Wow! Gonna Be Hard To Spin This One

[Quantum Windbag]

So one has to be dark skinned to be a muslim?

Can I point out the obvious here?

Tamerlin is actually had a dark complexion compared to my current coloration.

ok but is dark skin so possession of muslims?

Is light skin a possession of domestic terrorists?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can I point out the obvious here?

Tamerlin is actually had a dark complexion compared to my current coloration.

ok but is dark skin so possession of muslims?

Is light skin a possession of domestic terrorists?

I don't know I was addressing those who hung onto skin tone but you jumped in the middle of the question.

 

[poet]

This message is hidden because bigrebnc1775 is on your ignore list.

 

[poet]

First, that is what he was told by the FBI.

Second, Tamerlin is dark skinned for a Caucasian.

Third, you are an idiot.

The last point was gratuitous.

One, you can't believe everything you are told. I don't.
Two, there are dark Caucasians, and light Caucasians. From Greeks and Italians, to Northern Africans.
Three, it takes one to know one.
Four, and?

I guess I don't think progressive.

How can it be true that the guy is dark skinned and simultaneously true that King was wrong to report that he was dark skinned?

Simple. He is not dark-skinned. Otherwise, how would you distinguish him from, let's say, a dark-skinned black man?

 

[poet]

'
Those terrible, terrible caucasians !!

"Naaaah, Islam is the predominant religion in Chechnya. So WE get to return to our previously scheduled hate rhetoric." - L.V.S.

But kudos to law enforcement for tracking the suspects down from grainy photographs, in a relatively short time. Hats off !

Isn't it amazing that the American "authorities" can be so good at instantly identifying and tracking down terrorists ... [it's almost as if they knew who they were ahead of time!]

... and yet be so amazingly bad at protecting the victims before the crime?? · ·
.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. And I fear, neither do you.

 

[syrenn]

One, you can't believe everything you are told. I don't.
Two, there are dark Caucasians, and light Caucasians. From Greeks and Italians, to Northern Africans.
Three, it takes one to know one.
Four, and?

I guess I don't think progressive.

How can it be true that the guy is dark skinned and simultaneously true that King was wrong to report that he was dark skinned?

Simple. He is not dark-skinned. Otherwise, how would you distinguish him from, let's say, a dark-skinned black man?

good lord man, you are the most racist thing going. Is everything with you about skin color?

and just so you know, not all black men have "dark skin"

 

[Zona]

I hope they start profiling white males at airports now.

 

[Saigon]

He must have not heard about the Caucasian Wars and the subsequent Treaty of Georgievsk; or the Chechen uprising during WWII where Stalin deported the entire Chechen population to what is now known as Kazakhstan as punishment. The most Russia ever did was something known as Russification in the 1950's. They tried and failed to retake Chechnya once, and pulled out it's puppet regime in 2009.. but there is no history of ethnic cleansing.

I can never understand why posters think they can just C&P something from a blog and post as if they are an expert.

Really, Templar, go and do some research on the events that took place 1850 - 1860. Any history of the area will cover this, but I recommend the Nicholas Griffin for a good overview. I also linked a couple of articles elsewhere which touched on the ethnic cleasning - though it went by the more pleasing name of 'slaughter' at the time. Basically, the Russian policy was to torch homes, capture crops and starve populations to death.

We are talking about events that took place a century prior to Stalin, genius.

Ideally you would come back and apologise for misleading the board, but I doubt you will, somehow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One, you can't believe everything you are told. I don't.
Two, there are dark Caucasians, and light Caucasians. From Greeks and Italians, to Northern Africans.
Three, it takes one to know one.
Four, and?

I guess I don't think progressive.

How can it be true that the guy is dark skinned and simultaneously true that King was wrong to report that he was dark skinned?

Simple. He is not dark-skinned. Otherwise, how would you distinguish him from, let's say, a dark-skinned black man?

The same way I would differentiate him from a green skinned Martian with 4 arms.

 

[Saigon]

You posted about it? That settles it, doesn't it, because we all know how well you know history. (You find a Wiki article, pretend you already knew about it, and declare yourself an expert.)

Here is the problem, in order to prove that they have been ethnically cleansing the region for 150 years you have to show that the thing happened for 150 years, not for 30 years over a century ago.

What settles it is that every history book covering the region will outline the events much as I describe them. You can confirm them yourself in 5 minutes, but I doubt you have the integrity to confirm that I am correct, and then come back and admit it.

I am not an expert on Chechenya, but I dare say I have spent more time and conducted more research on the Caucasus than you have.

 

[tinydancer]

You don't understand Chechnya? What do they teach you in schools in America? Or your media?

Honest question. You don't know this for true? You really don't know this?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You posted about it? That settles it, doesn't it, because we all know how well you know history. (You find a Wiki article, pretend you already knew about it, and declare yourself an expert.)

Here is the problem, in order to prove that they have been ethnically cleansing the region for 150 years you have to show that the thing happened for 150 years, not for 30 years over a century ago.

What settles it is that every history book covering the region will outline the events much as I describe them. You can confirm them yourself in 5 minutes, but I doubt you have the integrity to confirm that I am correct, and then come back and admit it.

I am not an expert on Chechenya, but I dare say I have spent more time and conducted more research on the Caucasus than you have.

You really have a hard time with absolutes, don't you? How hard do you think it would be for me to find a history book that doesn't outline things the way you do? Keep in mind that I can find plenty of books that deny the Holocaust.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

I'm a big believer in recorded history. There are facts, and beneath the various layers of propaganda there is usually a core of information that most reasonable people can agree on.

On this board we rarely see that through the fire-breathing, all-partisan-all-the-time extremism, but it usually does exist.

In this case, any objective source will cover the intermittent onslaughts unleashed upon the Chechan people by the Russia, both in the 1850's and 1860's, and at various times since.

When I happened to research this a few years ago as background for work I was doing in the Azerbaijan I was shocked. I'd never heard any of it before, and was amazed at how far back the conflict went, and how brutal the Russians had been for 150 years.

I do think most people who read up on the conflict will at least come away from their reading with a better understanding of why Chechen culture seems to be so violent and so virulently anti-Russian.

You really have a hard time with absolutes, don't you?

No, but my sense of humour might be different to yours. When I say "every book on the Caucasus will say this" I don't mean literally every single book. I mean most books, or every major, obective history book. It's like saying 'I must have drink 20 beers last night'.

 

[tinydancer]

QW -

I'm a big believer in recorded history. There are facts, and beneath the various layers of propaganda there is usually a core of information that most reasonable people can agree on.

On this board we rarely see that through the fire-breathing, all-partisan-all-the-time extremism, but it usually does exist.

In this case, any objective source will cover the intermittent onslaughts unleashed upon the Chechan people by the Russia, both in the 1850's and 1860's, and at various times since.

When I happened to research this a few years ago as background for work I was doing in the Azerbaijan I was shocked. I'd never heard any of it before, and was amazed at how far back the conflict went, and how brutal the Russians had been for 150 years.

I do think most people who read up on the conflict will at least come away from their reading with a better understanding of why Chechen culture seems to be so violent and so virulently anti-Russian.

Beslan lost me forever. Radical Islam to blow up babies. Confilict. What freaking conflict? Look I can out do you in a heartbeat over this.

So go fuck yourself "mr. i'm going to play nicey in the middle".

Chechnyan culture Give me a break.

 

[Saigon]

Tiny Dancer -

I totally agree that the Chechyans can be their own worst enemy. I don't think they won many friends over with Beslan or some of their attacks on hospitals etc.

But much like with the Palestinians and the Kurds, the history is long and complex, and people growing up in the 1970's or 1980's might not have heard much about events that took place in the 1860's.

History did not start in 1980.

 

[tinydancer]

QW -

I'm a big believer in recorded history. There are facts, and beneath the various layers of propaganda there is usually a core of information that most reasonable people can agree on.

On this board we rarely see that through the fire-breathing, all-partisan-all-the-time extremism, but it usually does exist.

In this case, any objective source will cover the intermittent onslaughts unleashed upon the Chechan people by the Russia, both in the 1850's and 1860's, and at various times since.

When I happened to research this a few years ago as background for work I was doing in the Azerbaijan I was shocked. I'd never heard any of it before, and was amazed at how far back the conflict went, and how brutal the Russians had been for 150 years.

I do think most people who read up on the conflict will at least come away from their reading with a better understanding of why Chechen culture seems to be so violent and so virulently anti-Russian.

You really have a hard time with absolutes, don't you?

No, but my sense of humour might be different to yours. When I say "every book on the Caucasus will say this" I don't mean literally every single book. I mean most books, or every major, obective history book. It's like saying 'I must have drink 20 beers last night'.

If one only goes to google at wiki you post chechan. If you know the truth, you know Chechnyan.



I still have family over there.

 

[tinydancer]

Tiny Dancer -

I totally agree that the Chechyans can be their own worst enemy. I don't think they won many friends over with Beslan or some of their attacks on hospitals etc.

But much like with the Palestinians and the Kurds, the history is long and complex, and people growing up in the 1970's or 1980's might not have heard much about events that took place in the 1860's.

History did not start in 1980.

Not a worry. It truly is complex. I so desperately wish others could understand this history because it points to our world today.

But if they are not taught history or geography how will they ever know?

 

[blackcherry]

Also on BBC:

According to a photo slideshow featuring Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old was an amateur boxer who had taken a semester off from the Bunker Hill Community College in Boston to train for a big competition.

In the accompanying captions, he tells the photographer that he is hoping to win enough fights to be selected for the US Olympic team and be a naturalised American. Tamerlan also says that unless Chechnya becomes independent, he would rather compete for the United States than for Russia.

Obviously Islamic extremism is a possibility here, but I'm curious as to why Darkwind says it "seems to be" the reason.

Your point? They lived in America and were Americanized. Until very recently......do the research.

They are American . The kid has been with you since around 7 years of age .
He probably hates a Terrorist America that slaughters Moslems nearly world wide .
Seems reasonable . I would , if I was a Moslem and lived in Somalia , Yemen , Iraq , Libya, Syria , Lebanon , Iran , Afghanistan etc .Or in a country like yours , drowning in Islamophobia .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

I'm a big believer in recorded history. There are facts, and beneath the various layers of propaganda there is usually a core of information that most reasonable people can agree on.

What about all the history before there were records, is there some reason that you have to suspect it doesn't exist?

On this board we rarely see that through the fire-breathing, all-partisan-all-the-time extremism, but it usually does exist.

Speak for yourself, I see stuff that reasonable people agree on all the time. Unlike you, and the twit in the White House, I understand that reasonable people can take the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. The fact that people disagree does not make them unreasonable. Maybe you should stop acting like you are smarter than everyone on the planet and start thinking about why you insist that people who disagree with you are unreasonable.

In this case, any objective source will cover the intermittent onslaughts unleashed upon the Chechan people by the Russia, both in the 1850's and 1860's, and at various times since.

See what I mean? There are multiple sides to every story. One of the greatest boring novels in history is based on the Caucasian War, you should take a few years to read it sometime. I understand it almost rises to the level of bad in Leo's native Russian.

If you actually took the time to learn history, instead of just stabbing at it piecemeal, you would understand that the roots of the struggle you are so proud to display your ignorance of date back hundreds of years. I can easily trace it back to the expansion of the Caliphate into the region and the persecution of the Christians of the area.

When I happened to research this a few years ago as background for work I was doing in the Azerbaijan I was shocked. I'd never heard any of it before, and was amazed at how far back the conflict went, and how brutal the Russians had been for 150 years.

Will you be equally shocked to learn that Muslims actually invaded the area centuries before that?

I do think most people who read up on the conflict will at least come away from their reading with a better understanding of why Chechen culture seems to be so violent and so virulently anti-Russian.

Ever wonder what the Russians have against them?

No, but my sense of humour might be different to yours. When I say "every book on the Caucasus will say this" I don't mean literally every single book. I mean most books, or every major, obective history book. It's like saying 'I must have drink 20 beers last night'.

In your world every means most. Does most mean some, some mean a few, a few mean none, and none mean all? Aren't you the guy that got upset because I used used a term appropriately, but differently, than you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tiny Dancer -

I totally agree that the Chechyans can be their own worst enemy. I don't think they won many friends over with Beslan or some of their attacks on hospitals etc.

But much like with the Palestinians and the Kurds, the history is long and complex, and people growing up in the 1970's or 1980's might not have heard much about events that took place in the 1860's.

History did not start in 1980.

For the record, Palestinians do not have a long history. I will agree it is complex, but that is mostly because of the various attempts to hide the fact that they were created out of whole cloth by Yasser Arafat. Building a lie and trying to run it backward in history is a very complex problem when there are people around that insist that truth matters more than politics.