we see one.

Sometimes.

Sometimes they even recognize it before it is too late.

Sometimes is not anywhere near good enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ottman empire did not consider for most of Muslims as occupation or bad in that time, on contrary of Britsh or France occupation to Muslims (or world). it's ulgy and sometimes evil.

Or so we are told now.

Frankly, I doubt it. There is a reason why the Ottoman Empire had such a melancolic end.

It seems to me that for all their flaws the British and French colonizers and occupiers paid some mind to the wishes of the natives and, therefore, often ended up leaving those territories. Meanwhile, Muslim rulers tend to suffocate dissent and go out of their ways to encourage exagerated, vaguely threatening displays of support to their rulers.

As shown time and again, those are not really trustworthy. See for instance the recent history of Lybia. Or Syria. Egypt. Even Iraq. The partition of Pakistan that gave rise to Bangladesh. The Arab Revolt of 1916 against the Ottoman Turks.

It really looks like Muslim regimes tend make a good job of silencing dissenters, and a considerably worse job of actually convincing or negotiating with them.

Nor does the 1916 movement seem to be particularly exceptional, either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_against_the_Ottoman_Empire

Edited to add: I should also mention the Armenian Genocide, an interesting subject matter of its own, among other reasons because there is so much pressure to avoid discussing it as the historical fact that it was.

Also, one should consider how the Ottoman Empire acquired Istambul for its capital.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

This thread is the perfect example of what i'm talking about.

Some of you on here hate Islam and Muslims so much you haven't even realised what this thread is about. Let me explain it to you in a simple way: This was about how the media is eager to highlight an entire race/religion/nationality when the perpetrator is Muslim but willing to look the other way when the perpetrator is white/european/christian/atheist/homosexual etc.

Not a single one of you commenting on here properly raised that issue yet have spent 4 pages discussing how bad Islam apparently is in the middle east, which is not even closet o what this thread was about.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Fair enough.



I don't think it is possible to accurately tally up the total number of deaths caused by muslim and non-muslim empires throughout history: who knows how many lives the British and Ottomans claimed, for example?
Besides, even if it is the Nazis who have the highest body count. . . who supported them, and who opposed them?

Which muslim empire/dysnasty,royal family/army wiped out entire ethnic groups?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

We are almost in same track. "who kill more"

Nazis killed more than all Islamic extremists during all time .

The thread has been derailed by people who are fueled by hate, not intelligence or education. That was the whole point of me making this, to see if people would actually respond to the points I was making or go off on their own Islamophobic tangent. Guess what happened?