4 ms·

Ummm what? This is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever read. The Massacre of the Bani Qurayza (627 AD): According to Islamic sources, during the siege of Med

Ummm what? This is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever read. The Massacre of the Bani Qurayza (627 AD): According to Islamic sources, during the siege of Medina in the aftermath of the Battle of the Trench, the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza was accused of conspiring with the attacking Meccans against the Muslim community. After the Meccans retreated, Prophet Muhammad's followers turned against the Bani Qurayza. The men were executed en masse, while the women and children were enslaved. The Sack of Isfahan (1387): Timur, the Turko-Mongol conqueror, laid siege to the city of Isfahan, which was then part of the Jalayirid Sultanate. When the city finally fell, Timur reportedly ordered that every soldier in his army should return with at least two severed human heads. The total number of people killed is estimated to have been about 200,000. Women and children were often spared to be taken as slaves. The Massacre of Nanking (1937): Also known as the Nanking Massacre or the Rape of Nanking, this atrocity was committed during the Sino-Japanese War when the Imperial Japanese Army captured the city of Nanking. Over a period of six weeks, mass killings, rapes, and looting were perpetrated against the city's residents. While not every man was killed, the death toll was incredibly high, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Many women were raped, and some were killed or taken away. Srebrenica Massacre (1995): This was the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II, perpetrated during the Bosnian War. Over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically executed by units of the Bosnian Serb Army. Women, children, and some elderly men were forcibly transferred and deported, making it an example of ethnic cleansing. The Assyrian Empire: The Assyrians, who built a powerful empire in ancient Mesopotamia, were notorious for their brutal military tactics. Their treatment of conquered peoples often included mass killings, forced deportations, and enslavement. However, it's important to note that not every city they conquered was subjected to this treatment; it was often employed as a form of psychological warfare, to intimidate other cities into surrendering without a fight. The Mongol Empire: While not exactly "ancient" by some definitions, the Mongols under Genghis Khan and his successors in the 13th and 14th centuries were known for their ruthless conquests. Cities that resisted Mongol rule could expect no mercy; the men would often be killed and the women taken as slaves or wives. This strategy was also a form of psychological warfare, encouraging other cities to surrender without a fight to avoid a similar fate. The Roman Empire: The Romans are known for their tactic of "decimation", which involved killing one in every ten men in a unit as punishment for serious infractions, like desertion or cowardice. But when it came to conquered peoples, the Romans were sometimes ruthlessly thorough. For example, after the Third Punic War, the Romans reportedly killed or enslaved the entire population of Carthage.

somewhereoutth 3y ago
Right, but not men as a whole class simply for being men. They were killed for being men from the opposing side (perhaps killing women and children was considered too barbaric, or women were considered useful for some reason). With the exception of your last example, where decimation was used as punishment for serious infractions, again not simply for being men. I trust you can appreciate the distinction, if you think this through a little.
- yowlingcat 3y ago
  But should it be assumed that you can appreciate that distinction? What it is to be a man is /rooted/ in being killed for being men from the opposing side for millions of years. There is no biological purpose for low status man, which is in stark contrast to women of all status.
- shapenamer 3y ago
  "...men and boys were systematically executed..." huh?
- everforward 3y ago
  They were conscripted for being men, and then sent into battle to die, or be decimated, or what have you. > They were killed for being men from the opposing side (perhaps killing women and children was considered too barbaric, or women were considered useful for some reason). Or because they were men and thus seen as being future potential combatants where women and children were not. Men were seen as potentially future detriments and thus were killed. The distinction is thin to the point of being indistinguishable. Under that logic, eugenics isn't genocide either. The intent isn't to eliminate a specific group, it's to get rid of some trait they attribute to that group. I'm not aware of any instances where Jewish people were rounded up purely for being Jewish. There was always some misguided and wrong justification, like a belief that the plague was caused by Jewish people poisoning wells, or that their numbers were enough to threaten the Christian institutions, or that they sabotaged the war effort. In other words, they were perceived as "the opposing side" in one misguided way or another. I can't recall any sort of -cide where the cause is purely because of membership in some group. In purely practical terms, it's too expensive and too large an undertaking to randomly decide to do. There's always some kind of twisted logic underneath it.

somewhereoutth 3y ago

Right, but not men as a whole class simply for being men. They were killed for being men from the opposing side (perhaps killing women and children was considered too barbaric, or women were considered useful for some reason). With the exception of your last example, where decimation was used as punishment for serious infractions, again not simply for being men. I trust you can appreciate the distinction, if you think this through a little.

yowlingcat 3y ago
But should it be assumed that you can appreciate that distinction? What it is to be a man is /rooted/ in being killed for being men from the opposing side for millions of years. There is no biological purpose for low status man, which is in stark contrast to women of all status.
shapenamer 3y ago
"...men and boys were systematically executed..." huh?
everforward 3y ago
They were conscripted for being men, and then sent into battle to die, or be decimated, or what have you. > They were killed for being men from the opposing side (perhaps killing women and children was considered too barbaric, or women were considered useful for some reason). Or because they were men and thus seen as being future potential combatants where women and children were not. Men were seen as potentially future detriments and thus were killed. The distinction is thin to the point of being indistinguishable. Under that logic, eugenics isn't genocide either. The intent isn't to eliminate a specific group, it's to get rid of some trait they attribute to that group. I'm not aware of any instances where Jewish people were rounded up purely for being Jewish. There was always some misguided and wrong justification, like a belief that the plague was caused by Jewish people poisoning wells, or that their numbers were enough to threaten the Christian institutions, or that they sabotaged the war effort. In other words, they were perceived as "the opposing side" in one misguided way or another. I can't recall any sort of -cide where the cause is purely because of membership in some group. In purely practical terms, it's too expensive and too large an undertaking to randomly decide to do. There's always some kind of twisted logic underneath it.