🚀 go-pugleaf

ishambat@aol.com (Ishambat) wrote in message 
news:<20011206221709.14667.00001285@mb-fw.aol.com>...
> S.D. Rodrian said:
> > To date the victims of Islam amount to 60 million human souls
> > and growing. Whatever else, all other evil that has ever been
> > attributed to organized groups, ALL OF IT PUT TOGETHER, by Nazis
> > and Genghis Khan -and ALL OF IT- pale in comparison.
> 
> Not really. 55 million died during Second World War. 

Actually, it was probably more like 65 million. However,
genocide is a specific crime and one can only accurately
say that some 6 to 12 million were murdered by the Nazis
this way, and "probably" not as many by the Soviets. [The
60 million victims of Muslim genocide is also a conservative 
estimate, since there are contemporary studies and reports 
of some regions alone in the Indian subcontinent where the
Hindu populations declined by 50 million there alone--If
all those claimed by the most insistent Hindus today to have 
been murdered by Muslims were included the numbers of the 
victims of the Muslim Holocaust would rise many times more 
than "just" "about" "perhaps as many as" 60 million. Again:

The 60 million number is the conservative number. And, from
historical accounts the Hindu mass murders were not staged 
for political or military reasons but from a systematic plan
to reduce their numbers. This excludes, in most cases, the
killings of soldiers in battle and even political opponents
in cold blood, which were considerable enough in/of themselves.

> Christian colonists killed
> around 100 million on the American continent alone. 

I admire your silly attempt to try to draw attention away from 
the staggering Muslim genocide by mentioning other cases in
myth and legend, but:

Hindu populations were huge and settled for thousands of years
in societies which were very heavily (and some even entirely)
agricultural (e.g. able to support huge numbers of individuals).

Stop for a minute to think through this old claim: It depends
on the assumption that stone-age hunter-gatherers had populations 
running into the tens of millions surviving out in the American 
prairies without engaging in the intense agriculture that makes 
ththose numbers possible: The only reports of substantial "indian"
populations all come from around the Mississippi, where some of 
the first European explorers write of large cultural centers and 
extensive populations which had been settled long enough to have
constructed the famous "mound cultures" there. However, when said
European explorers returned just ten years later they reported
these same regions depopulated and all the native civilizations
there vanished except for a miserable handful of survivers--so
utterly wiped from the memory of man that to this day they remain
a mystery even though they were interviewed by the earliest of
the European exploreres of the regions. We now know that they 
were destroyed by the plagues introduced by the Europeans. The 
same thing happened everywhere else in America, with horrific 
results especially in isolated island communities like Cuba's 
(there are practically no survivers of the substantial Carribbean
native American communities today... where it's probable that 
along with Central America's they constituted the largest numbers
of pre-Colombian societies)... and less so in communities which 
had "lines of contact" with Asia and therefore some "experience"
of the rest of the world's plagues.

Today there is a terror in the world of small pox being unleashed
and causing untold millions of deaths--this is in a 21st Century
world where modern medicine would launch a systematic counter-
offensive against such a plague, were it to occur. And now you know
the devastation that such "childhood diseases" must have unleashed
across the New World... one after the other one after the other one
upon natives without the slightest idea of even what was killing
them, let alone what to do to fight their spread. Is it little wonder
then that just a handful of years after their first encounter with the
Spanish, the surviving Mexican populations welcomed the second waves 
of Spanish arriving on their shores as magicians just only because
they had SOME experience handling the mysterious plagues killing them?

There were indeed open acts of genocide against native Americans
by the whites... but they are ALL of them excruciatingly documented
(by the whites) and extremely rare; and episodes never amounting
to more than a handful in any one case. In all probability the
greatest number of victims of this "genocide" were the people who
died when entire populations were forced to relocate (in a couple
of very infamous episodes especially... the Sioux relocations, and
the "trail of tears" pre-civil war ethnic cleansing episode). There
is no doubt that millions of Native Americans perished throughout
the entire New World, but exactly what killed them is well documented 
and definitely NOT a systematic genocide: newly introduced diseases
they had no natural immunities to (these sorts of massive die-offs
were not confined to America by any means, in Europe, for example,
during the Black Plague episodes... the European population was also
reduced by perhaps as much as half--without their having been the
victims of any genocide). There is also the additional point that
the history of America is very brief, and Archaeologists are active
everywhere throughout the entire continent(s)... so we know exactly
"where the bodies are buried" here, and there is NO evidence of any
mass killing AT ALL anywhere in the New World which could qualify 
remotely as ethnic murders (except for a few small episodes in which 
native American tribes butchered other native American tribes both 
in Latin America and the American prairie, when the Sioux (the name
means "the enemy") descended from Canada & butchered several tribes
in the "lower 48" for their land. Then again, Cortez's troubles with
the Aztecs didn't really begin until he ordered them to stop their
religious genocide of neighboring tribes (since it was the Aztecs's
religious practice to collect their neighbors for human sacrifice
and subsequent cannibalism). Of course, it's not politically correct
to mention this, but thousands of whites who set out for California
were also butchered by the plains indians carrying out a systematic 
plan of ethnic genocide against whites (even when they knew perfectly 
well that these innocent civilians had no intention of settling in 
"their" lands but were only passing through on their way to California. 
(It wasn't because the whites were gregarious that long wagon trains 
became the standard way for people who could not afford passage on
boats... to travel across Indian Territory. And it was not because the 
U.S. Government liked to waste its money maintaining large standing
armies "out West" that such armies were regularly necessasry out there.)

If you wish to draw attention to America's "real" genocide, it is
that of the African slaves... thousands of whom perished from the
abysmal manner in which they were transported to America (for greed's
sakes, because they were so "cheap" that it was unnecessary to take
the extra care it would have taken to transport them safely). But
Christian Churches battled against the slave trade, and certainly
none of them actually engaged in the "business" themselves. [Yes.
Once the slaves arrived in America they became extremely valuable
to their owners, and therefore protected from death. But, frankly,
they were treated like slaves... so you wouldn't've wanted people
looking after you with that kind of interest about your not dying.]

> ... Soviet Union and Communist
> China together add up to about the same number. As Stalin 
> said, One death is a
> tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. A convenient excuse.

Indeed: It's quite possible Stalin was the single greatest mass
murderer in all of history, but he killed for political reasons
primarily, and his victims' ethnicity was not primarily the reason
they were targeted (except for a few specific and well-documented 
episodes against geographic regions which resisted his rule).

> > as one can see from the stubborn fight the Turks put up
> > trying to deny their Armenian genocide
> 
> That episode was gnarly. Are you Armenian?

Nope. Sorry: I am a human being like them. I take it you're not.

> >And although they were indeed Christians (including most of
> >the atheist commies), their genocides were neither encouraged
> >nor sanctioned nor justified by either The Gospels or the Pope.
> 
> What the colonists did in American continent and in Africa 
> had a full sanction
> of the Church.

There you are COMPLETELY wrong: From the very first days the
Spanish explorers stepped on the American shores... Catholic
priests hounded their every attempt to enslave the American
natives (as exemplified by Father de las Casas). Do you remember
all the millions of Native American slaves? Well, there's a good
reason you don't. You can read about de las Casas here:

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history/jtuck/jtbartolome.html

http://www.orst.edu/dept/philosophy/ideas/papers/keen.html

But this IS true:
There was some "Christian" sanction of the enslavement of Africans,
it's just that it was by a few Protestant Churches in the Southern 
States of the U.S. where there had arisen a strong white supremacist
racial ideology there that permeated and permeates every facet of 
society there even to this day, including the white churches: However
the United States' bloodiest war was fought against these brutes, 
resulting in the emancipation of the African slaves at last in 1865. 

It remains a fact that the movement for the abolition of slavery in 
the North was primarily (almost entirely) carried out by the Churches 
there. And to this day Lincoln is celebrated not only as America's 
Second Pater Patria (to George Washington) but as her greatest martyr 
and liberator... all of which, put together with his incomparable
character and wit/wisdom makes him her consensus greatest president.

Now I've got to stop these episodic history lessons--Buy a book!

S D Rodrian
poems.sdrodrian.com
physics.sdrodrian.com

Again & again & again: There are genocides by "Christians" but
there are no Christian genocides. But there are genocides by Muslims
which were inspired, sanctioned, and called for by the Koran and
by Islamic religious leaders. And we don't even have to go to ancient
history for verification because the Muslim genocides are never-ceasing:

WIRE: 12/07/2001 8:13 am ET "SANGGINRA, Indonesia (AP) Thousands 
of Christians were hiding in jungle-clad mountains on Indonesia's
Sulawesi island Friday after their villages were attacked and 
razed by Muslim militias. Hundreds of homes were destroyed last 
month in the latest round of sectarian violence in the region which 
has left about 1,000 people dead on both sides in the past two years. 
In November, Muslim militants drove away security forces in the area 
then attacked at least three Christian villages in central Sulawesi, 
local residents said. There were conflicting reports about the number
of deaths in those attacks. Police could confirm only eight dead, 
but villagers said more were missing. In one village, Sangginra, the 
burned-out ruins of hundreds of houses and a church are all that is 
left of the once-bustling market community. A few haggard-looking 
villagers returned to Sangginra Friday and searched through the 
remains of their homes. "Many people cannot find their wives, husbands 
or children," said local priest Marson Movanti. "We fled to the 
mountains and jungle when we heard bombs exploding and rifle fire." 
He said some of the attackers were members of a Muslim militia, Laskar 
Jihad, which is responsible for much of the religious fighting in the 
nearby Maluku islands. About 9,000 people have been killed in that 
conflict in the past three years..."