I use a lot of satire and sarcasm so keep that in mind when reading my posts.
The portion of your quote I was responding to was:
Nope Montt not listed. And the guy who Montt replaced wasn't exactly a saint either.Honduras (Roberto Cordova) and Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek), El Salvador (Cristiani), South Vietnam (Ngo Dinh Diem), and in Africa -- Liberia (Samuel Doe), Zaire (Mobuto Sese Seko) and Morocco (Hassan II).
What does killing Nicaraguan insurgents have to do with drug trafficking? We can support one and not the other.Oh, we didn't install Noriega? He was officially contracted by the CIA in the 60s and still worked for them in 1983 when he rose to power. Yes we ousted him, but he was working for us when he became President... you don't think that's proof that there was direct US involvement? And you're saying the CIA turned a blind eye to his drug trafficking? We proposed paying him one million dollars to kill Nicaraguan insurgents for us. That's a little more than turning a blind eye.
We didn't install him, he rose through the ranks of his own government.
And again wtf does this have to due with Islamist terrorism?
Are the cited goals of the Islamists to stop drug trafficking? Somebody better inform the Taliban.
Yep still not evidence of direct U.S. support for the coup plotters. Again unless you are asserting that the CIA ran the Chilean Champe of Deputies and the Chilean Supreme Court then we were not responsible for the coup, because Pinochet was ordered by them not us to oust Allende for his numerous crimes against the Chilean Constitution in his bid to establish a totalitarian Marxiist state on the Cuban model.Right, there's no proof of direct involvement. Only documents proving that the government was actively trying to prevent Allende from having power and massive financial interest from ITT who alledgedly funded the coup in part. And Nixon said this 3 years before the coup: "Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him." You can believe what you want to, I think the picture is pretty clear.
And again wtf does this have to do with Islamist terrorism? Are Islamists now pro-Communist?
Except not a single one of those places with the exception of perhaps Turkey has ANYTHING to do with the members of the Islamist movement that we are currently at war with. In fact it your argument collapses upon itself, because by your logic we should be witnessing Chilean, Guetamalan, Honduran, etc terrorist attacks against the U.S. and her interests.We only know so much. If America has consistently backed ruthless dictators for strategic reasons, they are certainly doing the same thing now. We engage in these tactics and the people who are affected by them lash back at us.
That's how it works. There's no excuse for killing innocent people, which is why I find Bin Laden's actions to be unacceptable, but it's also why I am quick to condemn the United States for their unethical actions. You willingly ignore the latter and that's why your opinions are not credible.We didn't kill them, disease did. We homesteaded the land which is the only way to legitimately engage in original appropriation of property.You're right, that makes it ok to kill them and declare the land ours.
The outbreak of a foreign virus isn't the same thing as systematic genocide.And hell, most of them will die from disease... the diseases that the Europeans brought over with them during westward expansion. But that's not our fault either. If they didn't want to get sick, they shouldn't have been on the land we wanted.
Encouraging Americanization isn't the same thing as forced religious conversion.Yes, we did force conversions. Most of that information is off-topic, but we definitely forced Native Americans to "Americanize" themselves and even had the official Office of Indian Affairs, founded in 1824, that handled such matters.
Apparently you think that Muslim extremists are driven by U.S. support for coups in central America.You can rewrite history, but I regret going to all this trouble to try to show you how naive and ignorant your statements are. You won't be persuaded by truth. You think that America has never installed a puppet dictator, Muslim terrorists are driven solely by religion and have no political basis for their hatred of us,
You can't take what isn't owned.and you even believe that taking land from the Native Americans was justified.
Without reading through 35 pages (and counting) which likely consists mainly of nothing more than petty bickering, I'd just like to add my 2-cents worth:
1. If you're judging the President's religious faith on the fact that his father was a Muslim and that his step-father was also a Muslim, as such, both raised Jr within the Muslim faith, then I, too am a Muslim because my mother, not my father, was my spiritual mentor growing up. Of course, she also drug my siblings and I off to a Catholic church, a Baptist church and a Christian church all by the time I was 14. So if we are to base our religious preference on our parent's religious association(s), WTF does that make me (besides mixed up religiously as a child)? I understand the concept behind religious upbrining within the Muslim faith - Islam is passed from father to son - but it is my opinion that most Americans know nothing of this and are instead basing their believe of the President's religious faith on may outward impressions, i.e., the fact that he as raised by a Muslim father and step-father, that he attended a Muslim school abroad as a child, and he hasn't (as far as I know) publicly identified which church he and his family attends.
2. I am a Christian. From my teenaged years (14 or so) until I was an adult (39), I shyed away from all religions. I just felt like I couldn't trust any of them. But one day after an auto accident, I choose to try to live my life following the Christian faith. However, as an adult and since becoming a Christian, I've also studied the Qu'ran. I stayed away from the Muslim faith as a child because I saw how screwed up the religion made my mother* (may she rest in peace; she died last year of cancer), but after 9/11 I wanted to know more about Islam and how some Muslims thought and why "they" did what they did. Notice I said "they", meaning I lumped all Muslims together at the time. It wasn't until I sat down with another Muslim who provided me a copy of the English translation of the Qu'ran did I realize my error. Just as with many Americans today, I automatically assumed most Muslims believed the same way and that's not true. The person who gave me my copy of the Qu'ran strongly condemned what the terrorist did that day including what was taking place in Afghanastan. (He brought alot of stuff to my attention that was happening over there long before the media began reporting on it.)
3. My studies of the Qu'ran not only helped me to better understand the Muslim faith, but also to better understand how some Muslims have subverted Islam which is a religion of peace. My own Christain faith has also been strengthen as a result of my study.
4. Many people would be overwhelmingly surprised to learn that Christianity and Islam share many of the same characteristics. In fact, the God of Noah, Abraham, Issac, Joseph, Jacob, Elijah, Moses, Isiah, David, Soloman, Mary and Jesus is the same GOD. Muslims call Him Allah; Christians call Him Jehovah; Jews call him Jewah. But He is the same GOD. We all just go about practising our faith differently somewhat.
5. Christianity and Islam both teach of love and unity toward your fellow man.
6. Both religions have had their own "holy wars" throughout the history of early man.
7. The only things I've found that are drastically different between Islam and Christianity are:
a) Christians believe in redemtion, that one can repent of their sins and find forgiveness through the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
b) Islam believes that you carry your sins with you and that you become closer to Allah (God) by continued prayer and subjugation to His will and not your own. But that, too, is a tenant of Christianity - doing God's will.
'Seak first to understand and then be understood."
Do I believe Pres. Obama is a Muslim? No, but I do believe he has a very unique understanding of Islam from his upbringing, and as the leaders of the free world he is in a unique position to be a bridge of understanding and enlightenment between the Christian and Muslim worlds and can be a Uniter this country desperately needs. You question this need? Look at what building this Islamic Community Center w/a Mosque is doing to this country right now!
*My mother was a very spiritual woman. Before her death, she and I had a long discussion concerning her faith and the troubles I believe she had with her choosen religion when I was a child. The only rationale she gave me was that she was searching for something, to fill a void that was in her life at the time. In the end, she was a Christian. She died knowing she was a child of God. Still, with what's happening in the world today, in our nation today, I ask myself does it really matter what religion you place your faith in as long as in the end you still come to the place God has made for you?
Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-20-10 at 05:14 PM.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Bull****, under Sharia law Dhimmi's testimony was worthless against a Muslim.Bull****.
Being a dhimmi was not totally played out like that.
You're adopting an entirely hardline concept and applying it to the whole.
Dawa is Fard "duty" for all Muslims and yet we're expected to believe that Dawa wasn't practiced in the Ottoman Empire? Exactly what are you basing this assertion on?Dawa was largely practiced in a particular region for the specific purpose of influencing their power base near Europe.
It was not a common practice through out the entire empire.
As defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide it is:It is not ethnic cleanings.
They were not trying to homogenize the people, quite the opposite was true for the empire.
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article IIlol, yes stealing Christian children and forcing them to convert to Islam = tolerance.Yes that particular example is forced conversion but it in no way does not mean that the weren't intolerant of Christians.
No matter how hard you might try to paint the picture for that to be true.
Ya I guess that's why they singled out Christian communities.Expulsion from a country for religiously prejudice reasons, is not the same as creating an economic heterogeneous population.
You know this, you're being dishonest.
Forcible transfer of populations is considered a crime against humanity. I guess uprooting entire Christian communities from their homes and their lands is not forced expulsion in your book.
Economic reasons? And what possible economic reason was there to cleanse Christians from their homes and their lands? And even if there were economic reasons to ethnically cleanse Christians from their homes and their lands, they still ethnically cleansed Christians from their homes and their lands.Bull ****.
They did it for economic reasons, not to cleanse the land of Christians.
Yes uprooting entire Christian communities from their homes and their lands and forcefully transferring across the empire was done with the best intentions.Yes it is entirely different.
One is meant to harm a group, the other is meant for economic and civil structure reasons.
No my argument is based on the fact that you are asserting that the Ottoman Empire had more religious tolerance than Christian Europe even though the Ottoman Empire perpetrated the exact same crimes which you are asserting made Christian Europe less tolerant. And these were not exceptions to the rule, this was the rule, it was state policy to steal Christian children and convert them to Islam for centuries, it was state policy to execute heretics (apostates) for centuriies, and it was state policy to ethnically cleanse entire Christian communities from their homes and their lands for centuries.It did exist, you pull up occasional examples of intolerance and cite those as truth for the whole empire.
You're argument is based on exceptions and not the rule.