Well actually 15 of them were Saudi Arabian, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese and only one was Egyptian.
That was a trick, Snake, but an obvious one so I don't apologise. Bush and his military leaders concluded from the attack on the WTC that they should invade Afghanistan to chase down an invisible leader who was not there and is probably already dead. Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia? The answer is immaterial; they were able to sell that invasion idea to Congress and to the American people because the Christians of the US had no trouble believing that it was a Muslim attack, not a political one, that Muslims head an international terrorist conspiracy, and that we should strike at Muslim governments wherever we see them, except not in Saudi Arabia, under the perpetual wisdom of our Lord the President of the United States, so help us God.
QUOTE
If you are saying that the bible teaches to lynch black people then I am going to have to ask you to point out the passage.
No, I have to ask you to find the passage for me. All I said was that White Christian trumped up charges in order to hate and kill blacks for decades. I don't think it was their Bible that told them to do it. I don't think the Bible has much to do with Christianity; I don't think the Koran has much to do with Islam. Religions aren't about their reading materials, they are about the people of the religion and what they are willing to do.
QUOTE
‘White man’s burden’ has nothing to do with Christianity. Before Christianity there was this thing called Rome which sought to colonize and make the savages civil, this despite Rome being a pagan country for most of its existence. The Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the and many other Empires were the same way. Believing that their way was best.
The Romans have nothing to do with manufacturing the phrase "White Man's Burden. The Romans, for the record, conquered other nations so that they could bring back treasures and slaves. The generals liked the conquests because they would be rewarded with week-long parades of drinking and sex. But back to the phrase "White Man's Burden" and its counterpart "Manifest Destiny," these are distinctly Christian arguments for supporting conquest and genocide. They have nothing to do with centuries of nations warring against one another; they are entirely about selling that culture of theft and conquest (and a little genocide) to a Christian people (who ate it up with relish).
You can't say "Islamic governments are all about oppression and destruction of their enemies because of their religion, but Western governments that preach Christianity only attack foreign countries because that's what the Romans did." It's a double standard, and you sound like a nutter when you do it. The people are sold the idea that the Muslims are out to get them, and they support perpetual warfare on the grounds of religious superstition. The people have occasional acts of desperate terrorism to convince them that their leaders are right. For their part, the terrorists are sold the same idea, and they have their own simple physical reasons, bombings and killings and disappearances and whatnot.
QUOTE
I see, so you decide that a government that locked up many Christians who protested against the policy of the Nazis as Christian. Bravo.
The government and the people who elected them were Christian. So some people who disagreed with them were also Christian; big deal. There was no organised Christian resistance (caution: this may be a trap). It's not exactly the first time that Christians have disagred with one another, or that a Christian government has used Christian soldiers to round up rival Christians and to charge them with dissention. Besides, I didn't bring up Germany. You did when you said that minorities had it great there in 50s. Don't cry foul when I mention that in the 40s the army executed minorities from time to time. You can read about it. The status of minorities there in the 50s was NOT giggles and suncream.
QUOTE
I could have sworn we were talking about the 1960s and not the 1860s. If you are saying the several large European nations as well as America had racist policies, except of course for northern America, then I would have to agree.
I was talking about the 1960s, when white people had to fight other white people to allow black people the right to vote for government in the country they were born in. The Christian attutude that blacks were inferior was a
carryover from the Civil War, a war in which armies of both sides sang hyms while they marched. It took some arguing to convince some of the Christians that the other Christians might have had a point.
QUOTE
No, westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend. If you are two or more of the things mentioned above then you are a westerner.
Now I'm sure you're joking. You say that the friend I was mentioning, if she isn't all "Allah Akbar" is Westernised. I ask you what that means and you say that she is Westernised if she is self-loathig and a petty follower of contemporary trends. Ok. She isn't. She is a very happy person with no apparent trendiness and no self-loathing. So I supose she isn't "Westernised." Now, can you explain to me how she is Muslim and she's not all crazy to kill the infidels? Because you're having a hard time selling that to me, and now you can't even justify it by saying she's "Westernised." What you're selling rather easily is that you are yourself a Christian and that you have bought the propaganda that wars in the Middle East are religious, not political, that there is an International
Jewish Communist Muslim conspiracy of terror and that we need to get them before they get us.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 23 January 2008 - 08:45 PM
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).