NationStates Jolt Archive

Which nation or group had soldiers that were the nastiest towards others and maybe each other?

Which nation or group had soldiers that were the nastiest towards others and maybe each other?

Define "human." And there is going to be a poll, right? We have to have a poll.

Define "human." And there is going to be a poll, right? We have to have a poll.

Coming right up! :cool:

By human history I mean the period in which we started recording things a millenia or so ago to now

there all pretty much the same soldiers aren’t politicians there just regular people

Hard to say. In the good old days it was routine to slaughter and enslave the enemy's civilians. In the OT bible the Israelites killed the shit out of many of their enemys. The Romans were so bad ass that the Jews at Masada decided to kill themselves rather than be captured. Too bad we don't have armies like that today. They'd end insurgencies pretty effectively IMHO.

Coming right up! :cool:

Excellent. I voted "pirates." I win.

Not to burst your bubble, but I do think this is a silly question. War by it's very nature is nasty and it makes the people who participate in it just as nasty, so in a sense, "all soldiers" would be a reasonable answer.

if i had to choose: those armies that made stacks of skulls from their oponents head. those where nasty. but really, there have been a lot of nasty armies. although it might be that i'm thinking of something else than nasty, cruel for instance, they are virtually the same, no?

if i had to choose: those armies that made stacks of skulls from their oponents head. those where nasty. but really, there have been a lot of nasty armies. although it might be that i'm thinking of something else than nasty, cruel for instance, they are virtually the same, no?

What, you'd rather they left all those skulls just lying around? At least they tidied up after themselves.

Excellent. I voted "pirates." I win.

Not to burst your bubble, but I do think this is a silly question. War by it's very nature is nasty and it makes the people who participate in it just as nasty, so in a sense, "all soldiers" would be a reasonable answer.

Yes they are nasty but they still have a set of rules and lately American troops have been breaking those rules, and all the other armies I listed broke those rules too. So who was worse in terms of war?

Which nation or group had soldiers that were the nastiest towards others and maybe each other?

The Mongols weren't too nice. The Aztecs and the Maya don't sound too nice (unless you're into ritual slaughter).

Yes they are nasty but they still have a set of rules and lately American troops have been breaking those rules, and all the other armies I listed broke those rules too. So who was worse in terms of war?

"Rules of War" is a nice fiction that countries have created to make themselves feel better about what is basically a brutish occupation. Every nation that says it follows rules during wartime will also be found to have ignored those rules to some extent. Debating who was worse is pointless, especially when you could be over in the "Burkini" thread talking about what Smunkee's going to be wearing at the beach this summer.

What, you'd rather they left all those skulls just lying around? At least they tidied up after themselves.

hmmm, i didn't look at it that way. but i meant the ones decapitating their captured opponents. like those *zoot voice* naughty naughty Aztecs.

Yes they are nasty but they still have a set of rules and lately American troops have been breaking those rules, and all the other armies I listed broke those rules too. So who was worse in terms of war?

the other armies broke the rules before they were made. i think in this instance the soldiers are better judged according to the morals and military conventions of their time and culture. american soldiers are supposed to be from a time and place that values human rights and dignity. those soldiers that did those nasty things with prisoners and other arabs did not, so they are the worst.

hmmm, i didn't look at it that way. but i meant the ones decapitating their captured opponents. like those *zoot voice* naughty naughty Aztecs.

Ah, those ones. I read somewhere that it possible those decapitated opponents didn't go entirely to waste. Seems the Aztecs were going through rather a population boom and, well, people need protein, you know, so ... I don't know if there's any definitive scholarship on the question.

Try this guy and his army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur#India

Whoever voted for present day American soldiers is absolutely insane.

Whoever voted for present day American soldiers is absolutely insane.

Seconded.

Whoever voted for present day American soldiers is absolutely insane.

Thats likely the intended purpose of the thread. Dont worry-later on, there will probably be many more votes for the present day American soldiers. :(

Ah, those ones. I read somewhere that it possible those decapitated opponents didn't go entirely to waste. Seems the Aztecs were going through rather a population boom and, well, people need protein, you know, so ... I don't know if there's any definitive scholarship on the question.

oh you with your facts. but i read something similar, it was about the cannibals of papua though. that they needed to eat their opponents in order to get enough protein.

Berserkers?? Tough, druged up and naked??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserkers

Whoever voted for present day American soldiers is absolutely insane.

Present-day American soldiers are Boy Scouts compared to the imperialist Japanese. With Americans today, some people are assholes - My Lai, Abu Ghraib, etc. but the violence is on such a small scale compared to the imperialist Japanese that it barely warrants a comparison. The Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death march, repeated breaking of the samurai code, a militaristic regime that may well have inspired some of the "thought-crime" charges in Orwell's 1984. Bunch of belligerent fuckers, the Japanese military was. Thankfully, they seemed to want to dominate, pillage, and subjugate more than they wanted to exterminate as the Nazis did; otherwise, given the right weapons, we could have had a lot of dead Chinese folks on our hands.

oh you with your facts. but i read something similar, it was about the cannibals of papua though. that they needed to eat their opponents in order to get enough protein.

Could just as well have been the Papuans, too, though they're small-fry when it comes to the scale on which the Aztecs slaughtered their enemies. Seems I recall that part of the deal with devouring your opponent is that you absorb his strength, too.

Thats likely the intended purpose of the thread. Dont worry-later on, there will probably be many more votes for the present day American soldiers. :(

You're probably right, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the thread starter that voted for it. I am not compelled to reply to threads on this forum very often, and I've been lurking here for over a year now. But I am amazed at the things some people are willing to say about the United States, or in this case its military, simply to take a stab at the current administration.

I don't know, I'm sure 'Nam GIs come close.

Present-day American soldiers are Boy Scouts compared to the imperialist Japanese. With Americans today, some people are assholes - My Lai, Abu Ghraib, etc. but the violence is on such a small scale compared to the imperialist Japanese that it barely warrants a comparison. The Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death march, repeated breaking of the samurai code, a militaristic regime that may well have inspired some of the "thought-crime" charges in Orwell's 1984. Bunch of belligerent fuckers, the Japanese military was. Thankfully, they seemed to want to dominate, pillage, and subjugate more than they wanted to exterminate as the Nazis did; otherwise, given the right weapons, we could have had a lot of dead Chinese folks on our hands.

Or compared even to, say, the Soviets who marched on Berlin towards the end of WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin (Yes, my source is Wiki)

In many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (usually rear echelon units) looted, raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks (see under Marta Hillers and Red Army atrocities). After the summer of 1945 Soviet soldiers caught raping were usually punished to various degrees. [6] The rapes continued however until the winter of 1947-48, when the problem was finally solved by the Russian occupation authorities by confining the Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps.

I am waiting for at least one of the two people who voted for modern day American soldiers to show me an example of an atrocity committed by them that compares to this.

I don't know, I'm sure 'Nam GIs come close.

Actually, the allegations made in re Winter Soldier were found to be false and without merit.

While there were isolated incidents like My Lai, it wasn't a widespread phenomenon.

Which nation or group had soldiers that were the nastiest towards others and maybe each other?

Nazi Germany. Without a doubt.

First off I want to make it clear that Pirates are the peak of Human evolution, and in no way can anything bad about pirates possibly be true. (this is pirates as in Cutlass weilding, the shits in the south pacific are clear evidence of devolution, Go DEVO!)

Second, I believe in cultural relativism (not moral, which implies to an individual, but cultural as in to entire people's and time periods) and so while I think that looking way back you could find some of the most creative soldiering it really just fit with the times; and that in any time period I am sure that you have soldiers who are real bastards and like killing people, soldiers who think what they are doing is the right and just thing for the world, and soldiers who are scared shitless or hate what they are doing to their fellow man.

I dont think that it is the soldiers who should be compared for Nastiness, it is the policy makers, be that a dictator, a king, or a parliment.

Oh, and the Spanish Inquisition was pretty intense.

For some reason I feel that I must add to any who voted for modern US soldiers:
As much as I disagree with alot of american foriegn policy over the last half century, you really got nuthin' Ask Eve or somebody else I have gone hard line leftist on, this is the sort of torch I would pick up to carry, if only to get on Eve's nerves. But modern american soldiers are high school guidance councilors compared to any other army I can think of who has done as much ass kicking as they have.
Okay, I have to go burn a flag or something, I am feeling way too patriotic.

Present-day American soldiers are Boy Scouts compared to the imperialist Japanese. With Americans today, some people are assholes - My Lai, Abu Ghraib, etc. but the violence is on such a small scale compared to the imperialist Japanese that it barely warrants a comparison. The Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death march, repeated breaking of the samurai code, a militaristic regime that may well have inspired some of the "thought-crime" charges in Orwell's 1984. Bunch of belligerent fuckers, the Japanese military was. Thankfully, they seemed to want to dominate, pillage, and subjugate more than they wanted to exterminate as the Nazis did; otherwise, given the right weapons, we could have had a lot of dead Chinese folks on our hands.
And if you thought the Japanese in World War II were bad, just look at any war fought in the Middle Ages, or even back during the existance of the Roman Empire. Horrible, horrible. Thankfully we've gotten past such barbarity.

For some reason I feel that I must add to any who voted for modern US soldiers:
As much as I disagree with alot of american foriegn policy over the last half century, you really got nuthin' Ask Eve or somebody else I have gone hard line leftist on, this is the sort of torch I would pick up to carry, if only to get on Eve's nerves. But modern american soldiers are high school guidance councilors compared to any other army I can think of who has done as much ass kicking as they have.
Okay, I have to go burn a flag or something, I am feeling way too patriotic.
Burning flags is ok in my book.

I got 2 words for you.

Ghenghis. Khan.

The ancient Israelites were pretty ruthless: the best you could hope for if they won is that they would kill you and enslave your wife and children to be concubines. At worst, they would kill everyone.

That being said though, that was fairly par for the course, and at least they didn't torture their victims before killing them. Rome was far, far worse in many respects.

I don't think comparisons can really be made between ancient armies and modern ones...

...limiting myself to more modern armies, I'll have to go with the Imperial Japanese Army.

im thinking its the iroquois or the pre-tecumseh shawnee.

they would torture their captives in the most brutal manner they could think of. the louder and longer the guy screamed, the cooler it was.

not to mention that whole killing people with a hatchet thing. *shudder*

And if you thought the Japanese in World War II were bad, just look at any war fought in the Middle Ages, or even back during the existance of the Roman Empire. Horrible, horrible. Thankfully we've gotten past such barbarity.

Someone named the Romans before I could, and since most of the ancient powers with a history of brutality have been named (or at least the ones I could think of) I took an example from modern warfare. Sure, the Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, and Ba'athists were pretty bad, but I felt that the imperialist Japanese deserved a mention as well. They also deserve a mention for being so nonchalant about it, whereas the Germans are determined never to let another Nazi-style holocaust happen again.

The ancient Assyrians were pretty nasty. The whole flaying your opponents alive and using their skin as furniture coverings or to coat your city walls thing, you know?
If you want to keep this in more modern times, the Cossacks could be pretty nasty to.
I would say the SS takes the cake though, if you want to count 'non-military' actions as well.

In terms of artrocities commited, I would say any of the crusader armies.

Either the Imperial Japanese, or the Belgians (that's right!)

I'd say it ceases being a matter of degree when the two armies start trying to kill eachother, any time in history.

I'd say it ceases being a matter of degree when the two armies start trying to kill eachother, any time in history.

So, theres no difference between two guys shooting each other and one guy shooting another in the kneecap, then disembowling him and making him eat his own liver?

Coming right up! :cool:

By human history I mean the period in which we started recording things a millenia or so ago to now

Wow, I am glad human history only started in 1007... those poor Greeks and Romans consigned to prehistory.

The ancient Israelites were pretty ruthless: the best you could hope for if they won is that they would kill you and enslave your wife and children to be concubines. At worst, they would kill everyone.

That being said though, that was fairly par for the course, and at least they didn't torture their victims before killing them. Rome was far, far worse in many respects.

Most modern archeological evidence shows that the Israelites, at best, were a paper tiger that the Egyptians laughed at. The myth of the Israelites was perpetrated by Josiah, a 7th century BCE (wait, that must be pre-history :) king of Judah who had needed to bolster a political struggle against Egypt and look good against the Assyrians. Almost all information on the Israelites is found in the Bible, but when mentioned in the context by other powers of the time, they are routinely dismissed... let us say Assyria and Babylon hardly found them threatening. The book of Joshua, which describes most of the Israelite 'atrocities' was codified in the 7th century, 500 years after 'Joshua' 'conquered' Canaan (Indeed about the same time of the 'conquest' most of Canaan was a vassal state to Egypt). Josiah and his priest's descriptions of such tactics might well have been Judahite policiy at the time, but they had nothing on the Assyrians...

Either the Imperial Japanese, or the Belgians (that's right!)

what? we even have an army?

The Mongols under Timur the Lame. IIRC, he is responsible for more deaths than any human in history.

...but I felt that the imperialist Japanese deserved a mention as well. They also deserve a mention for being so nonchalant about it, whereas the Germans are determined never to let another Nazi-style holocaust happen again.
Not to mention that they would have been rather strict with each other too, at least moreso than the other modern armies.

I wouldn't want to be the one they pick for being bullied.

Ridiculous poll. Anti-americanism is obvious(no im not american myselfly).

I voted for present day America, just to be an asshole.

I'm pulling for WWII Japanese military for their creative use of torture on Bataan as well as the lovely Rape of Nanking and the activities of Unit 731. These guys made Nazi camps look like fun compared to their recreational activities for the prisoners/enemies/Chinese.

Nazis, espescially the Waffen SS.

I'm pulling for WWII Japanese military for their creative use of torture on Bataan as well as the lovely Rape of Nanking and the activities of Unit 731. These guys made Nazi camps look like fun compared to their recreational activities for the prisoners/enemies/Chinese.

One might indicate the Taiping Rebellion. 20-50,000,000 dead Chinese.

I find it sad and amusing that its never mentioned in the history books.

One might indicate the Taiping Rebellion. 20-50,000,000 dead Chinese.

I find it sad and amusing that its never mentioned in the history books.

True, but that was, in essence, Chinese on Chinese violence as lead by a severely misguided mystics. Although this is debatable, as the leaders were of a large ethnic subgroup in a period when the dynasty was under foreign (Manchu) control.

But you do raise an interesting point. Perhaps it extends into a greater theme of mass deaths in Chinese history, including Mao's Long March and the Great Leap Forward.

As for history books, it depends where you look. ;)

True, but that was, in essence, Chinese on Chinese violence as lead by a severely misguided mystics. Although this is debatable, as the leaders were of a large ethnic subgroup in a period when the dynasty was under foreign (Manchu) control.

But you do raise an interesting point. Perhaps it extends into a greater theme of mass deaths in Chinese history, including Mao's Long March and the Great Leap Forward.

As for history books, it depends where you look. ;)

US history books, then :P
Not books ABOUT US history, but books IN the US, about history.

And China does seem to have issues with stupid leadership. Maybe they caught caught it from the Russians or vice versa.

So, theres no difference between two guys shooting each other and one guy shooting another in the kneecap, then disembowling him and making him eat his own liver?

I can say with great certainty that I'd feel much safer on the army just trying to shoot the guys, not "shoot them in the kneecap."

Our army might loose a few kneecaps, but we'd win and be spared the ridiculous nonsense you came up with, whereas a great number of our deranged adversaries would die of bleed out and gut-shots and all sorts of other nastiness.

Mongols without a doubt. I mean, damn, they almost single handedly destroyed an entire religious group (Muslims). Sack of Baghdad anyone? Jeesh....

US history books, then :P
Not books ABOUT US history, but books IN the US, about history.

And China does seem to have issues with stupid leadership. Maybe they caught caught it from the Russians or vice versa.

The rebellion is mentioned in US classes on the subject... both in my History of East Asia class and East Asian Politics (both at different schools, so not a specialised department). Admittedly, the chair of our department was a Sino-phile, so he had a wild assortment of facts about China and the region.

I can say with great certainty that I'd feel much safer on the army just trying to shoot the guys, not "shoot them in the kneecap."

Our army might loose a few kneecaps, but we'd win and be spared the ridiculous nonsense you came up with, whereas a great number of our deranged adversaries would die of bleed out and gut-shots and all sorts of other nastiness.

Practicality is not the issue.
If you want a historical example, try the Assyrians. Or Aztecs.
So, rephrase:
Is there a difference between simply shooting somebody and, say, driving red hot spears into their stomach, then flaying them alive so you can have a nice new chair?

Mongols without a doubt. I mean, damn, they almost single handedly destroyed an entire religious group (Muslims). Sack of Baghdad anyone? Jeesh....

I think they put a scare into ever major religious group in the 13th century, except perhaps the ones they couldn't sail to... hence their failed invasion of Japan. :)

I think they put a scare into ever major religious group in the 13th century, except perhaps the ones they couldn't sail to... hence their failed invasion of Japan. :)

Dratted kamikaze.

If only reality was like Shogun: Total War. *sigh*

In terms of artrocities commited, I would say any of the crusader armies.
That would depend on the army, some were badly behaved even for the time, the first for example, others were considered fairly civil by the standards of the time, Louis IX was considered to be as well behaved as Saladin had been on the Muslim side in early crusades, at least i regards to his actiones during crusades. Heck, the Sixth "crusade" was pretty much nothing, but negotiation.

Btw, destruction of Carthage was very noticeable event.

Hard to say, really. There's no definite rubric to grade each army by, and the variables are frustrating. Does one judge by the moral standards of the time that army existed, or by today's? For that matter, the moral standards of today vary depending on where you are. It makes my head hurt.

And lawlz @ the idiots who voted for American soldiers.

For modern militaries, in order of brutality:
1) The Japanese Imperial Army - attrocities abounded, many of which have been listed already. The important one that's not been mentioned yet is that they are the only army to actually carry out scientifically researched biological warfare attacks on the battlefield.
2) Various African guerilla groups - Janjaweed, the Lords Army, etc., etc. ad nauseum. There are too many to list and they make everyone but the Japanese look good.
3) Soviet Red Army
4) The SS
5) The various factions of the Balkans - nasty, nasty stuff there

By human history I mean the period in which we started recording things a millenia or so ago to now
Wow, I am glad human history only started in 1007... those poor Greeks and Romans consigned to prehistory.

I am indeed happy to see I wasn't the first to object to that.

Either the Imperial Japanese, or the Belgians (that's right!)
what? we even have an army?

Indeed you do:
http://www.mil.be/armycomp/index.asp?LAN=F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army

And they indeed have been brutal - I'm sure you learned something of your country's history, if you are Belgian (I wasn't aware you were).

what? we even have an army?
I'm talking about your imperial atrocities in Zaire.

Yes they are nasty but they still have a set of rules and lately American troops have been breaking those rules, and all the other armies I listed broke those rules too. So who was worse in terms of war?

Why, may I ask, did you list American soldiers, but NOT the scum-sucking terrorists? They are WAY worse then American. And rules for war? Why should we follow any if the enemy doesn't?

You know, I voted Nazi. I wish I could take it back. A lot of their soldiers weren't really bad, they were just drafted by Hitler. I would vote African soldiers. By FAR the badest armies that EVER existed are over there. And belive me, I know how evil armies have been in history, and they don't compare with the atrocities going on over there.

Which nation or group had soldiers that were the nastiest towards others and maybe each other?

wasn't there a group of warriors who's battle cry was "Yum Yum!"

can you imagine a horde of those fighters bearing down on you chaning "Yum! Yum!"

Why, may I ask, did you list American soldiers, but NOT the scum-sucking terrorists? They are WAY worse then American. And rules for war? Why should we follow any if the enemy doesn't?
The US Army is a real army and terrorist groups are not.

Why, may I ask, did you list American soldiers, but NOT the scum-sucking terrorists? They are WAY worse then American. And rules for war? Why should we follow any if the enemy doesn't?

America holds itself at a higher standard. We cannot drop to their standards (not saying we have) Abu Ghraib and Haditha were both isolated incidents, commited by criminals un-deserving of the title of "US Soldier" or "US Marine" I have been around US servicemembers most of my life, and while I do not support this government, I can safely say that US servicemembers are some of the finest men on this planet.
It is incredibly disrespectful to compare US military members to the Nazis or Imperial Japanese.

The US Army is a real army and terrorist groups are not.

Define "real" army? An army that fights another army? Well, um if they aren't real, then it's not a war? no, no that's not right. They have guns, they attack en masse, American soldiers shoot them, and get shot by them, they take cities, plant bombs... If they aren't an army, they close enough to be treated as one.

America holds itself at a higher standard. We cannot drop to their standards (not saying we have) Abu Ghraib and Haditha were both isolated incidents, commited by criminals un-deserving of the title of "US Soldier" or "US Marine" I have been around US servicemembers most of my life, and while I do not support this government, I can safely say that US servicemembers are some of the finest men on this planet.
It is incredibly disrespectful to compare US military members to the Nazis or Imperial Japanese.

Exactly.

Define "real" army? An army that fights another army? Well, um if they aren't real, then it's not a war? no, no that's not right. They have guns, they attack en masse, American soldiers shoot them, and get shot by them, they take cities, plant bombs... If they aren't an army, they close enough to be treated as one.

You seem to be living in some bizarre fantasy world where Al Qaeda does things like take cities and engage in open fighting. They don't do that. No terrorist group does that. To claim that terrorist organizations are armies is laughable.

For the record, an army is an organized group of soldiers who fight at the behest of some entity.

Hard to say. In the good old days it was routine to slaughter and enslave the enemy's civilians. In the OT bible the Israelites killed the shit out of many of their enemys. The Romans were so bad ass that the Jews at Masada decided to kill themselves rather than be captured. Too bad we don't have armies like that today. They'd end insurgencies pretty effectively IMHO.

the japanese were pretty rotten during ww2.

not that they were the worst in history,i just remember hearing stories from family members,and reading about nanking.

war is ugly at best,and assigning the worst of, is pretty futile imho.

and not to sound defensive,but american troops dont even belong on the list.that is farsical.

especially modern day american troops..if you want to impugn americans because you hate bush or america...so be it...but firebombing dresden or carpet bombing cities is a far cry from what americans do now...during war.

i think the trojan wars were pretty inhumane also,the battle front in eastern europe during ww2 was pretty barbaric come to think of it.

i guess war sucks.:(

im thinking its the iroquois or the pre-tecumseh shawnee.

they would torture their captives in the most brutal manner they could think of. the louder and longer the guy screamed, the cooler it was.

not to mention that whole killing people with a hatchet thing. *shudder*

Actually the Apache were far worse then any other tribe.....they brought brutality in killing captives to a new high in those days......but trust me whites were brutal at times....such as the spanish and english intentionally giving the natives smallpox.

I'm talking about your imperial atrocities in Zaire.

As I thought. (Somehow, although I intended to, I left that out of my reply to that poster.)

Why, may I ask, did you list American soldiers, but NOT the scum-sucking terrorists? They are WAY worse then American

I'm guessing that it's because the OPer's basically a blinded idiot who wants to wants to wave around his "I'm better at slander than anyone else" dick.

And rules for war? Why should we follow any if the enemy doesn't?

Because doing so is one of the things that makes us morally superior.

You know, I voted Nazi. I wish I could take it back. A lot of their soldiers weren't really bad, they were just drafted by Hitler. I would vote African soldiers. By FAR the badest armies that EVER existed are over there. And belive me, I know how evil armies have been in history, and they don't compare with the atrocities going on over there.

That's why they took my #2 spot.

wasn't there a group of warriors who's battle cry was "Yum Yum!"

can you imagine a horde of those fighters bearing down on you chaning "Yum! Yum!"

Interesting one. I expect it's an Urban Legend, as it sounds too cool to be true. ;)

I would go with the mongol hordes, followed closely by the Japanese imperial army.

Which nation or group had soldiers that were the nastiest towards others and maybe each other?

i am curious why the 7 people voted that present day american troops are the most atrocious?

seriously,i really would like an explanation on how on earth one compares american soldiers of the present day..or any day...comparable to nazis or the japanese in ww2...or the huns...or the trojans...well you get my point.

please elaborate...other then america sucks and we are imperialists...lol...like we are the only hegomists...

and to the poster that stated that terrorists are not an army or soldiers....well if you want to use symantics...fine...is this guy a leader rallying troops or...just some guy?


Brum's extreme Muslims exposed:

1/16/2007
By, Jasbir Authi & Steve Swingler


HARDLINE preachers delivering messages of hate and intolerance to Birmingham's Muslim community have been exposed in a shocking investigation.

Undercover footage of hate-filled sermons condemning Jews, homosexuals and other nonbelievers and calling for British democracy to be torn down and replaced by an Islamic state, were broadcast by the Despatches programme on Channel 4.

Last night's chilling documentary saw undercover reporters spend months secretly filming a notorious preacher at the Green Lane Mosque in Small Heath. They also filmed lectures at the Jamia Mosque in Sparkbrook.

The preachers filmed in the documentary were said to be followers of the hardline Wahhabisim branch of Islam which originates from Saudi Arabia.

Visiting Cleric Abu Usamah was filmed at Green Lane calling Jews and Christians "enemies" to Muslims and condemned the 'kuffaar' - the name given to non-believers.

Although he said he did not agree with Osama Bin Laden's murderous actions, he said he was better "than a million George Bushs, he's better than a thousand Tony Blairs," because he is a Muslim.

Abu Usamah, an Afro-American convert to Islam, said: "If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?"

And in a reference to Government, he said: "Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state."

He urged worshippers to discriminate against homosexuals but in a way that ensured they did not break the law.

Abu Usamah appeared to condemn terrorism, but then predicted that an army of Muslims would soon arise to wage 'jihad' - or holy war - against non-believers.

He said: "They will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be from among them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength."

The Green Lane Mosque is the headquarters of the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, a registered British charity which runs more than 40 mosques and branches in the UK. It is an influential affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Today, the secretary general of Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, Shaykh Shouaib Ahmed, said the Green Lane Mosque wholly rejected extremism and that they could not be responsible for every word uttered by their speakers.

Mr Ahmed said: "It is deeply alarming that a few sentences have been taken out of context in order to create the impression that our institution is a hotbed of fanaticism. We have nothing to hide."

The head of Jamia Mosque in Sparkbrook, where Muslim preachers promoting extremist views were also filmed by the programme, today condemned their message of hate.

Dr Mohammad Khalid, the president of the mosque, said the speakers were not regular members and had hired a hall attached to the mosque for their meetings.

He said: "The people who issued these remarks do not belong to this area or our mosque. They are outsiders. They hired the hall, they paid the charges and used it for their own purposes.

"But we came to know about the statements and we stopped them. They won't ever be here in future. On behalf of Sparkbrook mosque and Islamic centre we condemn and reject this type of extremism."

The mosque and community centre are run by the UK Islamic Mission, which runs 45 mosques around the country and was praised by Tony Blair as "extremely valued by the Government for its multi-faith and multicultural activities".

Mohammed Shahin Akhtar, the secretary general of the UK Islamic Mission, said: "The UK Islamic Mission is a totally transparent, mainstream organisation which has been working in the UK for 45 years. We have done positive work and have contributed a lot to interfaith work.

"Because of this programme, Muslims will be demonised again, which is unfortunate."

(links to videos of the Program on UK's Ch 4 last nite)



icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk


of coarse the moderates are going to try and distance themselves from this...i would also.

but if that is not a rallying cry....and in england...discounting all the religous schools in pakistan,saudi arabia,,jordan,egypt,afghanistan,et al...then i do not know what is...a few radicals?

well bush is a radical as far as i am concerned....he is a leader...as an american..does that automatically make me a bush bot...or every muslim akin to this twit?
if i am impugned for being american for his rants..why not people that dont jeer this idiot..he is as bad or worse then bush.
yet they didn't jeer,as far as i can tell,they only back pedaled after it was leaked..so this is not a war?

i am seriously asking a question....and would love an answer of validity..i am more then open to differing opinions.
i wont just write off people that think i should die though....i aint a neville chamberlain

and it was more then a few comments taken out of context...it is the underlying message taught to many uneducated people...unfortunately.

i wish we could all be brothers and sisters..but this kind of hate alarms me.

what should i do?

first i will listen to reasoned opinions and debate.

but i have to take this type of hatred seriously..i have kids i dont want blown up.

i really truly feel bad for the millions upon millions of decent muslims...but the radicals are scaring the bejeezus out of me...because of their blind hatred.

i dont have the ability to hate people absolutely,and it scares me that people are capable of this type of fanaticism....not that some jarhead aint equally over the edge...but i just cant see the average gi going insane and intentionally blowing up kids.

i am really starting to despise religion.

Interesting one. I expect it's an Urban Legend, as it sounds too cool to be true. ;)
I found it once... the Piks, I think they were called... damn!'


then again, with the amount of fantasy role playing I do... :p

Army Ants.


Nasty little buggers.

i am curious why the 7 people voted that present day american troops are the most atrocious?
- snip-
"Because of this programme, Muslims will be demonised again, which is unfortunate."

(of coarse the moderates are going to try and distance themselves from this...i would also.

but if that is not a rallying cry....and in england...discounting all the religous schools in pakistan,saudi arabia,,jordan,egypt,afghanistan,et al...then i do not know what is...a few radicals?

well bush is a radical as far as i am concerned....he is a leader...as an american..does that automatically make me a bush bot...or every muslim akin to this twit?
if i am impugned for being american for his rants..why not people that dont jeer this idiot..he is as bad or worse then bush.
yet they didn't jeer,as far as i can tell,they only back pedaled after it was leaked..so this is not a war?

i am seriously asking a question....and would love an answer of validity..i am more then open to differing opinions.
i wont just write off people that think i should die though....i aint a neville chamberlain

and it was more then a few comments taken out of context...it is the underlying message taught to many uneducated people...unfortunately.

i wish we could all be brothers and sisters..but this kind of hate alarms me.

what should i do?

first i will listen to reasoned opinions and debate.

but i have to take this type of hatred seriously..i have kids i dont want blown up.



Now be careful the peace lovers and uber liberals of the world will tell you that they were driven to be like that and that they talk that way because of the poor way they were raised by a family that did not love them properly and we cannot condemn them for it but we should embrace them and love them instead and they do not really hate us they are just misguided and acting out and really love us and if we just disarm and accept them for who they are we can all live in peace and stand around a camp fire singing koombyya together.

The Germans, Russians, and Japanese weren't the nicest folks back in 1944.

War brings out the best in a person, but the worst in the people.

The Germans, Russians, and Japanese weren't the nicest folks back in 1944.

true true...but we firebombed cities and nobody batted an eyelash,americans that is(doing the bombings)
now we strip search someone and we are the devil incarnate....baffling....when our guys find their friends with their heads chopped off and go off at squad level...we are the most evil creatures to walk the earth..lol
double standard?

and i agree with a higher standard...but please...to compare american soldiers to jihadists or other armies is insulting.

there is a huge gulf between institutional orders to torture and murder innocents(bataan death march,the killing fields of cambodia,the nazi death camps,the nazi murders of the people of the caucasas,the rwanden rampage,darfur...ad nauseam) and isolated incidents of troopers going mental...or subjugating prisoners by making videos of them nude(wrong but isolated)is laughable.

it is pathetic to compare the 2...atrocities happen in war..period...as an american,i would leave my country if i thought my gov said to our troops,and they obeyed orders to murder on grandiose scales of the past.
it simply is not true.

bad things happen in war..but to compare modern america to the atrocities of the past is stupid....and if you really believe that...get a new teacher,cause you aint learning shit but propoganda.

The Germans, Russians, and Japanese weren't the nicest folks back in 1944.

Nobody was very nice back in 1944, lets not forget that the non-communist 'good guys' commited their fair share of atrocities.

I found it once... the Piks, I think they were called... damn!'


then again, with the amount of fantasy role playing I do... :p

The Picts?

Nobody was very nice back in 1944, lets not forget that the non-communist 'good guys' commited their fair share of atrocities.


that was my point....to a tee.

we(america firebombed dresden and tokyo)the brits had their fun...the russians were quite unpleasant to captured germans..men/women/child

i do believe the brits hung a few fellows....with the us in the back cheerleading.

nobody seems to get it...war is an ugly business.

my pathetic argument...is...why the hate on america?
i know we are are money grubbing assholes extrodinaire(sp)

but we do fight fair...gunfights in the old west come to mind.

just cause you cant square up against us or our friends,dont give you the right to be a snively little coward bomber...thats pussy.

i dont like fighting the big kid...but i dont sneak him either...thats pussy crap,and the terrorists do just that.

i would rather go down fighting like a man then be some coward asswipe and kill kids....assholes!

you can justify it all you want...but they aint men...they are cowards and women.

if they attacked an army base...well then they got my respect...but blowing up deli's and disco's...lol...your a loser.

some will say thats all they have to attack....i say your spitefull and a loser.

if you ever lost a young child to a random act of violence...politically motivated or not.......or a family member to such nonsense..then you understand.

we dont intentionnally kill kids...nor do the jews...but the arabs seem to think it is acceptable...see them dancing after 911?


i am not impugning arabs..but what the fuck....grow a pair.

Japanese>Russians>Germans>Vlad the Impaler

I found it once... the Piks, I think they were called... damn!'


then again, with the amount of fantasy role playing I do... :p

Hmmm... I think The Psyker's right and you're thinking of the Picts. That little tid-bit still sounds very urban legendish to me, the more so now that you've associated it with FRPGs. (There's nothing wrong with FRPGs, but they're notorious for their poor research on historical matters - see Gygax's infamous botched descriptions of historical armor styles, and even wors inventingb types of armor that never existed and defendinmg them as if they had, for a perfect example.)

The Mongols weren't too nice. The Aztecs and the Maya don't sound too nice (unless you're into ritual slaughter).

The priests did the ritual sacrifice, not the fighters.

Cannibals? Some of them use to eat their prisoners alive. Fools are crazy. They were soldiers.

As for people who hate on America for the things it's done, recently and in the past. Lets not forget that EVERY country has done their fair share. Besides firebombing a city isn't as bad as nuking it, but nothing tops Stalin and his KGB. There is always someone who is better than you, and in this case, this isn't where you wanna be better than the previous fellow.

Hmmm... I think The Psyker's right and you're thinking of the Picts. That little tid-bit still sounds very urban legendish to me, the more so now that you've associated it with FRPGs. (There's nothing wrong with FRPGs, but they're notorious for their poor research on historical matters - see Gygax's infamous botched descriptions of historical armor styles, and even wors inventingb types of armor that never existed and defendinmg them as if they had, for a perfect example.)

Yah, it's an urban legend. The Picts, such as the were, lived in way northern scotland. Most of the roman's troubles came from the scotia* tribe, well south of the pictish.

*Which is where we get our word scotland. Now, to be clear, there was an antonine wall, north of hadrians, which touched possibly pictish territory, but it didn't last long.

Islamic terrorists and Soviet communists. :D

Besides firebombing a city isn't as bad as nuking it...
It can be a depressingly close call, you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pforzheim_in_World_War_II - around 17,000 (=31.4% of the population!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_dresden - around 25,000 - 30,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gomorrah - 50,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_hiroshima#The_bombing_2 - 60,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_hiroshima#The_bombing - 90,000+ (with more people dying in the following weeks)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#Firebombing - around 100,000 (=33 times 9/11)

Let's just say that Strategic Bombing doesn't exactly count as the high point in US or British History.

Soviets, easily. Fucking rapists. I'd rather go up against the Romans, Huns, Mongols and Imperial Japanese combined, all with modern weaponry, than the Russian rape machine.

Soviets, easily. Fucking rapists. I'd rather go up against the Mongols, Romans and Huns combined, all with modern weaponry, than the Russian rape machine.

well, give the japanese their due.

well, give the japanese their due.

No. The Soviets were worse.

No. The Soviets were worse.

i wasnt there...but my family spoke ill of the japanese during the war......the death march and exsperiments and all...guess they werent in germany

civilized folk like they were...

i wasnt there...but my family spoke ill of the japanese during the war......the death march and exsperiments and all...guess they werent in germany

civilized folk like they were...

If I ever get the chance, I'm going to get revenge on the Russians for that. I don't believe in collective punishment or punishing the next generation for the previous' crimes. Except for the Russians.

Except for the Russians.
Haha. I laugh at you.

No. The Soviets were worse.

Oh, I demur sir (or madam).

The japanese were so bad the NAZIs were disgusted.

There it is.

If I ever get the chance, I'm going to get revenge on the Russians for that. I don't believe in collective punishment or punishing the next generation for the previous' crimes. Except for the Russians.

you miss the point i think.

the whole point is war is ugly,and hanging onto grugdes is counter productive....you hating russians is like me hating germans...bad shit happenned..it was war....wtf...60 years ago.

thats why the middle east is so fucked...no one can get over shit...why not...i lost family..i am sure you did..if i was russian..you would hate me?

i am american,and i dont hate germans or japanese people..it was a fucking war.


theres a song...called kiss me(sixpence and none the richer)....i think you should listen to it..

far from me to tell you how to live...but hate will destroy you...love...well another story.

at some point you have to let hatred go..or it will consume you.

Oh, I demur sir (or madam).

The japanese were so bad the NAZIs were disgusted.

There it is.

Yeah, so? The Nazis weren't that bad.

if i was russian..you would hate me?

Yes.

Yeah, so? The Nazis weren't that bad.
In all likelihood they raped more civilians...

Yeah, so? The Nazis weren't that bad.

Okay.

Any thought of common decency is flying out into outerspace at this point.

In all likelihood they raped more civilians...

Nope. The Russian "effort" was the greatest mass rape in history.

Nope. The Russian "effort" was the greatest mass rape in history.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459704,00.html
http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/bookinfo/5187.html

I don't think we have any reliable numbers on it. Fact of the matter is however that the Wehrmacht and SS killed far more Soviet civilians than the Red Army killed Germans.

Of course, that would first require a consensus that being killed is worse than being raped, which I'm unlikely to get from you.

Nope. The Russian "effort" was the greatest mass rape in history.

LOL.

Nanking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

It's just one small part of the japanese occupation.

LOL.

Nanking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

no one wants to kiss and make up...sooooo

It's just one small part of the japanese occupation.

nanking was ugly...can we at least agree there was atrocities on all sides? i am up way to late...lol...my point is....your pissed off cause this and that occurred to your family.....and so and so had this happen to their family...so we are all pissed off...now what?

my grandfather got a cmh in ww1...fighting the germans in the argonne forest...so what...he made me hate germans...any germans here fuck me?
doubt it...as they are all dead....i am not dead.

i am not going to disrespect my g/p by hating some stranger i have never met..kinda like war....cause he is german...nor would i like to be hated cause i am american.


i dont know....this has me tired...thanks to you all...time for bed.

LOL.

Nanking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

It's just one small part of the japanese occupation.

Wow. 80000, you say? Huh.

The Soviets raped 2 million.

nanking was ugly...can we at least agree there was atrocities on all sides? i am up way to late...lol...my point is....your pissed off cause this and that occurred to your family.....and so and so had this happen to their family...so we are all pissed off...now what?

my grandfather got a cmh in ww1...fighting the germans in the argonne forest...so what...he made me hate germans...any germans here fuck me?
doubt it...as they are all dead....i am not dead.

i am not going to disrespect my g/p by hating some stranger i have never met..kinda like war....cause he is german...nor would i like to be hated cause i am american.


i dont know....this has me tired...thanks to you all...time for bed.

Nah. It's not personal.

I'm just pointing out that the vast, vast, vast numbers of civilian casualties were on the side of the allies. Any complaint that the axis side suffered the bulk of civilian casualties is plain wrong.

Wow. 80000, you say? Huh.

The Soviets raped 2 million.

In one small city. Over fourteen years of war.

Nah. It's not personal.

I'm just pointing out that the vast, vast, vast numbers of civilian casualties were on the side of the allies. Any complaint that the axis side suffered the bulk of civilian casualties is plain wrong.


they had less people...horrible thing to say...but the truth.

i am no fan of the axis...trust me...but ....bury the fucking hatchet allready....i dont hate japanese people,or germans...or french fucks for that matter.....

it was 60 years ago....

i lost people on the good guy side...but after all these years..is there a good side?

well the french suck..lol....but really..it was a long time ago.

you could be a soviet /german/french/italian whore and i would still love you...so go figure.

I'm talking about your imperial atrocities in Zaire.

true i guess, but i can hardly imagine those were the nastiest things that happened during 500 years of colonisation.

If I ever get the chance, I'm going to get revenge on the Russians for that. I don't believe in collective punishment or punishing the next generation for the previous' crimes. Except for the Russians.
Always nice to see logic and intellect still exist in this world. :rolleyes:

The Mongols weren't too nice. The Aztecs and the Maya don't sound too nice (unless you're into ritual slaughter).

ritual slaughter kicks ass!

Has anyone watched the movie "Hotel Rwanda"?
It's better to watch, because you'll know who are the nastiest. :D

Soldiers exist in war, and in war it's kill or be killed.
The so called 'nasty soldiers' you speak of are not soldiers, their criminals.

For those of you trying to debate between the worst of Russians and Germans do not forget the Katyn Forest Massacre, where the Russsians after splitting Poland with Germany then proceeded to Massacre the Polish officer corp including kids who were cadets at military schools and civilian authority figures and then bury them in a mass grave.

This was discovered by the nazis in 1943 and no one wanted to beleive it as the truth until the Soviets finally admitted to it in 1990....all because at the time the Germans were our enemies.
More then 22, 000 were killed there and more at two other sites revealed in 1990.Those who died at Katyn included an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 NCOs, seven chaplains, three landowners, a prince, 43 officials, 85 privates, and 131 refugees. Also among the dead were 20 university professors (including Stefan Kaczmarz); 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots.

So who is worse?

Well, I'll start out with...

The people who did vote/will vote for American soldiers are complete f*#king idiots. For anyone to vote that proves that they are completely ignorant in the subject of history.

Actually, the most vicious warriors were the viking hordes. They completely disregarded human life and slaughered anyone who wasn't one of thier tribe. With any other group one had the chance of atleast getting a life of inslavement or some torture, but there was no chance of escaping these guys alive. They even make the SS look like a group of poodles.

how can one people have the nastiest vs another? they were all bad, murder, rape, genocide can there be degrees of bad? Vikings, Mongols, Nazi's, Roman's, Japanese, Americans, Crusaders, Spaniards, English, Aztec, Inca and thousands of other cultures are all guilty of the worst of crimes, one can't be nastier than the others.