Comments on: Jon Stewart: We shouldn’t fear Islam any more than Christianity

By: Don17000

Don17000 — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 05:09:20 +0000

I knew we had personnel in Nam during Truman's time, but I thought it was more military advisers than troops. Our first casualty there was in 1945, when an American officer was mistaken for a Frenchman. But what I was saying, was that Truman should have recognized Ho's fledgling government back then, especially when Ho actually quoted our Declaration of Independence from Britain in making his own against the French. But Truman repeatedly ignored him.

As for NATO… there's a lot of it I really don't get. When I lived in Spain, and went to school at Torrejon AFB for a year (my Dad arranged it somehow – we weren't in the military) it was 1964-1968, Spain was still under Franco and not yet part of NATO. They joined NATO in 1982. No idea why. It wasn't like NATO really needed Spain's help to contain Brezhnev or anything.

By: Don17000

Don17000 — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:52:31 +0000

My comparison of the Maquis to Covadonga was based not upon the fact of it being a pitched battle, but upon it being essentially a local resistance movement. The Maquis were basically using small arms fire against tanks. Can't really compare this to Covadonga, where the locals and the Moors were both using blades, arrows and spears… basically using weapons of about the same level, and I doubt the numbers would have been that far apart, either. The locals actually had a chance of winning, and they did. A far more evenly matched confrontation than the Maquis against the Nazis.

By: KeninMontana

KeninMontana — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:07:33 +0000

Tyler you really need to brush up on your comprehension skills. Just how did you arrive at this conclusion? “Also, Kenin…you would mean to tell me that the Inquisition happened BECAUSE OF MUSLIMS?” See you made this statement”This violent “Islamization” that yall are worried about is about the same as the Crusades and Inquisition.” What I was pointing out was the fact that the Inquisition had nothing to do with either of them.
As to the rest of your “rant” I can only guess that it is something to do with the Reconquista and the expulsion edicts that followed. But quite frankly your statement sounds like you're accusing me of Anti Semitism. I never undertook expounding on the complexities of what may have led to the atrocities of that period ,because for one it wasn't relative to the discussion and quite frankly it appears to me that its beyond your ability to comprehend what I'd be saying,as witnessed by your apparent gross misinterpretation of what I posted. BTW if you really want to compare the the tolerance of Islam and say,oh,Catholicism,here is an exercise to undertake;first go to Vatican City stand on the corner and preach the values of ,oh lets say Buddhism,see what happens( I'll bet you survive that unscathed) then go to Mecca and do the same thing.Let me know how that works out for you.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:47:37 +0000

Or did Jewish people bring about the attacks from the Catholics through some kind of “Jewish Jihad” that nobody's talking about?

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:46:42 +0000

I'm not an “Islam apologist” as a certain someone who I'm surprised didn't respond to this has called me multiple times. I think Islam is every bit as much of a double-edged blade if you will as Christianity. Technically ALL religions are. They can all be used for good OR evil depending on WHO is wielding the blade.

Also, Kenin…you would mean to tell me that the Inquisition happened BECAUSE OF MUSLIMS? The Church persecuted ANYONE (whether Muslim or Jewish…heck…even non-Catholic Christians) who didn't follow the “state religion” basically of “His Holiness The Pope.” There are some interesting journals from Jewish people of that time actually which talk about how they would force Jewish people to eat “non-kosher” food to prove that they had “converted.”

By: KeninMontana

KeninMontana — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 06:35:31 +0000

The Center for American Progress does indeed have an effect of influence on foreign policy,however both institutions are think tanks and there are as many of them as there are political viewpoints.
As to our forces' various deployments or bases,the bases in Europe are NATO bases and as I previously stated we have “carried the water” or shouldered more than our share of the burden for that organization and the UN since the inception of both.Most folks that look at those bases only seem to see the US forces and somehow overlook the forces of other NATO contingents present,strange how that happens isn't it? In case you missed it, I stated that are many of us that would love nothing better than to bring our troops home from where ever they are stationed overseas,that translates to “Bring them ALL home”. Trust me I have heard the chant “Yankee go home” personally. But when they get into the deep “stuff”,who do they come whining to saying “save us,help us”?
By the way,were you aware that the US originally supported Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese and the French, our involvement in Vietnam (troops in country) actually goes back to 1946 and the Truman administration.It wasn't really Kennedy's war although he did crank it up.
Military service in this country has been voluntary for over thirty years, registration with Selective Service is mandatory thanks to Carter,but don't worry Jimmy said that it's not the draft, actually it is, check out the Selective Service Act of 1980 which revived the Acts of 1917,1940 and the draft. As for “The Rock”(Okinawa) we have begun to shut it down,you recall Congressman Hank Johnson's concerns about Guam capsizing? It was in the hearings about the draw down of the Third Marine Division and it's related Air Wing along with the Air Force's Bases there as well,at least it was til the Japanese Prime Minister withdrew his demand that it be closed for some odd reason. To your final statement “I think these deployments have to end sometime.” We are in complete agreement on that point.

By: Don17000

Don17000 — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:51:54 +0000

I wasn't thinking about church-goers at all. I'm married to a Catholic church-goer. There are many Catholic positions she doesn't agree with, and she just ignores them. My son is a church-goer and does the same. Some call him a "cafeteria Catholic" because of this. I tell him he can retort that Jesus and his followers were "cafeteria Jews," which was the source of many of their issues with the Pharisees.

My daughters also ignore most of the church's positions, but aren't church-goers. Believe me, I know the difference between Christians and churchgoers.

But in my statement, I think what I'm doing is including those Christians who thought it necessary to retranslate the Bible... because they believed that the existing translation was wrong, and found fault with the books included therein.

And I'm also including militant Christians. Some may call this an oxymoron. But Jesus said he came to bring a sword, and even took pains to verify that his followers had a couple. I don't think he was merely concerned they should have something to beat into ploughshares for a metallurgy class at Jerusalem U.

By: Don17000

Don17000 — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:36:50 +0000

But the health care bill was only to affect Americans, in America. PNAC was to affect the rest of the world, and change it in America's favor.

I say that we need to get out of interfering in world politics. Period. We've been doing it for far too long, under Republican and Democratic administrations, and it's nothing new. The coups in VietNam were, I think, errors. We should have interceded on Ho Chih Minh's behalf with France back when he first asked us for help. We could have mediated negotiations with the French for their independence, and avoided 10 costly years of war.

As for the question of armed force size... when I said we had the largest in the world, I said for a nation that doesn't require military service. Technically, military service is still compulsory although the requirement is not enforced. But what I had in mind when I said "largest in the world", was more about deployment than size. For all its size, but the PLA is deployed inside China, or regions (like Tibet) claimed to be part of China. We have our forces deployed throughout the world, including places like Spain which has never been vital to our security and where I'm not sure we've ever yet fought a battle. We still have tens of thousands in Okinawa, where we've not fought a battle in 60 years, and probably never will again.

I think these deployments have to end sometime.

By: Don17000

Don17000 — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:49:39 +0000

Thanks, and apology accepted. Mine is a position many have trouble understanding.. Some assert it impossible to genuinely believe in something without being convinced it's true. I maintain that we do it all the time about a great many things, we're just conditioned not to feel that way about God.

By: KeninMontana

KeninMontana — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:47:51 +0000

A few details overlooked ,well yes, it was not meant to be a concise history but a general timeline. The point being to show that it was Muslim aggression first not Christian aggression as shown in the dates. As to the start of the Reconquista, dates to vary but just as many place it beginning in 711 as 718,so in the spirit of compromise I'll place it sometime between 711-718. However comparing battles between full Armies to the Maquis v. German Army in France is so far fetched as to be nearly ludicrous. The Maquis managed one notable stand against the German Army,but were decimated in that battle and never engaged in pitched battle again.
As to Constantine, his sincerity in his conversion is dubious as he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed,it was likely more a matter of political expedience rather than an actual conversion.He was interested only in reestablishing the former boundaries of the old Roman Empire and securing power for himself than converting anyone to Christianity whether by sword or edict. As to the point you raise about whether Spanish Christians would have allowed Muslims and Jews to coexist there it was not relevant to my point or response it was not overlooked as most of us here know the answer to that already,ie the expulsion edicts in Spain. The subject of expansion in the New World was not relative either.
In closing you are basically correct in comparing the split between Suuni and Shia or Shiite to Romans and Easterns its mostly Doctrinal.