Actually, you have.

You've been told to respect people different than you, to be nice, to be honest, that violence isn't to be a first resort, and not even a last resort unless absolutely necessary. You've been taught that racism is wrong, and that all people are equal.

All those things contribute to you not being a violent person to those who believe differently than you

Another ignorant cunt babbling untested theories as if they were time proven in order to appear intelligent.  She needs her ass slapped and tossed back into a hot kitchen.

You're just regurgitating Hemming, everything you just wrote came from his book. Here's the problem with going solely by the original source material, its tainted, biased. Literally written by the victors, who had to justify their violence to seniors including the Spanish Crown, under whose authority they were conquering under. So of course they weren't telling the truth, its ridiculous to suggest the Pizarro and his men didn't know exactly what they were doing; these weren't state department diplomats, they were soldiers, trained in conquering natives. All of them were experienced in Mexico, Panama, other places, on top of being proficient warriors in their own right. None of there were for a show of flag mission, or to voluntarily convert natives to Christianity, they were there to conquer. Pizarro saw a chance, recognized his own outfit's superior technology. And even then he needed to use a sort of treachery that would have been out of bounds even in Europe. Pizarro "got away" with it because the Incas were heathens, and because Pizarro himself was an uneducated bastard, good at what he did (kill and conquer), but no one expected great and wonderful things from someone of his class.

Nice contribution, you sound like a hell of a guy.

Muslims were fighting and killing each others and those they encountered for that full period. They didn't develop the Western way of war.

Over the last several hundred years the majority of Western advances occured in the Western cultures of the US, UK, Germany and France during peacetime. But aside from that it is the cultraul traditions of the West that proves superior to those of the ME. It isn't simply technology and tactics but Western human interaction and decision making that make th difference. The robust core of noncoms of Western armies doesn't exist in Arab countries. This isn't simply a lack of learned military how too but a fundamental cultural difference.

You are interject 20th century morality and ethics into a world in that the ethics and morals were different.  You are off base with your belief that the same crown that led the Reconquista would need any "justification" of the use of violence.

You are just making stuff up at this point.

The Incas were a brutal warrior culture. You would expect them to kill or take the Spanish captives if they could. They lost their empire because they made poor decisions. The superior culture prevailed.

The Spanish king was actually upset at what had been done to his Inca counterpart. From his POV a king shouldn't be deposed and killed in such manner.

The Spanish king was upset not for some inherent moral reason but for the reason all kings are nervous about such things, they don't want to instill the idea that kings can be brought down by a few well placed men with rifles.

And he was no where near upset to halt the flow of the Spanish gold galleons

the spice must flow

What happens to kings and what happens to the peasants are two different things, the problem is 20-21st Century writers and readers too often trying to think people of the past thought the way we think today.

For that matter similarly, westerners interject western views on the eastern world leading to severely faulty analysis

Unless you know something different, ambushing an enemy during a parley has always been no-no, then and now. A ruse de guerre is one thing, attacking during a parley is something else entirely. This is a basic and recognized custom of war throughout time.

The Reconquista was seen as the legitimate reconquering of already Christian lands held by the Moors and Jews. It had nothing in common with the conquest of the Americas, other than using military innovation learned from the war. Ferdinand and Isabelle were dust in the ground by the time Charles V started authorizing expeditions of conquest in the Americas. Part of the justification were the riches earned, the other part was the conversion of the natives to Christianity, giving more power to the Catholic church (which he was the guardian of).

Pizarro was operating under the authority of the Spanish Crown, everything he did or failed to do on his expedition to Panama and Peru reflected on the Crown. Every single noted conquistador, including him, had always reported their situation in dispatches as having had casus belli for killing the natives, even by treacherous means. One, the natives were heathens and they nearly always do or say something denigrating Christ or the Church. Two, conquistador captains always describe the situation prior to their great battles as "hopeless" or "terrifying" even though they purposely put themselves in that situation in the first place. Absurd considering that by the time Pizarro was introduced to the Incans, as a professional conquistador (having been one his entire adult professional life) he was well aware of the differences between Native and Spanish military technologies and knew exactly how to maximize force against the natives.

But he couldn't rightly communicate back to King Charles in dispatches, whose court had only grudgingly granted Pizarro command of the expedition in the first place, and tell him "We honored you by tricking the heathens into coming to a meeting, unarmed, under guise of friendship, and then we shot his men with cannon, rode them down with horse, and took them down with sword and shot, while we captured their emperor, who we later straggled after forcing him to convert to Christianity." That would have been bad form and Pizarro would have been diminished at court and had his command and governorship stripped, as well as the rights to part of the land he conquered.

Incan king converted to Chrisitanity to avoid being burnt to death. Don't act as if the Spanish had some superior cultural ideology. They were just better at killing people, which is the point I keep making, which you keep resisting, while at the same time proving over and over by your own inadvertant admission that most of the culture of 16th century Europeans was worse than modern day ISIS.

You know she has some perspective on these terrorists, don't you?

In this we will agree. European monarchs saw native American and Pacific Island kings as their equal. Appointed by the blessing of God, it was no man's right to overthrow them, yet murder them. To do so threatens the very institution of royalty and its sacrosanct nature. Travellers to the new world made it a point to constantly relate the problems of having to treat every tom, dick, and harry tribal leader with the same respect and deference they also gave their own sovereign.

Christian laws and Christian ethics did not apply when dealing with non-Christians.  Even several hundred years after the conquest of the new world, James Puckle designed his gun to use what they considered non-human square ammunition to fight non-Christians.

Pizarro was not a peasant, he was worse, he was a bastard. The only lasting credit was that his father was a colonel and his cousin was Hernando Cortez. From the heights of the Spanish court, full of full blooded Hidalgos from noble families, Pizarro was seen as scum. Meanwhile, Atahualpa, pagan or not, was a sovereign king of his people, who ought to have been treated properly as was European custom.

And crossbows were supposed to be used on infidel Saracens, not Christians. So?

European society, especially in that age, was infatuated with its royalty. It was the dawn of the royal ideology of absolute monarchs, appointed by God and answerable to no mortal man. Whether they are pagan or not, a king is a king, and must be treated as such, which includes respect, even in war or execution.

I don't doubt the nobility believed in the ordained rights of other nobles, but the point is they could care less if during conquest if countless savages were slaughter nor did the average European of any nation,  That was just the way the world worked back than, we have interjected post modern thought to believe that there were any need to justify the slaughter.

Europe definitely went through it's crazy religious fundamentalism phases. Then they grew out of it. The thing I think everyone's trying to say is that several centuries later we're still waiting on the Muslim world to catch up for the most part. Personally I don't think they will catch up until either A. They are conquered and forced into assimilating, or B. They become top dogs, go through their own humanist phase and come to the same conclusion the west did.

Of course if the west is conquered that could lead to us back sliding into what Europeans perfected and becoming the next pain in the ass for the civilized world.

Geopolitics are fun.

Yes, but that was workplace violence. This conversation is about terrorists and terrorism.

Since when does a "moral" society go around the globe, killing and imprisoning indigenous people, taking their resources by force, and colonizing their lands???

You don't need both.  

Just kill them and you won't need to educate them.

First, we're not talking about nobility but royalty, a completely different concept. Nobility is to royalty as Lieutenant is to General of the Army, one is held to a higher esteem than the other, especially in that day and age, when they believed that monarchs were appointed by God and were answerable to no mortals.

No, they were not generally squeemish but they did care greatly about their reputations. Standards of conduct existed, enemies were given a chance, should they not heed them then they were fair game.

The conquistador knew these rules, they were still professional warriors by trade, a mix of solder, sailor, merchant, diplomat. Since they knew these rules existed, and they wanted to get around them, they made sure tneir letters to the crown appraising them off the situation, their dispatches, wre written in a way that implied they had been goated into slaughtering the locals. It was SOP and used to justify their excesses. And it wasn't hard to do.

Even during the worst of that time period they still had standards of conduct. War was declared formally, to overtly acknowledge greviences. Other practices were done, some which might seem hypocritical to the modern eye, An example of this dating back to the ancient period occurred during sieges, should the defenders resist militarily, the lives of those inside were forfeit to the attackers, if they wanted they could slaughter everyone and it was perfectly acceptable. But to take a city without the defenders given a chance to do anything, it was bad form to slaughter the occupants. Many reputations were soiled by accusations of violating suck social norms, and they cared about such things.

The point I'm trying to make is that Spain was not at war with the Incans until the Incan king threw the bible on the ground and rallied his men to attack Pizarro (at least according to Pizarro's account), a duely appointed captain and expedition leader of his Magesty King Charles, King of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. In that case, fighting back was perfectly fine, even if thousands were slaughtered and an empire taken. God willed it. But even the crown didn't really believe Pizarro's account, his Royal Highness was not pleased an upstart bastard murdered an annoited king under bullshit pretexts.

To understand how that time period thought you can't act as if decisions where legitimized on the basis of acceptance by some village blacksmith or by some militia captain. It all depended on the King's decision and that was based on the atmosphere of his court, which was dictated by extreme customs, adherence to a ridiculously strict notion of manners and honor, and religious fervor.

If say they didn't grow out of it before that implies maturity. They killed their way out of religious fervor and replaced it with nationalism and various forms of socialism. Their true humanist phase came after the bloodiest war in human history (WWII) and only truly occurred because they were war weary and their borders protected by American military might and money, who broke the worst (Germany) of their aggressiveness during the occupation. That gave them all the luxury to soften up, lick their wounds, while guiltingly accepting that they are the reason the world sucks, a knee jerk reaction that is causing the political correct nonsense of the last few decades. Their grandparents wouldn't recognize most of the actions of modern Europeans. Lions to lambs in a half century.

Illogical.

- If God is omniscient and omnipotent, by definition no lesser beings have the ability to go against his plan.

- If God created everything, then he created the "forces of evil" as part of his plan, so anything they do is God's will.

- An example (from the Bible) where it was indisputably God's will that bad things were done: The torture of Job, and the murder of Job's children and servants.

This could easily spin off into a religious debate, and this threads been derailed enough

I don't disagree with what your saying, but there is a cultural difference in how we view "gods plan" and how Muslims view "gods plan"

She wants Muslims to do the 'educating' .

Seems pretty clear to me.

when they can.  imagine india without colonization.  50 little shitholes still burning widows alive and still slaughtering each other with clubs.

you realize job is a parable, right?

That has to be the dumbest thing you've said in minutes.

Your interpretation of "educate" came straight from CNN's division of information manipulation, didn't it?  Nobody here is talking about sending a bunch of goat fuckers to Harvard, they're talking about basic elementary education so the populace can learn about options other than radical Islam.  They're easily controlled by well-educated terrorist leaders because it's all they fucking know.

Educate them to make better choices.  Eradicate them if they don't.

This confirms my theory that engineers are evil people who's purpose in life is to bring misery to the lives of others.

 

i aint sayin' muslims are violent, im just sayin' they have to give up islam.

you spend a lot of quality time in muslim countries?

I thought stopping Climate Change would stop terrorism!

No, I haven't.  I understand the scope of what I'm saying, though...I never said education was an easy answer.  We've seen for the last 20 years what happens to teachers over there...why do you think they're targeted?  Same reason they pick and choose what sections of the Koran are recognized, and everything else is blasphemy, they lose control if people follow anything other than radical Islamic ideology.

War in it's current form is nothing more than an education tool for a population.  It's punishment for misbehaving.  They poke us, we slap them.  We're ignoring the lessons of the past though, regarding how hard a lesson that is to teach.  The Germans never managed with the French resistance despite levels of brutality we'd never commit, and the Allies had to utterly crush the Germans to get the point across.  Japan had to be nuked twice, and that was when the eventual outcome was clear.  Simply going over there and fighting is never going to change a thing, it's a perpetual war.

The only way to win a war is to change the culture of the opposition.  If all hostility stopped today, we be the losers, because there's a clear cultural shift following 9/11, in that we as a culture are fearful of their culture, and terrorism is a useable tool for them.  They, on the other hand, are still a breeding ground of Islamic extremism.  Since we won't exercise the measures required to change their culture through force, out of some idiotic sense of "fairness", then the only way to do it is peacefully.

If you can think of any peaceful means of cultural change other than education, I'm all ears.

there is no education (in the institutional sense) that can change the nature of a person

this dumb idea is no different than thinking you can have college courses to teach people not to rape

the only sort of "education" that can fundamentally affect a person's character comes from parenting

<------<<<  should have read up on the girl before posting....

That's simply untrue.  At the very heart of education is exposure to ideas that a person may not have thought of on their own.

Ignorant people don't make bad decisions, they make the best decision they can with the information they have.  We don't judge ourselves poorly if we find out we fucked up but there was no way to know it was a fuck-up at the time, we just regret not having the information when we made the decision.  Education is about giving people the knowledge required to make good decisions, whether it be factual or philosophical.

ETA:  Forgot a point...stupid people make bad decisions, despite having what they need to make good decisions.

all the knowledge and information in the world is available to anyone who has the perceptual and intellectual capacity to distill it

some people naturally want to learn, these people will find a way regardless of their circumstances - even if it limits them to a simple analysis of nature

others just don't care, yeah you might get lucky and be able to beat an idea into their head that takes root, but most of the time you're just pissing up a rope

You just described 16th century England.

And what india would be today

So some cultures progress and some dont

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Dot.

Education will not stop extremism.  One might say that education might INCREASE extremism in some cases.

The only thing that stops extremism is death or the extremist person deciding that they value their own life more than their religion.

^^^

steinhab may not realize that the progression of time is linear, and a culture's relative superiority may be rightly judged by their advancement plotted in time domain

That may be true, but the essential element is the same: If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, everything that happens is part of his plan.

And how exactly would you know that without speculating on how a culture would progress in isolation, an exercise you told me was worthless and completely without merit?  

In that case, the Jihadists must be very moral people, because that's what they're trying to do.

No, I don't. Where does the Bible say the story of Job is a parable? It certainly is not written as an invented story being told by someone, as are the parables of Jesus.

you read the talmud much, Brad?

You're making an assumption that can't be proven. England brought order to India, united a country run by Raj warlords. But India was already a civilized country and had been long before the Romans ever reached Britain. Some of their customs were bizarre to westerners, such as sati. But its not like the English had room to talk. At the same time England was conquering India, back home they were executing starving children for stealing bread by hanging (hour long death by asphyxiation), while govt military violently put down industrial workers strikes over work conditions (which fueled the inception and spread of communism). And don't even get me started on what they were doing to Ireland. All the while using the East India Company to pillage India of its wealth, which was the the only reason they invaded India in the first place were for profits.

Is the lesson to be learned that its a good thing to allow someone to rape you your whole life if it means your great great grandchildren might have it slightly better than you would have, minus the raping? How would you like if an alien country came in and violently imposed their culture on your own, solely so they could profit from stealing your possessions? Sounds a bit like what ISIS likes to do.  

because i spent a year in rural afghanistan.  cultures dont automatically progress.

if 20K brits can overwhelm 200M "indians" (itself a term invented by britain to define a region of 100 different languages) it aint because they are going somewhere by themselves