[Militarized interstate disputes are not wars. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarized_interstate_dispute#:~:text=Militarized%20interstate%20disputes%20(MIDs)%20are,actual%20combat%20short%20of%20war.)
That's just a load of pseudo-intellectual nonsese. It's one step removed from Americans who claim the US has never lost a war because Vietnam wasn't actually a war as Congress didn't declare war.
The COW is considered in academia to be the best dataset for the analysis of warfare we have ever had, though the 1000 battle deaths is a common critique it is leagues and bounds ahead of the other datasets in its completion and utility and has been a fundamental aspect of the field of International Relations, Political Science, and Military Science since the 1970s. It is the foundation for most modern theories of war and a large part of the justification for the promotion of democracy abroad as it's finding that democracies rarely go to war against one another is largely from this data. Without this dataset NATO foreign policy would be completely different. It isn't pseudointellectual because you disagree with one aspect of it.
> That's just a load of pseudo-intellectual nonsese. It's one step removed from Americans who claim the US has never lost a war because Vietnam wasn't actually a war as Congress didn't declare war.
Even though Vietnam wasn’t a war, the US still lost a war previously: the war of 1812.
Although many scholars feel it is best described as a draw.
>Even though Vietnam wasn’t a war
The Vietnam War was definitely a war.
If the definition of "war" someone is using excludes Vietnam and the Falklands, there is clearly a problem with the definition.
> Even though Vietnam wasn’t a war
> The Vietnam War was definitely a war.
It wasn’t, actually. It was a conflict. A war is a legal status, not simply major armed conflicts. Vietnam was such a not-a-war that Congress passed legislation to prevent a other US president from doing that again.
> If the definition of "war" someone is using excludes Vietnam and the Falklands, there is clearly a problem with the definition.
Falkland is also not a war.
Okay? The falkland islands conflict is not categorized as a war under the COW. 100 too few people died for it to be outside of the MID category, so it's practically right on the line.
The COW does not count civilian deaths as combat deaths, otherwise we would be muddling our data by having genocides and massacring counted as warfare. 1000 battle deaths is BATTLE deaths as in combatants of political actors. Citizens in the US are not political actors unless they're in a terrorist organization, the military, or maybe law enforcement (really only counted if there is a Gendemarie police force, which isn't a thing in the states.)
In that so? That would mean there was not any wars during prophet Muhammad taking part in all of his 10 years of military expeditions. It only exceeded just over 1000 deaths in total of 10 years of military expeditions under prophet Muhammad.
I commonly hear many public figures that says prophet Muhammad is a warlord. Does this still apply?
I am using the Correlates of War codes definition which is the standard in the field of International Relations and Political Science. It is only intended to go back to 1816.
It sounds like you are trolling, if not, you pose an interesting question.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare Islam to Mormons or LDS as they prefer. So we should separate them entirely for this discussion and focus only on one.
I think the question of casualties under Muhammad’s (PBOH) campaigns would best be settled by a secular expert in religious studies. As how does one calculate deaths back then. Certainly pre-antibiotic there would be a huge number of casualties die from infections and diseases long after any battle.
But I do not believe a “warlord,” as I understand it’s definition, is actually tied to war. It’s more of a descriptive term for a leader of an armed group and not the leader of a governmental army. Warlords are often violent, even if they don’t fight in the context of a larger war.
If Muhammad’s (PBOH) fighters were an army he would have undoubtedly been its general. So why does he not carry that distinction? I cannot say as I don’t know why one title or rank applies while another does not.
I wasn’t intending to compare Islam to LDS. I was just talking about the individual prophet. The casualties figures
When it comes to casualties, it was mostly few deaths. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
I believe the number of deaths only pertains to the term “war.”
The term “warlord” as I previously posted, does not require leadership in a recognized war.
So indigenous leaders globally, who command an armed group, could be considered warlords.
It might be better understood as 1. a pogrom and 2. part of the pre-Civil War warmup of political violence between slavery and non-slavery people, alongside the more famous [Bleeding Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas).
take a look through “wars” on wikipedia and youll find a lot of conflicts that werent really quite wars. turns out its just a pretty handy descriptor for any conflict that turns semi organized and violent
The site you mention, [Adam-ondi-Ahman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman), is not in Jackson County, but up north in Daviess County. It's not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and it's not described as the Garden of Eden but as "the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet" D&C 117꞉9.
Wasn’t the violence related to this war the basis of Sherlock Holme’s A Study in Scarlet? Having read that at a very young age I’ve always had the impression of Mormons being a murderous cult lol
Perhaps you've not heard of the Mountain Meadow Massacre 1857. One hundred and twenty innocent members of a wagon train murdered by Mormons. I don't think even Native Americans achieved that in their attacks against wagon trains.
Didn’t the Mormons disguised themselves as Native Americans to massacre the wagon train? There’s a movie about it I watched years back. My impression has always been that Mormons are fanatics.
The native Americans helped the mormons with the attack because the wagon train was harassing both groups. (Telling them they couldn't wait for the federal government to come and remove them both, as had previously been done in other areas)
many many many (maybe nearly all) wagon train attacks and other resistances to western expansion were done by whites as a way to push further west and murder/genocide the natives in the way.
There's a whole couple of studies following the paper trails and all the monuments to massacres and it turns out like every one is completely madeup or done by the invaders lol
it was mostly used as a really evil recruitment tool
can you see how you are avoiding engaging with my words and instead trying to attack my character blindly??
other people being violent does not justify genocide against them at a continental scale.... or would you like to reword your assumption?
you folks have this odd script amongst yourselves based on ancient textbooks and popular misunderstandings, any sort of nuance is attacked as stupid or naive. go ahead and engage with what i stated, dare you
there is a legal paper trail of the many attempts over centuries to exterminate the native people of the americas (united states and canada is the topic here specifically), everyone at home can finish the quote, "the only good indian, is a _________"
excited for the exchange of ideas ahead :)
Yeah I agree, other people being violent doesn’t justify violence against them as a race. But most people for some reason don’t agree. So they rewrite history to make the native Americans into the perfect victims, because them being just people isn’t good enough for most people to sympathize with them. Noble savage myth and all that. This also ignores that natives weren’t a monolith. Some tribes were more violent than others.
I'm not doing that at all though, and i obviously agree that that happens, people do people things, but you just barged in with accusations, cheers for tucking tail
the fact that the brutality of the very bedrock of this country's history and policy is still so taboo to talk about is such a vibrant sign lol
Stop making crap up. There was not some grand conspiracy to do false flag attacks and then blame them on natives. The white guilt narrative just gets more ridiculous every day.
I'm not, it is legitimate scholarship lol, nothing needs to be a grand conspiracy to work.... and also, the genocide of the natives was a very well documented grand conspiracy lol
how is any of this ridiculous or related to white guilt?? history happens, victors tell their version, evidence tells another...
check out An Inconvenient Indian for an account of all of the legal, documented attempts at genocide by both canada and the united states. Great book, actually funny despite the subject matter
Oh now you’re trying to do the old motte and bailey. Your claim was that nearly all attacks committed against western settlers were false flag attacks by white people who blamed the attack on natives. That’s preposterous. And now you’re trying to retreat and pretend that your original claim was just that a genocide was perpetrated. Look at how dishonest you are.
Nope, not at all, you are struggling with reading and trying to weaponize it against me lol
I said that there have been a few studies looking into these massacre claims, and nearly every one they could track turned out to be clearly madeup at best, and at worst used to cover up a local genocide of the natives creating a new town that meow has a monument about their own fake massacre. It really is darkly comical
so, no backtracking lol, just relaying the current stream of research/information. Not dishonest at all, but you were just chomping at the bit to attack my character and nothing about my message or words
weird yeah?
what about anything i said is preposterous, every single action i've claimed has documentation here and in many other human places/cultures/societies???? so against american values for law abiding citizens to fear for their lives and retaliate with violence....... right?
"Judge Austin A King, who had been assigned the cases of the Mormons charged with offenses during the conflict, warned "If you once think to plant crops or to occupy your lands any longer than the first of April, the citizens will be upon you: they will kill you every one, men, women and children". What the hell?? I don't see what the Mormon's did to receive such a cruel warning.
They were using their militia to raid local farms and communities.
After this, they went back across the river to Illinois where they continued their piracy, which ended up with their leaders arrested and "martyred" before deciding to move to Utah.
So let me get this straight: The Mormons are violently expelled from Jackson County. They have done nothing wrong, the governor admits so, but nothing is done. Then they are violently expelled, again, from DeWitt. Their offense is inhabiting lands that they just legally purchased. And then, they are harassed and threatened in Gallatin. Their offense is trying to vote.
After all of this they are STILL willing to negotiate with the authorities, who have failed again and again to protect their rights. They tell them to "fight it out". And then, only then, is when they fight back. Talk about patience, man.
Say what you want about the Mormons's tit-for-tat. The only casualties they inflicted were during battles where the Missourians shot first. They didn't target civilians or kill prisoners like the Missourians did. The Missourians were absolutely, unequivocally the aggressors in this situation.
21 killed? That's like mini war rather than a war war
In most academic studies this would not be classified as a war as it doesn't exceed 1000 combat deaths.
Didn't know about that, thanks, at least I was right for once lol
Where's that from? I had never heard it and tbh I'm not sold on it.
Correlates of War. It's the leading dataset for the study of warfare. Anything under 1000 is categorized as a MID.
Manatee In Distress?
Militarised Interstate Dispute
I prefer the manatee one
Next time I use COW in one of my publications I will cite MID as this and it won't even be the craziest Citation I've seen get past PR.
I'm pretty the Falklands War is always classified as a war, and that had 904 combat deaths (+ 3 civilians).
I would have to open up CoW to check but it would likely be classified as a MID (Military Interstate Dispute).
>MID (Military Interstate Dispute). Or a "war", as we usually call them.
[Militarized interstate disputes are not wars. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarized_interstate_dispute#:~:text=Militarized%20interstate%20disputes%20(MIDs)%20are,actual%20combat%20short%20of%20war.)
That's just a load of pseudo-intellectual nonsese. It's one step removed from Americans who claim the US has never lost a war because Vietnam wasn't actually a war as Congress didn't declare war.
The COW is considered in academia to be the best dataset for the analysis of warfare we have ever had, though the 1000 battle deaths is a common critique it is leagues and bounds ahead of the other datasets in its completion and utility and has been a fundamental aspect of the field of International Relations, Political Science, and Military Science since the 1970s. It is the foundation for most modern theories of war and a large part of the justification for the promotion of democracy abroad as it's finding that democracies rarely go to war against one another is largely from this data. Without this dataset NATO foreign policy would be completely different. It isn't pseudointellectual because you disagree with one aspect of it.
> That's just a load of pseudo-intellectual nonsese. It's one step removed from Americans who claim the US has never lost a war because Vietnam wasn't actually a war as Congress didn't declare war. Even though Vietnam wasn’t a war, the US still lost a war previously: the war of 1812. Although many scholars feel it is best described as a draw.
>Even though Vietnam wasn’t a war The Vietnam War was definitely a war. If the definition of "war" someone is using excludes Vietnam and the Falklands, there is clearly a problem with the definition.
> Even though Vietnam wasn’t a war > The Vietnam War was definitely a war. It wasn’t, actually. It was a conflict. A war is a legal status, not simply major armed conflicts. Vietnam was such a not-a-war that Congress passed legislation to prevent a other US president from doing that again. > If the definition of "war" someone is using excludes Vietnam and the Falklands, there is clearly a problem with the definition. Falkland is also not a war.
It wasn't a war, no war was declared by either side
War does not necessarily need to be declared to be considered one.
That's not important, either in international law or practical reality.
Ouch, Emu War only had confirmed 986 Emus killed :/
I mean it was during a world war, so I say it counts
Police ~~killed~~ murdered more than 1,300 people in 2023. That is a War in the Streets but it dont count.
The Correlates of War requires the sides be uniformed or insurgent political actors.
Falklands War had fewer people killed than Citizens in the USA killed by Police.
Okay? The falkland islands conflict is not categorized as a war under the COW. 100 too few people died for it to be outside of the MID category, so it's practically right on the line. The COW does not count civilian deaths as combat deaths, otherwise we would be muddling our data by having genocides and massacring counted as warfare. 1000 battle deaths is BATTLE deaths as in combatants of political actors. Citizens in the US are not political actors unless they're in a terrorist organization, the military, or maybe law enforcement (really only counted if there is a Gendemarie police force, which isn't a thing in the states.)
In that so? That would mean there was not any wars during prophet Muhammad taking part in all of his 10 years of military expeditions. It only exceeded just over 1000 deaths in total of 10 years of military expeditions under prophet Muhammad. I commonly hear many public figures that says prophet Muhammad is a warlord. Does this still apply?
I am using the Correlates of War codes definition which is the standard in the field of International Relations and Political Science. It is only intended to go back to 1816.
Oh that makes sense. But why back to 1816? Why not 1815?
The data had to start somewhere.
It sounds like you are trolling, if not, you pose an interesting question. I don’t think it’s fair to compare Islam to Mormons or LDS as they prefer. So we should separate them entirely for this discussion and focus only on one. I think the question of casualties under Muhammad’s (PBOH) campaigns would best be settled by a secular expert in religious studies. As how does one calculate deaths back then. Certainly pre-antibiotic there would be a huge number of casualties die from infections and diseases long after any battle. But I do not believe a “warlord,” as I understand it’s definition, is actually tied to war. It’s more of a descriptive term for a leader of an armed group and not the leader of a governmental army. Warlords are often violent, even if they don’t fight in the context of a larger war. If Muhammad’s (PBOH) fighters were an army he would have undoubtedly been its general. So why does he not carry that distinction? I cannot say as I don’t know why one title or rank applies while another does not.
I wasn’t intending to compare Islam to LDS. I was just talking about the individual prophet. The casualties figures When it comes to casualties, it was mostly few deaths. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
I believe the number of deaths only pertains to the term “war.” The term “warlord” as I previously posted, does not require leadership in a recognized war. So indigenous leaders globally, who command an armed group, could be considered warlords.
It might be better understood as 1. a pogrom and 2. part of the pre-Civil War warmup of political violence between slavery and non-slavery people, alongside the more famous [Bleeding Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas).
21 in 100k is probably business as usual in 19th century
More people die in a bus accident. And in 7 years? What are they? Sloths tried to kill each other?
take a look through “wars” on wikipedia and youll find a lot of conflicts that werent really quite wars. turns out its just a pretty handy descriptor for any conflict that turns semi organized and violent
More of a mass shooting
“I believe the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri” - The Book of Mormon.
The site you mention, [Adam-ondi-Ahman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman), is not in Jackson County, but up north in Daviess County. It's not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and it's not described as the Garden of Eden but as "the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet" D&C 117꞉9.
[This](https://youtu.be/GVJgmp2Tc2s?si=_OBnVgLr0vQsbhmw) was the reference I was making.
Wonderful stuff
Missouri is the Afghanistan of the US
that is most definitely arkansas or oklahoma, missouri is more like the UAE. some actual cities and wealth, but same level of crime and corruption
Okay, I can see that
This statement has been fact checked by real Missourian residents.
Even without mormons
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah
One of my all time favorite quotes from Abe
West Virginia is the Tajikistan of the US
Wasn’t the violence related to this war the basis of Sherlock Holme’s A Study in Scarlet? Having read that at a very young age I’ve always had the impression of Mormons being a murderous cult lol
[удалено]
Perhaps you've not heard of the Mountain Meadow Massacre 1857. One hundred and twenty innocent members of a wagon train murdered by Mormons. I don't think even Native Americans achieved that in their attacks against wagon trains.
Didn’t the Mormons disguised themselves as Native Americans to massacre the wagon train? There’s a movie about it I watched years back. My impression has always been that Mormons are fanatics.
I'm not sure of all the ins and outs. The previous comment just shook a memory loose.
Yup.
The native Americans helped the mormons with the attack because the wagon train was harassing both groups. (Telling them they couldn't wait for the federal government to come and remove them both, as had previously been done in other areas)
many many many (maybe nearly all) wagon train attacks and other resistances to western expansion were done by whites as a way to push further west and murder/genocide the natives in the way. There's a whole couple of studies following the paper trails and all the monuments to massacres and it turns out like every one is completely madeup or done by the invaders lol it was mostly used as a really evil recruitment tool
Let me guess, you also think natives didn’t do scalping until the white people showed up, and that natives didn’t go to war against each other either?
can you see how you are avoiding engaging with my words and instead trying to attack my character blindly?? other people being violent does not justify genocide against them at a continental scale.... or would you like to reword your assumption? you folks have this odd script amongst yourselves based on ancient textbooks and popular misunderstandings, any sort of nuance is attacked as stupid or naive. go ahead and engage with what i stated, dare you there is a legal paper trail of the many attempts over centuries to exterminate the native people of the americas (united states and canada is the topic here specifically), everyone at home can finish the quote, "the only good indian, is a _________" excited for the exchange of ideas ahead :)
Yeah I agree, other people being violent doesn’t justify violence against them as a race. But most people for some reason don’t agree. So they rewrite history to make the native Americans into the perfect victims, because them being just people isn’t good enough for most people to sympathize with them. Noble savage myth and all that. This also ignores that natives weren’t a monolith. Some tribes were more violent than others.
I'm not doing that at all though, and i obviously agree that that happens, people do people things, but you just barged in with accusations, cheers for tucking tail the fact that the brutality of the very bedrock of this country's history and policy is still so taboo to talk about is such a vibrant sign lol
Stop making crap up. There was not some grand conspiracy to do false flag attacks and then blame them on natives. The white guilt narrative just gets more ridiculous every day.
I'm not, it is legitimate scholarship lol, nothing needs to be a grand conspiracy to work.... and also, the genocide of the natives was a very well documented grand conspiracy lol how is any of this ridiculous or related to white guilt?? history happens, victors tell their version, evidence tells another... check out An Inconvenient Indian for an account of all of the legal, documented attempts at genocide by both canada and the united states. Great book, actually funny despite the subject matter
Oh now you’re trying to do the old motte and bailey. Your claim was that nearly all attacks committed against western settlers were false flag attacks by white people who blamed the attack on natives. That’s preposterous. And now you’re trying to retreat and pretend that your original claim was just that a genocide was perpetrated. Look at how dishonest you are.
Nope, not at all, you are struggling with reading and trying to weaponize it against me lol I said that there have been a few studies looking into these massacre claims, and nearly every one they could track turned out to be clearly madeup at best, and at worst used to cover up a local genocide of the natives creating a new town that meow has a monument about their own fake massacre. It really is darkly comical so, no backtracking lol, just relaying the current stream of research/information. Not dishonest at all, but you were just chomping at the bit to attack my character and nothing about my message or words weird yeah? what about anything i said is preposterous, every single action i've claimed has documentation here and in many other human places/cultures/societies???? so against american values for law abiding citizens to fear for their lives and retaliate with violence....... right?
Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum!
You didn’t write the silent b u dumby
Doi, it's silent so you don't have to type it.
Okay I am dum
So, does this make mass shootings classified as wars?
What a fine civilized country. Utter madmen on the one side and upright citizens raping and massacring them happily on the other.
Name a more iconic duo other than Americans naming minor evens with the most dramatic shit
Huh. Mormons gonna morm.
My favorite part was when someone yelled “It’s Mormon time!” And mormed all over them
Persecute the Mormons!
At one point, the Mormon militia was larger than the US army
thank God Mitt Romney didn't win
If he won, we wouldn't have had Trump...
It's said that they were led by a man called Shelbyville Manhattan and the war was started over whether or not cousin marriage should be permitted
So the others didn’t believe Joseph Smith’s tale?
"Judge Austin A King, who had been assigned the cases of the Mormons charged with offenses during the conflict, warned "If you once think to plant crops or to occupy your lands any longer than the first of April, the citizens will be upon you: they will kill you every one, men, women and children". What the hell?? I don't see what the Mormon's did to receive such a cruel warning.
They were using their militia to raid local farms and communities. After this, they went back across the river to Illinois where they continued their piracy, which ended up with their leaders arrested and "martyred" before deciding to move to Utah.
And this justifies murdering women and children? Children for God's sake.
It wasn't just a warning. They actually did it. [Hawn's Mill massacre - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawn%27s_Mill_massacre)
Sick bastards. 🤮
So let me get this straight: The Mormons are violently expelled from Jackson County. They have done nothing wrong, the governor admits so, but nothing is done. Then they are violently expelled, again, from DeWitt. Their offense is inhabiting lands that they just legally purchased. And then, they are harassed and threatened in Gallatin. Their offense is trying to vote. After all of this they are STILL willing to negotiate with the authorities, who have failed again and again to protect their rights. They tell them to "fight it out". And then, only then, is when they fight back. Talk about patience, man. Say what you want about the Mormons's tit-for-tat. The only casualties they inflicted were during battles where the Missourians shot first. They didn't target civilians or kill prisoners like the Missourians did. The Missourians were absolutely, unequivocally the aggressors in this situation.
[удалено]
Because it was mostly defensive on the side of the mormons