Tunisia 37 tourists murdered on beach near marina

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I have given much thought to this subject and believe the following would be effective in turning the tide although this black mark will take decades to erase:
1.) complete evacuation of US forces in the Middle East. Allow them to
determine their own fate whether good or bad.
2.) cut off all aid to Israel. They have been the biggest recipient
of US aid since 1949-- $121 billion and currently receive 3.1 billion
a year in military aid by 2014 totals. We currently have a 18 trillion
dollar national debt. They are one of the prime reasons that the
Arab world conducts terrorism against its supporters.
3.) Allow the Palestinians to have a national homeland based upon
the parameters drawn after WWII.
4.) Allow the Jewish state to maintain its historic borders given to them
after WWII.
5.) Develop US oil, solar and alternative energies so that we no longer
need Arab oil.
6.) Serve as a friend and arbitrator not a financier to those in trouble
around the world
7.) Embrace the tenets of the Monroe Doctrine where we maintain
interest and concern within our Western Hemisphere. Allow other
parts of the world to do the same.
8.) end all foreign aid until we have a balanced budget and then create
a budget surplus.
9.) Do as families do: help your children before you help others

How can the United States completely evacuate from the region while at the same time allowing the Palestinians to have their national homeland and secure Israel's borders. Your plan is a bit contradictory. Being a "friend and arbitrator" in the world's trouble spots won't achieve anything if it isn't backed up by some form of power and influence.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Budawang

How can the United States completely evacuate from the region while at the same time allowing the Palestinians to have their national homeland and secure Israel's borders. Your plan is a bit contradictory. Being a "friend and arbitrator" in the world's trouble spots won't achieve anything if it isn't backed up by some form of power and influence.

Buda,
Your response is the exact reason for our government's involvement and current problems. I didn't say anything about the US securing Israel's borders or creating a Palestinian state. That's not our problem. It is a Middle East problem that needs to be resolved in the Middle East with the Arabs and Israel. Our efforts have been in vain and we have wasted billions of dollars and countless American lives trying to mend a 2,000 year old conflict and fighting someone else's war. You want to stop terrorism? Stop playing favorites . . . the losers alway get even.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Buda,
Your response is the exact reason for our government's involvement and current problems. I didn't say anything about the US securing Israel's borders or creating a Palestinian state. That's not our problem. It is a Middle East problem that needs to be resolved in the Middle East with the Arabs and Israel. Our efforts have been in vain and we have wasted billions of dollars and countless American lives trying to mend a 2,000 year old conflict and fighting someone else's war. You want to stop terrorism? Stop playing favorites . . . the losers alway get even.

If we ever get to the point that we don't need middle eastern oil (and, we're pretty much there or almost there), then there is no reason to stay involved there, and to keep pulling Israel off of the Arabs. Because, with no outside intervention, that's the country that's going to win. Somehow, I don't think that is going to make the Arabs in Islamic countries any happier. But, maybe I'm wrong.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by alansmith

As Parmenter and Cottontop stated about the massacre of innocent black church people in Georgia (?) recently...it can happen everywhere and at anytime. I concede that point.


I work with Muslims in my hospital and they are just like everyone else there. My personal dentist is a Muslim woman. This thing going on in the middle east is just one hot bed. The IRA battles in Belfast were the hatred of one group of people against another. If you were a protestant English soldier and walked into a catholic pub in Ulster....kiss your you know what goodbye. That is what I am saying here. That is all I am saying here. You don't go into the lion's den and expect that you won't be devoured.


The massacre of black church bible study group in Georgia is one crazy person who hates black people. That has happened all over the world for as long as I have been reading news. It is not related to race, religion, or region. People killing one another over hatred or perceived injustices goes all the way back to Cain and Abel.
We are not talking about individuals or an individual here. We are talking about an idealogy of radicalized people who have clearly stated for anyone to hear. Foreigners are not to step foot on Islamic soil. Nation states are not saying this. Clearly, radical groups are not main stream elements of Muslim nations. KKK were notorious for lynchings and brutal murders. If you were a black man you would not dare walk down the street with a white woman back in that era.


So, please do not perceive this to be a rant about Muslims or countries. I was raised a navy brat and was always a minority wherever I lived. The only thing I am saying is that going into areas of the world where there is a clear intent or message to harm people is just a risk that has to be closely evaluated.


For example, I am dying to go to Istanbul and see the Blue Mosque and the Sultan's museums. I think Turkey is still safe enough for foreigners. But there is some risk involved because of current state of affairs in middle east. My coworkers just got back from Israel doing the religious tours of biblical sites. Their tour guides said they are getting less than 30 percent of tourist traffic due to perceived hatreds. There were many armed security forces watching everyone like a hawk.


I wouldn't walk in Baltimore late in the evening either. But in Baltimore you might just get robbed and jacked up a little. You probably wouldn't get your head cut off with a dull pocket knife and posted on Youtube with some ISIS message or Alquida slogan. So, don't equate apples to oranges. These radicalized men and women don't think like you or I do and wouldn't hesitate for a second to gut you like a pig.

Originally Posted by alansmith

As Parmenter and Cottontop stated about the massacre of innocent black church people in Georgia (?) recently...it can happen everywhere and at anytime. I concede that point.


I work with Muslims in my hospital and they are just like everyone else there. My personal dentist is a Muslim woman. This thing going on in the middle east is just one hot bed. The IRA battles in Belfast were the hatred of one group of people against another. If you were a protestant English soldier and walked into a catholic pub in Ulster....kiss your you know what goodbye. That is what I am saying here. That is all I am saying here. You don't go into the lion's den and expect that you won't be devoured.


The massacre of black church bible study group in Georgia is one crazy person who hates black people. That has happened all over the world for as long as I have been reading news. It is not related to race, religion, or region. People killing one another over hatred or perceived injustices goes all the way back to Cain and Abel.
We are not talking about individuals or an individual here. We are talking about an idealogy of radicalized people who have clearly stated for anyone to hear. Foreigners are not to step foot on Islamic soil. Nation states are not saying this. Clearly, radical groups are not main stream elements of Muslim nations. KKK were notorious for lynchings and brutal murders. If you were a black man you would not dare walk down the street with a white woman back in that era.


So, please do not perceive this to be a rant about Muslims or countries. I was raised a navy brat and was always a minority wherever I lived. The only thing I am saying is that going into areas of the world where there is a clear intent or message to harm people is just a risk that has to be closely evaluated.


For example, I am dying to go to Istanbul and see the Blue Mosque and the Sultan's museums. I think Turkey is still safe enough for foreigners. But there is some risk involved because of current state of affairs in middle east. My coworkers just got back from Israel doing the religious tours of biblical sites. Their tour guides said they are getting less than 30 percent of tourist traffic due to perceived hatreds. There were many armed security forces watching everyone like a hawk.


I wouldn't walk in Baltimore late in the evening either. But in Baltimore you might just get robbed and jacked up a little. You probably wouldn't get your head cut off with a dull pocket knife and posted on Youtube with some ISIS message or Alquida slogan. So, don't equate apples to oranges. These radicalized men and women don't think like you or I do and wouldn't hesitate for a second to gut you like a pig.

I get you. You are not trying to paint with a broad brush your reasons for bringing up recent tragedies but I'd like to broaden you're thinking more.

"The massacre of black church bible study group in Georgia is one crazy person who hates black people."

Totally contradicts this

"We are not talking about individuals or an individual here. We are talking about an idealogy of radicalized people who have clearly stated for anyone to hear. Foreigners are not to step foot on Islamic soil. Nation states are not saying this. Clearly, radical groups are not main stream elements of Muslim nations. KKK were notorious for lynchings and brutal murders. If you were a black man you would not dare walk down the street with a white woman back in that era.

The KKK are an ideological group that has a significant influence on our society. And right wing terrorism is more prevalent than Islamic terrorism in our country. How barbaric is it to drag a man, until death behind pick up truck? Or impale a a person on a fence post? Just a few examples of cruel and barbaric acts of violence taken place here, in my lifetime. Where's the outrage for that?

Biggest Threat on U.S. Soil: Domestic Right-Wing ExtremistsÂ*|Â*Christian Piatt

[Parmenter]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

I get you. You are not trying to paint with a broad brush your reasons for bringing up recent tragedies but I'd like to broaden you're thinking more.

"The massacre of black church bible study group in Georgia is one crazy person who hates black people."

Totally contradicts this

"We are not talking about individuals or an individual here. We are talking about an idealogy of radicalized people who have clearly stated for anyone to hear. Foreigners are not to step foot on Islamic soil. Nation states are not saying this. Clearly, radical groups are not main stream elements of Muslim nations. KKK were notorious for lynchings and brutal murders. If you were a black man you would not dare walk down the street with a white woman back in that era.

The KKK are an ideological group that has a significant influence on our society. And right wing terrorism is more prevalent than Islamic terrorism in our country. How barbaric is it to drag a man, until death behind pick up truck? Or impale a a person on a fence post? Just a few examples of cruel and barbaric acts of violence taken place here, in my lifetime. Where's the outrage for that?

Biggest Threat on U.S. Soil: Domestic Right-Wing ExtremistsÂ*|Â*Christian Piatt

Nicely done and what I was trying to get across earlier
Thanks

[captain58sailin]

Not to pick nits, but I believe the church was in South Carolina, Charleston I believe.

[rognvald]

Gada,
A few mistakes should be noted in your above response. Firstly, the right wing hate groups you mentioned fall short of FBI statistics that state there is a higher percentage of Whites killed by Blacks than the reverse. 14% of Whites killed are killed by a Black offender. 7.6% of Blacks are killed by White offenders. Black offending rates are 8x higher than Whites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gi...s-claim-that-9...
Secondly, the poorly written article written by Christian Piatt for the Huffington Post--an extreme Leftist publication, states that the Civil War was fought largely over slavery. Any Civil War historian who is worth his salt would find this laughable. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to secede from the Union because of unfair taxation on imports/exports to the rich Southern States. The South was basically supporting the entire union with very little, if any, benefit. Once the war began, Lincoln and the North were losing badly and it was possible that the South would have won the war. That's when Lincoln came up with the brilliant idea: to defeat the South you must destroy its wealth. It's wealth lay in its agriculture and its slaves. If you liberate the slaves, the South cannot survive. Lincoln was not the great liberator of the black slaves in fact he wanted them to return to Africa after they were freed. He believed that the differences between Blacks and the Whites were so great they could never assimilate into American culture. This was stated in a graphic speech given in Springfield, Ill on June 26,1857 while discussing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The excellent historical article can be found here: The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
So, be careful how you use facts and remember: History reflects the Age. If it is not based in fact it is solely a propaganda tool to promote a political or social agenda. Good luck and good history. P.S. An excellent biography on Lincoln that tells the truth about our "Great Emancipator" is called "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas DiLorenzo. An excellent and factual read of our first Fascist president.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Gada,
A few mistakes should be noted in your above response. Firstly, the right wing hate groups you mentioned fall short of FBI statistics that state there is a higher percentage of Whites killed by Blacks than the reverse. 14% of Whites killed are killed by a Black offender. 7.6% of Blacks are killed by White offenders. Black offending rates are 8x higher than Whites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gi...s-claim-that-9...
Secondly, the poorly written article written by Christian Piatt for the Huffington Post--an extreme Leftist publication, states that the Civil War was fought largely over slavery. Any Civil War historian who is worth his salt would find this laughable. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to secede from the Union because of unfair taxation on imports/exports to the rich Southern States. The South was basically supporting the entire union with very little, if any, benefit. Once the war began, Lincoln and the North were losing badly and it was possible that the South would have won the war. That's when Lincoln came up with the brilliant idea: to defeat the South you must destroy its wealth. It's wealth lay in its agriculture and its slaves. If you liberate the slaves, the South cannot survive. Lincoln was not the great liberator of the black slaves in fact he wanted them to return to Africa after they were freed. He believed that the differences between Blacks and the Whites were so great they could never assimilate into American culture. This was stated in a graphic speech given in Springfield, Ill on June 26,1857 while discussing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The excellent historical article can be found here: The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
So, be careful how you use facts and remember: History reflects the Age. If it is not based in fact it is solely a propaganda tool to promote a political or social agenda. Good luck and good history. P.S. An excellent biography on Lincoln that tells the truth about our "Great Emancipator" is called "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas DiLorenzo. An excellent and factual read of our first Fascist president.

Interesting read, thanks.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Gada,
A few mistakes should be noted in your above response. Firstly, the right wing hate groups you mentioned fall short of FBI statistics that state there is a higher percentage of Whites killed by Blacks than the reverse. 14% of Whites killed are killed by a Black offender. 7.6% of Blacks are killed by White offenders. Black offending rates are 8x higher than Whites.
>>>> www.washingtonpost.com/.../giulianis-claim-that-9... <<<<<
Secondly, the poorly written article written by Christian Piatt for the Huffington Post--an extreme Leftist publication, states that the Civil War was fought largely over slavery. Any Civil War historian who is worth his salt would find this laughable. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to secede from the Union because of unfair taxation on imports/exports to the rich Southern States. The South was basically supporting the entire union with very little, if any, benefit. Once the war began, Lincoln and the North were losing badly and it was possible that the South would have won the war. That's when Lincoln came up with the brilliant idea: to defeat the South you must destroy its wealth. It's wealth lay in its agriculture and its slaves. If you liberate the slaves, the South cannot survive. Lincoln was not the great liberator of the black slaves in fact he wanted them to return to Africa after they were freed. He believed that the differences between Blacks and the Whites were so great they could never assimilate into American culture. This was stated in a graphic speech given in Springfield, Ill on June 26,1857 while discussing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The excellent historical article can be found here: The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
So, be careful how you use facts and remember: History reflects the Age. If it is not based in fact it is solely a propaganda tool to promote a political or social agenda. Good luck and good history. P.S. An excellent biography on Lincoln that tells the truth about our "Great Emancipator" is called "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas DiLorenzo. An excellent and factual read of our first Fascist president.

Linky no worky, but would like to see it if you have the right one... :>)

[rognvald]

Cheech,
I'm a Dark Age techy. Maybe someone else can link it. Thanks. R

[Island Time O25]

If I remember my college history class correctly Lincoln went out of his way to exempt some border states he was wooing to his side from emancipation proclamation. And only later, when the outcome of the war was certain, did he reneg on that promise to them.

As far as US involvement in world conflicts - this is basically just a ruse to churn out budgetary spending and profits for all kinds of US and multinational businesses. Most of such "aid" given has very strong strings attached requiring its recipients to buy US made products or technology. Plus more often than not it is a kind of bribe to get those countries to either vote with US in UN or at least obstain from objecting.

Try to pass though Congress any bill which raises spending/taxes and not military related. Just as your average Joe will spend $1,000s+ on a Superbowl or a World Series tickets before he spends a few $100s on his kid's tooth so will the US Congress/politicians will vote for trillions in military related spending before voting for a few billions here and there to fix our roads, bridges, etc. The only way Eisenhower was able to get interstate highway system funded was to explain to the public it's military significance and importance, i.e. the old proverbial "roads good enough to land a military plane on".

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Gada,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gi...s-claim-that-9...
Secondly, the poorly written article written by Christian Piatt for the Huffington Post--an extreme Leftist publication, states that the Civil War was fought largely over slavery. Any Civil War historian who is worth his salt would find this laughable. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to secede from the Union because of unfair taxation on imports/exports to the rich Southern States. History reflects the Age.

What Civil War historians would find laughable is your revisionist nonsense.

South Carolina's declaration of seccession is readily found on the internet. I won't post the whole thing here, although it is not very long. There is not a word about taxation in it. It does say this, however:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

What Civil War historians would find laughable is your revisionist nonsense.

South Carolina's declaration of seccession is readily found on the internet. I won't post the whole thing here, although it is not very long. There is not a word about taxation in it. It does say this, however:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

So, where's the quarrel, Cottontop and what is it that you call "revisionist?"

[rognvald]

Better yet, my friend Cottontop . . . I suggest YOU go back and reread your American History!


"1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia- North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement."

www.confederateamericanpride.com/10causes.html

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Gada,
A few mistakes should be noted in your above response. Firstly, the right wing hate groups you mentioned fall short of FBI statistics that state there is a higher percentage of Whites killed by Blacks than the reverse. 14% of Whites killed are killed by a Black offender. 7.6% of Blacks are killed by White offenders. Black offending rates are 8x higher than Whites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gi...s-claim-that-9...
Secondly, the poorly written article written by Christian Piatt for the Huffington Post--an extreme Leftist publication, states that the Civil War was fought largely over slavery. Any Civil War historian who is worth his salt would find this laughable. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to secede from the Union because of unfair taxation on imports/exports to the rich Southern States. The South was basically supporting the entire union with very little, if any, benefit. Once the war began, Lincoln and the North were losing badly and it was possible that the South would have won the war. That's when Lincoln came up with the brilliant idea: to defeat the South you must destroy its wealth. It's wealth lay in its agriculture and its slaves. If you liberate the slaves, the South cannot survive. Lincoln was not the great liberator of the black slaves in fact he wanted them to return to Africa after they were freed. He believed that the differences between Blacks and the Whites were so great they could never assimilate into American culture. This was stated in a graphic speech given in Springfield, Ill on June 26,1857 while discussing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The excellent historical article can be found here: The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
So, be careful how you use facts and remember: History reflects the Age. If it is not based in fact it is solely a propaganda tool to promote a political or social agenda. Good luck and good history. P.S. An excellent biography on Lincoln that tells the truth about our "Great Emancipator" is called "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas DiLorenzo. An excellent and factual read of our first Fascist president.

Yep.
So many people with so few facts making so many decisions today.