aThere's a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry. In the absence of alternative narratives, which can make sense of Muslim extremism, place it into context and guide American domestic and foreign policy, we are stuck with the voices we have - too often, these have been unqualified and uninformed.
Islamophobia promotes a racialised view of Islam, viewing Arabs and Middle Easterners and Muslims generally as one interchangeable, subversive, homogenous mass; the actions of the few represent the intentions and aspirations of the whole. Thus we were led to believe there could be a plausible connection between bin Laden and Saddam. The resulting cost in American lives, treasure and credibility, is hard to quantify. This is Islamophobia's fruit: poisonous policies.
For reasons of strategic shortsightedness alone, Islamophobia would be discredited soon enough. But there's another reason: Islamophobia doesn't correspond to reality. The more likely an American is to know a Muslim, the more likely she is to have a positive view of Islam. Exposure undermines prejudice. That is, meeting real Muslims pushes aside the media narrative that is so pernicious and harmful. Why? Because much of what Islamophobia peddles is hyperbolic, fanciful, or meaningless.
under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.) How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown? Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800.
Is it conceivable that Muslim empires, such as the Umayyads, Ottomans and Mughals, who ruled over majority non-Muslim populations, could have contributed to the killing of huge percentages of the world's population while staying in power for centuries? How would they, as minorities, have been capable of sustained carnage for decades at a time? When did they get the time to build huge public works projects, establish towns, rebuild cities, fund wells, hospitals, mosques, pools and fountains?
First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties. Armies were often mixed too, which drives bigots off the wall; when the Ottomans were defeated at Vienna in 1683, they were finished off by a charge of Polish Muslim cavalry, allied with their enemies. Where do these casualties fit in? Should we arbitrarily decide that "intra-Muslim jihad" killed 50 percent of the total number? Why not, considering most of Islamophobia's made up? How were Muslims who so often fought each other also able to fight everyone else?
Second, this isn't real history. It's dumping "facts" on the unawares, hoping that the sheer flood of information covers up the lack of an explanatory framework. Not only does the Islamophobe play loose and fast with very different eras, places and peoples, but she ties events together without attempting to explain why. If jihad is really the most murderous ideology ever and it is equal to Islam, then why would so many people become Muslim? What motivated their violence? What sustained it? And how come most Muslims live peaceable lives?
According to Charles Mann's 1491, which explores the pre-Columbian Americas, nearly 100 million perished during the European "Age of Discovery", making that the most violent contact between peoples in human history. Nothing in Islamic history remotely compares. With the typical sloppiness of the Islamophobe, we could note how Western ideologies like Communism and Nazism led conservatively to the deaths of another 120 million people; we could note the brutal colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia, in which millions more perished and then breathlessly announce, "Five Hundred Years of Western Civilisation Kills Hundreds of Millions!" ( by Haroon Moghul)
1. Africans. The
number of 120 million victims is, of course, taken from thin air. Even
assuming the number of 25 million slaves to be correct, and assuming
that “Islam” was responsible for them, one cannot simply multpily the
number by a single dodgy statistical point to get some sort of a total
number of “dead”.
Notice
that the whole transatlantic slave trade is attributed to Islam!
Apparently, Christians had nothing to do with it. This way we will soon
hear that Confederacy was an Islamic separatist state.
However, when we assume the scope of the Arab slave trade (which existed before Islam) to be between 10-18 million people, to claim that Islam as such is
responsible for the associated victims is the same as claiming that
Christianity is to blame for the victims of slavery and racism
perpetrated by Christians (among many other things).
3.6 million?(maximum number ) non-Christian Africans not 120??? million (2,400,000 dead slaves going to the Orient + 1,200,000 dead slaves staying in Africa).
Rummel estimates a total death toll of 17,267,000 African slaves (1451-1870) Among slaves going to Orient: 2,400,000 dead Among slaves staying in Africa: 1,200,000 dead Among slaves going to New World: 13,667,000 dead Also [Thomas Sowell estimates] 11 million of those slaves were transported by Christian slavers,
Islamophobes
play a similar game, linking events that take place across the planet
and hundreds of centuries apart, and they want us to take this
seriously. And so you get numbers like "270 million" or "300 million".
And these are brought up talismanically, as if they constitute
overwhelming proof. The Islamophobe is completely and congenitally
incapable of reflexivity. They cannot, in other words, look in the
mirror; their mind has been made up, and what history is marshalled is
not to engage in discussion but to preclude it. Rummel estimates a total death toll of 17,267,000 African slaves (1451-1870) Among slaves going to Orient: 2,400,000 dead Among slaves staying in Africa: 1,200,000 dead Among slaves going to New World: 13,667,000 dead Also [Thomas Sowell estimates] 11 million of those slaves were transported by Christian slavers,
2. Christians. The
first source cited is not quite scholarly. It’s a mish-mash of
statistical data, and when it comes to “martyrdom” particularly, there
is no careful, scholarly discussion of each particular number as well as
its sources, which leaves the question of the reliability of each
particular statistic open. . However then the “Tears of Jihad” article
claims that there were 50 million more of them. How did the authors of
that table somehow miss these additional millions? If they were so
incompetent, why cite their statistics in the first place?
But
where is the 50 million figure from? The source is given as “History of
Asia Minor” by Raphael Moore. Quick Google search brings up this
source, which is an article by Raphael Moore entitled “In Memory Of The
50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust”. Its first
sub-section is called “History Of Asia Minor: 1894-1923”, which is
apparently at the root of confusion for Geller’s source: the name of the
sub-section was confused with the name of the complete work. Such
brilliant scholarship.
The number “50 million” does appear in the article, but only as a total number of Christians martyred in XXth century
but then includes all 50 million Orthodox Christians killed by Communism and Nazism as being victims of Islam
fabricated greek genocide? lie :
THERE WAS NO GREEK GENOCIDE, ONLY A DEPORTATION AND POPULATİON EXCHANGE BETWEEN GREECE AND TURKEY
Until 1928, nearly 850.000 Anatolian Greeks (Rum-Roman) were transported to Greece. Adding this the Greek Population of Turkish Thrace that is included to the exchange treaty, the total number of Greeks deported from Turkey makes a sum of 1,310-1,410.000 The Turks deported from Greece were numbering 400.000. At that time the total number of the remaining Greeks in Turkey was 200.000.( official figures from the 1914 population census of the Ottoman Empire.Greek population was given at 1,792,206.)
When
World War 1 started, in Eastern Anatolia, Armenians stood up with
Russia and Armenians betrayed to Turkey and killed hundreds of thousand
Turkish people.Later Turkey applied on them an forced migration as from
1915...500,000 Armenians emigrated to Syria
and Lebanon, 400,000 Armenians went to Russia and other countries.A
portion of them stayed in Turkey. In World War 1, Armenian deads are
less than from 300,000. But Turkey lost 3,000,000 people in World War 1,
2,500,000 of them were civilians. Total 518,000 Turks and kurds killed
by Armenian rebels(Hynchak and Tashnak gangs).
To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.
Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: “The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente....” Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: “We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory
Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000
but then includes all 50 million Orthodox Christians killed by Communism and Nazism as being victims of Islam
fabricated greek genocide? lie :
THERE WAS NO GREEK GENOCIDE, ONLY A DEPORTATION AND POPULATİON EXCHANGE BETWEEN GREECE AND TURKEY
Until 1928, nearly 850.000 Anatolian Greeks (Rum-Roman) were transported to Greece. Adding this the Greek Population of Turkish Thrace that is included to the exchange treaty, the total number of Greeks deported from Turkey makes a sum of 1,310-1,410.000 The Turks deported from Greece were numbering 400.000. At that time the total number of the remaining Greeks in Turkey was 200.000.( official figures from the 1914 population census of the Ottoman Empire.Greek population was given at 1,792,206.)
List of massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) - Wikipedia
When
World War 1 started, in Eastern Anatolia, Armenians stood up with
Russia and Armenians betrayed to Turkey and killed hundreds of thousand
Turkish people.Later Turkey applied on them an forced migration as from
1915...500,000 Armenians emigrated to Syria
and Lebanon, 400,000 Armenians went to Russia and other countries.A
portion of them stayed in Turkey. In World War 1, Armenian deads are
less than from 300,000. But Turkey lost 3,000,000 people in World War 1,
2,500,000 of them were civilians. Total 518,000 Turks and kurds killed
by Armenian rebels(Hynchak and Tashnak gangs).
In short, 1915 events were not genocide, this was a war and there was a reciprocal slaughter.
But as a result of Armenian Diaspora's Anti-Turkey propaganda, mostly of people believe this false claims
armenian claims and historical facts
To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.
Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: “The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente....” Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: “We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory
Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000
British
Prime Minister Gladstone’s histrionic figure of 60,000 Bulgarian
Christians slaughtered in 1876 captured the imagination of the west. The
true figure later provided by a British Ambassador was 3,500—including
Turks who were first slain by the Christians.
From
280,000-750,000, Armenians initially raised their death count to
800,000 to test the credibility waters. It passed muster with uninformed
politicians easily influenced by campaign contributions and voting
clout. Armenians then jumped the number to 1.5 million, and then 1.8
million by Armenian historian Kevork Aslan. For the last decades, an
Armenian majority seems to have settled on the 1.5 million death
plateau—which still exceeds their contemporary estimates by 200 to 500
percent. They are now testing the waters at 2.5-3 million killed as
their chances for a congressional genocide resolution recede. It speaks
volumes that champions of the inflated death figures have no explanation
for why Armenians on the scene would have erred. Think of the absurdity
of discarding the current death count of Afghan civilians in the United
States-Afghan war in favor of a number deduced in the year 2109!
Unskewed
historical truth is the antechamber of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.
That is why the Government of Turkey has proposed an international
commission of impartial and independent experts with access to all
relevant archives to determine the number and characterization of World
War I deaths. Armenians are balking because they are skeptical of their
own figures and accusations.
By Bruce Fein
The breakup of the Ottoman Empire set thousands upon thousands of forlorn refugees on the move.
A reasonable person can agree with this conclusion. Thus, the figure of “80,000,000” Hindus murdered by Muslims is based on nothing but weak speculations.
One of the important points made here, is the fact that rulers cannot rule over the majority people by harshly persecuting them. The rulers need their loyalty. Muslim kings routinely employed Hindu generals and soldiers in their armies. Mahmud of Ghazni apparently, out of a total of 12, had 5 Hindu generals and 35% Hindu soldiers in his army.
One of the important points made here, is the fact that rulers cannot rule over the majority people by harshly persecuting them. The rulers need their loyalty. Muslim kings routinely employed Hindu generals and soldiers in their armies. Mahmud of Ghazni apparently, out of a total of 12, had 5 Hindu generals and 35% Hindu soldiers in his army.
Estimates of the population of the India around the time of the Ghaznavidcampaigns range from 40 million to 77 million. The death of 80 million Hindus and Buddhists in the Ghaznavid campaigns
implies that Mahmud Ghazni not only wiped out the entire population of
India, he killed 3 million more on top of it. This is a physical
impossibility. The Ghaznavid campaigns were concentrated in the north
and barely moved south.
The claim that Muslim invaders in India engaged in a genocide against Hindus is false. It is based on a very biased work done by Koenraad Elst, from whom the claim that 80 million Hindus were systematically massacred in the 800 years of Islamic dynasties in the Subcontinent. There is simply no evidence of there being such a systematic emphasis on killing Hindus.
very clear to most of the invaders that for any serious attempts to establish a dynasty and conquer the Subcontinent and become the Emperor, one needed the support of the powerful Hindu chieftains. And if the strings were stretched a tad bit too far, they very quickly snapped.The Mughals understood this very quickly and the Emperors were always careful to keep a lid on some of the crazy fanatics In fact during the time of the 2nd Emperor, Humayun, some of the opportunistic Turkic members of the court openly rebelled using the elevation of the indigenous Hindu and Muslim Indians in the court. As his successor, Akbar extended an olive branch to the warring Hindu Rajputs, this attracted the constant bickering of the some of the more zealous members of the clergy, but at the time the power of the Emperor was quite strong, as by the time of Akbar the Mughals had gained the acceptance of most of the Subcontinent, Hindu or alike. It simply wouldn’t have been possible if the delusions of there being some genocide were true.There are hundreds of recordings of the court historians showing that even the Mughals had become fully accustomed to seeing themselves as being Hindustani or Indians themselvesWhy are there numerous personal letters of gratitude sent by the priests of various temples, expressing their gratitude for funds provided by the Mughal treasury?
The claim that Muslim invaders in India engaged in a genocide against Hindus is false. It is based on a very biased work done by Koenraad Elst, from whom the claim that 80 million Hindus were systematically massacred in the 800 years of Islamic dynasties in the Subcontinent. There is simply no evidence of there being such a systematic emphasis on killing Hindus.
very clear to most of the invaders that for any serious attempts to establish a dynasty and conquer the Subcontinent and become the Emperor, one needed the support of the powerful Hindu chieftains. And if the strings were stretched a tad bit too far, they very quickly snapped.The Mughals understood this very quickly and the Emperors were always careful to keep a lid on some of the crazy fanatics In fact during the time of the 2nd Emperor, Humayun, some of the opportunistic Turkic members of the court openly rebelled using the elevation of the indigenous Hindu and Muslim Indians in the court. As his successor, Akbar extended an olive branch to the warring Hindu Rajputs, this attracted the constant bickering of the some of the more zealous members of the clergy, but at the time the power of the Emperor was quite strong, as by the time of Akbar the Mughals had gained the acceptance of most of the Subcontinent, Hindu or alike. It simply wouldn’t have been possible if the delusions of there being some genocide were true.There are hundreds of recordings of the court historians showing that even the Mughals had become fully accustomed to seeing themselves as being Hindustani or Indians themselvesWhy are there numerous personal letters of gratitude sent by the priests of various temples, expressing their gratitude for funds provided by the Mughal treasury?
Why
do we have some of the most prominent Generals in the Vijayanagara
Empire, a dynasty that sought legitimacy as the Hindus fighting the
incursions of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in the North, being Muslims?
How would this be possible if nothing but a state of constant terror
existed where Hindus would be earmarked and banished into concentration
camps as Elst tries to argue?
There;s
a reason why serious historians ignore the claims of 80 million Hindus
being killed throughout 8 centuries: because it a pseudo-historical
claim. I can say that the Chinese have all been but murdered and
oppressed under the 20 centuries long imperial era - but it doesn’t make
it true. Those who say that India has seen a genocide of Hindus since
1200s when Qutb-ud-din-Aibak first conquered North India up until the
rise of the Marathas, are just completely wrong
>>>
exaggerated and doubtful numbers but list in here:
List of massacres in India § Pre-colonial India
A very relevant and extensive article was put up by thedebateinitiative.com:
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2016/01/11/the-myth-of-destroyed-hindu-temples-and-forced-conversion-of-hindus-by-historical-muslim-rulers-of-india/
as you can see it's obvious British re-historians actions demonizing Islam not to feel ashamed , and guilty at their bloody history.
Shall we believe that Bill Warner or his type of people have a Time machine and can go back in time to see what happens exactly ?
As you can see non of them says how many Muslims killed by mongols , Hindu , barbarian , British , America , Israel , in Africa...etc. they are just blaming Islam on everything happens in history. we are being fought from every direction for accepting to be a part of this unjust nation. so they are proofed liars that way. can they admit that they killed 100 million red Indian according to Las Casas book their historian and a witness of what happened there?
and about Hindu temple destruction there is no credible source says that Muslims destroyed them , also another British re-historian like 'Stephen Knapp' takes it from some Hindu liars,
they are also blaming enslaving Africans by Muslims, where Europeans were the en-slavers by proofs in history( by khdrb )
>>>
''There
can be no specific number, it is likely in millions but certainly not a
genocide of 80 million or 400 million like some anti-Muslim people or
gullible believers claim.
For
example, they say Muslim historian Ferishta claimed there were 600
million Hindus before Muslim rule. But it was Vivekanada who first made
up such claims about Ferishta saying there were 600 million in 12th
century. Read Ferishta’s own translated work and you won’t find any 600
million number: https://books.google.com/books?id=NG8-AAAAcAAJ *
Viveknanda wasn’t blaming any genocides: The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 8/Epistles - Fourth Series/CXLV Optimist
The historian JM Datta also claimed this basing it on Ferishta but he didn’t find any such figure.''by janhi
[K. S. Lal's] work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times.
(...) Disputers of the "conversion by the sword theory" point to the presence of the large Muslim communities found in Southern India, Sri Lanka, Western Burma, Bangladesh, Southern Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent as refutation to the "conversion by the sword theory". The legacy of the Muslim conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue and argued even today. Different population estimates by economics historian Angus Maddison and by Jean-Noël Biraben also indicate that India's population did not decrease between 1000 and 1500, but increased by about 35 million during that time.( by ahmad farooq )
[K. S. Lal's] work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times.
(...) Disputers of the "conversion by the sword theory" point to the presence of the large Muslim communities found in Southern India, Sri Lanka, Western Burma, Bangladesh, Southern Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent as refutation to the "conversion by the sword theory". The legacy of the Muslim conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue and argued even today. Different population estimates by economics historian Angus Maddison and by Jean-Noël Biraben also indicate that India's population did not decrease between 1000 and 1500, but increased by about 35 million during that time.( by ahmad farooq )
No, Mughals didn't loot India. They made us rich
exaggerated and doubtful numbers but list in here:
List of massacres in India § Pre-colonial India
A very relevant and extensive article was put up by thedebateinitiative.com:
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2016/01/11/the-myth-of-destroyed-hindu-temples-and-forced-conversion-of-hindus-by-historical-muslim-rulers-of-india/
as you can see it's obvious British re-historians actions demonizing Islam not to feel ashamed , and guilty at their bloody history.
Shall we believe that Bill Warner or his type of people have a Time machine and can go back in time to see what happens exactly ?
As you can see non of them says how many Muslims killed by mongols , Hindu , barbarian , British , America , Israel , in Africa...etc. they are just blaming Islam on everything happens in history. we are being fought from every direction for accepting to be a part of this unjust nation. so they are proofed liars that way. can they admit that they killed 100 million red Indian according to Las Casas book their historian and a witness of what happened there?
and about Hindu temple destruction there is no credible source says that Muslims destroyed them , also another British re-historian like 'Stephen Knapp' takes it from some Hindu liars,
they are also blaming enslaving Africans by Muslims, where Europeans were the en-slavers by proofs in history( by khdrb )
There is no indication in the table that these Buddhists were slaughtered by Muslims.
The only other references to the 10 million buddhist figure are the various neo-Nazi and anti-Muslim websites that abound.
No genocide of the Jews in Saudi Arabia. This seems to stem from the incident at the Battle of the Trench in 627 in which the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza, who were allies of the Muslims, swapped sides and fought against them. As a result of their treachery 400 to 900 men of the tribe were killed and the women and children were enslaved. However this sentence was carried out in accordance to Jewish law, as in the Torah, on the decree of the chief of another Jewish tribe who were still allied to the Muslims. This plus mistranslated passages in the Koran is part of the Islamophobic belief that Islam is anti-Semitic and Mohammed rampaged round Arabia slaughtering Jews. The fact of the matter is that they were not killed for being Jews but for being traitors
." As I suspected that an EDL supporter’s ‘research’ amounts to believing and repeating whatever it says on some Islamophobic website and knowing the claimed death toll was ridiculous, I decided to investigate the claims. Below is my reply to the EDL supporter, which was very comprehensive, in its entirety. I came across the website and the claim was made by Bill Warner, who gave sources for his claims. I therefore actually went and investigated his sources, discovering that for the most part he was claiming things that weren’t even mentioned in his sources.
Rummel estimates a total death toll of 17,267,000 African slaves (1451-1870)
Among slaves going to Orient: 2,400,000 dead
Among slaves staying in Africa: 1,200,000 dead
Among slaves going to New World: 13,667,000 dead
Also
[Thomas Sowell estimates] 11 million of those slaves were transported
by Christian slavers, who seem to be strangely absent from the
narrative, with huge numbers dying on the way.
3.6 million?(maximum number ) non-Christian Africans not 120??? million (2,400,000 dead slaves going to the Orient + 1,200,000 dead slaves staying in Africa).
9.1 million?/( big lie the 3.65
million? lie( real number estimated 500-600 000 / assyrian + greek+ armenian ) Christian victims of
the Ottoman Empire and the mysterious 1 million African Christians
figure in the rounded down Christian total of 9 million A double count
of Christian deaths in other words.)1.6 million Christians not 60??? million. Even that may be an over-estimate though, because of the questionable methods of David B. Barrett. Warner
claims 9 million Christians were martyred by Islam, but then includes
all 50 million Orthodox Christians killed by Communism and Nazism as
being victims of Islam. He also includes “one million African Christians killed in the 20th century”,
which he gives no source for to prove whether they were all killed by
Muslims or if that figure is even true. So he says 9 million Christians
have been killed by Islam in total,
Total = 12.7 million ? ( overestemated )(maximum number ) / 5.2 million not 270 million??? people killed by Muslims over about 1,400 years and not specifically in the name of Islam eitherThe Ottomans didn’t kill the Armenians men in the name of Islam for instance.''
When
World War 1 started, in Eastern Anatolia, Armenians stood up with
Russia and Armenians betrayed to Turkey and killed hundreds of thousand
Turkish people.Later Turkey applied on them an forced migration as from
1915...500,000 Armenians emigrated to Syria
and Lebanon, 400,000 Armenians went to Russia and other countries.A
portion of them stayed in Turkey. In World War 1, Armenian deads are
less than from 300,000. But Turkey lost 3,000,000 people in World War 1,
2,500,000 of them were civilians. Total 518,000 Turks and kurds killed
by Armenian rebels(Hynchak and Tashnak gangs).
.
When
World War 1 started, in Eastern Anatolia, Armenians stood up with
Russia and Armenians betrayed to Turkey and killed hundreds of thousand
Turkish people.Later Turkey applied on them an forced migration as from
1915...500,000 Armenians emigrated to Syria
and Lebanon, 400,000 Armenians went to Russia and other countries.A
portion of them stayed in Turkey. In World War 1, Armenian deads are
less than from 300,000. But Turkey lost 3,000,000 people in World War 1,
2,500,000 of them were civilians. Total 518,000 Turks and kurds killed
by Armenian rebels(Hynchak and Tashnak gangs).
In short, 1915 events were not genocide, this was a war and there was a reciprocal slaughter.
But as a result of Armenian Diaspora's Anti-Turkey propaganda, mostly of people believe this false claims
''A similar number of Jews, Poles, Soviet POWs, Romani, disabled people, socialists, trade unionists, homosexuals, pacifists and Jehovah’s Witnesses were exterminated over a 6 year period by Christians. ''
Persecution of Muslims
Persecution of Muslims - Wikipedia
.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder