2596
Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] protestors put up "resist" banner on crane near white house
« on: January 26, 2017, 02:20:07 AM »>proceeds to persecute racial minorities as dictator
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
>proceeds to persecute racial minorities as dictator
You can't argue with results[insert map of Islamic Caliphate at its height]
The Spanish were loving coolThey religiously persecuted the Native Americans and established probably the most brutal form of forced labor in American history, motivated by their 'god-given' mandate to conquer. I like how you guys rail off endlessly about Muslims driving trucks into crowds, but Spanish encomienda is 'loving cool'.
It depends. Is it a bunch of loving Albanians trying to start a colonial empire for trade or is it a jihad in the name of Allah?The first American colonists were definitely religiously motivated, although they weren't coming for war.
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.
The christian colonial powers still killed less then the muslims did of the time. Hell even if that smallpox epidemic in the seven years war was caused by colonists, muslims still killed more. If you look at South America and Mexico what do you see? They are not Spanish, the majority of those countries are Mestizo (mixed race), some (Bolivia) have a majority of pure native population.The data are pretty much irrelevant because even if we come up with a completely fair standard for what constitutes 'religious violence', the raw numbers are still gonna be within an order of magnitude. The take-away here isn't "their religion is x% more violent than ours!", it's "violence is a complicated thing that isn't predicted solely by religious scripture."
A smallpox epidemic swept the St. Lawrence and Ohio river areas all the way to Ft. Duquesne in 1755-56. This shows that the siege of Ft. Pitt is not the origin of smallpox in the area.Again, it doesn't need to be the source of an epidemic to count as germ warfare, but needless to say we're off-course here. The original reason we were talking about smallpox was because Christians played a role in its introduction, but it's true that the epidemic would have happened intentionally or not.
Do you actually believe the same people who killed people for being witches also knew about stuff like viruses and how they spreadPeople understood to a rough extent that being near sick people got other people sick. It's not rocket science either - you don't need modern epidemiology to notice that the first people who get sick during a small-pox epidemic all live in the same household.
I guess when I said "debunked" I meant "there are no sources or records that it ever happened".
During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."(source)
it's pretty safe to assume smallpox was brought over and spread by accidentYes, but there is absolutely evidence that germ warfare was used in some capacity.
You can't realize live peacefully with people who have vastly different moral systems than you do."Moral systems" being a proxy for race and politics. I've gotta disagree on that.
Where did I say this?It's just an implicit bias. You didn't say it anywhere.
you mean the unverified and debunked myth that the US army distributed smallpox infected blankets?I did some searching on that, and it doesn't look like it's debunked. There's a couple of fringe sources, but the same can be said about the holocaust and the moon-landing.
I figured I'd try and give a personal answer, instead of stuffposting.It's kind of refreshing, but like, you should recognize that political ideology doesn't necessarily translate into the results you want. Communism and Fascism sound great on paper, but history paints a different picture.
Unless you count accidentally spreading smallpox to the America's then no, not by a long shot. Sorry but the Muslim slave trade was massive and Tamerlane was a Muslim so you lose on those grounds alone.You probably should count spreading smallpox since your standard for 'Islamic violence' seems to just be any violence committed by Muslims.
You sure as forget aren't because Estado Novo was in Portugal.Point still stands lol. I am barely familiar with the regime at all. It's just that if you had to make me guess whether a random fascist state runs democratic elections, I'd have to say no.
Don't forget all the fear mongering the news did about Annoying Orange also helped hillarys chances with the vote.Won't the same thing happen again?
Presidents are generally reelected if stuff's going good so if Annoying Orange isn't caught running ducks over with a lawn mower or something there's a decent chance of him getting a second termThe economy is a pretty excellent predictor, so Annoying Orange's got that going for him. Tax cuts and deregulation might forget over the middle/lower class, but they do boost the economy.
Did Estado Novo have elections?Not an expert on Brazilian history but my gut says no.