Pop Quiz Number Two

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is recorded that there was some plotting to overthrow and/or interfere with the secular government of Italy. Note, your great grandparents may have been alive at this time, and this was not “hundreds” of years ago back into the “Dark Ages.” The plotters were also against democracy.
Who was involved in these plots?

a. Extremist Islamists.

b. Anarchists.

c. Christians.

****

Hint. Answer here.

6 thoughts on “Pop Quiz Number Two”

  1. Temujin.. that s the point 🙂

    Sometimes, facts are “game”

    Sometimes, some folk play the game as if they’re own “side” is “right” and come with alll sorts of excuses to ingnore the other side, ya know?

    Hope you enjoy playing along as much as i enjoy the playing.. and pointing out the insanity of some, all in the name of “truth” and “religion.”

    Is God winning?

  2. Is God winning? I can’t say for sure, but I reckon he is. Though I couldn’t rationalize it or provide proof. In my immediate surroundings (which I’m most familiar with), it’s obvious to me that he is “winning”… but that’s entirely my opinion!

    Say… in the example above, you say the “plotters were also against democracy”…

    Aren’t you against democracy, too? Perhaps we ought to come by your house and have a little chat. 🙂 I’ll introduce you to my good friend, Guido, and his cousin, Vinny! You’ll forget all about those crazy notions of yours.

    I still think the Islamic extremist/crazies are a bigger nuisance, bother, and threat that Christian extremists. Anyone who cheered and danced on 9/11while husbands and wives hurled themselves from 90 stories is next to worthless in my books, and I can’t get over how many people of a certain religious group (especially in Iran and Palestine) reveled in joy on that day. I have yet to hear Hagee, Van Impe, and the rest of Christian Crazies call for mass nuclear strikes, or carpet bombing of Iran. If there are examples of that I’d surely retract my sentiments, and would definitely re-think my view on that. They aren’t interested in eliminating all Iranians, but they see Ahmadinajed as a threat. Can’t say I blame them… he doesn’t seem to be the most peaceable character in the middle east. they may couch their view in religious speculation, but that doesn’t negate the fact that this guy has said he wants to develop nukes, and he intends on using them (he’d love to use them on America as well as Israel).

    At any rate, the Mormons just knocked on my door…

  3. Temuj…

    yeah, I don’t think democracy means a whole lot. Anything that gives “power” over inherent rights of others isn’t cool in my books. Jesus, from my reading, wasn’t much into democracy either. Amazing that so many Christians think bringing democracy to the ends of the world is something to be supported…

    You know, alll those Christians – Protestants and Catholiics that support GWB and his priority for “democracy” in Iraq. Pretty odd they’d even bring it up, really. Thought I’d just remind some of them that their own traditions don’t support democracy. I’ve pointed it out previously as far as Protestantism.. thought I’d just add the point this time in regard to this pop quiz that it also includes RC’s.

    “I still think the Islamic extremist/crazies are a bigger nuisance, bother, and threat that Christian extremists.”

    I’d agree the notion of appearances of a greater threat is that of extreme Islamists, in some parts of the world.. but… given the opportunity, and based on history, I wouldn’t put it past some Popes to do what some of their predecessors did.

    I mean.. what’s to stop them? Nothing, really.

    It’s not like there is no precedent, or RC Papish history is filled with men who promoted individual freedom.

    “Anyone who cheered and danced on 9/11while husbands and wives hurled themselves from 90 stories is next to worthless in my books, and I can’t get over how many people of a certain religious group (especially in Iran and Palestine) reveled in joy on that day.”

    Sure. But how many Roman Catholics that are interested in orthodox RC’ism point out the excesses of their own religion, historically, and when they do, it’s not much other than offer up excuses?

    Hell, the night Bush decided to show off his fireworks in Baghdad, there were a ton of people, not necessarily “dancing” but writing some awfully supportive shit, even if innocents were being killed.

    Don’t recall too many of the supporters showing concern for the dead and maimed babies.

    “I have yet to hear Hagee, Van Impe, and the rest of Christian Crazies call for mass nuclear strikes, or carpet bombing of Iran.”

    LOL.. uhh.. fine. Let’s turn that around though.. and from a so called Right Wing Christian perspective, that keeps demanding some Muslim leadership to condemn some of the calls for violence that some of their followers call for – have you heard Hagee condemn any of his followers for calling for nuclear strikes and carpet bombing of Iran?

    I haven’t heard to many Muslims calling for carpet bombing with nuclear weapons against America myself. But if we did hear them, Christians would be expecting the Hagee equivalents to have something to say about that.

    So it works both ways, doesn’t it?

    “They aren’t interested in eliminating all Iranians, but they see Ahmadinajed as a threat.”

    And do ya think it is a possiblity that Ahmadinajed has been taken out of context himslelf, when he has called for the elimination of “Zionism” – that perhaps he’s not calling for the elimination of all Jews.. but he himself views Zionism as a threat to him and his people???

    How about his perspective? It’s not like Zionists have been the most peaceful and willing to get along folk in history either.

    I’ll say this: I don’t agree at all with 99.9 percent of Ahmadinajed’s policies, beliefs, etc.. but.. if I were to be a relativist, and one trying to understand both sides.. umm.. yeah.. I’d say i could see some of his issues.

    If you want to be a tribalist.. then.. well.. his tribe is just as good as any other tribe that evicts, murders, steals, and conqueors, don’tcha think?

    “I still think the Islamic extremist/crazies are a bigger nuisance, bother, and threat that Christian extremists.”

    I’d agree the notion of appearances of a greater threat is that of extreme Islamists, in some parts of the world.. but… given the opportunity, and based on history, I wouldn’t put it past some Popes to do what some of their predecessors did.

    I mean.. what’s to stop them? Nothing, really.

    It’s not like there is no precedent, or RC Papish history is filled with men who promoted individual freedom.

    “Anyone who cheered and danced on 9/11while husbands and wives hurled themselves from 90 stories is next to worthless in my books, and I can’t get over how many people of a certain religious group (especially in Iran and Palestine) reveled in joy on that day.”

    Sure. But how many Roman Catholics that are interested in orthodox RC’ism point out the excesses of their own religion, historically, and when they do, it’s not much other than offer up excuses?

    Hell, the night Bush decided to show off his fireworks in Baghdad, there were a ton of people, not necessarily “dancing” but writing some awfully supportive shit, even if innocents were being killed.

    Don’t recall too many of the supporters showing concern for the dead and maimed babies.

    “I have yet to hear Hagee, Van Impe, and the rest of Christian Crazies call for mass nuclear strikes, or carpet bombing of Iran.”

    LOL.. uhh.. fine. Let’s turn that around though.. and from a so called Right Wing Christian perspective, that keeps demanding some Muslim leadership to condemn some of the calls for violence that some of their followers call for – have you heard Hagee condemn any of his followers for calling for nuclear strikes and carpet bombing of Iran?

    I haven’t heard too many Muslims calling for carpet bombing with nuclear weapons against America myself. But if we did hear them, Christians would be expecting the Hagee equivalents to have something to say about that.

    So it works both ways, doesn’t it?

    “They aren’t interested in eliminating all Iranians, but they see Ahmadinajed as a threat.”

    And do ya think it is a possiblity that Ahmadinajed has been taken out of context himslelf, when he has called for the elimination of “Zionism” – that perhaps he’s not calling for the elimination of all Jews.. but he himself views Zionism as a threat to him and his people???

    How about his perspective? It’s not like Zionists have been the most peaceful and willing to get along folk in history either.

    I’ll say this: I don’t agree at all with 99.9 percent of Ahmadinajed’s policies, beliefs, etc.. but.. if I were to be a relativist, and one trying to understand both sides.. umm.. yeah.. I’d say i could see some of his issues.

    If you want to be a tribalist.. then.. well.. his tribe is just as good as any other tribe that evicts, murders, steals, and conqueors, don’tcha think?

    “but that doesn’t negate the fact that this guy has said he wants to develop nukes, and he intends on using them (he’d love to use them on America as well as Israel).”

    Negate the “fact” huh.. uh.. you have some references for this fact?

    By the way.. America is the most advanced in nuke development.. and is the only country that has used them.

    I really find it fucking bizarre that folks talk like the way you do, as if.. America is the only country that should have them, and has used them “responsibly” or something when it has used them. That’s just nuts.

    It’s ok to let America have her nukes – she’s used them and killed millions with them – but others might kill a couple million more or something. I mean.. what do you mean?

    And how do you know that the Iranians would “love” to use Nukes against the US? I mean.. that makes no sense. You truly believe that they would just “use them” out of “love” of using them, if they could, against America?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *