Quote :

"If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?"

Realistically if anyone could be framed as being a terrorist organization, the rebels who started the revolutionary war arguably have more resemblance to "terrorists" than those active in the confederacy ( from the perspective of the British and Tory land owners in colonial america)

Quote :

"Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. The terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point."

Was it not the North, that invaded the south. Along the way burning, pillaging, or massacring entire cities.

Quote :

"f a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?"

Quote :

"Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. "

Oh yeah b.c raising arms against a federal government who in your personal opinion is not legitimate, defending your homes and families against reports of Sherman's march, and supporting your State over Big Government in Washington DC is soooo dishonorable

Considering the fact that the confederacy was formed by the legitimate state governments, who formed a new union, and reasonably acted upon the same characteristics of any sovereign government how is the confederacy likened to Al Qaeda??

Quote :

"The fundamental problem with extremism is that when you're on the side that is fanatical, all of your actions make sense to you, and you are fluent in trying to justify every action"

I think this guy should look in the mirror. Slavery is wrong and I have no doubt things are for the best that the south lost. How can you though liken your average confederate soldier to Islamic terrorists in the middle East. Sure the causes of the war are partially connected to slavery under the umbrella of states rights. To the average confederate soldier though (who most likely did not have a single slave) this was not the issue. If the convictions of confederate soldiers are truly akin to those who are modern day Islamic extremists, perhaps their cause if justly right....

The fact is that this guy is so caught up in his blind furor regarding the heinous act of slavery (of his ancestors) that he can not even rationally discuss the institutions that allowed it to occur or the people who lived alongside slavery while not actually being actively involved.
Perhaps this columnist should spend more time condemning the founding fathers for building a country that tolerated slavery instead of berating common farmers and working men who fought for a cause they misguidedly believed in.


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

4/11/2010 8:05:08 PM

Who is saying this?

4/11/2010 8:08:04 PM

I scalped this commentary regarding the article

Quote :

"Secondly, if the Confederates had disguised themselves as civilians, blended into Northern society, and then butchered innocent civilians in their homes, workplaces, coffee shops, and places of worship, they would have been using the tactics of the Taliban and other Muslim radicals. Instead, (as the author admits) the Confederacy formed an Army, and Navy, dressed them in uniform, and directed it’s violence against the Union military. If the Confederates had acted like Osama, I doubt Lincoln would have harbored any plans for post-war reconciliation, and any of the southern leaders would have been spared the hangman’s noose. Simply, we would not be having this debate today. Finally, unlike Osama, The Taliban, and the Northern States, the Confederates were not trying to exterminate a culture. They were not trying to blot out the beliefs of the North, nor were they on a crusade to destroy the belief system of the North because of disagreement. Furthermore, the South made no attempt to convert, forcibly or otherwise, nations outside the (dis)United State to their way of thinking. Instead, the Confederates simply wanted to live in a nation of their own, which reflected their own beliefs and values"

Very much true.

4/11/2010 8:09:30 PM

sorry forgot link

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C2

Roland Martin

4/11/2010 8:17:41 PM

HUR, I think you are misinformed.

Above you state that the confederate states formed a legitimate and sovereign government, but this is simply not the case. Article 1 Section 10 specifies why this is not permitted.

I do agree that the Revolutionaries from our war of independence would traditionally be considered rebels or terrorists, and England considers this to be the case. We only justify their actions due to the outcome, not as a matter of the actions committed.

The confederacy wasn't without their merit but don't dress them up as something they weren't and disingenuously suggest that Northern actions were unprovoked governmental tyranny.

4/11/2010 8:31:12 PM

So you agree with Roland Martin, that Farmer Joe who picked up his musket rallying to the local county militia to fight invading armies from the norther, irregardless of the legitimacy of the federal forces in their attempt to keep the nation unified and outlaw slavery; these confederate soldiers though are akin to Muslim teorrorists who stuff explosives into their underwear in order to blow up 100 civilians....

4/11/2010 8:36:36 PM

just curious, what terroristic acts did the confederacy take part in? i mean other than allowing their cities to get burned down... oh wait, does this mean we if we burn down Baghdad - Mission Complete?

4/11/2010 8:41:29 PM

^^^Rebellions are never "permitted".

The terrorists have a better strategy. More bang for the buck, so to speak.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2010 8:41:51 PM

When you say irregardless[sic] of the legitimacy are you implying that I should support the southerners without regard for their lack of legitimacy? I didn't think that you were, but since the Federal government absolutely had legitimacy and contractual justification to keep the nation unified that is all I could imagine you would mean without being entirely off base

volex are you talking to me? because i never made that claim.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:49 PM. Reason : volex]

4/11/2010 8:45:59 PM

lol

Well only had Jefferson Davis had read Article 1 Section 10. I could see the conversation like...

Quote :

"Why by golly, succeeding from the union that our state joined in 1787 is unconstitutional. Damn there goes that idea"

and millions of lives and the destruction of the south would have been spared.

Quote :

"I didn't think that you were, but since the Federal government absolutely had legitimacy and contractual justification to keep the nation unified that is all I could imagine you would mean without being entirely off base"

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:51 PM. Reason : k]

4/11/2010 8:48:47 PM

Rednecks and slavery aside, I'd probably favor the Confederacy in regards to the moral high ground. The country was designed as a loosely bound group of states. The states chose to enter into the union, it's only logical that they could remove themselves from it.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:52 PM. Reason : and I see nothing in section 10 that says they can't secede first, then confederate]

4/11/2010 8:50:16 PM

^^So you're saying states should only uphold the constitution when it is convenient for them, while fully expecting the federal government to keep up with their end of the contract? Hardly seems consistent.


^Unfortunately there is no formal means for making that transition. I fully agreed to go into my mortgage and receive the benefits that homeownership provides, but I cannot stop paying my dues and just as easily remove myself. It isn't a perfect analogy, but you get my point. It is common place for contracts to be easily entered and not so easily exited, hence why it is a contract. When states decided they wanted to inherit the benefits and safety of nationhood they were in a contract.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:54 PM. Reason : adam]

4/11/2010 8:51:09 PM

I see it more as a "club of states" than a simple business transaction like a mortgage. If you don't like the way the club operates, and you're a founding member, I see no reason why you can't leave the club without threat of execution. Must be one hell of a club.

If the confederates had known the expansion and abuses of federal power that were to occur in the coming century they would have turned to suicide bombing as well.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2010 8:54:47 PM

smc well they did not, so a preemptive strike based on no traceable history is hardly justification. we should stick to grounds the southern nation actually would have had.

per edit: When there is a clause saying that you cannot leave and you have signed into agreement then one cannot exit without permission of the governing body.

That isn't to say I agree with full expansion of government power. But call a spade a spade. The confederates were not mere farmers defending their freedoms. The confederacy was started by a large collection of aristocrats who decided they wanted to protect their financial interests.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM. Reason : edits]

4/11/2010 8:57:32 PM

what exactly makes them terrorists though

4/11/2010 9:00:46 PM

who are you talking to, because i have as of yet to see anyone say they agree they are terrorists

4/11/2010 9:04:16 PM

The north certainly did a fine job of stealing property, killing and raping civilians as a wartime strategy. Any southerner who lived through that must have certainly thought they'd fallen victim to a great satan. Well, any white southerner, haha.

4/11/2010 9:05:32 PM

smc have you entirely snapped? Do you think that southerns were pure moral defenders of liberty who acted with nothing other than their own altruism?


Southern activities were not without their indiscretions as well.

4/11/2010 9:09:30 PM

Is it really liberty if you can't leave?

I'm sure the fact that much of the war was fought on southern soil ensured the majority of atrocities were committed by the northern armies instead of the reverse.

4/11/2010 9:12:13 PM

Quote :

"The confederates were not mere farmers defending their freedoms. The confederacy was started by a large collection of aristocrats who decided they wanted to protect their financial interests."

Since every confederate was an aristocratic slave-owning individual .

I suppose every Muslim is secretly a member of Al Qaeda and every german in 1938 was a jew killing mother fucker.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:15 PM. Reason : l]

4/11/2010 9:15:10 PM

So we're judging a moral conscience based on quantity and geographical circumstance? The fact is that the same atrocities were committed on both sides, meaning there are no innocents in this equation.

Regarding their inability to leave, what is your take on people who sign into loans they cannot reasonably afford? Should they be granted easy outs or should they be held to the accountability of their decisions?

^Way to exaggerate and extend a comment beyond its clear context. I suppose when there isn't hard rooted fact to support your claim you must resort to such ad hominem. I did not say all southerners were slave-owning aristocrats. My statement was that the war was started by such groups, which is the case for the majority of revolutionary uprisings and is largely indisputable. Simple poor farmers did participate, but largely through manipulations, a need for financial means, and based on propaganda. Muslim terrorist extremist are often recruited the same way.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM. Reason : added]

4/11/2010 9:17:05 PM

Quote :

"Above you state that the confederate states formed a legitimate and sovereign government, but this is simply not the case. Article 1 Section 10 specifies why this is not permitted. "

bullshit. the confederacy did NOT exist within the context of the Union. dumbass.

Quote :

"^Unfortunately there is no formal means for making that transition."

Yes there is. it's called "secession."

Quote :

"I fully agreed to go into my mortgage and receive the benefits that homeownership provides, but I cannot stop paying my dues and just as easily remove myself."

Not at all comparable. Your mortgage specifically defines that you cannot do that. The Constitution does NOT say that states can't leave the Union.

Quote :

"When there is a clause saying that you cannot leave and you have signed into agreement then one cannot exit without permission of the governing body."

And where is this clause in the Constitution? That's right, it's NOT there.

Quote :

"Southern activities were not without their indiscretions as well."

Yes. tell me about all those northern cities that the south burned to the ground. Tell me about all the fields that the south destroyed in Maryland and Pennsylvania, just because they could.

Quote :

"The fact is that the same atrocities were committed on both sides, meaning there are no innocents in this equation."

Really? The south burned DC to the ground? I don't remember that...

Quote :

"Regarding their inability to leave, what is your take on people who sign into loans they cannot reasonably afford? Should they be granted easy outs or should they be held to the accountability of their decisions?"

Well, they signed a note that said they would pay it back, no questions asked. that's massively different. I don't expect you to understand that, though

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2010 9:17:47 PM

apparently the people who signed contract with the federal government represented everyone as well

hey I just signed you up to pay the mortgage on my house, but since its a contract you can't just walk away

4/11/2010 9:18:25 PM

IRSeriousCat we are straying from the OP and purpose of this thread.

Regardless of the plight of the south and the causes of the succession of the southern states...

the issue at hand is if Roland Martin is correct

Confederate Soldiers (regardless of background, class, # of slaves owned, reason for joining the cause) = Islamic Extremist Terrorist (recklessly and unmercifully committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants as a means of asymmetric warfare for political/religious motives)

In my opinion the soldiers of the confederacy were conducting a pretty "conventional" war.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM. Reason : l]

4/11/2010 9:22:06 PM

...More like your father's elected representatives(a tiny percentage of overall population and whom he may not have voted for or had the opportunity to vote for) signed us all up for the mortgage.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : who or whom, hmmm]

4/11/2010 9:22:08 PM

I always wished Martin would get his own TV show so him and Beck could come up with these retard scenarios until they found true love in one another and the world exploded

4/11/2010 9:26:54 PM

IMHO whenever an issue related to slavery (much like issues regarding drunk driving, illegal drugs, or Jesus) get brought up, some individuals are so blinded by idealistic or a hatred fervor that they can not have a rational discussion on such topics.

Roland Smith is one of these individuals. With the issue of the slavery of his ancestors, Roland goes into a mental "bloodlust" where rational argument or thought can not exist. In his mind anyone associated with a system that condoned "slavery" regardless of true connections or alternative rationale, is automatically reduced to the lowest common denominator. This then causes such individuals to receive blanket stereotypes that equate such people to terrorists in his mind. Ironically this pattern of thought is accepted and even published by the media (CNN in this case) since condemning the confederacy is PC, irregardless of how out of sync such condemnations become. On the flip side though if some white author, discussing the actions/history of the Black Panthers, equated these individuals to Islamic terrorists; shit would have absolutely hit the fan.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:31 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:31 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:32 PM. Reason : l]

4/11/2010 9:30:49 PM

Quote :

" bullshit. the confederacy did NOT exist within the context of the Union. dumbass. "

They were initially states who were a part of the union and their separation was no legit so they did exist in the context of the Union. If you enter into a marriage one cannot suggest they are no longer married and separate themselves without a formal agreement of both parties.

Quote :

" Yes there is. it's called "secession. "

Can you find me a legal precedent for secession from the union? Didn't think so.

Quote :

" Not at all comparable. Your mortgage specifically defines that you cannot do that. The Constitution does NOT say that states can't leave the Union."

I outright stated it wasn't identically parallel, the marriage one is much better. But the constitution does stipulate this prohibition. Article 1 Section 10.

Quote :

"And where is this clause in the Constitution? That's right, it's NOT there"

Article 1 Section 10

Quote :

" Yes. tell me about all those northern cities that the south burned to the ground. Tell me about all the fields that the south destroyed in Maryland and Pennsylvania, just because they could."

A matter of geographical circumstance, not moral regulation. This has already been address. It is becoming more evident that you have not read the thread, but rather decided to come in and address a preconceived belief as opposed to entertaining presented facts and approaching them with an open mind.

Quote :

"Yes. tell me about all those northern cities that the south burned to the ground. Tell me about all the fields that the south destroyed in Maryland and Pennsylvania, just because they could."

see above.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:32 PM. Reason : quotes]

4/11/2010 9:30:55 PM

Quote :

"a legal precedent for secession from the union"

No ruler has ever given up power voluntarily. It has to be taken with blood.

4/11/2010 9:40:29 PM

^i take it that is your subtle way of saying there is none, which is exactly what I said. Given the agreement to not exit it would seem the only party who crossed a line was those who joined the confederacy.

Additionally

When making accusations I understand it is easy to get on a roll and make associations and connections for the group you oppose that you would consider unacceptable when addressing the group you defend. I assure you during the era of the civil war southerners did commit atrocities against united states civilians. Most notably the black segment of the union population. The terror infused campaign and behavior forced upon these citizens of the united states is unacceptable, and is the same sort of terror we're defending against in regards to islamo-terrorist. There is no excuse for glorifying either party.

4/11/2010 9:43:02 PM

The US dropped two atomic bombs on millions of innocent victims in Japan which was the ultimate act of terror and we glorify WWII vets. Why can't we honor Confederate soldiers?

4/11/2010 9:58:01 PM

Quote :

"No ruler has ever given up power voluntarily. It has to be taken with blood."

George Washington

Quote :

"The US dropped two atomic bombs on millions of innocent victims in Japan which was the ultimate act of terror and we glorify WWII vets. Why can't we honor Confederate soldiers?"

oh..you are going to take it there? is everyone ready for this thread to completely derail?

4/12/2010 12:22:43 PM

When you're firebombing entire cities into ashes with conventional incendiaries, killing millions in an organized genocide, fighting all the way down to the last dozen or so men to hold islands, and some countries have death tolls of 20,000,000...blowing up a city with a nuclear weapon isn't the stretch that it would be in any scenario we've seen in our lifetimes.

4/12/2010 12:54:06 PM

Just trying to keep things in perspective. I don't see anything wrong with remembering WW2 vets on either side just like I don't see anything wrong with remembering Civil War vets on either side. Many were brave men who stood up and fought for what they thought was right. They should be remembered.

4/12/2010 12:58:21 PM

Except according to Roland who says every local yokel with his musket and pitch fork were the islamic terrorists of the 1860's.

4/12/2010 4:51:39 PM

^^Not everyone that fought for the Confederacy supported slavery, not that you're saying they did. Most just didn't want those laws to be made on a federal level, because they knew it would open the flood gates to other federal laws, which of course it did. The civil war caused a lot of unnecessary death and guaranteed over a century of bitterness between races, and regions of the country for that matter.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2010 5:23:08 PM

Quote :

"Not everyone that fought for the Confederacy supported slavery, not that you're saying they did. Most just didn't want those laws to be made on a federal level, because they knew it would open the flood gates to other federal laws, which of course it did. The civil war caused a lot of unnecessary death and guaranteed over a century of bitterness between races, and regions of the country for that matter."

Racist!!!! AM I RITE Roland???

I honestly can not fathom that Martin Luther King Jr himself would actually attempt to link the average Joe Confederate citizen and soldier as being even in the same ballpark as modern day islamic terrorist.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 6:34 PM. Reason : k]

4/12/2010 6:32:48 PM

Quote :

"They were initially states who were a part of the union and their separation was no legit so they did exist in the context of the Union. If you enter into a marriage one cannot suggest they are no longer married and separate themselves without a formal agreement of both parties."

How was the separation "no legit?" Where in the Constitution does it say that the Union must agree to a member's leaving it? Oh right, it doesn't.

Quote :

"I outright stated it wasn't identically parallel, the marriage one is much better."

Only it's not. The "contract" of marriage that you enter into with the state defines how the contract can be exited. durrr.

Quote :

"Article 1 Section 10"

Circular logic. I love it! I've already explained why that doesn't apply. But you'll keep insisting it does.

Quote :

"A matter of geographical circumstance, not moral regulation."

Bullshit. You said the south was guilty of the same things. You can NOT then pull the "geographical convenience" bullshit when I ask for examples.

4/12/2010 6:48:49 PM

HUR

You have entirely misrepresented what Roland stated in his article. At no point does Roland make racism a central topic of his piece. The primary focus is on discussing how the supporting comments for islamic extremist and those of the confederacy. Even in the OP you address statements made in the article only by redirecting a question instead of breaking down Roland's point and establishing why his point is untrue. The entire OP is nothing more than tu quoque.

Here I'll provide you with the opportunity to address this in a proper fashion

Quote :

" When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect."

Please address how the confederacy is different without just saying "you too" and suggesting that Roland is playing the race card.

4/12/2010 7:01:20 PM

who here said that the South was "angry with the north for invading them?" No one. That would be what we call a "strawman."

moreover, to say that it was just "the South being angry" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The South was actually being attacked, for one. Whereas, regardless of what Osama says, the US is NOT attacking Saudi Arabia. Second, the Confederate troops were uniformed troops of a specific nation/state. The Taliban is NOT. Wow, that was fucking hard.

4/12/2010 7:07:21 PM

Quote :

"Please address how the confederacy is different without just saying "you too" and suggesting that Roland is playing the race card."

I guess if this is all that Roland needed to portray the south as being likened to Osama Bin Laden, then really you could use this logic to draw a link to [insert any "freedom fighting"/belligerent/revolutionary/civil warring force here].

I suppose the citizens of Croatia are also similar to "islamic terrorists" since they fought against a Serbian government that was committing "ethnic cleansing" of their peoples.

Quote :

"When you make the argument that the South Greece was angry with the North Ottoman Empire for "invading" its "homeland in the 1400's," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Greeks Same language; same cause; same effect"

Rolands argument can be used for fucking anything..........

4/12/2010 8:02:14 PM

^i hit on that exact notion above.

^^

Quote :

"Wow, that was fucking hard."

Apparently, because it took you near a full page to make a legitimate statement. Regardless, I don't entirely agree with your synopsis since you're cherry picking connections. Roland quoted Osama's statement that he opposed to the United States Federal government occupying bases on their soil, just as S.C. was angry over fort sumter. That was the comparison not one of being invaded. If occupation of territory is not enough to be considered an invasion then the North did not invade the south until states joined forces with a foreign entity as is prohibited in the constitution.

Furthermore the Taliban was a political governing body that is equatable in legitimacy to any government formed by the confederacy. Interestingly, the taliban's rule ended only when forcefully removed by a government during an invasion from another government. There seem to be more parallels than you are willing to admit, and others that you intentionally obfuscate.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 11:54 PM. Reason : edits]

4/12/2010 11:53:45 PM

Taliban not = Terrorists.

Unless Evangelist Church ='s Right Wing Terrorist nutjobs like Timothy McVeigh.

4/13/2010 8:04:08 AM

Quote :

"Roland quoted Osama's statement that he opposed to the United States Federal government occupying bases on their soil"

Al Qaeda has soil?

[Edited on April 13, 2010 at 9:15 AM. Reason : ]

4/13/2010 9:15:03 AM

^^ the taliban comment was directed towards aaronburro since he explicitly stated 1. that the taliban was not a specific nation or state and 2. juxtaposed them to the soldiers of the confederacy. Please follow along.


^in this case their = arabs. this was clearly established in the article, comments and many quotes in this thread. Next time practice a little restraint for your sophomoric commentary, lest you desire to present yourself as a fool.

4/13/2010 10:01:30 AM

lol

4/13/2010 10:27:12 AM

Quote :

"Roland quoted Osama's statement that he opposed to the United States Federal government occupying bases on their soil, just as S.C. was angry over fort sumter."

Well, for starters, if you take the position that Fort Sumter is actually in the territory of the CSA, then it makes sense that the South wouldn't like Union troops holding CSA land. Meanwhile, Osama is pissed that the US has a treaty with Saudi Arabia where SA tells us we can put our troops on their soil. Where is the similarity, again?

Quote :

"That was the comparison not one of being invaded."

Well, if he didn't mean "invaded," then why did he say "invaded?" backpedaling much?

by the way, your pedantic rant about the Taliban is pointless, as you know I meant al Qaeda.

Quote :

"2. juxtaposed them to the soldiers of the confederacy."

I did no such thing. YOU are the one who has equated the two. I am simply arguing against such an equating

4/13/2010 6:15:21 PM

Quote :

"Well, for starters, if you take the position that Fort Sumter is actually in the territory of the CSA, then it makes sense that the South wouldn't like Union troops holding CSA land. Meanwhile, Osama is pissed that the US has a treaty with Saudi Arabia where SA tells us we can put our troops on their soil. Where is the similarity, again?"

While I wouldn't take fort sumter to be the property of the CSA, since it was built with federal monies, but when using states rights as a premise for the war one must recognize base occupation as a point of contention although ownership belonged to the Fed. The similarities are clear. Also why do you keep saying Saudi Arabia. Osama is concerned over Arab lands in general. I believe it to be your limited understanding of the issues that is holding you back from grasping the conversation.

Quote :

"Well, if he didn't mean "invaded," then why did he say "invaded?" backpedaling much? by the way, your pedantic rant about the Taliban is pointless, as you know I meant al Qaeda"

Where in his posted quote did he say invaded? Less backpedaling and more addressing your misunderstanding. Furthermore I did not know you meant Al Qaeda. The public in general misidentifies who we are fighting and why and given your other failed comprehensions at the time I would have no reason to believe you actually meant Al Qaeda. In fact I still don't.

Quote :

"I did no such thing. YOU are the one who has equated the two. I am simply arguing against such an equating "

you understand juxtapose does not mean equating but rather placing two objects aside for contrast and/or comparison, right? In this instance I was referring to your comparison of the CSA as a legit army and the taliban as not.

4/13/2010 7:24:22 PM

Quote :

"While I wouldn't take fort sumter to be the property of the CSA, since it was built with federal monies, but when using states rights as a premise for the war one must recognize base occupation as a point of contention although ownership belonged to the Fed."

I'm sure they did realize that. That's why they told them to leave after X amount of time. The federal troops didn't leave.

Quote :

"Also why do you keep saying Saudi Arabia. Osama is concerned over Arab lands in general."

Yes, but his initial complaint was over the US bases in Saudi Arabia. Learn some history, dude. And you accuse ME of having a limited understanding of history

Quote :

"Where in his posted quote did he say invaded?"

Maybe in the first fucking sentence? Look at that quote box again...

Quote :

""When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for [b]"invading"[b] its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil.""

Quote :

"Furthermore I did not know you meant Al Qaeda"

The hell you didn't. I was talking about Osama not 10 fucking words prior. Osama is the head of what, again?

Quote :

"you understand juxtapose does not mean equating but rather placing two objects aside for contrast and/or comparison, right?"

And I am not the one who originally put the two side by side. YOU are.

4/13/2010 7:56:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure they did realize that. That's why they told them to leave after X amount of time. The federal troops didn't leave."

What are you even talking about. What you have quoted is a statement responding to the similarities. It was an answer to a question. Your "response" in no way aligns withe the structure of that discussion. Be that as it may, why is it that you believe the federal government should have to leave a federal fort at the behest of a state?

Quote :

"es, but his initial complaint was over the US bases in Saudi Arabia. Learn some history, dude. And you accuse ME of having a limited understanding of history"

Ignoring the glaring errors in your statement the point still exists that you were using Saudi Arabia because it fit your point earlier although Saudi Arabia is not what was being addressed in the thread. You cherry picked a scenario and got called out, just man up and admit it.

Quote :

"Maybe in the first fucking sentence? Look at that quote box again..."

You're right, he did say invaded. What is being viewed as an invasion in this case is the seemingly unjustifiable occupation of bases in lands, not an actual foot mounted invasion. Context makes this evident given it is further explained one sentence away.

Quote :

"The hell you didn't. I was talking about Osama not 10 fucking words prior. Osama is the head of what, again?"

Again the general populace makes this mistake all the time, and you have done anything but prove yourself worthy of exclusion.

Quote :

"And I am not the one who originally put the two side by side. YOU are."

Again, what are you even addressing? I never said you were the first to put them aside. I stated that I was addressing the area where you did put them aside and attempted to illustrate a contrast (which is again different from equating).

4/13/2010 8:20:05 PM