The Gaming Den

So Frank says that Russia has been the aggressor vs Islam.

"Until the beginning of the 18th century, Crimean Tatars were known for frequent, at some periods almost annual, devastating raids into Ukraine and Russia.[29] For a long time, until the late 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East which was the most important basis of its economy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_T ... lave_trade

Yup, all those years of peaceful Muslims. And if you read other things on that page, you will note that the crimean tartars were pretty much all muslim.


"While Ivan IV was a minor, armies of the Kazan Khanate repeatedly raided the northeast of Russia,[33] In the 1530s the Crimean khan formed an offensive alliance with Safa Giray of Kazan, his relative. When Safa Giray invaded Muscovy in December 1540,"

" In 1545 Ivan IV mounted an expedition to the River Volga to show his support for pro-Russian factions."

notice the pro-russian fcations there

"About 60,000–100,000 Russian prisoners and slaves were released."

Wonder where they got those from? Russia perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

Do you have a point, or are you trying to get banned?

I'm still unconvinced by your logic chain. Yes, Tatars raided Russian lands, which eventually led to Ivan the Terrible obliterating Khanate of Kazan. But that doesn't mean the war was because of muslims and christians. For Russia Kazan has been a pain in the ass for a long time, and its takeover paved the way for expansion to Volga and Ural.

Historical tip: being the aggressor is not a 'permanent and forever one side only' tag.

That you can dredge up an example of Crimean aggression and an example of Kazani aggression from the span of five hundred years I'm... not impressed. Or swayed by your lack of argument.

Especially since Russia stomped the whole area flat and much, much more recently (as in, actually during living memory) persecuted the shit out of people in those areas. And bombed the fuck out of some of those areas within the last couple decades.

Only quoting wikipedia to back up your claims shows you don't really know anything about the topic. Wikipedia is kinda like the bible, you can pick and choose almost anything to support your premise.

If you want to be taken seriously, show that you've done actual research to support your claims, instead of using only wikipedia as your primary resource.*

*this comment could be aimed at other posters as well, not naming names...

Oh man, imagine if the Bible were as easy for some random nutcase to add information to as Wikipedia is...

Y'know, Wikipedia was originally intended to demonstrate that such an encyclopedia could work without a central organizing group of editors who would decide which contributions were worthy and what was noise. That... kind of stopped being a thing. Rather quickly.

If you guys want to have this discussion, at least frame it appropriately:

"Islam" is entirely too broad of a label. The shithead islamists doing violent things today are almost entirely Wahhabists / Salafists, which is one sect of one of the two major branches of Islam.

To put it all this on a more familiar perspective for most of you, this mislabelling would be as infuriating as if say, the Presbyterians started stoning gays and disobedient children tomorrow, and then all the talking heads at the news keep going about how Christians are evil and barbaric. Even if said Presbyterians are killing Catholics on sight and forcing Baptists to worship like them do.

The actual main problem of modern "islamic terrorism" is that Wahhabism (the violent sect that provides about 100% of the modern terrorists) is the favored sect of goddamn Saudi Arabia, so this lunacy tends to be extremely well funded and aggressive on their proselytizing to the other sects. Still, Wahhabism is something smaller than "Islam".

nockermensch wrote:If you guys want to have this discussion, at least frame it appropriately:

"Islam" is entirely too broad of a label. The shithead islamists doing violent things today are almost entirely Wahhabists / Salafists, which is one sect of one of the two major branches of Islam.

To put it all this on a more familiar perspective for most of you, this mislabelling would be as infuriating as if say, the Presbyterians started stoning gays and disobedient children tomorrow, and then all the talking heads at the news keep going about how Christians are evil and barbaric. Even if said Presbyterians are killing Catholics on sight and forcing Baptists to worship like them do.

The actual main problem of modern "islamic terrorism" is that Wahhabism (the violent sect that provides about 100% of the modern terrorists) is the favored sect of goddamn Saudi Arabia, so this lunacy tends to be extremely well funded and aggressive on their proselytizing to the other sects. Still, Wahhabism is something smaller than "Islam".

That was the point I was trying to make in the main thread.

nockermensch wrote: To put it all this on a more familiar perspective for most of you, this mislabelling would be as infuriating as if say, the Presbyterians started stoning gays and disobedient children tomorrow, and then all the talking heads at the news keep going about how Christians are evil and barbaric. Even if said Presbyterians are killing Catholics on sight and forcing Baptists to worship like them do.

Most people on the board would not blink if anyone said that, this is a very anti-christian community. Also I'm almost positive christians have in fact done similar things in the past. Or was this sarcasm and I'm missing it?

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
Most people on the board would not blink if anyone said that, this is a very anti-christian community. Also I'm almost positive christians have in fact done similar things in the past. Or was this sarcasm and I'm missing it?

I would blink, because when you have this kind of discussion painting in broad strokes fucks up the whole conversation.

Occluded Sun wrote:Oh man, imagine if the Bible were as easy for some random nutcase to add information to as Wikipedia is...

They were. That's how they got all the shit in there, some random asshole would write a story, pass it around, and it would end up in the bible.

phlapjackage wrote:Only quoting wikipedia to back up your claims shows you don't really know anything about the topic. Wikipedia is kinda like the bible, you can pick and choose almost anything to support your premise.

If you want to be taken seriously, show that you've done actual research to support your claims, instead of using only wikipedia as your primary resource.*

*this comment could be aimed at other posters as well, not naming names...

Don't be a drive by fuckboy, either name names or shut up.

Also, you can follow the sources cited by any Wikipedia article worth a damn and then verify the information using basic discretion so double fuck you.

Kaelik wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:Oh man, imagine if the Bible were as easy for some random nutcase to add information to as Wikipedia is...

They were. That's how they got all the shit in there, some random asshole would write a story, pass it around, and it would end up in the bible.

No. The bible was assembled by a council of bishops that judged what would and wouldn't be in it. Before the bible there were way more than just 4 gospels.



All of Islam has the problem of the koran justifying holy wars. Wahabists just happen to like that part more. There are definitely Muslims that have integrated into society in the western world well, because they were more secular.

And the problems that come with the refugees in Germany and Sweden go a long way to proving me right. They are coming from countries where women are second class citizens. The fact that Norway has classes to teach them that in Norway you are not permited to have sex with a woman without her consent shows how much of a cultural difference there is.

AndreiChekov wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:Oh man, imagine if the Bible were as easy for some random nutcase to add information to as Wikipedia is...

They were. That's how they got all the shit in there, some random asshole would write a story, pass it around, and it would end up in the bible.

No. The bible was assembled by a council of bishops that judged what would and wouldn't be in it. Before the bible there were way more than just 4 gospels.

1) The Old Testament exists.
2) All they did was pick from the random crap other people had thrown together, IE, other people made the dumb stuff in the first place, those bishops didn't get to choose to include paul's actual letters without all the weird edits made by other people, because that was all they had to choose from.
3) Hey, if you are the editor picking from all the random crap other people submit... hey maybe that makes you the wiki editor.

AndreiChekov wrote:All of Islam has the problem of the koran justifying holy wars. Wahabists just happen to like that part more. There are definitely Muslims that have integrated into society in the western world well, because they were more secular.

The Bible has quotes justifying holy war. It's called "the entire book of Joshua". It's not that Wahhabists "just happen to like it more", it's that Wahhabists tend to treat the koran like a practical and literal instruction manual while most other muslims got with the times and went the whole "it's actually a spiritual message about struggling against evil and injustice" that let christians and jews have wholesome church/synagogue services about the sacking of Jericho.

AndreiChekov wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:Oh man, imagine if the Bible were as easy for some random nutcase to add information to as Wikipedia is...

They were. That's how they got all the shit in there, some random asshole would write a story, pass it around, and it would end up in the bible.

No. The bible was assembled by a council of bishops that judged what would and wouldn't be in it. Before the bible there were way more than just 4 gospels.

No. They weren't 'judging' shit. They were making compromise political deals to get the different sects into a deal where they could stand as something resembling a church with political influence rather than the individual groups of crazed cultists that they actually were. They cut shit because people with money and large groups of followers wanted it cut, and added other shit if it had enough backing. The were trying to create a legitimate (in the eyes of the state) faith out of a series of mystery cults.

nockermensch wrote:

AndreiChekov wrote:All of Islam has the problem of the koran justifying holy wars. Wahabists just happen to like that part more. There are definitely Muslims that have integrated into society in the western world well, because they were more secular.

The Bible has quotes justifying holy war. It's called "the entire book of Joshua". It's not that Wahhabists "just happen to like it more", it's that Wahhabists tend to treat the koran like a practical and literal instruction manual while most other muslims got with the times and went the whole "it's actually a spiritual message about struggling against evil and injustice" that let christians and jews have wholesome church/synagogue services about the sacking of Jericho.

But you know what they key difference is?

Christian countries no longer are theocracies. The pope no longer has the influence to call crusades upon the nonbelievers. Bishops don't rally armies to kill in the name of god. The bible no longer is an accepted method of government neither an accepted military treatise.

But Islam theocracies are still a thing, and too many Islamic religious leaders are still calling Jihads to purge the infidels. Killing in the name of Islam is still a very popular activity nowadays.

If Christianity could get their act together to stop mass killing in the name of some dude in heaven, why can't Islam do the same thing?

If the koran is not an effective tool of hate, then why does it keep being used as such, leading countless people to blow themselves up trying to take as many others down with them as possible? Even at their darkest times, crusaders weren't suicide-bombing into civilian targets.

maglag wrote: If the koran is not an effective tool of hate, then why does it keep being used as such, leading countless people to blow themselves up trying to take as many others down with them as possible? Even at their darkest times, crusaders weren't suicide-bombing into civilian targets.

The difference is capability, not will. Christianity has its share of martyrs. Its just that, you know, suicide bombing wasn't exactly an effective tactic before the invention of explosives.

maglag wrote: If the koran is not an effective tool of hate, then why does it keep being used as such, leading countless people to blow themselves up trying to take as many others down with them as possible? Even at their darkest times, crusaders weren't suicide-bombing into civilian targets.

The Crusaders were raping, sacking and pillaging, sometimes their own kind, for the benefit of purely worldly pursuits instead.

And if you want to talk about religious texts being books of hate, look at the abortion debate, the Quiverfull movement, and Anders Brevik. This is not a religious thing, or a brown people thing, this is motivating the disenfranchised into acts of extreme violence. Stop thinking they're anything special; you're being told that to conflate crazies with an entire religion in order to better serve people who profit off of that conflation.

I don't see much utility in treating the peaceful practice of Islam as indistinguishable from violent practice of Islam. That's basically promising to have a bigger list of enemies whether it is warranted or not.

maglag wrote:If the koran is not an effective tool of hate, then why does it keep being used as such, leading countless people to blow themselves up trying to take as many others down with them as possible? Even at their darkest times, crusaders weren't suicide-bombing into civilian targets.

The Ku Klux Klan was (and remains) a Christian terrorist organization, you stupid asshole. Do you think they used crosses because they're a big fan of the letter t? For fuck's sake, Mormons didn't lift their ban on black priests until 1978 - a ban that originates in the theory that dark skin represents a curse from god originating with the biblical Cain. There are massive Christian institutions in the Western world that within living memory were still calling out black people as subhuman, as well as terrorist organizations acting on that belief by fucking lynching them. And then there's the murders and firebombings associated with abortion...

Seriously, our shit does not smell like roses. The U.S. is a wealthier, geopolitically stabler nation with a strong, secular law enforcement, and as a result we have less extremism generally. But we had to fight tooth and nail for that - there's a time when the FBI was actively defending KKK lynchings by dragging the victims thereof through the mud in the press, hoping to suppress the public's interest in such cases so the KKK could keep murdering people in their quest for a white, Protestant - yes, specifically Protestant - America. That's our actual history, you ignorant shit-for-brains. It's ugly, and religion's at the core of a lot of it. Or at least, religion serves as the justification, because frankly that's all people ever use religion for, extremist Muslims included; to justify the hate they already have. And it turns out that living in unstable regions with active conflicts, crippling poverty, and rampant government corruption fills you with a lot more hate than being a white guy in the 1950's who's bitter about black people getting to vote. What a surprise that is.

Mask_De_H wrote: Don't be a drive by fuckboy, either name names or shut up.

Also, you can follow the sources cited by any Wikipedia article worth a damn and then verify the information using basic discretion so double fuck you.

Well, that escalated quickly!

Yes, you or I COULD follow the citations on Wikipedia to the other sources, but when a poster (named: Chekov) posts ONLY wiki links, it pretty clearly indicates the poster has, at best, a shaky surface-level knowledge on the subject. That's what I was saying.

Just call him a fuckwit then. Don't be coy, this is the Den.

Mask_De_H wrote:Just call him a fuckwit then. Don't be coy, this is the Den.

I'll reserve the insults for when I feel they're needed*, thanks.

"Don't tell me what to do or I'll have my mustache eat your beard!"

*Having said that, I do agree that probably in this case it's needed, as the shit Chekov has been spewing is fucking stupid and vile

hyzmarca wrote:

maglag wrote: If the koran is not an effective tool of hate, then why does it keep being used as such, leading countless people to blow themselves up trying to take as many others down with them as possible? Even at their darkest times, crusaders weren't suicide-bombing into civilian targets.

The difference is capability, not will. Christianity has its share of martyrs. Its just that, you know, suicide bombing wasn't exactly an effective tactic before the invention of explosives.

Going further back than that the zealots got the job done by just rush stabbing Roman officials while getting stabbed to death by their guards.