Skip to comments.The Moslem Conquest (of India)
Posted on 02/14/2004 6:33:32 PM PST by ml/nj
The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus ... had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans, and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.
In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became the sultan of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. ... Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill ... At Mathrua he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver, and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground. Six year later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. ... Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves. ... Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.
Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. ... The first of these bloody sultans, Kuth-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind-fanatical, ferocious, and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands." ... Another sultan, Balban, punished rebals and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. ... Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer. dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims "and putting them to death in crowds." ... Sultan Ahmed Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.
In 732 at the battle of Tours,
Charles Martel defeated the Moors.
A small quibble, but important.
There was no France yet, in 772. There were only Gauls, Germans and the remnants of Rome in Western Europe at the time, not counting the islands and Scandanavia.
Martel led the resistance, and he was king of the Franks. The Franks were just another german tribe then.
But he doesn't seem to know who are enemies are. He let Saudis fly on September 12, 2001, when you and I were grounded. He still speaks about a "Religion of Peace." He wants to establish a new Islamic state in the Middle East. In short he would appear not to have a clue.
We all laughed at Carter and Clinton's "nation building," but isn't that exactly what Bush is trying to do with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rush says, and he's right, that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. We did that. What are we doing in these places now?
Their illusion as it has been of all elites is that they will be in charge of the new world order rather than it's victims.
That is the mistake that elites have always made throughout history and they will end UPI destroying western civilization and be the first victims of those that will replace us.
The great clash will not be between the west and islam. This is a sideshow, the west is already finished a victim of it's own decadence and nihilistic traits. The real clash will be between China and Islam to rule the world.
The Muslims discovered long ago, that the real weapon of mass destruction is the womb. The will simply populate the world without firing a shot. They are colonizing us and infecting our culture but our myopic leaders seem to view it as a military problem rather than a cultural one while they push for amnesty for the invaders and global free-trade and government.
We are living through the last days of our western culture. Rome too was a world power shortly before they were conquered from within.
Like others have said, don't play poker with him if you think he is clueless.
Clinton engaged in "nation building" in Haiti. Haiti is on the verge of a revolution. So much for Clinton's "nation building.". There is no guarantee that President Bush will be successful in installing permanently friendly governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The alternative is to cut and run like the Democrats want him to, and guarantee future disasters. In time the Democrats will probably get their wish. We will retreat to our borders and wait for the final battle. Of course one thing is certain. If Democrats are in power, and that power is threatened, they will use all manner of weapons, nuclear, biological and chemical, and break all manner of international agreements and protocols - to keep that power.
It only guarantees future disasters if we do nothing. We are certainly better off without the Taliban, and without Hussein. Even if both regimes returned they would be many years behind where they were two years ago. If they, or their replacements, were to make threatening military progress we could always return to do what we have already done.
I certainly don't advocate waiting, but I do not think we have any obligation to help them rebuild either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.