DudeMan

quite, thats what im getting at, these measures are not intended to antagonise muslims but protect everyone who is a target including the west loving ..TRUE muslims.. (i say that with no sarcasm at all. )

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

DudeMan

i was going to say...

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Rahn

I didn't write this but I think it's worth reading.




Most Americans probably think the Islamic terrorists declared war on the United States Sept. 11, 2001.

Actually, it started a long time before – right from the birth of the nation.

In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.

Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as "Barbary pirates."

They weren't "pirates" at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn't drink and chase women and they really weren't out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition.

Like those we call "terrorists" today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahiddin."

Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy – not a single warship.

Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends – who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.

This didn't make sense to Jefferson. He recognized the purchase of peace from the Muslims only worked temporarily. They would always find an excuse to break an agreement, blame the Europeans and demand higher tribute.

After three months researching the history of militant Islam, he came up with a very different policy to deal with the terrorists. But he didn't get to implement until years later.

As the first secretary of state, Jefferson urged the building of a navy to rescue American hostages held in North Africa and to deter future attacks on U.S. ships. In 1792, he commissioned John Paul Jones to go to Algiers under the guise of diplomatic negotiations, but with the real intent of sizing up a future target of a naval attack.

Jefferson was ready to retire a year later when what could only be described as "America's first Sept. 11" happened.

America was struck with its first mega-terror attack by jihadists. In the fall of 1793, the Algerians seized 11 U.S. merchant ships and enslaved more than 100 Americans.

When word of the attack reached New York, the stock market crashed. Voyages were canceled in every major port. Seamen were thrown out of work. Ship suppliers went out of business. What Sept. 11 did to the U.S. economy in 2001, the mass shipjacking of 1793 did to the fledgling U.S. economy in that year.

Accordingly, it took the U.S. Congress only four months to decide to build a fleet of warships.

But even then, Congress didn't choose war, as Jefferson prescribed. Instead, while building what would become the U.S. Navy, Congress sent diplomats to reason with the Algerians. The U.S. ended up paying close to $1 million and giving the pasha of Algiers a new warship, "The Crescent," to win release of 85 surviving American hostages.

It wasn't until 1801, under the presidency of Jefferson, that the U.S. engaged in what became a four-year war against Tripoli. And it wasn't until 1830, when France occupied Algiers, and later Tunisia and Morocco, that the terrorism on the high seas finally ended.

France didn't leave North Africa until 1962 – and it quickly became a major base of terrorism once again.

What's the moral of the story? Appeasement never works. Jefferson saw it. Sept. 11 was hardly the beginning. The war in which we fight today is the longest conflict in human history. It's time to learn from history, not repeat its mistakes.

TheFeniX

I would like a link to a source on that article if you wouldn't mind.

__________________

SephirothValentine

Well I won't talk about Terrorism. I just want to say that those shirts are gold

__________________


- "Children in the back seat cause accidents, accidents in the back seat cause children."
- "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

~ SephVal <--> TG-303rd Master Sergeant (MSG) <--> Distinguished Sniper - Class I


~ COD4 Sniper <--> Owner of the Golden Dragunov

Rahn

I got it in that form, no link.


Sorry, you have to research. I haven't fully researched this myself but I am in the process. Here are somethings I've found.

"Then in June 1792 American President George Washington and US Secretary Thomas Jefferson signed a commission making John Paul Jones an official citizen of the United States and appointing him American consul to Algeria. His assignment was to clean up the political mess along the Barbary Coast where American ships were being seized and their crews held for ransom at $2,000 per man. The piracy which Jones had long warned Congress to address was killing trade and becoming a crisis for the fledgling country which would pay millions of dollars in "protection" money in its founding years. Without a navy to force a confrontation, the new US leaders placed all their hopes in Jones' diplomatic skills."

http://seacoastnh.com/Maritime_Histo...hn_Paul_Jones/

"John Paul Jones encountered suicide attacks by Muslim Turks in 1788 (thanks to Andrew Bostom for the citation):

“…for it was the intention of the Turks to attack us and board us, and if we had been only three versts further the attempt would have been made on the 16th [June 1788] (before the vessel of the Captain Pacha ran aground in advancing before the wind with all his forces to attack us,), God only knows what would have been the result…The Turks had a very large force, and we have been informed by our prisoners that they were resolved to destroy us, even by burning themselves, (in setting fire to their own vessels after having grappled with ours.) [note added by Jones: Before their departure from Constantinople, they swore by the beard of the Sultan to execute this horrible plan…if Providence had not caused its failure from two circumstances which no man could forsee.”]
That's from John Paul Jones’ Letter to Prince Potemkin, June 20, 1788, from Life and Character of John Paul Jones-A Captain in the Navy of the United States, John H. Sherburne, 1825, p. 308."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...3584print.html

"After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. [Prior to that, ithe American colonies were protected by the British and, later, the French.] As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000"

"Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786 letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates"

"Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786 letter to the president of Yale CollegeEzra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them." "

"When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean."

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldil...story_of_.html



There is NO APPEASEMENT with these muj's, Jefferson saw it back then, Bush see's it now. I guess from here someone will bring up who handled it better, etc, etc. But that's a whole other can of worms.

DudeMan

yes quite....


and i had absolutly (if factual) no idea the terrorist was went that far back... i did on the other hand know that isllamic war on the west had been going for some time before the 9/11

oh and i found it highly ironic that in the news pappers today, it said British involvement in Iraq caused the London Bombings.... thats right everyone, in an attempt to be politically correct and not blaim the terroorists, we shall blaim tony blair and george bush for terrorism which preceeds iraq and afghanistan.... what a bunch of nonsense.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

improbablecause

I'll rephrase. The crime survey tells you black male youths are committing the most crime. Great, now we know exactly what the problem on the streets are! ... Oh wait, no we don't. You continually tell me it depends on the area. I agree. But what about the area? Certainly not the skin-colour. Did the crime survey try to provide you other factors about why the crime is occurring? You haven't learned anything more other than the fact that crimes are mostly committed by black males. Now we're back at square one.

I'm interested in figuring out solutions to problems before they occur. That clearly won't happen if the public isn't interested it too. And they won't be if the only information they ever receive is that "black male youths are committing the most crimes". Things like that promote ignorance. Perhaps I'm striving for a too idealistic world, but the planet needs it's optimists.

The thing is, when somebody tells you blacks are committing most of the crimes in area X, they'll overgeneralize and think blacks must commit the most crimes, period. You may not do that personally, but I guarantee you that a whole lot of others do. It creates racial tension and brings up racial discrimination no matter the original intentions.

I think the reason we're not understanding each other is because you feel I'm talking about just you. I'm not. I'm talking about human beings as a whole because, honestly, the individual means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Be like a sociologist and pull yourself away from the micro-level and look at the macro-level.

I'm glad you agree.

It is helpful. It gives you a glimpse as to how some people feel about being centered out, and having to submit themselves to unwarranted scrutiny. You may not think being stopped in an airport and searched to be a horrid experience, but that doesn't mean that others don't... especially when they're subjected to it constantly.

Wrong. I want something to be done, but I doubt racial/religious profiling is helping very much, if at all. It is borderline racial segregation seen not 50 years ago.

I repeat... my examples were just that: examples. Merely ideas as to other factors that could be explored, but are not explored due to the focus on you-know-what.

You've misunderstood my post. I never said that is what your authorities look solely for, I said that's what the average person looks solely for. People bounce up and down with this idea and do not allow debate of other possible factors. Heck, even you've said it works great. I don't.

I don't seem to understand what you're ranting about here or how it connects to what I said before. But anyway, you haven't been investigated by the MI5 for one simple reason: because you're white.

So... are you going to turn them in or what?

I doubt it. They were the majority in power throughout the past few millenia.

How will you go about doing this? After all, you admitted yourself that the London bombers do not fit the stereotypes. So what's the point of looking for the "typical" Islamic extremist (whatever that means) if none of the stereotypes even apply?

I laugh at racist jokes all the time. Hell, I love them. My friends of various ethnicities will throw some at me, I throw some back at them. We all think it's hilarious and laugh our asses off. But we do it all out of fun and know we don't mean anything by it. We're laughing at racist stupidity more than anything.

I doubt the same can be said about this t-shirt. It's sending a negative message out that you hate these Muslims. There's an underlying animosity beneath the exterior whether that's acknowledged or not. A public display of such is vastly different from close friends teasing one another.

Actually, women are still second-class citizens in the wonderful westernized culture we live in. There's a reason they don't make as much money as a man doing the same job. Plus the glass ceiling and all that. Yet another discussion for another time.

Which are?

There's a difference between laws, rules, and regulations versus emotions. The justice system was developed in such a way to avoid emotional involvement in the decision-making process. How I feel should have no bearing on what is done. Zero.

Is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770 the article you were talking about? I mean, if you'd like, we could argue back and forth without knowing what the other is talking about. But if the linked article is the one you're talking about, there is really nothing in there that even remotely mentions use of racial/religious profiling in the least bit, only something to the contrary (as I said before). You're putting words in his mouth using your own opinions, so I don't see how I was unfair at all.

__________________

Rahn

impro, you tell me what the ratio is for suicide bombers and insurgents in Arabs and non-Arabs.

..come to think of it, I think that is what you're talking about because there is no way in hell am I reading all these pages.

TheFeniX

There's no appeasment with any religious fundamentalist. This is true of both muslim and christians. Amercan's just accept the bigotry that's here already.

I agree with you for the most part, but your arguement doesn't just cover muslims.

Back during the European colonization of America, there was no way for the Native's to appease the white settlers. It was the inherent greed at work. Religion was just an excuse for them. Even converted Native American's were treated as second class citizens and removed from their land.

I mean.... the Muslims today at least have an excuse: they feel we're trying to destroy their culture... which we are. But we brought the fight to them, not the other way around. Not that I don't agree with what we're doing. I just want people to realize we're really taking the "lesser of two evils."

PS: Thanks for the links.

Internet deabte is a labor of banality. In order to argue effectively, you have to sludge through everything.

__________________

Rahn

Well of course it doesn't just cover Muslims but I don't see any Christians/Jews/etc. gunning people down on the street or blowing themselves up in the midst of a crowd of civilians. We're at war with these people whether or not YOU accept it. We all know that these muj's feel we're at war. That is why it's directed towards them right now.


We're trying to destroy their culture? How by selling Coca Cola and McDonalds?

Or trying to rid the scum of Islam?

TheFeniX

That's because Christians (at least in America) don't have to because they're in power. But what about the IRA in Ireland? A heavily religious organization which feels it's been invaded fights for it's perceived freedom.

I'm also more concerned with domestic terrorism that bigots like Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell push on the average American daily.


We've replaced two countries governments with our version of what is right. It's what empires do: get rid of what they don't agree with and replace it. These's nothing essentially wrong with this system. Look at Rome: it increased lifespans, gave rise to much better economic standards, and created a fairly long era of peace.

Just don't try and deny that we are in fact looking to destroy the radical fundamentalists way of life. What happens the day someone in a position of great power comes down and says "You are wrong. We're going to destroy everthing about your culture and way of life and replace it with what we think is better." Would you roll over and take it?

__________________

Rahn

The IRA has changed their ways of "fighting" and realized how indescriminate bombs are. Don't they have a seat in the British government now? I doubt that is because of all their car bombs.

What about the Liberal's? You should worry about them too.


Empires?

Oh, I thought you meant Muslims in general.

Also, it depends on who and what that great power is and stands for.


I honestly don't see an argument here and I am trying to grasp what we're "arguing" about.

Appeasement?

leejo

I don't think anyone's trying to destroy their right to live the way they please. If these muslims stop being "radical" and start being "fundamentalist" then we're in business. No-one's telling them to think or talk a particular way. Our beef with them is their penchant for blowing up children in our cities.

If they want to do like the Amish and live the way they please in peace with their neighbors then fine. If they keep trying to kill us, then a whole lot of them are going to die or spend their days locked up.

Poor catholics in South America aren't becoming terrorists because of their faith or their economics. There's a sense of entitlement in this brand of radical islam that drives these young men to kill.

TheFeniX