It takes a nation to protect the nation
Have Been watching Sky news who have managed to get one of its reporters into Alleppo. The City is a world heritage site, and with good cause. The city is over 4000 years old, and the Biblical Abraham is supposed to have spent time there. Here is a brief history. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Aleppo
I'm happy that A reporter has got inside Alleppo to report on the destruction of such an ancient site. The way the reporter spoke you'd think the mosques were 4000 years old. The oldest mosque is believed to be twelve centry.
The biggest crime is the destruction of the ancient covered market and the citidel, yes the destruction of the mosques are a criime as well, but Alleppo,s history is only about a third Islamic. The City was around over 2500 years before islam came knocking. And the suggestion that islam stretchs back into Alleppo's or syria's ancient history is a distortion of the facts. The mosque is old. But i would not refer to it as Ancient.
The biggest claim to fame of the mosque is a piece of hair, that is supposed to come from mohhamad, is placed there for all to worship.
I don't consider the destruction of mosques to be a crime, it is more like a service to humanity to wipe them from the face of the Earth.
Thats a bit of a waste of mosques Phil.... I think they should all be turned into strip pubs !
Right Antony I believe that if anything can conquer Islam it will be porn.
I could quite happerly agree with both of you. But theres a part of me that says they are part of human history, and to pull them all down would only make us as bad as the religion of lies.
The cult of Islam, (i'm sick of calling it a religion) should be outlawed in all civilised countries, and the mosques turned into museums, where the history could be displayed as a warning to future generations.
In Alleppo ancient places of worship stand in ruins while mosques stand as monuments of victory, as was intended.
Mosques have very little architectural value, culturally they will not be missed. They are just big empty spaces with grafitti on the walls dedicated to mass brainwashing. Islam is hostile to art. Churches are in contrast works of art, (that are sometimes converted into mosques). It would have been wrong to conserve the Nazi monuments after WWII. We could never be as bad as the religion of lies- and cult of murder. Though I wouldn't mind having a pint of ale in a converted mosque to celebrate the expulsion of Islam from our (sacred) shores.
I think Paul's point is about having reminders. So Auschwitz was preserved and is an important historical monument and reminder for future generations. It wasn't necessary to preserve all the concentration camps, but some of them were needed to remind us that Fascism is a deadly force. The same can be said of Islamic Fascism. That's why you have the 'Tower of Skulls' and the church of skulls, etc. Then the mosques-cum-museums can contain photos of all their attrocities, and relics, like parts of blown up tube trains, buses, buildings, people ... perhaps even a preserved head in formaldehyde (with the family's permission of course). If people can forget why they baked the crescent shape into a croissant, they can forget everything else as well. Monuments and museums are vitally necessary for civilisational memory.
This museum idea of yours is excellent Alan, we can still knock down 99.9% of mosques.
Battle of Aleppo
The city of Aleppo sat between Antioch on the Mediterranean Sea and the great river Euphrates, straddling a vital trade route, and its markets overflowed with the goods ofIndia. It was the logical target for an army invading from the north.
Here at Aleppo the various governors and generals of the Mamluk realm gathered with their armies and met to discuss how they might best oppose the onrushing storm; and they drew up various plans:
• One counseled that they should hole up within the strong walls of the city and prepare their defenses
• Another averred that they should meet Timur in the open field.
• The wise al-Malik al-Muid Sheikh al-Khaski, governor of Tripoli, advised that they should send word to the various tribes and peoples of the region, gathering allies against a common foe; further that they should strengthen the defenses of the city, but should meet the Tatar hordes outside the walls.
• Against this Tamardash, Governor of Aleppo, counseled a headlong assault - but he was in the Lame Conqueror’s pay, and plotted to hand over Aleppo at the first opportunity.
It was decided that the third plan was best. The highways and approaches were blockaded, and guards were set on all the roads. The main body of the army was drawn up before the gates to await the conqueror’s arrival.
Timur advanced cautiously from the north, knowing through his spies that word had been sent to the Arabs, Kurds, and Turkomans to attack him from the rear; this threat never materialized.
In November of 1400 (the ninth day of the first month Rabia, by the Arab chronicler’s reckoning) he arrived at the outer defensive lines. The first two days of the battle were spent in minor skirmishing; Timur probed the defenses with small detachments, which were torn to pieces by the Syrian horsemen. On the third day of battle, the two armies faced off across the plain of the city; on one side the Mamluk knights of Syria and Egypt, supplemented by the citizens of Aleppo (for even the women and children went out to meet the foe); on the other the hordes of Timur, with captured war elephants from India leading the center.
Both sides raised their warcry: "Allahu Akbar!", "God is great!".
The battle did not last one hour. Timur had sent the wings of his horde to encircle the Syrians under the cover of the previous night, and they now broke over the assembled army like a wave, shattering the orderly ranks and throwing the field into confusion. When the cowardly and treacherous Tamardash (commanding the right wing) fled the plain of battle, the Syrians broke and ran for the gates of Aleppo. Timur had prepared a tuman (ten thousand) of his finest cavalry for just such an event, and he unleashed them in pursuit. Arabshah describes the advance of the Tatar’s horde:
"Then he went over them like a razor over hair and ran like locusts over a green crop."
The city was overrun. The streets ran with blood; the piled dead reached the top of the walls, forming a ramp for the invaders; the many slaves of the city broke down the gates in their mad headlong flight; all the accumulated treasure of generations was carried off by the victorious men of the steppe; the Jews of the city were herded into their synagogues and slaughtered to the last man; the young women were raped, and a pyramid of some twenty thousand skulls was erected outside the city, as a mute testimony to Timur’s terrible vengeance.
The Battle of Aleppo.
We humans have been called the murder-ape and I think that just about describes it. Should we believe in world peace, a planet without crime and war?, or should we accept that war and crime are inevitable and construct personal and national defence systems?
For the forseeable future there is always going to be an enemy on the horizon and criminals around us. Right now it is Islam bent on slaughter. In that context and in reference to the battle described above it is foolish to dismantle our walls and defences and to underestimate the enemy, to invite him into the city.
We have the immigration gates wide open and most people have not understood that the enemy has declared war on us and is intent on annihilating us.
This World Peace can only occur when every nation on Earth shares the same values, and it cannot be imposed by force.
There are perhaps some honourable politicians that believe that peace and stability can be achieved through tolerance, by appeasement and by making concessions. But tolerance will not achieve it, only a total intolerance to violence in all of its forms can achieve it. Every single sane individual has to be equally intolerant.
As things are now force has to be answered with force and violence with violence. In a civilisation it has to be a lawful state sanctioned violence that is designed to protect the individual and nation. With safeguards to protect the individual from the state. A rule of law that reflects the will of the people.
Another Historic pre Muhammad site gets the traditional Islamic treatment.
Pity these yobbos at the BBC don't realize that the islamists are going to give all art and every journalist the same treatment.
The Muslims will save the BBC documentaries that praise Islam though.
Maybe the "BBC" won't even notice, they will just all convert to Islam and continue business as usual, and wonder why they ever bothered about such silly things as art and freedom.
The media tries to find a reason for these acts of destruction. As they can't blame anything on scriptural evidence its an impossible task, so they just have to rely on the old 'its a perversion of Islam' argument.
Isis will flatten every non Islamic place of worship they can. And when ISIS are beaten the next group that comes along will carry on.
What drives them. No one knows. Why has Islam through out its history destroyed everything it consider non Islamic. No one knows, and given enough time, Islam will deny ever destroying anything. It will always claim to have preserved history. What it means is, it preserved Islamic History.