United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Media Silent as Thousands March on Washington DC, 400 Arrested
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/media-silent-march-on-washington/
Published: Apr 13, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-04-14 00:09:18 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 5824
Comments: 36
(ANTIMEDIA) Washington, D.C. — Over 400 people were arrested on Monday as they participated in Democracy Spring at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. — but, unsurprisingly, corporate mainstream media completely missed the mark, devoting a mere 30 seconds of inaccurate coverage to the event. Democracy Spring describes itself as a movement to “take back our democracy” by employing “mass nonviolent action,” such as a week of sit-ins, on an “historic” scale. While Monday’s mass arrest of no less than 400 people — including journalists — certainly were historic, cable news outlets’ coverage essentially ignored what was happening. As The Intercept noted, CNN completely skipped coverage of both the sit-in and the arrests. “MSNBC mentioned the protests for approximately 12 seconds, while Fox News mentioned the arrests and discussed the protests for about 17 seconds.” Even worse, the two outlets narrowly skewed their reports, describing the massive movement’s targeted concern as “voting rights issues.” Though the massive protest movement’s goal to conduct a “bold intervention to turn the tinder of passive public frustration into a fire that transforms the political climate in America, that sparks a popular movement that can’t be stopped” certainly includes voting rights, cable news’ misrepresentation trivializes Democracy Spring’s rather significant intentions. CNN later attempted to rectify its error with a brief article online, and a few mainstream outlets — NPR, Al Jazeera, and CSPAN — did devote serious attention to the protests, but cable news bills itself as ostensibly specializing in U.S. political news, explained The Intercept. So where was the coverage? Social media acted as the de facto news agency, as Twitter exploded the hashtag #DemocracySpring — tweeted well over 136,ooo times — and posts to the organization’s Facebook group and event page circulated widely. Alternative and independent media, as usual, also provided coverage from and of the protest and subsequent arrests. But there are several reasons for the cable news’ attempt to shovel Democracy Spring’s newsworthiness into the dustbin. Perhaps most telling remains the oft-quoted statistic that 90 percent of media in the United States — including the aforementioned cable outlets — are owned by a mere six corporations. Considering corporate influence via its infusion of cash in politics, Democracy Spring’s stated intention of wresting back control of the political process from “big money” makes it a prime adversary of the very news outlets which should be covering such a politically-vital event. This is why virtually every activist and independent media journalist you will ever encounter call those big ‘news’ outlets the ‘corporate media,’ with their so-called professional journalists beholden to report what those outlets’ owners dictate as newsworthy — and to ignore what isn’t. Indeed, challenging the status quo and removing the corruptive influence of the incestual relationship between politicians, media conglomerates, and their corporate overlords comprise the bulk of what Democracy Spring stands for. So though it’s not shocking that cable news failed miserably in its journalistic duties, it must also be noted 277 million Americans continue to rely on corporate media for their news and information. While that has been changing, with both social media and reputable independent media taking a direct stand against the corporate-political narrative, the arrests of over 400 concerned advocates of democracy in the nation’s capitol probably went completely unnoticed by tens, if not hundreds, of millions. Activist Bernard Alvarez poses with retired police captain-turned activist Ray Lewis. Democracy Spring continues this week with sit-ins and protests. According to the organization’s website, over 3,500 people have signed on to risk likely arrest in order to have their grievances addressed — whether corporate media feels that’s newsworthy or not. To wit, before the arrests began, livestreamers captured the crowd chanting, “Where is CNN?” Poster Comment: Record for most people arrested at one protest. Hundreds of “Democracy Spring” protesters have been arrested on the steps of the US Capitol. Thousands of activist arrived in Washington DC, after a ten day, 140-mile (225km) march from Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell, in protest against corruption in politics. Starting April 11th, thousands of Americans will sit-in on the US Capitol in Washington, DC in what will be the largest act of civil disobedience this century. According to Russia Today the protest appears to have broken the record for the number of people arrested at the US Capitol. Police announced they “ran out of space” for arrested activists, Ruptly’s Paulina Leonovich reported. At least 10 buses have been used to transport arrestees from the sit-in at the Capitol. “People are fed up with the system, they are fed up with the corruption, and we want free and fair elections,” Cenk Uygur, host of the TV show Young Turks and one of the participants in the protest, told RT. “This is our core American right.” Arrests being lined up in front of a police bus. “The fight begins today. It doesn’t mean we win today. But in the end, we always win,” Uygur said. “Progressives have never lost. We won in civil rights, we won in women’s rights, we won in gay rights, and we’re going to win in getting our democracy back.” With the goal “to claim the democracy we were promised”, various advocacy groups headed up by Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen and 99Rise.org, plan to hold a “mass sit-in” over the next eight days in the hope of persuading Congress to tackle “corruption of big money in politics and ensure free and fair elections”, according to campaign director Kai Newkirk. In addition to putting their bodies on the line, activists will use technology to hold “call-in days”, submit online petitions, and organize “Twitter storms” to raise awareness of their campaign, which they have described as “one of the largest civil disobedience actions in a generation.” After arriving in DC on Sunday, organizers held civil disobedience training for activists ahead of Monday’s advance on the Capitol, with attendance higher than expected. Some attendees are understood to have been turned away due to the large number of people and asked to return for Monday’s training classes instead, which have also attracted large crowds. “We hope that it will be the beginning of the end of the corruption of our democracy,” Newkirk told RT, stressing their main pledge is to make Congress pass “four bills that we’re pushing for,” referring to theGovernment by the People Act, Fair Elections Now Act, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 &Voter Empowerment Act of 2015, and the Democracy for All Amendment. While the first day of the sit-in includes everyone, organizers have drawn up a schedule of events with each day focusing on a different theme and demographic, including elders, young folks, students, and activists from racial justice and labor solidarity movements.
Hundreds Arrested At ‘Democracy Spring’ Sit-In At The US Capitol
#DemocracySpring
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#1. To: sneakypete, Fred Mertz, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#0)
PING
How are a bunch of "progressives" that demand communism being ignored a bad thing? America would be a better place if they were all shipped off to Cuba. It's people like this that have been working hard to destroy America ever since the 20's.
because debate and expression is being stifled, didn't they teach you anything about democracy in school? You are being told only what vested interests in the media want you to know, this means you are being manipulated just as nazi Germany was manipulated by Goebels
HorseHillary! The left and radical left are the ONLY voices that are heard in 21st Century America. didn't they teach you anything about democracy in school? Yes,and every damn bit of it were lies. The Founding Fathers turned down democracy as a form of government because they knew it led to anarchy,riots,and failing governments. Schools are still teaching this nonsense,just like they are teaching that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery,and that Lincoln freed the slaves.
The Founding Fathers were slaveowners. And they are dead. They will not be returning. And neither will the original form of government they imposed. Because it was evil, it is Gone With the Wind. Trump can fix a lot on the GOP side. Sanders can on the Democrat side.
So were all the Popes. So what? Because it was evil. Catholicism is still evil,but I don't see you condemning it even though it is a terrorist organization that enslaves whole nations.
Catholicism is the institutionalized goodness of God. It was founded by God incarnate, and is the great house into which God's son breathed the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit dwells. That is why, in spite of the evils and stupidity and mismanagement of its human stewards, it never collapses, never disappears, and is never overcome. The gates of hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church, and as the world ends, it will be the only thing still standing. To condemn the Catholic Church is to condemn God, for the Church is the handiwork of God. I freely condemn the errors and sins of Catholics, including the Pope and the clergy. They have done plenty of evil, and are accountable for it too. Terrorist operation that enslaves whole nation? Actually, the Catholic Church is the only organization that can free people from the certitude of death, the great liberator whose mission extends into the unseen future, and into the final life or death of each human soul. So, I hear your accusations, but they are simply those of a man who is blind and ignorant of the truth, probably not willfully so. You have not been blessed by God with faith, but God has given you a penetrating mind and the ability to distinguish what is fair and what is not, and to object to that which you perceive is evil and unfair. And those are very good qualities in a man, for which I expect our Unseen King will credit you. That you have your facts wrong regarding the Catholic Church is not mostly your fault - you never had a real chance in that regard. That you judge the Church harshly for the evils done by its stewards is not unjust either: we judge Germany and Russia for the historical cruelty of her leaders, so why not the Catholic Church. What makes the Church different is that there is God unseen within, and the very things to which you object out of native human fairness, God also objects to out of divine justice. So, to the extent your accusations about the Church are true (in that men within the Church have done those things and justified them by the Church), the men who did those things will be held accountable by God, as shall we all. Condemn the Church, though? Of course not.
Condemning the Catholic Church is not condemning God. God didn't appoint peadophile priests, or cover up their actions. God didn't tell the Church to launch a crusade that killed thousands. God didn't tell teh church to destroy civilizations. God didn't tell the Church to kowtow to the nazi. In any case the "church" instituted by Christ is the body of believers, not this corrupt organisation
The Catholic Church did not appoint pedophile priests. It appointed priests. Officials of the Catholic Church covered up their actions. Lieutenant Calley machine gunned civilians in Vietnam. He was an agent of the US government. By your logic, the United States is discredited as a nation because some of its agents cook off. Apply your logic: that the actions of corrupt agents of an organizaton that break the internal laws of that organization means that the organization itself is to be rejected and damned would mean that there would be no government on earth, at any level, that you would not have to condemn. Your own government is full of corrupt politicians and agents who are not brought to justice, or who have special rules carved out for political leaders. And in the Catholic Church's case, there was no formal carve out that allowed the men to break the rules. Weak men broke the rules protecting other weak men who broke the rules. The United States is to be condemned because the entire political apparatus of the City of Detroit is corrupt and lawless. That's your standard. NO human organization meets your standard. English people committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in human history back in their imperialist days. The English founded Australia and gave it its government, and Australia still has the Queen. Therefore, Australia is a damned nation, evil as hell, for all eternity, because the same English and English Crown slaughtered the Irish in the 1600s, under Oliver Cromwell. The Crusades were justified. God authorizes self-defense. The Muslims invaded the Holy Land and were crushing the life out of the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Catholic West rode to their rescue on Crusade. That's what happened. The Catholic Church has nothing to apologize for for the the Crusades. The Crusades were morally right and as justified as D-Day and the American campaign against Germany in World War II. Same thing. Exactly the same thing. Evil invaders with an insane philosophy conquer Christian peoples. The Christians have a right to counterpunch, militarily, and that is defense. That's what the Crusades were. The Catholic West tried to save the Holy Land from Muslim invaders. The Catholics DID save Spain and Portugal, Sicily, Corsica and Southern France through Crusades. They were all justified. The Muslims have no right to be in the Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Egypt, North Africa, Turkey, etc. They got there through violent conflict, and the Catholic Church had the God-given right to call for Holy War to drive OUT fanatical Muslim invaders. Wars of defense are justified. The Catholic Church didn't kowtow to the Nazis. To the extent Jews were saved all across Europe, it was primarily through the Catholic Church, which hid them, protected them and moved them. Be careful about dealing out judgment, because you shall be judged by the measure of judgment by which you judge. If you are holding the sins of an organization committed 400 years ago by different people against their descendants in that organization today, even after their organization has apologized for them and sought to make amends, and doesn't do anything like that anymore, how will you be forgiven the sins you committed 20 years ago, or 15, or 5? You won't be. You'll be measured by the yardstick by which you measured, and you are a judgmental absolutist who does not accept apologies, and who carries judgment forward from the distant past. You will not survive your own final judgment before God if you maintain that standard. Nobody can. You need to lower your standards considerably.
No I don't need to lower my standards, the Catholic Church and many other churches need to improve theirs. Just as the US created ISIS, the Catholic Church created the Muslim through its corruption this was apparent even to an illiterate desert dweller. The Muslims ravaged the world for 400 years before the Church took any action and they didn't go to Jerusalem because the Byzantine empire was attacked, an empire that outlasted the crusades by hunderds of years and was weakend by the crusades, they went to Juresalem because pilgrims had been attacked but more than that they sought plunder. It was a political exercise for european princelings. Jesus Christ didn't advocate conquest in his name, if he had done that the Jews would have risen against the Romans, so I believe my judgement is sound since scripture tells me to make a right judgement. You want to absolve the acts of individuals in the Church and say the Church doesn't bear responsibility, of course it bears responsibility, since it has allowed the name of Christ to be profaned by not taking action against those individuals and having compassion for the victims. Where are the resignations?
Hogwash. Mohammed lived in non-Christian lands. Islam swept through pagans as a better choice than their rank paganism. The Arabs did not flock to Islam because of the Catholics, who lived five hundred miles away in a different empire, and who had never, ever, at any time, ruled Mecca or Medina. Blaming the Catholic Church for Islam is ridiculous. When Islam broke over Christianity, it hit all three branches. It hit Byzantine Christianity by riding into the Levant and Byzantine North Africa. It hit Oriental Orthodox Christianity by riding into Egypt. And it hit Western Catholicism by crossing the sea into Spain, Portugal, Italy and France. Coptic Christianity was utterly conquered, and still is. Byzantine Christianity was driven back into Turkey (then "Asia"), and then into the Balkans, by the Muslims. The Catholics broke the Muslims in France, and pushed them back out of Italy and Spain. The Catholics did not just decide to sail East. The Byzantine army was annhilated at Manzikert in 1071, with the capture of the Byzantine Emperor himself - an utter, complete, potentially nation-ending calamity. The Byzantines were without an army and without an Emperor, facing an overwhelming force of jihadi Turks. The gates of Asia Minor were wide open, and the Empire was in danger of being overwhelmed at a stroke. Faced with this extreme threat, the Byzantines pled with the pope for help against the Muslim invaders - and note well, contrary to your fuzzy history, the Muslim invasion by the Seljuk Turks that resulted in the First Crusade was in the late 1000s, contemporary with the First Crusades. The Byzantines asked the Catholics for help, thinking perhaps of mercenaries and supplies. What they got was the First Crusade. Contrary to your assertion, the First Crusade in no sense weakened or destroyed the Byzantines. The already HAD BEEN destroyed, by the Seljuk Turks, at Manzikert. The First Crusade PREVENTED the Turks from conquering Asia Minor and overrunning the defenseless remainder of the Byzantine Empire. The Catholics conquered the whole Levantine coast. Lebanon and Israel were recaptured. Jerusalem was Christian once again. This was a VICTORY for Christianity in general, a victory against a brutal INVADER, the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine Empire was not weakened by the First Crusade, it was saved by it. Well over a century later, the FOURTH Crusade sacked Constantinople and that truly DID weaken the Byzantines. It was a criminal act, and the Pope excommunicated the participants in the sack.
No it is not, Mudhutmad believed the Christians, AKA, the Catholic Church, had corrupted the scriptures this is why he didn't embrace their teachings. Ok, it was an excuse to do a little desert banditary but out of it has come the most viscous opposition to Christianity which the Church has failed to combat whether militarily, or ideologically, to this day. Don't tell me about the Christian's obligation to fight, defend yourself is one thing, and genocide another
Hogwash. Mohammed was an Arab, living in Arab society, surrounded by pagans. He was middle aged when he had visions - in a dream or awake he never said - in a cave. He thought himself poseessed but was comforted by his sister-in-law, a Christian convert, who told him from the Christian scriptures that he was not demon possessed, as his own paganism believed, but a prophet. Mohammed came to accept that and he was off to the races. In his lifetime, Mohammed was not dealing with the Catholic Church. He dealt with the resistance, and warfare, of other Arab pagans. Read the Qu'ran sometime. Don't read ABOUT the Qu'ran, actually read it. You will discover that what it says about Christianity (which is to say, Catholicism, as that was the only type of Christianity anywhere around Arabia) is mostly mild and encouraging. We shouldn't be so terribly surprised by this, because it was a Catholic woman in his own family who persuaded him that he wasn't mad! You will also discover that the Qu'ran is not a restatement or rewiite of the Christian Scriptures. You will find references in it to incidents that occurred in the book of Genesis, tracing the Arabs back to Ishmael, son of Abraham (and thus, heir to the covenant). The Qu'ran's most heroic prophet is Jesus. It doesn't retell the story of Jesus' life from the Bible, but gives various precepts. The key point of departure concerns Jesus' divinity. The Qu'ran very explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus, and calls the Trinity a blasphemous error, for it places others on equal footing with God. In a theological sense, the Christology of the Qu'ran is that of the Arian Heresy. But the historiography of the Qu'ran is not that of the Bible. Rather, it departs from the Biblical story with Hagar in the desert with Ishmael, and then enlivens the covenant of Abraham as inherited by Ishmael. You cannot combat Islam theologically, and more than you can combat Hinduism. Hindus gonna be Hindus. Muslims gonna be Muslims. It's like trying to beat a Catholic over the head to become a Protestant, or vice versa. You just have to agree to live and let live. Obviously you have to combat physical assault. But genocide? There was no genocide in the Crusades. There were some brutal city sackings, which was always the case in medieval (and modern) warfare. What the Americans did to Dresden and Hamburg, let alone Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were not genocide, but they exceeded in scope anything that the Crusaders did in Jerusalem. Christians did something much closer to genocide, or tried to, to other Christians when Cromwell invaded Ireland ("To hell or Connaught"), and when the Lutherans and Catholics fought over Germany in the 30 Years' War. In the latter case, there is blame all around. In the fomer case, the English Puritans were evil - like your image of the genocidal Cruaaders - and the Irish Catholics were the innocent victims set upon in their own country and indiscriminately slaughtered by religious fanatics.
I place no credence in the Quoran, Mudhutmad was writing from heresay and his opinion is worthless when viewed against the testimony of eye witnesses. The man is not a prophet in the true sense, show me a prophecy that has come true. I would place him in the same category as Balaam, who prophecied for profit and led the Jewish nation astray. There were many reasons for the invasion and subjection of Ireland and please remember; their persecution began under Norman "catholic" kings
Balaam's prophesies were true, and from God. His problem was that he was acting against the people of Israel. No, the PERSECUTION of Ireland for its religion did NOT begin under the Catholic Kings. Under the Catholic Kings, Ireland was invaded, yes, and there was a struggle between the Norman nobles and the native Irish nobles for control, just as there had been in England before that, and just as there was everywhere in feudal Europe. But Ireland accepted the Norman overlords, to a degree, and that was that. The Anglo-Normans never launched a genocide in Ireland. THAT came when the Scottish Protestant King James authorized the Scottish Presbyterians to invade and colonize Ireland, and drive off the Catholics. That was a religious war from the get-go, and that was the first attempt at genocide. And the Old English in Ireland from the time of Henry Plantagenet were themselves Catholic, and were themselves abused by the Presbyterians just like the Celtic-blooded Irish Catholics were. The invasions and genocides in Ireland were one way affairs, coming from Scotland in 1606, and then from England under Cromwell. The "other side of it" was that the Scottish and English Protestants were magnificently self-entitled, believed the Irish to be savages, and felt they had the right to commit genocide in order to take land from Catholics for themselves. The Irish Catholics never did anything - not one single thing - not one single raid - into Scotland or England to justify what the Protestants did to them. It was one-sided genocide, of the most brutal and vicious variety, perpetrated by the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans, in two waves, and the Catholic Irish and Old Norman nobility of Ireland. On account of their Catholic religion alone, the Protestant rulers of England believed they had the right to slaughter them at will and take everything they had. There is no "English side" or "Scottish side" to what the Presbyterians and Cromwell did in Ireland. They were pure evil and absolutely unjustified and unjustifiable in their invasion. The Irish Catholics killed them in a war of defense. The best comparison is the Warsaw Ghetto. The Irish Catholics in their homeland were the Jews of Warsaw,. The Scottish Presbyterians and Cromwell's Roundheads were the Nazi Armies - the Germans made up justifications, but there were none. They were simply evil.
I will always argue on the side of the Irish against the english genocide, but the seeds were sown long before when Brian B'oru threw the Normans, Danes and Vikings out of Ireland in what was a religious war, christians against pagans and their allies, and the Irish fought against Edward, a Norman King, long before Cromwell and his atrocities and the atrocities of William. This has been a thousand years war and it isn't over yet. We have to remember that only after the enlightenment did Britain become civilized, prior to that time it was as barbarous as any nation
True. And the Muslims have not yet had an Enlightenment, so we're still dealing with the bad old days when it comes to them.
Yes the muslim are still in the seventh century, looking back to past glories, for a brief moment it looked like they would throw off the Yoke but then wahhabbiism and shiiaism took over and the jihadists rode again. I am wondering who do we have to thank for this, the americans or the Russians? Which one was it who stirred up the pot first? Iran or Afganistan?
We have their culture to thank for all of it. The combination of Islam, rigid and unchangeable on its own terms, and the overwhelming male dominance of Muslim societies, and there is nowhere for those societies to go when they are under stress other than back to the tried-and-true 8th Century. So that's what they do every time. That's not our fault. It's not even fully theirs. Their ancestors have left them bound to a terrible burden. The moral content of their religion is vicious and unyielding, and religious moral philosophy is ultimately at the root of every country's laws. This bends Christians towards a certain kind of compassion - frequently ignored but nevertheless stubbornly there because "It is written..." It bends Hindus towards a peaceful compassion for animals but a remarkable indifference to their fellow man. And it bends Muslim societies towards a harsh male dominance and violent spirit of conquest and domination that can never be wholly eradicated because, again, "It is written..." Islam is like a chronic medical condition that has to constantily be treated. When it reasserts itself, it does so in eruptions of violence and barbarism every time, because the Koran really does damn the non-Muslim world and preach forever war against it, by armed conquest and enslavement, and that uniquely appeals to the element of human character rooted in the sex drive, that makes pornography the chief industry of the Internet.
Not really, once the ideas of conquest settled out and the Ottoman's were prepared to sit on their ottomans there was little conflict, a sporadic madhi here or there, until someone thought they could get a hand in the great game and stirred them up. The average muslim would rather talk than fight, they talk about Holy War all the time but it takes a spark to get them moving
The Ottomans had to be thrown back in the Central Med in that late 1500s, and driven back from Vienna in the 1600s. The Russians pressed back against them and defeated them north of the Black Sea. The Ottomans didn't "settle down". They were defeated in war and driven back. And then the organizational superiority of the Europeans really came into play and made it no longer possible for them to advance against Christendom. That wasn't because of a mellowing of spirit, but because of military defeat.
well true but you have to take stock when you are not winning and your enemies are more powerful, the rest of Islam wasn't very successful at expansion by this time once the europeans got their act together, which took a long time because they are their own worst enemy. It is a great pity the Russians didn't wipe the turks out, but they too had their limitations. Today we are in the same position responding to turkish aggression, hidden in the person of daesh
#36. To: paraclete (#35)
Today we are in the same position responding to turkish aggression, hidden in the person of daesh Yes, and this brings us back around to the starting point. The problem with Islam is peculiarly unique to Islam, because of the content of the religion. One can look at Europeans behaving badly - and there has been plenty of that - but it isn't because of the content of Christianity. Certainly corruption in Christian organizations has driven wars, but the biggest of those: the wars of the Reformation, were due to corruption that was CONTRARY to the Christian message. Islam is unique in that their god told them explicitly to make war forever on every non-Muslim, all infidels. To NOT do that is to depart from the way shown by the god. Islam uniquely empowers the individual male to feel dominant, entitled, a warrior for Allah. Hinduism and Christianity and Communism and Socialism, or Bhuddism or Taoism simply don't compare on that score. Aggressive ubermenschen nationalism is the only thing that comes close, and that has been the other source of hellacious war upon war. The difference between the two is that the nations that go down that spider hole can be destroyed, but Islam is vast and transnational. And nobody has never been willing to grasp the nettle and fight it directly, the way we fought Naziism, or the way Islam fights every other religion. Historically, Christians have conquered Muslim lands, but they let the religion stay instead of crushing it out. The converse is not true: Islam conquers and silences all opposition.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: hondo68 (#1)
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
How are a bunch of "progressives" that demand communism being ignored a bad thing?
#6. To: paraclete (#5)
because debate and expression is being stifled, ...
#9. To: sneakypete (#6)
The Founding Fathers turned down democracy as a form of government
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
The Founding Fathers were slaveowners.
#15. To: sneakypete (#11)
Catholicism is still evil,but I don't see you condemning it even though it is a terrorist organization that enslaves whole nations.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
To condemn the Catholic Church is to condemn God
#20. To: paraclete (#19)
God didn't appoint peadophile priests,
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
You need to lower your standards considerably
#23. To: paraclete (#21)
Just as the US created ISIS, the Catholic Church created the Muslim
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
Blaming the Catholic Church for Islam is ridiculous.
#25. To: paraclete (#24)
No it is not, Mudhutmad believed the Christians, AKA, the Catholic Church, had corrupted the scriptures this is why he didn't embrace their teachings. Ok, it was an excuse to do a little desert banditary but out of it has come the most viscous opposition to Christianity which the Church has failed to combat whether militarily, or ideologically, to this day. Don't tell me about the Christian's obligation to fight, defend yourself is one thing, and genocide another
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#27. To: paraclete (#26)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
#29. To: paraclete (#28)
We have to remember that only after the enlightenment did Britain become civilized, prior to that time it was as barbarous as any nation
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
(Edited)
True. And the Muslims have not yet had an Enlightenment, so we're still dealing with the bad old days when it comes to them.
#32. To: paraclete (#30)
es the muslim are still in the seventh century, looking back to past glories, for a brief moment it looked like they would throw off the Yoke but then wahhabbiism and shiiaism took over and the jihadists rode again. I am wondering who do we have to thank for this, the americans or the Russians? Which one was it who stirred up the pot first? Iran or Afganistan?
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
We have their culture to thank for all of it.
#34. To: paraclete (#33)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Replies to Comment # 35. well true but you have to take stock when you are not winning and your enemies are more powerful, the rest of Islam wasn't very successful at expansion by this time once the europeans got their act together, which took a long time because they are their own worst enemy. It is a great pity the Russians didn't wipe the turks out, but they too had their limitations.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]