"Our aim, to swat liars and leeches, hypocrites & humbugs, demagogs & dastards"
-- The Yellow Jacket
Moravian Falls, N.C., 1919
Back in business on a limited basis, which means as-time-permits.If you can do it, I figure I can as well.Attention Bloggers - you can blame David for me keeping my blog going instead of pulling the plug! LOL
Blame?? Blame?? Sorry, eric, but no blame. Just thanks, thanks for the endless COMIC RELIEF! You've got some very, very funny fellows postin' on your site! I particularly like the moron who stated that the Muslims have been "our" enemies for the last 2,500 years! I believe that this fellow is one of the more INTELLECTUAL posters on your site! Nuf said. Pretty pathetic. Oh, and to the Mexican haters, they didn't move across the border. The border moved on them! We simply stole part of Mexico, and now they're takin' it back. Nuthin' wrong with that really, other than most all Hispanics VOTE DEMOCRATIC! Oopsie, maybe THAT'S why ct is so mad! You got some real morons over there, eric.Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!
Larry-- You obviously have no familiarity with Western history. Either that or you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that Islam has been an enemy to the West along with “nearly all countries in the Middle East.” That does not mean that Islam is 2500 years old; it means that Islam and the countries of the Middle East have been enemies to the West for 2500 years.I would be more than happy to enumerate all the wars that we have fought against the “Persians or Iranians, Parthians or Iraqis, Sunnis or Shiites, Mohammedans, Arabs, or Turks” (whatever you wish to call them), but I think you should just buy yourself a copy of CliffsNotes that covers Western History 101.
Oh no, ct. I've got no cliff notes. Please enlighten me. What wars have "we" fought against "them"?? You see, you've got me nearly convinced. I can almost see a historical reason for fighting them. I'm almost there! Please don't leave me hanging. I really, really want to know why these swarthy fellows should be our sworn enemies. I'm kinda thinkin' now that maybe they done sumthin' to great, great, great, great, great, great granddaddy Kralj way back when. Help me out here. But the one question I still can't understand is how could Islam be 2,500 years olds? Thanking you in advance. I wanna hate'em. I really do.LK
That's really kinda funny, C.T. Ya' see, the primary ancient foe of my family were the Romans. And then it was the Germanic folks ... oh wait, some of my line is German. Let's try again. Okay, since most of those in the west originally (*WAY*) back-when came from the east and south and middle east, you're saying that we are our own enemy! But that's not right.If the enemy hates my freedoms, as George and the Dick have told me, then of course, the enemy is the English. We fought them times without number in those rocky hills above the Lochs. And then, when we tried to leave them behind, they came over to our more-West shores and tried to put down our freedoms again ... TWICE! There it is. Obviously, More-Western History teaches us that our enemy is the English! But the English are our friends now, so maybe not so much.Oooh, I know. The enemy of the West are the Germans! Hell they attacked the slightly-further-West twice in great bloody world wide conflicts. Surly, the foe we seek are the Krauts. Damn Krauts! They even helped the English, when the English hated our Western Freedoms (trademark Wal-Mart Inc.).Maybe it doesn't make much sense to look to long-gone history to figure out who the enemy is now, huh? You might want to consider C.T. that the movie 300 was a fantasy, and not a historical allegory for the world in which we live? That is, you might want to, but I'm certain that you won't.
Larry-- It is not a question of hating anyone. It is a question of being mature enough to accept historical reality. Honestly, you need to lose your childish approach to world affairs. It will make it much easier for you to understand the recurrence of wars and especially the recurrence of wars in the Middle East.Our civilization has been fighting wars in the Middle East for about 2500 years. The Greek city states fought several major wars against the Persian Empire in 499, 492, 490, and 480 BC. Under Alexander, the Greeks fought the Persians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Indians from 334 to 326 BC. From 192 BC all the way down to AD 1453, the Roman Empire (East and West) and the Holy Roman Empire fought nearly every monarchy, country, tribe, and religion in the Middle East. That would include the Crusades. Wars against the Turks were fought in 1529, 1532, 1806-1812, and 1914. In the 20th century alone, we have been involved in at least six or eight wars in the Middle East, either directly or through our surrogates.It would take pages to list all the wars, big and small, that were centered in the Middle East or that emanated from that area. The current war against Islam is just the latest in a series of wars with Islam dating back to AD 634.That is the abbreviated record. You can pretend all you want that something has changed, or that something is new this time around, but the historical record clearly indicates otherwise. As I said before, you can call the inhabitants of the Middle East whatever you please, but we have always been at war with them.[Note to Wulfgar: Some enemies are products of the imagination, like yours, and some enemies are products of history, like mine.]
C.T.: You make it sound as though all those wars were fought for defense, or because of some provocation. Alexander, and the Romans after him, fought for conquest and an expanding empire. Whether they would have gotten involved in wars with those countries if they had not invaded them is a point you seem to have overlooked.And please don't forget that Alexander was Macedonian, and his first conquest was of Greece. Which, I suppose, makes Greece our sworn enemy, too. As for the Romans, why emphasize the wars they fought to the east and ignore the wars they fought to the other three points of the compass? Are Britons, Gauls, Iberians, North Africans, Thracians and Germanic peoples also our ancient enemies?Your grasp of history is childish. Attempting to justify our our current misadventures by squeezing them into a sweeping historical narrative doesn't work, but nice try.
Note to C.T. -When the English or Germans were our enemy, there was nothing 'imaginary' about it. Attempting to instill fear of middle eastern people by tying them to Darius the Great is a foolish and dangerous trick ... at least you shouldn't do it until you've explained *exactly* who the "our" your referring to is, when you keep misstating the phrase "our civilization".
C.t., you're not for real, are you! But hey, thanks for the imitation of a rightwing "intellectual". You're GOOD! Now, if you would explain one other thing for me that I'm havin' trouble with. You see, try as I might, I just can't seem to believe that the earth was created 4,000 years ago! Have at'er, pal!LK
Gentlemen-- Try as you might to avoid or confuse the issue, the facts are plain and fully laid out in my comments above: We have a 2500-year history of wars in the Middle East. The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly aberrations; rather they are merely just another chapter in a very long and great saga.Best Wishes to All
Something all you people missed is that the Christians were in North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Turkey LONG BEFORE the Muslims!!!
And before them were pagans, pluralists, and Zoroastrians; which Christians and Muslims eventually put to the sword. Do you have a point worth sharing, anonymous?
Oh, I see, Wulfgar. Whoever is in possession of the land is the rightful owner. So I guess you don’t mind the US occupying Iraq then, right? Or Afghanistan. And it’s OK for the Israelis to hold Palestine...Do you have anything logical to share?
Whoever is in possession of the land is the rightful owner.Do be kind and show me a) where I even said that, or b) exactly when we took ownership of Iraq or Afganistan, or c) the logic of claiming that religions imply ownership and a hierarchy of importance because of it (your claim). It would appear anonymous, that you are the one logically challenged here.
Wulfgar-- You can quit dancing around the subject anytime now. By naming off the various heathen occupants of the Middle East who preceded the Christian occupants, who were then succeeded by the Muslim occupants, you imply that the current occupant is the rightful occupant.Just tell us who is the rightful possessor of the land. Is it the current occupant, as defined by the ethnicity, race, religion, language, or national identity of the occupant? Or is it some former occupant who was expelled or suppressed and has a “historical claim” to possession of the land?
Post a Comment