cybercoma Posted December 27, 2011 Report Posted December 27, 2011 I give up, Cybercoma. Why don't we read, in just about every day's papers, of Christian or Jewish attacks killing hundreds of helpless people? And I'm not talking about collateral war damage, which is far from a daily event. Give up about what? I recognize that there are Muslim terrorists. What I find odd is that as a lawyer you don't recognize the logical flaw in characterizing all Muslims based on the actions of a few. Just because all dogs are animals, that doesn't mean that all animals are dogs. In this case, if you say all terrorists are Muslim, that doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists and for that matter the premise that all terrorists are Muslim is quite simply not true. While I recognize the violence that exists at the intersection of religion and politics in the Middle East, I'm not so blinded by hatred for Muslims that I believe they all pose a threat or that Islam itself is a threat. There are very specific Muslims that are a threat and the fact of the matter is that they also kill other Muslims. I don't care about the argument that Christians wage war via the American military. Clearly the American military is not entirely made up of Christians and it's not directed by religious leaders. However, you need to be aware that you write off collateral war damage because it doesn't suit your narrative. If you were living in a country that America had invaded and they blew up your school and hospital "accidentally," you would probably be pretty pissed at the United States as well. I doubt it's comforting to those that lose family and friends that it was a "accident." It's also tough to call it an accident when, by declaring war, you know that this is a possible and often likely outcome, particularly when you're fighting something as loosely defined as "terrorism." Quote
cybercoma Posted December 27, 2011 Report Posted December 27, 2011 Denial abouto the fact that Radical Islam is taking advantage of our openness to kill us. This is where the claims about collateral damage are pertinent. The number of "us" killed by Radical Islam is much less than the number of innocent people we have killed to combat Radical Islam. This is the irony. While you give up trying to school people on the violence brought to the West by Radical Islam, you refuse to acknowledge that our "noble war" against these Radicals has brought just as much violence to their homelands. It's also important to recognize that while we kill innocent people abroad to fight terrorists, the terorrists themselves are also killing other innocent Muslims. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted December 27, 2011 Report Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Is it really so hard for you people to understand that calling Islam primitive, backwards, and unenlightened is extremely offensive to the millions of Muslims around the world that do not subscribe to the violent and abhorrent political tactics used by the extremists and terrorists out there? Thread after thread, you guys can't help yourself but paint all Muslims with the same coloured brush and it's nothing if not offensive to those who don't have those beliefs and go so far as condemning those things themselves. No matter how many times that most posters qualify their opinion by indicating that they are referring to a specific Islamist radical group, you and other apologists maintain 'we' tar or paint all Muslims with the same brush. I never have, I never will, I know who are to be condemned of the billion plus. Is it really so hard for you to make an effort to recognize that reality since you offend me with your generic charges. Now stop it immediately or I will have to come down there and make an example of you by tweaking your bulbous nose. I might even resort to pulling out one of your nose hairs. See how you like them apples. Edited December 27, 2011 by Peeves Quote
dre Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 I give up, Cybercoma. Why don't we read, in just about every day's papers, of Christian or Jewish attacks killing hundreds of helpless people? And I'm not talking about collateral war damage, which is far from a daily event. Actually violence and death doled out by national armies IS pretty much a daily event. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Scotty Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 No, it started on May 14, 1948 with Israel's independence and desecration of a tiny patch of ground in the middle of the Ummah. In point of fact, my understanding is that, historically, the Arab world was enlightened while Europe was a bastion of ignorance. Sometime prior to the seventeenth century, Europe surged ahead, while the Arab world faded behind. Much of the reasons historians give to explain this are the emerging economic systems in Europe which began to produce a middle class independent of the state (ie, which did not derive their wealth from the state's coffers or from governmental patronage). Political reform followed, and then religious reform. None of this happened in the Arab world. In part, that is likely due to Islamic laws. As an example, Islam forbids loaning money for profit, thus making it virtually impossible for private entrepreneurs to obtain financing other than from the state. With no emerging, independent middle class, there was no political reform. And of course, no political reform - especially since laws and government were dictated by the Koran. That's a catch twenty two. You can't reform the religion when questioning it gets you imprisoned. But according to Islam, you can't reform the state because - at least at that time - the state and it's laws are part of Islam. Now we see reform in the Arab world, but largely in favour of returning to those old days, when the state ruled as, in a manner, and with the laws decreed by the Koran. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
jbg Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 He obviously meant Iran 1953, when the west consciously and freely decided to trump virtue with economics and killed the birth of true democracy in the Muslim world.So you're saying, even with all the examples of Muslim countries that had elections around that time that were either "one man, one vote, one time" or otherwise overtaken by military coups, violence or fraud (examples being 1940's-1950's Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and I think Syria) that the one golden chance was squandered because an anti-Western nationalizer was overthrown? You're saying, against all probability that Mossadegh was a force for democratization when no other such leader was? The Islamic Spring in 1979 that you're talking was the inevitable reaction. The term "Islamic Spring" is overused. I'd as soon use "Islamic Dark Winter". I just don't see any evidence of much good coming from this. Sorry. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) In point of fact, my understanding is that, historically, the Arab world was enlightened while Europe was a bastion of ignorance. Sometime prior to the seventeenth century, Europe surged ahead, while the Arab world faded behind. Much of the reasons historians give to explain this are the emerging economic systems in Europe which began to produce a middle class independent of the state You completely skip the Crusades and something else worth noting is sugar production. Much of the wealth accumulated by Western nations (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, and English) can be directly attributed to plantation economies. Sugar was perhaps the first crop that put production right into the fields. It needs to be harvested and refined right there. Sugar, however, came from Polynesia, namely New Guinea. The crop and the early technology for it were spread throughout the Mediterreanean basin by Islam. You can literally track the crop through their conquests. So, even the economies that were created and the systems of production that allowed the West to accumulate wealth have their roots in the Muslim World. Edited December 28, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
eyeball Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) So you're saying, even with all the examples of Muslim countries that had elections around that time that were either "one man, one vote, one time" or otherwise overtaken by military coups, violence or fraud (examples being 1940's-1950's Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and I think Syria) that the one golden chance was squandered because an anti-Western nationalizer was overthrown? You're saying, against all probability that Mossadegh was a force for democratization when no other such leader was? No, you completely misunderstand. The most relevant thing that happened in this event is that the Shiniest Beacon of democracy the entire planet had ever known up to that point, overthrew a democracy and installed a dictatorship. The west became a force for evil, there's just no other way to put it. The day the decision was made to launch Operation Ajax was a proverbial day that will forever live in infamy. It's like I've said before, when a Shining Beacon of democracy overthrows a democracy the act is as shockingly disturbing not to mention disgusting as when a priest diddles a little kid. It's not just your run of the mill molestation. What Operation did to Iraq is one thing, but what it did to America is another. It was kind of like Adam taking a bite from the apple. You've never recovered and frankly I don't think you will. Maybe it was more like taking crack. The term "Islamic Spring" is overused. I'd as soon use "Islamic Dark Winter". Well a Dark Winter in the context of what I just explained is probably more appropriate. The Beginning of the End even more so. I just don't see any evidence of much good coming from this. Sorry. Me neither. Edited December 28, 2011 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Of course, no Iranians were involved in the coup against Mossadegh. None at all. It was all US secret agents in trench coats. Oh, and the Shah was not 'installed' by America. The USSR and the UK 'installed' him when his father made moves to join the Axis powers. That would be 1941. But, why let accuracy get in the way of a good revision. Edited December 28, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Of course, no Iranians were involved in the coup against Mossadegh. None at all. It was all US secret agents in trench coats. Oh, and the Shah was not 'installed' by America. The USSR and the UK 'installed' him when his father made moves to join the Axis powers. That would be 1941. But, why let accuracy get in the way of a good revision. He was permanently installed because he would acquiece to the likes of BP and Royal Dutch Shell AND would do the bidding of the US State Department... And there are always those who will do the bidding of their legislative/corporate benefactors and dress those actions up as "the defence of "freedom"",and,"patriotism"... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 He was permanently installed because he would acquiece to the likes of BP and Royal Dutch Shell AND would do the bidding of the US State Department... And there are always those who will do the bidding of their legislative/corporate benefactors and dress those actions up as "the defence of "freedom"",and,"patriotism"... Actually Jack, he was put into power in 1941 at the height of Barbarossa. Stalin no likey the idea of an oil rich Iran fueling the Panzers. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Actually Jack, he was put into power in 1941 at the height of Barbarossa. Stalin no likey the idea of an oil rich Iran fueling the Panzers. Yes.... And then subsequently lost a democratic election to Mohammed Mossadiq...Who was ousted in a coup with the assitsance of the CIA (an undeniable historical fact),then reinstalled by said CIA (and other US State Department tentacles like the WACL) to continue his Fascistic ways... Which had a direct connection to the Islamic Revolution of 1979... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Yes.... And then subsequently lost a democratic election to Mohammed Mossadiq...Who was ousted in a coup with the assitsance of the CIA (an undeniable historical fact),then reinstalled by said CIA (and other US State Department tentacles like the WACL) to continue his Fascistic ways... Which had a direct connection to the Islamic Revolution of 1979... I would suggest that the real power in Iran at that point in time didn't rest with elected officials...like it or not. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 I would suggest that the real power in Iran at that point in time didn't rest with elected officials...like it or not. Nor does it now... It's pretty clear that in the mid-'50's,post coup,The Shah took his marching orders from the US State Dept. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Nor does it now... It's pretty clear that in the mid-'50's,post coup,The Shah took his marching orders from the US State Dept. As he should have. Iran owed a lot to the Allies and the USA in particular in terms of roads, ports and airports that still exist to this day. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 As he should have. Iran owed a lot to the Allies and the USA in particular in terms of roads, ports and airports that still exist to this day. He should have continually ruled Iran with an iron fist because the US State Dept. said so??? Methinks he would have done it anyway,but fighting "communists" (see anyone who questioned him)gave him a leg up with Washington... A la General Pinochet,General Suharto,Mobuto Sese Seko(another interesting CIA assisted coup),Fulgencio Batista,General Trujillo,the Duvaliers,The Samoza's,General Alfredo Stroessner (more NAZI ties) etc.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
jbg Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 A la General Pinochet,General Suharto,Mobuto Sese Seko(another interesting CIA assisted coup),Fulgencio Batista,General Trujillo,the Duvaliers,The Samoza's,General Alfredo Stroessner (more NAZI ties) etc.... Aside from the situation with General Pinochet the replacements are no better, and a lot worse, than the originals. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 He should have continually ruled Iran with an iron fist because the US State Dept. said so??? Methinks he would have done it anyway,but fighting "communists" (see anyone who questioned him)gave him a leg up with Washington... A la General Pinochet,General Suharto,Mobuto Sese Seko(another interesting CIA assisted coup),Fulgencio Batista,General Trujillo,the Duvaliers,The Samoza's,General Alfredo Stroessner (more NAZI ties) etc.... Meh...he was a bastard...but, he was our bastard. Expediency makes odd bedfellows. Had Iran become a Warsaw Pact member, it would have thrown things into quite the tizzy balance wise. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Meh...he was a bastard...but, he was our bastard. Expediency makes odd bedfellows. Had Iran become a Warsaw Pact member, it would have thrown things into quite the tizzy balance wise. I doubt that would have happened...It was really BP and Royal Dutch Shell that were in a tizzy because of Mossadiq's nationalization of the oil industry in Iran... The Commie thing just gave The Shah,and everyone else on that list,licence to kill as many as they wanted so long as they claimed they were stopping Communist insurgencies... And he was a bastard,whose iron fisted rule lead to the Islamic Revolution in '79 which directly has given us the nutters we are dealing with now... If they ever get The Bomb,we are going to see US State Dept. blowback on a literal Nuclear scale... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 I doubt that would have happened...It was really BP and Royal Dutch Shell that were in a tizzy because of Mossadiq's nationalization of the oil industry in Iran... The Commie thing just gave The Shah,and everyone else on that list,licence to kill as many as they wanted so long as they claimed they were stopping Communist insurgencies... And he was a bastard,whose iron fisted rule lead to the Islamic Revolution in '79 which directly has given us the nutters we are dealing with now... If they ever get The Bomb,we are going to see US State Dept. blowback on a literal Nuclear scale... You're old enough to know that there was no such thing as a neutral nation in the 1950s. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 You're old enough to know that there was no such thing as a neutral nation in the 1950s. Nevr the less,the misguided Fascist prop ups of that era are leading to the blowback we have now... Shortsighted foreign policy has a tendency to do that...In this case,the crumbling empire has just as much to with things... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Nevr the less,the misguided Fascist prop ups of that era are leading to the blowback we have now... Shortsighted foreign policy has a tendency to do that...In this case,the crumbling empire has just as much to with things... Not much has changed in that regard. As well, it might be a bit soon to say that the USA is down and out. Red China could easily have a meltdown of its own economically...or worse. America itself is still very, very rich on an individual level. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Not much has changed in that regard. As well, it might be a bit soon to say that the USA is down and out. Red China could easily have a meltdown of its own economically...or worse. America itself is still very, very rich on an individual level. Empire America is in irreversable decline...If China does'nt surpass it,India will... It's politically paralysed,swimming in debt,and,with an increasingly aging population...Not a recipe for long term success of the empire.... And it's not "Red" China anymore....It's more like crypto-Fascist corporate China these days... Edited December 28, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Not in zee country-side. Still bare feet and coolie hats. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Not in zee country-side. Still bare feet and coolie hats. Wealth disparity in Mao's agricultural paradise??? Something has gone off the rails here?? As I said,no longer "Red" China....Crypto-Fascist corporate (and increasingly nationalistic) China... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.