Free speech or racism

[Aileron]

Wow SeVeR, you are one step away from supporting Bush here.

 

Correct...the middle east lives in the 12th century. However, we cannot afford to let them develop at their own pace. The 12 century was filled with a bunch of crazy people who would constantly get swords and lances and kill each other. Wars were so normal they weren't even recorded. Now, the weapons of choice are guns, missiles, and perhaps even WMDs.

 

To let those with a 12th century mindset who have 20th century weapons develop at their own pace would be asking for a disaster on par with the worst the world has seen. There would be thousands of skyscraper, train, and subway bombings by the time they did so. We could assume logically that it would take 800 years needed for them to develop from the 1100s to the 1900s, multiplied by a factor greater than 1, because history has shown that the middle east develops at a slower pace than Europe does, or else they wouldn't be behind in the first place.

 

So, you wish to wait 800 years and hope that 800 years of warfare will yield a lower cost than the 50 years the War on Terror might take?

[SeVeR]

Well i can't help but think that Bush isn't doing a complete job anyway. He's picked Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the weakest countries in the Middle East while leaving out Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. If he wanted to change some ideoligies and speed up development then picking on weak countries that just happen to be the biggest suppliers of oil (after S.A) and opium in the world just gives me other ideas about his motives.

 

He must have known that his invasions would only serve to produce more terrorists and West-haters and if he doesn't complete the job by invading the whole of the Middle East then we'll still end up with more Saudis, Syrians, Moroccans, Iranians, Libyans, Pakistanis and Muslims the world over wanting to dish-out death to the west. He has to invade at least 3 more countries and somehow convert them to peace-loving democracies just to possibly turn the tables on the number of west-haters there are in the world. Thats even an optimistic prediction.

 

I don't think you can speed up the development of the Islamic world while religion still has a hold over the governments and dictatorships in place in those countries. We are only so advanced because religion has taken a back seat and allowed freedom of expression and scientific exploration to flourish. 800 years ago we weren't any more advanced than they were. So rather than concluding that their society has developed slower we should be asking why their society has not had the accelerated development during the last 400 years that ours has.

 

It is our interference in the Middle East that causes these people to hate us. The more we interfere the more they hate. Short of wiping out huge numbers of people and invading every country in the hopes of forming peaceful democracies we aren't ever going to end up with something better than pre-9/11 that wouldn't have come with uninterfered development.

[Aileron]

Marxism....doesn't....work. Any society that is more advanced than cavemen needs some form of organised religion, and more advanced societies need religion that is proportionately more organised.

 

The question of why Islamic society hasn't advanced as quickly as the west can be answered by any historian. There is a mul!@#$%^&*ude of political and economic reasons why they have not. The real question is how can we get them to advance at a much faster rate than it took Europe. The answer on the most basic level is to apply a certain political and economic impetus. That alone means that we can't just leave them be.

 

Is invasion the only answer? Possibly, though I would test other methods first. Iraq was an exception, because other methods had been previously tried, and we knew that wouldn't work. Afghanistan was also an exception, because the nature of the Taliban clearly showed that nothing else was ever going to get through their thick heads. I agree that if we set this standard for Iraq, we may very well have to invade the whole middle east. To that I can say that we should give the other nations you mentioned the opportunity to prove themselves. If for no other reason, this course is wiser because it will be far less costly to take them on one at a time than all at once.

[MonteZuma]

Marxism....doesn't....work.

I don't understand why this is relevant?

 

Any society that is more advanced than cavemen needs some form of organised religion, and more advanced societies need religion that is proportionately more organised.

Evidence? Society is more advanced than ever and I believe that religion in the west is probably less organised than ever.

 

The question of why Islamic society hasn't advanced as quickly as the west can be answered by any historian. There is a mul!@#$%^&*ude of political and economic reasons why they have not. The real question is how can we get them to advance at a much faster rate than it took Europe.

I suspect that your definition of 'advanced' is culturally biased.

 

The answer on the most basic level is to apply a certain political and economic impetus. That alone means that we can't just leave them be.

One of the reasons that some muslims hate the west is because we assume that they should have the same values that we hold. This is wrong.

[SeVeR]

Any society that is more advanced than cavemen needs some form of organised religion, and more advanced societies need religion that is proportionately more organised.

Please, just look at how the demise of Christian influence over power coincided with an incredible rate of development in the West and you'll see it clear as day. In America I understand that it isn't as clearly evident because your country hasn't lived through 1700 years of religious rule followed by 300 years of exponential development coinciding with the demise of that rule.

 

Why do we need religion? I don't need religion and neither do alot of people in the West. I have reaffirmed morals based on my knowledge of survivalism and live perfectly fine on the more socially acceptable side of moral relativity because of it. BTW Cavemen invented religion!

 

The real question is how can we get them to advance at a much faster rate than it took Europe.

And you think Islam will allow this? Religion as we well know is anti-change. Science is pro-change. The Bible is the ever-unchanging source of law and knowledge for all Christians and that never changes, as is the Koran for Muslims. If religion had been completely successful from the start we'd still be living in caves huddling together in the cold. Computers, Phones, Cars all would not have existed if we'd answered our questions with the all-answering "God did it". If everyone was a Christian today we'd never develop beyond this point because we'd answer everything with the words "God did it" or "God gave us the answers so we don't need to look for them".

 

To that I can say that we should give the other nations you mentioned the opportunity to prove themselves.

Its easy to prove yourself to the USA and it doesn't involve becoming a democracy, accepting Israel, or not funding terrorists. Its having the right business links. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will never be invaded by the Bush Administration and certainly the last two never were in danger after 9/11 when they played the biggest parts.

[LearJett+]

If we invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE we would further alienate ourselves and have no allies in the Middle East with the exception of Israel. Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE have all participated in anti-terrorism campaigns, including freezing accounts, arresting terrorists, etc.

 

It erks me when liberals justify NOT going into Iraq because we're NOT invading Iran, North Korea, etc. Just imagine the field day liberals would have if we did invade those countries.

[SeVeR]

Exactly they would have a field day and thats because they maintain that the best option is not to invade in the first place. The fact that Bush isn't doing a complete job and is selecting weak nations is just further indication of him being the point-man for 9/11 vengeance.

 

The UAE still recognises the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan, did you know that?

The UAE helped fund the terrorists and wasn't invaded at the time (before their subsequent efforts)

The UAE does not recognise Israel (neither do I, but this seems to tick off America)

The UAE has shipped nuclear weapons parts to Pakistan and IRAN in defiance of US requests.

 

What about Iraq? oh.... we don't like them and made up a load of bullcrap about WMDs based on incomplete intelligence from people who wanted to topple Saddam.

[MonteZuma]

There is an apparently inexplicable double-standard. I agree.

[LearJett+]

The UAE still recognises the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan, did you know that?

You're wrong. They stopped recognizing them within two weeks of 9/11, actually. Here

 

The UAE helped fund the terrorists and wasn't invaded at the time (before their subsequent efforts)

They did not directly fund terrorists. They gave money to Afghanistan, which countries do very often to eachother, and statistics are skewed to say that the money was for 'terrorists'. If you are referring to the fact that it was because money was transferred through the UAE banking system, Here, this does not implicate their government either. It is no different from a Swiss bank account or any other neutral country's banking system.

 

The UAE does not recognise Israel (neither do I, but this seems to tick off America)

It's not rare to find a country in the Middle East that doesn't recognize Israel...

 

The UAE has shipped nuclear weapons parts to Pakistan and IRAN in defiance of US requests.

The UAE government did no such thing. They were a "key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components". This does not implement their government in any way at all, it could have been a different group. Here

 

What about Iraq? oh.... we don't like them and made up a load of bullcrap about WMDs based on incomplete intelligence from people who wanted to topple Saddam.

What about destabilization of the region? What about toppling a tyrant? What about ties to terrorist organizations? What about the other reasons that the Bush administration and other gave for going to war? People get hung up on the fact that there were no WMDs when the main reason was because Iraq was a threat to its neighboring countries, destabilizing the region. Research, get past the "i hate bush" sources, and look at all of the given reasons.

 

 

Next time use a source or two please.

[MonteZuma]

Nice post learjett, but this part is just plain wrong....

 

People get hung up on the fact that there were no WMDs when the main reason was because Iraq was a threat to its neighboring countries, destabilizing the region.

The main reason was WMDs.

[LearJett+]

Regime change and Iraq's violations of UN resolutions were just as great of a reason.

[SeVeR]

You're wrong. They stopped recognizing them within two weeks of 9/11, actually. Here

My mistake (how could they recognize them now anyway), they were only one of three countries that initially recognized the Taliban, the other two were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

They gave money to Afghanistan, which countries do very often to eachother, and statistics are skewed to say that the money was for 'terrorists'.

To Afghanistan? To the Taliban? To the government that gave Osama Bin Laden refuge? I'm not following how they didn't give money to the terrorists...

 

If you are referring to the fact that it was because money was transferred through the UAE banking system, Here, this does not implicate their government either.

Oh it does, their banking system was being used to fund the terrorists in the US, their system held the accounts that paid for the flying lessons and the living costs of the hijackers. The government may not be directly to blame but from the next sources you have to question whether they knew alot more than they were letting on after 9/11.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522484/

 

You won't find this one in the controlled media but you will in the 9/11 report: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/22/103153/034

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.ph...rticle&sid=3196

 

What about destabilization of the region? What about toppling a tyrant? What about ties to terrorist organizations?

Toppling Saddam HAS destabilised the region! And what ties did he have to terrorist organisations? You're saying he had more ties than the the UAE royal family or Saudi Arabia?

 

People get hung up on the fact that there were no WMDs when the main reason was because Iraq was a threat to its neighboring countries, destabilizing the region.

Monte said it already, the WMDs were the main reason. As for being a threat you're joking right? You're telling me the media really got you believing Saddam was a threat?

[LearJett+]

To Afghanistan? To the Taliban? To the government that gave Osama Bin Laden refuge? I'm not following how they didn't give money to the terrorists...

Countries give money to other countries ALL THE TIME. We gave money to Palestine. Palestine did terrorist attacks against Israel. This does not mean we were funding terrorists.

 

The government may not be directly to blame but from the next sources you have to question whether they knew alot more than they were letting on after 9/11.

Your MSNBC link is hearsay from "local tribes". We all know where hearsay gets you.

 

Toppling Saddam HAS destabilised the region! And what ties did he have to terrorist organisations? You're saying he had more ties than the the UAE royal family or Saudi Arabia?

How has it destabilized the region and yes.

 

Monte said it already, the WMDs were the main reason. As for being a threat you're joking right? You're telling me the media really got you believing Saddam was a threat?

That is yours and Monte's opinion. Just like your opinion about opium.

 

Yes, I believe that Saddam was a threat. No it is not because of the media. I research and read.

[SeVeR]

Your MSNBC link is hearsay from "local tribes". We all know where hearsay gets you.

Its in the 9/11 official report!

 

How has it destabilized the region and yes.

Just take a look at the news and see the instability. Each of those now warring tribes has supporters all over the region, as far as i can remember Iran is Shia and much of the rest of the Middle East is in support of the Sunnis. We could potentially have a Middle East war if things continue to get out of hand. Saddam controlled his country well because everyone feared him. How was the region less stable with Saddam in charge?....seeing as how before and after his rule the country was/is completely torn apart by conflict.

 

Just like your opinion about opium.

Isn't that a different topic? What are you bringing that up here for? I admit that it was a bit outlandish of me to talk about Bush and Opium but all i was trying to do was provoke a debate by stating the facts that led me to my suspicions to see if anyone else could postulate a better theory. All i was met with was the implication that i was !@#$%^&*uming it to be true, i guess i didn't present what i was trying to say in a very obvious manner.

 

Yes, I believe that Saddam was a threat. No it is not because of the media. I research and read.

Ok (giving you the benefit of the doubt) what have you researched and read that told you Saddam was a threat to neighbouring nations and did any of these neighbouring nations act on this threat?

[LearJett+]

Its in the 9/11 official report

Yes, in the official 9/11 report it talks about what "local tribes" say.

 

Just take a look at the news and see the instability. Each of those now warring tribes has supporters all over the region, as far as i can remember Iran is Shia and much of the rest of the Middle East is in support of the Sunnis. We could potentially have a Middle East war if things continue to get out of hand. Saddam controlled his country well because everyone feared him. How was the region less stable with Saddam in charge?....seeing as how before and after his rule the country was/is completely torn apart by conflict.

No one will get in a war with Iraq because they would be attacking the US.

 

Iraq will be torn apart by conflict for a while. The point is: with Saddam it was impossible for resolution. Without him, there is the possibility for a stable Iraq. No one thought that as soon as Saddam was gone Iraq would be happy and totally peaceful.

 

Isn't that a different topic? What are you bringing that up here for? I admit that it was a bit outlandish of me to talk about Bush and Opium but all i was trying to do was provoke a debate by stating the facts that led me to my suspicions to see if anyone else could postulate a better theory. All i was met with was the implication that i was !@#$%^&*uming it to be true, i guess i didn't present what i was trying to say in a very obvious manner.

I didn't put it there to ridicule you in any way. I put it there because there is no do!@#$%^&*ent out there that lists the importance of the reasons for Iraq.

 

what have you researched and read that told you Saddam was a threat to neighbouring nations and did any of these neighbouring nations act on this threat?

I've read biographies about Saddam, I've make presentations on Middle Eastern countries, I try to keep up with current events.

[SeVeR]

Yes, in the official 9/11 report it talks about what "local tribes" say.

No, it talks about the confirmed CIA intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was on a hunting trip with UAE officials in 1999 (members of the royal family). They did not order a strike because they didn't want to kill the UAE officials. When they notified the officials to get out of the area those UAE officials then notified Bin Laden that the Americans knew his location and he fled. That's the UAE for you. Please don't lie to support your view.

 

No one will get in a war with Iraq because they would be attacking the US.

You completely didn't understand what i said. Iraq will be split (as it is) into its three separate tribes who will get support from the other countries in the Middle East destabilising the region. No-one will directly go to war with Iraq while the Americans are there. Iran will support its tribe and the other countries will support theirs. Iran is already interfering and wants "talks" with America on the subject of Iraq.

 

The point is: with Saddam it was impossible for resolution. Without him, there is the possibility for a stable Iraq. No one thought that as soon as Saddam was gone Iraq would be happy and totally peaceful.

With Saddam it was a resolution, he kept all the tribes in check with an iron fist. A democracy may be too weak and too slow to get near what Saddam had done and currently it looks like they can't control squat even with the Americans help.

 

I put it there because there is no do!@#$%^&*ent out there that lists the importance of the reasons for Iraq.

Exactly, we go by what we hear in the news. WMDs were all over the news as the reason for going in, maybe they used that as an excuse then to say that Iraq was making the region unstable?

 

I've read biographies about Saddam, I've make presentations on Middle Eastern countries, I try to keep up with current events.

That didn't really answer my question. As far as i can tell they were weaker than Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia at the time they were attacked. Also they wouldn't have attacked Kuwait again thats for sure.

[MonteZuma]

You've got me on side now SeVeR. I agree with pretty much all you've been saying.

[ThunderJam]

The answer on the most basic level is to apply a certain political and economic impetus. That alone means that we can't just leave them be.

One of the reasons that some muslims hate the west is because we assume that they should have the same values that we hold. This is wrong.

 

MMmmm, your a single person speaking on behalf of millions, not everyone things they should hold our values.

 

Yes tho, holding them to our values would be wrong, which bring me back to my original point from a previous post...

 

Part of their religion is that ALL PEOPLE must believe what they do. Anyone who doesn't, must convert, or they feel they can kill them. This is just what you said we are doing, and like you said, it IS WRONG, for them too. I see this as one of the largest problems with modern muslims. If any other race or religion were to do this, it would be ridiculed. Christians can't go kill people for saying the Lord's name in vain. The same goes for the cartoon of muhhammed (spelling?). The rule or not portraying him is THEIR religous law, they should not kill people who ARE NOT of their beliefs for it.

[MonteZuma]

MMmmm, your a single person speaking on behalf of millions, not everyone things they should hold our values.

True. When I said we, I didn't necessarilly mean me or you or every westerner. 'We' is the wrong word. I guess I mean 'many people in the west'.

 

Part of their religion is that ALL PEOPLE must believe what they do. Anyone who doesn't, must convert, or they feel they can kill them.

Well. Here you are generalising as well. Not every muslim believes that non-muslims should convert or be killed. Very few believe that.

 

This is just what you said we are doing, and like you said, it IS WRONG, for them too.

Its not quite the same. I've necer supported radical, fundamentalist Islam and I don't support radical or fundamentalist christianity either.

 

I see this as one of the largest problems with modern muslims. If any other race or religion were to do this, it would be ridiculed.

I don't think anyone in the west should support that kind of narrow-minded and barbaric at!@#$%^&*ude. I don't think Islam (or branches of Islam) should be protected from critical analysis. I concede though that it sometimes is, because people are afraid of being labelled as bigoted.

 

Christians can't go kill people for saying the Lord's name in vain.

It probably doesn't happen much these days, but it did in the past. Fwiw, muslims can't get away with murder either.

 

The same goes for the cartoon of muhhammed (spelling?). The rule or not portraying him is THEIR religous law, they should not kill people who ARE NOT of their beliefs for it.

Imo, nobody should be killed for drawing cartoons.

[LearJett+]

The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by U.A.E. officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

 

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated “bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emirates,” the report said.

 

You completely didn't understand what i said. Iraq will be split (as it is) into its three separate tribes who will get support from the other countries in the Middle East destabilising the region. No-one will directly go to war with Iraq while the Americans are there. Iran will support its tribe and the other countries will support theirs. Iran is already interfering and wants "talks" with America on the subject of Iraq.

With Saddam it was a resolution, he kept all the tribes in check with an iron fist. A democracy may be too weak and too slow to get near what Saddam had done and currently it looks like they can't control squat even with the Americans help.

Okay, so you sit back and let Saddam stay dictator of Iraq? Iraq will be unstable before it is stable.

 

Exactly, we go by what we hear in the news. WMDs were all over the news as the reason for going in, maybe they used that as an excuse then to say that Iraq was making the region unstable?

Monte said it already, the WMDs were the main reason. As for being a threat you're joking right? You're telling me the media really got you believing Saddam was a threat?

Make up your mind.

 

Is the media always correct, anyway?

 

That didn't really answer my question

Yes, it did. You asked what I researched.

[MonteZuma]

Okay, so you sit back and let Saddam stay dictator of Iraq? Iraq will be unstable before it is stable.

Yes. Then the instability will not be perceived as the fault of 'the west' and we may not be such an obvious target for terrorism.

 

Is the media always correct, anyway?

It isn't so much what the media says that convinces me of what GWBs intentions were. It is what GWB says to the media (and to the UN etc!) that counts. It was all about WMDs.

[ThunderJam]

Part of their religion is that ALL PEOPLE must believe what they do. Anyone who doesn't, must convert, or they feel they can kill them.

Well. Here you are generalising as well. Not every muslim believes that non-muslims should convert or be killed. Very few believe that.

Yes, it is only the radical muslims that believing in killing over this matter. However, More of them believe the rest of what i said, just without seeing killing as a solution.

 

This is just what you said we are doing, and like you said, it IS WRONG, for them too.

Its not quite the same. I've necer supported radical, fundamentalist Islam and I don't support radical or fundamentalist christianity either.

Radical fundamentalist Christians don't kill people. In addition, Protestants (which are most of the fundamentalists) have been persecuted themselves. The Spanish Inquisition.

 

I see this as one of the largest problems with modern muslims. If any other race or religion were to do this, it would be ridiculed.

I don't think anyone in the west should support that kind of narrow-minded and barbaric at!@#$%^&*ude. I don't think Islam (or branches of Islam) should be protected from critical analysis. I concede though that it sometimes is, because people are afraid of being labelled as bigoted.

Bingo, No one wants to bring up !@#$%^&* about them for fear that they will be ridiculed.

 

Christians can't go kill people for saying the Lord's name in vain.

It probably doesn't happen much these days, but it did in the past. Fwiw, muslims can't get away with murder either.

I can't recall any time of Christians doing this, but whatever. I know its still illegal for muslims to murder for these reason, but the fact is, they feel it's justified, and like we previously established, people are hesitant to respond to the issue.

[Paine]

Im a muslim myself, not a extremist. I know im not that religious but this is just taking it to the limit. I know paine why dont u say it !@#$%^&*ing !@#$%^&* "i dont like muslims at all" you can just tell it by what he says in his posts.

 

Wait wait wait... wha!?!??!

[SeVeR]

I just wear a sign (my avatar) then i don't get people acting like they just found out my deep-dark anti-christian secret. However, now i have people thinking i burn crosses, so maybe i should find a politically witty anti-christian avatar that reeks of sophistication on a level no mad petrol-can wielding satanist could possibly aspire to. So that's my thoughts, i doubt they've been helpful.

[LearJett+]

Burning crosses means many things. I thought that you were going with the Ku Klux Klan idea of burning it to let the power of it shine through. Ironic that you meant the opposite