Who is winning ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aneirin -> Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 6:41:04 AM)

These wars that the West seems to be embroiled in, Iraq, Afghanistan for now, and who knows where next, out of it all, who is winning ?

I ask, as daily we hear of our countrymen being slaughtered overseas and vast sums of money being thrown into the conflict, and that is a world recession too, it makes one wonder, if these very expensive conflicts perhaps hastened the recession, or were even a component part in it happening.

But of this money that isbeing thrown in, the advanced weaponry that is being used, perhaps even the testing of products in the theatre of war, one thing is certain, the weapons manufacturers are doing well.

Take the materials used in weaponry, the chemicals and metals, copper being kind of expensive now, it a constituent ingredient in brass, something that is used in bullets, many of which find their way into desert sand when the projectile is expelled.

So, a question, who are the weapons manufacturers doing well out of these conflicts, and do they have any relation to government, are they seperate entities like a store to be accessed when the need arises, or are intertwined with the mechanism of government ?

Is it possible  those doing well out of the wars  have an interest in  its continuance for selfish reasons?



HatesParisHilton -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 6:46:34 AM)

You ever seen Deadwood,  Aneirin?

Somen things take more than 200 years to change.



Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 7:05:58 AM)


Mohammad began this conflict long ago and, since he's conquered almost half the world now and, since we're busy apologizing all over ourselves for just being alive, I'd say Mohammad's got a pretty fair head start towards winning it.

Even China and Russia are feeling his pinch...



pahunkboy -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 7:21:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

These wars that the West seems to be embroiled in, Iraq, Afghanistan for now, and who knows where next, out of it all, who is winning ?

I ask, as daily we hear of our countrymen being slaughtered overseas and vast sums of money being thrown into the conflict, and that is a world recession too, it makes one wonder, if these very expensive conflicts perhaps hastened the recession, or were even a component part in it happening.

But of this money that isbeing thrown in, the advanced weaponry that is being used, perhaps even the testing of products in the theatre of war, one thing is certain, the weapons manufacturers are doing well.

Take the materials used in weaponry, the chemicals and metals, copper being kind of expensive now, it a constituent ingredient in brass, something that is used in bullets, many of which find their way into desert sand when the projectile is expelled.

So, a question, who are the weapons manufacturers doing well out of these conflicts, and do they have any relation to government, are they seperate entities like a store to be accessed when the need arises, or are intertwined with the mechanism of government ?

Is it possible  those doing well out of the wars  have an interest in  its continuance for selfish reasons?



BP Shell,  Rothschild, Soros, The Queen, Monsanto, Dick Cheny, and rupert merdock.     (partial list)



Aneirin -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 8:04:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Mohammad began this conflict long ago and, since he's conquered almost half the world now and, since we're busy apologizing all over ourselves for just being alive, I'd say Mohammad's got a pretty fair head start towards winning it.

Even China and Russia are feeling his pinch...



Are you referring to when all the christian/islam dislike started, if so was it not the action of a couple of christians who living in conquered spain, somewhere before 1000 ad, in a state of peace with the conquerors, decided to openly insult the conquerers belief, after being given every fair chance to take back their insult. The conquerors whether they were Islamic, Christian or other, they were doing what every powerful nation did, expand their empire by conquering others. Islam of the time certainly before 1000 ad was more tolerant than it seems today, thus showing tolerance can be perhaps gained again.



Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 8:10:22 AM)


Islam has been spread by the sword. If it weren't for Christians I'm sure the entire world would have been enslaved by the kind of Islamic extremists who are now controlling Iran and who are fighting viciously for control of Pakistan, etc.

What a wonderful world THAT would be. [:-]



Aneirin -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 8:39:30 AM)

Likewise, Christianity has also been spread by the sword, both sides are just as bad as each other and non Christians were persecuted by christians long before Islam was conceived and they, the Christians were persecuted by others before that.Interesting that both beliefs come from the same source, a case of my way is right and yours is wrong. See how futile it is, but it is a vehicle for the evil doers to do their thing and in time beliefs get deformed until it becomes something it was never intended to be.

I hate to think these ongoing wars overseas is aything to do with the age old crusade mentality, despite what the idiot said in his speech post 9/11, that word, ' crusade ', was just about the worst word he could have said because that word covered all of Islam, not just the ones who commit acts of terror. Given that Islam knows full well what the crusades were of the past, the idiot might very well have made the situation a whole lot worse.



Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 2:51:56 PM)


That's so totally bogus.

Christians were fed to lions for entertainment until it was realized that if Christianity were made a state religion then the masses would become far more compliant because they were commanded by the New Testament to be like sheep, and for the most part that worked. Today you can be openly gay in the Christian West without being beheaded for it... or you can spread the word of Satan. If feels good man, you can do it among the Christians!

Not among Muslims though. And from the early days on Muslims were taught by Mohammad himself that nonbelievers were to be given three choices - convert, pay what amounted to an unaffordable tribute, or be slaughtered. Often they were forced to pay whatever they could (give up their property and homes and everything they owned) and then that wasn't deemed enough so such infidels were slaughtered. In other words, covet thy neighbors property, and take what pleases you.

Christians will give you a meal and warm clothing without caring what you believe... build you a house in their spare time.

What you are spreading couldn't be farther from the truth.

So far as the crusades went, they were for the most part defensive. Most of the land that Muslims were conquering (by the sword) were formerly Christian strongholds, and it wasn't until Islam was well into Europe that Christians finally (thank God) began pushing back.






Aneirin -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 6:06:16 PM)

I suppose with history, it all depends on how you interpret it and to remember, history was written by victors, not losers.

But as to history as it is recorded, it pays to seek the alternative, what others have recorded and there with balance seek the truth that hides in all.

No matter what the religious belief, one cannot condemn the other if it has used the same means  to gain power. How many lands were conquered in the name of God, how many people were converted to the word of God, How many died for failing to accept the word of God.

Anything done in the name of God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva or the man in the moon, is just an excuse  used by those with evil intent to do their thing.



Arpig -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 6:34:00 PM)

I am going to avoid the religious debate, and address the question of the arms makers. They are completely in bed with the Government. The Military-Industrial Complex that Pres. Eisenhower first warned against (Yes it was him who first spoke out against it) was created deliberatly in order to fuel endless growth and exports. The selling of military equipment to and by all and sundry is the largest component of international trade on earth. It is fuelled almost entirely by unservicable debts pilled on top of unservicable debts. Generally the seller lends the buyer the money to make the purchase, and then when the buyer cannot repay the loan, the seller extends further credits. The major arms producing nations are all doing the same thing, and the competition is fierce, so the prices are driven down by all sorts of special deals and arrangements between the seller and the buyer. Remember that the Government is the seller, it may be General Electric theoretically making the sale, but it is the Gvt that does all the bankrolling for them. Everytime the US sells weapons to anybody, the US goes into debt, in order to subsidise the sale, which puts the buyer into debt. The profits made by the manufacuters are paper profits only, since they consist of theoretical money only, and not any sort of real assets.
For anybody interested in learning more about how this system works, I would recommend reading Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul, he has several illuminating chapters towards the end of the book on just this subject.



Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/19/2009 7:04:26 PM)


That's a fine example of Moral Equivalence.


[sm=applause.gif]



Vendaval -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 2:15:03 AM)

Aneirin,

There is a movie that came out in 2005 called, "Lord of War", starring Nicholas Cage that is based on the life Yuri Orlov, an illegal arms dealer in Russia. You will find it relevant to your questions.


"This film charts the rise and fall of Yuri Orlov, from his early days in the early 1980s in Little Odessa, selling guns to mobsters in his local neighbourhood, through to his ascension through the decade of excess and indulgence into the early 90s, where he forms a business partnership with an African warlord and his psychotic son. The film also charts his relationship through the years with his younger brother, his marriage to a famous model, his relentless pursuit by a determined federal agent and his inner demons that sway between his drive for success and the immorality of what he does. Written by [email protected]"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/plotsummary



xBullx -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 7:30:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

These wars that the West seems to be embroiled in, Iraq, Afghanistan for now, and who knows where next, out of it all, who is winning ?

I ask, as daily we hear of our countrymen being slaughtered overseas and vast sums of money being thrown into the conflict, and that is a world recession too, it makes one wonder, if these very expensive conflicts perhaps hastened the recession, or were even a component part in it happening.

But of this money that isbeing thrown in, the advanced weaponry that is being used, perhaps even the testing of products in the theatre of war, one thing is certain, the weapons manufacturers are doing well.

Take the materials used in weaponry, the chemicals and metals, copper being kind of expensive now, it a constituent ingredient in brass, something that is used in bullets, many of which find their way into desert sand when the projectile is expelled.

So, a question, who are the weapons manufacturers doing well out of these conflicts, and do they have any relation to government, are they separate entities like a store to be accessed when the need arises, or are intertwined with the mechanism of government ?

Is it possible  those doing well out of the wars  have an interest in  its continuance for selfish reasons?



Ok, let's make this real simple for the, I just don't get it crowd.

It's not the Wars, oil, ethanol or any other distractive concoctions contrived by our political astute that is to blame for this damn recession. It is us, not "U.S. with an A." just little ole us (we the people). From the top to the bottom, our inept ability to think for ourselves and actually investigate what the fuck is wrong and then most importantly take action. Everybody is always looking to shift blame, subvert accountability and deny responsibility.

Washington and more pointedly the US Congress is the most dysfunctional bunch of frauds I've ever seen. And by allowing them to purchase our integrity and backbone we are no better.

Take the social elites that are elected to Washington. How many of these Daddies boys or girls do you think ever truly had to balance a checkbook. Hell Fred "Gopher" Grandy exposed their incompetence at one point and was run out of politics for embarassing the lot of them. I have watched as my sons coming out of High School struggle to understand basic economics. But by allowing them to trial and error, repair and reconcile they have actually begun to understand basic money management. I suspect that many of our Washington power mad have yet to grasp these simple principles and most all of them well exceed the 23 years of age that is my oldest. I'd say that watching our Senators and Congressmen in action is proof positive of their incompetence beyond simple misdirection and bullshit.

So no Anerin, it's not the Wars or the Health Care or anything else that is intended to distract you while they take ownership of your very own ass. You, me and our worldly kinsmen are the man in the mirror.

So I suspect that if you get the just of my comments you'll be able to deduce just who it is that isn't winning.



HatesParisHilton -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 7:43:45 AM)

Are you rich yet?  Yes?  You're winning.

Are you "rich on paper but asset poor"?  You ar trying to convince me you're winning to win at the expense of MY assets.

Are you too busy loading another 80 MB of stolen songs (no royalties paid to the musicians busting their ass for a break but what do you care, you're a torrent-whore)  into your crappy-ass designer sleeve fitted i-whatzit with earphones that guarantee you'll be as deaf at 33 as your grandad was by 73?

You and the bands you're stealing from lost last week, maybe a day before that.

The war was just the backbeat of that song.



Politesub53 -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 11:21:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Christians will give you a meal and warm clothing without caring what you believe... build you a house in their spare time.

What you are spreading couldn't be farther from the truth.

So far as the crusades went, they were for the most part defensive. Most of the land that Muslims were conquering (by the sword) were formerly Christian strongholds, and it wasn't until Islam was well into Europe that Christians finally (thank God) began pushing back.



And whose land was it before the Romans conquered it ? Are you suggesting Christianity was spread through Africa, Indo-China and South America without the use of the sword ? Thats a bit of a dubious claim to make.

As for the crusades being defensive, what about the wars with other Christian societies ? The latter Crusades were more about profit for the Vatican, as was Friday the 13th.



Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 11:44:42 AM)


You're putting words in my mouth, which is a dubious debate tactic.

I never denied that Christians have always been human, and I freely admit that there have been bad men who have used Christianity and the various churches in detestable ways, but that's just a part of the nature of human existence.

My point, which should have been fairly clear to you, is that Mohammad commanded  his Muslim followers to convert their neighbors by nefarious means, and to kill them and to pillage their belongings if they refused to convert.

Jesus commanded his followers to behave as sheep. By and large, Christianity has spread peacefully through bible studies and through behaving in a way that attracted converts.

What's the last time you've heard of anyone being attacked by a group of Jehovah's Witness brandishing boxcutters, or anything else?


.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


And whose land was it before the Romans conquered it ? Are you suggesting Christianity was spread through Africa, Indo-China and South America without the use of the sword ? Thats a bit of a dubious claim to make.

As for the crusades being defensive, what about the wars with other Christian societies ? The latter Crusades were more about profit for the Vatican, as was Friday the 13th.



KenDckey592 -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 11:54:00 AM)

I also agree that the problem is the people and not the government or the rich or big business.

We gave our money to some rich dude or big business to invest for us.  It goes by the name of 401K or some other thing run by somebody like AIG.   Then they go down and take us with them.   To bad so sad.  If we had managed our money correctly then we wouldn't have needed to worry about them.  

We gave control of our lives and society to the Government, who created entitlements that couldn't be paid for without robbing other funded projects.   You can't blame the military industrial complex.   they are like any other business.   They want to make a profit too.   But if you look at the Military Industrial Complex it includes such people as Johnson and Johnson, ATT, Singular, Bristol Meyers, and anything else that you can find in any store anywhere.   Not just weapons.   But the bullets, beans, toilet paper, Iceburg Lettuce, tin foil, nails, whatever.   To think that the Military Industrial Complex is just limited to weapons makers I believe is a tad bit naieve.   Hell the stock number difference between a M109 howitzer and a diesel electric locomotive is one digit (ask all those artillary units that have had to take care of those engines   lol).

So like I said, it all goes to individual responsibility, not to what some wants us to believe is others.



Vendaval -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 2:05:03 PM)

Peaceful means, aye?

The Crusades

"The word "crusade" literally means "going to the Cross." Hence the idea at the time was to urge Christian warriors to go to Palestine and free Jerusalem and other holy places from Muslim domination. The first crusade was a grand success for the Christian armies; Jerusalem and other cities fell to the knights. The second crusade, however, ended in humiliation in 1148, when the armies of France and Germany failed to take Damascus. The third ended in 1192 in a compromise between English king Richard the Lion-Hearted of England and the Muslim leader Saladin, who granted access to Christians to the holy places. The fourth crusade led to the sacking of Constantinople, where a Latin Kingdom of Byzantium was set up in 1204 and lasted for about 60 years. The Children's Crusade of 1212 ended with thousands of children being sold into slavery, lost, or killed. Other less disastrous but equally futile crusades occurred until nearly the end of the 13th century. The last Latin outpost in the Muslim world fell in 1291.

Historians have viewed the Crusades as a mixture of benefits and horrors. On one hand, there was a new knowledge of the East and the possibilities of trade to be found there, not to mention the spread of Christianity. On the other hand, Christianity was spread in a violent, militaristic manner, and the result was that new areas of possible trade turned into new areas of conquest and bloodshed. A number of non-Christians lost their lives to Christian armies in this era, and this trend would continue in the inquisitions of the coming centuries."


http://history-world.org/crusades.htm

(format edit)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Jesus commanded his followers to behave as sheep. By and large, Christianity has spread peacefully through bible studies and through behaving in a way that attracted converts.







Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 2:20:33 PM)


As I said, by and large, yes - through peaceful means.

As I've already said I've never claimed anyone has ever been perfect, Ven - not even Christians. They're human, and power corrupts - still, though, Mohammad commanded his people to kill and pillage infidels who refused to pay outrageous tributes or to convert, while Jesus admonished his followers to be like lambs.

If you can't see differences in especially the way Christianity has evolved vs. the way Islam has failed to evolve, I don't know what to say that can make you see what should be absolutely clear to you already. At their hearts the two religions couldn't be more different, and this moral equivalency mantra that is ingrained into the left is just, outlandish.





Sanity -> RE: Who is winning ? (6/20/2009 2:41:29 PM)


One point I've never seen anyone make which I'm curious about is, why don't the history books say much about Christianity prior to the Crusades. Could it be that Islam taught "the Crusaders" that if they wanted to survive as nations, the Christian kingdoms of the time had to become as violent as the Islamic invaders were?





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625