The sooner you understand Islamic terrorists the better

[texan]

They are nuts and you can't reason with them.

Given the the chance they will try and behead your child, friend & fellow Americans.

Come to grips with the fact is they are not gonna stop. It doesn't matter what you do because their demands are impossible to meet. Why? Did I mention they are crazy.

Innocent people will die in this ongoing conflict with a new name.

When end you leave them be they grow like a cancer, they are a lot less harmful when you bitch slap them regularly and if that means we leave forces for 50 years then we do it.

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it makes no difference.

[Cigar]

The Only Solution if they don't fix it themselves ...

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140808182804/unturned-bunker/images/d/dc/Nuclear-explosion.png (http://unturned.wikia.com/wiki/File:Nuclear-explosion.png)

[Green Arrow]

Hey, if you want to keep fighting endless wars in a shitty region of the world, be my guess. I just don't want to hear you bitch about the economy being in the shitter.

[protectionist]

Hey, if you want to keep fighting endless wars in a shitty region of the world, be my guess. I just don't want to hear you bitch about the economy being in the shitter.

Would you rather fight the endless war HERE, in America ?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/cnn-poll-isis/index.html

[The Xl]

Would you rather fight the endless war HERE, in America ?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/cnn-poll-isis/index.html

The majority of Americans aren't too bright, either.

[Green Arrow]

Would you rather fight the endless war HERE, in America ?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/cnn-poll-isis/index.html

No, but how is bombing them over there going to prevent that when they are already here waiting to strike?

[donttread]

They are nuts and you can't reason with them.

Given the the chance they will try and behead your child, friend & fellow Americans.

Come to grips with the fact is they are not gonna stop. It doesn't matter what you do because their demands are impossible to meet. Why? Did I mention they are crazy.

Innocent people will die in this ongoing conflict with a new name.

When end you leave them be they grow like a cancer, they are a lot less harmful when you bitch slap them regularly and if that means we leave forces for 50 years then we do it.

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it makes no difference.

They were crazy in the 40's but they were going crazy on each other and had no interest is us or our sinful ways. You know what changed starting inn the 50's and scaling up in the 70's? We started fucking with their lives.

[Peter1469]

They were crazy in the 40's but they were going crazy on each other and had no interest is us or our sinful ways. You know what changed starting inn the 50's and scaling up in the 70's? We started fucking with their lives.

The West was screwing with their lives long before the 50s.

[Gunny]

The West was screwing with their lives long before the 50s.

You mean like since the First Crusade? That was in 1096.

[Libhater]

The Only Solution if they don't fix it themselves ...

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140808182804/unturned-bunker/images/d/dc/Nuclear-explosion.png (http://unturned.wikia.com/wiki/File:Nuclear-explosion.png)



OMG, the Cigar is finally coming around to agree with the Libhater on something. You think your boy Obama bin Hussein has it in his community organizing resume and experience to actually send nukes to that area? This would be a great time for Hussein Obama to grow a pair--nuke the bastards and save his ongoing lame duck presidency from becoming our nation's #1 joke on the late night shows and across the nation as a whole.

[Peter1469]

You mean like since the First Crusade? That was in 1096.

Yes. But that was really a counter-attack.

[Ransom]

Hey, if you want to keep fighting endless wars in a shitty region of the world, be my guess. I just don't want to hear you bitch about the economy being in the shitter.

www.usdebtclock.org (http://www.usdebtclock.org) so you can actually see what's got the US economy in the shitter. Live and learn....or get schooled don't matter to me.

[Captain Obvious]

www.usdebtclock.org (http://www.usdebtclock.org) so you can actually see what's got the US economy in the shitter. Live and learn....or get schooled don't matter to me.

This guy must get royalties from this website or something.

[Gunny]

Yes. But that was really a counter-attack.

That part is debatable. My point is, it put a Western Army on Arab soil a "tad" before the 1950s.

[Peter1469]

That part is debatable. My point is, it put a Western Army on Arab soil a "tad" before the 1950s.

Certainly.

Regarding the 1st Crusade, the Caliphate was threatening to overtake Byzantium. Had that occurred Western Europe would have been in grave peril. Therefore Pope Urban II called for the crusade.

[Gunny]

Certainly.

Regarding the 1st Crusade, the Caliphate was threatening to overtake Byzantium. Had that occurred Western Europe would have been in grave peril. Therefore Pope Urban II called for the crusade.

My ancient history is rusty. I knew the Byzantine Emperor appealed to Pope Urban II. I've just never figured out how Jerusalem became some strategic location. I assume the math behind it was the Pope appealed to a "Catholic or you die" Europe using religion as his recruiting tool. A misdirection play still used to this day. I doubt he'd have gotten much of an army if his appeal was "let's go help out the Byzantine Empire against the Turks".

[Peter1469]

My ancient history is rusty. I knew the Byzantine Emperor appealed to Pope Urban II. I've just never figured out how Jerusalem became some strategic location. I assume the math behind it was the Pope appealed to a "Catholic or you die" Europe using religion as his recruiting tool. A misdirection play still used to this day. I doubt he'd have gotten much of an army if his appeal was "let's go help out the Byzantine Empire against the Turks".

It is certainly a complex topic, worthy of its own thread in the History Room. Mister D would be the most knowledgeable on the topic. The Muslim world was split between the Fatimids (Shiites) and Seljuqs (Sunnis). It was the Seljuqs that were threatening to invade Western Europe through Byzantine.

Jerusalem was important because of its historical significance. Some conspiracy theorists believe that Pope Urban II was more concerned about reuniting the Eastern Church with the West than in protecting the West against rampaging Muslims. But I think his focus on retaking Jerusalem was to get the Western armies past Byzantine and into the Levant. In other words, I think the conspiracy theorists are wrong.

[texan]

Hey, if you want to keep fighting endless wars in a shitty region of the world, be my guess. I just don't want to hear you bitch about the economy being in the shitter.


Enlighten me genius! You obviously don't have an understanding of economics.

[texan]

BTW Greeny,

POINT OUT ONE SINGLE THING THAT ISN'T TRUE THAT I POINTED OUT!

And how old are you 21? As my daddy used to say, and you need to hear this, it's not that you are not smart son you are just not very wise yet that comes with experience.

[Peter1469]

Warning: don't attack members.

[zelmo1234]

They were crazy in the 40's but they were going crazy on each other and had no interest is us or our sinful ways. You know what changed starting inn the 50's and scaling up in the 70's? We started fucking with their lives.

You really need to look at the ties of radical Islam to Nazi Germany!

They had world domination in mind then too

[Peter1469]

You really need to look at the ties of radical Islam to Nazi Germany!

They had world domination in mind then too

Secular pan-Arabism was fascist. The Ba'ath Parties of Iraq and Syria were modeled off the NAZIs.

[Mister D]

That part is debatable. My point is, it put a Western Army on Arab soil a "tad" before the 1950s.

You mean Christian soil that was conquered by Arabs in the 7th and 8th Centuries?

[Mister D]

My ancient history is rusty. I knew the Byzantine Emperor appealed to Pope Urban II. I've just never figured out how Jerusalem became some strategic location. I assume the math behind it was the Pope appealed to a "Catholic or you die" Europe using religion as his recruiting tool. A misdirection play still used to this day. I doubt he'd have gotten much of an army if his appeal was "let's go help out the Byzantine Empire against the Turks".

It's debatable why the city was built there in the first place. Some say it's really in the middle of no where. In any case, that the city captivated and continued to captivate the religious imagination is what is important not it's strategic location.

Your comments are far too cynical and reflect a modern mindset projected on the past.

[Mister D]

You really need to look at the ties of radical Islam to Nazi Germany!

They had world domination in mind then too

They had freedom from western liberal hyopocrites in mind.

[Gunny]

It's debatable why the city was built there in the first place. Some say it's really in the middle of no where. In any case, that the city captivated and continued to captivate the religious imagination is what is important not it's strategic location.

Your comments are far too cynical and reflect a modern mindset projected on the past.

Could be. Wouldn't be the first time I've been called cynical. :)

I tend to NOT project a modern mindset onto the past. However, I didn't live back then. Pope Urban II's motives are left open to interpretation because he did not write them down. To recruit an army, one must present incentive(s).

[Mister D]

Could be. Wouldn't be the first time I've been called cynical. :)

I tend to NOT project a modern mindset onto the past. However, I didn't live back then. Pope Urban II's motives are left open to interpretation because he did not write them down. To recruit an army, one must present incentive(s).

Of course but there simply isn't any reason to be cynical about his motives. The overwhelming response to the Pope's appeal suggests that a genuine religious motivation permeated European society from top to bottom. That the Pope was able to tap into that suggests nothing whatsoever about his motives. It's more plausible that his motives were as sincere as those who wore the cross.

[Peter1469]

Could be. Wouldn't be the first time I've been called cynical. :)

I tend to NOT project a modern mindset onto the past. However, I didn't live back then. Pope Urban II's motives are left open to interpretation because he did not write them down. To recruit an army, one must present incentive(s).

He did write them down. Back at Tulane Law School in the historic section of the library I read correspondence between the Pope and the Caliph.
Both sides goals were crystal clear. Expansion. Petty politics. Nothing substantive about religion at all.

[Common Sense]

Popes being sincere? The modern Pope has very little in common with the warlord popes of the past. While it's true the Muslim horde was encroaching on Europe, the first crusade had political and economic motives as well as religious. One thing is certain, for a while it stopped Europeans from waring with each other to fight a common enemy.

[Mister D]

Popes being sincere? The modern Pope has very little in common with the warlord popes of the past. While it's true the Muslim horde was encroaching on Europe, the first crusade had political and economic motives as well as religious. One thing is certain, for a while it stopped Europeans from waring with each other to fight a common enemy.

Which was also a religious concern.


There were no doubt various motives at work for those who took the cross but if any of you can make a rational argument (i.e. backed by actual facts, evidence etc.) regarding the Pope's motives please feel free.

[Mister D]

He did write them down. Back at Tulane Law School in the historic section of the library I read correspondence between the Pope and the Caliph.
Both sides goals were crystal clear. Expansion. Petty politics. Nothing substantive about religion at all.

Where exactly was Pope Urban looking to expand, with what, and with who?

[Captain Obvious]

Where exactly was Pope Urban looking to expand, with what, and with who?

Urban development?

...ok, I'll shut up now.

[Mister D]

Urban development?

...ok, I'll shut up now.

Frankly, that's about as serious as it will get.

[Gunny]

Of course but there simply isn't any reason to be cynical about his motives. The overwhelming response to the Pope's appeal suggests that a genuine religious motivation permeated European society from top to bottom. That the Pope was able to tap into that suggests nothing whatsoever about his motives. It's more plausible that his motives were as sincere as those who wore the cross.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the religious back then. The cynicism is mine and was not meant to be projected onto his motives nor those of people who answered his call. The cynicism was rather directed at a common recruiting practice still in use today.

[texan]

That is an attack???????????????????????????????????????? REALLY???????????????????????????


Joking right????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????

[Mister D]

I don't doubt the sincerity of the religious back then. The cynicism is mine and was not meant to be projected onto his motives nor those of people who answered his call. The cynicism was rather directed at a common recruiting practice still in use today.

I also think most if not all Islamists are quite sincere.

[Gunny]

Where exactly was Pope Urban looking to expand, with what, and with who?

I've seen no evidence ascribing specific motive(s) to the Pope. Seizing an opportunity to stop the spread of Islam/attempt to spread Christianity? While it has not been traced back to the Pope, the crusaders refused to return Jerusalem to the Byzantines.

[Gunny]

I also think most if not all Islamists are quite sincere.

Perhaps. Don't forget, I'm the cynical one. :)

[Mister D]

I've seen no evidence ascribing specific motive(s) to the Pope. Seizing an opportunity to stop the spread of Islam/attempt to spread Christianity? While it has not been traced back to the Pope, the crusaders refused to return Jerusalem to the Byzantines.

The Crusades, contrary to a thoroughly modern misconception, were not about spreading Christianity or stopping Islam. They were about reclaiming the Hold Land. Secondly, the Byzantines were a duplicitous bunch and were using the western warlords. It should be no surpirse that those same warlords felt no obligation to the Byzantines.

[Gunny]

The Crusades, contrary to a thoroughly modern misconception, were not about spreading Christianity or stopping Islam. They were about reclaiming the Hold Land. Secondly, the Byzantines were a duplicitous bunch and were using the western warlords. It should be no surpirse that those same warlords felt no obligation to the Byzantines.

Hmmm ... but isn't reclaiming the Holy Land also in fact stopping Islamic expansion and replacing it with Christianity? I'm having trouble divorcing the three.

No doubt the Byzantines were duplicitous. But was not the Pope just as duplicitous? Sending a crusade to reclaim the Holy Land under the guise of assistance?

[Peter1469]

Where exactly was Pope Urban looking to expand, with what, and with who?


The Levant.

[Mister D]

The Levant.

He was trying to recapture the Holy Land. That had little to do with politics and power but everything to do with religion.

[Mister D]

Hmmm ... but isn't reclaiming the Holy Land also in fact stopping Islamic expansion and replacing it with Christianity? I'm having trouble divorcing the three.

No doubt the Byzantines were duplicitous. But was not the Pope just as duplicitous? Sending a crusade to reclaim the Holy Land under the guise of assistance?

As a consequence, sure. That wasn't the explicit goal.

Was it under the guise of assistance? In fact, it did actually do the Byzantines quite a buit of good in so far as as it helped relieved the pressure on the empire for almost two centuries.

What did the Pope gain in terms of tangibles?

[Common Sense]

Oddly enough the crusades had a huge impact economically on Europe. Without them, the trade routes probably would have opened up much later, the Renaissance and enlightenment would have happened much later. It may not have been by design, but there was a lot of tangible benefits to reclaiming the holy land. Beyond the spices, silks and fabrics, there was math, science and literature.

[Peter1469]

He was trying to recapture the Holy Land. That had little to do with politics and power but everything to do with religion.

I guess he didn't convey that fact in his letters to the Caliph. He was more interested in political slights and offenses.

I understand that he used the religion card to get fighters to do the actual work.

[Mister D]

Oddly enough the crusades had a huge impact economically on Europe. Without them, the trade routes probably would have opened up much later, the Renaissance and enlightenment would have happened much later. It may not have been by design, but there was a lot of tangible benefits to reclaiming the holy land. Beyond the spices, silks and fabrics, there was math, science and literature.

Why is that odd? War often invigorates a society. The trade routes were always open. The Italian cities didn't start trading in the Levant because of the Crusades although I'll grant that a Latin Christian presence gave them a secure base from which to penetrate markets. It alswo allowed some of the smaller Italian to get in on the action.

[Gunny]

As a consequence, sure. That wasn't the explicit goal.

Was it under the guise of assistance? In fact, it did actually do the Byzantines quite a buit of good in so far as as it helped relieved the pressure on the empire for almost two centuries.

What did the Pope gain in terms of tangibles?

Christian claim to the Holy Land. I really was not questioning his goals. I just can't see separating one from the other two, even if the latter were by-products. I was speculating on his motives.

[Mister D]

I guess he didn't convey that fact in his letters to the Caliph. He was more interested in political slights and offenses.

I understand that he used the religion card to get fighters to do the actual work.

I'm not sure what a "religion card" is. Could explain? So what did the Pope gain that's tangible?

[Peter1469]

As a consequence, sure. That wasn't the explicit goal.

Was it under the guise of assistance? In fact, it did actually do the Byzantines quite a buit of good in so far as as it helped relieved the pressure on the empire for almost two centuries.

What did the Pope gain in terms of tangibles?
The first crusaders sacked Constantinople. I doubt that was seen as an economic boom. Byzantium did screw over some of the first crusader armies by passing intel onto the Muslim hordes.

[Peter1469]

I'm not sure what a "religion card" is. Could explain? So what did the Pope gain that's tangible?

Fight for Christendom to protect your soul. Or if you can't fight- give us money. Just as good.

[Gunny]

Fight for Christendom to protect your soul. Or if you can't fight- give us money. Just as good.

An effective recruiting tool for the time. Now it's "for Mom, apple pie and the American way." :)

[Mister D]

Christian claim to the Holy Land. I really was not questioning his goals. I just can't see separating one from the other two, even if the latter were by-products. I was speculating on his motives.

In terms of the motive, you should be able to. It's not like Pope Urban suddenly hatched this scheme one day. Pilgrimage to the Holy Land was an old custom by the this time and the idea of an armed pilgrimage was hardly new. The Byzantine offer merely presented the opportunity to bring that to fulfillment.

[Mister D]

Fight for Christendom to protect your soul. Or if you can't fight- give us money. Just as good.

Peter, everyone believed that including the Pope and the clergy. You may not but it was a different world. Men feared damnation and were quite conscious of the violent, sinful lives they led. Hell was real. When you speak of "religion cards" you're projecting a modern perspective (merely modern , hardly more intelligent) on the past.

Guys, one of the keys to a plausible understanding of the past is to come out of your own mindset. It's not universal.

[Mister D]

An effective recruiting tool for the time. Now it's "for Mom, apple pie and the American way." :)

Are you suggesting that when men are beseeched to act it's never sincere?

[Mister D]

The first crusaders sacked Constantinople. I doubt that was seen as an economic boom. Byzantium did screw over some of the first crusader armies by passing intel onto the Muslim hordes.

The 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople. That was in 1204 after a pretedner to the throne led them there. Frankly, as awful as it was it was yet another case of Byzantine political culture crippling the empire.

[Peter1469]

Peter, everyone believed that including the Pope and the clergy. You may not but it was a different world. Men feared damnation and were quite conscious of the violent, sinful lives they led. Hell was real. When you speak of "religion cards" you're projecting a modern perspective (merely modern , hardly more intelligent) on the past.

Guys, one of the keys to a plausible understanding of the past is to come out of your own mindset. It's not universal.

The cannon fodder believed it. The leaders who moved the chess pieces did not.

[Gunny]

Are you suggesting that when men are beseeched to act it's never sincere?

I'm a retired Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant. What do you think? ;)

Which also means I understand the mechanics of recruiting. Also, I'm a cynical smarta$$. :)

[donttread]

Christian claim to the Holy Land. I really was not questioning his goals. I just can't see separating one from the other two, even if the latter were by-products. I was speculating on his motives.

Great discussion topic but they did not bomb the twin tours because of what the Catholics did from another country a thousand years ago. They did it based upon our actions since the late 70's in their back yard. That doesn't make it right but it does mean it was both foreseeable and preventable

[Gunny]

Great discussion topic but they did not bomb the twin tours because of what the Catholics did from another country a thousand years ago. They did it based upon our actions since the late 70's in their back yard. That doesn't make it right but it does mean it was both foreseeable and preventable

Since the late 70s? No. If you want to talk "modern" era, the West has meddled in the ME since WWI when the Ottoman Empire fell. After WWII, the Western powers divided the ME up into what amounts to colonies. All that came to a head in 1979 for us. It didn't start then.

[Mister D]

The cannon fodder believed it. The leaders who moved the chess pieces did not.

"Cannon fodder" is yet another instance of projection unless you can you explain why you are using it? And your evidence for this is what? Did Pope Urban ever even correspond with a Caliph?

[Mister D]

I'm a retired Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant. What do you think? ;)

Which also means I understand the mechanics of recruiting. Also, I'm a cynical smarta$$. :)

Yes that explains everything. :grin:

[donttread]

Since the late 70s? No. If you want to talk "modern" era, the West has meddled in the ME since WWI when the Ottoman Empire fell. After WWII, the Western powers divided the ME up into what amounts to colonies. All that came to a head in 1979 for us. It didn't start then.

OK, but 79 was the real beginning of terrorism directed at us. Long after we poked the beehive one too many times. My main point is that these attacks have nothing to do with the Crusades or with our lifestyle

[Gunny]

OK, but 79 was the real beginning of terrorism directed at us. Long after we poked the beehive one too many times. My main point is that these attacks have nothing to do with the Crusades or with our lifestyle

But they do. We are on Arab land. You are taking this personally (as in the US) when we are just yet "another" foreign invader and meddler on their land and in their affairs that's been going on for centuries. You're thinking like an American, not an Arab and/or Islamic. THAT is one of the biggest problem we have. The do-gooders of the world. Exporting democracy wherever we can, and should be embraced as liberators. They can't even spell democracy much less define or understand it. The arrogance that we are always right and think everyone understands us is one of our greatest weaknesses.

[donttread]

But they do. We are on Arab land. You are taking this personally (as in the US) when we are just yet "another" foreign invader and meddler on their land and in their affairs that's been going on for centuries. You're thinking like an American, not an Arab and/or Islamic. THAT is one of the biggest problem we have. The do-gooders of the world. Exporting democracy wherever we can, and should be embraced as liberators. They can't even spell democracy much less define or understand it. The arrogance that we are always right and think everyone understands us is one of our greatest weaknesses.

I agree. But there was little Arab aggression towards America until the late 70's

[Mister D]

But they do. We are on Arab land. You are taking this personally (as in the US) when we are just yet "another" foreign invader and meddler on their land and in their affairs that's been going on for centuries. You're thinking like an American, not an Arab and/or Islamic. THAT is one of the biggest problem we have. The do-gooders of the world. Exporting democracy wherever we can, and should be embraced as liberators. They can't even spell democracy much less define or understand it. The arrogance that we are always right and think everyone understands us is one of our greatest weaknesses.

You touched on the underlying problem. We think everyone understands us because we think everyone is the same. We assume (wrongly) that everyone has the same aspirations and its up to us to make sure they understand that. When it occurs to Americans that, no, they don't have the same aspiratios we revile them as savages.

[Mr. Right]

They are nuts and you can't reason with them.

Given the the chance they will try and behead your child, friend & fellow Americans.

Come to grips with the fact is they are not gonna stop. It doesn't matter what you do because their demands are impossible to meet. Why? Did I mention they are crazy.

Innocent people will die in this ongoing conflict with a new name.

When end you leave them be they grow like a cancer, they are a lot less harmful when you bitch slap them regularly and if that means we leave forces for 50 years then we do it.

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it makes no difference.

I've heard a certain member here describe the subject of the O.P. as "no different that tea partiers or other RWNJs." To date, (as in the last
50 years) has anyone heard or read of a case in which a patriot, tea partier, or Christian boarded an airliner, slashed the throats of the crew,
and crashed an airliner into a skyscraper? Not even the wack jobs at Westboro Baptist have done anything that radical.

[donttread]

I've heard a certain member here describe the subject of the O.P. as "no different that tea partiers or other RWNJs." To date, (as in the last
50 years) has anyone heard or read of a case in which a patriot, tea partier, or Christian boarded an airliner, slashed the throats of the crew,
and crashed an airliner into a skyscraper? Not even the wack jobs at Westboro Baptist have done anything that radical.


Our equivalent was droning their villages and using their homeland to play war games with Russia

[Gunny]

I agree. But there was little Arab aggression towards America until the late 70's

You mean because Western puppets pretty much ruled the ME until then? The Iranians had enough of our crap and our puppet the Shah, and they struck back.

We set up a puppet government in Vietnam and the people didn't support it. They broke and ran because they didn't have anything to fight for.

Now don't get ME wrong for a second. I joined the Marines in 1979 because I thought we were going to war with Iran. And I AM on record for calling the WH one night to bitch about Carter's stupidity. (Good thing I used my buddy's phone. :) ) But I was 19 years old.

We've exploited the ME for centuries. And what was it we did to Britain for doing that to us?

[Ransom]

I agree. But there was little Arab aggression towards America until the late 70's

But aggression towards the West and every neighbor who didn't believe what they did from the death of Mohammed

[Ransom]

You mean because Western puppets pretty much ruled the ME until then? The Iranians had enough of our crap and our puppet the Shah, and they struck back.

We ruled the ME until then.....not counting the disastrous Ottoman Empire huh? Got a history book, G?


We set up a puppet government in Vietnam and the people didn't support it. They broke and ran because they didn't have anything to fight for.

Why were they having to 'fight' anyone?


Now don't get ME wrong for a second. I joined the Marines in 1979 because I thought we were going to war with Iran. And I AM on record for calling the WH one night to bitch about Carter's stupidity. (Good thing I used my buddy's phone. :) ) But I was 19 years old.

And?


We've exploited the ME for centuries. And what was it we did to Britain for doing that to us?

What we did to Britain? What?

[Mister D]

You mean because Western puppets pretty much ruled the ME until then? The Iranians had enough of our crap and our puppet the Shah, and they struck back.

We set up a puppet government in Vietnam and the people didn't support it. They broke and ran because they didn't have anything to fight for.

Now don't get ME wrong for a second. I joined the Marines in 1979 because I thought we were going to war with Iran. And I AM on record for calling the WH one night to bitch about Carter's stupidity. (Good thing I used my buddy's phone. :) ) But I was 19 years old.

We've exploited the ME for centuries. And what was it we did to Britain for doing that to us?

We've exploited the ME for centuries? It was largely Ottoman controlled until 1918 and what exactly do you mean by exploit? Britain exploited us? How? Asking us to pay for our defense in the French and Indian War?

[Gunny]

You touched on the underlying problem. We think everyone understands us because we think everyone is the same. We assume (wrongly) that everyone has the same aspirations and its up to us to make sure they understand that. When it occurs to Americans that, no, they don't have the same aspiratios we revile them as savages.

Success breeds arrogance. They have an entirely different mindset over there. We promise them something they have no concept of (democracy) and get our feelings all hurt when they aren't appreciative. THAT is an American problem, not a right of left problem. Hell, instead of propping up some lame, Western-style government that's about as effective as ours, set up a council of those damned warlords and tell them their sand dunes are in danger.

T.E. Lawrence knew this 100 years ago and made it work in WW I. It's like my previous comments on recruiting: You offer them something they don't have any any understanding of, and you get "ho hum". Offer them a couple more sand dunes.

[Gunny]

We've exploited the ME for centuries? It was largely Ottoman controlled until 1918 and what exactly do you mean by exploit? Britain exploited us? How? Asking us to pay for our defense in the French and Indian War?

I mean "we" in the context of the West, not the US.

Britain was over-taxing us and not giving us a voice in Parliament. We were a colony. That's exploitation. As a colony not subject to our own rule rather than the rule of the Crown, why SHOULD we have to pay for own defense? It was British territory. They were defending a possession. Then tried to stiff us with the bill.

[Ransom]

I mean "we" in the context of the West, not the US.

Britain was over-taxing us and not giving us a voice in Parliament. We were a colony. That's exploitation. As a colony not subject to our own rule rather than the rule of the Crown, why SHOULD we have to pay for own defense? It was British territory. They were defending a possession. Then tried to stiff us with the bill.

We didn't mind the tax as much as we did the without representation part.

[Mister D]

I mean "we" in the context of the West, not the US.

Britain was over-taxing us and not giving us a voice in Parliament. We were a colony. That's exploitation. As a colony not subject to our own rule rather than the rule of the Crown, why SHOULD we have to pay for own defense? It was British territory. They were defending a possession. Then tried to stiff us with the bill.

The US wasn't really a "colony" in the sense that Kenya was a colony. The white dominions were colonies in the Greek sense of the term (i.e. organic extensions of the mother country). We should Britain have footed the entire debt?

[Gunny]

We ruled the ME until then.....not counting the disastrous Ottoman Empire huh? Got a history book, G?



Why were they having to 'fight' anyone?



And?



What we did to Britain? What?

Great. An expand-a-post dude. Yay.

1. We as in the West. Not specifically the US.

2. They were fighting because the former French colonists were at war with the Nationalist North. Those that were privileged under French rule were not enamored by the socialist nationalists.

3. And? I got the uniform and all the bells n whistles to prove where my loyalties lie. You? Words on a screen?

4. Britain occupied our country and exploited it. We waged a war against them that started out as mostly a guerilla war, and we used terrorism as a tactic. We defied all the rules of the day and fought like indians instead of going man-up on a battlefield. How would you like for this country to be occupied?

[Gunny]

The US wasn't really a "colony" in the sense that Kenya was a colony. The white dominions were colonies in the Greek sense of the term (i.e. organic extensions of the mother country). We should Britain have footed the entire debt?

The colonies were land claimed by Britain. In simplistic terms, if you claim something, it's yours to defend. Or let go. Britain chose to defend. That's on Britain.

[Green Arrow]

Enlighten me genius! You obviously don't have an understanding of economics.

We're in debt up to our eyeballs and despite increased taxation, we are nowhere near getting out of it. We should thus either reduce our spending so that our revenue collection exceeds spending, or we should raise revenue just above spending to accomplish the same effect. What we should not, by any means, be doing, is spending MORE money than we are already spending. That will only push us further into debt.

You want to spend more and add to the debt. If you handled your personal finances this way, you'd be bankrupt.

[Mister D]

The colonies were land claimed by Britain. In simplistic terms, if you claim something, it's yours to defend. Or let go. Britain chose to defend. That's on Britain.

The colonists expected Britain to defend the colonies. After all, it's the same country. Then they balked at a tax increase a couple decades later.

[donttread]

We've exploited the ME for centuries? It was largely Ottoman controlled until 1918 and what exactly do you mean by exploit? Britain exploited us? How? Asking us to pay for our defense in the French and Indian War?

I wholeheartedly believe this and know you are an excellent historian , so this is not a smart ass question
Before oil what was in the God forsaken place to exploit other than opium of course? Trade routes?

[Ransom]

Great. An expand-a-post dude. Yay.

1. We as in the West. Not specifically the US.

2. They were fighting because the former French colonists were at war with the Nationalist North. Those that were privileged under French rule were not enamored by the socialist nationalists.

3. And? I got the uniform and all the bells n whistles to prove where my loyalties lie. You? Words on a screen?

4. Britain occupied our country and exploited it. We waged a war against them that started out as mostly a guerilla war, and we used terrorism as a tactic. We defied all the rules of the day and fought like indians instead of going man-up on a battlefield. How would you like for this country to be occupied?

Of course we were exploited, G......we were a Colony....colonies exploited yes? Part of this 'man-up' battlefield you speak to. The French, Germans, English, Dutch, AND Ottomans exploited their colonies. And who said we weren't terrorists? We were Indian fighters, G. Cut our teeth fighting Indians, how did you think we fight? We used terror in the Civil Wars, we could scalp Indians better than they could us. So, I think you take your jump all over the board and 'west not US' back pedal and show your loyalty by going out and purchasing a history book and for God's sake don't be a Junior or Lance....actually read it!

[Codename Section]

It would be nice if the people talking about understanding Islamic terrorists actually knew something about them and didn't try to tell people dealing with them for over a decade all about it.

[donttread]

We've exploited the ME for centuries? It was largely Ottoman controlled until 1918 and what exactly do you mean by exploit? Britain exploited us? How? Asking us to pay for our defense in the French and Indian War?

Before oil what was there to exploit aside from opium? I know the brits addicted nations and of course monopolized supply. But what else Trade routes?

[Ransom]

What say many observers historical perspective goes back only 10 years......this is why our exploited colonies put the military under command of civilians in this country. Otherwise....look what you get.

[donttread]

It would be nice if the people talking about understanding Islamic terrorists actually knew something about them and didn't try to tell people dealing with them for over a decade all about it.


Well In our defense we haven't been dealing with them very effectively have we. Sometimes experience is just bad experience

[Codename Section]

Well In our defense we haven't been dealing with them very effectively have we. Sometimes experience is just bad experience

We have been dealing with them effectively. If the CIA kept out of it we could have made some progress.

[texan]

Codename are you suggestion my original points are incorrect?

[Gunny]

Of course we were exploited, G......we were a Colony....colonies exploited yes? Part of this 'man-up' battlefield you speak to. The French, Germans, English, Dutch, AND Ottomans exploited their colonies. And who said we weren't terrorists? We were Indian fighters, G. Cut our teeth fighting Indians, how did you think we fight? We used terror in the Civil Wars, we could scalp Indians better than they could us. So, I think you take your jump all over the board and 'west not US' back pedal and show your loyalty by going out and purchasing a history book and for God's sake don't be a Junior or Lance....actually read it!

I'm all over the place.

Explain how a Napoleonic battlefield driven by chivalry is answered by exploiting colonies?

Uh ... okay. I'll get a history book. Work for you? Want to give me an address to mail it to? You're in over your head and resorting to personal attacks. Either come up with something legit, or you've got nothing else to say I'm responding to.

[Gunny]

We have been dealing with them effectively. If the CIA kept out of it we could have made some progress.

Hmmm. Guess I wasn't the only one that had a run in with the spooks. Dirtbags. I wouldn't give 'em jack. I didn't know a damned thing. :)

[donttread]

We have been dealing with them effectively. If the CIA kept out of it we could have made some progress.

The CIA created the terrorist and aimed them at us. What do you want them to do everything?

[Codename Section]

Hmmm. Guess I wasn't the only one that had a rin in with the spooks. Dirtbags. I wouldn't give 'em jack. I didn't know a damned thing. :)

Unfortunately we were RECON then MARSOC so they were up our ass every day. Should have stayed in Scout Snipers.

[Gunny]

The CIA created the terrorist and aimed them at us. What do you want them to do everything?

How about those self-serving bastards get the f- out of the way? They hampered us more than they helped. If they gave us info, there was something in it for them and it didn't have a damned thing to do with winning, nor caring about American lives. It had to do with them and their "power" to manipulate. They'd play both sides just to keep sh*t stirred up.

They're no better than the terrorists. No intrigue and war, and they're out of business.

[Gunny]

Unfortunately we were RECON then MARSOC so they were up our ass every day. Should have stayed in Scout Snipers.

Bringing back some bad memories. Their spoon-fed intel got one of my Marines killed. Then they smile in your face when you come back. YOU might know just how tempted I was .....

[Ransom]

I'm all over the place.

Explain how a Napoleonic battlefield driven by chivalry is answered by exploiting colonies?

Uh ... okay. I'll get a history book. Work for you? Want to give me an address to mail it to? You're in over your head and resorting to personal attacks. Either come up with something legit, or you've got nothing else to say I'm responding to.

I couldn't care less what you respond to. And I'm in ankle deep muck as far as I can tell. I'll send you a history book, you send me a shovel for all the bs you're trying to sell.

[donttread]

How about those self-serving bastards get the f- out of the way? They hampered us more than they helped. If they gave us info, there was something in it for them and it didn't have a damned thing to do with winning, nor caring about American lives. It had to do with them and their "power" to manipulate. They'd play both sides just to keep sh*t stirred up.

They're no better than the terrorists. No intrigue and war, and they're out of business.

Makes you wonder what the whole damn thing was really about don't it?

[texan]

Greeny answer please:

They are nuts and you can't reason with them.

Given the the chance they will try and behead your child, friend & fellow Americans.

Come to grips with the fact is they are not gonna stop. It doesn't matter what you do because their demands are impossible to meet. Why? Did I mention they are crazy.

Innocent people will die in this ongoing conflict with a new name.

When end you leave them be they grow like a cancer, they are a lot less harmful when you bitch slap them regularly and if that means we leave forces for 50 years then we do it.

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it makes no difference.

[Gunny]

I couldn't care less what you respond to. And I'm in ankle deep muck as far as I can tell. I'll send you a history book, you send me a shovel for all the bs you're trying to sell.

*yawn*

Respond to the post you've tried to turn into something else, please. :)

[Codename Section]

Bringing back some bad memories. Their spoon-fed intel got one of my Marines killed. Then they smile in your face when you come back. YOU might know just how tempted I was .....

Dude...fuck yes. There was this one nerd that I wanted to grab and put through the wall because when he found out that one of our guys didn't make it back he tried to be all tough and shit and said to US, fucking US who were out there in that shit, "I'm sorry but that's the casualties of war".

[Ransom]

Makes you wonder what the whole damn thing was really about don't it?

Some of us don't have to wonder, we're informed. Moving on.

[Gunny]

Makes you wonder what the whole damn thing was really about don't it?

Nope. I know what it was about. I think I'll take a pass on trying to explain something you'll never understand.

[The Xl]

Some of us don't have to wonder, we're informed. Moving on.

Not you, though.

[Ransom]

*yawn*

Respond to the post you've tried to turn into something else, please. :)

Respond to what? Exploitation of European colonies? That America has engaged in terrorism? Want me to read a civil war novel to you. I must say though, G....I'm beginning to like you. We've needed some fresh blood, I've probably more in common than in difference....but...what exactly is it you want a response to.

[Ransom]

Not you, though.

Good one, Xl.

[Ransom]

Dude...fuck yes. There was this one nerd that I wanted to grab and put through the wall because when he found out that one of our guys didn't make it back he tried to be all tough and shit and said to US, fucking US who were out there in that shit, "I'm sorry but that's the casualties of war".

I remember a guy cutting into a conversation one time, the discussion the plight and sad realities of our American public school systems and this Cat actually chimes in and claims he's unaffected by all of it as he plans on sending his kids...when he has them that is....to private school. Talk about an argument needing to be grabbed and burying in some Wall. But it's just a talk forum and you get all types so.....

[Codename Section]

I remember a guy cutting into a conversation one time, the discussion the plight and sad realities of our American public school systems and this Cat actually chimes in and claims he's unaffected by all of it as he plans on sending his kids...when he has them that is....to private school. Talk about an argument needing to be grabbed and burying in some Wall. But it's just a talk forum and you get all types so.....

Meth is a powerful drug, Ransom. Sorry you learned the hard way.

[Gunny]

Dude...fuck yes. There was this one nerd that I wanted to grab and put through the wall because when he found out that one of our guys didn't make it back he tried to be all tough and shit and said to US, fucking US who were out there in that shit, "I'm sorry but that's the casualties of war".

Yeah. I hear you. Never had even ONE of those wimps go out with us. But they sure knew how to tell us what we should do.

[Codename Section]

Yeah. I hear you. Never had even ONE of those wimps go out with us. But they sure knew how to tell us what we should do.

((high fives))

[Peter1469]

The colonists expected Britain to defend the colonies. After all, it's the same country. Then they balked at a tax increase a couple decades later.

The colonies wanted representation. Of course the more radical wanted independence. Had King George given the colonies representation in Parliament, the radical would have lost and there would have been no American Revolution.

[Mister D]

I wholeheartedly believe this and know you are an excellent historian , so this is not a smart ass question
Before oil what was in the God forsaken place to exploit other than opium of course? Trade routes?

Appreciate the kind words. I think we agree. It's true that the Levant and other parts of the Middle East were centers of trade but European exploration ultimately broke Muslim control over Oriental trade with the west. Good question.

[Mister D]

The colonies wanted representation. Of course the more radical wanted independence. Had King George given the colonies representation in Parliament, the radical would have lost and there would have been no American Revolution.

Otherwise, he was a very successful monarch.

[Peter1469]

Otherwise, he was a very successful monarch.


Right. That is sort of a historical shame. We rebelled against their best King. :shocked:

The guy was pure class.

[Mister D]

Right. That is sort of a historical shame. We rebelled against their best King. :shocked:

The guy was pure class.

Weird when you think about it. Guess everyody fucks something up at some point.

[Ethereal]

How about those self-serving bastards get the f- out of the way? They hampered us more than they helped. If they gave us info, there was something in it for them and it didn't have a damned thing to do with winning, nor caring about American lives. It had to do with them and their "power" to manipulate. They'd play both sides just to keep sh*t stirred up.

They're no better than the terrorists. No intrigue and war, and they're out of business.

Someone's got to keep them slush funds slushy... :cool2:

[Ethereal]

Bringing back some bad memories. Their spoon-fed intel got one of my Marines killed. Then they smile in your face when you come back. YOU might know just how tempted I was .....

Fucking SCUM!!!

[Green Arrow]

Greeny answer please:

They are nuts and you can't reason with them.

Given the the chance they will try and behead your child, friend & fellow Americans.

Come to grips with the fact is they are not gonna stop. It doesn't matter what you do because their demands are impossible to meet. Why? Did I mention they are crazy.

Innocent people will die in this ongoing conflict with a new name.

When end you leave them be they grow like a cancer, they are a lot less harmful when you bitch slap them regularly and if that means we leave forces for 50 years then we do it.

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it makes no difference.

Answer what? This is a statement, not a question.

[Ethereal]

There were plenty of reasons for the revolution. Thomas Jefferson spelled them out in the DOI.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.*
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.*
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:*
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.*
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.*
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

[Mister D]

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?"

Samuel Johnson

[Ethereal]

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?"

Samuel Johnson

Thomas Jefferson tried to change the slavery laws in Virginia many times, and consistently spoke out against it. Some may ask, why didn't he just set them free then? And the answer is that the laws of Virginia were purposely designed so as to make emancipation as difficult and costly as possible. It's also worth noting that emancipation from a plantation was no guarantee of the Freeman's safety or freedom, as they were liable to be lynched or abducted by far worse characters than the kindly and enlightened Jefferson.

[Gunny]

Fucking SCUM!!!

Yeah. I let that shit eat me alive for 20 year. Cost me a lot of things I loved. In the end, they're still in business and I had to unscrew myself. Quite a defining moment in my career as a Marine though. :)

[Mister D]

Thomas Jefferson tried to change the slavery laws in Virginia many times, and consistently spoke out against it. Some may ask, why didn't he just set them free then? And the answer is that the laws of Virginia were purposely designed so as to make emancipation as difficult and costly as possible. It's also worth noting that emancipation from a plantation was no guarantee of the Freeman's safety or freedom, as they were liable to be lynched or abducted by far worse characters than the kindly and enlightened Jefferson.

When the right thing to do is "difficult and costly" it's still the right thing to do. Moreover, we're not talking about something relatively trivial but rather an abomination (or so you would think) and a glaring contradiction that calls into question all of the revolutionaries' ideals.

Secondly, Jefferson was hardly unique with his pateralistic attitude toward his Negro slaves. You found such self-serving rationalizations before and after Jefferson in spades. no pun intended.

[Ethereal]

When the right thing to do is "difficult and costly" it's still the right thing to do.

Indeed. Jefferson could have been more courageous in his crusade against slavery. He could have broken the laws of Virginia in order to free his slaves and smuggle them to Canada, risking bankruptcy and imprisonment in the process. Of course, a lot of us could be more courageous in our opposition to institutions and practices we find immoral, but, alas, we are only human.


Moreover, we're not talking about something relatively trivial but rather an abomination (or so you would think) and a glaring contradiction that calls into question all of the revolutionaries' ideals.

Yes, it was an abomination, but it was an abomination that preceded Jefferson by thousands of years, was practiced throughout the world, and enjoyed a great deal of social and institutional support in Virgina. In many ways, Jefferson was born into slavery much like the slaves he inherited as a teenager.

And Jefferson would have recognized the obvious contradiction between his ownership of slaves and his rhetoric about liberty, yet he spoke against slavery just the same, even though he knew this would open him up to charges of hypocrisy then and in the future.


Secondly, Jefferson was hardly unique with his pateralistic attitude toward his Negro slaves. You found such self-serving rationalizations before and after Jefferson in spades. no pun intended.

Was he wrong, though? Reading interviews of slaves conducted by FDR's administration reveals that a great many of them were actually quite content to live on a plantation, so long as they had a kindly master. I know that seems absurd to many modern people, but it's perfectly in line with human nature to become comfortable with familiarity, tradition, and predictability, much the same way people become institutionalized in prison. Is it any favor to send someone like that out into the wide world when they are essentially still a slave in their own head? I cannot answer that categorically, but I can understand the sentiment. It really was dangerous to leave the plantation in those days. Even educated black men who had never been enslaved were at risk of abduction and lynching (re: Solomon Northrop).

[Mister D]

Indeed. Jefferson could have been more courageous in his crusade against slavery. He could have broken the laws of Virginia in order to free his slaves and smuggle them to Canada, risking bankruptcy and imprisonment in the process. Of course, a lot of us could be more courageous in our opposition to institutions and practices we find immoral, but, alas, we are only human.



Yes, it was an abomination, but it was an abomination that preceded Jefferson by thousands of years, was practiced throughout the world, and enjoyed a great deal of social and institutional support in Virgina. In many ways, Jefferson was born into slavery much like the slaves he inherited as a teenager.

And Jefferson would have recognized the obvious contradiction between his ownership of slaves and his rhetoric about liberty, yet he spoke against slavery just the same, even though he knew this would open him up to charges of hypocrisy then and in the future.



Was he wrong, though? Reading interviews of slaves conducted by FDR's administration reveals that a great many of them were actually quite content to live on a plantation, so long as they had a kindly master. I know that seems absurd to many modern people, but it's perfectly in line with human nature to become comfortable with familiarity, tradition, and predictability, much the same way people become institutionalized in prison. Is it any favor to send someone like that out into the wide world when they are essentially still a slave in their own head? I cannot answer that categorically, but I can understand the sentiment. It really was dangerous to leave the plantation in those days. Even educated black men who had never been enslaved were at risk of abduction and lynching (re: Solomon Northrop).

It's one thing to oppose immoral institutions and practices. It's quite another to be directly engaged in those practices even while condemning them. When Chomsky was revealed to have a stock portfolio, for example, it made his critique of America seem a little less serious. I have a difficult time believing Jefferson, had he chosen to, could not have effected the freedom of his slaves. He chose not to endanger his wealth or reputation among his peers. Yes, I know he made enemies but he did not alienate his social class. He never would have, IMO.

Yes, Jefferson was very much a part of a slave owning class that dominated the south and continued to dominate the south after the revolution. How could his position not appear hypocritical (even preposterous) to any outside observer? Yes, he did speak out against slavery but, like you said, it was what he knew and ultimately accepted.

no, I don't think he was wrong. Many slaves were in fact content although that's soooo taboo these days. :grin: I'm saying that that sentiment was widespread throughout the south before and after Jefferson. It was in part probably a reflection of reality but I think it also helped to soothe guilty consciences and avoid the sort of cognitive dissonance that makes life unpleasant.

[Codename Section]

It's one thing to oppose immoral institutions and practices. It's quite another to be directly engaged in those practices even while condemning them. When Chomsky was revealed to have a stock portfolio, for example, it made his critique of America seem a little less serious. I have a difficult time believing Jefferson, had he chosen to, could not have effected the freedom of his slaves. He chose not to endanger his wealth or reputation among his peers. Yes, I know he made enemies but he did not alienate his social class. He never would have, IMO.

In the South that he lived in had he let them go it is quite possible that they would have been enslaved by someone else within a day. Happened all the time. I read that like 3/4 of the "slaves" on that plantation were related to his own daughter. That added a real snag to the overall scheme.

[Mister D]

In the South that he lived in had he let them go it is quite possible that they would have been enslaved by someone else within a day. Happened all the time. I read that like 3/4 of the "slaves" on that plantation were related to his own daughter. That added a real snag to the overall scheme.

A penchant for sleeping with your chattel puts a real snag on a lot more than that. :wink: Moreover, he died in 1826 by which time manumission was significantly easier.

[Mister D]

Anyway, the quote was about an entire social system not a single man. My obvious and frequently expressed disdain for Jefferson is motivated by his politics (i.e. his liberalism) not his racism or his wealth.

[Animal Mother]

A penchant for sleeping with your chattel puts a real snag on a lot more than that. :wink: Moreover, he died in 1826 by which time manumission was significantly easier.

The laws were easier the process wasn't. I lived (parents still do) in New Kent, VA right outside Colonial Williamsburg and slavery was debated in our high school. I did all this research on it because I was actually borderline studious and if you look up the papers versus when they actually were free it could take like ten years even though the laws changed and you had to have all sorts of proof that most people didn't have. This one black man saved money to buy his freedom by the time he was 35 and his master got his paperwork processed that year. He wasn't actually free until he was close to 50.

That's total shit, too. I can't even think of how many people I would kill if I had to wait that long.

[Animal Mother]

I would have been like the worst slave. I would have totally killed my master and been chased down with dogs. I hate authority.

[Mister D]

bbl in AM.

[Peter1469]

I would have been like the worst slave. I would have totally killed my master and been chased down with dogs. I hate authority.

Slaves were valuable. If you played your cards right you would do very little work and live a reasonable life if you could hunt on your own. That was why the slave system was collapsing.

[Ethereal]

It's one thing to oppose immoral institutions and practices. It's quite another to be directly engaged in those practices even while condemning them.

Aside from bankrupting his estate and running off with his slaves to Canada, what else do you think he could have done?


When Chomsky was revealed to have a stock portfolio, for example, it made his critique of America seem a little less serious. I have a difficult time believing Jefferson, had he chosen to, could not have effected the freedom of his slaves. He chose not to endanger his wealth or reputation among his peers. Yes, I know he made enemies but he did not alienate his social class. He never would have, IMO.

I already conceded that point. Jefferson could have broken the laws of Virginia, stiffed his creditors, and ran off to Canada with his slaves, leaving his family to clean up the mess. Had he done as much, he would likely be considered a hero for all time. Instead, he settled for being a benevolent master who publicly attacked the institution of slavery while trying to abolish it through official channels.


Yes, Jefferson was very much a part of a slave owning class that dominated the south and continued to dominate the south after the revolution. How could his position not appear hypocritical (even preposterous) to any outside observer? Yes, he did speak out against slavery but, like you said, it was what he knew and ultimately accepted.

It would have been a lot easier for him to just say and do nothing in support of the nascent abolitionist movement.


no, I don't think he was wrong. Many slaves were in fact content although that's soooo taboo these days. :grin: I'm saying that that sentiment was widespread throughout the south before and after Jefferson. It was in part probably a reflection of reality but I think it also helped to soothe guilty consciences and avoid the sort of cognitive dissonance that makes life unpleasant.

No doubt, but I don't think Jefferson was insincere in his concern for their welfare.

[protectionist]

No, but how is bombing them over there going to prevent that when they are already here waiting to strike?

The idea is to obliterate them in ALL the places they may be, until there is nothing left of them. Of course, we should go after them HERE in America too.

[Green Arrow]

The idea is to obliterate them in ALL the places they may be, until there is nothing left of them. Of course, we should go after them HERE in America too.

How? Drop hellfires on Michigan?

[protectionist]

They are nuts and you can't reason with them.

Given the the chance they will try and behead your child, friend & fellow Americans.

Come to grips with the fact is they are not gonna stop. It doesn't matter what you do because their demands are impossible to meet. Why? Did I mention they are crazy.

Innocent people will die in this ongoing conflict with a new name.

When end you leave them be they grow like a cancer, they are a lot less harmful when you bitch slap them regularly and if that means we leave forces for 50 years then we do it.

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it makes no difference.

I sense that most people still don't understand Islamic jihad. They don't realize that we're in a World War against it > ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, al Shabbab, al Nusra, Boko Haram, and dozens more. They all share a common goal. To establish a world islamic state and get rid of everyone who doesn't go along with it. That is what is so similar to the Nazis of World War II.

[protectionist]

You really need to look at the ties of radical Islam to Nazi Germany!

They had world domination in mind then too

BINGO!! A close parallel. :yepp:

[protectionist]

I also think most if not all Islamists are quite sincere.

No they're not. They practice taqiyya to the level of an art form. They should all be used car salesmen.

[protectionist]

How? Drop hellfires on Michigan?

You're being deliberately obtuse. That reminds me. Are you a mod ? Who bounced me out of my own thread ? You know the one all those liberal loons ganged up on me, and you made the grand announcement. I need an explanation for that. You announced my ban. You give the explanation WHY.

Also, no Islamization quiz from you after you said you were going to take the quiz. 3 days ago. Punked out ??? Maybe I'll give you a shortened version - only 20 items (5 points each) You game ?

[protectionist]

It would be nice if the people talking about understanding Islamic terrorists actually knew something about them and didn't try to tell people dealing with them for over a decade all about it.

Dealing with them how ? Shooting at them ? Or talking to them ?

One way to understand them is to put their history side by side with the suras of their Koran. They fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

[protectionist]

The CIA created the terrorist and aimed them at us. What do you want them to do everything?

FALSE! The Koran created the terrorists. THe CIA wasn't there when this stuff happened >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

[Green Arrow]

You're being deliberately obtuse. That reminds me. Are you a mod ? Who bounced me out of my own thread ? You know the one all those liberal loons ganged up on me, and you made the grand announcement. I need an explanation for that. You announced my ban. You give the explanation WHY.

Questioning moderation actions on the open forum is against the rules. If you want to know, you'll have to ask in a PM.

[Green Arrow]

No they're not. They practice taqiyya to the level of an art form. They should all be used car salesmen.

Actually, no, you clearly don't understand taqiyya. Taqiyya is explicitly only for use when a believer is facing persecution. It is not carte blanche to lie all the time.

[protectionist]

Questioning moderation actions on the open forum is against the rules. If you want to know, you'll have to ask in a PM.

I already PMd you. You refused to answer.

[protectionist]

Actually, no, you clearly don't understand taqiyya. Taqiyya is explicitly only for use when a believer is facing persecution. It is not carte blanche to lie all the time.

The first thing you need to learn is to never question me on Islamization. Just say "Yes Master", and then be quiet, while I teach you. What you just said is a prime example of Islamist propaganda. What you described is the ORIGINAL, classical definition of taqiyya which is centuries old. That has changed over time.

Now in modern times, when we speak of taqiyya, it means lying that Muslims do, which is considered OK by them, as long as it somehow furthers Islam. Trust me. This is correct. You must have faith. I am the master of your Islamization knowledge future (unless you read the books I prescribed)

[Green Arrow]

I already PMd you. You refused to answer.

I don't have any PMs from you. Try sending it again.

[Green Arrow]

The first thing you need to learn is to never question me on Islamization. Just say "Yes Master", and then be quiet, while I teach you. What you just said is a prime example of Islamist propaganda. What you described is the ORIGINAL, classical definition of taqiyya which is centuries old. That has changed over time.

Now in modern times, when we speak of taqiyya, it means lying that Muslims do, which is considered OK by them, as long as it somehow furthers Islam. Trust me. This is correct. You must have faith. I am the master of your Islamization knowledge future (unless you read the books I prescribed)

Completely, laughably false, but have fun with that.

[Peter1469]

I sense that most people still don't understand Islamic jihad. They don't realize that we're in a World War against it > ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, al Shabbab, al Nusra, Boko Haram, and dozens more. They all share a common goal. To establish a world islamic state and get rid of everyone who doesn't go along with it. That is what is so similar to the Nazis of World War II.

They do not have the ability to achieve their goals. Pull yourself together.

[Mister D]

Aside from bankrupting his estate and running off with his slaves to Canada, what else do you think he could have done?

When your wealth is based on the ownership of human beings I guess freeing those people will have a severe financial impact. An impact he' preferred to avoid. That's sort of the point. Secondly, I think you are exaggerating Jefferson's difficulties particularly after 1780.



I already conceded that point. Jefferson could have broken the laws of Virginia, stiffed his creditors, and ran off to Canada with his slaves, leaving his family to clean up the mess. Had he done as much, he would likely be considered a hero for all time. Instead, he settled for being a benevolent master who publicly attacked the institution of slavery while trying to abolish it through official channels.

Again, I don't believe for a second that freeing his slaves would have been resulted in some kind of apocalypse. I'm not sure where you get that idea from. There was a window of several decades after the revolution in which Jefferson would not have had nearly as much difficulty as you describe. He just didn't do it because he was, IMO, much more complacent about slavery than his rhetoric woudl suggest.


It would have been a lot easier for him to just say and do nothing in support of the nascent abolitionist movement.

I'm not suggesting he did nothing. I'm saying that his ownership of other people really stands out when you consider his egalitarian rhetoric. One would think he would take more radical action. One would think they all would. Would you at least agree that it looks bad? Even perhaps ridiculous to an observer such as Samuel Johnson?


No doubt, but I don't think Jefferson was insincere in his concern for their welfare.

Honestly, I think many if not most planters were concerned for the welfare of their slaves. Actually, I think that's obvious when you look at the records. The depiction of North American slavery on The History Channel, for example, is downright silly. It's cartoonish.