"Americans kill dozens of prisoners"

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

What are you talking about? Hitler never sent a bomb to North America, but we still shed American blood over the Old World (Europe)... twice in fact.

The USA entered WWI because an American passengership (the Lusithania, if I remember correctly) was sank by torpedos by German U-boats.

In the second World War the USA joined the allied forces when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese and by declaring war on Japan, they also did on their allies the Germans (and Italians).

In both cases thus the USA only entered the war after being attacked itself, while in both cases there was much more evidence of wrong-doing as in the case of the invasion of Iraq, so please don't bend history to fit your needs, Chase.

[uncertaindrumer]

Are you guys saying somehow its WRONG to not enter a war...? That is confusing.

And RalphyS, of course you don't think there is a true religion. Aren't you an atheist? But don't tell me the Crusaders were even "more cruel". First, they were fighting a defensive war, second, war is ALWAYS bad and there will always be abuses. But they were only trying to take back what Islam had taken already. Third, how does one define being "more cruel"? I mean, doesn't killing anyone who converts from Islam qualify as pretty darn cruel?

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend.

I'm not saying the war on Iraq is good or that America is perfect or anything like that, but it is not because we are intolerant that we have done things.

And actually, Ralph makes a very good point about the Soviet Union being a sort of counter balance to America. I think America was probably headed down its current path anyway. After the WWII generation made us a superpower, the baby boomers used our extreme riches and influence to buy SUV's and other wasteful unnecessary things. Still, the end of the USSR probably accelerated this at the very least.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

WOW!!!!!! Now you will help me to put my point....America (West) simply doenst CARE about others people...countries.. social probelms ...dictaorships ...abuses...whatever...you just care NOW...because you were attacked in your 'happy way of life'...and now you noticed that Islamic world exists...

Its a very christian position btw...

now I noticed the Islamic world exists? I always knew about the Islamic world. Unlike most, I actually know some history--something America's public school system does a crappy job of teaching, like almost everything else--and know just how big a problem they have always been. Try to think of a major period in the last 13 centuries when the Middle East HASN'T had lots of problems.... Won't happen.

As for proving your point... I said "I" Don't care what they think. My country for the most part does, but as far as my bias versus their bias, DUH! Of course I am biased. And I said I don't care what they think, not what they do.

I am surprised, you being somewhat feminist, that you don't hold a rather large grudge against Islam for continually holding your entire gender in relative contempt.

And as for the social rights thing, you are doing what I said not to. You claim they are important but have no basis for that. You can't just out of thin air claim something is important. Are you religious Ana? If not, where do you gt the idea that social rights are important? After all, in America we have plenty, and you seem to hate America.

Well that's all the unpolitically correct vituperations I've got time for right now. Cheers people.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Are you guys saying somehow its WRONG to not enter a war...? That is confusing.

And RalphyS, of course you don't think there is a true religion. Aren't you an atheist? But don't tell me the Crusaders were even "more cruel". First, they were fighting a defensive war, second, war is ALWAYS bad and there will always be abuses. But they were only trying to take back what Islam had taken already. Third, how does one define being "more cruel"? I mean, doesn't killing anyone who converts from Islam qualify as pretty darn cruel?

I never stated anywhere that it is wrong to not enter a war. Chase has a habit of comparing the offensive war in Iraq with his version of the 2 World Wars, where the USA came to the rescue of the Allied Nations 'out of the goodness of their heart' without any need to do so.

And although history is usually rewritten by the winners of the latest war, I once again couldn't let it slip by. Ofcourse I cannot deny that we owe a gratitude of debt to the USA for their part in the eventual victory in WWII, as we also do to England and Canada.

To describe the crusader's position as a defensive one is also an own interpretation of history. At one time the first Christians came to Jerusalem and it wasn't a Christian nation so it had to be conquered. I think, without looking this up now, that the crusades took place over a period of at least 2 centuries and the offensive and defensive parties changed all the time. If you come from France and England and other parts of Central or Western Europe with your armies to wage a war in Israel/Palestine I would not call it a defensive position. And the crusaders were very well known for being, to put it very mildly, harsh when conquering cities in the region, while the armies of Saladin were at times very generous to those who surrendered. Not to say that it is a totally reliable historical account, but watch the movie 'Kingdom of heaven' for a bit of an inkling of the situation. Ofcourse there is more and better literature on the subject.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I never stated anywhere that it is wrong to not enter a war. Chase has a habit of comparing the offensive war in Iraq with his version of the 2 World Wars, where the USA came to the rescue of the Allied Nations 'out of the goodness of their heart' without any need to do so.

Well. Yeah. Chase has a habit of stretching things to defend the war on Iraq, but you can't blame him. You kinda have to stretch things to defend this war, heh.

Quote:

And although history is usually rewritten by the winners of the latest war, I once again couldn't let it slip by. Ofcourse I cannot deny that we owe a gratitude of debt to the USA for their part in the eventual victory in WWII, as we also do to England and Canada.

Come on, don't make yourself look stupid by pretending Canada was responsible for WWII victory. Say what you will about the U.S. but we won that war. Sure others--especially Britain--helped, but without the U.S., not a chance.

Quote:

To describe the crusader's position as a defensive one is also an own interpretation of history.

Umm... how? It was Christian, the Muslims invaded and conquered... taking it back (or attempting to) is a responsive, defensive action.

Quote:

At one time the first Christians came to Jerusalem and it wasn't a Christian nation so it had to be conquered.

Show me where the Cristians militarily conquered Jerusalem.

Quote:

I think, without looking this up now, that the crusades took place over a period of at least 2 centuries and the offensive and defensive parties changed all the time.

In terms of battle tactics, sure. But Islam started the whole thing.

Quote:

If you come from France and England and other parts of Central or Western Europe with your armies to wage a war in Israel/Palestine I would not call it a defensive position.

that's because you look at it in a modern point of view. You can't do that and still understand what went on. It was not France attacking Jerusalem. It was Christianity attempting to free the Holy Land from Mulsims.

Quote:

And the crusaders were very well known for being, to put it very mildly, harsh when conquering cities in the region, while the armies of Saladin were at times very generous to those who surrendered.

There are always those who will be harsh or needlessly destructive, but the Crusades were not nearly the parody of despicability most make them out to be.

Quote:

Not to say that it is a totally reliable historical account, but watch the movie 'Kingdom of heaven' for a bit of an inkling of the situation.

Quote:

Ofcourse there is more and better literature on the subject.

You got that right.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend.

I'm not saying the war on Iraq is good or that America is perfect or anything like that, but it is not because we are intolerant that we have done things.



now I noticed the Islamic world exists? I always knew about the Islamic world. Unlike most, I actually know some history--something America's public school system does a crappy job of teaching, like almost everything else--and know just how big a problem they have always been. Try to think of a major period in the last 13 centuries when the Middle East HASN'T had lots of problems.... Won't happen.

As for proving your point... I said "I" Don't care what they think. My country for the most part does, but as far as my bias versus their bias, DUH! Of course I am biased. And I said I don't care what they think, not what they do.

I am surprised, you being somewhat feminist, that you don't hold a rather large grudge against Islam for continually holding your entire gender in relative contempt.

And as for the social rights thing, you are doing what I said not to. You claim they are important but have no basis for that. You can't just out of thin air claim something is important. Are you religious Ana? If not, where do you gt the idea that social rights are important? After all, in America we have plenty, and you seem to hate America.

Well that's all the unpolitically correct vituperations I've got time for right now. Cheers people.

I dont have enough time to comment all of your absurd post ...and Ill do it later....but saying that I hate America is...wow!!!!!

[RalphyS]

I actually looked it up on wikipedia.org and the city of Jerusalem was under Arab/Islam rule from 638 CE to 1099 CE, when the first crusade conquered it.

It was never in Roman Catholic hands before that, so it seems the crusaders were the offensive force, they were apparently provoked to do so by stories of churches being destroyed in the city.

In the first centuries CE Jerusalem was a relatively small and unimportant Roman town.

Quote:

The Byzantine Emperor Constantine, however, rebuilt Jerusalem as a Christian center of worship, building the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 335. Jews were still banned from the city, except during a brief period of Persian rule from 614-629.

The city was one of the Arab Caliphate's first conquests in 638 CE; according to Arab historians of the time, the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab personally went to the city to receive its submission, cleaning out and praying at the Temple Mount in the process. Sixty years later, the Dome of the Rock was built, a structure in which there lies the stone where Muhammad is said to have tethered his mount Buraq during the Isra. This is also reputed to be the place where Abraham went to sacrifice his son (Isaac in the Jewish tradition, Ishmael in the Muslim one.) Note that the octagonal and gold-sheeted Dome is not the same thing as the Al-Aqsa Mosque beside it, which was built more than three centuries later. Umar ibn al-Khattab also allowed the Jews entry into the city and full freedom to live and worship after 400 hundred years. Jews were allowed to move back into their homes.

Under the early centuries of Muslim rule, especially during the Umayyad (650-750) and Abbasid (750-969) dynasties, the city prospered; the geographers Ibn Hawqal and al-Istakhri (10th century) describe it as "the most fertile province of Palestine", while its native son the geographer al-Muqaddasi (born 946) devoted many pages to its praises in his most famous work, The Best Divisions in the Knowledge of the Climes.

The early Arab period was also one of religious tolerance. However, in the early 11th century, the Egyptian Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of all churches and synagogues in Jerusalem, a policy reversed by his successors. Reports of this were one cause of the First Crusade, which marched off from Europe to the area, and, on July 15, 1099, Christian soldiers took Jerusalem after a difficult one month siege. They then proceeded to slaughter most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Raymond d'Aguiliers, chaplain to Raymond de Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, wrote:

"Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious ceremonies were ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle-reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood. (Edward Peters, The First Crusade: The chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, p. 214)"

Jerusalem became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a feudal state, of which the King of Jerusalem was the chief. Christian settlers from the West set about rebuilding the principal shrines associated with the life of Christ. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was ambitiously rebuilt as a great Romanesque church, and Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount (the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque) were converted for Christian purposes. It is during this period of Frankish occupation that the Military Orders of the Knights of Saint John and the Knights Templar have their beginnings. Both grew out of the need to protect and care for the great influx of pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem in the twelfth century. The Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted until 1291; however, Jerusalem itself was recaptured by Saladin in 1187, who permitted worship of all religions (see Siege of Jerusalem (1187).

Comparing the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 with a defensive war because the Christians took it back would therefore be the same as describing an English invasion of the USA now as defensive for taking back its colonies.

And the quoted part in the text describes the atrocities of the crusaders quite accurately, it wasn't even written by the side that the atrocities where commited upon.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote:

Comparing the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 with a defensive war because the Christians took it back would therefore be the same as describing an English invasion of the USA now as defensive for taking back its colonies.

No, it wouldn't. Once again you look at this like states instead of religions. To have unbelievers in posession of the Holy Land was embarassing and unbearable. They wanted to take back the Holy Land because Christians were not always allowed in, pilgramages were nearly impossible, Christians had no rights when visiting their own origins, etc.

And I also said they were defensive in nature, if anything. I don't really think they were so clear cut. They were religious wars. After they started they never really ended. But Islam was the intial agrressor. That is all I mean by saying defensive in nature. Another problem with your Britain analogy is that Britan and the U.S. have not been constantly at war for the last two hundred years.

As for the Church never "owning" Jerusalem, that is because the Church rarely "owns" anything, except Vatican City. The only major exception was in the medeival era the ill-fated Papal States which... were a bad bad idea. Even then, the Pope was not in direct control of the countries. There were monarchs.

Also, the Church did not attack the Holy Land. Popes often organized the crusades and offered plenary indulgences to those who would go, but the rulers of the Christian nations gained what they conquered. Actually, one of the worst abuses in the Crusades was when, after promising the return of lands previously controlled by the Eastern Empire, the majority of the military commanders failed to do so.

I'm not saying bad things didn't happen. I mean, its war. Bad things ALWAYS happen. That's why I think the Iraq war is so wrong. But it was not a war the Christians ever wanted.

[uncertaindrumer]

And Ana, I said you "seem" to hate America. Before yelling about it, think about it. You are always anti-American in your posts. Why WOULDN'T someone think you dislike America? If you don't, GREAT, but clarify it.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Well. Yeah. Chase has a habit of stretching things to defend the war on Iraq, but you can't blame him. You kinda have to stretch things to defend this war, heh.



Come on, don't make yourself look stupid by pretending Canada was responsible for WWII victory. Say what you will about the U.S. but we won that war. Sure others--especially Britain--helped, but without the U.S., not a chance.



Umm... how? It was Christian, the Muslims invaded and conquered... taking it back (or attempting to) is a responsive, defensive action.



Show me where the Cristians militarily conquered Jerusalem.



In terms of battle tactics, sure. But Islam started the whole thing.



that's because you look at it in a modern point of view. You can't do that and still understand what went on. It was not France attacking Jerusalem. It was Christianity attempting to free the Holy Land from Mulsims.



There are always those who will be harsh or needlessly destructive, but the Crusades were not nearly the parody of despicability most make them out to be.








You got that right.

Yeah... you really "have to stretch" the thousands of people killed as a result of Saddam Hussein's genocide. Wise up.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

And Ana, I said you "seem" to hate America. Before yelling about it, think about it. You are always anti-American in your posts. Why WOULDN'T someone think you dislike America? If you don't, GREAT, but clarify it.

Always anti-American in my posts?? Are you uncertain really saying it? Well I could easily understand if Chase was saying it...but you...

But okay....i respond your biased comment: No, Im not anti american...like always Im saying that I have nothing against U.S.and americans (I do consider some of you here as my friends ) --what I clearly dislike is american foreign policy(im sick of saying it!)...and consequently Bush's position in using war as a solution to everything in the world....and as result painting a primitive scenario of good (america) and evil (muslim world)....btw its very disappointing to see that you are buying this 'simplistic' (?) scenario as true...

But maybe its the fact that being a foreing I can see (as Ralphy) things in others perspectives...I mean out of the american 'focus'...but of course inside a historical view...

Have you ever think why non-americans seems to be 'against' america? Are they ignorant, liers, bad people??? Well ...maybe they are not blind...

Do you believe that all of us outside US --HATE America???? Because if your answer is affirmative...you are the most naive person I know, Stephen...

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

The USA entered WWI because an American passengership (the Lusithania, if I remember correctly) was sank by torpedos by German U-boats.

In the second World War the USA joined the allied forces when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese and by declaring war on Japan, they also did on their allies the Germans (and Italians).

In both cases thus the USA only entered the war after being attacked itself, while in both cases there was much more evidence of wrong-doing as in the case of the invasion of Iraq, so please don't bend history to fit your needs, Chase.

You're wrong. The RMS Lusitania was a British passenger ship... and the Germans declared war on the United States after Japan attacked the United States. Hitler wasn't concentrated on America and wasn't obligated to declare war on the U.S. due to the conditions of the Tripartite Pact of 1940. He actually had a problem with the U.S. being a neutral country because he knew that the Americans would do business with the British and provide sell them old naval destroyers.

Either way... the U.S. really didn't have to go to Europe. We could've just focused on Japan.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Always anti-American in my posts?? Are you uncertain really saying it? Well I could easily understand if Chase was saying it...but you...

But okay....i respond your biased comment: No, Im not anti american...like always Im saying that I have nothing against U.S.and americans (I do consider some of you here as my friends ) --what I clearly dislike is american foreign policy(im sick of saying it!)...and consequently Bush's position in using war as a solution to everything in the world....and as result painting a primitive scenario of good (america) and evil (muslim world)....btw its very disappointing to see that you are buying this 'simplistic' (?) scenario as true...

But maybe its the fact that being a foreing I can see (as Ralphy) things in others perspectives...I mean out of the american 'focus'...but of course inside a historical view...

Have you ever think why non-americans seems to be 'against' america? Are they ignorant, liers, bad people??? Well ...maybe they are not blind...

Do you believe that all of us outside US --HATE America???? Because if your answer is affirmative...you are the most naive person I know, Stephen...

But Bush doesn't always use war. If that was the case, then we would be in war with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

But Bush doesn't always use war. If that was the case, then we would be in war with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

hunm...how many years he still has as U.S. president???

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

hunm...how many years he still has as U.S. president???

I know you really, really want to think that America is a warmongering fascist state, but I'm you're going to be disappointed by the fact that it is not. Bush leaves office officially in January of 2009 and seriously doubt that we're going to have anymore wars unless Iran attacks Israel or if North Korea attacks Japan, or if Syria attacks Lebanon, Israel, or Iraq... or if China invades Taiwan.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend.

I'm not saying the war on Iraq is good or that America is perfect or anything like that, but it is not because we are intolerant that we have done things.

You can use all the concepts you want... but its clearly INTOLERANCE that puts all of us in this dramatic world full of wars...unless you dont know the meaning of intolerance...(do you? )

Intolerance is based in prejudice, and can lead to discrimination....Common forms of intolerance include racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, religious intolerance, and intolerance of differing political views.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

now I noticed the Islamic world exists? I always knew about the Islamic world. Unlike most, I actually know some history--something America's public school system does a crappy job of teaching, like almost everything else--and know just how big a problem they have always been. Try to think of a major period in the last 13 centuries when the Middle East HASN'T had lots of problems.... Won't happen.

I didnt say literally YOU Stephen! And Im sure you know History....(btw you have a very good knowledge in History issues... ) but this has nothing to do with my point...I was refering to US governors who obviously ignored other countries until 11/09 attacks...

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

As for proving your point... I said "I" Don't care what they think. My country for the most part does, but as far as my bias versus their bias, DUH! Of course I am biased. And I said I don't care what they think, not what they do.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I am surprised, you being somewhat feminist, that you don't hold a rather large grudge against Islam for continually holding your entire gender in relative contempt.

You know..you were offline for a while...so it must explain your innacurate statement...in the thread about muslim cartoons posted by Chase...I said that muslim women seemed to be more willing to changes...because they were so opressed that need these changes...

and yeah....being the only woman posting regularly on Political Banter..I need to be a feminist to defend women here ...lol

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

And as for the social rights thing, you are doing what I said not to. You claim they are important but have no basis for that. You can't just out of thin air claim something is important. Are you religious Ana? If not, where do you gt the idea that social rights are important? After all, in America we have plenty, and you seem to hate America.[

Wow...only being a religious woman I can see the social rights as important things?? Did I say that in America you dont have social rights? I dont remember saying this absurd...unless you are refering to the title of this thread...huh? ..

Also...explain to me what do you consider as social rights...

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

sWell that's all the unpolitically correct vituperations I've got time for right now. Cheers people.

Cheers.... Stephen...Cheers!!!