The first "war" article I actually enjoyed.Follow

Very interesting article. I am continually amazed at how history can repeat itself over and over and yet humans never really learn from it.

Good find.

Edited, Thu May 20 11:42:49 2004 by spawned

Joph you do have to admit, it brings up a good point historically, that this type of thing has happened before, and more than once.


But I do agree with you on the fact that the Christians committed just as many atrocities in those wars as the Muslims. Just like in this war.

Edited, Thu May 20 11:55:37 2004 by spawned

Most of his historical background is either distorted or just plain wrong as well. I wonder if rewrites history for the KKK in his off time.

Obviously if someone beats them up first they're completely justified. After all, we all know how evil those brown skinned muslim fanatics are.

Of course. They're entirely responsible for the Crusades, after all.

I'm not pointing fingers at any "race" or "religious preference"...all I am saying is that there is something wrong when behaviors are bred into a culture that encourages what you see in those pictures. Children to adults...they are all there celebrating as american soldiers, toasted medium-well, hang from the supports of a bridge. This is the behavior they learn from the time things come into focus.

How do you reverse a process like this? When murder and hate have been entwined into their nature for years, from birth to death in a lot of cases?

When I read the article, I didn't take it as "muslims are the devil, kill them all before they destroy us!" What I find astonishing is how blissfully ignorant we allow ourselves to be (by we I don't mean all)..and THAT is why I enoyed the article.

Nah let it out totem.....i'd really like to hear.... This is something Im very interested in.

Probably one of the best statements I've ever seen.

/RANT ON

Hmm let's take a look at a few things.

People no matter what race, color, religion etc etc, only act on what they are preceived to beleive (hopefully I said that right).

1) Let's take a look at today's gangs in the US.
You have different factions. Let's say that someone' kin (belong's to gang A) is killed by someone from gang B. Now naturally the individual is distaught about the loss, now add folks from gang A talking to him about how nasty they are, how they rape the women and kill their firneds and such (add a lot of BS in there). Now this person joins gnag A, picks up a gun and goes and kills someone from gang B or happens to do a drive-by shooting and kills someone totally innocent (never happens right?). Well the reaction of both starts a tranreaction across th gangs.

2) Let's take a look at the Middle East.
You have folks that may or may not have a TV or radio. They know who the boss is and they learn to live with it, because its beat into them everday, who is the boss, whne to pray, when to eat, when to drink, where women are allowed in the cycle of life, etc etc. Now in comes some folks they heard about through newspapers (who have never ever been one sided) foreigners who have differnet ideas on how religion and how people should act (which by the way is totally different from everything they have been taught from childhood and these folks get rid of the boss. WHy? Beacuse ther old boss is responsible for the deaths of some of their kin and they want a little revenge. But the old boss is gone and everyone is happy. Now some of these old leaders who ran for their lives and lived in other countries come back to their home country and start preaching the old ways and to get peoples attention they start showing how things have changed since the foreigners have came in. Women are allowed to speak and be equal? Now some of these folks don't want to get involved. But the new leaders (we'll call them that for sake of arguement) want to run the country their way since the old boss is gone. Now to rally the folks to their side they have to show that the foreigners are bad for them. So they start a little gun war. They fire at the foreigners, who in turn fire back. Uh Oh, an innocent gets killed (a drive-by shooting). Someone that never did anyone harm. Doesn't matter if the leaders people did it or not, if the foreigners hadn't been there it would have never happened. The talk ensues the distraught start to listen (add BS in here also). Now they have a few more people to listen to the new leaders. So now those new folks, go out and seek revenge on the loss of their loved ones. Uh Oh, more innocents die, by their hand, doesn't matter or not who's fault it was, the leaders issue forth and talk about how back the foreigners are and how they caused this to happen. Bringing in their new version of religion and democracy, or whatever. Oh Boy, new members! They strike and the foreigners strike, and the cycle continues. Same as the gangland stuff in the US.

See the picture. It doesn't matter what religion, race, color, creed, size, shape or whatever. Peaceful solutions and communication is the key. Proof of actions or non-actions. Politicains are not the answer that's for sure, they like the leaders in some countries are only out for themselves.

Children are the answer. Ever seen a child who has not smiled towards you before they were corrupted by the parents view point. They do all the time. But let them grow in a violent biggited, racist, overpowered religous environment and watch who they turn out to be.

People only know what they are told or see for themselves. When allowed to see things and communicate, peaceful solutions are the results. That is some of the fault that lies over there. Hidden agendas, political and religous gains. Folks they don't really care for the "little" people and it ends up being the little people that suffer and keep the suffering continued.

/RANT OFF
/Fire Extinguisher Prepared.

/sorry for multiple posts..:(

Edited, Thu May 20 14:04:00 2004 by LordBracus

omg. i agree with smash.

i'll be curled up in a corner of the shower scrubbing with steel wool and crying like a little girl.

Stupid article with flawed argument.


This particularly irked me, its a misinterpretation of what Darwin was arguing. Its not the fastest, smartest or strongest its the animal with the characteristics or ability to adapt to new and changing situations that wins.

To use Darwin's theory in way that author of article is to stoop to social darwinism which is about as a well rounded and fact based as christian scientists trying to prove creationism.