Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Washington’s enemy doesn’t exist


Persia

Recommended Posts

This is all completely untrue. An education is not your enemy.

No, but it's apparently yours though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Flibbertigibbet

    10

  • Space Commander Travis

    9

  • DieChecker

    9

  • F3SS

    7

If it had not been for the Islamic world, all the knowledge and literature of the Greeks etc would probably not have survived.

That is not true.

The Romans and later the church kept copious quantities of ancient Greek knowledge and literature in libraries and monasteries across Europe. Places like the Basilica of St Denis, Vatican Library and even in Britain held and kept safe many Greek and Greek-based works...for centuries before, during and after the "dark ages".

It is a fact that some manuscripts were later collected across Islamic lands but by no means does it constitute the survival of Greek knowledge or literature. Where and/or how exactly did you come up with that? I'm just curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not true.

The Romans and later the church kept copious quantities of ancient Greek knowledge and literature in libraries and monasteries across Europe. Places like the Basilica of St Denis, Vatican Library and even in Britain held and kept safe many Greek and Greek-based works...for centuries before, during and after the "dark ages".

It is a fact that some manuscripts were later collected across Islamic lands but by no means does it constitute the survival of Greek knowledge or literature. Where and/or how exactly did you come up with that? I'm just curious...

The basilica of St Denis was built a little before 754 CE (first year the basilica was mentioned in a official document), most of the books were already destroyed by early christians, at least in France as there was a frenzy to destroy anything pagan. The library of Alexandria was burned after the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 CE.

Muslims did finish the burning a little after 642 CE yet in the beginning of the 8th century, they started reassembling all literature, translating it and spreading. Most advances in mathematics were done in the 8th and 9th century CE. Benedictine monks were send to Spain, an Muslim enclave to advance their knowledge. Sylvester II, the pope of the millennium, also known as Gerbert d'Aurillac spent more than 3 years studying in Spain, creating relationship and obtaining more books from his Muslim brothers in study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. Some at least of those writings survived in the Christian world.

Why use incidents from the past of Christendom if you're not willing to include medieval Muslim atrocities too?

Well, that's all right then. Some at least would have survived. And i'm sure we could fill in the missing bits by trial & error. But that would be a price worth paying if it meant that we were free of the Menace of Islam, would it, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, reagrdless of getting bogged down in arguing about detail, the point is that Islam in recent times has only really been a threat, if a threat it really is, in very recent times, historically you'd have to go back to times when the years were in three digits to find a time when it was any kind of challenge to the Forces of the West, and that there's abundant evidence of aggressiveness from "Christian" nations to non-"Christian" nations and to each other, so Islam very clearly is not unique in this respect. Is it just coincidence that this has coincided with American global hegemony and the policy of having permanent military presence in all corners of the Globe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's all right then. Some at least would have survived. And i'm sure we could fill in the missing bits by trial & error. But that would be a price worth paying if it meant that we were free of the Menace of Islam, would it, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Most haven't survived at all, so that's exactly what we have to do, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, reagrdless of getting bogged down in arguing about detail, the point is that Islam in recent times has only really been a threat, if a threat it really is, in very recent times, historically you'd have to go back to times when the years were in three digits to find a time when it was any kind of challenge to the Forces of the West, and that there's abundant evidence of aggressiveness from "Christian" nations to non-"Christian" nations and to each other, so Islam very clearly is not unique in this respect. Is it just coincidence that this has coincided with American global hegemony and the policy of having permanent military presence in all corners of the Globe?

That's not true either, I'm afraid. The Muslim Turks have been a serious threat to Europe throughout most of the second millennium, destroying the Byzantine Empire, colonising the Balkans (where Muslims still live today), and getting as far as the gates of Vienna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my problem with these threads is, maybe not anti-American rhetoric, but the fact that everyone talks about what it would take to appease the terrorists.

>>>>>>>How can we not offend them? What do we have to change about ourselves?

Here are a few examples of acts of war, commited by us, that could have caused some backlash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few examples of acts of war, commited by us, that could have caused some backlash.

Thanks for that reminder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true either, I'm afraid. The Muslim Turks have been a serious threat to Europe throughout most of the second millennium, destroying the Byzantine Empire, colonising the Balkans (where Muslims still live today), and getting as far as the gates of Vienna.

Oh, merciful heavens above, their destroying the Byzantine empire is proof that it's not America's militarism that provokes Islamic radicalism now?

Might as well say that the French are a menace to civilisation because Napoleon over-ran most of Europe in the early 19th c. That was a lot more recent than the fall of the Byzantine empire. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so let me see US invades many many countries all over middle east, some under greed flag... See why attack whole afganistan if you are chasing only 1 man Bin Laden... Why attack Iraq in first war if Sadam didn't had any nuclear devices, hell he didn't even had a organised army, so many invasions or hostile conflicts left. So if i was from middle east which is poor in all aspects as country, i would be rightfully angry about some superpower invading foreign lands. There is one US citizen that made me proud about hes work Michael Moore and i suggest you watch hes documentaries before you all start listening to you military and goverment personel, remember Bush who set the war on Iraq, he is being trialed for crimes agaisnt humanity and i am very happy about this, he was the one saying Iraq has nuclear devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, merciful heavens above, their destroying the Byzantine empire is proof that it's not America's militarism that provokes Islamic radicalism now?

Might as well say that the French are a menace to civilisation because Napoleon over-ran most of Europe in the early 19th c. That was a lot more recent than the fall of the Byzantine empire. :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is that Islam has always been a threat to our civilisation. It's you who only want to take a short-term cause, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that Islam has always been a threat to our civilisation. It's you who only want to take a short-term cause, not me.

HAHAaahaha maybe threat to UK and US everyone else is ok, very strange don't you think? And beside you are threat to everyone else UK,US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAaahaha maybe threat to UK and US everyone else is ok, very strange don't you think? And beside you are threat to everyone else UK,US.

That isn't true either. Muslims bombed Spain, and are causing trouble, riots, gangs, etc. all over Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I went to Brazil with my wife, I stepped up to the security area at the airport was getting ready to take off my shoes. My wife looks at me at asks me what I was doing. I told her that I was taking off my shoes and she laughed. "You don't have to do that.", she said, "Nobody hates Brazil.". That statement to me was very profound.

When I started talking with her friends and other Brazilians, a common question would come up. "Why do American's attack other countries so much?"

"Well, self-defense of course to stop terrorists!"

"Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Serbia/Croatia?"

"Well yes, I guess"

"And maybe now Pakistan, Iran, Yemen?"

"Was there ever a time when the US wasn't attacking someone?"

That got me thinking. When I was a kid it was communism and the cold war. After that a little action in Guatemala, Somalia, Serbia. Then 911 and the War on Terror.

I couldn't recall a time when we weren't blowing up at least a minor drug lord or dictator.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if a neutral country has this view of us, maybe it is not entirely unwarranted. Maybe we are a little too quick on the draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans are in the crosshairs of terrorists worldwide purely due to Washington’s policy in the Muslim world, not because there is an Islamic enemy whose only aim is to kill Americans for their freedoms and lifestyle, insists a former CIA officer.

http://rt.com/news/us-muslim-policy-sheuer-895/

I'd argue that it was the US's PAST Policies that have lead to Muslim hate. I doubt very much if the US flopped over and became 99% Muslim, that the Middle East nations would just say, "Oh Good" and cease all plans of revenge and terror. I don't think we could change a policy that would appease them at this point.

I do think that we should leave them to their own "civilization", which some would call barbarism. We should have simply surgically bombed the crap out of the Afghanistan military structure. And called it good. Then if we found out they were planning more, hit em again, and again, and again. Occupation armys are foolish when the locals don't want them and when what they are re-building is torn down next day by the locals themselves.

The basilica of St Denis was built a little before 754 CE (first year the basilica was mentioned in a official document), most of the books were already destroyed by early christians, at least in France as there was a frenzy to destroy anything pagan. The library of Alexandria was burned after the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 CE.

Muslims did finish the burning a little after 642 CE yet in the beginning of the 8th century, they started reassembling all literature, translating it and spreading. Most advances in mathematics were done in the 8th and 9th century CE. Benedictine monks were send to Spain, an Muslim enclave to advance their knowledge. Sylvester II, the pope of the millennium, also known as Gerbert d'Aurillac spent more than 3 years studying in Spain, creating relationship and obtaining more books from his Muslim brothers in study.

And... the current leaders in Muslim culture are what? Leading the world in science and medicine and civil rights? Are these even the same people that preseved those records of the past? Or, are they transformed, just as the Renaissance transformed Europe?

Anyway, reagrdless of getting bogged down in arguing about detail, the point is that Islam in recent times has only really been a threat, if a threat it really is, in very recent times, historically you'd have to go back to times when the years were in three digits to find a time when it was any kind of challenge to the Forces of the West, and that there's abundant evidence of aggressiveness from "Christian" nations to non-"Christian" nations and to each other, so Islam very clearly is not unique in this respect. Is it just coincidence that this has coincided with American global hegemony and the policy of having permanent military presence in all corners of the Globe?

Excepting the Muslim nuclear state of Pakistan of course. I'd call any nation with nukes a threat, wouldn't you?

If Iran was to develop nuclear weapons would you then consider then a threat? Israel definately would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I went to Brazil with my wife, I stepped up to the security area at the airport was getting ready to take off my shoes. My wife looks at me at asks me what I was doing. I told her that I was taking off my shoes and she laughed. "You don't have to do that.", she said, "Nobody hates Brazil.". That statement to me was very profound.

When I started talking with her friends and other Brazilians, a common question would come up. "Why do American's attack other countries so much?"

"Well, self-defense of course to stop terrorists!"

"Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Serbia/Croatia?"

"Well yes, I guess"

"And maybe now Pakistan, Iran, Yemen?"

"Was there ever a time when the US wasn't attacking someone?"

That got me thinking. When I was a kid it was communism and the cold war. After that a little action in Guatemala, Somalia, Serbia. Then 911 and the War on Terror.

I couldn't recall a time when we weren't blowing up at least a minor drug lord or dictator.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if a neutral country has this view of us, maybe it is not entirely unwarranted. Maybe we are a little too quick on the draw.

I hope you pulled out a history book and told your Brazilian friends what happened in each war.

Vietnam was a Sucker war, we got suckered into it and then were too proud to give up early when it would have been low loss. All the world powers (England, France, Russia, China, The US), all agreed that Vietnam was a French territory and thus we all helped France try to hold onto it and eventually the US just got stupid about it. There was no Attacking by the US that started the war, it was diplomacy and trying to end civil war that drew the US in.

Korea was a UN action. The US responded to South (The Real) Korea's plea for help against the communist civil war in their north. The Chinese were the ones that started this war. I'm sure anyone in South Korea today would tell you that the US did them a favor by pushing the communists back into the North.

Serbia - Humanitarian aid under UN action.

Somalia - Again Humanitarian aid under UN Action.

Libya - NATO Action.

Afghanistan was definately a US action. But it was started diplomaticly and other nations even tossed in with us. Even the Japanese sent money and supplies, if not personnel.

Iraq 1 was for Kuwait. They asked for aid and we gave them their nation back. Iraq started that war.

Iraq 2 is probably the only war that can be called a US war of aggression. We attacked for no other reason then Saddam Hussain would not let us do what we wanted.

Out of all the wars the US has fought in of the last 6 decades, only Iraq 2 really has little footing to stand on.

So... your Brazilian friends are just... ignorant for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't true either. Muslims bombed Spain, and are causing trouble, riots, gangs, etc. all over Europe.

Usually they bomb places inside their own nations that they think will draw attension by killing a few Americans/Westerners/Christians, while killing ten times as many of their own native Muslim citizens too. Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt are all targeted this way. They do this for attension and to get the media involved... for terror does not spread without people talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diechecker, I think you missed the point. The point was that the US has been at war for dozens of different reasons for my whole life. Heck my grandfather was a WWII veteran, my uncle a Korean war veteran, my father was a Vietnam veteran, and I am a gulf war veteran. I am honestly starting to believe that we can't do anything diplomatically without killing people. I look to the past a see nothing but wars and as I look to the future with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Yemen and Pakistan I see nothing but war. I watched the Republican debates, the candidates want war. I see Obama authorize action against Libya. Can't say he is peace-inclined either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid to fight. But seriously, can't we solve a single problem without shooting people? And maybe the OP is right, maybe we are creating our own enemies just so we have more people to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drawing a line across a map is an easy thing to do. I've noticed that a lot of conflicts are born that way. .. Korea was cut in two.. Look what eventually happened. Vietnam was "colonized" and cut in two... Look what eventually happened. Look back at the colonial powers actions across Africa and India and the middle east .. chopping up the map creates conflicts. Conflicts can be taken advantage of . Divide and Conquer . It's so often the same old tricks over and over and over and over .... Creating an Enemy is an old favorite as well.

*

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diechecker, I think you missed the point. The point was that the US has been at war for dozens of different reasons for my whole life. Heck my grandfather was a WWII veteran, my uncle a Korean war veteran, my father was a Vietnam veteran, and I am a gulf war veteran. I am honestly starting to believe that we can't do anything diplomatically without killing people. I look to the past a see nothing but wars and as I look to the future with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Yemen and Pakistan I see nothing but war. I watched the Republican debates, the candidates want war. I see Obama authorize action against Libya. Can't say he is peace-inclined either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid to fight. But seriously, can't we solve a single problem without shooting people? And maybe the OP is right, maybe we are creating our own enemies just so we have more people to fight.

I think the Shooting people happens after other people start shooting.

I do agree that this "Policeman of the World" thing is pretty stupid. I think it does fold into the idea that the US economy is partly built on war contractors. If you don't use stuff then it never gets broken, and if you don't use your stuff, then there is much less advocacy to building the next revision.

I did not mean to say America is faultless, but I wanted to point out that Propoganda around the world tried to villify the US when it is not deserved.

Would you feel better about the US if Korea was entirely communist? Would you feel better if Libya was still under Kaddafi and he killed more then a quarter of his own people? Would you feel better if the Bosnians had been wiped out as a people? Would you have done nothing but talk when the Taliban would allow nothing to be done about Ben Ladden and his training camps in Afghanistan? Will you propose talking up to the point where Iran launches a nuke strike on Tel Aviv? Would you feel better if we just allowed the Germans to shoot up Briton and just give over Europe to them? Would you just let hundreds of millions of dollars of food relief to be highjacked and sold on the black market in Somalia, while the people in the countryside starve? Those are the choices you have to say that you would accept to prevent the wars you suggested show American Over Aggressiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drawing a line across a map is an easy thing to do. I've noticed that a lot of conflicts are born that way. .. Korea was cut in two.. Look what eventually happened. Vietnam was "colonized" and cut in two... Look what eventually happened. Look back at the colonial powers actions across Africa and India and the middle east .. chopping up the map creates conflicts. Conflicts can be taken advantage of . Divide and Conquer . It's so often the same old tricks over and over and over and over .... Creating an Enemy is an old favorite as well.

*

As old as man, and just as much a part of our world wide culture and societys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Shooting people happens after other people start shooting.

I do agree that this "Policeman of the World" thing is pretty stupid. I think it does fold into the idea that the US economy is partly built on war contractors. If you don't use stuff then it never gets broken, and if you don't use your stuff, then there is much less advocacy to building the next revision.

I did not mean to say America is faultless, but I wanted to point out that Propaganda around the world tried to vilify the US when it is not deserved.

Would you feel better about the US if Korea was entirely communist? Would you feel better if Libya was still under Qaddafi and he killed more then a quarter of his own people? Would you feel better if the Bosnians had been wiped out as a people? Would you have done nothing but talk when the Tali ban would allow nothing to be done about Ben Laden and his training camps in Afghanistan? Will you propose talking up to the point where Iran launches a nuke strike on Tel Aviv? Would you feel better if we just allowed the Germans to shoot up Briton and just give over Europe to them? Would you just let hundreds of millions of dollars of food relief to be high jacked and sold on the black market in Somalia, while the people in the countryside starve? Those are the choices you have to say that you would accept to prevent the wars you suggested show American Over Aggressiveness.

I swore an oath to protect the United States not the whole world. If the Korean's want to be communist let them. My uncle fought in the Korean war and guess what? North Korea is still there and communist. Libya was rebelling against Qaddafi, so instead of letting them solve their own problems we come in bombing. As for Bosnia, we have a bunch that became refugees here, but of course we had to come guns ab lazing into that too. Afghanistan? Bin Laden did hit us first. Hunting him down and killing him is good. Ten year occupation and trying to Americanize the people is foolishness. Iran nuking Israel? More likely Israel nuking Iran. Believe it or not they are their own country and can take care of themselves. Germans taking over Britain? That would be WWII and the Axis hit us first. Hijacked food relief in Somalia? Shooting worked well in that up until Blackhawk down.

What's next? Invading China because they have a government abortion policy? How about Mexico? I am increasingly seeing that from conservatives over the illegal immigrants. Maybe Congo, that genocidal civil war and killing elephants for their tusks to boot! That would make Liberals happy. Or maybe Russia, they did threaten to shoot down our European missile shield after all. Yemen? Al Quaeda is there! Syria, shooting their own people like Libya and a puppet of Iran to boot! North Korea and Iran, making nukes and crazy enough to use them! Egypt maybe? I hear they are shooting their own protesters. Somalia again? Them pirates are getting uppity! How about Pakistan, they did hide Bin Laden after all. Indonesia maybe? Al Quaida is there I hear. Or maybe Malaysia. I hear they have a pretty oppressive regime. Saudi Arabia? Most of the 911 hijackers are from there.

I could go on, but my point is that there are plenty of reasons to fight, yet it seems that we are the only country constantly at war.

So the answer is yes, I would feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could go on, but my point is that there are plenty of reasons to fight, yet it seems that we are the only country constantly at war.

I suppose that is what makes the US great. It chooses and has the might, to help the downtrodden who ask for help. If it makes a couple of Islamo-Hitlers call jihad on the US, then I can live with that.

Personnally, I think that anyone killing anyone is wrong, and that there sometimes is no good or easy choices. Look at Obama... not able to close Guantanamo, stepping up the war in Afghanistan, bombing Libya, slapping sactions on Iran and Syria... All things he said he would not do just 3 years ago. There are no easy choices, except for from the armchair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Shooting people happens after other people start shooting.

I do agree that this "Policeman of the World" thing is pretty stupid. I think it does fold into the idea that the US economy is partly built on war contractors. If you don't use stuff then it never gets broken, and if you don't use your stuff, then there is much less advocacy to building the next revision.

I did not mean to say America is faultless, but I wanted to point out that Propoganda around the world tried to villify the US when it is not deserved.

Would you feel better about the US if Korea was entirely communist? Would you feel better if Libya was still under Kaddafi and he killed more then a quarter of his own people? Would you feel better if the Bosnians had been wiped out as a people? Would you have done nothing but talk when the Taliban would allow nothing to be done about Ben Ladden and his training camps in Afghanistan? Will you propose talking up to the point where Iran launches a nuke strike on Tel Aviv? Would you feel better if we just allowed the Germans to shoot up Briton and just give over Europe to them? Would you just let hundreds of millions of dollars of food relief to be highjacked and sold on the black market in Somalia, while the people in the countryside starve? Those are the choices you have to say that you would accept to prevent the wars you suggested show American Over Aggressiveness.

How much difference would it make to global stability if Korea was entirely Communist, I wonder? Just hypothetically. Might it be argued that part of the reason for the paranoia of Kim Jong Nutter is because he has a nation strongly supported by the U.S. right next door to him? Just a thought. I'm not saying tha Korea was US Imperialism, necessarily, but it has given a very useful strategic presence, hasn't it. Certainly I don't think Bosnia & LIbya were American Militaristic Imperialism; the U.S. was reluctant to get involved in Bosnia, and almost as much in Libya. But as regards Afghanistan; let's be quite honest; did "Doing something" about Bin L. make the slightest difference to either bringing the Afghan war to a conclusion or reducing the Terrroist Threat? The TSA don't seem to think so.

And, erm, Would you feel better if we just allowed the Germans to shoot up Briton and just give over Europe to them?; I don't mean to sound unkind, but, er, ... that is what happened in 1940. I think Roosevelt did very sincerely want to help, but public opinion would have made it suicidal if he'd done so, until the Japanese did it for him (and even then, it was Germany that declared war on the U.S.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.