I agree completely. However it is the fashion and has been for a long time to conveniently forget or ignore as TM Direct does, the fact that slavery was very established in Africa by Africans and run by Muslims before others got in on the act. It is not the case that white Europeans or white Americans are the first offenders against black Africans. It is lamentable and deplorable that they exploited an already existing practice, but if they are to be rounded on for doing so then so must the African Muslims who relied on slavery as a way of life before others got involved.
In the mid-seventeenth century, British and American merchants began bringing African captives into Britainâs New World colonies to be sold into slavery. One hundred fifty years later, nearly all American ports had harbored, at one time or another, locally owned vessels that were likewise engaged. more at http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/guides/african_american/slavetrade.htm regards wild
HELLO WILD......can YoU See ME??????? <<<<<< If you are not an auto c & p bot aknowledge by saying something yourself. dit dit dot dot dot dit dit. regards stu
I heartily disagree with most of what was written there. A lot of it is partially true, but acceptable and within standards. Let's first get clear on a definition of terrorism. As an American, I am willing to accept a bit of terrorism. Sound harsh? The King must have thought the founders here as terrorists as they attempted to change the lay of the land. This, America, was his country I am sure. Another outpost in his vast crown control. Until the terrorists got involved. Interrupting his cash flow. Stifling his traffic of goods and services. I am even sure that the Native Americans resented the terrorists who started seizing their lands and moving them westward. "Homesteaders everywhere!" must have been one of the most hated battle cries. The newcomers didn't care about land preservation, oil resources, or any other viable commodity. They understood one thing, move the savages! So terrorism is not a new thing. History of all lands is wrought with the activity. From occupied resistance to just downright theft of the land and all it holds. Every country and peoples may hold some hidden aspects. So let's stop whining there. It is also understood that no amount of warheads can protect us from attack by rouge elements throughout the world. I do not demand, nor expect, absolute 100% protection. Nor do I have absolute all out fear. Star wars systems can not now cover that, nor are they being designed to cover the types of holes that were pointed out. Nor do I desire that to be the result. I am looking to my country to defend me against other countries and recognized powers. The odd freak? I expect some openings through which some nut might exploit the area/country. My/our expectation? Reasonable defense! Let's be clear, the terrorists can not defend against a Cessna, suitcase or Ryder rental truck either. We choose to not use those techniques and therein lies one of the major differences. You see we aren't, "Terrorist at any length!" Could we be? Sure! Every terrorist outlet at every level could probably be snuffed out with prejudice. With no explanation other than they admitted that they belonged to the offending group. Consequences? You bet. That's why we don't. But the true hard core terrorists don't live within those boundaries. Where is the outcry about all of Saddam's palaces looking lavish yet the peoples living in strife? Is the writer (and possibly you) not willing to openly critique Saddam for these facts. I am a little worn with all the criticism heading in the direction of those who might listen and not to those who won't. Or is the writer conceding that Saddam would not listen? While I will accept the fact that our country has not always done the right thing, I will not accept that the answer to that injustice is to crash planes into buildings containing civilians and then expect no retaliations. Again, we are discussing true terrorists. The government feels that Saddam is connected to the event. Somewhere the data to support this claim exists. Do I accept the fact that it exists? Yes, that's what we empower the various agencies to do. And it is up to US as citizens to demand that they be honest and fair. I am not interested in whether some actor feels that he must speak out because he does not believe in war. I do not expect my leaders to look at them as any more viable than any other citizen. Successful acting credits are not viable credentials for military or intelligence advisors. Deposed popular leaders? This truly needs truth. Saddam is popular because it is hazardous to your health to state otherwise. If we believe that Saddam is human, then he is truly the only living exception to the rule of perfection. You see he was elected with 100% of the vote. Now this is in a country with hand written secret (HA!) ballots. There were no blank ballots? There were no jokesters who wrote in George Bush as a protest? There were no protests? No condescending interests were voting? Everyone, everywhere, within the country, believes that Saddam is the only candidate who can lead the country? This factor in and of itself should have the writer suspicious. Yet, I hear/see no evidence of it. Yet the writer can look within the lines of American government statements and spy through the activities to expose the supposed untruths? I am supposed to believe that he has the truth? The real answers uncolored and unbiased? Again, I do not excuse my government and any wrong doing no matter what the reason. But I do not look to any retired out-of-the-current loop general for the real answers to why things are happening now. No mater how much of an expert, he is still only speculating at best! Current operatives have to get my support and they must know that I expect them to do their best with American interests first!!!!! No matter how much we believe in the Iraqi peoples and their causes, Americans first!!!!! Canada, Norway, Sweden? Which one is a superpower again? Which one is looked to for WORLD LEADERSHIP answers? If North Korea decides to make some noise, which of these powers will be expected to jump in and save the day for EITHER side? Which one of these interests was the deciding factor in which world conflict? CLEARLY THE WRITER MUST BE ADDRESSING THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES WITHIN THESE COUNTRIES. Maybe it's their monetary policies that sway the world currencies that gives them the upper hand? I can only speculate his rationale and reasoning. I am not interested in the government skewing policies of protection or "understanding why folks hate us" based upon the extreme interests. I am comfortable at the end of the day when we can look to the behavior of these extremists and honestly say, "The reason that what has happened, did happen, is based upon them acting extremely extreme!"
Coalition Of The Willing wonderful pic collection of our heroes ... http://news.focus.msn.de/G/GE/ge.htm?bild_tmp=1&snr=1769&streamsnr=7&newssnr=115645 regards wild