270,000,000 murdered by Islam in 1400 years.

[church mouse guy]

This belongs in politics because it deals with the ongoing efforts of political Islam to conquer the world and force everyone into the Satanic religion of Islam

Dr. Bill Warner has compiled a list of victims of Islam worldwide since Muhammad first started his religious wars and murdered 800 or so Jews.

Islam went into Africa for slaves. It is estimated that Islam caused the deaths of 120,000,000 Africans.

And Islam has murdered 60,000,000 Christians.

And Islam has murdered 80,000,000 Hindus.

And Islam has murdered 10,000,000 Buddhists.

Details:

Tears of Jihad - Political Islam

 

[InTheLight]

You have a problem with the word "murdered". The article does not say 270 million were "murdered."

Someone has a problem with math. No way that Muslims have killed a large percentage of the entire world population in 1,400 years.

 

[Reformed1689]

Someone has a problem with math. No way that Muslims have killed a large percentage of the entire world population in 1,400 years.

You really think that 270,000,000 is a LARGE percentage of the ENTIRE world population across 1,400 years? If they killed that many this year alone that would only be 3% of the total population alive today much less the last 1400 years. Not a large percentage by any means.

Also, please do not misunderstand the atrocity that this article represents. I am merely pointing out the incorrect assertion of a math problem.

 

[InTheLight]

You really think that 270,000,000 is a LARGE percentage of the ENTIRE world population across 1,400 years? If they killed that many this year alone that would only be 3% of the total population alive today much less the last 1400 years. Not a large percentage by any means.

Also, please do not misunderstand the atrocity that this article represents. I am merely pointing out the incorrect assertion of a math problem.

The entire world population at around 1,000 AD was estimated to be 270 million. Yet this article would have us believe that in the last 1,400 years or so Muslims have killed 270 million people. The logistics of doing this is preposterously impossible.

 

[Reformed1689]

The entire world population at around 1,000 AD was estimated to be 270 million. Yet this article would have us believe that in the last 1,400 years or so Muslims have killed 270 million people. The logistics of doing this is preposterously impossible.

The population of one year in the past being the same as the number of killed over 1400 years is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[InTheLight]

The population of one year in the past being the same as the number of killed over 1400 years is absolutely irrelevant.

The logistics of killing 270 million people is preposterously impossible.

 

[Reformed1689]

The logistics of killing 270 million people is preposterously impossible.

So do you deny the Holocaust? To kill 270 million people over the course of 1400 years means you would have to average 192,857 per year. During the Holocaust the Nazi's averaged 500k per year. So I don't understand why you think that is logistically impossible.

 

[InTheLight]

So do you deny the Holocaust?

Puh-leeze. Really, stop putting words in my mouth.

To kill 270 million people over the course of 1400 years means you would have to average 192,857 per year. During the Holocaust the Nazi's averaged 500k per year. So I don't understand why you think that is logistically impossible.

Well, you show simplistic thinking. Sure an average of 192,000 per year is what the basic math says. But in a world up until the late 19th century with only horses for transportation and swords and spears for weapons, it's just not possible.

The Nazi's had railroads, trucks, planes, guns, poisonous gas, and millions of soldiers, plus a huge concentration of the Jewish population in their back yard. How many Muslim warriors were there in 1200 AD, for example? How did they get around?

Tell us--how many people have Muslims has killed in the past 100 years?

 

[Reformed1689]

Puh-leeze. Really, stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I gave an illustration. Sorry if you don't know the difference.

Well, you show simplistic thinking. Sure an average of 192,000 per year is what the basic math says. But in a world up until the late 19th century with only horses for transportation and swords and spears for weapons, it's just not possible.

The Nazi's had railroads, trucks, planes, guns, poisonous gas, and millions of soldiers, plus a huge concentration of the Jewish population in their back yard. How many Muslim warriors were there in 1200 AD, for example? How did they get around?

Tell us--how many people have Muslims has killed in the past 100 years?

ISIS alone has killed over 20,000 and that was as of 2016. I know a pretty big event where Muslims killed over 3,000 people in one single day.

 

[InTheLight]

I didn't put words in your mouth. I gave an illustration. Sorry if you don't know the difference.

Yeah, you're playing the "you're stupid" card again. It's tiresome.

ISIS alone has killed over 20,000 and that was as of 2016. I know a pretty big event where Muslims killed over 3,000 people in one single day.

Yes, both of these things involve using technology to attack people that were in highly concentrated population areas. Now consider the world of 1500 AD and the Muslims trying to kill 192,000 people in a year. Not happening.

Kind of wondering why you want the allegation that Muslims have killed 270 million people to be true when it is so easily proven false.

 

[church mouse guy]

You have a problem with the word "murdered". The article does not say 270 million were "murdered."

Someone has a problem with math. No way that Muslims have killed a large percentage of the entire world population in 1,400 years.

You don't think that the African slave trade was murder? You don't think that the Hindus were not murdered for refusing to convert to Islam? What should it be called? You know, it is easier to change Minneapolis into Mogadishu that it is to change Mogadishu into Minneapolis.

 

[InTheLight]

You don't think that the African slave trade was murder?

The article you posted says it was collateral damage. The estimate was "for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march."

You don't think that the Hindus were not murdered for refusing to convert to Islam?

<Translating bad prose...> "You think Hindus were murdered for refusing to convert to Islam?"

Yes, I think Hindus were murdered for not converting. My argument is with the numbers.

You know, it is easier to change Minneapolis into Mogadishu that it is to change Mogadishu into Minneapolis.

Whatever does that have to do with anything?

 

[church mouse guy]

Yeah, you're playing the "you're stupid" card again. It's tiresome.



Yes, both of these things involve using technology to attack people that were in highly concentrated population areas. Now consider the world of 1500 AD and the Muslims trying to kill 192,000 people in a year. Not happening.

Kind of wondering why you want the allegation that Muslims have killed 270 million people to be true when it is so easily proven false.

The slave trade was brutal. Check out the link. It is all documented by various sources. In India, the military captured the land and then the civilian population was executed for failing to convert. Arab armies filled with the fanaticism of Mohammed, who had 800 or so Jews killed in one day in Saudi Arabia and you can see the lust for blood. The Turks murdered 1.5 million Armenians only 100 years ago. How many people do you think died when Constantinople fell? How many Coptics do you think have died in Egypt?

 

[church mouse guy]

The article you posted says it was collateral damage. The estimate was "for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march."



<Translating bad prose...> "You think Hindus were murdered for refusing to convert to Islam?"

Yes, I think Hindus were murdered for not converting. My argument is with the numbers.



Whatever does that have to do with anything?

So are you sawing that Sowell and Livingstone got it wrong or are you saying that collateral damage of being left to die does not count?

 

[InTheLight]

So are you sawing that Sowell and Livingstone got it wrong or are you saying that collateral damage of being left to die does not count?

Yes.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yeah, you're playing the "you're stupid" card again. It's tiresome.

I have never said you are stupid. What is tiresome is that you assume that and immediately get set off by comments of others because you can't or won't be objective.

Kind of wondering why you want the allegation that Muslims have killed 270 million people to be true when it is so easily proven false.

I'm not saying it is true or is not true. What I am saying is that it is plausible on numbers and you have yet to provide convincing evidence that it is not.

 

[InTheLight]

I have never said you are stupid.

You said "you don't know the difference". That indicates you think I don't know something, eg. I'm dumb about that subject matter.

I'm not saying it is true or is not true. What I am saying is that it is plausible on numbers and you have yet to provide convincing evidence that it is not.

I haven't disproved that something isn't true? Sorry, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the person making the assertion.

 

[Reformed1689]

You said "you don't know the difference". That indicates you think I don't know something, eg. I'm dumb about that subject matter.

Actually I said "if you don't know the difference." There is a difference.

I haven't disproved that something isn't true? Sorry, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the person making the assertion.

I have proved that it is within the realm of possibility. You have not shown that it is not.