Online Now 581

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Online now 1739
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Thomas Jefferson quote about Muslim Extremists

  • This is an interesting piece of history......

    In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....

    “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

    Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??

    btw, for all you libs who will accuse me of "revisionist" history and lying, I did your homework for you. There is this amazing place called "The Library of Congress". In this "library" they have this thing called "original sources". An "original source" is basically real history before Howard Zinn interprets it for you and fills your brain with mush. Apparently, the "library of congress" puts these "original sources" on the internet for anyone to read. If you wish, you can read the actual letter from Thomas Jefferson. An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.

    point # 2 for the libs before you start going into your "are you trying to say all Muslims are extremists" routine, I'm making no judgements about Muslims in general or saying that all Muslims believe this......I'm simply showing history that proves America has been dealing with Muslim extremists going back to Thomas Jefferson and that what the ambassador of Tunisia said 225 years ago sounds similar to what some Muslim extremists say today.

    Ready, set, SPIN AWAY........

    This post was edited by Compound 2 3 years ago

  • Anyone with a clue knows North African countries and countries that existed in the Middle East were often heavily influenced by Islamic Law and the Koran.

    What is earth shaking about that mindset being prevalent in Jeferson's era when those countries weren't sending their future leaders to London, Paris and the US for Western university educations.

  • GRR Spartan said... (original post)

    Anyone with a clue knows North African countries and countries that existed in the Middle East were often heavily influenced by Islamic Law and the Koran.

    What is earth shaking about that mindset being prevalent in Jeferson's era when those countries weren't sending their future leaders to London, Paris and the US for Western university educations.

    So in GRR post # 7117 you are agreeing with Compound.

  • I guess I am if pointing out that in the late 1700's in an era of tribal royalty that the Koran and Islamic law was often the law of the land throughout the region. That was about 150 years before oil was discovered and the rotal families started sending their young people to Europe and the West for education that changed those laws.

    We still see the same mindset in Eastern Pakistan and much of Afganistan where there were never any natural resources for the West to take interest.

  • The Milkman apparently spends his days trying to find something to justify his bigotry and Islamophobia.

    Jefferson also found that some of the more damning passages of the Koran were basically lifted straight from the Bible. Never mind that fact, though. It doesn't serve your bigotry to compare two works of fiction.

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

  • Enrico Palazzo said... (original post)

    The Milkman apparently spends his days trying to find something to justify his bigotry and Islamophobia.

    Jefferson also found that some of the more damning passages of the Koran were basically lifted straight from the Bible. Never mind that fact, though. It doesn't serve your bigotry to compare two works of fiction.

    Islamaphobia, really? What did I say that was against Islam?

    (btw, this is why I often end my posts with "spin away")

  • Compound 2 said... (original post)

    Islamaphobia, really? What did I say that was against Islam?

    (btw, this is why I often end my posts with "spin away")

    what was the purpose of this post other than justifying distrust, fear, hatred and bigotry of Muslims?

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

  • Enrico Palazzo said... (original post)

    what was the purpose of this post other than justifying distrust, fear, hatred and bigotry of Muslims?

    Many reasons. For starters, it's a pretty interesting historical record. Second, not many people know about it and learning things is good. Third, this is the kind of quote that the media would never discuss. If you think a historical fact is bigoted against Muslims, then it sounds like the problem is you. Facts are just facts.

  • Compound 2 said... (original post)

    Many reasons. For starters, it's a pretty interesting historical record. Second, not many people know about it and learning things is good. Third, this is the kind of quote that the media would never discuss. If you think a historical fact is bigoted against Muslims, then it sounds like the problem is you. Facts are just facts.

    so what you are saying is that you went out of your way to find something to denigrate Muslims, justify discrimination of Muslims and fear of Muslims. Gotcha.

    But I will give you credit for one hell of a copy and past job. Freerepublic.com for the original language?

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

  • Enrico Palazzo said... (original post)

    what was the purpose of this post other than justifying distrust, fear, hatred and bigotry of Muslims?

    As a seeming atheist, your defense of Islam ueber alles is impressive. Kudos.

  • Compound 2 said... (original post)

    This is an interesting piece of history......

    In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....

    “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

    Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??

    btw, for all you libs who will accuse me of "revisionist" history and lying, I did your homework for you. There is this amazing place called "The Library of Congress". In this "library" they have this thing called "original sources". An "original source" is basically real history before Howard Zinn interprets it for you and fills your brain with mush. Apparently, the "library of congress" puts these "original sources" on the internet for anyone to read. If you wish, you can read the actual letter from Thomas Jefferson. An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.

    point # 2 for the libs before you start going into your "are you trying to say all Muslims are extremists" routine, I'm making no judgements about Muslims in general or saying that all Muslims believe this......I'm simply showing history that proves America has been dealing with Muslim extremists going back to Thomas Jefferson and that what the ambassador of Tunisia said 225 years ago sounds similar to what some Muslim extremists say today.

    Ready, set, SPIN AWAY........

    Does this make you feel better? That is, feel better about being a bigot?

    "No one cares what you know, until they know how much you care." Mark Dantonio

  • Enrico Palazzo said... (original post)

    so what you are saying is that you went out of your way to find something to denigrate Muslims, justify discrimination of Muslims and fear of Muslims. Gotcha.

    But I will give you credit for one hell of a copy and past job. Freerepublic.com for the original language?

    Let me get this straight. If a person discusses actual history. 100% factual, real history, undeniably accurate, original source history....then they are racist. So you seem to basically want to shut people up if they discuss history that you don't like and you want to create revisionist history and hide the real history.

    So in 50 years, somebody will ask "Why was the US attacked on 9/11"....and then somebody will give the answer, and somebody else like you will say "You're just saying that to justify discrimination and fear" and then you'll try to hide what the real reasons are.

    And no, I don't read free republic. I heard the quote from a news program, and then instead of taking their word for it, I did some research to see if it was true. That's the kind of due diligence people do when they are actually interested in what's true and not what makes them feel good. Cheers.

  • GTASpartan87 said... (original post)

    Does this make you feel better? That is, feel better about being a bigot?

    It doesn't make me feel better or worse. It's just history. Pre Howard Zinn, pre progressive revisions, pre media interpretation, pre political correctness, real original source history. It's just the truth. The truth has no agenda.

  • Compound 2 said... (original post)

    It doesn't make me feel better or worse. It's just history. Pre Howard Zinn, pre progressive revisions, pre media interpretation, pre political correctness, real original source history. It's just the truth. The truth has no agenda.

    The truth may not have an agenda, but you sure do.

    A big clue, your statement, "pre political correctness."

    "No one cares what you know, until they know how much you care." Mark Dantonio

  • kaiserpete said... (original post)

    As a seeming atheist, your defense of Islam ueber alles is impressive. Kudos.

    only the guy who has to check the closet and under his bed for Muslims at night would think my post is a defense.

    I don't believe any group who believes in imaginary friends and mysticism should be the target of hatred which is what the Milkman is doing here with his incendiary post. As we've seen too, Christians like the Norwegian dude aren't exactly the most peace loving people in the world either.

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

  • GTASpartan87 said... (original post)

    The truth may not have an agenda, but you sure do.

    A big clue, your statement, "pre political correctness."

    I have no more of an agenda then you do. But it doesn't matter since I haven't stated any opinions. So whether or not I have an agenda would be rather irrelevant (unless you are opposed to facts).

    Interestingly, I have posted facts, you have posted opinions. Yet you are accusing me of having an agenda.

  • Enrico Palazzo:

    "I don't believe any group who believes in imaginary friends and mysticism should be the target of hatred..."

    *********************************************************************

    Well, that's certainly very open-minded of you uhoh

    'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' - President John F. Kennedy

  • Compound 2 said... (original post)

    This is an interesting piece of history......

    In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....

    “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

    Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??

    btw, for all you libs who will accuse me of "revisionist" history and lying, I did your homework for you. There is this amazing place called "The Library of Congress". In this "library" they have this thing called "original sources". An "original source" is basically real history before Howard Zinn interprets it for you and fills your brain with mush. Apparently, the "library of congress" puts these "original sources" on the internet for anyone to read. If you wish, you can read the actual letter from Thomas Jefferson. An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.

    point # 2 for the libs before you start going into your "are you trying to say all Muslims are extremists" routine, I'm making no judgements about Muslims in general or saying that all Muslims believe this......I'm simply showing history that proves America has been dealing with Muslim extremists going back to Thomas Jefferson and that what the ambassador of Tunisia said 225 years ago sounds similar to what some Muslim extremists say today.

    Ready, set, SPIN AWAY........

    Since you were researching the era, I am sure you are also familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, in which at the time sat several of the members of the Constitutional Convention. The treaty included the following:

    "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    I am sure, based on your fealty to the historical record, that you energetically confront those who claim that the founders intended the U.S.A. to be Christian nation and inform them that they are in grievous error, right?

    Just askingly yours,

  • Gotham_Spartan said... (original post)

    rt. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    Damn, I read compound's post and that immediately jumped to mind but you beat me to it. However, someone noted that Compound is an atheist so while that's one of my favorite things to point out to christian conservatives, it may not be relevant in this case.

    Compound - Did you get that information from a Christopher Hitchens article? I only ask because he's fond of pointing out that part of history, and he also uses the "history rhymes" expression quite a bit. I'm not asking in a negative way, I'm only wondering because I'm a fan of Hitchens - his writing if not some of his current views.

    Your point is well taken that it is ridiculous that parts of history are off limits for discussion, let alone debate. There are minefields scattered throughout our past, and if you touch one, people feel that they don't need to debate your points because they can just staple pejorative to you - "racist!" "anti semite!" "crackpot conspiracy theorist!".

    People need to open their minds and stop being so emotionally attached to issues that they can't have a rational discussion. For instance, most relgious people will react with immediate anger if you ask them about difficult parts of their dogma. Or if you question the accepted view of any major event people are quick to call you crazy. You, on the other hand, are clearly so angry at liberals that you use a dismissive, angry tone while responding to imaginary arguments against your post. The only way to overcome close mindedness is to set an example and make your tone rational and logical, your attitude only results in more division.

    Clearly you're a smart guy with the intellectual curiosity to track down real information rather than buying into a set of views prepared by others. I hope that you see that the words "conservative" and "liberal" are so poisoned, so meaningless as to make them completely useless. Our media loves to draw the line between the two, but the fact is that once in power they both act the same anyway. It's time to end this allegiance to the left or the right, it's only a game of divide and conquer by those in power. Any free thinking person is going to agree with some of the viewpoints held by either 'side,' and that alone makes the labels useless.

    Washington and Adams feared political parties for that reason, when people join groups they cease to thing for themselves and cannot work together. As a country we all have to work together to fix the problems we face, and we can't be split apart by anger built up against words like conservative or liberal, republican or democrat.

  • Gotham_Spartan said... (original post)

    Since you were researching the era, I am sure you are also familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, in which at the time sat several of the members of the Constitutional Convention. The treaty included the following:

    "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    I am sure, based on your fealty to the historical record, that you energetically confront those who claim that the founders intended the U.S.A. to be Christian nation and inform them that they are in grievous error, right?

    Just askingly yours,

    That's a cool piece of history too. Thanks for your contribution to the thread thumbsup

    I don't think I ever claimed the founders intended us to be a Christian nation though.....but I'll let that error of yours go without a big deal

  • YoungDonDraper said... (original post)

    Damn, I read compound's post and that immediately jumped to mind but you beat me to it. However, someone noted that Compound is an atheist so while that's one of my favorite things to point out to christian conservatives, it may not be relevant in this case.

    Compound - Did you get that information from a Christopher Hitchens article? I only ask because he's fond of pointing out that part of history, and he also uses the "history rhymes" expression quite a bit. I'm not asking in a negative way, I'm only wondering because I'm a fan of Hitchens - his writing if not some of his current views.

    Your point is well taken that it is ridiculous that parts of history are off limits for discussion, let alone debate. There are minefields scattered throughout our past, and if you touch one, people feel that they don't need to debate your points because they can just staple pejorative to you - "racist!" "anti semite!" "crackpot conspiracy theorist!".

    People need to open their minds and stop being so emotionally attached to issues that they can't have a rational discussion. For instance, most relgious people will react with immediate anger if you ask them about difficult parts of their dogma. Or if you question the accepted view of any major event people are quick to call you crazy. You, on the other hand, are clearly so angry at liberals that you use a dismissive, angry tone while responding to imaginary arguments against your post. The only way to overcome close mindedness is to set an example and make your tone rational and logical, your attitude only results in more division.

    Clearly you're a smart guy with the intellectual curiosity to track down real information rather than buying into a set of views prepared by others. I hope that you see that the words "conservative" and "liberal" are so poisoned, so meaningless as to make them completely useless. Our media loves to draw the line between the two, but the fact is that once in power they both act the same anyway. It's time to end this allegiance to the left or the right, it's only a game of divide and conquer by those in power. Any free thinking person is going to agree with some of the viewpoints held by either 'side,' and that alone makes the labels useless.

    Washington and Adams feared political parties for that reason, when people join groups they cease to thing for themselves and cannot work together. As a country we all have to work together to fix the problems we face, and we can't be split apart by anger built up against words like conservative or liberal, republican or democrat.

    Who claimed I was an athiest? I don't think I ever stated that.

    I don't know who Christopher Hitchens is, but no I did not get it from any articles of his. I've heard the "rhyming" thing from a few different places.

    I agree with your points actually quite a bit. Not that it excuses my behavior, but a lot of what I say (like anticipating what certain people will say) is a result of years and years of knowing exactly what the argument will be from certain people on this board who really have no interest in honest discussion. Their only goal is ridicule and trying to "win" the argument. You sir do not seem like that kind of person at all. If there were more people like you (and I don't know how much we agree or don't agree on issues), this board would probably be a much better place.

  • Let me get this straight, just about every place Islam gets put in charge they start lopping heads off if you disagree with them, and I'm NOT supposed to be afraid of that peace loving culture??

    Tell Aisa Bibi to quit being so Islamaphobic. I don't think average Joe Muslim wants to fly a plane into me, but when a few thousand dudes and a Supreme Court justice of Pakistan show up to protest a death sentence given to the guy who killed a governor for merely thinking the Blasphemy law needed reform, ill take the "they're just misunderstood" line with a grain of salt.