Hardly. Since the start I picked up Yahya on why he chose the Muslim army, even the dog on the street knows it was for the religious convictions rather than their military prowess (although this was admirable). I've no other point of disagreement with his views. I've noticed you are quite a fan of Yahya's, in future stick to agreeing with him. Silence is perhaps your best possible virtue.
Another clear-cut evidence that your mouth is not connected your brain but to ad nauseam with ad infintum. I've listed the reason why I chose the Muslim army in my previous reply which you fail to respond. Instead, you re-iterate the same statement that has already been addressed.
"
I stated that Muslim forces were one of the greatest forces that mankind has ever witnessed provided with substantial evidence. Now if I _asserted_ that the Muslim forces were one of the greatest forces, then you could accuse me of being an biased Muslim who mostly renders [propagandic] statements that sheds the light on Islam/Muslims.
Obviously, there are no such fallacious traces in my posts. And if I get attacked for the sole reason that users despise me online then please continue. I could care less. It just demonstrates the maturity of the users here (i.e. the 15 year-old Zero Cool). I've already proven beyond doubt that some users on this board rely on the ad hominem fallacy instead of attackin' the argument which is typical since most of them are still wet behind their ears."
And it's laughable how he tries to use one of his 'evasive' tactics on other users who simply have reconigzed his deceivable methods.
That one "extraneous point" is my whole problem with you. As ever religion clouds your judgement. If you took each case on it's merits instead of continually trying to turn the deabte into why Islam is always right, I would have little cause to argue with you. A case in point is this fantastic quote:
Zero Cool still hasn't sufficiently responded to my replies but introduces a new subject in order to shift-away from the discussed argument. The argument that that we were disputin'' had no essential relevance to Islam.
So it's all in our imagination? Are the Janjaweed not daily slaughtering innocent black Christians? The problem with you Yahya is you believe in the inherent superiorty of your views. Most other users can step back and take a case on it's merits, no matter what it's disposition. You however view everything as a mission to prove yourself and your religion as superior to all. If there were Christian fanatics rampaging around places like Southern Sudan slaughtering civilans, you would be the first to condem their behaviour but when it's someone of your own disposition you gloss over the facts. That is something which only a born propagandist engages in. As I've said I do not know you Yahya and harbour no ill will toward you but if you continue this Goebelesque way of debating then I will continue to oppose your viewpoints.
Firstly, that is a allegation stated by many anti-Sudanese groups and activits that the "Arab" gunmen known as the "Janjaweed" are targettin' black tribes. Obviously this is a propagandic fabrication. There is no difference between "Arab" and "African" tribes in Sudan. Those two tribes are physically indistinguishable (intermarriages for centures). Even the [African] anti-government figure, Dr Eltigani Ateem, said that with reference to "Arabs" and "Africans" -- they all look a-like. And that no one can tell whether one is a Arab or African. The UN media service stated: "In Darfur, where the vast majority of people are Muslim and Arabic-speaking, the distinction between 'Arab' and 'African' is more cultural and racial. This debunkes the allegation that it's an racially motived conflict. Even the likes of the famous anti-government critics such as Alex de Waal or John Ryle noted that there is no difference. They all are black, indegenous, African Muslims - just like Darfur's non-Arabs.
Now, a brief summary of the conflict in Sudan. There are two groups, one identifies itself as the 'Sudan Liberation Army' (SLA) while other identifies itself as 'Justice and Equality Movement' (JEM). They started war in 2003 in west of Sudan. They launched attacks on government garrisons, policemen and civilians in the area. Now we all know that Darfur has alteast 80 tribes and ethnic groups.Many of the rebels belong to two or three [African] communities such as the Zaghawa and the Fur tribes. Now Sudan is known for its past tribal-wars elements. But this time, it 'came sophisticated since they acquired weapons. In the past, this strife between Nomads and farmers in agricultural zone was also resolved peacefully in traditional meetings between chiefs of tribe. Now, since those two groups started the war in 2003, the tribal strife became a political agenda to promote power. Now, the anti-government critics accused (without evidence) the Sudanese Government of supportin' the "Janjaweed" which is absurd and claimed that there is a genocide in Sudan. This has been refuted by the UN report AND the EU Report that there is no genocide in Darfur.
http://www.sudanembassy.org/asp/print.asp?ID=304
The total amount people who died were 5,000 instead of the alleged figure of 50,000. Out of this 5,000, 486 were policemen. The conflcit in Sudan, simply put, is the result humanitarian catastrophe between the rebel forces and government. There also no mass-rapes as the WHO concluded. They stated in their reports that there are no acts of mass-rapes as claimed by western human rights organizations.
Now Christian groups have made fabricated accounts that there civilians are being enslaved and sold. For example, Ms Boof asserted that "rich Palestinians have black women slaves working in their kitchens, their tongques cut of of their heads". Now, the activitis, without verifyin' the allegations, started their propagandic campaigns. However, the New York Times examined her allegations in some depth and concludes that it was all lies. Even the anti-government Sudan Commusion of Human Rights despised her at the end. Christian fundamentalist groups such as the CSI also re-defined tribal abductions as "slavery". For example, Nuer (aminist tribe) and the Dinka (aminist tribe) are the two largest tribes and had been on opposite sides since the war in 1991. Now, they both engaged in abduction and kidnapping within the
context of their inter-tribal raiding. Now, some Christian groups such as 'Christianity Today' had to re-tract their claims of slavery. They wrote:
"Recently, the NSCC [New Sudan Council of Churches] and humanitarian
groups facilitated reconciliation talks between the warring Dinka and
Nuer tribes in the south. One of the peace treaty requirements
stipulated returning all people they had abducted."
As to your assertion of Genghis Khan being a "savage", as I earlier said while the Khan was vicious in war he was magnanimous to those to obeyed him :
Again, Zero-Cool disregards the references that I stated and then tries to google for statements that concede his garbage. Zero-Cool still hasn't provided _ANY_ references of Ghengis Khan sparrin' citizens while I on the contrary provided the cities that he massacred. This leaves me with the impression that zero-cool is in denial when confonted with facts. Now tell me, Zero-Cool, which citizens did he spare? Can you name the cities? Can you even provide credible evidence for what you post? Or do you google for statements with no references and present it as factual? Since you claim that Ghengis Khan was humane, do you also claim that Hitler was humane?
I'd also like to state that Zero-Cool still hasn't provided a "excuse" for citin' forum-encyclopedias that are riddled with inaccuracies. In addition, he still hasn't responded to any of my replies but only repeats the vague impertinent point. Am I wastin' my time here?
Obviously, you haven't studied horrific massacres of Ghengis Khan. Present-day historians merely see him as a "great" state-builder. However, you (and Zero Cool) explicitly stated that he was humane without providing any evidence.
This "humane" expanionist massacred the citizens of Bukhara after they surrendered to him, which again automatically refutes the assertion stated by Zero-Cool and I quote:
The Mongols were quite humane to those who obeyed them and surrendered, they were allowed to continue living unaltered albeit they had to pay a special tax for the privilige.
The man is one of the most ruthless criminal in history. In Europe alone; he massacred 2 million people. It's reported that he massacred 20 to 30 million people while others claim that he massacred 40 to 50 million.
He was even reported to have said before wipin' off the cities from existence :
"I am the punishment of God upon you. If you had not committed great sins, your god would not have sent you a punishment like me."
If you want to argue that Ghengis Khan was humane, then let's argue how merciful Hitler was.
