So Why Isn't the News Media.....

[Snag]

calling the Hamas take over a civil war? They were quick to use that description in another war that we all know about.

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061502027.html

What's Going On in Gaza?

By Warren Bass
Sunday, June 17, 2007; Page B05

Civil war: That's what both sides were calling last week's sharp Palestinian-vs.-Palestinian clashes in the Gaza Strip. So who was fighting whom, and how did this rivalry get so murderously bitter?

[Snag]

Thanks. That is the first time I saw it printed that way.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061502027.html

What's Going On in Gaza?

By Warren Bass
Sunday, June 17, 2007; Page B05

Civil war: That's what both sides were calling last week's sharp Palestinian-vs.-Palestinian clashes in the Gaza Strip. So who was fighting whom, and how did this rivalry get so murderously bitter?

Ahh...a civil war being fought by believers in that great and awesome "religion of peace". I wonder when Muslims kill one another if they get visitation rights with any virgins on the other side?

Boxcar

[Tom]

I'm wondering where are these virgins are coming from?
They can't be recycled, can they?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'm wondering where are these virgins are coming from?
They can't be recycled, can they?

But if they're recycled, can they really be called "virgins"?

On second thought, though, if these virgins only submit themselves to cunnilingus and perform fellatio on men, then according to one notable and distinquished adulterer of our times, this doesn't count as sex. If he's right, then these could well be recycled virgins.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Gents,

I have a call in to trainer Pete Vestal regarding this virgin thing. So far it's just a virginal monologue, as Pistol Pete has not responded. The more I ask ...

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'm wondering where are these virgins are coming from?
They can't be recycled, can they?

When they run out, a little dab'll do 'em.

[hcap]

Civil war with only one virgin involved and another "religion of peace"....


Between 1969 and 2001, 3,523 people were killed as a result of the Troubles.

Approximately 60% of the victims were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by the British, Irish and Northern Irish security forces.

Responsible party
Republican Paramilitary Groups 2055
Loyalist Paramilitary Groups 1020
Security Forces 368
Persons unknown 80


Additional estimated statistics on the conflict

Injury 47,000
Shooting 37,000
Armed robbery 22,500
Persons imprisoned for paramilitary offences 19,600
Bombing and attempted bombing 16,200
Arson 2,200

[hcap]

Religious Wars? Civil wars? Gee seems that sort of stuff used to happen all da time. Let's stroll down memory lane.

Oh oh, not the "religion of peace", another runner up for that title

* 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain.
* 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action).
* 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
* 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee.
* 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'."
* 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers."
* 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 20% of population decimated, mostly in Germany.

.................................................. ............................................
Another source on the 30 years' war states

......The Thirty Year's War reduced the population of Germany by 30-40%. Somewhere between six million (6,000,000) and fourteen million (14,000,000) people died. Peace was finally negotiated in Westphalia in 1648.

[hcap]

Now you would think this stuff has nothing to do with our history, wouldn't you. Sorry all you bunkies, but it is because of the extermination of large numbers of native North and South Americans that we now are here.

Some by disease, some by war, some exterminated outright by good, God-fearing, religious holier than thou Christians.

Democide is a term created by political scientist R. J. Rummel in order to create a broader concept than the legal definition of genocide. It has also been used by many other scholars.[5] Democide is defined as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder."

Our Christian attitudes towards Native populations

American Holocaust
by David Stannard
Oxford University Press, 1992


p247
... one of the preconditions for the Spanish and Anglo-American genocides against the native peoples of the Americas was a public definition of the natives as inherently and permanently-that is, as racially-inferior beings. To the conquering Spanish, the Indians more specifically were defined as natural slaves, as subhuman beasts of burden, because that fit the use to which the Spanish wished to put them, and because such a definition was explicable by appeal to ancient Christian and European truths-through Aquinas and on back to Aristotle. Since the colonizing British, and subsequently the Americans, had little use for Indian servitude, but only wanted Indian land, they appealed to other Christian and European sources of wisdom to justify their genocide: the Indians were Satan's helpers, they were lascivious and murderous wild men of the forest, they were bears, they were wolves, they were vermin. Allegedly having shown themselves to be beyond conversion to Christian or to civil life-and with little British or American need for them as slaves-in this case, straightforward mass killing of the Indians was deemed the only thing to do.
***

....At the dawn of the fifteenth century, Spanish conquistadors and priests presented the Indians they encountered with a choice: either give up your religion and culture and land and independence, swearing allegiance "as vassals" to the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown, or suffer "all the mischief and damage" that the European invaders choose to inflict upon you. It was called the requerimiento.
.................................................. .......................................
OOOPs, white mans' burden sure is a heavy, heavy burden.

[ljb]

Surely this must be a mistake. Christians would never do harm to someone based on religious differences.

[hcap]

Nah, God is on their side. Funny how God chooses who to back in say the 30 year war. Or in Ireland.

Give me that ole' time judgmental, holier than thou, in the process of removin' the timber from our eyes, religion. If the renaissance had not occurred and our founders did not steered us away from religious decrees and rationalizations, we would still be afightin' who's God is tougher. Islam needs some non religious expansion.

Christianity grew out of it's acceptance of savagery thru reason. Not because it is inherently better than Islam.

Originally Posted by hcap

Our Christian attitudes towards Native populations

American Holocaust
by David Stannard
Oxford University Press, 1992


p247
... one of the preconditions for the Spanish and Anglo-American genocides against the native peoples of the Americas was a public definition of the natives as inherently and permanently-that is, as racially-inferior beings. To the conquering Spanish, the Indians more specifically were defined as natural slaves, as subhuman beasts of burden, because that fit the use to which the Spanish wished to put them, and because such a definition was explicable by appeal to ancient Christian and European truths-through Aquinas and on back to Aristotle. Since the colonizing British, and subsequently the Americans, had little use for Indian servitude, but only wanted Indian land, they appealed to other Christian and European sources of wisdom to justify their genocide: the Indians were Satan's helpers, they were lascivious and murderous wild men of the forest, they were bears, they were wolves, they were vermin. Allegedly having shown themselves to be beyond conversion to Christian or to civil life-and with little British or American need for them as slaves-in this case, straightforward mass killing of the Indians was deemed the only thing to do.
***

.................................................. .......................................
OOOPs, white mans' burden sure is a heavy, heavy burden.

hcap,

Not disagreeing at all with your argument.
However, as far as the British Colonials were concerned they respected and at same time lived in fear of indian attack. British enslaved some of their own people from prisons and the slums of London to work the plantations etc before the times of the African slaves. They respected the indians, their knowledge of how to survive in this "wilderness" and their hunting skills for use in the fur trade as well as their warrior skills, Pochohuntas travelled to UK etc - certainly did not look down on them.

http://www.jamestown.abc-clio.com/Re...ntryid=1090098

They attempted to live in peace with the signing of the Iroquois Confedercy, which lasted into the French-Indian War. With Native Indians sought after and fighting on both sides. That war was also partly religious about protection of the British Protestants from allegiance to the Pope if the Catholic French won.
Not wishing to pay taxes for that war fought on their behalf and running the expanded area east of the Mississippi, protection from the Indians on the losing side and running Canada, lead to the War of Independence where decisively the French now sided with the patriots.
The British were long gone before the push West and the major decimation of Indian tribes and their prarie lands.

[JPinMaryland]

THe democide concept is interesting but the def'n seems rather circular as he defines it as "murder" by a state, etc. Murder is usually defined as unlawful killing, per ancient Hebrew law or whatever other source you want to look at.

Which makes the whole thing circulas. Was the bombing of Hiroshima unlawful?" Sort of begs the question doesnt it?

perhaps a better notion would be to just say any taking of life caused by: governments, political parties, religious groups, corporations, ideologies, followers of a family, etc.

I would make it broader to include anything based on constructs, political parties, nations, companies, all these things are concepts that can only exist as long as people believe in them. The moment people stop believing in them they will disappear.