The myth of "free speech".....

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, wouldn't you as an atheist be the first to say that Islam, as a religion, naturally suppresses the human intellect and holds back cultural progress? So why do you feel the need to defend Islam's impact on history?

I do not defend it, I just state facts. It was not suppressing anything at one time. It was the center of cultural progress.

But later, just like every religion, it went to sh!t, in the hand of perverted mullahs. Now every religion offends human intellect . We have come so far as human beings that we do not create new gods and religions anymore, but not far enough to let the old ones go.

One can hope.

Well, religion is the fountain of cultural development, and the disparity between the West and the Arab world is a reflection of the disparity between the two religions that are the foundation of each culture. To take one of many examples, the Catholic Church specifically and Christianity more generally fostered the growth of science and encouraged it; Islam, on the other hand, has suppressed it.

But again you are talking like you know something but you don't. I just told you what was happening in the past, just totally went over your head. Answer me this, why were anybody who was somebody, from the scientific world to the philosophical, from Christian to Jewish, flocking to Bagdat for centuries, to be a part of the learnings at the biggest library of the world at the time? Does that sound like suppression to you?

 

[calitennis127]

Read pretty much any history of ottoman empire constantly knocking at the door to Vienna and their conquest of the Byzantine Empire.... Not to mention before that first Islamic Empire nearly took out most of Europe until they were stopped far away from home in by Charlemagne.

I read historical accounts of the Ottomans a few years ago, and I don't recall any mention of what you initially asserted, which was that "up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west".

Please justify and document that assertion. Referring solely to the Ottoman Turks is not a justification. Please explain how the entire Muslim Middle East was wealthier for a full millennium than Europe, which is what you stated and something that I find to be quite hilarious.

 

[Riotbeard]

Read pretty much any history of ottoman empire constantly knocking at the door to Vienna and their conquest of the Byzantine Empire.... Not to mention before that first Islamic Empire nearly took out most of Europe until they were stopped far away from home in by Charlemagne.

I read historical accounts of the Ottomans a few years ago, and I don't recall any mention of what you initially asserted, which was that "up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west".

Please justify and document that assertion. Referring solely to the Ottoman Turks is not a justification. Please explain how the entire Muslim Middle East was wealthier for a full millennium than Europe, which is what you stated and something that I find to be quite hilarious.

Well the ottoman sultan was considered the head of the religion by most Muslims, and the ottomans were by far the most powerful empire, so I would say that is good enough or at least what I meant. Document your argument, you start all these garbage threads.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[calitennis127]

Read pretty much any history of ottoman empire constantly knocking at the door to Vienna and their conquest of the Byzantine Empire.... Not to mention before that first Islamic Empire nearly took out most of Europe until they were stopped far away from home in by Charlemagne.

I read historical accounts of the Ottomans a few years ago, and I don't recall any mention of what you initially asserted, which was that "up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west".

Please justify and document that assertion. Referring solely to the Ottoman Turks is not a justification. Please explain how the entire Muslim Middle East was wealthier for a full millennium than Europe, which is what you stated and something that I find to be quite hilarious.

Well the ottoman sultan was considered the head of the religion by most Muslims, and the ottomans were by far the most powerful empire, so I would say that is good enough or at least what I meant. Document your argument, you start all these garbage threads.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What argument are you asking me to document that I haven't documented? If you are referring to Murat's contention about the Islamic Golden Age, I am about to get to that.

You made a hilarious assertion that for 1,000 years the Muslim world was "far more economically prosperous than the West". I am asking for just one scintilla of evidence of that assertion, and all you can tell me is that the Turks had a good military and the Sultan was powerful. Well, gee, that proves your point right there.

 

[Riotbeard]

I read historical accounts of the Ottomans a few years ago, and I don't recall any mention of what you initially asserted, which was that "up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west".

Please justify and document that assertion. Referring solely to the Ottoman Turks is not a justification. Please explain how the entire Muslim Middle East was wealthier for a full millennium than Europe, which is what you stated and something that I find to be quite hilarious.

Well the ottoman sultan was considered the head of the religion by most Muslims, and the ottomans were by far the most powerful empire, so I would say that is good enough or at least what I meant. Document your argument, you start all these garbage threads.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What argument are you asking me to document that I haven't documented? If you are referring to Murat's contention about the Islamic Golden Age, I am about to get to that.

You made a hilarious assertion that for 1,000 years the Muslim world was "far more economically prosperous than the West". I am asking for just one scintilla of evidence of that assertion, and all you can tell me is that the Turks had a good military and the Sultan was powerful. Well, gee, that proves your point right there.

I tap out. There is no talking to you. I am not even gonna say, some day you will grow up, because I am not convinced.

 

[calitennis127]

You know, Bagdat was the intellectual and scientific center of the world between the 8th and 12th centuries. When Europe was in dark ages at the time, anybody who was somebody from there, Christian and others, were living in or travelling to Bagdat to take part in the great environment of Abbasid Library (House of Light), studying science in medieval Islam, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, alchemy and chemistry, zoology, and geography etc....It was housing the largest collection of books in the world at the time. Everyone from every religion wanted to be there.

Yes, this is a well-publicized historical period in academia, because it provides an occasion to show how other religions are better than Christianity. But I have no problem acknowledging the better aspects of Arab and Middle Eastern culture. There is certainly a deep and fascinating cultural heritage there. Persian civilization was one of the world's great early civilizations.

But a couple points:

- al-Farabi was a great Persion philosopher during this Golden Age, but he questioned the authority of the Koran, so was he really Islamic?

- Averroes was a Muslim philosopher in Spain, and he did influence both Jewish and Christian thinkers in his discussions of Aristotle. But he was banished from Spain before his death by the Islamic authorities for his writings, and they had many of his works on logic and metaphysics burned. So he was repressed.

- In Spain, it is true that Arabic philosophic literature was translated into Hebrew and Latin. Significant contribution there.

- There was a golden age of Islamic art from about 750 to 1050, and in particular there was a flourishing of ceramics and metalwork, as well as painting in Iran and calligraphy in written Arabic at large. Significant contribution there.

- The scientist Al-Khwarzimi was a great mathematician, or at least historian of mathematics, and somehow his name's Western rendition resulted in the term "algebra". He compiled rules for solving linear and quadratic equations. So - significant contribution there.

- Arabs helped pass along knowledge to the West of the decimal positional numbering invented in India. Significant contribution there.


So, yes, there was cultural flourishing in Baghdad for a time, but it was not so much innovative as it was organizational. It mostly borrowed from prior sources without coming up with anything new. That said, al-Kwarzhimi, Averroes, and al-Farabi were all great minds, and we should respect that reality.

But Averroes suffered repression, and al-Farabi wasn't really Islamic. So if you want to say that the Middle East and the Arab world have a fascinating and intellectually vigorous cultural tradition, I agree. But if you want to say that Islam has done a whole lot to enhance that tradition, I have to say that I disagree. The largely non-Islamic character of that Golden Age era is proven by the reality that it has never been repeated and did not continue.

I mean, in 1993 the head sheikh of Saudi Arabia issued an edict firmly stating that the world was flat, and anyone who did not believe that did not believe in Allah and was due for punishment. Now imagine if a Western Christian leader said anything like that in 1993. The media would have hammered him. But what is really telling is that Qu'ranic literalism has been the dominant intellectual force of Islamic thinking for most of Islamic history, to the point that the head sheikh of Saudi Arabia would say something like that in 1993.

I think we need to distinguish between the undoubted greatness of the Middle Eastern cultural heritage in Persia, Iraq, and Lebanon, on the one hand, and then the overall influence of Islam on intellectual pursuit, on the other.

The Western world surely hasn't come up with every great thing for humanity - not even close. But we don't need to pretend (like Riotbeard) that everything non-Western is superior just because that damn Christian religion had more influence than we would have liked it to have.

 

[calitennis127]

Well the ottoman sultan was considered the head of the religion by most Muslims, and the ottomans were by far the most powerful empire, so I would say that is good enough or at least what I meant. Document your argument, you start all these garbage threads.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What argument are you asking me to document that I haven't documented? If you are referring to Murat's contention about the Islamic Golden Age, I am about to get to that.

You made a hilarious assertion that for 1,000 years the Muslim world was "far more economically prosperous than the West". I am asking for just one scintilla of evidence of that assertion, and all you can tell me is that the Turks had a good military and the Sultan was powerful. Well, gee, that proves your point right there.

I tap out. There is no talking to you. I am not even gonna say, some day you will grow up, because I am not convinced.

So growing up means not asking for evidence? I apologize for asking you a question. You must be frustrated that you simply have no answer.

Is this the type of intellectual discourse you want with "free speech"? Just "tap out" when someone asks you a question you don't know have a good answer for?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

You know, Bagdat was the intellectual and scientific center of the world between the 8th and 12th centuries. When Europe was in dark ages at the time, anybody who was somebody from there, Christian and others, were living in or travelling to Bagdat to take part in the great environment of Abbasid Library (House of Light), studying science in medieval Islam, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, alchemy and chemistry, zoology, and geography etc....It was housing the largest collection of books in the world at the time. Everyone from every religion wanted to be there.

Yes, this is a well-publicized historical period in academia, because it provides an occasion to show how other religions are better than Christianity.

Why does it have to be for comparison reasons? Why can't you just take it as it is? They had a period of time where things were bright, and then it all went south. Simple really.

As far as the rest...

 

[Riotbeard]

What argument are you asking me to document that I haven't documented? If you are referring to Murat's contention about the Islamic Golden Age, I am about to get to that.

You made a hilarious assertion that for 1,000 years the Muslim world was "far more economically prosperous than the West". I am asking for just one scintilla of evidence of that assertion, and all you can tell me is that the Turks had a good military and the Sultan was powerful. Well, gee, that proves your point right there.

I tap out. There is no talking to you. I am not even gonna say, some day you will grow up, because I am not convinced.

So growing up means not asking for evidence? I apologize for asking you a question. You must be frustrated that you simply have no answer.

Is this the type of intellectual discourse you want with "free speech"? Just "tap out" when someone asks you a question you don't know have a good answer for?

No, because we are having a casual conversation, and what is frustrating is that you don't provide the type of evidence you require out of other people. I have read a few books on the ottomans and the first islamic empires when I was in college. So I would say I have a general working knowledge and at least know the basic grand narrative of western history. To say the Islamic World, was ahead of Europe for a good thousand year run, is like saying the Roman Empire was incredibly powerful or Alexander the great was a great conqueror. It's a basic, commonly accepted point, that well predates the rise of political correctness.

 

[calitennis127]

I tap out. There is no talking to you. I am not even gonna say, some day you will grow up, because I am not convinced.

So growing up means not asking for evidence? I apologize for asking you a question. You must be frustrated that you simply have no answer.

Is this the type of intellectual discourse you want with "free speech"? Just "tap out" when someone asks you a question you don't know have a good answer for?

No, because we are having a casual conversation, and what is frustrating is that you don't provide the type of evidence you require out of other people. I have read a few books on the ottomans and the first islamic empires when I was in college. So I would say I have a general working knowledge and at least know the basic grand narrative of western history. To say the Islamic World, was ahead of Europe for a good thousand year run, is like saying the Roman Empire was incredibly powerful or Alexander the great was a great conqueror. It's a basic, commonly accepted point, that well predates the rise of political correctness.

Hardly the case.....I can assure you that I have taken plenty of such history courses, and I never heard anything about the Islamic world being superior to the West for 1,000 years. I did hear of the Golden Age murat was talking about, but I have never heard of a run of 1,000 years of economic superiority. The Golden Age in Baghdad is common knowledge; economic prosperity of the East to the West is not.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

So growing up means not asking for evidence? I apologize for asking you a question. You must be frustrated that you simply have no answer.

Is this the type of intellectual discourse you want with "free speech"? Just "tap out" when someone asks you a question you don't know have a good answer for?

No, because we are having a casual conversation, and what is frustrating is that you don't provide the type of evidence you require out of other people. I have read a few books on the ottomans and the first islamic empires when I was in college. So I would say I have a general working knowledge and at least know the basic grand narrative of western history. To say the Islamic World, was ahead of Europe for a good thousand year run, is like saying the Roman Empire was incredibly powerful or Alexander the great was a great conqueror. It's a basic, commonly accepted point, that well predates the rise of political correctness.

Hardly the case.....I can assure you that I have taken plenty of such history courses, and I never heard anything about the Islamic world being superior to the West for 1,000 years. I did hear of the Golden Age murat was talking about, but I have never heard of a run of 1,000 years of economic superiority. The Golden Age in Baghdad is common knowledge; economic prosperity of the East to the West is not.

But Cali you have admitted yourself in an other thread that you have never read anything about the Crusades from the Islamic perspective. So maybe you not having heard about something says more about you than history itself? Just saying....

 

[calitennis127]

No, because we are having a casual conversation, and what is frustrating is that you don't provide the type of evidence you require out of other people. I have read a few books on the ottomans and the first islamic empires when I was in college. So I would say I have a general working knowledge and at least know the basic grand narrative of western history. To say the Islamic World, was ahead of Europe for a good thousand year run, is like saying the Roman Empire was incredibly powerful or Alexander the great was a great conqueror. It's a basic, commonly accepted point, that well predates the rise of political correctness.

Hardly the case.....I can assure you that I have taken plenty of such history courses, and I never heard anything about the Islamic world being superior to the West for 1,000 years. I did hear of the Golden Age murat was talking about, but I have never heard of a run of 1,000 years of economic superiority. The Golden Age in Baghdad is common knowledge; economic prosperity of the East to the West is not.

But Cali you have admitted yourself in an other thread that you have never read anything about the Crusades from the Islamic perspective. So maybe you not having heard about something says more about you than history itself? Just saying....

Murat, the point here is that riotbeard is talking about general surveys of history. What he said was that the supposed economic superiority of the Muslim East to the Christian West for 1,000 years is as accepted a reality as that the Romans once had a powerful empire. I have taken a countless number of such survey courses, and I have not once heard that generalization. So I was asking him to back it up. The closest I have heard to what he is saying is that the Turks did a good job of exploiting the productive Greeks under their control.

As far as the Crusades - your point is entirely frivolous, which is of course why Riot "liked" your post. There are far more people in the Western world who take the Islamic side than the Christian side in the West today (like riotbeard), so it isn't like I haven't heard or read anti-Crusader commentary. My post was entirely contrarian because the conventional view is the one promoted by the "Kingdom of Heaven" movie or Bill Clinton in his Georgetown speech - that the Crusaders were at fault and the Muslim side was honorable and wonderful.

So yes, I have heard the other side.

I can at least understand why you take the side you do, because you are from Turkey. But people like Riotbeard just have an internal reflexive antipathy toward Christianity in all forms, so for them any stick will do to beat a dog with. The fact that he regurgitates silly cliches about Christian history says quite a bit about him, no?

 

[Riotbeard]

Hardly the case.....I can assure you that I have taken plenty of such history courses, and I never heard anything about the Islamic world being superior to the West for 1,000 years. I did hear of the Golden Age murat was talking about, but I have never heard of a run of 1,000 years of economic superiority. The Golden Age in Baghdad is common knowledge; economic prosperity of the East to the West is not.

But Cali you have admitted yourself in an other thread that you have never read anything about the Crusades from the Islamic perspective. So maybe you not having heard about something says more about you than history itself? Just saying....

Murat, the point here is that riotbeard is talking about general surveys of history. What he said was that the supposed economic superiority of the Muslim East to the Christian West for 1,000 years is as accepted a reality as that the Romans once had a powerful empire. I have taken a countless number of such survey courses, and I have not once heard that generalization. So I was asking him to back it up. The closest I have heard to what he is saying is that the Turks did a good job of exploiting the productive Greeks under their control.

As far as the Crusades - your point is entirely frivolous, which is of course why Riot "liked" your post. There are far more people in the Western world who take the Islamic side than the Christian side in the West today (like riotbeard), so it isn't like I haven't heard or read anti-Crusader commentary. My post was entirely contrarian because the conventional view is the one promoted by the "Kingdom of Heaven" movie or Bill Clinton in his Georgetown speech - that the Crusaders were at fault and the Muslim side was honorable and wonderful.

So yes, I have heard the other side.

I can at least understand why you take the side you do, because you are from Turkey. But people like Riotbeard just have an internal reflexive antipathy toward Christianity in all forms, so for them any stick will do to beat a dog with. The fact that he regurgitates silly cliches about Christian history says quite a bit about him, no?

For the fiftieth time, you don't know what I think. Once again, it's also not that we disagree or that you want evidence. You are unpleasant to talk to, that is why I tap out. And I don't care much about this stuff, it was interesting when we were talking free speech.

 

[Kieran]

"Economic superiority" has never been a goal of saintly Christian communities. And science, like violence, is a human endeavor that doesn't rely upon divine intervention to get it going. An inquisitive mind can be from anywhere. In Ireland, we have Newgrange, which is 5000 years old and obviously the work of a community which was advanced compared to what we know of this time.

These dudes were druids, or pagans, or river-worshippers, or...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

"Economic superiority" has never been a goal of saintly Christian communities. And science, like violence, is a human endeavor that doesn't rely upon divine intervention to get it going. An inquisitive mind can be from anywhere. In Ireland, we have Newgrange, which is 5000 years old and obviously the work of a community which was advanced compared to what we know of this time.

These dudes were druids, or pagans, or river-worshippers, or...

I guess it is just a by product of religion that Vatican seems to be doing OK, financially :snigger

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

Replace millions with thousands. Do you deny it?

How many civilians have Americans killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Recent nondiscriminatory drone strikes? Are we rewriting history here?

Or is it fine unless it's under the "casualties of war" umbrella? It's funny how we justify killing when convenient. It's like when Bashar el Assad gassed his people. Everyone was up in arms. When he was bombing them to death, that was OK, apparently.

If you can't shoot 12 people to death (and you can't), then why can you bomb hundreds? One actually leads to far more casualties.

The context kind of matters. As do just wars. America killed millions of Japanese and an untold number of Germans and Italians during World War II. would you call that a slaughter? would you argue that the US shouldn't have fought against the Axis?

I also wouldn't call Western drone strikes "nondiscriminatory" when they're targeting individuals. The fact that innocents can be killed as collateral damage doesn't make it a war crime; international law requires leaders to weigh the military value of the target. To compare drone strikes or other American activities in the Middle East to Assad's use of chemical weapons is preposterous.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Replace millions with thousands. Do you deny it?

How many civilians have Americans killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Recent nondiscriminatory drone strikes? Are we rewriting history here?

Or is it fine unless it's under the "casualties of war" umbrella? It's funny how we justify killing when convenient. It's like when Bashar el Assad gassed his people. Everyone was up in arms. When he was bombing them to death, that was OK, apparently.

If you can't shoot 12 people to death (and you can't), then why can you bomb hundreds? One actually leads to far more casualties.

The context kind of matters. As do just wars. America killed millions of Japanese and an untold number of Germans and Italians during World War II. would you call that a slaughter? would you argue that the US shouldn't have fought against the Axis?

I also wouldn't call Western drone strikes "nondiscriminatory" when they're targeting individuals. The fact that innocents can be killed as collateral damage doesn't make it a war crime; international law requires leaders to weigh the military value of the target. To compare drone strikes or other American activities in the Middle East to Assad's use of chemical weapons is preposterous.

The result is the same. People are dying. And yeah, I consider using the atomic bomb on Japan one of the biggest war crimes in history.

I don't believe in collateral damage. Go tell the families of the dead children of Gaza that their sons/daughters died as "collateral damage." I'm sorry, there is no such thing. And it's not like this sort of thing wasn't committed by the Americans in Iraq.

Tell me how does the massacre of Fallujah in 2004 where the Americans used White phosphorus differ from Al Assad's use of chemical weapons.

 

[Riotbeard]

Replace millions with thousands. Do you deny it?

How many civilians have Americans killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Recent nondiscriminatory drone strikes? Are we rewriting history here?

Or is it fine unless it's under the "casualties of war" umbrella? It's funny how we justify killing when convenient. It's like when Bashar el Assad gassed his people. Everyone was up in arms. When he was bombing them to death, that was OK, apparently.

If you can't shoot 12 people to death (and you can't), then why can you bomb hundreds? One actually leads to far more casualties.

The context kind of matters. As do just wars. America killed millions of Japanese and an untold number of Germans and Italians during World War II. would you call that a slaughter? would you argue that the US shouldn't have fought against the Axis?

I also wouldn't call Western drone strikes "nondiscriminatory" when they're targeting individuals. The fact that innocents can be killed as collateral damage doesn't make it a war crime; international law requires leaders to weigh the military value of the target. To compare drone strikes or other American activities in the Middle East to Assad's use of chemical weapons is preposterous.

The result is the same. People are dying. And yeah, I consider using the atomic bomb on Japan one of the biggest war crimes in history.

I don't believe in collateral damage. Go tell the families of the dead children of Gaza that their sons/daughters died as "collateral damage." I'm sorry, there is no such thing. And it's not like this sort of thing wasn't committed by the Americans in Iraq.

Tell me how does the massacre of Fallujah in 2004 where the Americans used White phosphorus differ from Al Assad's use of chemical weapons.

The West has made rules that can only followed by countries with a powerful "conventional" military, and then expect other people who can't fight a war with those methods to follow them. At the end of the U.S. Gov.'t has killed far more civilians in the the middle east than vice versa.

 

[calitennis127]

Replace millions with thousands. Do you deny it?

How many civilians have Americans killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Recent nondiscriminatory drone strikes? Are we rewriting history here?

Or is it fine unless it's under the "casualties of war" umbrella? It's funny how we justify killing when convenient. It's like when Bashar el Assad gassed his people. Everyone was up in arms. When he was bombing them to death, that was OK, apparently.

If you can't shoot 12 people to death (and you can't), then why can you bomb hundreds? One actually leads to far more casualties.

The context kind of matters. As do just wars. America killed millions of Japanese and an untold number of Germans and Italians during World War II. would you call that a slaughter? would you argue that the US shouldn't have fought against the Axis?

I also wouldn't call Western drone strikes "nondiscriminatory" when they're targeting individuals. The fact that innocents can be killed as collateral damage doesn't make it a war crime; international law requires leaders to weigh the military value of the target. To compare drone strikes or other American activities in the Middle East to Assad's use of chemical weapons is preposterous.

The result is the same. People are dying. And yeah, I consider using the atomic bomb on Japan one of the biggest war crimes in history.

I don't believe in collateral damage. Go tell the families of the dead children of Gaza that their sons/daughters died as "collateral damage." I'm sorry, there is no such thing. And it's not like this sort of thing wasn't committed by the Americans in Iraq.

Tell me how does the massacre of Fallujah in 2004 where the Americans used White phosphorus differ from Al Assad's use of chemical weapons.

Excellent points, except that the Seymour Hersh story showed quite clearly that the Assad government wasn't who used those chemical weapons in August 2013. That was a U.S.-generated fabrication. For some reason, the Obama administration has such a problem with the Assad regime that it makes up stories about it.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

The result is the same. People are dying. And yeah, I consider using the atomic bomb on Japan one of the biggest war crimes in history.

I don't believe in collateral damage. Go tell the families of the dead children of Gaza that their sons/daughters died as "collateral damage." I'm sorry, there is no such thing. And it's not like this sort of thing wasn't committed by the Americans in Iraq.

Tell me how does the massacre of Fallujah in 2004 where the Americans used White phosphorus differ from Al Assad's use of chemical weapons.

The atomic bomb saved an estimated 1 million American lives and an estimated 15 million Japanese lives. The targeting of Hiroshima was also based on its military value, and the US had dropped leaflets days earlier warning Japanese civilians to leave before bombing. In fact, on August 9, Nagasaki was not the original target; it ended up being bombed because of bad weather over the original target (Kokura was).

It's wonderful that you don't believe in collateral damage, but just wars require hard choices. is Israel supposed to let Hamas shoot thousands of rockets at it from behind Gaza's civilians and never return fire because a civilian will be killed? There's a reason international law prohibits the use of human shields. That reason is because collateral damage is inevitable in war.

White phosphorous can be legally used to illuminate targets and to create smoke cover for one's own forces. In Fallujah the Americans were fighting in urban combat door-to-door against insurgents who wore no uniforms and hid behind the city's civilian population. Again, any attempt to compare Americans fighting insurgents in Fallujah to Assad dropping barrel bombs on towns or using chemical weapons is ridiculous.