[anasawad]

funny thing....is that while ISIS are monsters ....
ISIS and al-qaeda and all alikes are hated by majority of muslims in the world and most of the fight against them is by muslims ....
and even better ....the very existence of such group is manufactured by the west ......
and funnier ....is that the people commenting on ISIS and crediting them...not only support nations and entities that have killed and tormented more people than any nation in history of the world .....infact .....if we counted the US -britain-france-spain and portugese alone...those have killed and eradicated more people in the past 300 years than muslims durning their entire history combined.....and when they comment.....the actions promoted by them is a very good match to the actions groups like ISIS ....
anyways .....this forum is filled by inhuman zealots who are just as bad or even worse than ISIS them selves....and i dont think the company is worth bothering ....
so this is the last time i will ever post here .....
enjoy being a punch of animals ....or worse

[Godstud]

the very existence of such group is manufactured by the west

A popular fallacy among Islamists, apparently. These groups were not trained by, nor are they consisting of Westerners.

not only support nations and entities that have killed and tormented more people than any nation in history of the world

Who is supporting Assad, now? You think

if we counted the US -britain-france-spain and portugese alone...those have killed and eradicated more people in the past 300 years than muslims durning their entire history combined

Support this silly statement with some facts, like a source. In fact, most of the deaths of Muslims is Muslims killing Muslims.

so this is the last time i will ever post here

I hope this is true, if you can't even have discussion without using childish name-calling.

[abu_rashid]

Just like the forced FGM, the severed heads of Christian children on spikes in Mosul park and most of the other garbage the West and their lackeys pump out.

Your lower garments have now officially combusted.

[anasawad]

well.....i decided to stay for the action further more ......not what you hopped for eh ?

-extreme islamists like isis and al-qaede and salafist extremest in general all share ideological views with wahabis ....to the extent of being identical ...
and they all do seem to have at one point aquired direct support-funding-training by wahabi states.....which is protected by ....
how many military bases-fleets and agreements by the west ?
and in some cases like al-qaeda ...which actually also the origin of ISIS is known to everyone that it was funded-armed and trained by americans in the cold war...and surprisingly continued to serve american political ambitions in latter years...

-i dont see how the western world directing a proxy war at syria or iran since its establishment considered support ...

-the american indian native alone were estimated to be approx 400 tribes and population to 100 millions .....they were exterminated if you wondered where are they now
british rule over india also have caused directly an estimate of 60-100 million civillian deaths .....
and thats just 2 regions ....and its public and common facts.....you dont have to dig in books to find those numbers...

the only simillar but not as massive scale in the muslim world was timurlane ...which a large part of his army was mercs and his empire swift collapse was due to muslims actually rising against it ...
can you give a known example where muslim's kill count reached the one of a western nation ....

[Mujahid_X]

Propaganda bullox.

[abu_rashid]

Yeh even the rabidly anti-Islamic mainstream media didn't pick it up, it's clearly just absolute bovine faeces.

[Drlee]

-the american indian native alone were estimated to be approx 400 tribes and population to 100 millions .....

The estimates of North American indigenous populations prior to Columbus rage from 2.5 million to 16 million. The population of North AND South American was about 30 million or so. So way to start out son.

t

hey were exterminated if you wondered where are they now

No they weren't. The overwhelming majority of Native American casualties came from disease.

british rule over india also have caused directly an estimate of 60-100 million civillian deaths .....

Nonsense.

and thats just 2 regions ....and its public and common facts.....you dont have to dig in books to find those numbers...

It is obvious you did not bother to "dig in books". If you had, you would know that your so-called statistics are full of shit.

[anasawad]

-archaeological evidence show estimates between 57-112 million pre-contact population

-main reasons for the overwhelming death was both desease and colonial powers inslaving and murdering them ....
though the diseases part was only efficient killer at the first 50 years.....after that the head hunt played most part ...


-seizing resources-food-logistics from civillians in order to support the army which is an occupying army and controlling the entire farming capabilities of the nation while directing its output away from it leaving people to starve and famines to arise ...is not much different from shooting people at the street..

if you locked someone in a room for days and he died from starvation...you still killed hem .....starvation is the method .....
the minimum estimates of the death count only from famines in india alone under british rule was 60 millions with some estimates to reach 100 million...
without counting direct kills ....

[KlassWar]

though the diseases part was only efficient killer at the first 50 years.....after that the head hunt played most part ...

Them first 50 years of plague you mention did in >70% of the Natives pretty much by themselves: they just plain didn't have any meaningful immunity to Old World diseases. That shattered their societies and made them easy prey for the conquistadors.

Once conquered, the fate of the natives depended on a large part on the attitude of the colonial powers, which in turn depended mostly on native population density and mode of production. When the population was dense and agrarian the imperialist powers tended to keep the natives as peasant masses and tax-farm the place, when it was sparse and/or nomadic they went for eradicating the locals and resettling the place from scratch with their own colonies.

South America was more densely populated and more people survived the plague, leaving the agrarian tribes standing. North America was a heavily depopulated wasteland, with most of the tribes reverting to nomadism. That's how the Spanish ended up grabbing a colonial empire with a largely Native/Mestizo population while the Anglos ended up committing a continent-wide genocide. I suspect if the Spaniards had settled the North and the Anglos the South it would've been the other way around.

[anasawad]

i think it was about 73% that died at first contact.....but that leaves atleast 10-20+ millions if not more on the course of 400 years should have reached far more than 5 million people.......and considering that many of them were either nomads or living in a somewhat primitive tribal communities then their birth rates is very high and they're adopted quite well to their surrounding nature so the population growth is very rapid.....

[abu_rashid]

"british rule over india also have caused directly an estimate of 60-100 million civillian deaths ....."

Nonsense.

It's not nonsense at all. There were multiple famines in which scores of millions died, and the British were directly responsible for these famines, even shipping food grown in the famine stricken areas out of India and back to Mother England.

The crimes of the British against humanity are the greatest by far of any power in all human history.

[Drlee]

-

archaeological evidence show estimates between 57-112 million pre-contact population

No it doesn't. Post your proof.

-main reasons for the overwhelming death was both desease and colonial powers inslaving and murdering them ....
though the diseases part was only efficient killer at the first 50 years.....after that the head hunt played most part ...

Absolutely wrong.

-seizing resources-food-logistics from civillians in order to support the army which is an occupying army and controlling the entire farming capabilities of the nation while directing its output away from it leaving people to starve and famines to arise ...is not much different from shooting people at the street..

It didn't happen.

if you locked someone in a room for days and he died from starvation...you still killed hem .....starvation is the method .....
the minimum estimates of the death count only from famines in india alone under british rule was 60 millions with some estimates to reach 100 million...
without counting direct kills ....

Yawn.,


Your information is completely full of shit. Do try to do your research before you post shit here. Nobody is fooled.

[anasawad]

-dobyns (1983) ....
population before 1500 was estimated between 90-112 millions.....
general estimates on archeological evidence shows 57-112 millions...

-do look the difference between pre-contact ....first contact ..and first settling ...
and do consider that when we talk about native americans which most their density was in central america and lower rates further north and south you go ...then america does mean north and south america's with colonial powers taking them both not by far means only the US ....

-how exactly is wrong...are you suggesting that while everyone on earth gained immunity for most the diseases after the first infections ....native americans just kept dying generation after anther by the same diseases that was spread after the first contact ?

-care you to explain how india ...a land filled with fertile land and a country that never had famine...suddenly started having famines when the brits came ...and people started dying by millions at the same time ??
also ...indian population doubled 4 times within the last 60 years (300+ million to 1.2 billion) ...yet durning the british rule it took 280 years to double its population (100 million to 250 million) ...
it seems as something was either reducing birth rates or increasing death rates at that period

-btw...i do search before i post..and i said above you dont need to dig in books ..i didn't say i didn't read and dig in any book....
simply you just fail to do your research thus concluding that anything i present is wrong as you never heard of it .....

EDIT: you know.....if i just searched wars of britain-france-spain-portugees-US - maybe belgium and germany and netherlands.....
i can find a huge lists of war after war after war where these nations occupied-settled-colonized-assaulted-invaded .....(i actually have those lists bookmarked ...thanks wikipedia)....and you can trust that by the least estimates there will be 10s of millions of kill count on each of those nations....just durning the time period in which they started colonizing the world ..and the US began to exist......(until now ofcourse)

[abu_rashid]

You can keep pushing your denials all you like, it's well established historical fact.

The Great Bengal famine of 1770 (Bengali: ৭৬-এর মন্বন্তর, Chhiattōrer monnōntór; lit The Famine of '76) was a catastrophic famine between 1769 and 1773 (1176 to 1180 in the Bengali calendar) that affected the lower Gangetic plain of India. The famine is estimated to have caused the deaths of 10 million people, reducing the population to thirty million in Bengal, which included Bihar and parts of Odisha. The Bengali names derives from its origins in the Bengali calendar year 1176. ("Chhiattōr"- "76"; "monnōntór"- "famine" in Bengali).[3] It was caused due to the widespread forced cultivation of opium (forced upon local farmers by the British East India Company as part of its strategy to export it to China) in place of local food crops, resulting in a shortage of grain for local people in Bengal.

So they starved one nation of people to death in order to push drugs onto another nation. Double despicableness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ben ... ne_of_1770

[Drlee]

-dobyns (1983) ....
population before 1500 was estimated between 90-112 millions.....
general estimates on archeological evidence shows 57-112 millions...

Nice try. Now post the source.

Here is what a source looks like: (Bolding mine.)

Aboriginal people in the New World?

William M. Denevan writes that, "The discovery of America was followed by possibly the greatest demographic disaster in the history of the world." Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492, while others estimate the population to have been as low as eight million. In any case, the native population declined to less than six million by 1650.

In this collection of essays, historians, anthropologists, and geographers discuss the discrepancies in the population estimates and the evidence for the post-European decline. Woodrow Borah, Angel Rosenblat, William T. Sanders, and others touch on such topics as the Indian slave trade, diseases, military action, and the disruption of the social systems of the native peoples. Offering varying points of view, the contributors critically analyze major hemispheric and regional data and estimates for pre- and post-European contact.

This revised edition features a new introduction by Denevan reviewing recent literature and providing a new hemispheric estimate of 54 million, a foreword by W. George Lovell of Queen's University, and a comprehensive updating of the already extensive bibliography. Research in this subject is accelerating, with contributions from many disciplines. The discussions and essays presented here can serve both as an overview of past estimates, conflicts, and methods and as indicators of new approaches and perspectives to this timely subject.

William M. Denevan is the Carl O. Sauer Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm

Now you try it.

[anasawad]

i did,,,,,2 books..1 in 66 and anther in 83 by dobyns ....a book by a researcher is a source(or a semi-book what ever you call it)......
even part of your articale shows the publicly known research of the estimates ......even if there was dispute on accurate numbers...it still lies within the estimate range i placed....
and your articale shows the genocide quite right....less than 6 millions in 1650 .....thats 150 years after first contact and diseases spread....
an outbreak in a certain disease lasts only short period no more than few years by far....so the diseases did kill good amount ......only at start f first contact....after that ....as stated before....it was genocidal acts as leading cause for death in native americans ......
and again...pointing to their both nomad and tribal lifestyle....their birth rates were for sure high ..
its a very well known aspect of nomad and tribal structures/...as well the fact that back then ...even the most urbanised area's had high birth rates......