Know Jihad...

[Nightshade]

A little show and tell on what jihad really means for the whole world...

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

[Sirius]

What about PHOTOSHOP TERRORISM AWARENESS?!?

...erm yeah that bevel/emboss can die. At any rate.

[Nightshade]

lol

Yeah, could have been a bit more visually pleasing, but the subject is what is important.

[Will Robinson]

I'm all for taking the fight to the islamo-fascists but that was really bad. Like it was written to stir up the angry white man xenophobe demographic.
The subject matter is important and valid but the presentation was counterproductive to the tenth power!

[Top Wop]

And what better way to present the need for an awareness by playing a melodramatic opera track in the background (whatever that particular piece is called).

That was awful.

[Kilarin]

by playing a melodramatic opera track in the background (whatever that particular piece is called).

Excuuuuuse me?!!!! Melodramatic opera track indeed!

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is the opening piece and best known part of "Carmina Burana", a cantana by Carl Orff.

The program was indeed propaganda, but it was propaganda with GOOD MUSIC!

Insult not that which is beyond your limited ability to appreciate!!!!

[Bet51987]

A little show and tell on what jihad really means for the whole world...

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

I watched the entire thing and found it truthfully sad. I'm going to distribute this to everyone I know.

Thanks for trying to wake up the blind.

Bettina

[TechPro]

A little show and tell on what jihad really means for the whole world...

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

That... was ugly. Fear and Panic being shouted out with the intent to breed more fear and panic. What makes it worse is that it paints the idea that ALL of the Islamists, or ALL of the people in certain nations... support Jihad. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Only certain extremists groups support that Jihad..

Anybody remember the injustices the people of the Allied Nations did to people of German and Japanese heritage during World War II? This kind of video promotes the same prejudices we should be avoiding now.

Personally, I think sharing that with others would make me no better than the people in the pictures holding signs of hate and violence. I will not have anything to do with it.

[Bet51987]

Techpro.

I do know where your coming from and I do agree with you except I think sharing this is a reminder of not only what is happening now... but what is coming down the road if we don't do something about it.

Most of the hate comes from holy books.... like this in the Koran:

3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement...

Bee

[TechPro]

Techpro.

I do know where your coming from and I do agree with you except I think sharing this is a reminder of not only what is happening now... but what is coming down the road if we don't do something about it.

You're right, people need to know what is trying to come down the road, and people often need reminding. I just really dislike the way it was presented there. I think we can do that in a much better manner without spreading fear, panic, and prejudice.

[TIGERassault]

Huzzah! More irrational prejudicm and blatant propaganda! Just what we need!

[Palzon]

Ya know, Bee, the Old and New Testaments have passages just as violent. I don't see how taking passages from the Koran out of context proves anything. I'm sure one could compile real statistical data to compare which people is more historically warlike (barbaric if you like). My money is on Christendom.

I'd also like to add that Thunderbunny is sperm gargling troll.

[Will Robinson]

...I'm sure one could compile real statistical data to compare which people is more historically warlike (barbaric if you like). My money is on Christendom....

I'd take that bet if you compile the data based on conflicts started per year the religion has existed! I'd even pay odds! Have you seen the global maps of hot spots and seen how many of them involve the followers of Islam?!?
Islam is relatively young but their ranks have racked up some impressive stats in the killing-in-the-name-god department.

[Palzon]

...I'm sure one could compile real statistical data to compare which people is more historically warlike (barbaric if you like). My money is on Christendom....

I'd take that bet if you compile the data based on conflicts started per year the religion has existed! I'd even pay odds! Have you seen the global maps of hot spots and seen how many of them involve the followers of Islam?!?
Islam is relatively young but their ranks have racked up some impressive stats in the killing-in-the-name-god department.

So what's our metric? How many killed? I'll wager just the years 1939 - 1945 have Islam's entire history covered. As far as civilian deaths from terrorism, the terrorists have a long way to go to catch up with a single raid of B-29's on Tokyo in the summer of '45.

Ya know, I see your logic. The problem with it is it always leads to war and more war. A new way has to begin somewhere. Perhaps the Islamic world wouldn't focus on the violent parts of their own scripture if they hadn't had hundreds of years of colonial dominance in their region, and by dominance I often mean killing them and stealing their resources.

You know it's a good thing we annihiliated the Native American culture so extensively that they're not terrorizing us any more. Those Injuns were just so violent and barbaric. It was in their nature. They had no cause to feel hostile to us. bull★■◆●.

[Will Robinson]

Woah there Hoss! I'm not trying to use your observation of which religious group is more bloodthirsty to justify a war today! You're the one who threw that out there.
My metric would be which group is waging war in the name of religion today...and/or which one has waged more wars in the name of religious beliefs in toto...

That to me is the most pertinent aspect of the groups as it relates to the discussion here and how it reflects their propensity to inflict death and destruction on the rest of the world.
You bring up the old testament and all that atrocity...well yea it's there.
So make it relevant to the discussion!
Where are the churches and the religious nutbags in control of predominantly Christian nations that are preaching that old testament line of destruction? Can't find them can you?

Now by contrast where are the imams and clerics in the mosques preaching kill the infidel and calling for jihad and celebrating suicide bombers, issuing Fatwas calling for murder and guiding Muslim nations and their armies today?!
They are there, Iran being one of them!

This was your observation Palzon, I just ran with the ball out into the light of day....

[Bet51987]

Ya know, Bee, the Old and New Testaments have passages just as violent. I don't see how taking passages from the Koran out of context proves anything. I'm sure one could compile real statistical data to compare which people is more historically warlike (barbaric if you like). My money is on Christendom.

The old and new testaments are gone. Those were before my time and I don't see any people taking the bible literally anymore. What I do see is their replacements who are tired of wielding swords and are looking for something bigger and more deadlier to throw. Its now that I'm worried about and my money is on "Death to infidels"

Bettina

[Palzon]

Woah there Hoss! I'm not trying to use your observation of which religious group is more bloodthirsty to justify a war today! You're the one who threw that out there.
My metric would be which group is waging war in the name of religion today...and/or which one has waged more wars in the name of religious beliefs in toto...

That to me is the most pertinent aspect of the groups as it relates to the discussion here and how it reflects their propensity to inflict death and destruction on the rest of the world.
You bring up the old testament and all that atrocity...well yea it's there.
So make it relevant to the discussion!
Where are the churches and the religious nutbags in control of predominantly Christian nations that are preaching that old testament line of destruction? Can't find them can you?

Now by contrast where are the imams and clerics in the mosques preaching kill the infidel and calling for jihad and celebrating suicide bombers, issuing Fatwas calling for murder and guiding Muslim nations and their armies today?!
They are there, Iran being one of them!

This was your observation Palzon, I just ran with the ball out into the light of day....

Listen to yourself. Why would we need to resort to revolutionary violence? WE are the powers that be! We are the empire. We don't draw on the violence to support revolutionary principles because we're too busy trying to maintain the status quo. Sadly for all parties that entails having dominion a certain part of the world that is deservedly tired of foreign rule.

We were revolutionaries once. We revolted against an empire that most certainly abused us. And it would have destroyed us for revolting if it could. And we righteously proclaimed our independence. Now we are that empire. The Empire doesn't revolt. It's suppresses revolution. Whether conscious of it or not - that's exactly what you're advocating for - Empire. And so long as there is imprerialism - there will be rebellion.

We need to build towards a world where those who abide by the law are rewarded but instead we, like imperial powers before us, have used our power to keep the disadvantaged in their place. Turning this around will be a slow and arduous process. To keep going down the path we're on will bring about just the doomsday you are concerned to prevent.

Study the history of Japan from the turn of the century until the start of the second war. This is what you will find. They tried to do it the "right" way, the legal way, the White man's way. And we kicked them in the balls. We absolutely, 100 percent, provoked a war with Japan. Not to excuse their brutality - but they had a legit reason to think war was the only way out. The lesson is there if you are willing to see it. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.

[Will Robinson]

The Empire I advocate is the one based on judeo-christian law, the one based on the founding articles of this country.
My empire is the law.
The problem with that of course is there are Muslims who can say the same for Sharia law...you call them revolutionaries I call them Islamo-facsist terrorists.

A few posts back you lamented our wiping out the American Indian, now you call it righteously achieving independence.
It illustrates the inherent conflict that lives in the man who is idealistic and pragmatic.
You and I just disagree on how much of one's own blood must be sacrificed before letting our survival instinct kick in is justified. Either way though we both will end up killing them to save ourselves.

The islamo-facsist empire will be no Disneyland, on the other hand, the judeo-christian empire invented Disneyland and made it available to everyone no matter what god they pray to

[Duper]

The old and new testaments are gone. Those were before my time and I don't see any people taking the bible literally anymore.

Then you need to look around a bit more, because you missed a whole LOT of people.

God never said war was wrong. Murder was not condoned.
(I did NOT just say that all wars were OK.)

[Top Wop]

by playing a melodramatic opera track in the background (whatever that particular piece is called).

Excuuuuuse me?!!!! Melodramatic opera track indeed!

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is the opening piece and best known part of "Carmina Burana", a cantana by Carl Orff.

The program was indeed propaganda, but it was propaganda with GOOD MUSIC!

Insult not that which is beyond your limited ability to appreciate!!!!

Hey! I never intended to insult that piece. Just its application. And yes I love dramatic music too. Thats why I mostly listen to orchestral soundtracks.

[Bet51987]

The old and new testaments are gone. Those were before my time and I don't see any people taking the bible literally anymore.

Then you need to look around a bit more, because you missed a whole LOT of people.

God never said war was wrong. Murder was not condoned.
(I did NOT just say that all wars were OK.)

I was answering his question about Christians trying to kill non Christians or Atheists like me.

Bee

[Nightshade]

Holy crap. Pally's swollowed the entire \"america and the white jewish and christian crusaders (and capitalists and zionists) are killing the planet\" load full length. I'm amazed he hasn't committed suicide because he's white and happens to be the beneficiary of said concentrated evil.

I'm actually quite centrist if you really got to know me. I'm an athiest that promotes secular education and government, but I also know who my potential enemies are going to be and to sound the alarm. Islamists will not make any distinction between a radical leftist like you and a centrist. You're seemingly ignoring the drooling monster of islam on purpose.

[CUDA]

Study the history of Japan from the turn of the century until the start of the second war. This is what you will find. They tried to do it the \"right\" way, the legal way, the White man's way. And we kicked them in the balls. We absolutely, 100 percent, provoked a war with Japan. Not to excuse their brutality - but they had a legit reason to think war was the only way out. The lesson is there if you are willing to see it. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Palz, you don't have any idea about the history of Japan and world war 2 do you????

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, 11 years before \"we provoked\" an attack against us.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/manchuria.htm

even tho the \"official\" start of WW2 was sept 1939. the war in the Pacific had already been raging for 8 years. at least learn your history before you try to use it.

Why did Japan invade Manchuria ?

Japan was becoming increasingly crowded due to its limited size as a nation and its rapidly increasing population. Manchuria offered nearly 200,000 square kilometres which, as part of a Japanese empire, would easily accommodate any over-spilling population. The Japanese people had a very low opinion of the Chinese - a Japanese form of \"untermenschen\" - and, therefore, would have given no thought to the Manchurian people whatsoever. It was also believed in Japan that Manchuria was rich in minerals, forestry and rich agricultural land. With the problems that Japan was experiencing at home, Manchuria seemed an obvious solution to these problems.

I'm curious as to how you think we provoked Japan into invading Manchuria, which was probably the actual start of WW2 not the invasion of Poland in 39.
and if you read a little farther down the article you read about the League of Nations actions. sound a little Familiar? kind of like what is happening in the middle east right now, resolution after resolution being past and no action being taken. if the world had acted quickly and decisively against Japan in 1931, it \"might\" have made Hitler think twice before attacking Poland. Japan attacked Manchuria for empirical and economical expansion ONLY. the same \"reasons\" Germany gave for annexing the Sudetenland and then invaded Poland, and after the League imposed sanctions on Japan then they felt they had no options and reacted to our embargo's (League sanctioned by the way) against them. can we say U.N. sanctions?

The League could introduce three sanctions. Verbal warnings clearly did not work. However, the impact of the Depression meant that those nations that traded with Japan did not want to risk losing this trade. If a nation did give up trading with Japan, as Britain pointed out, their place would quickly be taken by another country willing to get trade started with the Far East’s most powerful nation.

WOW sound Familiar?
history is a wonderful thing when you read it.

Those that forget their History are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana

[Palzon]

Cuda, Japan fought with us in WWI. We denied them spoils of victory even though they were our allies. Meanwhile, Britain, France, the US and the Dutch all expanded or consolidated empires in the Far East, Japan's backyard. Adding insult to injury, we limited the size of their navy. Basically we told them they could not be a super power in their region, while reserving that right for ourselves and other western powers. Japan was trying to gain equal footing peacefully at that point. They needed resources because we denied them what they tried to ask for nicely. Basically, we told them to suck it. Our policy of keeping them down led directly to the rise of more militant leaders in the ranks of Japanese government and military. Sound familiar? You're going to have to go back further than 1931. And you might try reading more than just a website.

TB, I'm not some liberal with my head in the sand. I'm trying to make a modest point that I challenge anyone to contest factually. That is, for every "terrorist" attack you could enumerate, there is a worse incident perpetrated by the west on innocents. Where does it stop? If we stay in some kind of "my enemy is evil" feedback loop the WOT will have no end. NONE. There will be no conclusion, no progress, just an endless cycle of death. It sounds as though most of you here are happy as long as it's their innocents who die and not ours. Not only is that morally unacceptable to me. It's a viewpoint that will only lead to more fighting.

My empire is the law.

That's precisely what the Romans said just before they killed Christ.

Another thing, I never said we righteously achieved independence from the Indians. Can you be serious? I was referring to the British. And you never responded to my point, which can be summed up by saying that if we were dominated by a colonial power we would not (and have not) shied away from "terrorism". I think it's idiotic to sit there and say they have some kind of vastly different value system when we've killed more of them (directly or indirectly) and WE are the ones with entrenched power. If they had the entrenched power they would have no need to revolt.

[Will Robinson]

Another thing, I never said we righteously achieved independence from the Indians.

No, but you referred to our gaining independence as a righteous thing and in another post you referred to our killing the Indians as a horrific tactic to quell any uprising.
My point there is our independence was made possible by taking the land from the Indians. You think we were righteous in fighting off the oppressive British but we killed the Indians and stole their land first! That was what we wanted the independence for, so we could take from the British what they had conquered....
Righteous? Not really, but it was an example of the ongoing struggle humans always undergo to achieve the quality of life they desire. The so called justified fight with the Brits was over the spoils of war with the Indians we all raped and pillaged together!

Which lead to my bigger point, that this kind of struggle is inevitable. If we were to apply your suggested path in the middle east of ending the cycle of violence to our achieving independence then we would still be British subjects waiting for the Queen to give us some freedom!!

And you never responded to my point, which can be summed up by saying that if we were dominated by a colonial power we would not (and have not) shied away from "terrorism". I think it's idiotic to sit there and say they have some kind of vastly different value system when we've killed more of them (directly or indirectly) and WE are the ones with entrenched power. If they had the entrenched power they would have no need to revolt.

I think I did respond to it but let me focus on the salient point as I see it.
They do have a different value system and that is precisely why I want to interfere with them!
Just because we both share the one 'value' of using terrible means to achieve victory when we resort to war doesn't mean we share the same value system as a whole!
They value their interpretation of Islamic law and their interpretation of the Koran as the ultimate authority.
We value man made law.
We are a progressive secular society that protects basic fundamental human rights for everyone.
They are trying to continue the ancient ways of brutal tribal warlords who crush all dissenters and murder all outsiders with the endorsement of their tribes religious zealots, only now they are poised to start doing that on a global scale!

There really is a difference between us and it is worth fighting over because submission to them is totally self destructive. Just as the British in my example up above would never have given us the freedom we stole from them the islamo-facsists will never allow us infidels to live in peace.

We may very well achieve peaceful relations with the Iranians without fighting a war with them but we damn well better be prepared and willing to go to war, and smart enough to know when it is our last best chance to be victorious against them, because they, in their current islamo-facsist state, are a threat to our freedom and way of life.

There will be no conclusion, no progress, just an endless cycle of death. It sounds as though most of you here are happy as long as it's their innocents who die and not ours. Not only is that morally unacceptable to me. It's a viewpoint that will only lead to more fighting.

There is progress though. Turkey was once one of those old-school tribes.
They adopted some of the western values and have become a shining example of muslim people running a secular government.
How did they get there? Two basic things, one, the desire to be part of something (europe) and, two, someone put his boot on their necks for fifty years while he beat them into submission! The only difference between Atatürk and Saddam was Atatürk wanted to build a secular society and Saddam wanted to be the ultimate tribal warlord.

[CUDA]

Cuda, Japan fought with us in WWI. We denied them spoils of victory even though they were our allies.

what spoils did we deny them?

Meanwhile, Britain, France, the US and the Dutch all expanded or consolidated empires in the Far East, Japan's backyard.

hrm I cant think of any expansion that the U.S. did after WW2 in the pacific. all the territories we acquired in the far east was done after the Spanish American war. maybe you can enlighten me, because I "could" be wrong

Adding insult to injury, we limited the size of their navy. Basically we told them they could not be a super power in their region, while reserving that right for ourselves and other western powers.

I think you need to read up a little on the Washington Naval Treaty. try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

Japan was trying to gain equal footing peacefully at that point. They needed resources because we denied them what they tried to ask for nicely. Basically, we told them to suck it. Our policy of keeping them down led directly to the rise of more militant leaders in the ranks of Japanese government and military.

ah so our "policies" as you put it lead to Japans overpopulation problems and their disdain for the Manchurians and we forced them to invade and slaughter the Chinese.

[Duper]

ah so our "policies as you put it lead to Japans overpopulation problems and their disdain for the Manchurians and we forced them to invade and slaughter the chinese.

Thank you Cuda. Yes we did embargo the Japanese, but with good reason.

and yea. spoils? Dividing the nations of Europe and Asia minor was reaping the spoils? We are STILL feeling the mistake of that nearly 100 years later. We spent a couple decades in Western Europe trying to get their land back to livable status after that war as we did with WWII. We probably spent more than we "pillaged".

[CUDA]

http://www.shikokuhenrotrail.com/japanh ... story.html

A Chronology of Japanese History

1914 World War I breaks outand Japan enters on the side of the allies in accordance with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, although they play a very minor role. They do, however, seize Germany's holdings in China and the North Pacific.

very minor role yet they sure seem to gain some spoils of war

January 1919 Japan participates in negotiations at Versailles at end of WW1. Japan wins concession of German territories in China and the Pacific but not statement of racial equality with West.

again with the spoils of war

August 1921 Japan joins the US, Britain, France and other countries in Washington, D.C. to negotiate naval treaties and other issues.
In Four Power Pacific Treaty, Japan agrees to limits on capital ships for US, Britain, and Japan in the ratio of 5-5-3 respectively.
In Nine Power Treaty, all parties agree to continue Open Door policy in China.

Japan agreed with this because as both the U.S. and G.B. realized the cost of building Capital ships could bankrupt a nation.

1930 The Five Power Naval Treaty signatories (1921) meet in London and extend the original treaty. Japan accepts limits of 10:10:6 for cruisers and 10:10:7 for destroyers while getting equality with the US in submarines. The navy is unhappy with this and appeals directly to the Emperor, but the government forces ratification through the Diet

treaty part dux, again they agree but the military didn't like it. now there's a shocker

1927 A severe depression hits Japan. Many Japanese commercial banks collapse and it soon becomes a world depression.

obviously the great depression was effecting the wold globe.

April 1927 As the Kuomintang gradually consolidates its control over China, Japan begins to lose market share for its products. A combination of the zaibatsu, the bureaucrats, and the Seiyūkai forces an end to the Wakatsuki cabinet. Tanaka Giichi (an army general and president of the Seiyūkai) becomes Prime Minister. Japanese foreign policy formally switches from noninterference to intervention.
Japan sends troops to the Tientsin International Concession at Shantung to \"protect\" Japanese residents.

1930 The Cherry Blossom Society (Sakurakai) is formed by radical military officers advocating an overthrow of the government and the establishment of a military regime.

and this is America's fault????

September 18, 1931 The Japanese Kwantung Army in China blows up a section of the South Manchurian Railroad in Mukden (The Mukden Incident) and claims that the Chinese had done it and then attacked the Japanese. This is then used to justify the subsequent Japanese takeover of Mukden and move into southern Manchuria.

WOW fabricating evidence. I'll bet the lefties were all over this one.

all these economic problems and the League of nations had not even imposed sanctions on Japan for invading Manchuria. that didn't happen until 1933

there is just too much to cut and paste. Obviously Palz, your in need of a small history lesson regarding Japan and its involvement in Manchuria, I understand blaming the U.S. for all the worlds problems is the chic thing to do now days, but please

[Palzon]

You can minimize my points all you want but the facts you posted completely support what i was saying. The Japanese were relegated to a second rate power in their own sphere of influence.

WTF is the Monroe Doctrine? Do you think we would tolerate Spain telling us what we could do in our neck of the woods (?) ...oh, ★■◆●, we didn't! We "fabricated evidence" as you say and went to war with them. Then we took the Philipines, which just happens to be in the far east. I guess in your world only the USA is entitled to Nationalism and pursuing policies of self interest.

I'm glad you got a 15 minute history lesson on the Internet and think you know what you're talking about.

And we righteously proclaimed our independence.

Will, I was making a comparison between the righteousness of our revolt and that of the Muslims. I was not commenting on the correctness of our revolutionary assumptions - only on the vehemence with which they were held. At the time of the revolution the founders were high on Enlightenment principles. Obviously these principles differ greatly from the tenets of the Koran. However, the founders used those ideas to fuel a revolution. Slogans of our revolution must have sounded as menacing to Britain as Muslim slogans sound to us today. "Give me liberty or give me death!" How radical they were!

Of course we had good reason to be pissed about British colonial rule. And so do the f'ing Arabs. My comment about values was not to suggest that we are identical. My point is merely that people who have been oppressed for generations tend to feel justified in revolting. They feel justified now. We felt justified in our revolt. To deny this would be the height of an oblivious ethnocentrism.

My appeal is a modest one. Stop gearing up for war as if it is the only option. Propaganda such as the one TB has posted in this thread magnify the facts into something they do not of themselves suggest. If you parked cameras outside every retarded Right Wing Christian demonstration in this country, you'd think the whole US nation was berserk too!

I would not for one minute deny there are Muslim forces who pose a danger to us. I strongly believe they should be contained or even destroyed. But we need to be more thoughtful in our approach. We need to have a more balanced approach - and one that recognizes that slogans such as "My Empire is the law" will inevitably lead to mutual destruction.

Just because they are dangerous to us does not mean they don't have legitimate grievances. It's like the old saying, "I may be paranoid, but they really are out to get me." Well, some of the Muslims may be dangerous, but the West really has f'kd them over. My appeal is truly a modest one and that is simply (only) that we put as much energy (thought, effort) into peace as we do into war.

[CUDA]

You can minimize my points all you want but the facts you posted completely support what i was saying. The Japanese were relegated to a second rate power in their own sphere of influence.

first off you minimized your own points not me. you've contradicted your self several times already, second show me where the US was responsible for relegating the Japanese to second class citizen in the far east????

WTF is the Monroe Doctrine? Do you think we would tolerate Spain telling us what we could do in our neck of the woods (?) ...oh, *****, we didn't! We \"fabricated evidence\" as you say and went to war with them. Then we took the Philipines, which just happens to be in the far east. I guess in your world only the USA is entitled to Nationalism and pursuing policies of self interest.

Another History lesson for ya Palz the U.S.S. Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor in 1898. the cause of the sinking was thought to be a Mine or torpedo, which was believed to be a Spanish act.

when the Maine was raised in 1911 there was debate over how it was sunk. mine or coal bunker explosion but it was still determined that it was probably a mine, it was never verified either way.

it wasn't until 1976 that it was finally agreed upon by a group headed by Admiral Rickover using photo's of the wreck and more modern technology, that the cause of the sinking was determined as a coal explosion in the ships boiler room.

then in 1999 National Geographic did a computer analysis of the evidence which refuted Adm Rickover's findings and stated that the cause of the sinking was most likely a mine or other external source.

So your accusing the U.S. of \"fabricating evidence\" as you put it for war with Spain carries no weight either. so I guess in your World only the USA should be blamed for all the worlds troubles

the Spoils for the U.S. from the Spanish American war were. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines in 1902 a full 15 years before the START of WW1 and 39 years before Japan attacked us in on Dec 7th

Strike two but keep trying

[Will Robinson]

Palzon, I'm not willing to rationalize the Iranian or Syrian terror machine as a result of western oppression.
The black men and women in America don't get to go around blowing up white civilians because of all the suffering and oppression their ancestors suffered from the late 1700's until just a few decades ago. So I sure as hell won't tolerate a bunch of islamo-facsists sending terrorists after our people because we send aid to Israel so they won't be slaughtered by the \"bad Muslims\"!

The bulk of the oppression the average person in the middle east suffers is the oppression brought down on him by his own leaders, religious, political or just plain old bullies in power.

The Iranian and Syrian terror machine is a tool used to create an Islamic fascist environment.

Ask yourself, why don't the Palestinian leaders (funded, armed and disciplined by Iran) allow the Israeli's to remove the blown up cars in the street and replace the open sewers with underground sewage systems along with many other improvements that have been offered to the inhabitants of the Palestinian terrirtory?
Answer: Because they want the baby Palestinians to grow up as hateful little islami-kazi cannon fodder instead of finding some common ground with their Israeli neighbors that's why!
the Palestinians are the epitome of oppressed people and it's their own Muslim brothers that keep them down. They are the proxy-war victim-pool for the Islamo-fascist movement.

The Israeli's don't need victim Palestinians, they need peaceful neighbors.
The Iranians, Syrians and the bin Laddins of the world however, need Palestinian victims.
Now is that situation the result of western occupation?!? Or the result of tribal arabic racism?

It's that same military-industrial complex we have that you hate so much only over there it's the terrorist-industrial complex!

PS: When I said \"My empire is the law\" it wasn't offered as a bad slogan for Dubyah to say at the wrong moment. It was only for your eyes to illustrate the difference in the two empires, ours being a secular inclusive, relatively passive empire that takes no territory compared to the other empires that have been built including the one built by God killing Romans

[Palzon]

then in 1999 National Geographic did a computer analysis of the evidence which refuted Adm Rickover's findings and stated that the cause of the sinking was most likely a mine or other external source...

Strike two but keep trying

Show me one time I contradicted myself, I'll admit it. And by the way, I've always known you were an ignorant troglodyte. But now you have to come in here and make sh!t up? Nat Geo. never showed a mine likely caused the sinking of the Maine. So are you just wrong? Or are you a goddamn liar?

Assuming every thing you know comes from Wikipedia, perhaps you were drawing from this article

Only the article doesn't say what you claim. What it actually says is that a mine was more probable than previously concluded. First, that does not even remotely mean it was likely a mine. It means exactly what it says - that a mine was more probable than previously thought. Second, even those results were disputed by analysts on the same team that did the study and by the Rickover camp. See below.

In 1999, to commemorate the centennial of the sinking of the Maine, National Geographic Magazine commissioned an analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises, using computer modeling that was not available for previous investigations. The AME analysis examined both theories and concluded that “it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines.” Some experts, including some of Admiral Rickover’s team and several analysts at AME, do not agree with the conclusion, and the fury over new findings even spurred a heated 90-minute debate at the 124th annual meeting of the U.S. Naval Institute.

They never found it was likely a mine. Even if they had it would be irrelevant. I wasn't referring to fabrications of the government. I was talking about manufacturing public opinion with propaganda (remember what this thread is about?) Every article you can find on the Spanish American War acknowledges that "yellow" journalism played a role in manoevering us towards war. And that's exactly wtf this original post is about. Do you see any irony in you foisting sh!tty propaganda in a thread that turned into a discussion of sh!tty propaganda?

I'm totally down with having a discussion with Will about this ★■◆● even though I think he's completely wrong. I respect Will and there's no person on this board (who I've not met already) that I'd rather go out drinking with. But Cuda, if you're gonna come with this amateur sh!t - posting stuff off the Internet you know nothing about and can barely understand - I'm not going to take you seriously.

[CUDA]

Cuda, Japan fought with us in WWI.

yes they did, they had a treaty signed with G.B. and entered the war when they did.

then you said

We denied them spoils of victory even though they were our allies.

where I showed

1914 World War I breaks out and Japan enters on the side of the allies in accordance with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, although they play a very minor role. They do, however, seize Germany's holdings in China and the North Pacific.

so what I called a contradiction on your part was in error, you were actually just plain wrong. my bad

I've always known you were an ignorant troglodyte

personal insults now how adult of you

Nat Geo. never showed a mine likely caused the sinking of the Maine. So are you just wrong?

ah parsing words now. ok so we have likely or more probable. here's an English lesson for you to go along with the History lesson.

yprob·a·ble /ˈprɒbəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prob-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. likely to occur or prove trueur word.

like·ly /ˈlaɪkli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahyk-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -li·er, -li·est, adverb
–adjective
1. probably or apparently destined (usually fol. by an infinitive): something not likely to happen.
2. seeming like truth, fact, or certainty; reasonably to be believed or expected;

so just to make you happy
In view of the predicted damage resulting from an under-ship mine and the similarity of the recorded damage to the ship (and the coincidental depression in the harbor bottom), it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and detonation of the magazines.

and it was taken from this Article not National Geo. Or Wiki, you really should expand your horizons.

http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articl ... n.htm#Conc

Every article you can find on the Spanish American War acknowledges that \"yellow\" journalism played a role in manoevering us towards war.

this is the first thing that you have said history wise that has been factually accurate

[Palzon]

Hey, liar, than was previously concluded does not mean more probable than other theoretical causes. Keep propagandizing - you're proving my point.

[Duper]

Hey, liar, than was previously concluded does not mean more probable than other theoretical causes. Keep propagandizing - you're proving my point.

and...

[CUDA]

I've always known you were an ignorant troglodyte.

Hey, liar,

typical reaction to someone that can't dispute the evidence . You start name calling,

your displaying such maturity on your part there Palz.

I've found that to always be a good way to win an argument. first you make a statement that you don't back up with facts, and then when someone calls you on your statement and proves you at least questionably on your interpretation or completely incorrect, you start calling names and try to belittle him. SWEET

[Palzon]

Well if it is an objective fact that you are an ignorant troglodyte, does that make me a name caller? I should apologize for calling you a liar though, since it is still possible that you are merely a moron who can't comprehend his own post!

You're the one dodging the reading comprehension point. The National Geographic conclusion study does not mean what you claim it meant! I don't see you addressing that. Maybe if you were inclined to read books instead of burning them we wouldn't be having this dicussion.

Face it, you're an ideologue who would never consider any point about religion or patriotism that conflicts with your narrow opinion regardless of the evidence. You made this personal before I did so if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. The only time you're the big man is when you step on the scale. I'm not going to pitter patter around your feelings when you're obviously yanking my chain. I'm just calling it like I see it.

And now I'm through wasting my time with you.

As far being off topic, nothing could be more on topic that watching someone distort facts to support their own political bent in a thread about propaganda!

[TechPro]

Take 2, they're small.

[CUDA]

ah yes now the truth comes out, typical leftwing tactics, you cant argue the points so you start calling names. how insecure you must be in your abilities to debate issues.

You're the one dodging the reading comprehension point. The National Geographic conclusion study does not mean what you claim it meant! I don't see you addressing that. Maybe if you were inclined to read books instead of burning them we wouldn't be having this dicussion.

and what EXACTLY did I claim it meant.
let me clarify this well enough for you to comprehend so read carefully.

FACT the Original conclusion in the sinking of the Maine was PROBABLY a mine which caused the forward powder magazines to explode.
I use the word probably so you can understand what was said.

FACT in 1911 after the raising of the Maine and subsuquent re evaluation of it sinking it is determined that the original conclusion was PROBABLY correct it was PROBABLY a mine.

FACT IN 1978 Adm Rickover believed that the explosion of the magazines was caused by a coal bunker fire, which had heated the magazines to the point of explosion.and not a mine as the Original investigation determined as the probable cause

FACT in 1999 another study was done and it was determined that.

The summary conclusion of this study is that the explosions that caused significant damage to the Maine, and were related to the ship's sinking, could have been by either of two possible causes:

1. a magazine explosion induced by proximity to a coal bunker fire
2. a magazine explosion induced by an under-ship mine.

so

it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and detonation of the magazines.

so sunshine if you read VERY carefully you'll see no where did I claim it was a mine right from the start I said PROBABLY

You made this personal before I did so if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen

Really??? show me where I called you anything. you cant because it didn't happen. nice try with the blame game tho.

Face it, you're an ideologue who would never consider any point about religion or patriotism that conflicts with your narrow opinion regardless of the evidence.

ahh now the truth comes out. since my part in the \"discussion\" had no part in religion, then you've prejudged me because of what you perceive my beliefs are. how open minded of you. and Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle. Palz maybe you should step back and look into the mirror before you judge someone for being narrow minded

but your right I'm done also you cant produce any fact to refute anything I have said, you spout off opinion after opinion with nothing to substantiate anything you claim, you make NO effort at all to post a single fact and you twist words to fit your opinions on the matter and then you revert to name calling. so just a little quote for ya Palzy to think about the next time you wish to discuss history.

\"In reality there exists only Fact and Fiction. Opinion results from the lack of the former and a reliance on the later\"

[Palzon]

Here you either distort the truth or simply don't understand the meaning of the 1999 report:

then in 1999 National Geographic did a computer analysis of the evidence which refuted Adm Rickover's findings and stated that the cause of the sinking was most likely a mine or other external source.

That's not what the report says. And then you come to this:

so sunshine if you read VERY carefully you'll see no where did I claim it was a mine right from the start I said PROBABLY

...Problem is, the report doesn't say this either!

Do you comprehend at all that the 1999 report does NOT say it was probably a mine? Is that sinking in at all? You see what you want to see. Your conclusion is a distortion.

The report says that a mine was more probable than previously concluded. And these last three words you are either ignoring or misunderstanding. Not to mention that you never address the fact that analysts of the very team that came to that conclusion did not agree that this conclusion was valid! And yet you sit there and proclaim that it was probably a mine. You're full of sh!t. And I don't care one way or another if you want to act like some whiny baby because you got called a name. So let me say this again. You're a godd4mn liar. Suck it!

Still, this is not a personal contest for me. This discussion is actually highly relevant to this topic. Too bad this decadent BB doesn't give a crap. I'm trying show how BS artists like yourself twist the truth little by little and the whole thing is a rotten house of cards. And I'm trying to take a stand here, on principle, to say that you are not going to bully me into backing down: I will not accept your flimsy propaganda or your cheerleading because I can see that it leads to an intellectually bankrupt foreign policy.

I don't want my children or grandchildren to be fodder for a war over property rights and that makes me a leftist? The opinion I expressed about Japan's road to war is essentially the concensus opinion amongst historians, not some radical view I invented. I'm not out on some intellectual limb here. Just for grins, here's another one (without historical controversy, I might add): the terms of the Versailles treaty were patently unfair to Germany, largely creating the conditions by which the Nazis were able to gain power. Have fun with that one.

What disgusts me is your Panglossian view that America can never do wrong and the rest of the world be damned. We could make real progress towards peace and stability in the world. And it depresses me to no end that there are chunk heads like you who don't seem to want peace. You want America to rule, to win. WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

There is innocent blood on our hands. Lots of it. We cannot demand peaceful actions from others without demonstrating we are also willing to change for peace. We need leadership, not the bungling that has led us where we are today.

So I pointed out in this thread and others that western Imperialism has had a direct impact on the hostility now directed at us from the middle east and NO ONE acknowledges this. Instead, it's "well the Muslims are inherently barabaric." Damn every last one of you. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. You can't stop your little Nationalistic game of gooky cookie for a moment to realize that the "winner" has to eat the gooky cookie.

You know, there were Native Americans who made crucial choices such as these only after considering how the 7th generation would be affected. The 7th generation! If the 7th generation from now is to have any hope, we must avoid absurd rhetoric such as this and take a balanced approach to future prosperity, which recognizes that war is surely not the best way to achieve peace. Inflammatory and distorted language, bellicose actions, and threatening policies will pave the way for the most militant leaders among our enemies to rise to power. We will be truly mired in Orwell's never-ending war.