Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy

You have to be very very careful when discussing blowback and fully understand what it means. It is not an excuse for evil behavior.

I have been most active the last few months posting all over the internet and reading comments about the Trayvon Martin shooting. Many of Zimmerman's defenders are using the blowback defense even though they don't actually use that word. Their basic argument being that "there were a number of robberies in that neighborhood conducted by black men. Therefore Zimmerman was right to be on the lookout for black men." Trayvon suffered from blowback as a result of the behavior of other black men.

That is a very dangerous way of thinking. Trayvon had no connection to the robberies. He was going back to his dad's house with skittles. To make any sort of excuse for a cold blooded murder is very very dangerous.

This forum does a little of the same. That Christian woman in Pakistan is in NO WAY connected to US foreign policy.

1. The robberies in Zimmerman's neighborhood were wrong.
2. Shooting an unarmed kid is wrong.

1. US foreign policy is wrong.
2. Christians should not be killed for their religion.

1 and 2 are both true and are not mutually exclusive.

BlackTerrel, congratulations on not understanding a word I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stupified

Another reason capital punishment should be abolished worldwide.
Another reason the US should impose strict limitations on foreign aid.
Another reason religion is an excuse for hatred.

---

Religion is an excuse for hatred? I thought this was the government's fault...?

Explain what I missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackTerrel

Explain what I missed.

---

Everything. It would take two lifetimes that I don't have to explain what you don't know and/or understand. If you think anything that I said, or the original article that FrankRep posted in anyway excuses the massacres themselves then you just aren't thinking clearly. You quoted from the original article? Did you really read it? Did you pay attention to the intelligence agency that was doing the dastardly deed? Do you know of the relationship that intelligence agency has with U.S. foreign policy in general and the CIA in particular?

I ignored this initially because I'm tired of talking about Trayvon Martin. But I think it's worth addressing. Really your analogy is closer your side of the argument than FrankReps. It's blaming the culture (black on black crime or "evil mooselums") and ignoring government involvement (our funding the Pakistani ISI in FrankReps case, or U.S. drug policy driving violent crime in black neighborhoods). If you think this all the way through you will understand what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackTerrel

You have to be very very careful when discussing blowback and fully understand what it means. It is not an excuse for evil behavior.

I have been most active the last few months posting all over the internet and reading comments about the Trayvon Martin shooting. Many of Zimmerman's defenders are using the blowback defense even though they don't actually use that word. Their basic argument being that "there were a number of robberies in that neighborhood conducted by black men. Therefore Zimmerman was right to be on the lookout for black men." Trayvon suffered from blowback as a result of the behavior of other black men.

That is a very dangerous way of thinking. Trayvon had no connection to the robberies. He was going back to his dad's house with skittles. To make any sort of excuse for a cold blooded murder is very very dangerous.

This forum does a little of the same. That Christian woman in Pakistan is in NO WAY connected to US foreign policy.

1. The robberies in Zimmerman's neighborhood were wrong.
2. Shooting an unarmed kid is wrong.

1. US foreign policy is wrong.
2. Christians should not be killed for their religion.

1 and 2 are both true and are not mutually exclusive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackTerrel

That Christian woman in Pakistan is in NO WAY connected to US foreign policy.

---

Not directly, but definitely indirectly. The blasphemy law in Pakistan didn't really begin to be enforced and have a death sentence added to it, till the 1980s, when Zia ul Haq, a US supported military dictator who came to power through a US-sponsored coup. His predecessor, Zulfiqar Bhutto (Benazir Bhutto's father), was hanged. Henry Kissinger reportedly told Zulfiqar Bhutto that "we will make an example out of you"; since he encouraged Arab leaders to use their oil as an economic weapon against the US for supporting Israel. Then shit got real fucked in Pakistan due to the war in Afghanistan and increase in Islamic extremism. You cannot deny that the US supported Islamic militancy and extremism with Pakistan's ISI which in turn led to these types of laws in Pakistan, with the regular person in Pakistan going towards such extremism as well. Over the course of at least 3 decades, this type of extremism will be difficult to reverse, and I believe a change in US foreign policy towards Pakistan, which has to be a complete non-interventionist stance, will lead to gradual change. This isn't going to happen overnight.

US officials still meet and discuss issues with Pakistan's extremist and uneducated religious leaders. Do you think they talk about Aasiya Bibi or how to get NATO supply routes re-opened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV

Religion is an excuse for hatred? I thought this was the government's fault...?

---

The government using religion as an excuse to control its citizens.

+rep. Excellent post. Why can't they all be like this? Why do you bother trolling BT and TER? The facts are quite simple really. Our foreign policy does cause problems for Christians in the region. Why is that so hard even for (some) other Ron Paul supporters to understand? Christian persecution is just another example of "blowback". Would there be some Christian persecution without our bad foreign policy? Certainly. Just like some Christians still persecute other Christians. But it wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExPatPaki

Not directly, but definitely indirectly. The blasphemy law in Pakistan didn't really begin to be enforced and have a death sentence added to it, till the 1980s, when Zia ul Haq, a US supported military dictator who came to power through a US-sponsored coup. His predecessor, Zulfiqar Bhutto (Benazir Bhutto's father), was hanged. Henry Kissinger reportedly told Zulfiqar Bhutto that "we will make an example out of you"; since he encouraged Arab leaders to use their oil as an economic weapon against the US for supporting Israel. Then shit got real fucked in Pakistan due to the war in Afghanistan and increase in Islamic extremism. You cannot deny that the US supported Islamic militancy and extremism with Pakistan's ISI which in turn led to these types of laws in Pakistan, with the regular person in Pakistan going towards such extremism as well. Over the course of at least 3 decades, this type of extremism will be difficult to reverse, and I believe a change in US foreign policy towards Pakistan, which has to be a complete non-interventionist stance, will lead to gradual change. This isn't going to happen overnight.

US officials still meet and discuss issues with Pakistan's extremist and uneducated religious leaders. Do you think they talk about Aasiya Bibi or how to get NATO supply routes re-opened?

---