Radical Muslims slaughter 2,000 in Nigeria last week

[clacy]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/09/b ... /21127594/

Boko Haram slaughters 2,000 unarmed villagers last week. 

They're probably mad that Exxon pays Arab countries money for crude oil, or possibly because the US made a suspected terrorist stand for a really long time in solitary confinement. 

Now, I'll turn it over so people can equate Boko Haram with the US operation in Iraq....

[Ad Orientem]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/09/b ... /21127594/

Boko Haram slaughters 2,000 unarmed villagers last week. 

They're probably mad that Exxon pays Arab countries money for crude oil, or possibly because the US made a suspected terrorist stand for a really long time in solitary confinement. 

Now, I'll turn it over so people can equate Boko Haram with the US operation in Iraq....

* Boko Haram 2,000 and perhaps another couple of thousand over the last few years.
* Iraq War 100,000+ civilians

"One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic." -Joseph Stalin

[moda0306]

God that's awful... some really horrid shit.

It looks like at least some of the victims were Muslim, while being labelled as "infidels" by attackers... do they count as victims, too?

I find it annoying how the following too-often ends up being how some people show their concern for the senseless taking of innocent lives:

1) Horrible tragedy occurs.

2) Recognize horror of tragedy... with one sentence.

3) Spend the rest of your mental energy on attacking straw-men version of your political opponents' positions.

[Mountaineer]

God that's awful... some really horrid shit.

It looks like at least some of the victims were Muslim, while being labelled as "infidels" by attackers... do they count as victims, too?

I find it annoying how the following too-often ends up being how some people show their concern for the senseless taking of innocent lives:

1) Horrible tragedy occurs.

2) Recognize horror of tragedy... with one sentence.

3) Spend the rest of your mental energy on attacking straw-men version of your political opponents' positions.

1) Horrible tragedy occurs.

2) One sentence ... God that's awful... some really horrid shit.

3) Strawman version ... It looks like at least some of the victims ..........

Yep, I agree with you.  What goes around, comes around.  I think that was agreement point 1000 ... should we celebrate?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

God that's awful... some really horrid shit.

It looks like at least some of the victims were Muslim, while being labelled as "infidels" by attackers... do they count as victims, too?

I find it annoying how the following too-often ends up being how some people show their concern for the senseless taking of innocent lives:

1) Horrible tragedy occurs.

2) Recognize horror of tragedy... with one sentence.

3) Spend the rest of your mental energy on attacking straw-men version of your political opponents' positions.

1) Horrible tragedy occurs.

2) One sentence ... God that's awful... some really horrid shit.

3) Strawman version ... It looks like at least some of the victims ..........

Yep, I agree with you.  What goes around, comes around.  I think that was agreement point 1000 ... should we celebrate?

... Mountaineer

This thread seemed to be more about bashing Islam than exploring the tragedy of 2,000 being murdered.  I hijack too many threads.  Didn't want to do it again by making this about 2,000 dead innocent human beings.

JK... sorta... you got me.  Touche.

But seriously... I don't know how certain people can actually gun/knife/beat down innocent children.

[Reub]

Thanks for that, clacy! Unfortunately libertarians and crazy liberals don't understand the nature of the threat and would rather blame themselves. They will do this up until the time that their heads are chopped off.

[moda0306]

Thanks for that, clacy! Unfortunately libertarians and crazy liberals don't understand the nature of the threat and would rather blame themselves. They will do this up until the time that their heads are chopped off.

I don't think liberals or libertarians would blame these deaths on anyone than the monsters who perpetrated the acts.

I certainly don't.

[Ad Orientem]

Thanks for that, clacy! Unfortunately libertarians and crazy liberals don't understand the nature of the threat and would rather blame themselves. They will do this up until the time that their heads are chopped off.

...Here, perhaps I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion....

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop...

...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...

-George Washington; just another crazy libertarian

IMHO imperialism, and its modern day bastard child, neo-con interventionism, is profoundly and irredeemably un-American. It is nothing less than a betrayal of the principals and values upon which this country was founded.

[MachineGhost]

Thanks for that, clacy! Unfortunately libertarians and crazy liberals don't understand the nature of the threat and would rather blame themselves. They will do this up until the time that their heads are chopped off.

LOL!  Literally.

[Coffee]

In 1801, just thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the Tripolitan War blatantly violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire in order to carry out a U.S. foreign policy objective that was in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace.

Doesn't seem so "un-American" to me.

[Ad Orientem]

In 1801, just thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the Tripolitan War blatantly violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire in order to carry out a U.S. foreign policy objective that was in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace.

Doesn't seem so "un-American" to me.

Nonsense. The Tripolitan War was simply a military reaction against state sponsored piracy targeting American commercial shipping. Non-interventionism is not pacifism. If you want a real example of early American imperialism look at the treatment of the Cherokee nation or the Mexican War.

[clacy]

In 1801, just thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the Tripolitan War blatantly violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire in order to carry out a U.S. foreign policy objective that was in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace.

Doesn't seem so "un-American" to me.

Nonsense. The Tripolitan War was simply a military reaction against state sponsored piracy targeting American commercial shipping. Non-interventionism is not pacifism. If you want a real example of early American imperialism look at the treatment of the Cherokee nation or the Mexican War.

State supported piracy..... state supported terrorism.....

[Ad Orientem]

In 1801, just thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the Tripolitan War blatantly violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire in order to carry out a U.S. foreign policy objective that was in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace.

Doesn't seem so "un-American" to me.

Nonsense. The Tripolitan War was simply a military reaction against state sponsored piracy targeting American commercial shipping. Non-interventionism is not pacifism. If you want a real example of early American imperialism look at the treatment of the Cherokee nation or the Mexican War.

State supported piracy..... state supported terrorism.....

Iraq attacked the United States? I missed the memo.