[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You guys crack me up.
Nobody here argued that monotheists invented organized violence, that’s downright idiotic and a thread killer.
But monotheism has been the prime source for finding bullshit reasons to murder, dehumanize and wage war.
The Aztecs were basically weaklings. Their “bloodthirstiness” is mostly catholic prooaganda. The practice of sacrifice is not a strong case for bloodthirsty, warlike behaviour at all.
A handful of men (devout monotheists) overcame them foremost because they were more ruthless. The Aztecs were defeated because they were pathetic on the battlefield. They fought like on the schoolyard, for fame and fun, while the pious spaniards were mad with bloodlust. Aztec warfare was a joke compared to european slaughter finesse.
Same with native North Americans, although here the diseases and the numbers were even more against them.
Think of a competition between the average japanese pornstar against an american, no contest.
Monotheism kicks Hutzilopochtli’s ass.
Romans were pretty violent and above all, merciless. They were polytheistic for sure. However, when opportunity came to switch sides and trade Jupiter, Mithras and Sol with the crucified loser, they did so in a heartbeat. Interesting, why would they do that?
The Egyptians are a bad example. I don’t know why they were brought up? They weren’t exactly vicious and those were unfriendly times back then.
Vikings are also a bad example. Most of them weren’t raiders, in fact, I recall being called a viking was more an insult aka “plunderer”. The vast majority were pretty lame and more interested in herding sheep and trading.
However, as converting progressed so did their expansion. You could certainly argue that the more their ears became accustomed to Ave Marias, the more they were fond of the sound of axe and sword clashing against bone. Hmm… (perhaps latin gibberish makes ancient people act pissed off?)
Ya and Alexander the Great was much less brutal and barbaric then America because he told everyone including his dad he was going to conquer the world.
Alexander was a saint in his time. Can you imagine your president personally freeing Saddam from his prison, kissing him on his cheeks and granting him a high position in his staff. Maybe even marrying his fugly daughters to Udai and Kusai?
So I say, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!, now please welcome our new chief oil inspector Saddam Hussein and his gallent sons, who from now on are also my sons! (frenetic applause)
now for the onion:
So if you?re on a quest to conquer the world just make sure and announce that?s you intent…sounds reasonable…But
If you are killing enemy combatants and not the women, children, and innocent men, at least not trying to, while at the same time liberating the country from a dictator(Saddam) it isn’t okay because there is no way your there to help you must have a hidden agenda.
That is some logic.
yepp just better off killing everyone, burning the villages.
you guys realize you probably killed more “women children, and innocent men” then Saddam.
Especially put emphasis on the innocent part. If you weren’t a kurd, then for the most part, you would be probably pretty safe with your family.
Now with foreign bombs flying around, this is a whole new quality. It need a very unique mind and also a flock of ignorant yaysayers aka “patriots” back at the homefront to collectively look away.
I don’t see how Saddam could possibly bury some cluster bombs waiting to be picked up by children with a straight face- your president somehow can do this while babbling about his “relationship” to a picture of a naked, mutilated and dying arab man on a torture instrument.[/quote]
Hate to piss on your parade, but when the US drops bomb these days they are pretty well thought out and calculate. We don’t just fly over an area and drop a 100 bombs like back in the day. Collateral damage is much less then say in WWII off course back then everything was blown to bits so there weren’t many “innocent” to worry about.