Since 1917 105 years of western blunders in the Middle east

[wm]

The losses are more linked disease or the disruption of supply circuits than to the battles themselves.

Why should there have been disruptions of supply? Weren't those people living from the land nearby?
Did they really import food from the other side of the continent?

And why were there more diseases? Were the colonizers disease-ridden?

[wm]

As far as I know, Africa was a continent of endless warfare. Colonization largely stopped that.
In the Kingdom of Dahomey the slaughter was so good they ran out of soldiers and had to draft women into their army.
In Abyssinia, never subjected to colonization, slavery existed (and slave expeditions) till the thirties of the 20th century.
In Oman till 1970.

[Loïc]

There were more diseases given the shortage of supply coming from the strategy of the armies of the conquerors used "razzia" forays against their ennemies, destroying or taking livestock, crops, food, subsistence, and as well as consequences of war and displacement of population, forced or not, by the hostilities and/or the conquerors
of course the conquerors suffered also themselves sanitary disasters in all these overseas theaters of operations

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

You post,

"All colonial wars resulted in ''mass murders'' ". Really? What do you mean by "mass murder"?

You say, "the same applies for the wars between African tribes." I am not sure that we can be definitive on that due to lack of pre-contact evidence. There seems to have been a strong element of ritual in warfare in some primitive societies.

You say, "When civilians fight against soldiers, they can't expect any mercy ." Why not? The laws of war don't preclude mercy.

You say, "That the circumstances differed, does not change the conclusion." It will if couched in such generalized terms as to be nearly meaningless.

Cheers,

Sid.

Mass murders = mass killings of civilians .
And, yes ,we can be definitive on that,as outside Europe,there were no laws of war, no Conventions of the Hague. Even today .
About the laws of war and mercy :the reality is that even in Europe today,civilians who fight against soldiers,know very well what to be expect if they are captured .
If the Germans captured in WW2,or in 1870 an armed civilian, they shot him . The same for the US ,the same for Britain in Ireland, Kenya, South Africa,..the same for the Russians in the Caucasus .
A civilian who is shot in wartime can not complain, unless he can prove that he is shot because he is a civilian .

[wm]

there were no laws of war,

Is that true?

Al-Shaybani wrote Introduction to the Law of Nations at the end of the 8th century, a book which provided detailed guidelines for the conduct of jihad against unbelievers, as well as guidelines on the treatment of non-Muslim subjects under Muslim rule. Al-Shaybani wrote a second more advanced treatise on the subject, and other jurists soon followed with a number of other multi-volume treatises.

Rights Of Enemies At War

1_6CdqfPkDcULn5lJjofJMlQ.jpg

[ljadw]

And, was there anyone who followed his prescriptions ? The Sultans ordered to enslave the non believers, to take no prisoners,to destroy buildings ,to enforce Islam,to rape women,etc,etc .Did non Muslim prisoners receive food or were they flagellated ? Millions of Africans and Europeans were sold as slaves . Do you know what happened before 1914 to the Armenians ?
Besides,what jurists write is not a law .

[wm]

There is nothing in the commands about slavery, so it was legal.

The point is laws of war existed as early as the 8th century, even if they (and the Hague Conventions) weren't always respected.

[ljadw]

What a jurist writes is not the law .

[Princess Perfume]

Muhammed would have considered the electric light bulb, black magic. Let's not use him as a barometer.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You are, as usual, not really addressing my questions.

You say, "Mass murders = mass killings of civilians." What does this actually mean? All killings of civilians are to be considered murder? How many is "mass"? What is your actual definition? That used in civil killings in the USA? If so, why?

You say, "yes ,we can be definitive on that,as outside Europe,there were no laws of war, no Conventions of the Hague. Even today ." All societies have always had their laws of war, even if they may not conform to your ideas or the Hague Conventions. In extreme cases war can become almost ritual.

You say, "About the laws of war and mercy :the reality is that even in Europe today,civilians who fight against soldiers,know very well what to be expect if they are captured ." No they don't. They MAY know what MAY be expected under the laws of war. However, they can, in law, also technically protect themselves by just putting on a recognized arm band. (I wonder if one can choose an olive green/khaki/grey tricolour arm band?)

You post, "A civilian who is shot in wartime can not complain, unless he can prove that he is shot because he is a civilian ." I would humbly suggest that their complaint might be a little late!

Cheers,

Sid

[ljadw]

Mass killings of civilians = mass murders and vice versa .
See the Holocaust .
What the Japanese did in Nanking was mass murder ,but the Chinese did it also themselves against other Chinese ,and no one complained .During the Great Chinese Famine ((1959-1961 ) 2,5 million civilians were murdered .
Those in Germany and Namibia who are now whining and demand money because more than 100 years ago,the Germans killed intentionally countless civilians during a revolt,should also recognize that the Germans only followed the examples of the native tribes of Namibia and the rest of Africa who never had any mercy to their opponents in war time .
See the example of Dahomey .
A lot of indignant blahblah has been done by leftists American self declared historians about the policy of Leopold II in Congo,but what the Congolese tribes did to each other is still hidden,and it was worse, much worse .
Congo became independent in 1960 and the province of Kasai (mainly inhabited by the Balubas ) seceded . The Congolese PM Lumumba sent the Congolese ''army '' to Kasai and this did what its forefathers had done : it murdered in less than 2 months 3000 Balubas .
A lot of whining was produced by our media about Srbrenica, and the gas attacks in Syria. mainly for political reasons,but they remained silent about the countless murdered Armenians and Kurds.
All this proves that war laws are mostly not followed and atrocities punished only if you lose and that all the whinings are only hypocrisy .
The truth is that civilians have no immunity in war time .

[Nemmexe]

there were no laws of war,

Is that true?

Al-Shaybani wrote Introduction to the Law of Nations at the end of the 8th century, a book which provided detailed guidelines for the conduct of jihad against unbelievers, as well as guidelines on the treatment of non-Muslim subjects under Muslim rule. Al-Shaybani wrote a second more advanced treatise on the subject, and other jurists soon followed with a number of other multi-volume treatises.

Rights Of Enemies At War
1_6CdqfPkDcULn5lJjofJMlQ.jpg

B.s. propaganda!!!

The Arabs, put their girls in grave, alive!!!

Plus that, thousands of historical examples, to deny each and every one of these, from first day of Islam, to this day.

Islam is good, but only for those who love virgins and underbelly joys.

[wm]

You need to google who "the Second Teacher" was (Al-Farabi).
"The First" was Aristotle.

[Nemmexe]

You need to google who "the Second Teacher" was (Al-Farabi).
"The First" was Aristotle.

First of all, That's Farabi, not Al-Farabi.

Second, Farabi was not Arab, but Muslim. He was born in modern day "Farab" city, in modern day Kazakhstan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otrar

The Arabic language had the same rule in the area that Latin, and later, French Languages have had, in the Europa.

Writing or even speaking those languages, does not make someone Arab, French or Roman.

Being born in Asia, and Northern Africa, caused them to be Muslim, like those who were born in Europa, became Christians. They had no other choice, nor could change their believes.

There is no Honor for what they have not earned, including religion.

[Nemmexe]

You need to google who "the Second Teacher" was (Al-Farabi).
"The First" was Aristotle.

Here is just one of many insults in Muslims "holy book" to women ... There are dozens more insults to non Muslims and women, just in this one book ... Plus tons of scientific errors.

https://wiki.ahlolbait.com/%D8%A2%DB%8C ... 8%A7%D8%A1

https://quran.com/an-nisa/34

Source: Quran 4:34