User Panel
Quoted:
[The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. View Quote Your just upset you are losing the argument. |
|
Quoted:
hard to argue qtab, obl, and ayatollah Khomeini were ignorant cave dwellers. they were all western educated. View Quote Yeah, one of the strongest recruiting grounds for al Qaeda has been technical schools--engineering and medical, for example. Often students one generation out of the village, or encountering Western culture. Like Qtub, who flipped out at a church social in dry 1940's Greely, Colorado. |
|
Quoted:
If she was surrounded by ISIS soldiers and had to pick between a gun and a diploma, which one would she pick up? View Quote You guys are taking everything very literately. She's trying to say that a gun will kill the crazy ass terrorist..........but until you start educating the people (as kids) who end up becoming the terrorists, you will never stop the method that the terrorists are created (uneducated poor people who have nothing to lose, and are promised everything if they "fight for Alaha". Are there educated terrorists...sure their are. But don't try to tell me that the majority of people who are blowing themselves up in the name name of Alaha are Doctors and Lawyers. |
|
Quoted:
She is trying to convince people that terrorists can be turned around, which they can not. The only way "education" could prevent terrorists is if it starts at child birth and probably away from islam. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know when/where/if she said this but it has been making rounds all over social media this past week. http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjiu0o.jpg What is she trying to say? You can't stop terrorism with violence, only education? Terrorism only appeals to the uneducated? There are many known terrorists who have PhD's, and many who have degrees in advanced fields of engineering; are these people not educated? I'm confused. She is trying to convince people that terrorists can be turned around, which they can not. The only way "education" could prevent terrorists is if it starts at child birth and probably away from islam. Bingo!! That's what she is saying. Fix them BEFORE they turn into terrorists. |
|
The Ft Hood shooter was a doctor wasn't he?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Your just upset you are losing the argument. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
[The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. Your just upset you are losing the argument. From the bleachers, steinhab seems to be scoring run after run, while pitching a shutout. That's just my opinion, though. |
|
This broad is as wrong as those who think women should be in burquas.
|
|
Quoted:
You do realize the natives were killing and conquering each other too right? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. However, later settlers and US citizens took the land by force, killing many of the natives in the process. Not much different than the Spanish approach. However, superior culture was indeed a significant component. I guess that depends upon how "superior culture" is defined. Personally, I don't see as "superior" any culture that enables one group to consider itself justified in killing members of another group in order to steal their land and wealth. European dominance is rooted in superior culture. Superior culture provides superior technology and more effective cooperation, resulting is superior military capability. Yep. The Nazis proved that. You do realize the natives were killing and conquering each other too right? Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? |
|
Quoted:
According to this book Atahualpa told the Spanish his intents: http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Incas-John-Hemming/dp/0156028263 Atahualpa thought he had little to fear from 169 men, particularly since his spy had indicated they were not very active men. He had some 30k armed troops in reserve and thousands armed only with flowers. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
According to who? Steven Pinker? According to this book Atahualpa told the Spanish his intents: http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Incas-John-Hemming/dp/0156028263 Quoted:
Even you admit they had no weapons and only flowers. If they were looking to capture them, maybe someone would have left the emperor behind, who wasn't a warrior, and maybe brought a weapon or two. Atahualpa thought he had little to fear from 169 men, particularly since his spy had indicated they were not very active men. He had some 30k armed troops in reserve and thousands armed only with flowers. One guy shows up to a meeting that was supposed to be civil with 5-6,000 men, mostly unarmed and those with arms they were small knives, clubs, slings, no major warfighting equipment. The other one shows up with artillery, cavalry, and armored infantry, in a prelaid ambush position, with a plan already set up to attack on a prearranged signal. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out which side was the aggressor, regardless of whatever Hemming wrote. Let's even look at what Pizarro did after he received the ransome for Atahuallpa; did he release him, even after the Incan king had converted to Catholicism? Nope, he had him garroted. Is this some great European civilized ideology that led Pizarro to conquer the Incans? Hell no. Deceit and military technology and experiences professional soldiers is what brought down the Incans. |
|
Quoted:
The natives were the ones who started the killing. That was what allowed the Jamestown settlement to expand. The indians attacked in 1622 attempting to kill all English, but failed. The English responded with total war against the tribe and destroyed it, taking its land. The natives were the ones who usually started the violence. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
However, later settlers and US citizens took the land by force, killing many of the natives in the process. Not much different than the Spanish approach. The natives were the ones who started the killing. That was what allowed the Jamestown settlement to expand. The indians attacked in 1622 attempting to kill all English, but failed. The English responded with total war against the tribe and destroyed it, taking its land. The natives were the ones who usually started the violence. Even if that's true, can you blame them? Their lands were being invaded and occupied by foreigners. |
|
Am I the only one sick of this chick? I wish she'd just fuck off already.
|
|
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? View Quote Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. Only recently have we started treating the conquered the way we are |
|
|
Quoted:
Your just upset you are losing the argument. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
[The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. Your just upset you are losing the argument. Says the guy that believes that Pizarro ambushing a bunch of unarmed Incans was a triumph of western cultural ideology. What made up phrase do you use to name that conflict? The Peruvian War of Liberation? |
|
Quoted:
From the bleachers, steinhab seems to be scoring run after run, while pitching a shutout. That's just my opinion, though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. Your just upset you are losing the argument. From the bleachers, steinhab seems to be scoring run after run, while pitching a shutout. That's just my opinion, though. No, it isn't just your opinion. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. Only recently have we started treating the conquered the way we are View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. Only recently have we started treating the conquered the way we are Exactly. Everyone was playing by the same rules. Warfare. It wasn't culture, or ideology, or enlightenment, just one group being being better at killing people than the other. Knowing that, we can't rightly go back and say that present day 3rd worlders are less civilized compared to those of European ancestry when they are practicing the exact same practices that allowed Europe to conquer the world, they are fighting for control of foreigners and taking it by force. They haven't even gotten into their groove yet. Once they combine technology and organization with mass killing for ideological reasons, then they can really say they are as good as the Europeans. Why do we try to make believe that western civilization wasn't earned with the point of a spear or bayonet? We should embrace that shit, especially since losing that mindset will end up costing us our culture, all of it. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. I agree with everything you said, except for the "superior culture" part. (Perhaps we differ on what constitutes a "superior" culture.) But, I do not see where it negates what I said in my previous post. |
|
Quoted:
I agree with everything you said, except for the "superior culture" part. (Perhaps we differ on what constitutes a "superior" culture.) But, I do not see where it negates what I said in my previous post. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. I agree with everything you said, except for the "superior culture" part. (Perhaps we differ on what constitutes a "superior" culture.) But, I do not see where it negates what I said in my previous post. I guess I was disputing your stance on superiority. European settlers had superior numbers, technology, cohesion, tactics, economics, agricultural practices, etc etc. That's why they won, and those are defining aspects of culture. When we study past cultures those are the kind of things we look at Are you a native by any chance? Just curious, not implying anything with the question |
|
Quoted:
Exactly. Everyone was playing by the same rules. Warfare. It wasn't culture, or ideology, or enlightenment, just one group being being better at killing people than the other. Knowing that, we can't rightly go back and say that present day 3rd worlders are less civilized compared to those of European ancestry when they are practicing the exact same practices that allowed Europe to conquer the world, they are fighting for control of foreigners and taking it by force. They haven't even gotten into their groove yet. Once they combine technology and organization with mass killing for ideological reasons, then they can really say they are as good as the Europeans. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. Only recently have we started treating the conquered the way we are Exactly. Everyone was playing by the same rules. Warfare. It wasn't culture, or ideology, or enlightenment, just one group being being better at killing people than the other. Knowing that, we can't rightly go back and say that present day 3rd worlders are less civilized compared to those of European ancestry when they are practicing the exact same practices that allowed Europe to conquer the world, they are fighting for control of foreigners and taking it by force. They haven't even gotten into their groove yet. Once they combine technology and organization with mass killing for ideological reasons, then they can really say they are as good as the Europeans. Shouldn't that be, then they will be as civilized as the Europeans (and Americans)? |
|
Quoted:
I guess I was disputing your stance on superiority. European settlers had superior numbers, technology, cohesion, tactics, economics, agricultural practices, etc etc. That's why they won, and those are defining aspects of culture. When we study past cultures those are the kind of things we look at View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. I agree with everything you said, except for the "superior culture" part. (Perhaps we differ on what constitutes a "superior" culture.) But, I do not see where it negates what I said in my previous post. I guess I was disputing your stance on superiority. European settlers had superior numbers, technology, cohesion, tactics, economics, agricultural practices, etc etc. That's why they won, and those are defining aspects of culture. When we study past cultures those are the kind of things we look at Ah, okay. Yes, I agree with that. I was thinking of moral superiority. Are you a native by any chance? Just curious, not implying anything with the question Yes, I am a native American. I was born here. But, my ancestry is European. |
|
Quoted:
One guy shows up to a meeting that was supposed to be civil with 5-6,000 men, mostly unarmed and those with arms they were small knives, clubs, slings, no major warfighting equipment. The other one shows up with artillery, cavalry, and armored infantry, in a prelaid ambush position, with a plan already set up to attack on a prearranged signal. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out which side was the aggressor, regardless of whatever Hemming wrote. Let's even look at what Pizarro did after he received the ransome for Atahuallpa; did he release him, even after the Incan king had converted to Catholicism? Nope, he had him garroted. Is this some great European civilized ideology that led Pizarro to conquer the Incans? Hell no. Deceit and military technology and experiences professional soldiers is what brought down the Incans. View Quote The Spaniards were terrified when they realized the large number of indians they faced. Only 169 men up against tens of thousands. The plan they came up with was the only thing they could think of to survive. Hemming wrote an actual history based upon source documents. He was also sympathetic to the indians. Even before they ecountered Atahuallpa they expected a harsh welcome; they were warned they would pay dearly for defiling the "nuns" who were the source of the Inca's concubines. Atahuallpa told the Spanish he intended to sieze them, sacrifise some and castrate others to become guards for his concubines. There is only one way a nation of millions with tens of thousands under arms is taken down by 169 men: supreme bad decision making. It is the only possible answer. As far as killing Atahuallpa, the reason was because they thought he was secretly commanding a resistance to the Spaniards. Some of Pizarro's lieutenants had been pushing to kill him for that reason. Pizarro was eventually convinced. IIRC there was a faction opposed. By converting he avoided death by burning. |
|
Quoted:
I honestly believe that the leaders of radical Islam don't believe in their own spiel. They just use it to recruit poor uneducated expendable idiots. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't there a lot of wealthy, highly educated supporters of radical Islam? I honestly believe that the leaders of radical Islam don't believe in their own spiel. They just use it to recruit poor uneducated expendable idiots. To a certain point so do I. They certainly manipulate the F out of the peons in their midst. Here take this vest and go over there and you'll get your 72 virgins. (you dumb schmuck, I wouldn't do it myself). If their population had an education other than mosque hate filled thoughts then maybe they'd make something of themselves. |
|
Quoted:
I agree with everything you said, except for the "superior culture" part. (Perhaps we differ on what constitutes a "superior" culture.) But, I do not see where it negates what I said in my previous post. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Does that, in any way, negate what I wrote? Yeah, because everyone was playing by the same rules. It's not like Indians were living peacefull and then all of a sudden the white man came and started killing them and stealing shit. It was just normal course for human groups when different cultures come into contact and the stronger and superior culture wins. I agree with everything you said, except for the "superior culture" part. (Perhaps we differ on what constitutes a "superior" culture.) But, I do not see where it negates what I said in my previous post. If there is one core skill on which to grade culture it is the culture's ability to defend itself. Cultures that lose tend to be inferior on the most important aspect of culture. |
|
Quoted:
To a certain point so do I. They certainly manipulate the F out of the peons in their midst. Here take this vest and go over there and you'll get your 72 virgins. (you dumb schmuck, I wouldn't do it myself). If their population had an education other than mosque hate filled thoughts then maybe they'd make something of themselves. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't there a lot of wealthy, highly educated supporters of radical Islam? I honestly believe that the leaders of radical Islam don't believe in their own spiel. They just use it to recruit poor uneducated expendable idiots. To a certain point so do I. They certainly manipulate the F out of the peons in their midst. Here take this vest and go over there and you'll get your 72 virgins. (you dumb schmuck, I wouldn't do it myself). If their population had an education other than mosque hate filled thoughts then maybe they'd make something of themselves. Another key part as I understand it, in my very limited knowledge of Islam, is that in their beliefs nothing happens unless it's gods will. Even the bad things that happen are gods will. So when a complete dick head is running the show they have to go along with it because it's gods will. Going against the strong man is going against god. They go along with who ever is in charge and whatever that person says because doing so would be defying gods will which they won't do. The guy in charge wouldn't be in charge if god didn't want him to be. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly. Everyone was playing by the same rules. Warfare. It wasn't culture, or ideology, or enlightenment, just one group being being better at killing people than the other. Knowing that, we can't rightly go back and say that present day 3rd worlders are less civilized compared to those of European ancestry when they are practicing the exact same practices that allowed Europe to conquer the world, they are fighting for control of foreigners and taking it by force. They haven't even gotten into their groove yet. Once they combine technology and organization with mass killing for ideological reasons, then they can really say they are as good as the Europeans. Why do we try to make believe that western civilization wasn't earned with the point of a spear or bayonet? We should embrace that shit, especially since losing that mindset will end up costing us our culture, all of it. View Quote The warfare of Muslims today is different then the warfare of the Europeans. Europeans won stand up fights in battle. Muslims launch terror attacks but can't win stand up fights. Culture is still the significant reason. http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars |
|
First statement has been demonstrated.
Second statement implies some willingness to learn and get along..... But no doubt terrorists were themselves "educated". |
|
Quoted: as noted, some of the most violent muslim terrorists were the most educated. but yours would make a nifty bumper sticker on a suburu View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: FPNI. Educate, eradicate. as noted, some of the most violent muslim terrorists were the most educated. but yours would make a nifty bumper sticker on a suburu As usual, you seem almost pathologically incapable of reading anything I say and understanding it. It's like you read normal sentences and turn them around or put your own words in them. So, here you go sparky.... What did the first post say? Do both. Educate. Kill them. I'm not a peacenik or a liberal. I fucking detest Islam as a social order. Education isn't just school btw, it's parenting, social education, expectations and rules to live in an humane society. Educate them that their ways are 13th century bullshit, that their sky-fairy isn't going to reward them with virgins, that being decent to one another is preferable to burning the world down. Some of them won't get it, obviously, some will....probably most will over the course of time. The ones that don't? Kill the fuck out of them. Education works, not 100%, but it's why we're not still living like Islam is...even tho Christianity had a period just as dark. If that strikes you as outlandish or naive, dude, you have issues. |
|
Quoted:
Another key part as I understand it, in my very limited knowledge of Islam, is that in their beliefs nothing happens unless it's gods will. Even the bad things that happen are gods will. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't there a lot of wealthy, highly educated supporters of radical Islam? I honestly believe that the leaders of radical Islam don't believe in their own spiel. They just use it to recruit poor uneducated expendable idiots. To a certain point so do I. They certainly manipulate the F out of the peons in their midst. Here take this vest and go over there and you'll get your 72 virgins. (you dumb schmuck, I wouldn't do it myself). If their population had an education other than mosque hate filled thoughts then maybe they'd make something of themselves. Another key part as I understand it, in my very limited knowledge of Islam, is that in their beliefs nothing happens unless it's gods will. Even the bad things that happen are gods will. Which is a perfectly reasonable attitude, if one believes that god is omniscient and omnipotent. |
|
|
|
Get's shot, and talks shit. So Tupac without the talent.
Funny how the little shit is so fucking preachy towards the west from her home in England, but isn't in Syria or Iraq trying to blog sense into the minds of ISIS. I knew her dumbass was going to be a problem. |
|
Quoted:
as noted, some of the most violent muslim terrorists were the most educated. but yours would make a nifty bumper sticker on a suburu View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
FPNI. Educate, eradicate. as noted, some of the most violent muslim terrorists were the most educated. but yours would make a nifty bumper sticker on a suburu straight locally, curved globally |
|
Quoted:
I think you missed the point. You educate the extremist that violence does not help your cause and is Not what islam is about. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't there a lot of wealthy, highly educated supporters of radical Islam? I think you missed the point. You educate the extremist that violence does not help your cause and is Not what islam is about. Do you believe your contention is accurate? |
|
|
so getting educated on the best way to kill a terrorist is what she's saying???
|
|
Quoted:
She's a pacifist. She's been shot, standing up to the Taliban. What got her shot was speaking out in favor of education for women in Muslim countries. Anybody that's willing to stand up to that kind of oppressor, for a cause that's just, they've earned their right to have an opinion in my book. I'm not saying she's wrong - seems Gandhi got a lot done through pacifist methods. But then again I'm not a pacifist - I agree with "Get Both". View Quote Bullshit. Ghandi gave away half of india to islamic terrorists. They now call this area "pakistan". You may have heard of it. it's a major exporter and harborer of terrorism. Or so I've heard. |
|
I firmly believe that damn near everyone should be armed. I alsi believe that low levels of education significantly increases the potential for radical ideas to take root and spread.
|
|
Quoted:
Bullshit. Ghandi gave away half of india to islamic terrorists. They now call this area "pakistan". You may have heard of it. it's a major exporter and harborer of terrorism. Or so I've heard. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
She's a pacifist. She's been shot, standing up to the Taliban. What got her shot was speaking out in favor of education for women in Muslim countries. Anybody that's willing to stand up to that kind of oppressor, for a cause that's just, they've earned their right to have an opinion in my book. I'm not saying she's wrong - seems Gandhi got a lot done through pacifist methods. But then again I'm not a pacifist - I agree with "Get Both". Bullshit. Ghandi gave away half of india to islamic terrorists. They now call this area "pakistan". You may have heard of it. it's a major exporter and harborer of terrorism. Or so I've heard. ghandi was successful because he ws appealing to a moral society. he would have been shot in pre-colonial "india" ghandi was a racist who was just pissed his race wasnt in charge. |
|
She is not well-versed in reality to know that some things are not easily solved by education. Muslim ideology includes killing Westerners and you may never end that...or it may take centuries or some sort of significant event that I cannot fathom.
Just because she is famous does not make her viewpoints/opinions right. |
|
Quoted:
That's the only conclusion a rational person can draw from that quote. You'll be amazed what this gaggle of rocket surgeons will come up with in a few minutes here. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get both! TC That's the only conclusion you can draw from that quote, it's not very ambiguous. Even if it's not what she intended. That's the only conclusion a rational person can draw from that quote. You'll be amazed what this gaggle of rocket surgeons will come up with in a few minutes here. Oh, it's amazing isn't it? Gotta look tough no matter what. |
|
Quoted:
Assuming that's a valid quote, she might be equivocating 'terrorism' and 'the Taliban', in which case she may be correct. If you have zero marketable skills, and the Taliban is paying you to fight for them, then you might choose to fight for them just so you can eat. However, if the quote is referring to the broader concept of terrorism, and not merely one particular regional organization which participates in terrorism, then it's dead wrong. Terrorism is a form of warfare, and economics is only one facet of why people wage war. Recognition is also an important reason as to why people wage war: recognition of their intrinsic worth, the worth of their gods, beliefs, laws, customs, etc. Education doesn't change that; as others have said highly educated people engage in terrorism not because of economic reasons, but because they yearn for recognition of the validity of their belief systems. They would rather engage in violence than re-examine their core beliefs. View Quote She never said "a 4 year degree kills terrorism". She's talking about education from a young age not to be a terrorist. You know don't hit, be nice to other people even if they do something you don't like. That kind of thing. |
|
Quoted:
Which is a perfectly reasonable attitude, if one believes that god is omniscient and omnipotent. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't there a lot of wealthy, highly educated supporters of radical Islam? I honestly believe that the leaders of radical Islam don't believe in their own spiel. They just use it to recruit poor uneducated expendable idiots. To a certain point so do I. They certainly manipulate the F out of the peons in their midst. Here take this vest and go over there and you'll get your 72 virgins. (you dumb schmuck, I wouldn't do it myself). If their population had an education other than mosque hate filled thoughts then maybe they'd make something of themselves. Another key part as I understand it, in my very limited knowledge of Islam, is that in their beliefs nothing happens unless it's gods will. Even the bad things that happen are gods will. Which is a perfectly reasonable attitude, if one believes that god is omniscient and omnipotent. Not necessarily. The Christian faith holds god to be omniscient and omnipotent yet still recognizes forces of evil going against gods plan, and that when people are doing bad things it is not in gods name nor is it gods will. |
|
Quoted:
The warfare of Muslims today is different then the warfare of the Europeans. Europeans won stand up fights in battle. Muslims launch terror attacks but can't win stand up fights. Culture is still the significant reason. http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly. Everyone was playing by the same rules. Warfare. It wasn't culture, or ideology, or enlightenment, just one group being being better at killing people than the other. Knowing that, we can't rightly go back and say that present day 3rd worlders are less civilized compared to those of European ancestry when they are practicing the exact same practices that allowed Europe to conquer the world, they are fighting for control of foreigners and taking it by force. They haven't even gotten into their groove yet. Once they combine technology and organization with mass killing for ideological reasons, then they can really say they are as good as the Europeans. Why do we try to make believe that western civilization wasn't earned with the point of a spear or bayonet? We should embrace that shit, especially since losing that mindset will end up costing us our culture, all of it. The warfare of Muslims today is different then the warfare of the Europeans. Europeans won stand up fights in battle. Muslims launch terror attacks but can't win stand up fights. Culture is still the significant reason. http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars Culture in what? There is one specific facet that Muslim culture is deficient on that prevents it from conquering the world. They lack the military ability to do it. They lack the ability because the Muslim world didn't spend the better part of 400 years fighting each other tooth and nail all while the most innovative of historical engineering designs were taking place. Instead,they were relatively stagnant, with the Ottomans controlling them. Compare this to Europe, which had every kingdom and principality fiercely at war with one another, transferring ideas on newly designed printing presses. Innovating. Primarily in better methods to kill one another. Many of the sociological and cultural concepts that went along with military science became ingrained into the fabric of civilian culture too, discipline, organization, logistics, all perfected during the tumultuous 16th-18th century, which started out with feudal armies fighting each other with swords and spears, and ended with regiments of mass conscripted infantry, in standardized matching uniforms, carrying identical muskets which all were made with interchangeable parts, operating off a set of discipline and commands that turned men into disciplined killing machine who marched in near perfect synchronization. The Islamic world missed all of that, most of them didn't even have true interactions with westerners until the age we were already flying planes and building tanks. By that point, too much had changed too quickly for most Middle Easterners to embrace. Note that it wasn't just the Muslims of that area who were left behind, Christians living there, and non-Ashkenazi Jews. Much of the Balkans, same problem, they missed out. Most of Russia, same thing, they missed out. Asia, same thing. A few nations had a culture capable of embracing the new ideologies, like the Japanese who embraced some, while discarding others, much to their peril. Others like Russia and China simply killed their way to change the country, using force to eliminate all those who refused or were incapable/unwilling to adopt (Russian collectivization and industrialization and the Chinese Cultural Revolution). They too missed enough that they often have issues performing militarily similarly to western nations. And that same superior culture that allowed Europeans to take over the world allowed them to lose everything, to have their people embrace socialism and communism, becoming weak and complacent. |
|
Quoted:
She never said "a 4 year degree kills terrorism". She's talking about education from a young age not to be a terrorist. You know don't hit, be nice to other people even if they do something you don't like. That kind of thing. View Quote I never received anti-terrorism growing up and I have no desire to associate with ISIS. I have never looked for their on-line presence and I believe that they need to be eradicated by whichever method(s) kills them the quickest. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.