Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (188478)	6/5/2006 10:40:36 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Alexander, Hanibal, or Napoleon could be considered conquering generals, Mohammed, hardly. For the most parts he raided scantly protected caravans that passed by Yathreb (now Medina) and kept to defensive battles such as digging trenches around the city and hoping that the Meccans would just go away. As I said, eventually he won, but that does not make him a "conquering general" in my book, specially since he did not act like one upon his victory in Mecca...you should really read about how he treated them. >> and subsequent destruction of the Qoresh? Nonsense. Last I checked the Quraish were very much alive and kicking and the its members took many turns to rule the Islamic empire. >> Yes, one hears this endlessly. It is what it is. And given that the source I gave you is an authentic one you have to resolve the issue as to whether this is the case (which it is) or the modern Jihadists are molding the relgion to their cause (which is what I said is happening). >> either in defense of Islam or to convert the unbelievers There is a very big difference between a defensive and offensive war. You can't bunch them together. >> Are you now claiming that American troops are prosecuting a Crusade in Iraq, trying to convert the heathen? Need I quote you some of the generals and other influential Americans on this subject? If you can take whatever nut case says over there at face value, why not Americans? I certainly don't think you'd have as much support for the war if Iraq was populated by Baptists, do you? >> Islamic armies have not had the power to attack Christian lands for about 200 years now. But if you are discussing dogmatic ideology, which is what you often say, how can that be a factor? They should have been attacking Christians non-stop for the past 1400 years.