America Has Been Killing Muslims Since 1953

[The T]

We cry about what Muslims do, but we never admit the crimes and murder America committed first.

We overthrew Iran's government in 1953 and then caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children with our embargo for WMDs Saddam never had.

Then we wonder why the Muslim world hate the U.S.

Really? Learn your history...

Jefferson and The Barbary Pirates

As to the rest of your tripe? SO WHAT? With the stated mission over history of Islam...? They have NO LEG to stand on...

 

[killemall]

Solution, hold modern day murderers like Saddam, Bush and Blair accoutable when they invade lands for oil. Execute everyone who murderers even one innocent in service of power. Reagan bombed the French embassy because they would not allow a flyover to bomb Libya. Reagan killed some janitor and some French fathers to rub France's nose in it. He should have been tried for murder. It is that simple.

All humans should read "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude", by Étienne de la Boétie
FOR THE PRESENT I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants3 one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.

But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice?

The only way that many people could have been killed is through systematic government action.

 

[boedicca]

If you're going to copy and paste tripe, at least have the honesty to link to your source.

 

[saveliberty]

There's a fly on my monitor again. Why does it have a last name? M-a-l-l?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Solution, hold modern day murderers like Saddam, Bush and Blair accoutable when they invade lands for oil. Execute everyone who murderers even one innocent in service of power. Reagan bombed the French embassy because they would not allow a flyover to bomb Libya. Reagan killed some janitor and some French fathers to rub France's nose in it. He should have been tried for murder. It is that simple.

All humans should read "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude", by Étienne de la Boétie
FOR THE PRESENT I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants3 one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.

But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice?

The only way that many people could have been killed is through systematic government action.

Man,all that blather and for what? Just sounds like you have some weird obsession with hating America. You're using this weird obsession to justify Islamic Terrorism. You could actually be ill. But no weird obsession with hating America or moral relativism justifies what happened on 911. So i'll spend this Saturday praying and remembering our fallen citizens. You can spend your Saturday any way you choose. It's a free country.

 

[killemall]

Sounds like more justifications for brutal Islamic Terrorism. There are no justifications for what happened on 911. Some try to justify that awful attack with these kinds of historical re-writes and moral relativism but i think that's just plain lame. Terrible things have been done by many peoples throughout history all around the world but that just doesn't justify what happened on 911. I know some try using these types of history re-writes to push their own twisted agendas but i don't buy into that stuff. Just call it like it is and quit with all the history re-writes and moral relativism.

You are the moral relativist and are too stupid to realize it. I say aggressive war is wrong. You say because a handful of people crashed a plane we have the right to invade and slaughter people from any Muslim country on earth. Iran had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we invaded any country it should have been Saudi Arabia as 19 of 23 came from that country.

I say anyone who kills innocents should be executed. You say our leaders should be able to kill Muslims with impugnity. You think America should be able to kill 3 million Vietnamese because we did not like their economic system.

You keep telling me Islam is going to take over the world, but they can't even take over Iraq, a country with no air force, no navy, no combined arms army, and everyone there IS Muslim. so what chance do you think they have of taking over the world. Your goofiness sounds like Zionist propaganda.'

You think our government can kill who ever it wants. I think each individual actor for government should be held to the same moral standard as anyone else.

Those who tortured and murdered at Abu Ghrab and Gitmo should be executed. Those who ordered it should be executed. You keep making excuses for them. I make none.

Who is the moral relativist?

The funny thing is that only about eight of the hundreds held were al Qaeda. The rest were innocents sold for reward money into torture and death by the same groups the US supports.

Someone defends his nation against a U.S. invasion and you want him tortured and murdered. You never recognize the U.S. as the invader. What would we think if Iran invaded Mexico because some drug lord killed some Iranians?

It is moral relativism to think your country is good when it overthrows governments and place people under the heel of a tyrant and dictator. We supported dictators as long as they were willing to throw their citizens under the bus for U.S. interests. Many killed their citizens by the thousands and we gave them the money and support to do it.

 

[boedicca]

Someone who thinks "We" includes Stalin, Hitler, and Mao is not in any position to lecture anyone on moral relativism.

Just sayin'.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What the **** is "impugnity"?

 

[Oddball]

Thread closed...Sock puppets have no say on the forum.