Discussion:
The religion of peace in 2015
(too old to reply)
Wilson
2016-03-29 13:38:07 UTC
Permalink
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
Kitty P
2016-03-29 14:39:54 UTC
Permalink
"Wilson" wrote in message news:KZednRQPRtncGGfLnZ2dnUU7-***@supernews.com...

In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------

Yes, I'm taking the bait.

A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If someone
killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you couldn't even
remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back they were killed as
well - what would be your response by 2015?

1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the
Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a
result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011,
estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the
conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated
by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported
killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed
being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari, Sahar
A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway, Lindsay;
Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray, Christopher J.;
Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013). "Mortality in Iraq
Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation: Findings from a National
Cluster Sample Survey by the University Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]

1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian deaths
due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900 civilians have been
wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants,
are recorded to have been killed in the conflict, and the number who have
died through indirect causes related to the war may include an additional
360,000 people.These numbers do not include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and Displacement
in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
Julian
2016-03-29 15:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
Julian
2016-03-29 15:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...

Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The
country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to
jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the
“funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
Julian
2016-03-29 16:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...

Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]

The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name

I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
Kitty P
2016-03-29 16:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...

Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]

The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name

I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------

So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving people
in the world.

The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons. The Koran does not forbid
getting even and just because countries got away with abuse of other people
in other countries - it obviously isn't going to happen in this case.
Julian
2016-03-29 16:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?

Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.

It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.

Your self loathing is not a good look.
Julian
2016-03-29 16:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
Besides, I don't see robbing someone at the point of a gun
any worse that forcing ones religion on someone else at the
point of a knife or with a bomb... Actually I think it might
be even worse. One can always earn oneself some more money
but if you renounce Islam after having been converted you are
in particularly deep, deep shit.
Kitty P
2016-03-29 18:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
Besides, I don't see robbing someone at the point of a gun
any worse that forcing ones religion on someone else at the
point of a knife or with a bomb... Actually I think it might
be even worse. One can always earn oneself some more money
but if you renounce Islam after having been converted you are
in particularly deep, deep shit.
--------------

All true I am not an apologist for crazy people or using violence to get
what one wants, and crazy radicals kill Muslims more than anyone else. But
what you call self-loathing - I call consciousness. Looking at the far past
to today - there is less violence and the world actually is safer. Perhaps
it's an evolutionary consciousness - maybe just practicality. I'm not
particularly altruistic about this stuff as much as disgusted with people
not seeing that causing suffering of others sometimes has consequences.

Here's the practicality. You and I paid taxes where it (in my case 50% of my
taxes) was used to kill a lot of people for someone else's profit, not to
mention the near destruction of the U.S. economy and all that entails. To
not be conscious of that is a form of head-in-the-ground insanity that
allows it to keep happening. I personally don't relish paying to be fucked
in the ass for another ten years economically, and more importantly, not
participate in the death of almost a million people again.
Julian
2016-03-29 20:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
Besides, I don't see robbing someone at the point of a gun
any worse that forcing ones religion on someone else at the
point of a knife or with a bomb... Actually I think it might
be even worse. One can always earn oneself some more money
but if you renounce Islam after having been converted you are
in particularly deep, deep shit.
--------------
All true I am not an apologist for crazy people or using violence to
get what one wants, and crazy radicals kill Muslims more than anyone
else. But what you call self-loathing - I call consciousness. Looking
at the far past to today - there is less violence and the world actually
is safer. Perhaps it's an evolutionary consciousness - maybe just
practicality. I'm not particularly altruistic about this stuff as much
as disgusted with people not seeing that causing suffering of others
sometimes has consequences.
Here's the practicality. You and I paid taxes where it (in my case 50%
of my taxes) was used to kill a lot of people for someone else's profit,
not to mention the near destruction of the U.S. economy and all that
entails. To not be conscious of that is a form of head-in-the-ground
insanity that allows it to keep happening. I personally don't relish
paying to be fucked in the ass for another ten years economically, and
more importantly, not participate in the death of almost a million
people again.
My recent ancestors spent all their empires gold and racked up
massively crippling debts on top to participate in killing as
many Nazis as possible. It was worth every single penny.

The fact is sometimes it is worth the blood, sweat and tears.
Julian
2016-03-29 20:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
Besides, I don't see robbing someone at the point of a gun
any worse that forcing ones religion on someone else at the
point of a knife or with a bomb... Actually I think it might
be even worse. One can always earn oneself some more money
but if you renounce Islam after having been converted you are
in particularly deep, deep shit.
--------------
All true I am not an apologist for crazy people or using violence to
get what one wants, and crazy radicals kill Muslims more than anyone
else. But what you call self-loathing - I call consciousness. Looking
at the far past to today - there is less violence and the world actually
is safer. Perhaps it's an evolutionary consciousness - maybe just
practicality. I'm not particularly altruistic about this stuff as much
as disgusted with people not seeing that causing suffering of others
sometimes has consequences.
Here's the practicality. You and I paid taxes where it (in my case 50%
of my taxes) was used to kill a lot of people for someone else's profit,
not to mention the near destruction of the U.S. economy and all that
entails. To not be conscious of that is a form of head-in-the-ground
insanity that allows it to keep happening. I personally don't relish
paying to be fucked in the ass for another ten years economically, and
more importantly, not participate in the death of almost a million
people again.
My recent ancestors spent all their empires gold and racked up
massively crippling debts on top to participate in killing or
capturing many Nazis as possible. It was worth every single penny.

The fact is sometimes it is worth the blood, sweat and tears.
liaM
2016-03-29 23:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
Besides, I don't see robbing someone at the point of a gun
any worse that forcing ones religion on someone else at the
point of a knife or with a bomb... Actually I think it might
be even worse. One can always earn oneself some more money
but if you renounce Islam after having been converted you are
in particularly deep, deep shit.
"self-loathing" - is that like a pimple on your face that no-one can
avoid to see?
Julian
2016-03-29 17:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
ps.

With respect I do understand why if you do take the issue of
Islam in our culture at all seriously it is in a theoretical
or intellectual sense. It is quite likely that even if you
were 16 it's not going to have an impact in your lifetime as
an inhabitant of "far out man" liberal Oregon.

On the other hand, if you are a 16 year old woman in many a
town in, particularly, northern England where Muslims are
approaching a majority, or at least a significant presence,
Islam is already a real and present danger to your liberty
and/or safety.
Wilson
2016-03-29 17:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
In 2015 there were 2,860 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which
27,596 people were killed and 26,145 injured.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
-------------------
Yes, I'm taking the bait.
A reason? How about over close to 900,000 Muslims (probably about 1/2
million at least were civilians) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If
someone killed your entire family when you were young for reasons you
couldn't even remotely fathom and when your male relatives fought back
they were killed as well - what would be your response by 2015?
1) Iraq
Various surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of
the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis
died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published
in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a
result of the conflict since the invasion.Counts of deaths reported in
newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between
112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
~ Hagopian, Amy; Flaxman, Abraham D.; Takaro, Tim K.; Esa Al Shatari,
Sahar A.; Rajaratnam, Julie; Becker, Stan; Levin-Rector, Alison; Galway,
Lindsay; Hadi Al-Yasseri, Berq J.; Weiss, William M.; Murray,
Christopher J.; Burnham, Gilbert; Mills, Edward J. (15 October 2013).
Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University
Collaborative Iraq Mortality Stud
~[2]
1.Afghanistan
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian
deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900
civilians have been wounded. Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians,
soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the
conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related
to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.These numbers do not
include those who have died in Pakistan.
~Crawford, Neta (22 May 2015). "War-related Death, Injury, and
Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014".
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/
We often of it being a Muslim v Christian or West v Middle East issue
but consider this...
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million
Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst,
Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due
to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning
the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name
I note the the UK has received many, many, perhaps hundreds of,
thousands of Hindu and Sikhs virtually seamlessly and we have
a very good relationship still with India in spite of the
British Raj. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Indians have, in fact, far more cause for grievance with
us than any Muslim nation in the Middle East/East but
the difference is they don't adhere to the Koran.
------------
So it also goes with the Vietnamese - who must be the most forgiving
people in the world.
The UK and the US are brothers in the obscene when it comes to abuse of
other people through war for monetary reasons.
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
The Legacy Of Jihad: Islamic Holy War And The Fate Of Non-muslims

This book reveals how, for well over a millennium and across three
continents - Asia, Africa, and Europe - non-Muslims who were vanquished
by jihad wars became forced tributaries (called dhimmi in Arabic) in
lieu of being slain. Under the dhimmi religious caste system,
non-Muslims were subjected to legal and financial oppression, as well as
social isolation. Extensive primary and secondary source materials, many
translated here for the first time into English, are presented, making
clear that jihad conquests were brutal, imperialist advances, which
spurred waves of Muslims to expropriate a vast expanse of lands and
subdue millions of indigenous peoples. Finally, the book examines how
jihad war, as a permanent and uniquely Islamic institution, ultimately
regulates the relations of Muslims with non-Muslims to this day.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591023076/


Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization

Classical Civilization was not destroyed by Barbarians or by Christians.
It survived intact into the early seventh century. The Vandals and Goths
who seized the Western Empire in the fifth century had become completely
romanized by the start of the sixth century. Artistic and intellectual
life flourished, as did the economy and the cities built earlier under
the Empire. Yet sometime in the middle of the seventh century everything
changed. Cities were abandoned, literacy plummeted, royal authority
declined and local strongmen, or "barons", seized control of the
provinces. The Middle Ages had begun.

www.amazon.com/Holy-Warriors-Demise-Classical-Civilization/dp/0980994896


The destruction of Classical Civilization - Jihad vs Crusades - Bill
Warner, PhD

Over 200 battles were fought in Spain alone.




Tears of Jihad

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

A rough estimate were 270 million killed by jihad through history since
the founding of Islam.
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-29 17:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
--
Sanford
Julian
2016-03-29 17:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.

Ned Ludd
2016-03-29 19:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.

Ned
Wilson
2016-03-30 11:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and no
one would would be surprised.
Julian
2016-03-30 12:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and no
one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.

First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful. Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and
warlike. Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.

I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.

About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
Ned Ludd
2016-03-30 15:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally concentrate
fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.

I did post my 'Cave in Urfa' poem here, didn't I?...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4irnmdt2v7qq3cr/Urfa.doc?dl=0

Ned
Julian
2016-03-30 16:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
That's more or less common ground for all of them. :)
Saturday, Sunday... little difference IMO.
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
No way!
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
They were early muslims and the Koran hadn't really sunk in yet.
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
I did post my 'Cave in Urfa' poem here, didn't I?...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4irnmdt2v7qq3cr/Urfa.doc?dl=0
Not sure. I'll read it.
Ned Ludd
2016-03-30 16:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
They were early muslims and the Koran hadn't really sunk in yet.
So, like, when did the Torah and Bible sink in?

Ned

Loading Image...
Julian
2016-03-31 09:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
Ned Ludd
2016-03-31 17:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated his
brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these sultans had
the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus for factions
that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts upon his throne,
the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the throne. The practice of
fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362, soon became widespread.[2]
Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had their half-brothers murdered. The
killing of all the new sultan's brothers and half-brothers (which were
usually quite numerous) was traditionally done by manual strangling with a
silk cord.
---

Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html

In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.

Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).

Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).

There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
---

Ned
daletx
2016-03-31 17:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
---
Ned
Wait...that second chart you mention says it's "deaths per year", not
totals. For the totals, you need to look at the circles on the big chart.

It would certainly be easier to read in tabular form.

DT
Ned Ludd
2016-03-31 18:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by daletx
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
---
Ned
Wait...that second chart you mention says it's "deaths per year", not
totals. For the totals, you need to look at the circles on the big chart.
It would certainly be easier to read in tabular form.
DT
Oh good grief. Thanks.

Ned
Julian
2016-04-01 00:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
Jeez, it's fucking complicated. I think I should just
shut my gob a while... especially as I've just arrived
back inn London at 9pm and went straight to the pub until
midnight.
Ned Ludd
2016-04-01 03:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
Jeez, it's fucking complicated. I think I should just
shut my gob a while... especially as I've just arrived
back inn London at 9pm and went straight to the pub until
midnight.
No, this is good. And it must be a cold day in hell, for me
to be defending Muslim civilizations. What I fundamentally
don't get, and flip-flop back and forth on, is whether Islam
is in some new ascendency, or if we are witnessing the
death throes of an outdated culture totally unable to deal
with or survive in an on-line globally wired world.

Ned
Wilson
2016-04-01 18:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
Jeez, it's fucking complicated. I think I should just
shut my gob a while... especially as I've just arrived
back inn London at 9pm and went straight to the pub until
midnight.
No, this is good. And it must be a cold day in hell, for me
to be defending Muslim civilizations. What I fundamentally
don't get, and flip-flop back and forth on, is whether Islam
is in some new ascendency, or if we are witnessing the
death throes of an outdated culture totally unable to deal
with or survive in an on-line globally wired world.
Ned
Our civilization is not as sold and permanent as we all would like to
think it is. The electrical grid is probably the most vulnerable part.
I know I sound like the harbinger of doom, but it could all come
crashing down at any time.
Ned Ludd
2016-04-01 19:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated
by
dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
Jeez, it's fucking complicated. I think I should just
shut my gob a while... especially as I've just arrived
back inn London at 9pm and went straight to the pub until
midnight.
No, this is good. And it must be a cold day in hell, for me
to be defending Muslim civilizations. What I fundamentally
don't get, and flip-flop back and forth on, is whether Islam
is in some new ascendency, or if we are witnessing the
death throes of an outdated culture totally unable to deal
with or survive in an on-line globally wired world.
Ned
Our civilization is not as old and permanent as we all would like to think
it is. The electrical grid is probably the most vulnerable part. I know I
sound like the harbinger of doom, but it could all come crashing down at
any time.
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.

Ned
Wilson
2016-04-01 23:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't
motivated by
dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe
Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
Jeez, it's fucking complicated. I think I should just
shut my gob a while... especially as I've just arrived
back inn London at 9pm and went straight to the pub until
midnight.
No, this is good. And it must be a cold day in hell, for me
to be defending Muslim civilizations. What I fundamentally
don't get, and flip-flop back and forth on, is whether Islam
is in some new ascendency, or if we are witnessing the
death throes of an outdated culture totally unable to deal
with or survive in an on-line globally wired world.
Ned
Our civilization is not as old and permanent as we all would like to
think it is. The electrical grid is probably the most vulnerable
part. I know I sound like the harbinger of doom, but it could all come
crashing down at any time.
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
Ned
It's been speculated by people who sound like they know what they're
talking about that when the Norks threaten to "nuke" the US that's what
they are planning, as a matter of fact.
Sanford M. Manley
2016-04-02 02:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
Not true. It is an oversimplification and exaggeration.
Honestly, they are not sure how much damage there would
be, but total damage is a serious exaggeration.
--
Sanford
Nobody in Particular
2016-04-02 04:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
Sanford M. Manley
2016-04-02 05:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
--
Sanford
daletx
2016-04-02 12:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
I'm gonna wrap my whole trailer with screen wire, then ground it. Turn
the whole thing into a Faraday cage.

I'm still working on the portable model I can walk around in...

DT
Kitty P
2016-04-02 14:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
I'm gonna wrap my whole trailer with screen wire, then ground it. Turn
the whole thing into a Faraday cage.

I'm still working on the portable model I can walk around in...

DT
--------------

ooohhh niche market. It could be bigger than bomb shelters.

Kitty
Wilson
2016-04-02 15:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by daletx
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
I'm gonna wrap my whole trailer with screen wire, then ground it. Turn
the whole thing into a Faraday cage.
I'm still working on the portable model I can walk around in...
DT
--------------
ooohhh niche market. It could be bigger than bomb shelters.
And a side benefit, no more bothersome cell phone calls!
Wilson
2016-04-02 15:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.
djinn
2016-04-02 16:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.

````````````````````````

but I don't have any communication devices
connected to their massive underground
facilities networks, do you?
Sanford M. Manley
2016-04-02 22:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.
How about some facts:

http://www.empcommission.org/index.php
--
Sanford
Wilson
2016-04-03 15:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a
Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.
http://www.empcommission.org/index.php
Thanks. I'd done some researching on the subject years ago. It's
interesting that I had not seen this report before.

It confirms what I'd heard through unofficial channels:

"The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed
with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging
electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon
which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and
infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the
Nation.

"Depending on the specific characteristics of the attacks, unprecedented
cascading failures of our major infrastructures could result. In that
event, a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult and
would seriously degrade the safety and overall viability of our Nation.
The primary avenues for catastrophic damage to the Nation are through
our electric power infrastructure and thence into our
telecommunications, energy, and other infrastructures. These, in turn,
can seriously impact other important aspects of our Nation’s life,
including the financial system; means of getting food, water, and
medical care to the citizenry; trade; and production of goods and
services. The recovery of any one of the key national infrastructures is
dependent on the recovery of others. The longer the outage, the more
problematic and uncertain the recovery will be. It is possible for the
functional outages to become mutually reinforcing until at some point
the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the
country’s ability to support its population."

---

Rosco Bartlet was my congressman until he retired a few years ago. He
was a big into this stuff and publicly said this was a serious threat.
In his retirement he's moved his family to a farm in rural western
Maryland.
liaM
2016-04-03 19:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a
Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.
http://www.empcommission.org/index.php
Thanks. I'd done some researching on the subject years ago. It's
interesting that I had not seen this report before.
"The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed
with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging
electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon
which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and
infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the
Nation.
"Depending on the specific characteristics of the attacks, unprecedented
cascading failures of our major infrastructures could result. In that
event, a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult and
would seriously degrade the safety and overall viability of our Nation.
The primary avenues for catastrophic damage to the Nation are through
our electric power infrastructure and thence into our
telecommunications, energy, and other infrastructures. These, in turn,
can seriously impact other important aspects of our Nation’s life,
including the financial system; means of getting food, water, and
medical care to the citizenry; trade; and production of goods and
services. The recovery of any one of the key national infrastructures is
dependent on the recovery of others. The longer the outage, the more
problematic and uncertain the recovery will be. It is possible for the
functional outages to become mutually reinforcing until at some point
the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the
country’s ability to support its population."
---
Rosco Bartlet was my congressman until he retired a few years ago. He
was a big into this stuff and publicly said this was a serious threat.
In his retirement he's moved his family to a farm in rural western
Maryland.
Optical fiber is what's keeping America safe nowadays, not affected
by EMF or sunspots. It's also what made some Wall Street nerds
immensely rich. They figured out an optical fiber link from
NY to Chicago would beat copper wire based networking by a couple
milliseconds, thus permitting them trades ahead of competitors.
Seems to me this went on for a couple years before someone figured
out what was happening.
Julian
2016-04-03 19:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a
Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.
http://www.empcommission.org/index.php
Thanks. I'd done some researching on the subject years ago. It's
interesting that I had not seen this report before.
"The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed
with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging
electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon
which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and
infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the
Nation.
"Depending on the specific characteristics of the attacks, unprecedented
cascading failures of our major infrastructures could result. In that
event, a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult and
would seriously degrade the safety and overall viability of our Nation.
The primary avenues for catastrophic damage to the Nation are through
our electric power infrastructure and thence into our
telecommunications, energy, and other infrastructures. These, in turn,
can seriously impact other important aspects of our Nation’s life,
including the financial system; means of getting food, water, and
medical care to the citizenry; trade; and production of goods and
services. The recovery of any one of the key national infrastructures is
dependent on the recovery of others. The longer the outage, the more
problematic and uncertain the recovery will be. It is possible for the
functional outages to become mutually reinforcing until at some point
the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the
country’s ability to support its population."
---
Rosco Bartlet was my congressman until he retired a few years ago. He
was a big into this stuff and publicly said this was a serious threat.
In his retirement he's moved his family to a farm in rural western
Maryland.
Optical fiber is what's keeping America safe nowadays, not affected
by EMF or sunspots. It's also what made some Wall Street nerds
immensely rich. They figured out an optical fiber link from
NY to Chicago would beat copper wire based networking by a couple
milliseconds, thus permitting them trades ahead of competitors.
Seems to me this went on for a couple years before someone figured
out what was happening.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I9PVKKC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
daletx
2016-04-04 00:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Wilson
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a
Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
It's good that the government and military will have all of their
facilities intact. They can talk to us and tell us what to do while our
useless vehicles sit immobile as we slowly starve.
http://www.empcommission.org/index.php
Thanks. I'd done some researching on the subject years ago. It's
interesting that I had not seen this report before.
"The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed
with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging
electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon
which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and
infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the
Nation.
"Depending on the specific characteristics of the attacks, unprecedented
cascading failures of our major infrastructures could result. In that
event, a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult and
would seriously degrade the safety and overall viability of our Nation.
The primary avenues for catastrophic damage to the Nation are through
our electric power infrastructure and thence into our
telecommunications, energy, and other infrastructures. These, in turn,
can seriously impact other important aspects of our Nation’s life,
including the financial system; means of getting food, water, and
medical care to the citizenry; trade; and production of goods and
services. The recovery of any one of the key national infrastructures is
dependent on the recovery of others. The longer the outage, the more
problematic and uncertain the recovery will be. It is possible for the
functional outages to become mutually reinforcing until at some point
the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the
country’s ability to support its population."
---
Rosco Bartlet was my congressman until he retired a few years ago. He
was a big into this stuff and publicly said this was a serious threat.
In his retirement he's moved his family to a farm in rural western
Maryland.
Man, <150 miles from Washington seems way too close, if you're worried
about *any* threat.

DT
Sanford M. Manley
2016-04-04 02:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by daletx
Man, <150 miles from Washington seems way too close, if you're worried
about *any* threat.
A little research would reveal the safest places. It is not necessarily
distance that is protective. It has to do with prevailing upper air
patterns, proximity to targets, availability of resources, and even
features that are naturally protective.

It also depends on how close your refuge is to your normal
patterns. No place works if you cannot get there on reasonable
notice.

I know of a place near Kansas City where one can get access
to DEEP underground space and one can preposition supplies
and a place to stay, but it will cost you.

There are some places North and West of you that would be pretty
safe.
--
Sanford
daletx
2016-04-04 17:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by daletx
Man, <150 miles from Washington seems way too close, if you're worried
about *any* threat.
A little research would reveal the safest places. It is not necessarily
distance that is protective. It has to do with prevailing upper air
patterns, proximity to targets, availability of resources, and even
features that are naturally protective.
It also depends on how close your refuge is to your normal
patterns. No place works if you cannot get there on reasonable
notice.
I know of a place near Kansas City where one can get access
to DEEP underground space and one can preposition supplies
and a place to stay, but it will cost you.
There are some places North and West of you that would be pretty
safe.
Well, there's always the remains of the superconducting supercollider,
up near Waxahachie. Oh, no, sorry; looks like a chemical company
snatched it up.

I was watching a re-run of "Elementary" a week or so ago, where Sherlock
tells a prepper's wife something like "it sounds like so little fun I
think I would prefer to die in the apocalypse".

Of course, that's one of those things that's easy to say *now*. When
the time comes, we'll probably all fight till our last breath for one
more breath...

DT
Kitty P
2016-04-05 13:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by daletx
Man, <150 miles from Washington seems way too close, if you're worried
about *any* threat.
A little research would reveal the safest places. It is not necessarily
distance that is protective. It has to do with prevailing upper air
patterns, proximity to targets, availability of resources, and even
features that are naturally protective.
It also depends on how close your refuge is to your normal
patterns. No place works if you cannot get there on reasonable
notice.
I know of a place near Kansas City where one can get access
to DEEP underground space and one can preposition supplies
and a place to stay, but it will cost you.
There are some places North and West of you that would be pretty
safe.
Well, there's always the remains of the superconducting supercollider,
up near Waxahachie. Oh, no, sorry; looks like a chemical company
snatched it up.

I was watching a re-run of "Elementary" a week or so ago, where Sherlock
tells a prepper's wife something like "it sounds like so little fun I
think I would prefer to die in the apocalypse".

Of course, that's one of those things that's easy to say *now*. When
the time comes, we'll probably all fight till our last breath for one
more breath...

DT
-----------------

Yeah I hear you. We now have some ghastly news about the expected possibly
9.0 earthquake and more in the area. The latest Cascadia fault geological
study is that the same peninsula across the river that will start seriously
flooding in less than 20 years, will drop 3-6' if the what they see as
building pressure pops (and is overdue). I asked friends who live over there
how they feel about it - they just looked at me for the dumb question that
is since I live in on a hill that will slide into the river (I have the
DOGAMI landslide maps for the hill). We look at tornado alley and
hurricanes in FL and such - and we humans have the darndest way to just
compartmentalize it all. If we don't, people think we're neurotic or crazy
preppers. But the truth of it is that after a certain age, most of us just
wish for is a good, clean and quick death regardless of what it is I guess.
It's funny how people don't like to talk about death - it might help when
the time inevitably comes to each of us.

Kitty
Julian
2016-04-05 14:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by daletx
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by daletx
Man, <150 miles from Washington seems way too close, if you're worried
about *any* threat.
A little research would reveal the safest places. It is not necessarily
distance that is protective. It has to do with prevailing upper air
patterns, proximity to targets, availability of resources, and even
features that are naturally protective.
It also depends on how close your refuge is to your normal
patterns. No place works if you cannot get there on reasonable
notice.
I know of a place near Kansas City where one can get access
to DEEP underground space and one can preposition supplies
and a place to stay, but it will cost you.
There are some places North and West of you that would be pretty
safe.
Well, there's always the remains of the superconducting supercollider,
up near Waxahachie. Oh, no, sorry; looks like a chemical company
snatched it up.
I was watching a re-run of "Elementary" a week or so ago, where Sherlock
tells a prepper's wife something like "it sounds like so little fun I
think I would prefer to die in the apocalypse".
Of course, that's one of those things that's easy to say *now*. When
the time comes, we'll probably all fight till our last breath for one
more breath...
DT
-----------------
Yeah I hear you. We now have some ghastly news about the expected
possibly 9.0 earthquake and more in the area. The latest Cascadia fault
geological study is that the same peninsula across the river that will
start seriously flooding in less than 20 years, will drop 3-6' if the
what they see as building pressure pops (and is overdue). I asked
friends who live over there how they feel about it - they just looked at
me for the dumb question that is since I live in on a hill that will
slide into the river (I have the DOGAMI landslide maps for the hill).
We look at tornado alley and hurricanes in FL and such - and we humans
have the darndest way to just compartmentalize it all. If we don't,
people think we're neurotic or crazy preppers. But the truth of it is
that after a certain age, most of us just wish for is a good, clean and
quick death regardless of what it is I guess. It's funny how people
don't like to talk about death - it might help when the time inevitably
comes to each of us.
Since no one here has the slightest clue, I doubt it.
daletx
2016-04-05 17:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by daletx
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by daletx
Man, <150 miles from Washington seems way too close, if you're worried
about *any* threat.
A little research would reveal the safest places. It is not necessarily
distance that is protective. It has to do with prevailing upper air
patterns, proximity to targets, availability of resources, and even
features that are naturally protective.
It also depends on how close your refuge is to your normal
patterns. No place works if you cannot get there on reasonable
notice.
I know of a place near Kansas City where one can get access
to DEEP underground space and one can preposition supplies
and a place to stay, but it will cost you.
There are some places North and West of you that would be pretty
safe.
Well, there's always the remains of the superconducting supercollider,
up near Waxahachie. Oh, no, sorry; looks like a chemical company
snatched it up.
I was watching a re-run of "Elementary" a week or so ago, where Sherlock
tells a prepper's wife something like "it sounds like so little fun I
think I would prefer to die in the apocalypse".
Of course, that's one of those things that's easy to say *now*. When
the time comes, we'll probably all fight till our last breath for one
more breath...
DT
-----------------
Yeah I hear you. We now have some ghastly news about the expected
possibly 9.0 earthquake and more in the area. The latest Cascadia fault
geological study is that the same peninsula across the river that will
start seriously flooding in less than 20 years, will drop 3-6' if the
what they see as building pressure pops (and is overdue). I asked
friends who live over there how they feel about it - they just looked at
me for the dumb question that is since I live in on a hill that will
slide into the river (I have the DOGAMI landslide maps for the hill).
We look at tornado alley and hurricanes in FL and such - and we humans
have the darndest way to just compartmentalize it all. If we don't,
people think we're neurotic or crazy preppers. But the truth of it is
that after a certain age, most of us just wish for is a good, clean and
quick death regardless of what it is I guess. It's funny how people
don't like to talk about death - it might help when the time inevitably
comes to each of us.
Since no one here has the slightest clue, I doubt it.
Wait...by "here", do you mean absfg, or the earth in general?

If the former, then I'm slightly offended.

If the latter, I agree completely.

DT

Ned
2016-04-02 16:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.
It is believed that current electronics are far less robust because of
lower native voltages and smaller printed circuits; however, I assure
you that essential systems for command and control and communications
are hardened and will survive. Therefore, any potential attack remains
a suicide move.
Mm... Comforting. Is it still true that subs can not be detected when they
run deep?

Ned
Sanford M. Manley
2016-04-02 22:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned
Mm... Comforting. Is it still true that subs can not be detected when they
run deep?
I know first-hand that subs can be detected wherever they are running.
There are several different methods. That is all I can say.
--
Sanford
liaM
2016-04-03 10:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Ned
Mm... Comforting. Is it still true that subs can not be detected when they
run deep?
I know first-hand that subs can be detected wherever they are running.
There are several different methods. That is all I can say.
I like the acoustic method using optical fiber microphones with >120
DB s/N ratios - (oops, I shouldn't ve told you.. are you a soviet spy?)
djinn
2016-04-02 14:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Oh yeah. I remember Dar used to quote some factoid - I don't
know where he got it - that if you could set off a Hiroshima-type
nuke 110 miles above Topeka you would knock out all the
electrical devices in the US.
The "Starfish Prime" shot, about 100 times the yield of a Hiroshima-type
nuke, was set off on July 9, 1962 at an altitude of 250 miles about 898
miles from Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off
burglar alarms and damaged a telephone company microwave link. Not much
else.

`````````````````````

yeah but when they get one of them to shut
off all of the video game consoles, there's
gonna be real trouble you bet yer bottom dollar
Julian
2016-04-01 18:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Wilson
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
http://youtu.be/epQ6u0zrMJE
Wow. Hope she lives.
Ned
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and
no one would would be surprised.
It seems the religions of the Book are working backwards with respect
to peace and civilisation.
First were the Jews who, to my knowledge, were almost civilised and
peaceful.
What?? Yeah except for stoning to death homosexuals and
anyone who worked on Saturday.
Post by Julian
Next the Christians who were a little more barbaric and warlike.
Man, whatever you're toking on, can I have some?
Post by Julian
Finally Muslims who are utterly barbaric and warlike.
Babur, Suleiman, Akbar the Great. In astronomy and mathematics
and poetry the list is too long to type. Malala is a Muslim.
Post by Julian
I think the progression will reach its apogee of savagery when
there's no kafir left and they two camps of Islam can finally
concentrate fully their energy on eating each other.
About the only reason I'd like an eternal life is for front
row seats at that gig.
I'd agree with that. I'd also agree, if you're suggesting it, that
the 'people of the book' should be wiped off the earth. Or lacking
that, at least carry out the "Three Smoking Holes" operation.
ps. I think my post fairly represents the progression of the numbers
of murder victims of the "people of the book" even if I erred on the
civilisation aspect.
When Suleiman ascended to sultan, he was required by law to
strangle all of his brothers.
---
However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated
his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these
sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus
for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts
upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the
throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Murat I in 1362,
soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had
their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's
brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was
traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord.
---
Remember this chart?...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html
In the lower left is a chart showing the 10 wars/rebellions that
killed the greatest percentages of world population.
Top of the list is Genghis Khan. The only 'Western' things on
it are the Second World War (6th place at 2.6%), and the Thirty
Years War (9th place at 1.4%).
Of course, as world population grew, the numbers got larger.
The chart immediately to the right of that shows the top 10
wars in terms of total number of deaths in millions. WWII tops
the list at 9.4 million, then WWI (3 million), then Genghis Khan
(1.8 million).
There WAS a Christian influence in one of the top Asian
blood-baths, the Taiping Rebellion (8th on the list, killing 1.7%
of the world's population), but I think the religious aspect was
only incidental. I do love the names, though...
---
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War, literally "Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or
civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was
fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty
and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly
Kingdom of Peace.
Jeez, it's fucking complicated. I think I should just
shut my gob a while... especially as I've just arrived
back inn London at 9pm and went straight to the pub until
midnight.
No, this is good. And it must be a cold day in hell, for me
to be defending Muslim civilizations. What I fundamentally
don't get, and flip-flop back and forth on, is whether Islam
is in some new ascendency,
Over my cold dead body.
Post by Ned Ludd
or if we are witnessing the
death throes of an outdated culture totally unable to deal
with or survive in an on-line globally wired world.
That would be nice.
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-30 13:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and no
one would would be surprised.
Oh, in a related note, Iranian people of peace have renewed their
fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
--
Sanford
liaM
2016-03-30 16:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Wilson
Is there any other religion in the world (except maybe Scientology)
where you could say that you hoped a critic would not be killed and no
one would would be surprised.
Oh, in a related note, Iranian people of peace have renewed their
fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
You mean they're in a Rush for him to Die
after 40 years trying to get him
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-29 18:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Julian
Oh for pities sake... name me an empire that wasn't motivated by dosh?
Chinese, Mongols, French, Spanish, Inca's, Blah, Blah, Blah...
the Muslims themselves invaded as far as Spain.
It's the name of the game when it comes to Empire and were just
a couple of relatively recent players.
Your self loathing is not a good look.
And now you know what motivates the Trump people.
They are tired of "Blame America First."
They are tired of people making excuses for global jihad.
They are tired of being told if they do not accept that
worldview that they are stupid.
They are tired of being the wallet and the army for every
world problem.
Do the people who deny Global Warming look stupid to you?
Well, the people who deny Global Jihad and the toxic societies
that tolerate or encourage their terrorism looks just as
stupid.

Are their wonderful nice Islamic people? OF COURSE. There
were wonderful people in Nazi Germany, there were wonderful
people in Stalinist Russia, there were wonderful people in
Japan even as they committed genocide and germ warfare against
the Chinese. There were probably wonderful people who owned
slaves in the US South.

The politics and culture of many parts of Islam make it
dangerous to appear less orthodox or less fervent than
your neighbors. Therefore, it begins to look like the oppressive
societies that as a whole tolerate the type of misdeeds
that extremism engenders.
--
Sanford
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-29 18:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
The politics and culture of many parts of Islam make it
dangerous to appear less orthodox or less fervent than
your neighbors. Therefore, it begins to look like the oppressive
societies that as a whole tolerate the type of misdeeds
that extremism engenders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism
--
Sanford
Kitty P
2016-03-30 13:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
The politics and culture of many parts of Islam make it
dangerous to appear less orthodox or less fervent than
your neighbors. Therefore, it begins to look like the oppressive
societies that as a whole tolerate the type of misdeeds
that extremism engenders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism

Sanford
---------------\

I'm watching this discussion and once again people seem to believe that
other people and other ways of fighting means that no one is taking this
particular form of jihad seriously and isn't fighting. Please note that
jihad in itself means more than a war against infidels.
ji•had
n. Islam An individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection.
n. Islam A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
n. A crusade or struggle: "The war against smoking is turning into a
jihad against people who smoke” ( Fortune).

But back to the topic - every effort is being made worldwide to stem this
blight. Including Muslims. They are killed in far greater numbers since
their beliefs do not coincide with the radicalized groups. Does it look
like no one is working on it, including Muslims in the middle east who are
fighting for their countries and their lives? There is already carpet
bombing by the coalition - and to not take the time to help people getting
out of the way of the military incursions is reprehensible and worth sorting
through to try to ensure as few militants get mixed in as possible.

Isn't the real deal the fact that some short sighted people in the US want
to USE the military they spend their blood and treasure on. They don't like
that in a coalition - 'other' countries are slowly taking back cities with
U.S. assistance. But it is the way it should be and they are doing a hell
of a good job with that part of it. But stemming recruits to radicalization
is another piece because this isn't 1940 and this isn't that kind of war.
That is why the bullshit that Trump and Cruz are spouting is dangerous. It
just makes more people believe that the infidel is after them.

It's that simple.

Kitty
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-30 14:18:58 UTC
Permalink
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
--
Sanford
Julian
2016-03-30 15:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
Kitty P
2016-03-30 15:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
-----------------

I should have said technical bombing I suppose. Although it didn't sound
like the Russians were being technical before the dropped out.

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/686948/coalition-strikes-target-isil-terrorists-in-syria-iraq

http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-us-led-coalition-airstrikes-wipe-out-isis-positions-in-iraq-and-syria-2016-3?op=1

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/dutch-jets-join-bombing-isil-targets-syria-160129174717499.html

As for Saudi Arabia. They may not like Christians and Jews - but they also
sure as shit don't like ISIL. On 14 December 2015, Saudi Deputy Crown
Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud announced that 34
countries will partner in the fight against Islamic extremism, which Salman
called a "disease." Based out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the coalition will
include Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Chad, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti,
Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mali,
Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, Togo, Tunisia,
the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.[256]
Julian
2016-03-30 16:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
-----------------
I should have said technical bombing I suppose. Although it didn't sound
like the Russians were being technical before the dropped out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Democrat president
is participating in bombing the crap out of gook civilians.

I'd lay good money of it certainly happening again
no matter who gets the keys to the the toy box.

Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-30 16:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
Bomb with relish? Nah, perhaps Bernie will bomb
with mustard and ketchup.

Does anyone remember me suggesting we bomb the
Taliban with frozen turkeys and claim we are
doing food aid drops?
--
Sanford
djinn
2016-03-30 17:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
Bomb with relish? Nah, perhaps Bernie will bomb
with mustard and ketchup.

Does anyone remember me suggesting we bomb the
Taliban with frozen turkeys and claim we are
doing food aid drops?

``````````````````````

" I swear, with god as my witness,
I thought turkeys could fly ! "
Post by Julian
Arthur "Big Guy" Carlson
WKRP in Cinncinati
Kitty P
2016-04-01 15:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
Bomb with relish? Nah, perhaps Bernie will bomb
with mustard and ketchup.

Does anyone remember me suggesting we bomb the
Taliban with frozen turkeys and claim we are
doing food aid drops?

Sanford
-------------

I found that one of the more creative tactical moves myself. I mean it would
at least have fed the civilians who survived.

Kitty
Kitty P
2016-04-01 15:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
-----------------
I should have said technical bombing I suppose. Although it didn't sound
like the Russians were being technical before the dropped out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Democrat president
is participating in bombing the crap out of gook civilians.

I'd lay good money of it certainly happening again
no matter who gets the keys to the the toy box.

Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
-------------------

I have a theory. It's probably not a good one and too simplified, but here
it is. The deal is - we pay over 50% of our taxes to the U.S. military and
it is what we have instead of healthcare and affordable education (13-17% of
our taxes). Other countries can spend a their tax money healthcare and
affordable education because they expect the US to pay for the bulk of
alliance military actions. The ridicule the US for not having universal
health care. The eventual raise in taxes for healthcare the GOP talks about
is correct in my opinion. If we have healthcare on top of the military, one
can only imagine the eventual tax rate. But no one 'talks' about the bloated
military budget. It could be refined to the 21st century and lowered - but
it is the actual a major place where big business interests rule as well as
trade agreements.

So it isn't 'all' about the banks all the 1% and banks who are the problem
like Bernie talks about - but the 1% who gain most from military spending
which can include banks - but actually more income-producing activities
such as the stock market and specific manufacturing related to the military
as well. (for example, Boeing received the majority of benefits from the
money that was supposed to go to industries hit by NAFTA). does aircraft
and heaps of military stuff. Unwrapping that box is at least as important as
banking practices IMO. Which is why I think Bernie is at least as delusional
as Trump.

As for corruption. Countries who rely on that huge military for alliance
protection share the burden whether they fire off a bomb or not.
Ned Ludd
2016-04-01 17:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
-----------------
I should have said technical bombing I suppose. Although it didn't sound
like the Russians were being technical before the dropped out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Democrat president
is participating in bombing the crap out of gook civilians.
I'd lay good money of it certainly happening again
no matter who gets the keys to the the toy box.
Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
-------------------
I have a theory. It's probably not a good one and too simplified, but here
it is. The deal is - we pay over 50% of our taxes to the U.S. military and
it is what we have instead of healthcare and affordable education (13-17%
of our taxes). Other countries can spend a their tax money healthcare and
affordable education because they expect the US to pay for the bulk of
alliance military actions. The ridicule the US for not having universal
health care. The eventual raise in taxes for healthcare the GOP talks
about is correct in my opinion. If we have healthcare on top of the
military, one can only imagine the eventual tax rate. But no one 'talks'
about the bloated military budget. It could be refined to the 21st century
and lowered - but it is the actual a major place where big business
interests rule as well as trade agreements.
So it isn't 'all' about the banks all the 1% and banks who are the problem
like Bernie talks about - but the 1% who gain most from military spending
which can include banks - but actually more income-producing activities
such as the stock market and specific manufacturing related to the
military as well. (for example, Boeing received the majority of benefits
from the money that was supposed to go to industries hit by NAFTA). does
aircraft and heaps of military stuff. Unwrapping that box is at least as
important as banking practices IMO. Which is why I think Bernie is at
least as delusional as Trump.
As for corruption. Countries who rely on that huge military for alliance
protection share the burden whether they fire off a bomb or not.
You know, you've quoted that 50% figure before, and it's
just plain wrong. (Not that we aren't spending a boatload on
the military.) Here are four sites that come up when you ask
"What percent of U.S. taxes goes to the military?"

This site says 16%:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

This site says 27%:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2015/04/08/where-did-your-2014-tax-dollars-go/

This site, The White House, says 24%:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/2014-taxreceipt

This site says 18%:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/04/10/on-tax-day-where-do-your-tax-dollars-go

Ned
daletx
2016-04-01 20:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
-----------------
I should have said technical bombing I suppose. Although it didn't sound
like the Russians were being technical before the dropped out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Democrat president
is participating in bombing the crap out of gook civilians.
I'd lay good money of it certainly happening again
no matter who gets the keys to the the toy box.
Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
-------------------
I have a theory. It's probably not a good one and too simplified, but
here it is. The deal is - we pay over 50% of our taxes to the U.S.
military and it is what we have instead of healthcare and affordable
education (13-17% of our taxes). Other countries can spend a their tax
money healthcare and affordable education because they expect the US
to pay for the bulk of alliance military actions. The ridicule the US
for not having universal health care. The eventual raise in taxes for
healthcare the GOP talks about is correct in my opinion. If we have
healthcare on top of the military, one can only imagine the eventual
tax rate. But no one 'talks' about the bloated military budget. It
could be refined to the 21st century and lowered - but it is the
actual a major place where big business interests rule as well as
trade agreements.
So it isn't 'all' about the banks all the 1% and banks who are the
problem like Bernie talks about - but the 1% who gain most from
military spending which can include banks - but actually more
income-producing activities such as the stock market and specific
manufacturing related to the military as well. (for example, Boeing
received the majority of benefits from the money that was supposed to
go to industries hit by NAFTA). does aircraft and heaps of military
stuff. Unwrapping that box is at least as important as banking
practices IMO. Which is why I think Bernie is at least as delusional
as Trump.
As for corruption. Countries who rely on that huge military for
alliance protection share the burden whether they fire off a bomb or not.
You know, you've quoted that 50% figure before, and it's
just plain wrong. (Not that we aren't spending a boatload on
the military.) Here are four sites that come up when you ask
"What percent of U.S. taxes goes to the military?"
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2015/04/08/where-did-your-2014-tax-dollars-go/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/2014-taxreceipt
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/04/10/on-tax-day-where-do-your-tax-dollars-go
Ned
If I may...it's >50% of *discretionary* spending. Definitely not 50% of
all federal spending.

<https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/>

<https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/>

Of course $600 billion is still a sizable chunk of change, especially
when compared with everybody else:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/09/this-remarkable-chart-shows-how-u-s-defense-spending-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-world/>

DT
Kitty P
2016-04-02 18:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Julian
Post by Julian
Post by Sanford M. Manley
There is already carpet bombing by the coalition
No there isn't.
Maybe not yet, but there probably will be, if history
is anything to go by, no matter what they say leading up
to an election, if the Democrats take the White House again.
-----------------
I should have said technical bombing I suppose. Although it didn't sound
like the Russians were being technical before the dropped out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Democrat president
is participating in bombing the crap out of gook civilians.
I'd lay good money of it certainly happening again
no matter who gets the keys to the the toy box.
Even that Bernie chap is certainly going to be
corrupted by the the office but I must admit I
doubt he's bomb with such relish as I imagine
Hilary will.
-------------------
I have a theory. It's probably not a good one and too simplified, but
here it is. The deal is - we pay over 50% of our taxes to the U.S.
military and it is what we have instead of healthcare and affordable
education (13-17% of our taxes). Other countries can spend a their tax
money healthcare and affordable education because they expect the US
to pay for the bulk of alliance military actions. The ridicule the US
for not having universal health care. The eventual raise in taxes for
healthcare the GOP talks about is correct in my opinion. If we have
healthcare on top of the military, one can only imagine the eventual
tax rate. But no one 'talks' about the bloated military budget. It
could be refined to the 21st century and lowered - but it is the
actual a major place where big business interests rule as well as
trade agreements.
So it isn't 'all' about the banks all the 1% and banks who are the
problem like Bernie talks about - but the 1% who gain most from
military spending which can include banks - but actually more
income-producing activities such as the stock market and specific
manufacturing related to the military as well. (for example, Boeing
received the majority of benefits from the money that was supposed to
go to industries hit by NAFTA). does aircraft and heaps of military
stuff. Unwrapping that box is at least as important as banking
practices IMO. Which is why I think Bernie is at least as delusional
as Trump.
As for corruption. Countries who rely on that huge military for
alliance protection share the burden whether they fire off a bomb or not.
You know, you've quoted that 50% figure before, and it's
just plain wrong. (Not that we aren't spending a boatload on
the military.) Here are four sites that come up when you ask
"What percent of U.S. taxes goes to the military?"
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2015/04/08/where-did-your-2014-tax-dollars-go/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/2014-taxreceipt
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/04/10/on-tax-day-where-do-your-tax-dollars-go
Ned
If I may...it's >50% of *discretionary* spending. Definitely not 50% of
all federal spending.

<https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/>

<https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/>

Of course $600 billion is still a sizable chunk of change, especially
when compared with everybody else:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/09/this-remarkable-chart-shows-how-u-s-defense-spending-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-world/>

DT
-----------

Yep - and you're right that it's discretionary spending (54%). But there is
also a different way of looking at the budget that shows it's 40%-50% of our
entire tax burden.

Discretionary spending is $1.2 trillion for 2017 and the total budget around
3 trillion. The U.S. military budget is actually closer to $773.5 billion
for FY 2017 rather than the $523 billion that you see in the charts.

$523.9 billion for the base budget of the Department of Defense (DoD).
$175.9 billion for defense-related agencies and functions. That includes the
Department of Veterans Affairs ($75.1 billion), the State Department ($37.8
billion), Homeland Security ($40.6 billion), FBI and Cybersecurity in the
Department of Justice ($9.5 billion), and the National Nuclear Security
Administration in the Department of Energy ($12.9 billion).
$58.8 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for DoD to fight
ISIS.
$14.9 billion for OCO funds for the State Department and Homeland Security
to fight ISIS.
(Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2017 Budget, Summary Tables, Table
S-11)

About 1/3 of the entire budget.

But what is missed in most of those quick and easy charts is a reminder that
much of the budget for things like Medicare, Disability, and FERS (federal
and veteran retirement) are all paid into by the future recipients. It's a
bit like a revolving account, with some spent and the rest going into
trusts. For example - about 41% of Medicare and Disability are paid for out
of the general fund, although the cute little pie charts don't show how the
revenue is produced. FERS (federal retirement system) is similar. When
adding all of those together, you are starting to approach a different view
of the percentage which is closer to 40%-50% of our tax dollar spent
depending on how much congress allocates to discretionary annually.

Kitty
Sanford M. Manley
2016-03-30 16:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty P
As for Saudi Arabia. They may not like Christians and Jews - but they
also sure as shit don't like ISIL. On 14 December 2015, Saudi Deputy
Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud announced
that 34 countries will partner in the fight against Islamic extremism,
which Salman called a "disease." Based out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the
coalition will include Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Chad, Comoros, Côte
d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Libya, Maldives, Mali, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, Togo, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The House of Saud is for ANYTHING that keeps them in power.
Honestly, it is not like they are always wrong, but this is a fact.
--
Sanford
Wilson
2016-03-31 14:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Kitty P
As for Saudi Arabia. They may not like Christians and Jews - but they
also sure as shit don't like ISIL. On 14 December 2015, Saudi Deputy
Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud announced
that 34 countries will partner in the fight against Islamic extremism,
which Salman called a "disease." Based out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the
coalition will include Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Chad, Comoros, Côte
d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Libya, Maldives, Mali, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, Togo, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The House of Saud is for ANYTHING that keeps them in power.
Honestly, it is not like they are always wrong, but this is a fact.
If the Islamic State comes to power and the Sauds are turned out, who
will buy them their Ferraris and Lamborghinis?

It's all about survival, man.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...