Michele Bachmann: Spectacle or Prophet?

[Elvis]

Considering this forum's criteria for "cold hard proof" is the Huffington Post, I think Wikipedia will do in this case.

How am I "clinically fucking stupid"?


LIBERALS, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELVES.

I wrote a wall of text in response to your one inanely idiotic comment.

The point of contention is that suicide bombing is somehow unique and apart from the radicalism of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism.

I first said, the premise of such a question is ridiculous. Suicide bombing is a tactic. All these kinds of fundamentalism function differently due to a variety of reasons - political economy, logistical means, etc.

For example, why does a Jewish Zionist have to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a mosque? What would come out of that? Their political ideology is mainstream and accepted in all relevant power centers.

However, when it wasn't mainstream and accepted - they Zionists were by and large terroristic in their usage of force.

Anyone who's read the history of Mandate Palestine and the 48' War can confirm this and simply copy-paste excerpts from the mountains of historical evidence.

The acts of terrorism the Jewish underground groups carried out against the civilian population of Historic Palestine mirrors that carried out by Palestinian terrorists decades later. Not just that, but the Israeli army itself was terroristic. The 48' War was mostly fought inside the Palestinian side of the partition. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine however, began before the declaration of Israeli Statehood. Months and months before.

There is a picture-book of Palestine from the mid 1800s to just beyond 1948'. There are several pictures in the book which depict the aftermath of Zionist terrorist attacks. Bombs left in market-place. A cafe. etc.

This mirrors the suicide bombing (sans the suicide) of buses, discos, shopping malls in Israel from 1994 onward.

In 1948, 800K Palestinians were driven out of their homes and off their land through a virtual campaign of terrorism. Immediately after the War, Israel refused the right of return for the refugees. People always talk about 'the Arabs' wanting to push the Jews into the sea, well there are actually pictures of Palestinians being driven into the sea in 48' escaping from the bombings of their villages and towns.

This is just one case. In modern-day the Orthodox Jewish settlers regularly commit crimes against the Palestinian population of the OT even though they are much larger in numbers. The IDF protects them though, so they can get away with virtually anything.

This is daily abuse. Several Israeli human rights groups have conducted studies and reports on the complaints filed by Palestinians in the OT - and how often anything comes of it. It's just astonishing what a lack of justice there is for everyday Palestinians under occupation.

That's the point though - when you're occupying another people, another society - the people themselves are the enemy.

More to the point I suppose, I provided a very long excerpt from a book on US involvement in the conflicts of Latin and Central America. One such component of US involvement was the Christian Right - it's evolution and battles with the Christian peace movement.

A Christian radical - like a Jewish radical - does not have to strap a bomb to their chest. They can realize their political positions legitimately or often quite illegitimately without consequences to themselves (although others pay the price).

I cited the funneling of money to mass murderers in Central America by mainstream Christian Evangelicals. Their support of these fascists facilitated the countless atrocities against the civilian populations of countries like Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Many evangelicals expressed the most disgusting apologetics for these crimes. Does that mean the religion is to blame?

The Christian Right was up against liberation theology before political Islam. I explained this as well at length. In fact, I went out of my way to humanize these religious-political movements because it's not simply good v. evil.

You didn't deal with that post though. You just skipped the analysis and focused on abortion deaths v. suicide bombing deaths?

There is so much collusion of interests amongst the Christian Right, Zionist Jewry, Establishment geopolitics, the MIC and plain old corporate greed.

What the difference truly is - is that the Christian Right is mainstream. It's part of our political culture. So it's easy to take for granted its effect in policy making if you're not paying attention.

Suicide bombing on the other hand is quite simple to understand. And your comparison of the killings is illustrative of that superficiality.

The expansion of Jewish-only settlements in what remains of Historic Palestine. The alliance of the Christian Evangelicals w/ the Likud Zionists is not only much more dangerous (because it's mainstream and goes unchallenged) but also precipitates Islamic fundamentalism. As I said, in Palestine - suicide bombing began in 1994.

If you look at what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians from 48 onwards, it does not compare. Naturally, the more powerful entity is going to have a higher capacity for injustice/atrocity/etc.

Force labor camps for civilians. Massacres and total erasures of entire Palestinian villages. I mean, if there was any society that was erased from the map, it was the Palestinian one that existed inside what is now the 'Jewish State'. Suffice it to say, you cannot remake the ethnic/religious makeup of that region w/o carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing/etc.

What is happening now isn't just apartheid and occupation - it's colonization. And you'd think people would do something about that, but whether you're a Democrat or Republican - it makes no difference.

I was looking at those pictures of the Haiti Earthquake and I couldn't help but be reminded of Gaza last year. Some of those pictures are just similar. Except that there was a 'villain' in Gaza and it was Israel. In Haiti, there was no 'villain'. Obama didn't say he 'stood with the people of Gaza' when 300-400ish Palestinian children died in 3 weeks. When the Goldstone Report came out, the US and Israel both condemned it as appeasing terrorists and being antisemitic.

That's our political system.

I chalk this all up to a combination of radical nationalism and religious craziness. These tactics have had a ripple effect on the entire ME.

So when I go back to your original comment, I'm just astounded by your shallowness and ignorance.

[Beckwin]

oh, one more thing about advancing tech and military action:

advances in tech have enabled nations to strike without putting boots on the ground, which is something that resonates more with people back home. it's easier to get consent, or apathy, when we don't have our soldiers on the ground. if Americans aren't dying, the American people (insert British, Canadian, whatever) aren't as bothered.

so our advanced tech allowed episodes like Clinton's bombings of Iraq and Bosnia to be successful in terms of PR, even though especially with his general Iraq policy, many civilians died. We like to now talk up drones and smart bombs in Afghanistan, but even those are taking out civilians- Elvis and Kuya both have posted numerous articles about schools and weddings and villages getting fucked up. And now what's next? Yemen? More in Pakistan?

So I suppose you could make a (sort of convoluted) argument that within the context of our foreign military policy, advancements in weapons technology save (mostly American) lives (mostly by virtue of new opportunities of keeping troops away and more efficiently being able to kill enemies). But of course the issue is our foreign military policy, which as demonstrated, has low concern for civilian lives and is not genuinely open to most kinds of stabilization.

[Kuya]

I really don't know why you bother, elvis.

[Elvis]

I don't care about Leif. I care about the argument. It's not a big deal to type up some words anyway. This isn't rocket science we're talking about, it's history.

[Beckwin]

Elvis, are Israeli/Palestinian issues relevant to you in some professional/academic capacity, or is it just a personal interest?

Just curious because the amount of sources you pull out (and have apparently read) is pretty staggering.

[Zalius]

neo, do you believe there would still be wars if everyone smoked weed

[Kuya]

I don't care about Leif. I care about the argument. It's not a big deal to type up some words anyway. This isn't rocket science we're talking about, it's history.

It is amazing how you can motivate yourself to type so much when the person you're typing it towards does not pay attention.

edit: if you don't care about leif, then it is shocking that you make comments about how ignorant he is considering that at this point, it's either trolling or amazing stupidity.

[Elvis]

Elvis, are Israeli/Palestinian issues relevant to you in some professional/academic capacity, or is it just a personal interest?

Just curious because the amount of sources you pull out (and have apparently read) is pretty staggering.

I started getting interested as an undergrad. The issue is very interesting. It polarizes people unfortunately. I care about it a lot though because it's outright colonialism.

As an Indian as well, I have been made to 'feel' my identity in a negative way. So I didn't like how Arabs and Muslims were being 'presented' by all these supposed 'experts' on the ME.

It just bothers me how blatantly the divide is between image and reality when it comes to the conflict.

And the kind of information we receive from the MSM and from talking-heads (whether it's the Right or Left, in the mainstream) does not satisfy my curiosity. So I just read about it on my own.

There's a lot I don't know. There are certain arguments that a Zionist will make that is fairly easy to refute, so I can't accept your characterization of me. Zionists can be very compelling and intellectually intimidating as well. Mostly it's about rhetoric though and how they frame an argument.

You'll be trying to debate the point of contention, but they impose on you certain premises that chew up your time. You end up having to deal w/ layer upon layer of bullshit.

"Palestinians want to push the Jews into the sea."

"Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel; there is no partner for peace."

"Palestinians must cease their terrorism and accept Israels right to exist."

Blah blah.

The World Union of Jewish Students' Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus was released awhile back and it lays out all their rhetorical tactics and such. It's stuff like that that keeps me tuned in.

Living in a democratic society such as ours puts a lot of pressure on the individual to educate themselves. So yea...

I recommend this blog on I-P:

http://mondoweiss.net/

Also, it's not as though it's just about I-P. I feel like this issue is the heart of our problems in the ME. At the very least, it's symbolic of those problems.

[Kuya]

A lot of terrorist organizations cite Israel's treatement of Palestinians and US involvement as proof that the West intends to recolonize the Middle East and wipe out Islam, it forms part of the biggest conspiracy theory that exists in the Middle East, and with the US invading various nations in the ME, their words sound all the more convincing as time goes on. Meaning, the roster of terrorist organizations increases as time goes on.

[Elvis]

It is amazing how you can motivate yourself to type so much when the person you're typing it towards does not pay attention.

edit: if you don't care about leif, then it is shocking that you make comments about how ignorant he is considering that at this point, it's either trolling or amazing stupidity.

I call him that so he'll say something. The guy has called Arabs and Muslims savages and barbarians and all that.

Imagine if someone said that about Jews. Or about Blacks (and meant it, not just trying to be internet/Xbox-Live style of funny).

We live in a society where every group, whether it's an ethnicity or sexual orientation have political capital.

It's easy for troglodyte douchebags like Leif to bash Arabs and Muslims - everyone does it. They aren't treated w/ respect in our society and any glance at our film culture demonstrates that.

So I have a lingering disdain for the guy. I guess I did want to respond to 'him'. But I did want to take the opportunity to just reply to the notion in and of itself.

I don't see the point in picking at the small details. Where was this thread supposed to go anyway?

Crazy republican is crazy? I don't talk about stuff I don't know about until I educate myself properly on it. I could make arguments based on 'instincts' but what would be the point? I know a little about this stuff, and it interests me.

Hence, I post.

[Kuya]

Little about republicans saying crazy stuff?

[Beckwin]

When you say that as an Indian you've been made to feel your identity in a negative way, do you mean something to do with your physical appearance being similar to many Muslims, so by extension you've felt the negative impacts of how Muslims/Arabs are presented in the West? Or is it more simply being a minority?

[Leif]

Imagine if someone said that about Jews. Or about Blacks (and meant it, not just trying to be internet/Xbox-Live style of funny).

Imagine if Jews were intent on destroying America.

We live in a society where every group, whether it's an ethnicity or sexual orientation have political capital.

Even the Arabs.

It's easy for troglodyte douchebags like Leif to bash Arabs and Muslims - everyone does it. They aren't treated w/ respect in our society and any glance at our film culture demonstrates that.

That's a lie. Arabs are adored in American society. They are at the very top of the liberal victim hierarchy.

I don't see the point in picking at the small details. Where was this thread supposed to go anyway?

It was supposed to constitute "cold hard proof" that Michelle Bachmann and all Republicans are stupid. That went out the window pretty fast.

I wrote a wall of text in response to your one inanely idiotic comment.

I wasn't aware, but I guess I'll be punished now!

The point of contention is that suicide bombing is somehow unique and apart from the radicalism of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism.

No, it's not. The point of contention is that Muslim extremists seek to destroy America. The point of contention is that Muslim extremists will not stop trying to destroy America. The point of contention is that Muslim extremists are killing thousands worldwide, with a majority being Americans.

Its only logical that America go out and kill Muslim extremists. They are the enemy.

For example, why does a Jewish Zionist have to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a mosque? What would come out of that? Their political ideology is mainstream and accepted in all relevant power centers.

That's irrelevant. Unless you have a strategy that will make the people who want to kill us not want to kill us, what miscellaneous religions have done in the past is completely off-topic, especially because Christians and Jews seemed to have grasped the concept of free society quite well.

I'm sure if Christians ever start committing mass murder that hurts American interests we will go after the Christians that commit mass murder that hurt American interests.

Wall of text

If there was anything relevant that I missed, please bring it back up with some bullet points please.

[Klaatu]

Its turning into our own specialized form of reality TV. The problem is, the repercussions of it aren't fake and can't be fast forwarded or deleted.

but there's sure a lot of commercial breaks.

[Elvis]

Leif, I won't paraphrase my original argument or otherwise, spoon-feed it to you.

I referenced the involvement of the Christian Right in the massacres of innocent people by Latin/Central American death-squads and paramilitary in the 1980s.

Hundreds of thousands of people died.

The difference between Islamic radicalism and Christian radicalism, is that the latter is more effective as it is harbored in the world's only remaining superpower as a legitimate political movement. Furthermore, there are little if any consequences for the actions of the leaders of the Christian Right.

You are unable to make a substantiated argument in reply. All that you've done is rely on conjecture and shoddy logic.

Suicide bombing is simply a tactic that is the result of an assessment of logistical means vs. efficiency. Other religious radicals can channel their politics into action without killing themselves in the process and can take out more people over time. It does not have to be direct and personal. It can be indirect, via philanthropy. Some cases are very explicitly immoral and illegal, and I've cited them in my post on page 2.

There is actually a whole lot of this going on now, with respect to the activism of Zionist Jews in our country. A lot of Zionist charities and such do not advertise where the money is going to. I could post on that as well, sourced from the excellent Jeffrey Blankfort (an anti-Zionist Jew and former member of AIPAC). I doubt you'd read that though, it's not a comic book.

[Neosutra]

Wrote a book here… Have to copy these posts into word and write for a while because I only have connection for a few minutes at a time. So this is kinda long..

Yes, by developing nuclear technology, the powers in the cold war did not openly engage eachother. So while that weapon advancement (which levelled a couple cities) theoretically prevented WWIII, what we had as a result were proxy battles in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1, etc. in which millions lost their lives.

I don’t have the bandwidth to check the actual deaths in those 3 mini wars, but I wouldn’t say the death toll was in the millions for them (I may be wrong). And following the trend for WW1 -> WW2, WW3 could have been HUNDREDS of millions. By that logic, nuclear weapons reduced the death toll by 99% or greater via transformation of global wars into proxy battles of tactical economic pressure.

Vietnam is perhaps the prime example of us not giving a shit about civilian lives or stabilization in any form that doesn't jive with free-markets and submission to our regional influence. We didn't just wreck the shit out of Vietnam, we burned Laos and actually DEstabilized Cambodia, giving rise to the Khmer Rouge, which somewhat ironically was defeated by Red Vietnam after allied forces exited the Vietnam conflict.

I agree, Vietnam was poorly ran, and we learned a lot of lessons on what NOT to do from that war (was one of our first wars of that nature). There were also many humanitarian lessons learned from our mistakes which changed the way we handle civilians in combat.

Now you might argue that vietnam was over 30 years ago, but let's take a look at what has happened since then: our support of Pinochet in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc... the Ronald Reagan Administration (Grenada, Lebanon), Iraq 1, Iraqi sanctions and bombings, Iraq 2, Afghanistan (apparently on a 10 year plan with this one). Heavy civilian casualties in all.

Some of those justified, some of those just based on our interest. Kind of a small paragraph to touch on a –very- large debate on the politics and military decisions made in those decades. Unless you are stating that we would not have gone into those countries without the development of certain technologies and/or that the death toll would not have been as bad without certain advancements, Im not sure how that is relevant to our current discussion beyond the obvious fact that the US applies military pressure where it suites it’s interest, and not out of the kindness of it’s heart (which I never argued against). I even stated that we do our best to avoid civilian casualties because it hurts our interests, and not because we care about little Awkmed.

Meanwhile, we ignore excessively brutal third world dictatorships that kill hundreds of thousands/millions of their own civilians.

Wholeheartedly agree with you.

What we're seeing is smaller conflicts, with individual smaller death tolls, but at a high frequency. These conflicts have typically engendered significant civilian casualties. We also frequently ignore massive humanitarian crises (not profitable enough or not important for exerting regional influence. rwanda, for example, wasn't worth a shit by either criterion). So it's reasonable to conclude that the motive of our military actions is not the preservation of innocent civilians, nor is it even strictly about stabilization for a society.

As stated, I realize our actions are not to save innocents and/or stabilize a poor region. American interests play the main role in our involvement. My argument is based around the number of lives lost (on both end) via advancements in defense/weaponry and the fact that the US is extremely focused on reducing civilian casualties as part of their larger battle plan (because it helps out more in the end). And we touched base on the “frequent small skirmishes” earlier in this post, where we stated that these skirmishes (even frequent and summed together) don’t add up to a fraction of what could come from larger global war and/or aggression that we saw before such technological evolutions.

And of course, as Iraq 2 more than any other conflict has shown us, it's certainly not strictly about protecting the United States of America from harm.

I agree, I almost handed over my commission over Iraq2.

Now do I think the Army has some dastardly goal of racking up civilian death tolls? No. But those who make the decisions for what the Army's job to do is have not demonstrated a large concern for civilian lives.

From where I stand, the people up top have put a HUGE focus on not harming civilians, pretty much stripping 90% of our military assets away from us (fire support, most of our bombs/tactical strike equipment, rules of engagement changes) so that we don’t hurt any civilians unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. That being said, will there occasionally be a bad decision based on bad intel that costs innocent lives? Yes. However, Ive directly seen such intel acted on (good intel on location of an insurgent leader), had that leader killed, and saw a direct decrease in enemy activity (IEDs/small armed fire) by about 80% for weeks due to that attack (directly resulting in a 20-30% decrease in lives lost). So in the end, we just cant ignore the opportunities that arise in a war where real people’s lives are on the line, even if (very rarely) that intel is poor. And I say “very rarely” because there are a SHIT TON of criteria that have to be met before a General (yes a general has to approve it) approves a tactical air strike based on provided intel. Also, just because people throw their hands up and say “oh this was a funeral/wedding party”, doesn’t mean shit wasn’t going down there. Ive seen these people hide TNT under their baby’s crib.

Russia's Afghanistan: Overall, no. It would've been smarter to support the socialist democracy before the Russians could take them out. But we were all swept up in Reagan's Cold War, so of course supporting a bunch of religious fundamentalists to fight commies made loads of sense (even though those same guys would be our most hated terrorists within a decade). Russia having Afghanistan wouldn't have changed Gorby's politics much, so I think we'd have still seen the Soviet fall on the same timeline, and in that respect, former Soviet countries have been fairly stable (and have less religious influence).

Good point, probably agree.

Afghanistan post9/11: To specifically hunt down terrorist cells? Yes. Topple the Taliban. Yes, they were active supporters of terrorists and committed large scale injustices against their people. Any sort of stabilization doesn't seem likely at the hands of foreign troops. It hasn't worked for 10 years, may not work for 10 more. I think the sobering realization is going to be that what would stabilize the country won't be something we like; it won't be our ideal secularized free democracy. But it will be something that won't need 70,000 troops there for another decade, and it will probably be something better than the Taliban, especially if we can positively influence it- exchanging aid and trade for human rights.

I would disagree with the “hasn’t worked for 10 years, may not work for 10 more”. There have been MASSIVE improvements and the ANA/police/Afghan government is getting better every day. Im a pessimist and I can see this working, and not even in 10 years. Im not sure Afghan will be ready when we start to pull out, but it will have it’s best shot at it that its ever had.

As far as tangible benefit for the US? The truth is it doesn't matter either way. Aside from Bin Laden, Afghanistan hasn't been a blip on our radar since Reagan funded the Mujahideen and before that it was also nothing. Bin Laden could've used other countries.

Afghan became the center ground for most of these agencies because it really was a “free for all” land. It is less so now, but still has a lot of those characteristics. Due to its geography and surrounding countries, it will continue to be a safe haven for terrorist/extremists seeking training and organization in the safety net of a governmentless country with vast trade resources to multiple regions. It took us being attacked to realize this, and I think the less ignorant we become of the area, the more destructive we see the results of just leaving it alone can be.

US Military and Civilian casualties: On a whole, no, I don't think the US military actively tries to rack up a civi death toll, nor do I think that the US military is so grossly incompetent that it just can't help it. I do think that there are some documented exceptions involving disregard and incompetency, and I do think that mission architects (this would be the Washington and maybe some Pentagon folks) do not have civilian lives on high priority. We're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and tens of thousands in Afghanistan. (and then we can talk about injuries and refugees).

More of what’s already been said. I agree with most of what you are saying and that’s why I am here. Even if the policy makers don’t care, we do. My bosses care about it. My bosses bosses care about it. And those are the people that decide what bombs are dropped. We can have a more in-depth discussion on Iraq2 (because I probably agree with you), but in this debate, we are still going back to topic of how I personally can best effect those changes, and that’s doing exactly what Im doing right now.

Defense/weapons research: less important than medicine, by far. I also think calling it "defense" is not quite appropriate anymore. I would say it's important only as far as being able to adequately defend the country- needless to say, that can be interpreted on a wide spectrum, but it's obvious that I think we spend way too much on it. and sadly, the ingenuity and potential for defense of the research is tainted by the application of it.

I have to stick with the saying of “a good defense is a good offense”. Not developing more advanced weaponry/systems and allowing other countries to surpass our ability to attack and defend would DIRECTLY affect our global influence and DIRECTLY affect whether such domestic attacks ever did happen. If China had the ability to take out our entire naval fleet and invade our cities without our air/tanks/carrier groups being able to do shit about it, I guarantee our global policies with them would be different, and any other nation with that interest. It is a shitty realism, but there are countries/people that are working everyday to counter every system we create, so that when the time does come, they will have the upper hand. Ensuring we are prepared for that time and keeping up with that rat race is what allows us to maintain the civil and economic policies that lead to more peaceful compromises. Talk lightly, but carry a big stick.

[Elvis]

When you say that as an Indian you've been made to feel your identity in a negative way, do you mean something to do with your physical appearance being similar to many Muslims, so by extension you've felt the negative impacts of how Muslims/Arabs are presented in the West? Or is it more simply being a minority?

I've been called a 'sand nigger' before because the typical Xbox-Live level of intellectualism demands all 'brown people' be Arabs and by definition Muslim and by definition dehumanized.

I'm not oppressed or anything (I've only been insulted w/ that racial epithet once, and I'm not even Arab or Muslim), but I sympathize w/ people who are judged so unjustly and are demonized simply because they belong to a particular religion or ethnic/race group.

What I've read contradicts the perspective regularly put out by ass-clowns like Leif. Its that simple. I don't consider my posting about these things a big deal. It really isn't. I'm sure a lot of people here have read these books and simply gave up on the discussion a long time ago, realizing how polaring the issues are.

[Leif]

I referenced the involvement of the Christian Right in the massacres of innocent people by Latin/Central American death-squads and paramilitary in the 1980s.

Hundreds of thousands of people died.

And you're going to blame it on the "Christian Right"? Why? In case I managed to skip over something so preposterous, I checked. You did not substantiate this claim whatsoever.

The difference between Islamic radicalism and Christian radicalism, is that the latter is more effective as it is harbored in the world's only remaining superpower as a legitimate political movement. Furthermore, there are little if any consequences for the actions of the leaders of the Christian Right.

What actions? You have accused them in complicity in genocide, but you didn't back it up.

You are unable to make a substantiated argument in reply. All that you've done is rely on conjecture and shoddy logic.

To what? You keep screaming that Christians are responsible for doing bad things in "Latin America", but you fail to tie it to the right, conservatives, conservative leaders, Republicans, etc.

Suicide bombing is simply a tactic that is the result of an assessment of logistical means vs. efficiency. Other religious radicals can channel their politics into action without killing themselves in the process and can take out more people over time. It does not have to be direct and personal. It can be indirect, via philanthropy. Some cases are very explicitly immoral and illegal, and I've cited them in my post on page 2.

You cited authors who, in turn, cited almost nobody. They blamed all of these problems on the "Religious Right", "evangelicals", and the works.

There is actually a whole lot of this going on now, with respect to the activism of Zionist Jews in our country. A lot of Zionist charities and such do not advertise where the money is going to. I could post on that as well, sourced from the excellent Jeffrey Blankfort (an anti-Zionist Jew and former member of AIPAC). I doubt you'd read that though, it's not a comic book.

What?






You post volumes of information, that, when I go back and read them, do little to prove your point.

So, instead of say, making me read pages of someone else's words, why don't you boil down your argument to the arguments you actually want to make?

If you post volumes of "stuff" and then say "this is my argument, respond to it", I'm not going to read pages of stuff you think its relevant unless you tell me why.

Leif, I won't paraphrase my original argument or otherwise, spoon-feed it to you.

Except you keep refusing to explain yourself. You keep saying "go back to my original argument", but when I go there, it's volumes of information written by other people. What is your argument?

And why on earth would you be resistant to my requests to explain and "paraphrase". If you insist what you posted constitutes and argument, you have to be prepared to defend and explain it.


So, I'm sure you can answer some basic questions. Let's do this in Q&A format so we don't get off topic. I realize many of my questions repeat the same general requests (usually something along the lines of "give me some facts"), but they're just there to keep you out of fantasy land.

1) What specific events do you blame on the "religious right", "evangelicals", or any other related groups?

2) Why do you blame them on the "religious right"? What kind of evidence do you assert proves this point?

3) Why is it the "religious right" and "evangelicals"? Why not the "religious right"? What role does the "right" play in this? Is there anything wrong with "evangelicals"?

[Demosthenes11]

whether it's "pinned" on the right or not, the fact is Christians are fucked up too and not just muslims. generalizing is bad, saying muslims want to destroy america is completely retarded with that in mind.

christians are not better than muslims

[Elvis]

The evidence I presented was the book, Empire's Workshop - Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism

There are tons of citations in the back. You want me to scan them all for you?

Let's assume what I posted was 'preposterous', as you call it, how would you even know?

You allegedly read my post. Yet your counter-argument is simply 'No, u'.

You clearly don't like the conclusions the author draws and the statements he makes.

It could be that he imagined the entire book up. However, the burden of proof is on you now.

Furthermore, you're committing argumentum ad ignorantiam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is incapable of accepting that it may be true.)

You are basically saying, 'no I do not agree with your citation, which is all a lie' - give me more proof. You should first contradict what I wrote. Since you cannot - because you know zilch about the subject-matter - you are asking me to basically scan the notes from the book.

I'm sure you'll ask me to give you the notes to the notes as well.

--

The 'Christian Right' or 'Christian Evangelicals' are virtually (for all practical purposes) interchangeable terms today.

For example, over the decades, 'Zionist' changed in meaning. There were once Zionists who called for a bi-national State in Historic Palestine. No such Zionists exist today in any meaningful numbers. Most would be called anti-Zionist as well.

EDIT: I will scan the notes anyway. And I'll provide some different sources as well (different books). But the basic problem remains Leif - you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm educating you about the US involvement in Central/Latin America. You will only get my perspective on this bit of history. My sources. Etc. If you yourself had read about it, you would then be able to counter my claims or provide a different perspective using your own sources (which would imply that mine were weaker, because they did not present an honest historiography).

Too bad.