This is a remake of what Mohammed and his Muslim followers did in Medina.

It's really amazing to see the amused look--in this case even smiling--on these soldiers' faces when they take these innocent lives.  Human beings do have this tendency.  Just look at Iranians taking their children to watch public hangings, or the lynchings in the U.S. which had a picnic like atmosphere.  We're really a despicable species.  Germans took it to another level though.  They sytemized it and reduced their victims to nothing more than paperwork and characters on forms and paper.  

As far as the Holocaust though, we all know it never happened.  I read it on Iranian.com.

Those of you who don't like my comment should have enough courage to challenge it. What is the difference between the killing of Jews by Nazis and the killing of Jews by Muslims?

Dear divaneh

Yes you tell me what is the difference between killing of Muslims by Jews and killing of Muslims by Muslim lookalikes (or should I say by Jewish looking like Muslim)?

The difference is:

1- Jews are not blamed for anything.

2- Muslims get all the balmes (as terrorist). 

Kindly provide evidence for your comment then.

Dear Amirkabear,

I know when I say Muslims, a lot of people take it on themselves but there is no better name to address the followers of Mohammed who committed the Banu Quarayze massacre, they were called Muslims. What I would like to know, is that if you are outraged by these photos of innocent Jews being killed in cold blood by the Nazis, do you feel the same outrage when you think of Banu Quarayze massacre in the hand od Muslims and on the order of their prophet? Or that one is ok?

I am not trying to balme today's Muslims or hurt their feelings, but I hope they can be encouraged to question the basis of their beliefs.

Jews, or any other group who commit massacre is condemned equally but lets do one at a time. In fact you can post a case of Jews mass killing the Muslims and I will be the first to condemn it. 

Dear divaneh

Thank you for your understanding.

First of all prove this Banu Quarayze massacre you are mentioning. Where did you read it and how accurate is it?

Dear Amirkabear

The massacre of Banu Quarayza has been recorded by many historians and never disputed by Muslims. As far as I know the oldest history that describes the event is the Seerah Ibn Hisham by Ibn Ishagh. It is also described with details in the well respected Waghedi and Tabari histories.

In Quran (2:65) Mohammed calls the Jewish monkeys. A dehumanisation that is always necessary to prepare for or justify any massacre. the following verse (2:66) without a doubt refers to the killing of around 700 of Banu Quarayza men and adolescent boys.

 A search in Google for Banu Quarayza Massacre will get you a lot of information and well referenced articles about the subject.

One thing that has always made me wonder about the religious people is that if you recall a single fact about their religion that they can not justify, they ask you for proof and dismiss it as false. These are the very same people who accept every claim of the prophet including flying to sky on the back of a donkey without needing any proof. Anything that supports their supernatural beliefs, they happily accept whilst they asked for proof for anything that challenges the sanity of those beliefs.

Dear divaneh

Some of your comments prove my point about some peoples reaction towards Islam.

If the writings you mentioned is original then fine I agree with you.

In your second paragraph you said "Mohammad calls the Jewish monkeys". This is what I am concern about people who do NOT know much about god's religion and Islam. What you mentioned is false because god does not communicat that way. So I will not agree with this one. Even if you show me the Quran, I will tell you it is not the original one.

In regard to your 3rd paragraph, I do not believe whatever I find by Google.

Finally, in your last paragraph, you mentioned donkey. You are wrong again it was a cow. But then it is not important because the idea of worshiping god was/is to search. Muslims never do and that is why you and me are having this discussion. You still have to prove whatever you read in internet positive or negative. I never told you I agree to this donkey or cow issue, did I? BUT at the same time some of the non believers, like yourself, believe EVERYTHING they hear.

Dear Amirkabear

It was a donkey. It was called Boragh and according to the religious texts, it was larger than a donkey and smaller than a mule. The only religion in which cow goes to the sky is the Zoroastrianism, and if I am not mistaken it is only the leg of the cow that flies, but am not sure about that.

If even the Quran does not convince you then there is no point debating it. But, if you want more proof from Quran then read Surrah Al Ahzab (33) and specially verses (33:26 and 33:27) which recalls the massacre and capturing their possessions including wives and children who were later sold as slaves.

I don't believe everything that I hear but history is there to tell us about the past. If all historians tell the same thing and evidence supports their writings, then of course I believe it. I however don't believe in supernaturals and no matter how many times you or anyone else tell me that a donkey flew to sky, a man walked on the water, or that we are alive after death, I won't believe it.

First of all do you think Quran can't be re-writen? To make sure what you read is original is best to read very old Qurans. In the last 60 years or so not only the translations but also the words have changed too. It is a illution Muslims think no one can rewrite Quran. If you think like Muslems then you DO believe in supernaturals.

You said you don't believe everything that you hear but history is there to tell us about the past. Good point but please make sure what you read is accurate and honest.

If you think everything can change then why do you believe in this stuff. Everything that you believe in could be an altered or a fake matter. Why do you believe in such falsehood? You seem to have some arbitrary opinion such as "Mohammed was a prophet from god and never did anything wrong" and then treat evidence selectively according to whether they support your opinion or not. Simply, if the bad ones can be lies, then so could the good ones.

I dont think that we will achieve much by going round the circle another round as we have no agreed basic facts upon which to build. We just both need to ponder about that now. Thanks for all your comments.