A Special Middle East Birthday

[JoeB131]

Remember when Washington slaughtered some 80 million of his own people?

I remember slavery and the genocide of the native Americans...

Mass murder reminds me of the old Plantation ladies who always knew who fathered the mulattos on the other plantations, but never their own.

You realize that you're saying these sick and crazy things in a public forum, right? Mao was the one who turned China into a war zone after the Pacific War ended. When Mao took over, China became a backward, poor, North-Korea-like country for decades. He and his henchmen killed tens of millions of Chinese. China only emerged as anything resembling a world power after Mao died and after its new leaders ditched his Marxist economic policies.

Okay, you must be young. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were more terrified of Mao's China than the USSR. They fought us into a standstill in Korea and we didn't escalate in Vietnam out of fear they would intervene. This is why NIxon's meeting with Mao was considered such a diplomatic coup... he turned the PRC and USSR against each other.

George Washington was a "ruthless bastard"? No, Mao-loving JoeB131, George Washington was a noble, honorable, and decent man who helped found the greatest experiment in human liberty and economic prosperity the world has ever seen. It is surreal that you would dare to compare Mao to George Washington in any way, shape, or form.

Uh.. yeah...

Let's see now. That {experiment" involved slavery, and Washington himself was a slave owner. It involved "Manifest Destiny" and invading the lands of Native Americans, who were systematically exterminated over the next century.

Huh???!!! LOL!!! Good grief, where on earth do you get your aberrant nonsense? Sadat freed his country from Soviet control and expelled all Soviet military advisers from Egypt! Sadat also curbed the abuses of Egypt's hated secret police. Although some Egyptians were leery of his peace deal with Israel, he still enjoyed considerable popular support at the time of his assassination. His main opposition came from radical Muslims, especially in the army.

Actually, he was hated, because the Arab world hates the Zionist Entity with a passion, and he sold out like a little quisling... that's why they shot his ass.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mao took China from a broken nation to a world power.

You realize that you're saying these sick and crazy things in a public forum, right? Mao was the one who turned China into a war zone after the Pacific War ended. When Mao took over, China became a backward, poor, North-Korea-like country for decades. He and his henchmen killed tens of millions of Chinese. China only emerged as anything resembling a world power after Mao died and after its new leaders ditched his Marxist economic policies.

Yes, he was a ruthless bastard. So was George Washington.

George Washington was a "ruthless bastard"? No, Mao-loving JoeB131, George Washington was a noble, honorable, and decent man who helped found the greatest experiment in human liberty and economic prosperity the world has ever seen. It is surreal that you would dare to compare Mao to George Washington in any way, shape, or form.

Who are you? Do you live in America? You sound like a Chinese Communist.

Sadat made his country a client state of the US, which his own people resented.

Huh???!!! LOL!!! Good grief, where on earth do you get your aberrant nonsense? Sadat freed his country from Soviet control and expelled all Soviet military advisers from Egypt! Sadat also curbed the abuses of Egypt's hated secret police. Although some Egyptians were leery of his peace deal with Israel, he still enjoyed considerable popular support at the time of his assassination. His main opposition came from radical Muslims, especially in the army.

Joe claims a degree in history, LOL. Apparently he failed to learn anything resembling the truth.

Anyone who thinks Mao and Washington were similar, has the brains of a gnat. Mao was one of world history’s greatest mass murderers, yet Joe venerates him. WTF!

China would still be a primitive backwater death camp of a nation, had it continued to follow Maoist policies. Oh Joe...please seek mental help.

He knows no history.....we've all seen that proven over and over.

But here is the worst part: nationally, there are 17.4 history professors on the Left to every single one on the Right.
39% of "elite" liberal arts colleges have 0 registered Republican professors - as in NONE

I bet they actually do teach that propaganda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember when Washington slaughtered some 80 million of his own people?

I remember slavery and the genocide of the native Americans...

Mass murder reminds me of the old Plantation ladies who always knew who fathered the mulattos on the other plantations, but never their own.

You realize that you're saying these sick and crazy things in a public forum, right? Mao was the one who turned China into a war zone after the Pacific War ended. When Mao took over, China became a backward, poor, North-Korea-like country for decades. He and his henchmen killed tens of millions of Chinese. China only emerged as anything resembling a world power after Mao died and after its new leaders ditched his Marxist economic policies.

Okay, you must be young. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were more terrified of Mao's China than the USSR. They fought us into a standstill in Korea and we didn't escalate in Vietnam out of fear they would intervene. This is why NIxon's meeting with Mao was considered such a diplomatic coup... he turned the PRC and USSR against each other.

George Washington was a "ruthless bastard"? No, Mao-loving JoeB131, George Washington was a noble, honorable, and decent man who helped found the greatest experiment in human liberty and economic prosperity the world has ever seen. It is surreal that you would dare to compare Mao to George Washington in any way, shape, or form.

Uh.. yeah...

Let's see now. That {experiment" involved slavery, and Washington himself was a slave owner. It involved "Manifest Destiny" and invading the lands of Native Americans, who were systematically exterminated over the next century.

Huh???!!! LOL!!! Good grief, where on earth do you get your aberrant nonsense? Sadat freed his country from Soviet control and expelled all Soviet military advisers from Egypt! Sadat also curbed the abuses of Egypt's hated secret police. Although some Egyptians were leery of his peace deal with Israel, he still enjoyed considerable popular support at the time of his assassination. His main opposition came from radical Muslims, especially in the army.

Actually, he was hated, because the Arab world hates the Zionist Entity with a passion, and he sold out like a little quisling... that's why they shot his ass.

There never was any such 'genocide'....nor are there any 'native' Americans.

1. " However, the arrival of the white man precipitated what was probably the worst
demographic disaster in history. It was not warfare but disease which played the majorpart.The Indians had no resistance to tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, typhus, smallpox and other European ailments, with the result that their population declined by about 90 per cent between 1492 and 1650, disappearing altogether in some areas."
"Wild in Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage,' by Robert Whelan, p.29-30



2. "The Black Death arrived in Europe by sea in October 1347 when 12 Genoese trading ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messina after a long journey through the Black Sea.... Over the next five years, the mysterious Black Death would kill more than 20 million people in Europe–almost one-third of the continent’s population." http://www.history.com/topics/black-death

3. May 14, 1796, Edward Jenner thought of a way to perform mankind's first vaccination: he lanced a sore on the wrist of a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes, and scratched the arm of 8-year-old James Phipps with the same instrument.
Phipps came down with a mild case of cowpox...but, even after several exposures to smallpox, he never came down with the deadly disease.
How deadly? Smallpox killed sixty million people in that century, disfiguring and blinding many millions more. ." One of the deadliest diseases known to humans, smallpox is the only disease to have been eradicated by vaccination." Disease Eradication mdash History of Vaccines


Which of the above represents a "genocide"?

Right.....none.


4. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims.

It is a myth that finds a home among America haters, who attempt to use slander of the settlers as a proxy for slandering today's Americans


Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

No such thing happened.





. " Though the term "genocide" was not coined until 1944, acts of genocide have been committed throughout history.... “Genocide,” a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group, came into general usage only after World War II,..."
What Is Genocide - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

a. " In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,..."
The UN Convention, Article II, Convention on Genocide



Too bad you never learned any history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember when Washington slaughtered some 80 million of his own people?

I remember slavery and the genocide of the native Americans...

Mass murder reminds me of the old Plantation ladies who always knew who fathered the mulattos on the other plantations, but never their own.

You realize that you're saying these sick and crazy things in a public forum, right? Mao was the one who turned China into a war zone after the Pacific War ended. When Mao took over, China became a backward, poor, North-Korea-like country for decades. He and his henchmen killed tens of millions of Chinese. China only emerged as anything resembling a world power after Mao died and after its new leaders ditched his Marxist economic policies.

Okay, you must be young. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were more terrified of Mao's China than the USSR. They fought us into a standstill in Korea and we didn't escalate in Vietnam out of fear they would intervene. This is why NIxon's meeting with Mao was considered such a diplomatic coup... he turned the PRC and USSR against each other.

George Washington was a "ruthless bastard"? No, Mao-loving JoeB131, George Washington was a noble, honorable, and decent man who helped found the greatest experiment in human liberty and economic prosperity the world has ever seen. It is surreal that you would dare to compare Mao to George Washington in any way, shape, or form.

Uh.. yeah...

Let's see now. That {experiment" involved slavery, and Washington himself was a slave owner. It involved "Manifest Destiny" and invading the lands of Native Americans, who were systematically exterminated over the next century.

Huh???!!! LOL!!! Good grief, where on earth do you get your aberrant nonsense? Sadat freed his country from Soviet control and expelled all Soviet military advisers from Egypt! Sadat also curbed the abuses of Egypt's hated secret police. Although some Egyptians were leery of his peace deal with Israel, he still enjoyed considerable popular support at the time of his assassination. His main opposition came from radical Muslims, especially in the army.

Actually, he was hated, because the Arab world hates the Zionist Entity with a passion, and he sold out like a little quisling... that's why they shot his ass.

The term "Native America" is a false one on the face of it.


Everyone who is in this nation is descended from an immigrant or a 'settler.'

Every one.


"Native Americans" aren't indigenous to America any more than the colonists were....

While the latter came, largely, from Europe, the former came from Asia.

Just a bit earlier.


"First Americans Lived on Bering Land Bridge for Thousands of Years
Genetic evidence supports a theory that ancestors of Native Americans lived for 15,000 years on the Bering Land Bridge between Asia and North America until the last ice age ended

The theory that the Americas were populated by humans crossing from Siberia to Alaska across a land bridge was first proposed as far back as 1590, and has been generally accepted since the 1930s.

A comparison of DNA from 600 modern Native Americans with ancient DNA recovered from a late Stone Age human skeleton from Mal'ta near Lake Baikal in southern Siberia shows that Native Americans diverged genetically from their Asian ancestors around 25,000 years ago, just as the last ice age was reaching its peak..... The Bering Land Bridge, also known as central part of Beringia, is thought to have been up to 600 miles wide

The last ice age ended and the land bridge began to disappear beneath the sea, some 13,000 years ago. Global sea levels rose as the vast continental ice sheets melted, liberating billions of gallons of fresh water. As the land bridge flooded, the entire Beringian region grew more warm and moist, and the shrub tundra vegetation spread rapidly, out-competing the steppe-tundra plants that had dominated the interior lowlands of Beringia.

While this spelled the end of the woolly mammoths and other large grazing animals, it probably also provided the impetus for human migration.

This indicates a population isolated from the Siberian mainland for thousands of years, who are the direct ancestors of nearly all of the Native American tribes in both North and South America – the original “first peoples”.

First Americans Lived on Bering Land Bridge for Thousands of Years



Too bad you never learned any history.

 

[JoeB131]

He knows no history.....we've all seen that proven over and over.

But here is the worst part: nationally, there are 17.4 history professors on the Left to every single one on the Right.
39% of "elite" liberal arts colleges have 0 registered Republican professors - as in NONE

I bet they actually do teach that propaganda.

Or maybe anyone who studies history knows that Republicanism is a failed philosophy. Every Republican President post Teddy Roosevelt has been a failure.

There never was any such 'genocide'....nor are there any 'native' Americans.

Holy shit... Really? That's positively Orwellian.

Hey, we should fill in the Bering Strait and charge them Indians a buck a head to walk back!

" Though the term "genocide" was not coined until 1944, acts of genocide have been committed throughout history.... “Genocide,” a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group, came into general usage only after World War II,..."

Wow... this is your argument, that because we didn't have a word for it until 1944, it never happened before then?

Of course, what was done to the First Nations was Genocide in every sense of the word. Far more thorough than what the Nazis attempted against the Jews.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Remember when Washington slaughtered some 80 million of his own people?

I remember slavery and the genocide of the native Americans....

Humm, that's all you remember about early America? You really are a Communist, aren't you?

The "genocide of the native Americans"? Is there any Far Left talking point that you don't embrace?

Mass murder reminds me of the old Plantation ladies who always knew who fathered the mulattos on the other plantations, but never their own.

You realize that you're saying these sick and crazy things in a public forum, right? Mao was the one who turned China into a war zone after the Pacific War ended. When Mao took over, China became a backward, poor, North-Korea-like country for decades. He and his henchmen killed tens of millions of Chinese. China only emerged as anything resembling a world power after Mao died and after its new leaders ditched his Marxist economic policies.

Okay, you must be young. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were more terrified of Mao's China than the USSR. They fought us into a standstill in Korea and we didn't escalate in Vietnam out of fear they would intervene.

LOL! You really need to get a refund on your history degree. Nixon escalated massively in Vietnam after 1969. His massive bombing campaigns over North Vietnam, his mining of Haiphong Harbor, and his MARHUK operation that destroyed tons of supplies coming from China forced the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table.

By the way, Mao and Stalin were so afraid of Eisenhower that they forced Ho Chi Minh to agree to the 17th Parallel partition in 1954, even though Ho's forces controlled most of the territory south of the 17th Parallel. How can you not know this stuff?

George Washington was a "ruthless bastard"? No, Mao-loving JoeB131, George Washington was a noble, honorable, and decent man who helped found the greatest experiment in human liberty and economic prosperity the world has ever seen. It is surreal that you would dare to compare Mao to George Washington in any way, shape, or form.

Uh.. yeah... Let's see now. That "experiment" involved slavery, and Washington himself was a slave owner.

Wow. Just Wow. So that's all you have to say about early America and George Washington?

Pericles--you know who he was, right?--was a slave owner. Many American Indian tribes, especially the Cherokee and the Apache, practiced slavery, and they treated their slaves far worse than most American slaveholders treated theirs.

By the way, your hero Mao had sex slaves, and he even knowingly infected them with STDs. And Mao kept hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps and used them as slave labor. At one point, there were nearly 1,000 forced-labor camps in Mao's workers' paradise.

It involved "Manifest Destiny" and invading the lands of Native Americans, who were systematically exterminated over the next century.

Where exactly did you get your alleged history degree? Cracker Jack Box College? Diploma Mill University? Your simplistic, PC characterization of our dealings with the Native Americans suggests you've done zero serious research on the subject.

And I notice you said nothing about my points about Mao, whose brutalization of his own people was far, far worse than anything we ever did to the American Indians. Since you've said you believe that Wikipedia is the place to find "real scholars," allow me to quote what Wikipedia says about Mao's historically brutal human rights abuses:

On the other hand, in 1957, Mao launched the Anti-Rightist Campaign, which persecuted at least 550,000 people, most of whom were intellectuals and dissidents, and in 1958 he launched the Great Leap Forward that aimed to rapidly transform China's economy from agrarian to industrial.[7][8] The latter led to the deadliest famine in history and the deaths of 20–45 million people between 1958 and 1962.[9][10][11] In 1963, Mao launched the Socialist Education Movement, and 1966 he initiated the Cultural Revolution, a program to remove "counter-revolutionary" elements in Chinese society which lasted 10 years and was marked by violent class struggle, widespread destruction of cultural artifacts, and an unprecedented elevation of Mao's cult of personality. Tens of millions of people were persecuted during the Revolution, while the estimated number of deaths ranges from hundreds of thousands to 20 million, including Liu Shaoqi, the 2nd Chairman of the PRC.[12][13][14] (Mao Zedong - Wikipedia)​

You can't bring yourself to discuss Mao's horrendous crimes, but you insist on seeing the glass one-tenth empty when it comes to judging early America and George Washington.

Huh???!!! LOL!!! Good grief, where on earth do you get your aberrant nonsense? Sadat freed his country from Soviet control and expelled all Soviet military advisers from Egypt! Sadat also curbed the abuses of Egypt's hated secret police. Although some Egyptians were leery of his peace deal with Israel, he still enjoyed considerable popular support at the time of his assassination. His main opposition came from radical Muslims, especially in the army.

Actually, he was hated

Actually, no he was not. Find me one reputable source that says Sadat was hated by the majority of Egyptians at the time he was killed. Just one.

Not only did Sadat still enjoy considerable (though not universal) popularity in Egypt when he was killed, but his popularity around the free world was very high. Indeed, he won the Nobel Peace Prize just two years before he was murdered.

because the Arab world hates the Zionist Entity with a passion, and he sold out like a little quisling... that's why they shot his ass.

Oh, I see. So you are not only pro-Communist, you're anti-Semitic. I should have known.

 

[JoeB131]

Humm, that's all you remember about early America? You really are a Communist, aren't you?

The "genocide of the native Americans"? Is there any Far Left talking point that you don't embrace?

Yes, Mikey, we've already established you don't consider the slaughter of people of color no big deal.

They tell you that every night at your Neo-Nazi meetings.

Hey, why don't you tell your new Girlfriend PC how the Comfort Women were all liars and whores.

LOL! You really need to get a refund on your history degree. Nixon escalated massively in Vietnam after 1969. His massive bombing campaigns over North Vietnam, his mining of Haiphong Harbor, and his MARHUK operation that destroyed tons of supplies coming from China forced the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table.

Uh, nothing to do with my point, that we didn't INVADE North Vietnam because the Chinese would have flooded the region with troops and chased us out.

By the way, Mao and Stalin were so afraid of Eisenhower that they forced Ho Chi Minh to agree to the 17th Parallel partition in 1954, even though Ho's forces controlled most of the territory south of the 17th Parallel. How can you not know this stuff?

Uh, you are a bit confused, buddy... The fact was the French were defeated, all Ho had to do was play for time. Even Ike was smart enough to not escalate the issue.

Wow. Just Wow. So that's all you have to say about early America and George Washington?

There's not much more to say about it. This country was built on genocide and slavery. The very fact that we have ghettos and Indian reservations to THIS VERY DAY says a lot about that legacy. Maybe before we criticize anyone else, we need to clean up our own shit.

By the way, your hero Mao had sex slaves, and he even knowingly infected them with STDs. And Mao kept hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps and used them as slave labor. At one point, there were nearly 1,000 forced-labor camps in Mao's workers' paradise.

Yeah, Mao was a bastard... I conceded that point. So was Geo. Washington. In the words of Malcolm Reynolds on the show Firefly, "Anyone who got a statue was some kind of son of a *****".

Where exactly did you get your alleged history degree? Cracker Jack Box College? Diploma Mill University? Your simplistic, PC characterization of our dealings with the Native Americans suggests you've done zero serious research on the subject.

Nothing PC about it. My great grandmother on my Mother's side was Cherokee. She told my Mom all about the Trail of Tears.

but **** it, we've already established your a Nazi who doesn't see the murder of people of color as a big deal.

Actually, no he was not. Find me one reputable source that says Sadat was hated by the majority of Egyptians at the time he was killed. Just one.

So, um, you think there were polls under Sadat's dictatorship that most people didn't despise his selling out his brother Arabs to the Zionists?

The biggest poll on that... He was assassinated by his own military.

Oh, I see. So you are not only pro-Communist, you're anti-Semitic. I should have known.

Naw, man, I'm a pragmatist. I think it's foolish for us to wrap our whole foreign policy around protecting 6 Million European Zionists from 1 Billion Arabs, so they can pretend a magic sky fairy loves them the best. We've been at war in that region for nearly 40 years now, if you want to start with the occupation of Beirut. Thousands of brave Americans coming home in boxes with flags on them. Consider myself damned lucky I wasn't one of them.

Why is any of this our problem. We could take the money we spend propping up Israel/playing hall monitor in the Middle East, invest it in alternative energy, and tell them where to stick their oil.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Humm, that's all you remember about early America? You really are a Communist, aren't you?

The "genocide of the native Americans"? Is there any Far Left talking point that you don't embrace?

Yes, Mikey, we've already established you don't consider the slaughter of people of color no big deal.

Is this supposed to be your reply to my point that you have nothing good to say about early America?

They tell you that every night at your Neo-Nazi meetings.

Actually, your anti-Israeli views would be much more welcomed by Neo-Nazis than would my ardently pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish views.

Hey, why don't you tell your new Girlfriend PC how the Comfort Women were all liars and whores.

Humm, so I take it by this dodge that you're not going to make any effort to address the facts that Dr. Hata has presented. Am I right?

LOL! You really need to get a refund on your history degree. Nixon escalated massively in Vietnam after 1969. His massive bombing campaigns over North Vietnam, his mining of Haiphong Harbor, and his MARHUK operation that destroyed tons of supplies coming from China forced the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table.

Uh, nothing to do with my point, that we didn't INVADE North Vietnam because the Chinese would have flooded the region with troops and chased us out.

Uh, your point was that we supposedly didn't escalate for fear of China, which is erroneous. We escalated massively after Nixon became president. Do I need to quote your own words back to you. You said nothing about an invasion of North Vietnam. Our goal was never to topple North Vietnam but to get it to make peace with South Vietnam. We were perfectly willing to accept the 17th Parallel partition as long as North Vietnam ceased its attacks on South Vietnam.

We didn't seem too worried about China's reaction when we were blowing tons of their food shipments to North Vietnam out of the war.

By the way, Mao and Stalin were so afraid of Eisenhower that they forced Ho Chi Minh to agree to the 17th Parallel partition in 1954, even though Ho's forces controlled most of the territory south of the 17th Parallel. How can you not know this stuff?

Uh, you are a bit confused, buddy... The fact was the French were defeated, all Ho had to do was play for time. Even Ike was smart enough to not escalate the issue.

Uh, no, you are the one who is confused, because you have no clue what you're talking about. There are about a zillion books on Vietnam that discuss the fact that the Soviets and the Chinese pressured North Vietnam to give up all of its gains in Vietnam south of the 17th Parallel and to accept the 17 Parallel partition because they were afraid of how Ike would react if the North Vietnamese did not do so. Again, how can you not know this stuff?

Wow. Just Wow. So that's all you have to say about early America and George Washington?

There's not much more to say about it. This country was built on genocide and slavery. The very fact that we have ghettos and Indian reservations to THIS VERY DAY says a lot about that legacy. Maybe before we criticize anyone else, we need to clean up our own #($%%.

Wow, well, at least you've fully come out of the closet with your overt anti-Americanism and liberal extremism. How would you compare America's founding to Red China's founding? How many millions of people were killed by America's founders and how many millions were killed by Mao and his henchmen?

By the way, your hero Mao had sex slaves, and he even knowingly infected them with STDs. And Mao kept hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps and used them as slave labor. At one point, there were nearly 1,000 forced-labor camps in Mao's workers' paradise.

Yeah, Mao was a bastard... I conceded that point. So was Geo. Washington. In the words of Malcolm Reynolds on the show Firefly, "Anyone who got a statue was some kind of son of a *****".

Mao was a lot more than just a bastard. He was a mass murderer, arguably the worst mass murderer in human history. And thank you for doubling on your mind-boggling comparison of George Washington with Mao. I suspect you have no idea how such sick, bizarre extremism discredits you.

Where exactly did you get your alleged history degree? Cracker Jack Box College? Diploma Mill University? Your simplistic, PC characterization of our dealings with the Native Americans suggests you've done zero serious research on the subject.

Nothing PC about it. My great grandmother on my Mother's side was Cherokee. She told my Mom all about the Trail of Tears. but we've already established your a Nazi who doesn't see the murder of people of color as a big deal.[/QUOTE]

Ohhh, so Grandma gave you your education about the American Indians. Okay, that explains a lot. And it's odd that you and the voices in your head (your "we") keep calling me a Nazi when you have doubled-down on your anti-Israeli position and have praised Mao as someone who brought economic prosperity and stability to China.

And, pray tell, how have you "established" that I'm a Nazi and that I don't care about the murder of people of color? I've asked you this several times: quote just one statement that I've made that would lead any rational person to believe I'm a Nazi. As I've also pointed out to you, no one has condemned Hitler and the Nazis more harshly than I have in this forum. And, FYI, I was raised Jewish during part of my childhood; I've lived in Israel; I speak Hebrew; and I am well known as an ardent supporter of Israel.

I guess you make this sick Nazi charge to deflect from your revolting defense of Mao and the Communists.

Actually, no he was not. Find me one reputable source that says Sadat was hated by the majority of Egyptians at the time he was killed. Just one.

So, um, you think there were polls under Sadat's dictatorship that most people didn't despise his selling out his brother Arabs to the Zionists?

Then what's your basis for claiming that Sadat was hated by his own people when he was shot?

And, FYI, Sadat did not "sell out his brother Arabs" to the Zionists. That's bizarre revisionism. As a result of the Camp David Accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai and returned it to Egypt. That's hardly a sellout.

The biggest poll on that... He was assassinated by his own military.

LOL! WHAT?! WHAT?! His own military put down the attempt Muslim extremist coup and executed the assassins! You have no clue what you're talking about. This is more of your clown material. Sadat was not killed "by his own military"! He was killed by a small group of Muslim extremists in the military, who then tried to seize the government, and it was the military that defeated the extremists and restored order, after which Hosni Mubarak, a close friend of Sadat's and his vice president, became Egypt's leader.

If the military hated Sadat, isn't it very odd that the military strongly supported Mubarak, who continued all of Sadat's policies?

Oh, I see. So you are not only pro-Communist, you're anti-Semitic. I should have known.

Naw, man, I'm a pragmatist. I think it's foolish for us to wrap our whole foreign policy around protecting 6 Million European Zionists from 1 Billion Arabs, so they can pretend a magic sky fairy loves them the best. We've been at war in that region for nearly 40 years now, if you want to start with the occupation of Beirut. Thousands of brave Americans coming home in boxes with flags on them. Consider myself damned lucky I wasn't one of them.

Why is any of this our problem. We could take the money we spend propping up Israel/playing hall monitor in the Middle East, invest it in alternative energy, and tell them where to stick their oil.

So at a minimum, you're anti-Israeli and you side with anti-Israeli Arabs, many of whom also admire Hitler. Interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

Is this supposed to be your reply to my point that you have nothing good to say about early America?

I think the thing speaks for itself. We built a country on genocide and slavery of people of color. It's the original sin we need to atone for.

We need to be better.

LOL! WHAT?! WHAT?! His own military put down the attempt Muslim extremist coup and executed the assassins! You have no clue what you're talking about. This is more of your clown material. Sadat was not killed "by his own military"! He was killed by a small group of Muslim extremists in the military, who then tried to seize the government, and it was the military that defeated the extremists and restored order, after which Hosni Mubarak, a close friend of Sadat's and his vice president, became Egypt's leader.

You don't think Hosni was in on it? Really? you are naive, aren't you, buddy.

If the military hated Sadat, isn't it very odd that the military strongly supported Mubarak, who continued all of Sadat's policies?

You mean until they overthrew him, you mean? Mubarek was not the sellout that Sadat was.

So at a minimum, you're anti-Israeli and you side with anti-Israeli Arabs, many of whom also admire Hitler. Interesting.

At a minimum, I don't think that ONE AMERICAN should die for Zionism. Why do you?

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, your point was that we supposedly didn't escalate for fear of China, which is erroneous. We escalated massively after Nixon became president. Do I need to quote your own words back to you. You said nothing about an invasion of North Vietnam. Our goal was never to topple North Vietnam but to get it to make peace with South Vietnam. We were perfectly willing to accept the 17th Parallel partition as long as North Vietnam ceased its attacks on South Vietnam.

Okay... going to point it out to you very slowly. By the time Nixon "escalated", he knew we had lost the war. He knew he was selling out Ky and Theiu at Paris. The whole horrible nasty exercise in Vietnam was our wonderful leaders fighting a war THEY KNEW FROM THE START WAS UNWINNABLE. This is what the Pentagon Papers Scandal was all about. They knew from the get go that the regime we propped up in Saigon was not supported by the people. That if there was an open, honest election, Ho Chi Mihn would win by a landslide.

That we killed 3 million Vietnamese and 56,000 Americans so the Democrats and Republicans couldn't point at each other and scream "Who Lost Vietnam?" is a tragedy.

And, pray tell, how have you "established" that I'm a Nazi and that I don't care about the murder of people of color? I've asked you this several times: quote just one statement that I've made that would lead any rational person to believe I'm a Nazi.

HOw about all your excuse making for the ******* Axis on other threads, you Nazi ****.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, well, at least you've fully come out of the closet with your overt anti-Americanism and liberal extremism. How would you compare America's founding to Red China's founding? How many millions of people were killed by America's founders and how many millions were killed by Mao and his henchmen?

Mao killed millions of people. We killed millions of Native Americans... We wiped out the Cherokee. They wiped out the Tibetans...

Then what's your basis for claiming that Sadat was hated by his own people when he was shot?

And, FYI, Sadat did not "sell out his brother Arabs" to the Zionists. That's bizarre revisionism. As a result of the Camp David Accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai and returned it to Egypt. That's hardly a sellout.

Again, you sell out the Palestinians for some desert no one lives in or really wants, that's not a great deal.

"Look, guys, we got sand!!!"

The Zionists were happy to rid themselves of the Sinai because they didn't have the manpower to defend it, as the 1973 war proved.

Mao was a lot more than just a bastard. He was a mass murderer, arguably the worst mass murderer in human history. And thank you for doubling on your mind-boggling comparison of George Washington with Mao. I suspect you have no idea how such sick, bizarre extremism discredits you.

Uh, Dummy, Chinese don't see Mao as a bastard or a murderer, they see him as the father of modern China. History is always bigger than any one man.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wow, well, at least you've fully come out of the closet with your overt anti-Americanism and liberal extremism. How would you compare America's founding to Red China's founding? How many millions of people were killed by America's founders and how many millions were killed by Mao and his henchmen?

Mao killed millions of people.

But in the thread on the Nanking Massacre, you said Mao brought economic prosperity and stability to China, that China was better off under Mao than under the Chiang Kaishek, etc. Well, anyway, I give you credit for finally acknowledging that Mao was a mass murderer.

We killed millions of Native Americans... We wiped out the Cherokee.

That claim is strongly disputed by many scholars from across the political spectrum. There is also wide disagreement about how many Indians there were in North America when America was founded. Plus, the Indians fought endlessly among themselves. The Cherokee were especially hated by many other tribes, which is why several tribes were only too happy to help the U.S. Army fight them.

Then what's your basis for claiming that Sadat was hated by his own people when he was shot?

And, FYI, Sadat did not "sell out his brother Arabs" to the Zionists. That's bizarre revisionism. As a result of the Camp David Accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai and returned it to Egypt. That's hardly a sellout.

Again, you sell out the Palestinians for some desert no one lives in or really wants, that's not a great deal. "Look, guys, we got sand!!!"

Egyptians most certainly wanted the Sinai back.

The Zionists were happy to rid themselves of the Sinai because they didn't have the manpower to defend it, as the 1973 war proved.

Oh, wow. You're way, way off. One, Menachem Begin's decision to give back the Sinai in the Camp David Accords was very, very controversial among Israelis.

Two, "as the 1973 war proved"? Huh? They acquired the Sinai in the 1973 war (the Yom Kippur War).

Mao was a lot more than just a bastard. He was a mass murderer, arguably the worst mass murderer in human history. And thank you for doubling on your mind-boggling comparison of George Washington with Mao. I suspect you have no idea how such sick, bizarre extremism discredits you.

Uh, Dummy, Chinese don't see Mao as a bastard or a murderer, they see him as the father of modern China. History is always bigger than any one man.

Who said anything about how "the Chinese see Mao"? The Chinese people have lived in a totalitarian state for decades, ever since Mao took over, so of course they have not been told much or any of the truth about Mao's atrocious crimes.

 

[JoeB131]

But in the thread on the Nanking Massacre, you said Mao brought economic prosperity and stability to China, that China was better off under Mao than under the Chiang Kaishek, etc. Well, anyway, I give you credit for finally acknowledging that Mao was a mass murderer.

Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. So you have a billion Chinese... Mao killed 10 million. 99.9% who weren't killed still did better.

As opposed to under Peanut and the Japanese, when things sucked for everyone, which is why Mao won.

History is written by the winners.

That claim is strongly disputed by many scholars from across the political spectrum. There is also wide disagreement about how many Indians there were in North America when America was founded. Plus, the Indians fought endlessly among themselves. The Cherokee were especially hated by many other tribes, which is why several tribes were only too happy to help the U.S. Army fight them.

No, the only dispute are the same kinds of racist assholes who deny the Holocaust, Slavery and that the Japanese killed all that many in Nanking. i.e. Racist Wankers.

Oh, wow. You're way, way off. One, Menachem Begin's decision to give back the Sinai in the Camp David Accords was very, very controversial among Israelis.

Two, "as the 1973 war proved"? Huh? They acquired the Sinai in the 1973 war (the Yom Kippur War).

The ZIonists acquired the Sinai in the 1967 War (AKA the Six Day War). What the Yom Kippur War proved, after the Zionists lost 1000 tanks and 500 armored vehicles, is that holding it was pretty darned impossible.

Who said anything about how "the Chinese see Mao"? The Chinese people have lived in a totalitarian state for decades, ever since Mao took over, so of course they have not been told much or any of the truth about Mao's atrocious crimes.

Most Americans don't realize that slavery and native American genocide were as bad as they were, either...

 

[xyz]

PRESIDENT OF EGYPT

BORN

December 25, 1918
Mit Abu al-Kum, Egypt
(Born on this day)

Considered a traitor, killed by his own people.

Why is any of this our problem again?

I don't think Sadat was bad, but he was needed for a more disjointed post.

Actually there's nothing i particular disagree with there. But it's pretty stupid for someone who hates all Muslims to praise Sadat, who was in fact also a Muslim.

 

[mikegriffith1]

But in the thread on the Nanking Massacre, you said Mao brought economic prosperity and stability to China, that China was better off under Mao than under the Chiang Kaishek, etc. Well, anyway, I give you credit for finally acknowledging that Mao was a mass murderer.

Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. So you have a billion Chinese... Mao killed 10 million. 99.9% who weren't killed still did better.

I guess your dabbling with reality and credibility is over. Sad. Mao killed a lot more than 10 million: he killed at least 30 million. And the Chinese who were left were definitely not better off. It is amazing that you would make such a claim in a public forum. Mao's China was arguably the most brutal, repressive, and murderous regime in human history. The standard of living plummeted. Millions starved due to Communist mismanagement and sometimes deliberate cruelty. Millions of Chinese slaved away in forced-labor camps. How in the world you can think the Chinese were better off under Mao is baffling.

As opposed to under Peanut and the Japanese, when things sucked for everyone, which is why Mao won.

Oh, sheesh. I have proved to you that this is false. Mao won (1) because the Soviets gave him a zillion weapons, ammo, and supplies, (2) because Truman and Marshall forced Chiang to accept truces just as he was on the verge of smashing the Communists, and (3) because Truman and Marshall imposed an arms embargo on the Nationalists at a crucial point. It is incredible that you continue to ignore these documented facts.

That claim is strongly disputed by many scholars from across the political spectrum. There is also wide disagreement about how many Indians there were in North America when America was founded. Plus, the Indians fought endlessly among themselves. The Cherokee were especially hated by many other tribes, which is why several tribes were only too happy to help the U.S. Army fight them.

No, the only dispute are the same kinds of racist assholes who deny the Holocaust, Slavery and that the Japanese killed all that many in Nanking. i.e. Racist Wankers.

Now you're back to abject stupidity. This is perhaps your dumbest, most amazingly ignorant statement to date. You cannot really believe that all the scholars who disagree with your claims about the American Indians are racists and are like Holocaust deniers. For you to make this ridiculous claim suggests you have done no serious reading on the subject and that you have no idea how many scholars disagree with your radical beliefs on this issue, much less why they disagree.

And, no, all the scholars who don't accept your version of the Nanking Massacre are not racists (much less "fascists" and "pro-fascists" as you claimed in the Nanking Massacre thread). You show yourself to be ignorant and deluded when you claim that rejecting Iris Chang's version of the Nanking Massacre is like denying the Holocaust. That is just patently ridiculous. Given the evidence that I have personally presented to you on this issue, this claim here is downright dishonest, unless you just cannot read.

We both know that you are aware that the vast majority of the scholars who reject Iris Chang's version of the massacre do not deny there was a massacre, but they do not accept her wildly inflated number of civilian deaths. And those scholars have a mountain of evidence to support their position, including every single primary source on Nanking's population when the city fell and every single primary source on the number of civilian deaths.

Oh, wow. You're way, way off. One, Menachem Begin's decision to give back the Sinai in the Camp David Accords was very, very controversial among Israelis.

Two, "as the 1973 war proved"? Huh? They acquired the Sinai in the 1973 war (the Yom Kippur War).

The ZIonists acquired the Sinai in the 1967 War (AKA the Six Day War). What the Yom Kippur War proved, after the Zionists lost 1000 tanks and 500 armored vehicles, is that holding it was pretty darned impossible.

The "Zionists"? It's a bit disturbing that you follow the Neo-Nazi and radical Muslim practice of referring to Israelis/Jews as Zionists.

"Acquired" was a bad choice of words. Yes, technically, the Israelis acquired the Sinai in 1967, but most Israelis did not think of the Sinai as rightfully belonging to Israel until after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Until the Yom Kippur War, most Israelis viewed the occupation of the Sinai as temporary and believed that at some point Israel would return the Sinai to Egypt. But after the Yom Kippur War, Israeli public opinion underwent a dramatic shift and most Israelis concluded that Israel needed to keep the Sinai permanently and began to think of it as a permanent part of Israel. That's why the fate of the Sinai was the biggest stumbling block in the Camp David talks.

No, the Yom Kippur War did not prove that holding the Sinai was "almost impossible." Israel suffered early setbacks in the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War because her leaders decided not to mobilize or take preemptive action as soon as they realized Egypt was going to attack so they would not be faced with the phony charge of striking first/aggression as they were after the Six-Day War (even though Egypt was clearly preparing to attack Israel when Israel struck).

And, FYI, the Israelis actually extended their area of control beyond the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War and continued to hold and occupy the Sinai until they decided to return it to Egypt as part of the Camp David Accords.

Who said anything about how "the Chinese see Mao"? The Chinese people have lived in a totalitarian state for decades, ever since Mao took over, so of course they have not been told much or any of the truth about Mao's atrocious crimes.

Most Americans don't realize that slavery and native American genocide were as bad as they were, either...

What planet do you live on? You must be living in some kind of alternative universe to make this bizarre claim. Do you have any idea how many Hollywood movies, just in the last 20 years alone, have presented the evils of slavery in all their horror? Any idea how many American textbooks have discussed the evils of slavery? Far from not realizing how bad slavery was, we have, if anything, gone overboard in characterizing slavery, to the point of making it seem even worse than it really was. We have so exaggerated the evils of slavery, which were already plenty bad enough and need no exaggeration, that we now have some Americans who want to tear down statues and monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Patrick Henry simply because they were slaveholders.

Perhaps most Americans don't "realize" that there was a "Native American genocide" because there was no genocide, and because most scholars on early American history reject the genocide claim as baseless. Again, if you would do some serious reading, you would discover that the American Indians were far from blameless in their dealings with Americans, not to mention in their dealings with each other.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess your dabbling with reality and credibility is over. Sad. Mao killed a lot more than 10 million: he killed at least 30 million.

Again, guy, I don't have time for bircher propaganda. The only way you anti-communist nuts get to these crazy numbers for Mao or Stalin is if you include every famine or war that occurred.

True story, during World War 2, there was a famine in Bangledesh that killed 3+ million people. No one blames Churchill or Capitalism

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia

Even though Churchill made the comment "Has Ghandi Starved yet?" when informed of the disaster.

Now you're back to abject stupidity. This is perhaps your dumbest, most amazingly ignorant statement to date. You cannot really believe that all the scholars who disagree with your claims about the American Indians are racists and are like Holocaust deniers.

Um, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I believe, because they use the same tactics... fuzzy math and blaming people for their own demise. Not to worry, you'll go on to some Slavery Denial later on, proving my point.

The "Zionists"? It's a bit disturbing that you follow the Neo-Nazi and radical Muslim practice of referring to Israelis/Jews as Zionists.

No, what's disturbing is that Zionism is still a thing. It's a form of apartheid/colonialism that is still accepted.

"Acquired" was a bad choice of words. Yes, technically, the Israelis acquired the Sinai in 1967, but most Israelis did not think of the Sinai as rightfully belonging to Israel until after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Until the Yom Kippur War, most Israelis viewed the occupation of the Sinai as temporary and believed that at some point Israel would return the Sinai to Egypt. But after the Yom Kippur War, Israeli public opinion underwent a dramatic shift and most Israelis concluded that Israel needed to keep the Sinai permanently and began to think of it as a permanent part of Israel. That's why the fate of the Sinai was the biggest stumbling block in the Camp David talks.

You mean Begen didn't even want to give up land he knew he couldn't defend?

No, the Yom Kippur War did not prove that holding the Sinai was "almost impossible." Israel suffered early setbacks in the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War because her leaders decided not to mobilize or take preemptive action as soon as they realized Egypt was going to attack so they would not be faced with the phony charge of striking first/aggression as they were after the Six-Day War (even though Egypt was clearly preparing to attack Israel when Israel struck).

They suffered setbacks because they were overextended, and they knew it. If the US hadn't intervened by sending them replacement tanks, they'd have probably lost the war. Unfortunately, instead we've been playing Hall Monitor in the Middle East ever since.

What planet do you live on? You must be living in some kind of alternative universe to make this bizarre claim. Do you have any idea how many Hollywood movies, just in the last 20 years alone, have presented the evils of slavery in all their horror?

Not that many... and most of them are santized and not that graphic. Compared to all the Holocaust movies we get subjected to where the Jews can't wait to give each other awards for movies no one wants to watch.

There's a reason why Nazis are always portrayed as villains, but we still have so many movies romanticizing the Old South.

We have so exaggerated the evils of slavery, which were already plenty bad enough and need no exaggeration, that we now have some Americans who want to tear down statues and monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Patrick Henry simply because they were slaveholders.

Um, yeah. They were slaveholders. We need to own that. There is no Exaggeration of the evils of slavery. Slavery was just pure evil.

I'd love to see the life story of Sally Hemmings in a movie, and how Thomas Jefferson started raping her when she was 15.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Even though some radical Muslims managed to kill Sadat, the moderate elements in Egypt quickly proved they were much stronger than the radicals. Hosni Mubarak, Sadat's friend and VP, took over and had strong support from the military. The radical Muslims in the army who took part in the assassination were executed. And, Mubarak, to his great credit, continued Sadat's policy of peace with Israel.

No, Sadat and Mubarak were not perfect, nor were they libertarians, but they were a lot better than the alternative. Many times in politics, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, or between slightly evil and very evil.

 

[JoeB131]

Even though some radical Muslims managed to kill Sadat, the moderate elements in Egypt quickly proved they were much stronger than the radicals. Hosni Mubarak, Sadat's friend and VP, took over and had strong support from the military. The radical Muslims in the army who took part in the assassination were executed. And, Mubarak, to his great credit, continued Sadat's policy of peace with Israel.

No, Sadat and Mubarak were not perfect, nor were they libertarians, but they were a lot better than the alternative. Many times in politics, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, or between slightly evil and very evil.

You don't think Mubarek was in on it? That's adorable.

The reality- Mubarek took our money for decades and played us for fools, until his own people got fed up with him.

The one time they Egyptian People got to vote since the Pharaohs, they voted for Islamists.... And the military had to cancel Democracy again.... ONly a matter of time before the people stop asking nicely.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Even though some radical Muslims managed to kill Sadat, the moderate elements in Egypt quickly proved they were much stronger than the radicals. Hosni Mubarak, Sadat's friend and VP, took over and had strong support from the military. The radical Muslims in the army who took part in the assassination were executed. And, Mubarak, to his great credit, continued Sadat's policy of peace with Israel.

No, Sadat and Mubarak were not perfect, nor were they libertarians, but they were a lot better than the alternative. Many times in politics, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, or between slightly evil and very evil.

You don't think Mubarek was in on it? That's adorable.

LOL! Uh, no, I don't. I guess you're not aware that Mubarak was wounded during the assassination? He was on the reviewing stand with Sadat. The terrorists had hoped to kill both Sadat and Mubarak. Terrorists tried to kill Mubarak in 1995.

The reality- Mubarek took our money for decades and played us for fools, until his own people got fed up with him.

Humm, it's interesting your take on Middle Eastern affairs so frequently resembles the radical Muslim viewpoint.

The one time they Egyptian People got to vote since the Pharaohs, they voted for Islamists.... And the military had to cancel Democracy again.... ONly a matter of time before the people stop asking nicely.

Like I said, it's not always a choice between good and bad but between somewhat bad and very bad.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Uh, no, I don't. I guess you're not aware that Mubarak was wounded during the assassination? He was on the reviewing stand with Sadat. The terrorists had hoped to kill both Sadat and Mubarak. Terrorists tried to kill Mubarak in 1995.

Yeah, sure, guy, you keep telling yourself that..

Obviously, you don't know a coup when you see one.

Humm, it's interesting your take on Middle Eastern affairs so frequently resembles the radical Muslim viewpoint.

You mean, reality? Hey, guy, we are in YEAR 19 OF THE WAR ON TERROR. We are probably in a worse position than we were when we started by any metric. If anyone has a "viewpoint" based on wishful thinking and fantasy, it's you and your imperialistic viewpoint. The Arab world is still mad at us, for the same things they were mad at us about when the planes hit the towers.

Like I said, it's not always a choice between good and bad but between somewhat bad and very bad.

Yeah, giving your love for Fascism, that's not saying much... you still think the wrong side lost World War II.
.