It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guess What I Got For Christmas? The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


You defietly look like a teenager who received a present from his muslim hating parents. Why don't you bring clips of obama that offer the full clips, not a 12 second snip, of him getting confused about a religion. And what do you mean that a real christian wouldn't do this?, are you a real christian?, as far as i'm concerned there are not too many real christians, you seem very ignorant in the matter of religion, laws, and life. Didn't your parents give you a video game to play with, tnat would be better for you?




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pujols5
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


You defietly look like a teenager who received a present from his muslim hating parents. Why don't you bring clips of obama that offer the full clips, not a 12 second snip, of him getting confused about a religion. And what do you mean that a real christian wouldn't do this?, are you a real christian?, as far as i'm concerned there are not too many real christians, you seem very ignorant in the matter of religion, laws, and life. Didn't your parents give you a video game to play with, tnat would be better for you?


Well, I'm not a teenager, I'm in my mid-thirties, and my parents do not hate Muslism's.

My parents are conservative Christian, I am not, I am Agnostic, seeking a middle ground.

Instead of asking about my clips of Obama, feel free to post your own to refute me.

I'm all about understanding other people views, so far my views expressed on this thread are about the books itself, more so than Muslim's, or the Koran, and I'm speaking from a middle ground are seeing as I disagree with some of American foreign policy.

I can see you're misinterpreting quite a bit of what I've said so far.

I am quite simply asking which religion Obama is, not calling into question his "Christianity".

Seriously, you're trying to say I need to grow up, when I am being dead serious here.

I am not sure of which religion Obama follows as I am not finding it online.

Careful calling anyone ignorant on the boards, whether you believe that or not, because then that can be seen as trolling, not that I'm calling you a troll, but someone else might and I'm not trying to cause conflict here, I'm seriously asking some questions that I am trying to figure out about Muslim's, the Koran, and Obama, not necessarily in that order either.

My life has been Christian oriented, but I respect several non-Christian religions, and as well I've studied the Eastern areas of the world, mainly Asia.

Sorry if you're not understanding where I'm coming from, I'll make a better effort to express my views a bit more, if that helps you, but I think you've rushed to judgment on me, so far.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Since I'm the sort of dude who relishes opportunities to learn about flaws and inaccuracies in humanity's sacred cows, I'm willing to bet I'd love the Qur'an-oriented book.

However, make no mistake about it, virtually any devout Muslim views the words of the Qur'an as not just sacred, but as the literal, inerrant Word of God. In many ways, the Qur'an is less like the Bible than it is Jesus Christ, insofar as Jesus was said to be the "Word made Flesh," whereas the Qur'an is purely the Word itself. It then follows that humans are saved from damnation by their awareness and obedience to the rules set forth in the Qur'an. Further, it is traditionally held that the ONLY statements that can be said to be "from the Qur'an" are actually statements in the original classical Arabic of the 7th Century CE. An English version/translation from the Qur'an is NOT a quote from the Qur'an.

This assumes that the Qur'an's text has not been altered in any way, shape or form in more than thirteen centuries. While most Westerners familiar with the ecclestiastic machinations and politics surrounding the many versions of the Bible would see that claim as highly suspect, it is an idea commonly accepted amongst believers (despite documentary evidence to the contrary!).

I say this because to any Muslim, "quoting" the Qur'an is suspect when the quote itself is not in the original language (and of course, the 'meaning' of the words is always up to question when talking about an ancient language). This can be a rather thorny issue. Suffice to say, I would not listen to ANYONE'S ideas concerning the meaning and content of the Qur'an unless they also happened to be fluent in classical Arabic, or at least someone who has spent their lives in "Near Eastern Studies."

Otherwise, it's as though some Chinese scholar had read Shakespeare translations in Chinese, and then proceeded to expound on English thought and Elizabethan culture based on that information alone.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mahajohn
 


Excellent thoughts on this book as well as the original Koran.

I do see the complexities of translations of many different books, from the Bible, to the Koran in that the original language is far different and as well usually much more complex than we see in the English language.

I took Greek, for high school, when I was home schooled, and now looking back from the age of thirty-six, I remember the teachings of my teacher.

The original language is very much more complex than simplistic English makes them out to be, because knowing the Bible, if you change a "jot" or "title" (pronounced ti tel), you not only change that word, but the whole paragraph, and the context of the entire meaning behind the intent of the author and it throws off the entire book into a skewed view.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I found this article interesting from the Heritage Foundation.

Text – Morning Bell: Terrorism Threat Demands Smarter Security, Not More Money – Text – The Heritage Foundation Blog

” Desperate to defect attention away from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s “the system worked” comments, the left in Congress is attempting to blame conservatives for the attempted Christmas Day Flight 253 bombing. Democrats charge that leading conservatives voted against $4 billion for “screening operations” including $1.1 billion in funding for explosives detection systems. Leaving aside the fact that bomb detection in U.S. airports would have done nothing to stop a bomber who boarded planes in Ghana and Amsterdam, the left’s attack shows just how off base their approach to national security is.

The most effective means of stopping terrorist attacks is to disrupt them as early as possible. Relying on bomb detection equipment to thwart terrorism attacks allows these plots to continue far too long. The Flight 253 attack was the 28th foiled terror plot against the United States since 9/11. What is notable is that of the 28 failed plots, 26 were stopped by intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. Only two were stopped by citizens on the scene— Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in 2009, and Richard Reid in 2001. In both these cases, America just got lucky—the plots were clumsy and the passengers and crew responded bravely and quickly. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from the failed Christmas attack on a Detroit-bound airliner; throwing more money at airline security is not one of them.”


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The bolded text is not my adding it, I only bolded it to show what was in the original article.

The Heritage Foundation


President Bush at The Heritage Foundation


The Heritage Foundation - President's Club



Quote from : Wikipedia : The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is a well-known conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.

Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is widely considered to be one of the most influential research organizations in the United States, especially during the Republican administration of President George W. Bush.

Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."


Now, I know what a think-tank is but I think ATS needs to examine what one is, so they know how things work in Washington D.C.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Think Tank

A think tank (also called a policy institute) is an organization, institute, corporation, group, or individual that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, science or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice.

Many think tanks are non-profit organizations, which some countries such as the United States and Canada provide with tax exempt status.

While many think tanks are funded by governments, interest groups, or businesses, some think tanks also derive income from consulting or research work related to their mandate.

There are different opinions about think tanks; supporters like the National Institute for Research Advancement, itself a think tank, hail them as "one of the main policy actors in democratic societies ..., assuring a pluralistic, open and accountable process of policy analysis, research, decision-making and evaluation".

Others consider the term to be a euphemism for lobbying groups.

A study in early 2009 found a total of 5,465 think tanks worldwide.

Of that number, 1,777 were based in the United States and approximately 350 in Washington, DC alone.


How Think Tanks Change Public Policy, part 1 - Show-Me Institute


How Think Tanks Change Public Policy, part 2 - Show-Me Institute


How Think Tanks Change Public Policy, part 3 - Show-Me Institute


How Think Tanks Change Public Policy, part 4 - Show-Me Institute


[edit on 29-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
You have really out done yourself here, a flag for you.

"Hegelian Dialectic", that is a new one for me. I can see how many people follow this concept or practice in how they carry out their conversations, or dialogue with others.

I tend to come from the theater of the absurd model. Anything is possible, so everything is possible. The Uncertainty Theory is in many ways the guiding factor, I think, in so many advancing ideas. You can never be certain of anything, so all beliefs are based on a reasonable degree of uncertainty. All possibilities must be given consideration in respect to the weight of their possibility.

I don't really think you understand the U.S., which, unless you grew up in the U.S., is very hard to do. I recommend a book titled "Invisible Republic" by Greil Marcus.

In many ways the U.S. is still a very fractured nation from the civil war conflict, which is a conflict that predates the civil war. Where it all began is hard to say, but this conflict clearly existed from the beginning of our nation and the formation of the two party system. Even the two parties are loosely formed, shifting coalitions.

Middle East presence first made itself know to the U.S. middle class, and even in particular to the U.S. Midwest, primarily Detroit and the once powerful Unions of the working class, through the energy crisis in the 1970ties. How much pre-planning went into the development of the energy crises of the 70ties is hard to say, but my guess is considerable. This worked along with the creation of crime ridden ghettos, and the economic push to drive Americans into suburban sprawl, guaranteeing the independence on automobiles and addiction to gasoline, all paid for by U.S federal government debt.

World domination in our modern world is determined more by wealth than by military might these days. The vast amounts of oil found in the Middle East have given Middle Eastern monarchs vast amounts of world power. It also gave U.S. International Oil Corporations vast amounts of power. It is not hard to see how these two groups have formed themselves a strong coalition. Look at the shift in power we have seen in the U.S. over the last thirty years.

Now we are seeing the growth of Islamic Religious extremism in Europe. It plays well into the hands of corporate elites.

What they don't teach us in history class is that European society always had a democratic basis. The idea of democracy did not come out of Greece as we are taught in school, it was alive and well in Europe long before that. Look up the origins of the word "Thing". Christianity almost succeeded in completely destroying European culture, and its strong inclination towards democratic style governments. Those who have always supported aristocratic rule would love to destroy the democratic institutions that have been created. I think they see a very powerful tool in Islam.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

You have really out done yourself here, a flag for you.


Thank you.



Originally posted by poet1b
"Hegelian Dialectic", that is a new one for me. I can see how many people follow this concept or practice in how they carry out their conversations, or dialogue with others.


The Hegelian Dialectic is not new to me, it goes hand in hand with the Art of War.

I use both daily.

In everything I do in order to practice peace.

I turned them into the Art of Peace, for me.


Originally posted by poet1b
I tend to come from the theater of the absurd model. Anything is possible, so everything is possible. The Uncertainty Theory is in many ways the guiding factor, I think, in so many advancing ideas. You can never be certain of anything, so all beliefs are based on a reasonable degree of uncertainty. All possibilities must be given consideration in respect to the weight of their possibility.


Sounds much like the Chaos Theory.

I understand that concept completely, it goes that each time an incident happens, a different outcome will happen, because no outcome is guaranteed.

I am paraphrasing, of course.

I think in conflict de-escalation, conflict resolution, and contigency plans.


Originally posted by poet1b
I don't really think you understand the U.S., which, unless you grew up in the U.S., is very hard to do. I recommend a book titled "Invisible Republic" by Greil Marcus.


I understand the United States quite well, I think you might be misinterpreting my thoughts based on your own preconceived ideas about me, or perhaps what I've posted.

I grew up in the United States, I have studied history quite thoroughly, of the world, as well as the United States, war history, military history, Intelligence Agency history, and many more avenues of history, on both sides of each and every war that has been known to mankind.

And I've traveled abroad, although it was only to Australia, it was a foreign country, and my love of history, and Asia and the Art of War assisted me in understanding other countries cultures, policies, and people.

At least those that interested me.

I will check out the book, thanks for the recommendation, I love books.

I will recommend this one to you.

The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power

I have to say you you might not have read many of my other threads, otherwise you might know I know the U.S. and policy, both foreign and domestic quite thoroughly.

What you may be seeing as a confusion with U.S. policy, is not that I do not know it, but that I do not agree with all of it 100%, because of my knowledge of history, policy, procedure, and protocol, political ideology, and that I am an an idealist who has ethics, morals, and beliefs which collide with those of people in Washington D.C., Capitol Hill, and the White House.


Originally posted by poet1b
In many ways the U.S. is still a very fractured nation from the civil war conflict, which is a conflict that predates the civil war. Where it all began is hard to say, but this conflict clearly existed from the beginning of our nation and the formation of the two party system. Even the two parties are loosely formed, shifting coalitions.


The United States was formed upon the Ancient Roman and Ancient Greek forms of Government, a Republic (Rome, which the U.S. is...), and Democracy through practice (Greece, which the U.S. does...), and even our President and Vice-President were formulated around the Spartan's two-King leadership where one King went to war, while the other stayed home, which is where our current system of President and Vice-President comes from.


Originally posted by poet1b
Middle East presence first made itself know to the U.S. middle class, and even in particular to the U.S. Midwest, primarily Detroit and the once powerful Unions of the working class, through the energy crisis in the 1970ties. How much pre-planning went into the development of the energy crises of the 70ties is hard to say, but my guess is considerable. This worked along with the creation of crime ridden ghettos, and the economic push to drive Americans into suburban sprawl, guaranteeing the independence on automobiles and addiction to gasoline, all paid for by U.S federal government debt.


While I agree to some extent that the Middle East became more of an issue during the 70's during the Oil Crisis of 1973 (the year I was born), the Middle East has always been prevalent since oil was first discovered there in Saudia Arabia when we assisted them in becoming a unified nation in exchange for among other things, oil.

Other countries in the Middle East as well, but Saudi Arabia is now primary.

This is of course a very segmented and paraphrased example of our relationship with the now wealthy Al Saud family, I did mention that earlier in another post and do not have reason to go further with the explanation.

If you've seen the movie "The Kingdom" in the opening moments of the movie they speak about this relationship specifically, and no this is not where I learned about the history, just pointing out a specific movie with the relationship explored.

I liked the movies "Syriana" and "Munich" too because they show a lot of history which links back to some of the events which led up to September 11th.

Remember "Black September"?


Originally posted by poet1b
World domination in our modern world is determined more by wealth than by military might these days. The vast amounts of oil found in the Middle East have given Middle Eastern monarchs vast amounts of world power. It also gave U.S. International Oil Corporations vast amounts of power. It is not hard to see how these two groups have formed themselves a strong coalition. Look at the shift in power we have seen in the U.S. over the last thirty years.


Ah, but this is where you are both right and wrong, because without military necessity and the funding requirements to keep feeding the military industrial complex, both the private industry that feeds it, and as well the military suppliers, neither would exist, they are like the Ouroboros, feeding upon the tail as fast as it grows, starving, yet gorging upon itself.

The U.A.E. among other Oil-Owning Arabs, act for the most part, in collusion with our own Government, in regulating the price, price-fixing, and price-gounging, the vast majority of the news stories claiming our Government is demanding that they lower prices, etc, is all smoke and mirrors, for the mass populace to swallow, hook, line, and sinker.

Once oil was found in the deserts, and these former Bedouin Sheiks (I am generalizing) became what our power elite saw as opportunists, and they invited them to sit at the tables of power, influence, and unofficially, policy.

This to the power elite is nothing more than a Shell Game, wrapped in a game of foreign policy, amid a game of Three Card Monte.


Originally posted by poet1b
Now we are seeing the growth of Islamic Religious extremism in Europe. It plays well into the hands of corporate elites.


I can see this but as well I can see the Middle East being carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey.


Originally posted by poet1b
What they don't teach us in history class is that European society always had a democratic basis. The idea of democracy did not come out of Greece as we are taught in school, it was alive and well in Europe long before that. Look up the origins of the word "Thing". Christianity almost succeeded in completely destroying European culture, and its strong inclination towards democratic style governments. Those who have always supported aristocratic rule would love to destroy the democratic institutions that have been created. I think they see a very powerful tool in Islam.


Of course, they always leave things out of the history books, to make you have to go to college to learn the rest, to pay more money into the system, in order to keeping pumping funds into colleges. And as well changing the history books every few years so one generation is always thrown off what is learned in order to separate the generations, and essentially this works towards the dumbing down of America and as well it is simplistic in that it is the basic use of Divide and Conquer.

Aristocracy guarantees only aristocracy stays in power, keeps making money, while guaranteeing the lower class society is always kept poor, ignorant, and foolish.

Their powerful tool in Islam is only temporary as people are slowly awakening to the idea that they are being used as fools, both the Islamic community, and the people ignorant to this, mainly John Q Public, in that it is a "straw man" tactic.

If they can keep a boogeyman out there in the wilderness, example Osama bin Laden, they can keep demanding and getting the necessary funding to keep on doing what they need to do to "fight the terrorists".

This was pre-planned all along when the C.I.A. came up with the plan to outspend the Russians through the Nuclear Arms Race, in order to beat them in the Cold War, they realized if we actually beat the "Russian Bear", we would need an enemy or else all military, intelligence, and foreign policy funding would die off.

This was the pre-planning and birth of "Terrorism As A Threat".

[edit on 29-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

Whew I think you need to take a valium before you keel over with a heart attack. Your blood pressure must be way up. Somebody upset you?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

Whew I think you need to take a valium before you keel over with a heart attack. Your blood pressure must be way up. Somebody upset you?


I'm not sure what on Earth you're talking about here.

My blood pressure is perfectly fine.

Are you referring to me being wound up, or something?

I am perfectly calm right now.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Another great one SKL.

Seems I will have to read up on this concept, you always make me do work!

I'm starting to get aggrevated. Ohh and to all those who would like to dispute his findings or his opinions, I dare say tread with caution, this is one Spartan whose been in many battles and looks forward to being in many more.

~Keeper



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Another great one SKL.

Seems I will have to read up on this concept, you always make me do work!

I'm starting to get aggrevated. Ohh and to all those who would like to dispute his findings or his opinions, I dare say tread with caution, this is one Spartan whose been in many battles and looks forward to being in many more.

~Keeper




Happy ATS Birthday to tothetenthpower, Happy ATS Birthday...

Well, I guess we will have to work on a paycheck, for you.


As soon as I get one, that is, of course.


Nah, let them come, I know my history, both what's taught and not taught.

I'm having much fun refuting people.

King of the Mountain, anyone?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

King of the Mountain, anyone?


Nah... I always preferred Capture the Flag. A game that required more than just being the strongest...


Great thread. It will take some time to sift through the information, but I'm sufficiently intrigued enough to do so. Well done.

S/F



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi

King of the Mountain, anyone?


Nah... I always preferred Capture the Flag. A game that required more than just being the strongest...


Great thread. It will take some time to sift through the information, but I'm sufficiently intrigued enough to do so. Well done.

S/F


And what, pray tell, pretty lady, makes you think physical strength has anything to do with winning King of the Mountain?


It's a game of tactics, wit, and cunning.


I LOVE Capture the Flag!

I've taught both and the players love it when I show up.

Glad you stopped by and hope you add your tunnel thread to it.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

I guess my brother and his buddies played KOTM differently. Lol.

Here is the thread you mentioned, though I'm not sure how it ties with your thread yet... Care to elaborate?

Tunnel Scam Targets Dirt Poor Palestinians

Cheers



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

I guess my brother and his buddies played KOTM differently. Lol.

Here is the thread you mentioned, though I'm not sure how it ties with your thread yet... Care to elaborate?

Tunnel Scam Targets Dirt Poor Palestinians

Cheers


Well, first to comment on your comment, physical strength is only one part.

I was teasing you.


Brains, tactics, and outsmarting your opponents, in KOTM is a bigger part, because anyone can out-muscle other people in a phyisical struggle, but out-thinking them makes it more fun and to the winner goes the intense game and the "Top of the Heap".


Quote From LS's Thread :

Tunnel scam targets dirt-poor Palestinians

Originally posted by LadySkadi

GAZA CITY -- Poverty-stricken Gaza where even the most basic goods are in short supply has spawned its very own financial scandal --- centered around the tunnels that run under the border with Egypt to circumvent the Israeli blockade.

Palestinians desperate to pull themselves out of poverty were encouraged to invest in the smuggling tunnels constantly being built in the border town of Rafah.

There is big money to be made from operating a tunnel -- they are the main economic lifeline for Gaza -- but some of those who collected money for construction disappeared without building any tunnels. Estimates of how much was lost vary widely from $100 to $500 million.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Source
[edit on 4-11-2009 by LadySkadi]


As for your thread since this one is on the book about the Koran, and Middle East, it is very much so on topic, and now that I've added comment, feel free to add some more thoughts on your thread here, your thread deserves some attention.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Wow, I had always thought you were a European.

I don't remember if I had participated in any of your threads, but maybe so, and it has been awhile. For an American, you have a very different perspective on the U.S..

I have studied quite a bit of history myself, but not so much wars, but more in general. I would say that we are taught the history that the people in charge want us to learn, and that if you want to get a better perspective you have to do your own research.

The government of the U.S. is very different from that of ancient Rome, which was a true republic, until it became an empire, and even then the roman senate continued on. The U.S. constitution is based on the writings of Jonathan Locke and is very different than the Roman government. Locke came up with the concept of the balance of power between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, as well as the concept of the rights of man. It was a truly revolutionary concept that Locke developed. The man does not get nearly the amount of credit he deserves. I would have named Locke as the most important man of the last 500 years.

plato.stanford.edu...

Yes, our history with SA and the whole of the Middle East certainly existed long before the 70ties, but it was then that I think a great deal more of a partnership was formed.

Power does change hands, but seems to continuously corrupt in the same manner. The successions of Roman empirical dynasties, and probably all dynasties, demonstrates this.

In Europe, the people have historically succeeded in throwing off the yoke of emperors and Kings who would be tyrants, or a great deal of them.

However, that doesn't keep people from trying to seize power.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The problem with nearly every one of these books and systems is that each one starts off with a profoundly beautiful and UNITING message, and then, somehow, some way, certain twisted individuals take control of it, twist the original message that each particular sage handed down and then use it to achieve an agenda of power and control over its followers. This is why I never FOLLOW any dogma. I seek the answers within, as the sages who CREATED these original works (before the message got the aforementioned 'tweaking') had done. There is no greater truth and knowledge than deep within. We can use these works as sign posts, and take what resonates, and use it as a testing tool within our own consciousness to see if it jives with our own personal truths. Always fascinating reading and insight you bring SKL.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Originally posted by poet1b
Wow, I had always thought you were a European.


You're the first person to ever tell me that.


Originally posted by poet1b
I don't remember if I had participated in any of your threads, but maybe so, and it has been awhile. For an American, you have a very different perspective on the U.S..


I don't think you have, I think we've posted in someone else's thread before.

Not in each others though.

Different perspective?

Do you mean because I don't buy the "official policy/doctrine" of Government, or because of my knowledge of the Hegelian Dielectic, etc?


Originally posted by poet1b
I have studied quite a bit of history myself, but not so much wars, but more in general. I would say that we are taught the history that the people in charge want us to learn, and that if you want to get a better perspective you have to do your own research.


Of course, because the history is selectively taught.

On top of that, we choose our own paths, for the most part.

It is where we listen that we learn, and I've branched out more than most to educate myself above and beyond.


Originally posted by poet1b
The government of the U.S. is very different from that of ancient Rome, which was a true republic, until it became an empire, and even then the roman senate continued on. The U.S. constitution is based on the writings of Jonathan Locke and is very different than the Roman government. Locke came up with the concept of the balance of power between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, as well as the concept of the rights of man. It was a truly revolutionary concept that Locke developed. The man does not get nearly the amount of credit he deserves. I would have named Locke as the most important man of the last 500 years.

plato.stanford.edu...


I've never heard of Johnathan Locke, but this does not suprise me.

I have tried to round out my knowledge and I will look into him.

Then again I've never been to Stanford, Yale, Harvard, or Oxford.

Yes, the American Government is different than Rome, but America is seen as the "new Rome", both formed upon the old and new concepts of power.


Originally posted by poet1b
Yes, our history with SA and the whole of the Middle East certainly existed long before the 70ties, but it was then that I think a great deal more of a partnership was formed.


I concur with that.


Originally posted by poet1b
Power does change hands, but seems to continuously corrupt in the same manner. The successions of Roman empirical dynasties, and probably all dynasties, demonstrates this.


The power elite have a stranglehold on power.

They sell the lie of the "American Dream" that all men and women can reach the hallways of power, but they neglect to tell you that it takes connections, blackmail, and corruption to get there.

Rome was no different then, as it is no diffrent now in that regard.


Originally posted by poet1b
In Europe, the people have historically succeeded in throwing off the yoke of emperors and Kings who would be tyrants, or a great deal of them.

However, that doesn't keep people from trying to seize power.


Not sure if I agree with that because all I have seen from my learning and education is that Europe continues with tyrants, whether puppet figureheads, or the people behind the thrown, a tyrant is a tyrant.

Seizing power is something eternal, coups, overthrows, and assassinations are a part of politics.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
The problem with nearly every one of these books and systems is that each one starts off with a profoundly beautiful and UNITING message, and then, somehow, some way, certain twisted individuals take control of it, twist the original message that each particular sage handed down and then use it to achieve an agenda of power and control over its followers. This is why I never FOLLOW any dogma. I seek the answers within, as the sages who CREATED these original works (before the message got the aforementioned 'tweaking') had done. There is no greater truth and knowledge than deep within. We can use these works as sign posts, and take what resonates, and use it as a testing tool within our own consciousness to see if it jives with our own personal truths. Always fascinating reading and insight you bring SKL.


I agree with your assessment, DD, and so far the book reads to me like a Christian Conservative wrote it tearing apart the customs, and leaving everything out that would be formative knowledge for me to base an actual opinion on it.

I do not follow any one doctrine nor dogma.

I seek out a middle path and try to stay upon it.

I see through the Christian propaganda written within the book, but as well I understand that not all of the Koran would be something I necessarily agree with, but then again neither is the Bible.

I'm sure I would appreciate and research a Koran if I owned an original version.

I take what I want and leave that which I don't want, the way I do with everything.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Yes, because of your knowledge I think you have developed a unique perspective on the U.S., and I mean that as a compliment.

I am not a university grad either. I think you are right about what it takes to gain an ascension to power. Although I think things have gotten better in modern times, but that is cyclic. The wheels of social justice turn slowly, and often we go backwards, and I would agree that such is the situation right now.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join