Finding Genghis Khan's Tomb From Space 166
rossgneumann writes Genghis Khan really, really didn't want anyone to know where he was buried. The soldiers escorting his body to its final resting place killed everyone they passed, killed the people who built the tomb, and then were killed themselves. An elegant solution to this problem bubbled up from two unlikely sources: a man described as a "modern day Indiana Jones" and amateur archaeologists.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear they even killed the birds, so Saruman couldn't see what they were up to either.
Re: (Score:3)
Odin.
At least get your fix right.
Re: ah the great ghengis khan burial (Score:2, Informative)
Actually there are many different variations for the spelling of the Norse "All-Father" Odin, although in English Odin is most common.
On European websites it's more common to see Oden though.
But properly there was often a V sound in front of his name, for example Wednesday used to be Wodenstag (Wodens Day) in German (W being a V sound).
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wodenstag]
Re: (Score:2)
Wotan approves this message.
Re: (Score:2)
Wu-Tang Clan are still around? They must each be in their 40s by now.
Re: (Score:2)
History Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History Channel (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, History Channel has turned into a rather pathetic shell of its former self.
It's aliens, ghosts, and various other bits of crap and conjecture.
They should really stop calling themselves "History", and move onto "speculative fiction".
History is facts and reality, most of the crap on History Channel is anything but.
Re: (Score:3)
What's worse, that, or putting Honey Boo Boo on The "Learning" Channel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I learned not to watch TLC anymore!
Mission Accomplished! Their job is now to teach people not to watch TLC...
Re:History Channel (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair the history channel only turned to crap I the last 3-4 years.
Tic has been cheap from the beginning.
The only Chanel that's worse is syfy which lost its science fiction audeince to wrestlers. You can even hear about Syfy channe executives talk about it not realizing they themselves are what screwed to pooch. I used to watch the soft channel regularly. Now it is hardly at all. Even the b rated scifi lame movies suck.
Re:History Channel (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey as long as the wrestling includes badly rendered radioactive octopi I don't see that it's much different from standard SyFy offerings.
Re:History Channel (Score:4, Informative)
To be honest, its former self was the Hitler Channel. You could scarcely watch three shows in a row without one, usually two, being about Hitler.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, that's what I called it too.
The problem with American TV is that it does nothing to help advance society in an interesting way. It's all about "look at this car crash/hillbilly! It's so terrible! Can you believe that?!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History Channel - Real History costs too much. (Score:2)
Re:History Channel - Real History costs too much. (Score:4, Interesting)
Get four history professors who have divergent viewpoints and hate each other. Get somebody cool for a moderator, like Jon Stewart. Then let those boys go at it.
Re: (Score:2)
You could even name it History Deathmatch. I'd watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Get four history professors who have divergent viewpoints and hate each other. Get somebody cool for a moderator, like Jon Stewart. Then let those boys go at it.
Stewart? PLEASE think of somebody else... I'd rather have Candy Crawley or some other lifeless NPR host over Jon... How about a BBC new reader or something? Heck, dust off Allen Colmes and Newt to tag team or something... Other than that, I LIKE the idea..
Re: (Score:2)
There is a large subculture of historical reenactment groups and mideval fairs in Europe, along with a good number of working museums and plenty of castly ruins making a telegenic good backdrop. And well the BBC is producing more for the public school system the
Re:History Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with American TV is the average American
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery channel was a lot better (as far as I remember it several years ago): one third about nazi/WW2, on third about dinosaurs, and the last third about sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't most all of the cable TV channels turned into pure sensationalist shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History Channel (Score:5, Interesting)
I happen to know a couple of people that are involved in Cable contract discussions. From what they tell me (and hey, they could be totally wrong but it does make sense) the industry generally thinks that Discovery networks (discovery channel) is soon going to get cut from a lot of networks, soon followed by A&E (History channel) because people are getting fed up with the price of the different tiers. Cable companies have to cut something and those 2 networks are nothing more than reality show dustbins. Just like Fox is losing networks left and right now because the fact of the matter is most people just want a "news channel" and CNN is just fine for that and doesn't have a giant group of people that hate them like Fox does. These networks have to drastically cut their price or improve their content or they're not going to get carried anymore.
The companies themselves may be fine... they are making a lot of money in other things. Discovery holds patents on ebooks for some crazy reason. But the times of filling your entire channel with reality TV that costs you virtually nothing and has no depth is over. AMC has proven that even a small investment can have huge returns.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like Fox is losing networks left and right now because the fact of the matter is most people just want a "news channel" and CNN is just fine for that and doesn't have a giant group of people that hate them like Fox does.
Fox New has the biggest audience in between the cable news outlets and the only reason it has been removed from any networks is because it has started to command more fees from the distributors and cable operators (which is why dish turned them off). If cable operators are looking for space (which they are not) there are plenty of lesser watched networks they can ditch.
According to the Neilson ratings, the pecking order is Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox Business News, and Headline news, in that order. Ca
Re: (Score:2)
great plug, maybe Sith McFarlane could do a COSMOS like injection for history too.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly it's been a few years since I had cable TV, but have they really fallen that far? Back when we got rid of cable, the History Channel was more like The WWII Channel.
Re:History Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
Oak Island [wikipedia.org] is a real place, off the coast of Nova Scotia.
It's long been rumored to have pirate treasure. There's a show about people looking to find it.
Of course, it leads to a bunch of nutjobs with crazy theories, like it has for decades. But, History Channel is all about nutjobs with crazy theories these days.
History Channel has become a joke with things like Ghost Hunters, Ancient Aliens, and enough crap to make you think they've jumped the shark and become a source you can no longer rely on for actual history.
Re: (Score:2)
Oak Island is actually very interesting. The more you read into the history and find all the weird stuff going on, the more it seems like there has to be SOMETHING down there. The intricacies of what has been found to date preclude it being some sort of prank.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what makes it "compelling" TV people think there must be SOMETHING, what will these people find? Will they find it? Must tune in again!
That's what networks want more than anything.
Re:History Channel Solved (Score:2)
Finally they discovered what the original builder was burying... his OCD.
Re: (Score:2)
And soon they'll uncover the secret message about Ovaltine.
Re: (Score:2)
They found dozens of layers of wood, then sand, then wood, then sand... .
They being a bunch of treasure hunters 150years ago who didn't actually keep records nor save any of their discoveries. At a time when divination and other treasure hunting scams were pretty common in the region oak island is located in. None of the famous objects recovered have survived, and the closes thing we got to contemporary newspaper reports are somewhat critical of the whole venture
There have been a couple of serious engineering reports made on the dig, by prospective investors who backed out
Re: (Score:2)
The difference here is all the attempts at Oak Island, including the first discovery of the pit in the early 1795 had multiple witnesses and were fully documented thereafter. And it is not as simple as "well someone found it earlier and filled it back in", because if that was the case then all of the depth marker platforms would not be there.
Sorry if I seem a bit passionate but I have been fascinated by Oak Island ever since I read a book about it as a teenager. The most interesting thing I find is even wit
Re: (Score:3)
Someone who discovered it before does not mean recently. Ie, pirate buries his gold, comes back ten years later and retrieves it. Why would a pirate bury the gold in a way that was unretrievable?
Re: (Score:3)
I share your fascination with Oak Island although I'll admit to being more skeptical about the "artifacts" found in the various digs than I used to be.
For one, the chain of documentation about previous finds up to the early 20th century is a little dubious -- it's not like there was some set of neutral observers who preserved all the finds in one place for posterity and future scientific research. IIRC, much of what was found has been lost and what has been retained is of unauthenticatable veracity.
Two, th
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of channels are going that way... I can't remember the last time I saw a music video or music related program on MTV and Syfy is not any better at living up to it's name.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, just how hard can it be to live up to Syence Fyction?
At that point you can pretty much broadcast anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharknado, Enough Said!
Re: (Score:2)
History Channel has become a joke with things like Ghost Hunters, Ancient Aliens, and enough crap to make you think they've jumped the shark and become a source you can no longer rely on for actual history.
Yup. The joke over on the History Stack [stackexchange.com] is that they are fixing to change their name to HyFy. Posting a question based on something you saw there is a really good way to get your question closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Oak Island is an island off Nova Scotia where people have been digging for some kind of treasure for about 200 years or so.
AFAIK, there isn't anything down the hole(s) that have been dug but supposedly there has been some stuff (coconut fibers, wood platforms, etc) that have been found at various depths that defy easy explanation and suggest some kind of previous digging and burial.
Whether it's total bullshit or not is kind of beside the point, it makes a fun story to read even if the only thing down there
Re:History Channel (Score:5, Interesting)
An MIT guy figured out what is there. Its a ship, that sank into the swamp bow first. They used coconut fibers for seating of the rowers back then. Explains the "evenly spaced wood platforms" as well. I remember the show back in the 80s "In Search of" when Lenard Nimoy talked about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't watched the History Channel show about Oak Island but I'll admit to being a willing sucker for pretty much anything else, having read a couple of books when I've run across them in used book stores.
But I don't think I've ever heard the buried ship hypothesis, which makes sense. I had always assumed that anything "that shouldn't have been there" found in the digs was more or less a planted item designed to whip up additional money from investors. Since "relics" have been found by every group that
Re:History Channel (Score:5, Interesting)
Oak Island? WTF is that?
Admittedly it's been a few years since I had cable TV, but have they really fallen that far? Back when we got rid of cable, the History Channel was more like The WWII Channel.
Oak Island is supposed to be a Mystery... and if you read many of the sensationalized accounts of it from many disreputable reporters that conveniently leave out certain facts about the place it sounds very intriguing. But the fact is, the place isn't a mystery at all.
Some kid swam out to it and found a tree with a pulley hanging from a branch a long time ago. That bit is likely true. But then, a guy heard about it and went out there. He was a Free Mason. And now, I don't mean the ones that rule the world. I mean the real ones that are basically like the Shriners that ware funny hats, drive gocarts and throw candy to kids in parades, and more importantly absolutely love secrets, mysteries, puzzles and hidden treasure. It's their bread and butter. They also like to relate all these mysterious stories to non-members to try and get you to join. If you ever meet someone at a party that starts talking about the Free Masons, run away. They'er either not a Free Mason and a conspiracy nut... or they are a Free Mason and a conspiracy nut.
Anyways, from that guy on, every single person to investigate or own the island was a free mason. Including Franklin Roosevelt! You cannot trust anything they say about the place. The crazy thing about free masons is that they are usually conspiracy nuts, and their conspiracies always involve their own club. Once you realize that every single person to investigate the island was a conspiracy theorist, and that you can't trust any of their accounts, it makes a lot more sense. I'm pretty sure every rumor about the free masons ruling the world was likely started by an actual Free Mason. Not only that, they do things to make themselves even more mysterious because they think that's cool. That rock kind of looks like a skull? Well, they'll report it as 100% a skull and they're pretty sure the shape of the eye sockets indicate it's a model of the first popes skull... clearly leading to some secret of the ages.
Long story short, Oak Island is what happens when you take a couple dozen conspiracy nuts and let them dig in the same hole for over 200 years and give them lots of media attention. The only thing buried on that island is all hope that those men would ever have to face reality.
Re: (Score:3)
You could fairly argue that FDR did rule the world.
Jus' sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
every single person to investigate or own the island was a free mason. Including Franklin Roosevelt! [...] I'm pretty sure every rumor about the free masons ruling the world was likely started by an actual Free Mason.
You could fairly argue that FDR did rule the world.
Jus' sayin'.
Yea... but it wasn't a secret conspiratorial rule of the world though. So it doesn't count. :-p
Re: (Score:2)
Yea... but it wasn't a secret conspiratorial rule of the world though. So it doesn't count. :-p
Ah, but FDR was just the front man for his Communist/Masonic superiors! :P
Re: (Score:3)
If you ever meet someone at a party that starts talking about the Free Masons, run away. They'er either not a Free Mason and a conspiracy nut... or they are a Free Mason and a conspiracy nut.
This is me, running. From some nut talking about conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
Oak Island is supposed to be a Mystery... and if you read many of the sensationalized accounts of it from many disreputable reporters that conveniently leave out certain facts about the place it sounds very intriguing. But the fact is, the place isn't a mystery at all.
Some kid swam out to it and found a tree with a pulley hanging from a branch a long time ago. That bit is likely true. But then, a guy heard about it and went out there. He was a Free Mason. And now, I don't mean the ones that rule the world. I mean the real ones that are basically like the Shriners that ware funny hats, drive gocarts and throw candy to kids in parades, and more importantly absolutely love secrets, mysteries, puzzles and hidden treasure. It's their bread and butter. They also like to relate all these mysterious stories to non-members to try and get you to join. If you ever meet someone at a party that starts talking about the Free Masons, run away. They'er either not a Free Mason and a conspiracy nut... or they are a Free Mason and a conspiracy nut.
Nope the pulley story is demonstratably untrue in that it only apears in later books. But the rest of your post is probably true.
The original claims were of tree young men riding to the island and spotting a tree nail not a pulley meaning that nobody actually claims to have found a man made object hanging from a tree. Just a tree cut in a way that would facilitate it being used as a make shift pulley, this is a pretty important translation error, made by some later author unfamiliar with the term used
Re: (Score:2)
I think that when the History channel got started, there was a lot of low hanging fruit -- traditional popular documentaries available to air for little or no money. These got aired in whole, then sliced and diced and recombined in sort-of-novel ways.
But even I can only watch so much recycled footage of WW II and the building of the Hoover Dam and it seems like once they had exhausted what was out there they just jumped onto the reality bandwagon because it was cheaper than producing actual documentaries.
G
Khan!!! (Score:5, Funny)
:-)
Follow the breadcrumbs (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't the trail of dead bodies lead them straight to the tomb?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they just follow Alph down to the Sunless Sea and peek into the measureless caverns?
Re: (Score:3)
Oops, mea culpa. Wrong Khan.
His legacy is 2% (Score:4, Informative)
Re:His legacy is 2% (Score:5, Funny)
Says the man posting as AC so he doesn't get murdered by Khan's descendants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:His legacy is 2% (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:His legacy is 2% (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like Khan was his family name and people called him Mr. Khan.
Mongolians don't have 'family names'.
These days they use the 'patronymic' system which was introduced by the Russians, so you have your given name and your fathers given name. Typically the fathers given name is put first, so if your dad was Dave and you are Bob your FULL name would be Dave Bob.
Before the Russian influence Mongolians had their tribal name and their given name but this was 'phased out' by the communists. Until relatively recently no one used their tribal names and many Mongolians forgot them. Even today employers don't record peoples tribal name and its hardly ever used. It appears on birth certificates but not in passports; a modern Mongolian passport will have the fathers given name in the 'surname' field.
This can cause issues for mixed marriages and international travel with children as the name on the childs passport would make little sense to immigration officials in other countries and they might assume that the foreign father travelling with his child isn't the real father and that theres something fishy going on. (ie your name is Dave Smith, your sons name is Bobby. Normally his passport would have his name as "Bobby Smith", but if he was born in Mongolia his passport would have his name as "Bobby Dave". You have to get special dispensation from the director of the passport office to have the name on the passport in conventional, international format.
Under the new regime the state identity papers list the tribal name so everyone has to provide them. Since many people just don't know it they use 'Borjigin' which is Chinggis Khans tribe. Thus the official numbers of this tribe is going up and up even though most of them are not actually biologically from that tribe.
Re:His legacy is 2% (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But this is much later than Kahn, and I am not an expert on names. I just know the Russian examples from literature.
Re: (Score:2)
I though the patronymic came last. "Ivan Denisovich" would be Ivan, son of Denis. Much like when last names were introduced in England, if you didn't have a good name to pick (Smith, Brown, etc.) you'd take your dad's name (Donaldson, Anderson, etc.) In the original Russian, published in 1962, Solzhenitsyn placed the patronymic after the first name
But this is much later than Kahn, and I am not an expert on names. I just know the Russian examples from literature.
When they write their names in latin script they tend to write the fathers name last, when they write it in cyrillic the fathers name goes first. They seem to think this is more correct. Many asian naming conventions put the family name first so perhaps this is related.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used the example of Ivan Denisovich. That was written father's name last, in cyrillic, when the book was published. Was that done differently because it was literature?
I think its probably just a difference between Russian culture and Mongolian. Like I said, eg Koreans write their family name first. Some elements of Russian culture were fairly unchanged in Mongolia others got transformed. I've always wondered why ice hockey didn't take off in Mongolia; they could play it outdoors 6 months of the year!
Re: (Score:2)
It's how, say, Icelandic patronymic names work, giving you such awesome names as Björk Guðmundsdóttir, but not everyone does the -son/daughter thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong but Khan was more a title (e.g. King) than a family name.
Even assuming that Khan would have been a family name inherited from son to son, I seriously doubt that this name could be used to identify the lineage in a reliable way.
With a very optimistic value of only 5% of illegitimate children (various estimates are more between 10% to 40%), the probability that a Khan of the 30th generation is a legitimate descendant is 0.95^30 = 0.21 so 21%.
With 10% of illegitimate children this number fall
Re: (Score:2)
So 17.5 million men should have the same last name as him, if he had one.
Presumably the women he raped, who then bore sons for him didn't take on his last name. (That is if he had a last name)
Maybe someone else can do the math
I fitted a simple exponential curve. Assuming 800 years have passed, and one new generation is formed every 20 years we get the range t : [0,40]. Assuming for f(t): f(0) = 1 and f(40) = 17.5m, I get f(t) = e^(0.181076t). This means the ratio of f(t+1):f(t) is ~1.5, so each generation would have to leave about 1.5 male descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
The study claim that the observed mutation occurred around the time of Khan and that it spreading speed is too fast to be explained with the standard models (especially since it does not appear to provide any genetic benefits).
Generally speaking, statistical analysis like those can be quite accurate. However, I am a bit more skeptical about the evaluated age of the mutation. An error of a few hundreds years could push the mutation several generations before Genghis Khan and in a violent civilization were th
it was a paternity thing (Score:5, Funny)
all those illegitimate children were looking to hit up his estate for palimony.
Next up, finding Atlantis from Space (Score:4, Interesting)
...and then Narnia and Oz.
The Mongols didn't bury their dead. Their religion (like that of many nomadic pastoral societies) relied on open-air burials [fu-berlin.de]. The whole "tomb" myth was most likely invented by their Chinese neighbors.
Re:Next up, finding Atlantis from Space (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article you linked:
Nobles were also buried in coffins, but unlike Lamaistic dignitaries, these coffins were buried with additions like weapons, horses, food and other things, which were meant to help them in the next world - in Erlik-Khans kingdom. Erlik-Khan is the god of death. The location of a nobleman's tomb was kept secret, to ensure that they rested in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to your own link disputing what you say, open-air burials are a part of Tibetan Buddhism, which wasn't really a part of Genghis Khan's cultural heritage (he was a Shamanist with a lot of Nestorian Christian family members). Lama Buddhism became the religion of Mongols only 400 years later. So I imagine open-air burials got adapted after they got Tibetan Buddhism but before the Commies.
Re: (Score:3)
(he was a Shamanist with a lot of Nestorian Christian family members). Lama Buddhism became the religion of Mongols only 400 years later
This is why its important to read the whole link:
Depositing the corpse in the steppe was meant to sacrifice it to predatory animals. According to Mongolians this is the last virtous act a person can carry out. This idea is much older than Lamaism and exhibits a really strong shamanistic element of spiritual thought.
The other thing I didn't bring up (because I don't have a single little link for it handy) was that the story about the tomb with the untold wealth cannot be found in any sources for several hundred years after the event. So whatever knowledge we have about there being a tomb with stuff in it did not come from directly (and given the time differential and location of that source, most likely not indirectly either) from anybody with actual first-hand experienc
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the stories about that tombs are probably myths but, unlike Noah, Genghis Khan was a historical figure that was very likely buried somewhere.
I would not bet my saving that this "modern day indiana jones" will ever (or never) find Genghis Khan tomb. After all, Schliemann found Troy, Carter found Tutankhamun while plenty others failed miserably. Hard but not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Genghis Khan was a historical figure that was very likely buried somewhere.
The former is true, while the latter is sheer speculation on your part. Again, most Mongolians of his day were exposed on the steppe after death, and there are no contemporary accounts of him being treated differently.
Doesn't replace digging (Score:2)
Using satellite and radar images to identify archaeological sites from space isn't new. But while this method may help in identifying sites of interest, actually identifying Genghis Khan's tomb would require archaeologists to dig at each of those sites. And until an archaeologist is on the ground, the images may just be a peculiarly shaped hill mound.
So if the concerns is identify Genghi's tomb while respecting Mongolian reverence for burial sites, I don't see how this does that, as you'd still need archa
Re: (Score:3)
Modern technologies (e.g. Ground Penetrating Radar) can already provide very useful scientific information without having to dig. Of course, proper digging would provide a lot more information but the mongols are not, and should never be, obliged to allow it. Plenty of other important archaeological sites are under a similar situation. For instance, the tomb of the first Chinese emperor, and that is not a real problem.
Science does not require that all archaeological sites should be explored the same way tha
This doesn't take a genius (Score:4, Insightful)
First guy: Hey dude, do you know how to find Genghis K's tomb?
Second guy: Yeah, just follow the trail of blood and dead bodies.
Re: (Score:3)
In fairness, that was pretty much everywhere Genghis had been :P
The "hardcore history" podcast does a "Wrath of the Khans" set of eps, they are pretty great.
Not found (Score:4, Informative)
IMO, they've really not done much. They allowed people to tag aerial imagery for things they *think* they identify - rivers, roads, and other anomaly. That resulted in 2.3 million tags. And, well, that's it. 55 tagged areas were verified by field teams as having some interest to archaeology. However, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with Genghis Khan specifically.
hrm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're bothered that he's not found.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're bothered that he's not found.
I'm not... I'm more bothered that we've not found the Malaysian Airline flight that went down in the middle of the ocean yet...
Bullshit for Betas (Score:2, Interesting)
Five seconds of thought on the laughable legend of Khan's 'burial' immediately exposes the moronic lies- but the lies were concocted to meet the world view of Betas.
I am reminded of the excellent recent TV show Spartacus. As the end approached, endless dribblers speculated about what the story would to with the 'demise' of Spartacus. I pointed out to friends and family that since, rarely, the show had INTELLIGENT writers, they would end with Spartacus's allies ensuring he had an anonymous burial so the Roma
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post. It reminded me this wonderful quote from Genghis Khan that, IMHO, should be taught in grade school:
“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”
Re: (Score:2)
Close. But in all probability, the Conan writers borrowed it from someplace else.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS IS FRICKIN' AMAZING! (Score:3)
THIS IS FRICKIN' AMAZING!
I mean *who wouldn't* want to be buried in a "tomb from space"!?!?!
This lends total credence to the story the other day that India has interplanetary aircraft flying in the interplanetary air! This must be *how* Genghis Khan *got* hi tomb from space!
I TOTALLY agree that we should be looking for Genghis Khan's frickin' *tomb from space*!!!!!!
The Conqueror (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What a bastard.
I'd count him along with Hitler, Stalin, and Muhammad.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the technology available and the relative size of the Earth's population, he was a whole lot worse than any of those three.
Re: (Score:2)
He was far better than Muhammad.
You are right, as we have seen in Paris today Muhammad's legacy of evil goes on and on
Re: (Score:2)
Precautionary principle says be afraid of everything!
Re: (Score:2)
What is the statute of limitations on respecting the dead?
Depends on if they are, in fact, actually verifiably currently dead and who they where when alive.