The west

[Deesse23]

Let's put a very obvious line here between "the past" and "the present". In the past, there were no atomic weapons, no modern weapons, but yet early Muslims took down Persia and Rome in mere few years. Doesn't that hint that the people under the Persian empire and Roman empire hated the guts of their empires and wanted to see them taken out?

People hated the guts of Persia and Rome, don't ask Arabs; ask Germans and early Europeans before early Arabs.

Persians and Romans were brutal in war, and were the super powers of their time, So let's stop picturing them as the "innocent kittens that were eaten by the early Muslims". Their war machine was monstrous and their combatants spread terror in the whole world and ruled with a fist of steel. So no remorse for seeing these empires go, criminals always get defeated and go, even if they wore silk and gold.

Then, let's speak about the connection of today's Middle East, to the Middle East of early Islam.
The two are different worlds, not even connected by a single hair. At least early Muslims were capable of bringing down empires like Persia and Rome; but the citizens of the modern Middle East can't even bring down weak governments living on American financial aid.

Your comparison is not just unfair; it's out of this world and also wrong. I speak about models of rule; America is an extension of Rome because it follows the Roman model in ruling, but are the regimes of the Middle East -today- are following the early Islamic model?

They are indeed not, but they are following the model which the winners in WW2 wrote. Just like Japan which  followed that model, China which followed that model, India, ...etc.

We are discussing this model. Confusing today's model with the model early Muslims ruled with is plain unfair, wrong and not legit.

As my opinion in both models, that needs a separate thread.

The western powers are not friends with nobody; you can't be a friend to no one when you believe in Nietzsche's "Master-Slave" code of ethics, thinking that you are "the master" while others are "the slaves".

The west can't befriend slaves when its regimes think they are the master; or "the creator of morality", everybody else is weak slave following what they create after all -according to the secular line of thoughts"; technically the tyranny of Christianity's church was mutated into secularism after the age of illumination, the priest turned into the suit-wearing politician and the Christian knight turned into the American soldier.


The Crusades mutated into more destructive wars that were summed in the infamous 2 world wars -which will mostly witness a third; so destructive it will end our existence as a specie-.


I'm not marching against the drums. There are no drums. There is immediate execution in the middle of the night, with the way out guarded by immigration officers accompanied by machine-gun wielding knights.

This is so utterly wrong on so many leves that it needs to be adressed individually:

early Muslims took down Persia and Rome in mere few years

Wrong! Actually, your claim that early Muslims took down Rome in mere few years is "not even wrong".

Rome/Byzantium:
By the time Islam rose its ugly head, Rome was already divided into two separte empires and (the western one) was already destroyed and its capital, Rome, sacked by Germanic tribes twice in 410 and 455.
What was left was the "rest", the so called Byzantine empire. While it lost control over Egypt and the Levant after Yarmuk, it was far from being "taken down". It still had control over Anatolia, a historically important region to the Roman Empire due to its large population and fertile grounds. It was not until Manzikert in 1074, 300y later after Yarmuk that the Byzantine empire lost control over this area as well. It was not due to Muslim prowess or whatever, but due to internal power struggles and treason during the battle. The Seldjuks (Alp Arslan) didnt even intended to take down Byzantum at all, it was Byzantiums agressiveness towards the Seldjuks (and overconfidence) that led to this defeat. Actually Alp Arslan was out to take down the Fatimids in Egypt. Still Byzantium was far from being "taken down". It even expanded somewhat at times. It still controlled parts of the mediterranean until it was sacked and "taken down" for the first time by.....christian crusaders in 1204, led by Venice for political and economical reasons. Muslims had nothing to do with all of this. Up to this time, muslims put Constantinople under siege at least two times and were repelled. What muslims were busy to do however was to fight amongst themselves (see alp Arslan, or the reaosn why it took so long to expell crusaders from the Levant).

Persia:
I am sure you are talking about the Sassanids, but....since we already have learned that you had no clue about the muslims and the Byzantine Empire, i am not going to waste time exploring this claim of yours.
All i will say is that the Sassanids actually displayed quite some religious tolerance.....those evil monsters/opressors, how could they!?

Doesn't that hint that the people under the Persian empire and Roman empire hated the guts of their empires and wanted to see them taken out?

Sice we just have learned that your first claim was not even wrong, its no surprise that your conclusion is wrong as well. Garbage in, garbage out. The Byzantine Empires biggest problems werent rebellious subjects but the upper echelon and its power struggles. The fact that the Byzantine empire lived on for ca. 700 more years after the setback vs early muslims speaks volumes (its total lifetime as a separate entity lasted from 400-1400 = a.fucking.thousand.years.). It also speaks volumes of those early muslims, since none of those Caliphates or dynasties existed for nearly as long as the Byzantine empire (Ottomans come close. Do you like Ottomans? Well, your grandparents didnt, at least thats what i have been told. They conspired with evil western Crusaders/Christians/Brits and activley fought the Ottomans ).

So by your own yardstick, the subjects of the various muslim empires must have hated their empire way more than the byzantines did (your grandparents being evidence).

Persians and Romans were brutal in war, and were the super powers of their time, So let's stop picturing them as the "innocent kittens that were eaten by the early Muslims"

Oh, jebus, big empires tend to be agressive in war. Who would have thought. So who attacked whom? The Byzantines and the Sassanids attacked the "kitten" Muslims or vice versa?.....right, i knew it.
No it was the Muslims taking advantage of the Sassanids and Byzantines wearing each others out and the plague. If it wasnt for those, Islam maybe would have never spread so far so early so easily.

Their war machine was monstrous and their combatants spread terror in the whole world and ruled with a fist of steel. So no remorse for seeing these empires go, criminals always get defeated and go, even if they wore silk and gold.

Like i already said, Sassanids displayed quite soem religious tolerance. Prisoners of war werent execusted but deported to settle down somewhere in the Sassanid empire. Afaik, slaves also enjoyed quite some protection.
But even if the Sassanids (and Byzantines) ruled with a fist of steel and were criminals in doing, so what makes the early Muslims so different? their religion being the "one and only true one"?

Then, let's speak about the connection of today's Middle East, to the Middle East of early Islam.
The two are different worlds, not even connected by a single hair.

Exaclty this!....but the fact that since the dead of Mohammed himself his sucessors were at each others´throat about who is the rightful ruler of the muslim world, leading to the struggle between Shia and Sunni ever since Ali, Mohammeds son in law was killed.

At least early Muslims were capable of bringing down empires like Persia and Rome; but the citizens of the modern Middle East can't even bring down weak governments living on American financial aid.

Two things not being related at all to each other, with the first one being not even wrong. -> complete nonsense

America is an extension of Rome because it follows the Roman model in ruling, but are the regimes of the Middle East -today- are following the early Islamic model?

USA and Rome, one is an empire, ons is not. There is not much more one needs to know. You are connecting dots again, by ignoring and misrepresenting fact in an almost criminal way.
Regimes in the middle east following early ismalic model? I think so. Mainly because they still didnt stop to go at eath others throat (only as long as one utterly dominates the others) today.

The western powers are not friends with nobody; you can't be a friend to no one when you believe in Nietzsche's "Master-Slave" code of ethics, thinking that you are "the master" while others are "the slaves".

Until you can demonstrate that western governments view others, muslims specifically, as "slaves", all you have done is contructed a straw man.
Nitzsches philosophy is still heavily debated, and you summing him up with "master-slave" code of ethic can only be utterly ignorant or dishonest. Which one is it? Actually, my bet is on the on the first one, considering your track record in history.

The west can't befriend slaves when its regimes think they are the master; or "the creator of morality", everybody else is weak slave following what they create after all -according to the secular line of thoughts"; technically the tyranny of Christianity's church was mutated into secularism after the age of illumination, the priest turned into the suit-wearing politician and the Christian knight turned into the American soldier.

Your victim complex is well known already. Your equivocation of priests with politicans, of christianity with secularism. Well, one of your "not even wrong" moments, in which you really excel.
Please stop equivocating stuff thats not related at all. It makes you sound/look very hysterical and uninformed. You are basically making up shit, without proving anythign to back up your nonsensical delusions.

The Crusades mutated into more destructive wars that were summed in the infamous 2 world wars

And once again, you are dot-connecting and making up shit. Please explain what the connection of the crusades with the two world wars is, other than "there was war!", "it was waged and triggered by the west", etc. pp.