Posted on 08/08/2006 7:21:01 AM PDT by kellynla
Most Americans probably think the Islamic terrorists declared war on the United States Sept. 11, 2001.
Actually, it started a long time before – right from the birth of the nation.
In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.
Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as "Barbary pirates."
They weren't "pirates" at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn't drink and chase women and they really weren't out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition.
Like those we call "terrorists" today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahiddin."
Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy – not a single warship.
Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends – who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Gee, why did my gov't school history book leave this out? I'm truly not baffled.
"The war in which we fight today is the longest conflict in human history."
And the other side has almost invariably been the aggressor- they only make peace when they need time to regroup.
Yup...appeasement never works...it didn't work with the Barbary Pirates, it didn't work with Hitler, and it's not going to work now.
We will only have true peace when our enemies are destroyed.
We need to take the terrorists and put them on an Alabama chain gang with female prison guards. And every time one of them tries to bow towards Mecca, spray him with pigs blood.
And before Jefferson, the British Empire should have taken care of the problem when they had the chance back in the 1600s.
This is the upshot to paying ransom, tribute, blood money etc. It just funds more of the same, over and over and over. You get weaker and the enemy gets stronger as he parasitizes you.
If that is all you have to contribute to this thread, I suggest you abstain. But then, you obviously did not have to bury a family member or friend from the 9/11 bombing, Afghanistan and/or Iraq war.
But the head in the sand types will insist that George
Washington or Adams signed a Treaty that declares the
United States was never a Christian nation. (Treaty of
Tripoli with it's bogus Article 11-not seen in the Arabic
translation -WHY?) I so agree this war began as Farah suggests before we became a nation. Washington and Adams
believed that appeasement or paying the Islamic Ransom was
the way to go.They pretended to see a "diplomatic" solution.
When one gets more of the behavior that is rewarded. The Muslims base their use of terror and human bondage upon the
teaching of their Holy Books. And America refuses to learn
Anything from either History -or Religion.
Today, the liberal Thomas Jefferson couldn't get himself elected Senator from Connecticut.
puhleeze, islam is a religion of pieces of eight.
you should cut down on the caffeine or the ecstacy.
Bush should have secured BOTH BORDERS after 9/11, closed all mosques(which are nothing more than covers for criminal enterprise hiding under the protection and guise of "places of worship" whose sole purpose is the further indoctrination of hate and murder of all nonmuslims) and deported ALL muslims, even muslim American citizens(for citizenship is a privilege not a right) and illegals(including the incarcerated; why should we bear the cost and burden of incarcerating other countries' criminals. We certainly won't have any problem filling the empty slots).
Either we are at war or we are not at war!
And anyone who does not believe this is a "jihad" by muslims against all nonmuslims is not paying attention to the facts.
One of the best essays I have found on the liberal intellectual abandonment of "Anti-fascism," of whom Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower were among the greatest exponents,is viewable here. What an excellent primer to explain the "tom foolery" we must presently undergo in dealing with the Lebanon crisis:
Intellectuals and Anti-Fascism: For a Critical Historization
Enzo Traverso
[from New Politics, vol. 9, no. 4 (new series), whole no. 36, Winter 2004]
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue36/Traverso36.htm
Quote:
If we do not think of democracy as a simple procedural norm -- according to the vision of Hans Kelsen and Norberto Bobbio -- but as an historical conquest, we should deduce from this that it is impossible to be democratic, at this end of the twentieth century, without being at the same time antifascist. A "non-anti-fascist" democracy would be fragile indeed, a luxury that continental Europe, which was well acquainted with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, cannot allow itself. That is a lesson that the history of the intellectual antifascist resistance should have taught us, clearly and definitively.
Unquote
Thank you for this post.
and you need to GROW UP!
I lost a family member on 9/11 and have had to face numerous Marines who have returned from Iraq with multiple PH's and some who didn't make it back!
so I don't need any mindless remarks from the likes of some anonymous moron on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.