Eh, you’re right. I’d forgotten about that.
For those unaware, “Taqiyya” is a Shia practice which allows Shia Muslims to conceal their religious beliefs for their own safety which many Islamophobes have made into something really sinister.
I meant to type “assassinated” not executed.
As for Khuzistan and the Khurdish areas, yes Iran has seperatist movements, but they’re hardly much of a threat(in fact Turkey, the UK, and Spain have far more problems with independence movements) and Iranian government has far more control over those areas than Pakistan has over their’s.
Anyway, considering how many of Pakistan’s governments have collapsed over the past few decades I’m not sure how you can possibly think that Khamenei is in more danger of falling than Pakistan’s current government.
Honestly, and this isn’t meant as an insult, I’m genuinely curious why you’re so sure that Pakistan is more stable than Iran because whatever problems Iran has, Pakistan’s seem far more serious as Musharraf can attest to.
Use of the term a brilliant bit of cherrypicking and facilitation of confirmation bias. If you express extreme beliefs then you’re one of them, and if you express moderate ones you’re a liar. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s a fantastically dishonest tactic.
The problem is, Valteron actually appears to believe it. Reminds me of another poster here, from a while back, called Gum, who was similarly paranoid. No amount of honest discourse will persuade him because he appears to be in the realm of delusion.
I think this is a fair point.
Although the motivation of the Conquistadores was rather dressed up in religious terms derived from the infamous Reconquista (and its charming oppression of non-Christians).
It seems to me that the Catholic clergy opposed slavery to the extent it got in the way of conversion. It is not as if the Church had a great record of opposing slavery as such, or opposing forced conversion or torturing to death non Christians (Ahem Reconquista, Inquisition)
Isn’t that rather besides the point? The Americans clearly didn’t consider them ‘real Christians’ worthy of brotherhood etc.
This seems to me besides the point, I don’t see that Der Trihs blamed the American government as such (although even if he did, it doesn’t hold that it’s not an example of Christians doing bad if, as was clearly the case, some ideology ostensibly deriving from or referencing Christianity motivated actions).
I have always thought this was a distinctly Anglo-Saxon practice. Did it occur in Latin America as well (I mean during the colonisation. I know various dictatures in Latin America used it with the children of killed political opponents)?
Mass slaughter and Christianization in the Americans was practically invented by the Spanish Empire.
If anything, the English - not the “Anglo-Saxons” - learned the tricks of the trade from the Spanish.
No, I meant taking the children in settler/Christian families. It is a specific practice. I’m not certain the Spanish used that one, hence my question. It was used regularly in Anglo-Saxon countries though (I mean by that the Americas, and Australia. Not certain about New Zealand).
There are several instances in which we have documents by the participants regarding the spread of smallpox by distributing infected blankets among them. However, most the the genocide was carried out through actual conquest and warfare, (hence my inclusion of the word warfare), or by depriving through warfare the indigenous people of lands needed for farming in the East or hunting among the nomads of the West.
The Catholic Church was not a major player in North America outside Mexico, (and you specified the continent, not the hemisphere).
That the native peoples often converted to Christianity hardly changes any statement by Der Trihs.
That the U.S. is not a Chrsitian nation does not change the fact that the European invaders in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico were Christian and they often carried out their various activities under a banner of proselytization and conversion.
I agree that the statement from Der Trihs is extremely broad and is open to challenge on various points, but as a generaliztion it is still holding up pretty well compared to your attempt to simply deny it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to use the term genocide to describe what happened to the Native Americans, but I thought the stories of Europeans deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox-infected blankets had been discredited.
Didn’t the Germ theory of disease never even get developed until the late 19th Century?
Cecil wrote a column on the subject as it happens.
They had some ideas on how to spread disease long before the Germ Theory; the idea of using contaminated things to spread disease is very old. Using catapults to toss rotting carcasses into a besieged city in hopes of starting a plague for example.
I’d like to point out that this poster has apparently crossed over from some dystopian alternative universe UK and that little or nothing stated here as fact are anything else but the standard wild rantings of our own tiny group of fascists.
Is there any mention of the Shaw or the the 1953 coup in this thread at all?
I searched it and could find no mention of Shaw or the year. Seems like that would be pretty important.
Yes, it’s mentioned. Search for “Shah”. Or just read the whole thread.
MMM
Yes I see that and why it is hard to find.
The same 4 hits I got with Shaw. Thanks for the digression. The dope at it’s finest And still no discussion of it.
I honestly don’t understand what your point is. You asked if the Shah or the 1953 coup had been mentioned in this thread. I said “yes”. There are also mentions of the Shah and the coup in other current threads, most notably in the “Will Egypt Have an Iran-Style Revolution”, “Ronald Reagan’s Legacy” and "Will Tunisian revolution inspire actions in other nations" threads. Are you saying we should be mentioning it more? Less? Differently?
If there’s something you feel we’re not covering, you are of course welcome to either mention it yourself in a relevant thread or start a whole new thread. Cursing the darkness may be more satisfying than lighting a single candle but it still leaves you in the dark.