How does that fix the injustice of the crusades?
What do you want me to tell ya bubbalo, we are not going to justify, condemn, or feel responsible for events that happened over 1000 years. Regardless of what has happened in history, there is no justification for 911 or any islamic terrorism.Bubbalo wrote:
How does that fix the injustice of the crusades?
If we must define ourselves by " how much we mourn " or Who " feels more pity ". Can we pick a more current tragedy? The Crusades took place several Centuries ago, our country didn't exist yet. the Empires that fought in them have long since vanished. What may have happened to someones ancestors is not relay steeped in fact. Most of these people can not even trace their lineage back to those times with any real certainty. Can we try and stay " less abstract " in our thinking. Or maybe find something more legitimate to mourn if mourn we must ?
Are you really not getting what I'm saying? I'm saying that it was a problem BEFORE Clinton and no one did anything. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and it would have been Bush too if 9/11 hadn't happened. Period.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhh i think you are mistaken, Terrorism was no concern of the Clinton administration, AND WE WERE ATTACKED SEVERAL TIMES UNDER HIS TERM IN OFFICE. He did nothing. Bush is doing something.......give him the credit he deserves already.
We were attacked several times in the last 30-40 years and no one really made a concerted effor until 9/11 got our attention. Not just Clinton. Seriously, I know you've been told it was all Clinton's fault but if you look at history you'll see otherwise.
Last edited by mpsmith (2006-07-09 15:04:02)
Why should we ignore the Crusades? It is easy for there to be percieved continuity through the Colonial age. What, we get to run around killing Muslims in their homeland, and then when they turn around and do the same we condemn the because now we know better? Cold comfort.
I understand what you're saying, but I really don't think the Crusades are relevent today. I think aiming at European imperialism is a better place to start.Bubbalo wrote:
Why should we ignore the Crusades? It is easy for there to be percieved continuity through the Colonial age. What, we get to run around killing Muslims in their homeland, and then when they turn around and do the same we condemn the because now we know better? Cold comfort.
But the Crusades are the earliest example of influence in Middle East by modern European nations, and there is continuity from then to now. Besides which, lowing was the one who said that Muslims have a history of violence.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-09 15:35:47)
So what?.......Again, I said what I said about the middle east because it has always been a violent region. I really don't care about the crusades, it has no bearing in the context of the violence coming from the middle east, that affects the world now. And by that I mean nobody cares that they were fucked over 1000 years ago, they need not try and return the favor.Bubbalo wrote:
But the Crusades are the earliest example of influence in Middle East by modern European nations, and there is continuity from then to now. Besides which, lowing was the one who said that Muslims have a history of violence.
Did any one of you yankees have heard about "Operation Northwoods" ? Check it on wiki. Then just change few dates and few names... you will understand what you have to change when you see it.
I'm familiar with the idea, and so it's not very novel to me.
As for the Middle East having a history of violence... What is that compared to, exactly? I think the same can be said about any part of the world at any time during history. Which cultures waged wars that killed tens of millions of people in just a few years? Hint: not the Middle East. You can't just say "they've always been violent and still are violent"- it's terribly ignorant and thinking like that is what caused (or did nothing to prevent at the very least) the present-day problems in the first place.
I'm sorry but you'll have to make a better argument than that to convince anyone but those who already want to believe such a simple idea. Bubbalo's point about the crusades is more relevent than the ignorant claim that the region has a history of violence.
As for the Middle East having a history of violence... What is that compared to, exactly? I think the same can be said about any part of the world at any time during history. Which cultures waged wars that killed tens of millions of people in just a few years? Hint: not the Middle East. You can't just say "they've always been violent and still are violent"- it's terribly ignorant and thinking like that is what caused (or did nothing to prevent at the very least) the present-day problems in the first place.
I'm sorry but you'll have to make a better argument than that to convince anyone but those who already want to believe such a simple idea. Bubbalo's point about the crusades is more relevent than the ignorant claim that the region has a history of violence.
the difference being, between the Middle east and the rest of the world, is that the rest of us are striving for a better world than what was left us. The middle east has been fighting and dying for the same bullshit for 5 thousand years. There is no evidence anywhere that would suggest that will ever change in the next 5 thousand frickin years. It is almost like they can't even remember what the hell they are fighting for, it is just that their fathers and grandfathers did it, so they figure they gotta.mpsmith wrote:
I'm familiar with the idea, and so it's not very novel to me.
As for the Middle East having a history of violence... What is that compared to, exactly? I think the same can be said about any part of the world at any time during history. Which cultures waged wars that killed tens of millions of people in just a few years? Hint: not the Middle East. You can't just say "they've always been violent and still are violent"- it's terribly ignorant and thinking like that is what caused (or did nothing to prevent at the very least) the present-day problems in the first place.
I'm sorry but you'll have to make a better argument than that to convince anyone but those who already want to believe such a simple idea. Bubbalo's point about the crusades is more relevent than the ignorant claim that the region has a history of violence.
both ideologies were equally guilty of perpetrating horrors of the crusadesBubbalo wrote:
And what has been done to fix up the injustice of the crusades?lowing wrote:
I can condemn their actions today, and I can say the same thing about the crusades, no difference. in todays thinking, neither can be justified.
Christians were the aggressors. Regardless, we've been led off on a tangent. My point is that to charactise the Middle East as more violent, historically, than Europe, is false.kr@cker wrote:
both ideologies were equally guilty of perpetrating horrors of the crusades
granted, but read up 3 posts for the difference as I see it.Bubbalo wrote:
Christians were the aggressors. Regardless, we've been led off on a tangent. My point is that to charactise the Middle East as more violent, historically, than Europe, is false.kr@cker wrote:
both ideologies were equally guilty of perpetrating horrors of the crusades
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-09 20:19:38)
I think that much of what you say is merely opinion. You claim that we're trying to improve the world, but they claim that we are harming it. Take a second to see their point of view (and this isn't just the Middle East who feels this way)- we prop up illegitimate governments to secure OUR interests throughout the world with little regard to the local problems it causes.lowing wrote:
the difference being, between the Middle east and the rest of the world, is that the rest of us are striving for a better world than what was left us. The middle east has been fighting and dying for the same bullshit for 5 thousand years. There is no evidence anywhere that would suggest that will ever change in the next 5 thousand frickin years. It is almost like they can't even remember what the hell they are fighting for, it is just that their fathers and grandfathers did it, so they figure they gotta.
The latter half of the 20th century and the 21st centuries are about oil. Don't believe anything else because oil is the US' blood and without it we would fall apart. Countless tens of thousands of people have died because of it- directly or indirectly. While their reaction is completely unacceptable, we are hardly innocent.
The difference between the Middle East and Europe (to say the rest of the world is silly, Asia and Africa have different histories again) is that Europes spent the last 2000 years improving their standard of living at the expense of everyone else, the Middle East has largely internalised it's struggles (the most notable exception to this being Turkey, which is the most European Middle East nation, if that makes any sense). I would also suggest that the Middle East was more honorable and humane, but that's beside the point.
You really make it sound as if the US is the only country on earth that uses and needs oil, and that we are STEALING it. I kinda thought every country in the world uses it and needs it. Also, we are BUYING the oil, are we not? Is it our fault that the richest countries in the world, ( the oil producing countries, except for Kuwait etc.) hog all the money for the royalty and do nothing for its people except keep them oppressed? Is there really any reason, with all the money pouring to Iraq, Iran etc....... that these people should be living like they are, except for their oppressive govts? Any chance that if these people were offered any kind of quality of life that maybe, just maybe, they might have something to live for, other than their 70 virgins at the time of death?mpsmith wrote:
I think that much of what you say is merely opinion. You claim that we're trying to improve the world, but they claim that we are harming it. Take a second to see their point of view (and this isn't just the Middle East who feels this way)- we prop up illegitimate governments to secure OUR interests throughout the world with little regard to the local problems it causes.lowing wrote:
the difference being, between the Middle east and the rest of the world, is that the rest of us are striving for a better world than what was left us. The middle east has been fighting and dying for the same bullshit for 5 thousand years. There is no evidence anywhere that would suggest that will ever change in the next 5 thousand frickin years. It is almost like they can't even remember what the hell they are fighting for, it is just that their fathers and grandfathers did it, so they figure they gotta.
The latter half of the 20th century and the 21st centuries are about oil. Don't believe anything else because oil is the US' blood and without it we would fall apart. Countless tens of thousands of people have died because of it- directly or indirectly. While their reaction is completely unacceptable, we are hardly innocent.
The lack of quality of life for these people is not the fault of the US. They have the equivalent of gold beneath their feet and there are countries lined up to buy it from them, not steal it. Yet the vast majority of them are drowning in poverty.
So tell me more about how humane the middle east is bubbalo.
Ok, sure. Shall we talk about how Coalition forces attacked retreating vehicles in the first Gulf War? Or shall we go back a little and talk about how the US supports dictatorships, including Saddam and the Taliban? Or shoud we go back even further, and discuss how Europe controlled it's colonies? Meanwhile, perhaps you need to learn that proper nouns are capitalised.
what's wrong with attacking retreating forces? A tank that doesn't make it to the motor pool today is one that won't be shooting at you tomorrow. You're also over-simplifying things, it was more of a the enemy of my enemy is my friend, rather than full on support, and was in response to the big red machine doing the same. I'm curious who writes your history books, how they conveniently ignore Moor invasions of Jerusalem and southern europe. As well as centuries of Islamic rulers having a policy of forced religious conversion for centuries before the first crusaders left europe.
1) The part where it was a road full of people running away doesn't bother you at all? What were they going to do, run the planes to death?
2) Why the US did it is irrelevant to the fact that they did it. You can't support a dictatorship and then play the "How nice are we" card
3) Jerusalem is in the Middle East, it's what the Crusades were aimed at capturing. And the invasion of Spain was an incident which occured after the Crusades began.
2) Why the US did it is irrelevant to the fact that they did it. You can't support a dictatorship and then play the "How nice are we" card
3) Jerusalem is in the Middle East, it's what the Crusades were aimed at capturing. And the invasion of Spain was an incident which occured after the Crusades began.
You will notice it is always a " New line of argument " Never is a single point addressed or defended once it is shown to be flawed. The original thought is instantly abandon.
Wow way to go with the capture of somebody who was saying something, who was about to start planing this, getting suplies and even getting across the border. I'm sure you can arrest 6 out of 10 Iraq'es under the same pretenses. I feel much safer now, and the Iraq war and the war on terror is Bushes biggest failure, because I'm sure North Korea was shooting off rockets to celebrate the 4th of July.
And I love how you can say blame clinton for 9/11 because the fuse was lit when Bush got into office. If I quit a job and the next day the person whose working my same register is short, is it my fault?
And I love how you can say blame clinton for 9/11 because the fuse was lit when Bush got into office. If I quit a job and the next day the person whose working my same register is short, is it my fault?
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-07-10 10:18:40)
Horseman: Where have I changed my line of argument? kr@cker raised three points, and I responded to three points. Reading comprehension FTW!!
In response to the claim that the Middle East never was, is, or is going to be westernized, you need a history lesson. The old Persian and even Ottoman empires were very cultured, with incredible art, architecture, and liturature. Don't just make baseless claims because they go along with your argument.
Another point: Timothy McVeigh, one of the only convicted terrorists the U.S. has ever seen was White, American, AND a former soldier. Should we go around profiling Armed Forces veterans? Of course not, that is ridiculous. So is racial profiliing of Arabs. But then again, its not about racial profiling. It is about humans' innate xenophobia. Thank you Lowing for bringing up old news to allow this debate to continue
Another point: Timothy McVeigh, one of the only convicted terrorists the U.S. has ever seen was White, American, AND a former soldier. Should we go around profiling Armed Forces veterans? Of course not, that is ridiculous. So is racial profiliing of Arabs. But then again, its not about racial profiling. It is about humans' innate xenophobia. Thank you Lowing for bringing up old news to allow this debate to continue
Quoted for truth. Many of you need history lessons, it seems. On both sides of this argument.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
In response to the claim that the Middle East never was, is, or is going to be westernized, you need a history lesson. The old Persian and even Ottoman empires were very cultured, with incredible art, architecture, and liturature. Don't just make baseless claims because they go along with your argument.
Another point: Timothy McVeigh, one of the only convicted terrorists the U.S. has ever seen was White, American, AND a former soldier. Should we go around profiling Armed Forces veterans? Of course not, that is ridiculous. So is racial profiliing of Arabs. But then again, its not about racial profiling. It is about humans' innate xenophobia. Thank you Lowing for bringing up old news to allow this debate to continue
And Lowing, when I say "us" I mean any western power (I already gave a list earlier that specified a number of countries other than the US). Regimes that keep the standard of living low for 98% of the populace are often supported by other countries (any on that list) simply because the regime offers cheap oil. That's just one example of how we hurt Middle Eastern countries.
Last edited by mpsmith (2006-07-10 16:29:57)