(June 6, 2018 at 8:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Crusaders never managed to do anything remotely as brutal as this:

http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/

Quote:A full week of pillage and destruction commenced. The Mongols showed no discretion, destroying mosques, hospitals, libraries, and palaces. The books from Baghdad’s libraries were thrown into the Tigris River in such quantities that the river ran black with the ink from the books. The world will never truly know the extent of what knowledge was lost forever when those books were thrown into the river or burned.

More important than the books, however, was the loss of life. It is estimated that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 people were butchered in that one week of destruction. Baghdad was left completely depopulated and uninhabitable. It would take centuries for Baghdad to regain any sort of prominence as an important city.

And Baghdad was not the only massacre.

I heard this horrifying piece of history before and just omg is all I can say. I wonder what books were lost during that massacre, until today Sunni Muslims blame Shiite Muslims for betraying Baghdad, even though and old event, it plays a key role in the sectarian civil war:

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._...of_Baghdad

I wish to know what kind of impact would the lost knowledge have on the current advance of Muslims.
But I don't know if it makes sense to compare the duration of the crusades to the amount of destruction the mongols did.

Personally; I tend to believe more that a small damage over a very long period of time, might equal or even exceed a shorter great damage.

The Mongols didn't kill them because they were muslims.  They killed them because the city resisted.  They pulled the same shit in China, too.  It was part of their terror campaign.

We always get the same shit with Stalin.  "Oh" whine the xhristards "Stalin was an atheist who killed millions."  Yes, but he killed them because they resisted collectivization not because they believed in silly fairy tales.  The dead are still dead and they could give a shit care less how they got that way but they don't deserve to be used as religious pawns by assholes who think 'persecution' means having to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

(June 8, 2018 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: The Mongols didn't kill them because they were muslims.  They killed them because the city resisted.  They pulled the same shit in China, too.  It was part of their terror campaign.

We always get the same shit with Stalin.  "Oh" whine the xhristards "Stalin was an atheist who killed millions."  Yes, but he killed them because they resisted collectivization not because they believed in silly fairy tales.  The dead are still dead and they could give a shit care less how they got that way but they don't deserve to be used as religious pawns by assholes who think 'persecution' means having to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

There were sick fucks among them, in one of the battles they won in Eastern Europe, they "sat on the captured Russian princes":


They were brute fucks, so I agree. Their brutality is "more of a terrorizing policy" than a "religious/cultural grudge".
You get the same with "Stalin" and in modern Arabia "Saddam Hussain": they are ruthless people who use ruthless means.

Well, Atlass, it was abhorring that the world did almost nothing during the Balkan wars, but, unlike you insinuate, it wasn't only a war against Muslims.

By 1995 Serbs massacres were a routine thing for Serbs and it didn't stop until US bombed Belgrade in 1999 and Belgrade should have been bombed back in 1991 when Serbs first started massacring people in Croatia which were not Muslims.

Here's a good explanation by Bill Clinton from his autobiography of what was happening there:

Quote:By 1991, Yugoslavia’s westernmost provinces, Slovenia and Croatia, both predominantly Catholic, had declared independence from Yugoslavia. Fighting then broke out between Serbia and Croatia, and spilled over into Bosnia. In 1991, the Bosnians were governed by a coalition of national unity headed by the leading Muslim politician, Alija Izetbegovic, and including the militant Serbian nationalist leader Radovan Karadzic, a Sarajevo psychiatrist.

At first Izetbegovic wanted Bosnia to be an autonomous multi-ethnic, multi-religious province of Yugoslavia. When Slovenia and Croatia were recognized by the international community as independent nations, Izetbegovic decided that the only way Bosnia could escape Serbian dominance was to seek independence, too. Karadzic and his allies, who were tied closely to Milosevic, had a very different agenda. They were supportive of Milosevic’s desire to turn as much of Yugoslavia as he could hold on to, including Bosnia, into a Greater Serbia.

On March 1, 1992, a referendum was held on whether Bosnia should become an independent nation in which all citizens and groups would be treated equally. The result was an almost unanimous approval of independence, but only two-thirds of the electorate voted. Karadzic had ordered the Serbs to stay away from the polls and most of them did. By then, Serb paramilitary forces had begun killing unarmed Muslims, driving them from their homes in Serb-dominated areas in the hope of carving up Bosnia into ethnic enclaves, or “cantons,” by force. This cruel policy came to be known by a curiously antiseptic name: ethnic cleansing.
The European Community envoy, Lord Carrington, tried to get the parties to agree to peacefully divide the country into ethnic regions but failed, because there was no way to do it without leaving large numbers of one group on land controlled by another, and because many Bosnians wanted to keep their country together, with the different groups living together in peace, as they had done successfully for most of the previous five hundred years.
In April 1992, the European Community recognized Bosnia as an independent state for the first time since the fifteenth century. Meanwhile, Serbian paramilitary forces continued to terrorize Muslim communities and kill civilians, all the while using the media to convince local Serbs that it was they who were under attack from the Muslims and who had to defend themselves.

To its credit, the Bush administration did urge the United Nations to impose economic sanctions on Serbia, a measure initially opposed by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the French, and the British, who said they wanted to give Milosevic a chance to stop the very violence he had incited. Finally, sanctions were imposed in late May, but with little effect, as supplies continued to reach the Serbs from friendly neighbors. The United Nations also continued to maintain the arms embargo against the Bosnian government that originally had been imposed against all Yugoslavia in late 1991. The problem with the embargo was that the Serbs had enough weapons and ammunition on hand to fight for years; therefore, the only consequence of maintaining the embargo was to make it virtually impossible for the Bosnians to defend themselves. Somehow they managed to hold out throughout 1992, acquiring some arms by capturing them from Serb forces, or in small shipments from Croatia that managed to evade the NATO blockade of the Croatian coast.

Did you pay good attention to this part in particular:

Quote:Somehow they (Bosnians) managed to hold out throughout 1992, acquiring some arms by capturing them from Serb forces, or in small shipments from Croatia that managed to evade the NATO blockade of the Croatian coast.

So imagine that, Croatia supplied Bosnians (Muslims) with weapons. Croats and Serbs are both Christians and yet Croats rather helped Muslims to fight Christians (Serbs)!

Atlas, the picture you posted was actually a common method of execution among the Mongols.  They had a taboo against the shedding of royal blood so they used "crushing" instead.  The most common variant of it was to wrap the condemned in a blanket or rug and ride their horses over him.  That normally did the trick.

(June 9, 2018 at 5:40 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(June 8, 2018 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: The Mongols didn't kill them because they were muslims.  They killed them because the city resisted.  They pulled the same shit in China, too.  It was part of their terror campaign.

We always get the same shit with Stalin.  "Oh" whine the xhristards "Stalin was an atheist who killed millions."  Yes, but he killed them because they resisted collectivization not because they believed in silly fairy tales.  The dead are still dead and they could give a shit care less how they got that way but they don't deserve to be used as religious pawns by assholes who think 'persecution' means having to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

There were sick fucks among them, in one of the battles they won in Eastern Europe, they "sat on the captured Russian princes":


They were brute fucks, so I agree. Their brutality is "more of a terrorizing policy" than a "religious/cultural grudge".
You get the same with "Stalin" and in modern Arabia "Saddam Hussain": they are ruthless people who use ruthless means.

For mongols, execution without breaking the skin or shedding blood is considered a high honor bestowed upon the condemned.

Mongol’s conquest was brutal during the process, but mongol administration after conquest was singularly enlightened and high minded for the age. Trade prospered as it had never done before and will not do again until the 1600s, all religions are tolerated and peaceful debate between creeds encouraged. Administrative punishements were generally humane by the standards of the time. Where mongols ruled the number of crimes punishable by death or mutilation was generally drastically reduced. All together the mongol age contributed more to the later rise of the modern age more than might be supposed.

(June 10, 2018 at 3:25 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well, Atlass, it was abhorring that the world did almost nothing during the Balkan wars, but, unlike you insinuate, it wasn't only a war against Muslims.

By 1995 Serbs massacres were a routine thing for Serbs and it didn't stop until US bombed Belgrade in 1999 and Belgrade should have been bombed back in 1991 when Serbs first started massacring people in Croatia which were not Muslims.

Here's a good explanation by Bill Clinton from his autobiography of what was happening there:

Quote:By 1991, Yugoslavia’s westernmost provinces, Slovenia and Croatia, both predominantly Catholic, had declared independence from Yugoslavia. Fighting then broke out between Serbia and Croatia, and spilled over into Bosnia. In 1991, the Bosnians were governed by a coalition of national unity headed by the leading Muslim politician, Alija Izetbegovic, and including the militant Serbian nationalist leader Radovan Karadzic, a Sarajevo psychiatrist.

At first Izetbegovic wanted Bosnia to be an autonomous multi-ethnic, multi-religious province of Yugoslavia. When Slovenia and Croatia were recognized by the international community as independent nations, Izetbegovic decided that the only way Bosnia could escape Serbian dominance was to seek independence, too. Karadzic and his allies, who were tied closely to Milosevic, had a very different agenda. They were supportive of Milosevic’s desire to turn as much of Yugoslavia as he could hold on to, including Bosnia, into a Greater Serbia.

On March 1, 1992, a referendum was held on whether Bosnia should become an independent nation in which all citizens and groups would be treated equally. The result was an almost unanimous approval of independence, but only two-thirds of the electorate voted. Karadzic had ordered the Serbs to stay away from the polls and most of them did. By then, Serb paramilitary forces had begun killing unarmed Muslims, driving them from their homes in Serb-dominated areas in the hope of carving up Bosnia into ethnic enclaves, or “cantons,” by force. This cruel policy came to be known by a curiously antiseptic name: ethnic cleansing.
The European Community envoy, Lord Carrington, tried to get the parties to agree to peacefully divide the country into ethnic regions but failed, because there was no way to do it without leaving large numbers of one group on land controlled by another, and because many Bosnians wanted to keep their country together, with the different groups living together in peace, as they had done successfully for most of the previous five hundred years.
In April 1992, the European Community recognized Bosnia as an independent state for the first time since the fifteenth century. Meanwhile, Serbian paramilitary forces continued to terrorize Muslim communities and kill civilians, all the while using the media to convince local Serbs that it was they who were under attack from the Muslims and who had to defend themselves.

To its credit, the Bush administration did urge the United Nations to impose economic sanctions on Serbia, a measure initially opposed by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the French, and the British, who said they wanted to give Milosevic a chance to stop the very violence he had incited. Finally, sanctions were imposed in late May, but with little effect, as supplies continued to reach the Serbs from friendly neighbors. The United Nations also continued to maintain the arms embargo against the Bosnian government that originally had been imposed against all Yugoslavia in late 1991. The problem with the embargo was that the Serbs had enough weapons and ammunition on hand to fight for years; therefore, the only consequence of maintaining the embargo was to make it virtually impossible for the Bosnians to defend themselves. Somehow they managed to hold out throughout 1992, acquiring some arms by capturing them from Serb forces, or in small shipments from Croatia that managed to evade the NATO blockade of the Croatian coast.

Did you pay good attention to this part in particular:

Quote:Somehow they (Bosnians) managed to hold out throughout 1992, acquiring some arms by capturing them from Serb forces, or in small shipments from Croatia that managed to evade the NATO blockade of the Croatian coast.

So imagine that, Croatia supplied Bosnians (Muslims) with weapons. Croats and Serbs are both Christians and yet Croats rather helped Muslims to fight Christians (Serbs)!

I stressed a section from Clinton's statement that I think points strongly to the cultural problem some European white communities have with Islam and Muslims. The political goals of the Serb leaders are understandable, but to murder Muslims in specific on a scale this big requires years for the grudge and the hate to be ready.

In every ethnic cleansing around the world, there is always years of grudge and hate being "cooked". Take for example the "Sunni/Shiite" example in the Middle East.

I underlined one part: the Serbs bought the propaganda poured to them because of the grudge and hate. Personally; this is what I believe happened.
I don't know the motives of the Croats in the support of Bosnians; but I bet it is for an interest that the Croats seek. If the interest was with the Serbs; they would've did what the NATO did and prevented weapons from going in.

---

(June 10, 2018 at 11:35 am)Minimalist Wrote: Atlas, the picture you posted was actually a common method of execution among the Mongols.  They had a taboo against the shedding of royal blood so they used "crushing" instead.  The most common variant of it was to wrap the condemned in a blanket or rug and ride their horses over him.  That normally did the trick.

The worst way to die is to die as a part of a ritual. Just shit, this "crushing" is a damn nightmare, too bad they didn't know that "bruises" are actually spilled blood; but under the skin

(June 10, 2018 at 12:06 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(June 9, 2018 at 5:40 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: There were sick fucks among them, in one of the battles they won in Eastern Europe, they "sat on the captured Russian princes":


They were brute fucks, so I agree. Their brutality is "more of a terrorizing policy" than a "religious/cultural grudge".
You get the same with "Stalin" and in modern Arabia "Saddam Hussain": they are ruthless people who use ruthless means.

For mongols, execution without breaking the skin or shedding blood is considered a high honor bestowed upon the condemned.
 
Mongol’s conquest was brutal during the process, but mongol administration after conquest was singularly enlightened and high minded for the age.  Trade prospered as it had never done before and will not do again until the 1600s, all religions are tolerated and peaceful debate between creeds encouraged.  Administrative punishements were generally humane by the standards of the time.  Where mongols ruled the number of crimes punishable by death or mutilation was generally drastically reduced.   All together the mongol age contributed more to the later rise of the modern age more than might be supposed.

Though all historical references points to them "butchering whole cities" and leaving the scientists who they need alive to contribute more to their war machine. That's how they learned to build siege weapons and go through siege warfare.

Noticing their savagery is shown with the amounts of books they threw in the river after taking Baghdad.
Using scientists from defeated nations is an accusation Muslim empires are face with all the time -despite the gross fact that most scientists converted to Islam willingly or were born Muslim-, no wonder the Mongol empire didn't last, nobody was loyal to them.

Even the sons of the Khan fought with each other.

I don't share your opinion; as a matter in fact I think their raids were a consequence of the ego of the rest of the world, and its lavish living in a long historical road full of laughter at the weak. The Mongols won because their enemies were so full of themselves. And, the "Black Death" was also parallel to their expansions, so personally I believe the two are a curse in a way.

(June 10, 2018 at 10:36 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Even the sons of the Khan fought with each other.

Regular sunnis and shias, weren;t they.  

The mongols overcame their enemies because they had superior training, tactics, and organization. It;s not magic, wars aren;t won or lost through some sort of karmic debt or curse. Let;s at least try not to be silly.

(June 10, 2018 at 9:33 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: I stressed a section from Clinton's statement that I think points strongly to the cultural problem some European white communities have with Islam and Muslims. The political goals of the Serb leaders are understandable, but to murder Muslims in specific on a scale this big requires years for the grudge and the hate to be ready.

That's because you are very biased and you want to see only what you want to see and you are very keen on playing a victim. Like Clinton said there was war in Croatia before that, where whole Christian cities were destroyed and people killed by same politics and people that killed Muslims later on, but you just don't give a shit about that.