Fort Hood - Political Correctness at it's worst

[Mariatenebre]

You didn't prove anything, you made some bald assertions that were not backed up by any facts.

No I am quoting from facts in history which are common knowledge. Your assertions were at best short sited and as many others have said based on foolish Cultural Relativism and PCness

 

[Mariatenebre]

Could you be so kind as to list the 'Muslim Wars' you are referring to.




I don't think I need to return to school. I learned much of what you learned but came to realize certain constants which need to be separated from the occasional.

The constant is men only fight for one thing which is land the occasional is the reasons they choose to give for fighting over said land or put another way the organizing principle they use to get men to actually fight which are ethnic, religious and national. You focus way too much on how wars are sold to those who will fight them and don't seem to understand that the given reasons are little more than cheap rationalizations to those who hope to profit from the activity of war.

Well for one the War on Terror now is based on fighting radical Islam. The Crusades are one of them as are countless others that would take too much time to name.

Land is not the only reason people fight. In fact religious means of war could have nothing to do with land. It usually is about killing and destroying the infidel with no logic other then that. Political wars are very different and usually are fought over complex political means.

 

[naked gent]

Well for one the War on Terror now is based on fighting radical Islam. The Crusades are one of them as are countless others that would take too much time to name.

Well given the west was the invading army during The Crusades I don't see how you can pin that one on Islam. I'm confident that you'll do so anyway but when you start with the answer thats what you get.

Land is not the only reason people fight. In fact religious means of war could have nothing to do with land. It usually is about killing and destroying the infidel with no logic other then that. Political wars are very different and usually are fought over complex political means.

If you could provide me with an example of a religious or political war which was disconnected from land I'd be interested in seeing it. After the infidel is destroyed his land is there for the taking is it not?

I've always thought the war which concerns al-Qaeda was always doomed to failure from their perspective because it was not connected to land. If you can provide me with an example of a successful war which was won and no land was involved I'd be interested in seeing that too.

I'm sure you were given examples in school.

 

[Kulindahr]

You focus way too much on how wars are sold to those who will fight them and don't seem to understand that the given reasons are little more than cheap rationalizations to those who hope to profit from the activity of war.

One wonders who made the "Deus vult" cure cards for the crowds who came to hear Pope Urban....

 

[Kulindahr]

Well given the west was the invading army during The Crusades I don't see how you can pin that one on Islam. I'm confident that you'll do so anyway but when you start with the answer thats what you get.

The Muslims took it from Christians to begin with.

Okay, sure; it was a different set of Christians, the new ones weren't going to give it back to the original owners.....

 

[naked gent]

One wonders who made the "Deus vult" cure cards for the crowds who came to hear Pope Urban....

Thats the kind of 'war marketing' I'm talking about.

The Muslims took it from Christians to begin with.

And who was it that the land you currently stand on was taken from?

 

[Kulindahr]

And who was it that the land you currently stand on was taken from?

My ancestors.

By my other ancestors.

While others of my ancestors were in it unwillingly.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Well given the west was the invading army during The Crusades I don't see how you can pin that one on Islam. I'm confident that you'll do so anyway but when you start with the answer thats what you get.



If you could provide me with an example of a religious or political war which was disconnected from land I'd be interested in seeing it. After the infidel is destroyed his land is there for the taking is it not?

I've always thought the war which concerns al-Qaeda was always doomed to failure from their perspective because it was not connected to land. If you can provide me with an example of a successful war which was won and no land was involved I'd be interested in seeing that too.

I'm sure you were given examples in school.

First of all the Muslims took the land from the Christians.

Next I never said that these religious wars were totally disconnnected from politics. What I said was that they are very different from wars driven purely by politics On al-Quaeda yes I would agree they probably will not have any major success asided from the back wards places they operate. I suppose land does figure into many of the success stories however in religious wars they are not the primary goal.

 

[01solara]

Ever hear of the Ottoman Empire?

Are you saying we attacked because we were a "Christian" nation and they were muslims. I would love to see you back that up with facts. You know as well as I do religion was not the issue in WWII. Since the lord god and messiah obama has declared we are not a Christian nation and have so many muslims now, I guess the USA now fights with the blessing of allah.

 

[naked gent]

Since the lord god and messiah obama has declared we are not a Christian nation

Wasn't it the Founding Fathers who decreed that we are not a christian nation?

If their separation of church and state was not for that purpose do tell why did they bother to insist on it?

 

[01solara]

Wasn't it the Founding Fathers who decreed that we are not a christian nation?

If their separation of church and state was not for that purpose do tell why did they bother to insist on it?

Fine but you can't say our wars were christians attacking muslims if we aren't a christian nation to begin with. A lot of the muslim countries are very theocratic we are not. They fight based on religion we don't. Trying to portray our efforts to stop muslims from attacking innocent civilians as a war on islam is ridiculous. They have declared war on us we are just responding. If we hadn't there would have been more attacks on our soil. If you will remember the talking heads after 9/11 most of them were predicting that such attacks would become part of our lives just as they are in Israel. They were wrong because we had a president for all his flaws that was able to make a decision and stick with it through the hard unpopular parts. That takes a lot more strength than many of you realize. If there had not been a 9/11 we would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. You can all say we were going to Iraq anyway but you cannot prove it. Most of those theories are based on blind hatred of George Bush and nothing more. My god the man goes to see the folks at Fort Hood and a lot of you construe it as evil. To quote Chance you just can't make this shit up.

 

[naked gent]

First of all the Muslims took the land from the Christians.

Well if thats the story then the Christians took it from the Romans who took it from the Jews to whom it was given to by Almighty God as any good Israeli can tell you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you saying we attacked because we were a "Christian" nation and they were muslims. I would love to see you back that up with facts. You know as well as I do religion was not the issue in WWII. Since the lord god and messiah obama has declared we are not a Christian nation and have so many muslims now, I guess the USA now fights with the blessing of allah.

What does the Ottoman Empire have to do with WWII?

 

[JB3]

Wasn't it the Founding Fathers who decreed that we are not a christian nation?

If their separation of church and state was not for that purpose do tell why did they bother to insist on it?

They said that we were not GOVERNED as a christian nation, but they very much embraced their christianity. There's a difference there that I don't think you grasp.

And the founders did not insist on separation of church and state, they didn't want a state sanctioned religion or religious tests for office-holders. The proponents of separation took ONE LINE from ONE LETTER, and have used it to change the idea of church and state from that which the founders intended.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Well if thats the story then the Christians took it from the Romans who took it from the Jews to whom it was given to by Almighty God as any good Israeli can tell you.

They didn't take it from the Romans. They were the Romans.
(Who happened to had moved their capital from Rome to Constantinople and had converted to Christianity and taken to speaking Greek).

 

[palemale]

Are you saying we attacked because we were a "Christian" nation and they were muslims. I would love to see you back that up with facts. You know as well as I do religion was not the issue in WWII. Since the lord god and messiah obama has declared we are not a Christian nation and have so many muslims now, I guess the USA now fights with the blessing of allah.

No, I am not saying we attacked because we were a Christian nation. You asked what Muslim countries we attacked during WW1, WW!!, Korea and Vietnam. I answered. The allies attacked the Muslim Ottoman Empire during WWI (not WWII).

 

[naked gent]

Fine but you can't say our wars were christians attacking muslims if we aren't a christian nation to begin with. A lot of the muslim countries are very theocratic we are not. They fight based on religion we don't.

I never said we are christians attacking muslims. I only said both religions have engaged in violence when it suited their purposes and what they preach takes a back seat to those purposes.

If you will remember the talking heads after 9/11 most of them were predicting that such attacks would become part of our lives just as they are in Israel. They were wrong because we had a president for all his flaws that was able to make a decision and stick with it through the hard unpopular parts.

Actually what I remember is that it was the Bush Administration which told us that al-Qaeda already had hundreds of terror cells inside this country and I recall Dick Cheney saying "we will be hit again".

Nothing like exaggerating a threat for political purposed is there?

And the unpopular 'decision' that Bush 'stuck' with concerned the war in Iraq which everyone knows now had nothing to do with 9-11.

They said that we were not GOVERNED as a christian nation, but they very much embraced their christianity. There's a difference there that I don't think you grasp.

Perhaps I don't but as children of The Enlightenment I think they meant what they clearly said which was no government establishment of religion and that no religion would be prohibited which also means we might be governed by the values of another religion if we choose to do so.

I also understand that had the Christian right written The Constitution they would have left that part out so at the very least The founders were less religious than many registered republicans claim to be today.

And the founders did not insist on separation of church and state, they didn't want a state sanctioned religion or religious tests for office-holders. The proponents of separation took ONE LINE from ONE LETTER, and have used it to change the idea of church and state from that which the founders intended.

Thats an opinion with which The Supreme Court does not agree with. Evidently it means one thing to them and something completely different to you.

 

[palemale]

They said that we were not GOVERNED as a christian nation, but they very much embraced their christianity. There's a difference there that I don't think you grasp.

And the founders did not insist on separation of church and state, they didn't want a state sanctioned religion or religious tests for office-holders. The proponents of separation took ONE LINE from ONE LETTER, and have used it to change the idea of church and state from that which the founders intended.

The founders of this country, like most thinkers of the Enlightenment, were profoundly hostile to organized religion. They were Deists, in that the believed in God, but that was as far as it went. They were deeply distrustful of organized religion, having seen and been aware of the havoc that the religious wars of Europe caused.

 

[Kulindahr]

They said that we were not GOVERNED as a christian nation, but they very much embraced their christianity. There's a difference there that I don't think you grasp.

Embraced their Christianity....

Well, that leaves out Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Morris (IIRC) and quite a number of others -- they didn't have any Christianity to embrace.

 

[JB3]

The founders of this country, like most thinkers of the Enlightenment, were profoundly hostile to organized religion. They were Deists, in that the believed in God, but that was as far as it went. They were deeply distrustful of organized religion, having seen and been aware of the havoc that the religious wars of Europe caused.

Not all of them were. As a matter of fact, the majority of them were christians.