Barbaric attack in the U.K.

[G Huxley]

Yeah, the only place I was ever robbed was in Stockholm. I didn't let it colour my view of Sweden or the Swedish.

Some of the nicest, kindest, most gentle and hospitable people I ever met were Jordanians. That said, while I was working with them, I was also working with Baluchistanis. They were not so nice. In fact, next to people from Alsace Lorraine, they might have been the most miserable, stroppy crowd I ever met. But both they and the Jordanians were muslims. I don't think it mattered.

I think what we're getting at is that people are people.

When you get one group of people trying to rule over another on whatever shady/questionable propagandistic claims of cultural superiority, its empire, apartheid and slavery, a recipe for violence, conflict and disaster.

Edited May 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest American Woman]

American Women, as I already answered that response before:

The 2nd world war happened, because of war mongers both in World War I and in World War 2. Those War Mongers have their equivalent today in the westerners who think it is their duty to invade and rule over the Middle East.

Which has absolutely nof relevance to my comment.

[G Huxley]

It has full relevance, not just to your topic, but to the topic of this thread. The Cycle of Violence is born of imperialism.

[Guest American Woman]

It has full relevance, not just to your topic, but to the topic of this thread. The Cycle of Violence is born of imperialism.

The cycle of violence started years and years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

Furthermore, how is the violence extremist Muslims are inflicting on other Muslims who do not share their views "born of imperialism?" And why is no one from the west - who has such oh-so-much concern over the killing of Muslims - going over there and hacking a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban to death?

[Argus]

"Drivel."

Ignorance.

On your part.

Again you display your ignorance, you ignore the fact that their governments were often forced on them by the west.

Forced on them? What was there before Jordan, before Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Sand dunes. None of these places had any national governments. They were simply far flung, dusty corners of some empire or other. The west created countries and borders so they could run their own affairs and we didn't have to. What else do you think they should have done? Just continued to rule? Just left?

As for the the west supporting or opposing this or that government over the last century, yes, well that happened everywhere in the world. It happened more in Central and South America than most other places, and those regions aren't blood baths. It happened in Asia, but they've been pretty stable for a while. Nowhere in the world is terrorism and religious violence anywhere near as commonplace as in the Muslim countries.

The commonality is not western imperialism but Islam.

Islam is a universalist, rather than a nationalist belief. In Islam if Islamics are attacked somewhere it is the duty of Islamists anywhere to defend those attacked.

Unless, of course, they're attacked by other Muslims, then it's a big shrug and a yawn. Most of the butchering of Muslims is done by Muslims, and not at the behest of the West. It's always been like that.

And by the way, the Chinese and Russians have been much more direct in their subjugation and butchery of Muslims than the Americans, and the world's Muslims could not seem to care less. The Russians butchered 200,000 mostly civilians in Chechnya, and no one knows how many Muslims the Chinese have killed.

[Argus]

Here is what I respect about peoples in the Islamic world.

L: I've felt much safer traveling in the Islamic world than in Europe where in fact at various times I have had a gun pulled on me, (Latvia), a knife pulled on me, (Russia) a hammer pulled on me, (Portugal), had 3 people try to pick pocket me in a 24 hour period (in Belgium), had a bottle thrown at my head by a drunk (in England).

Then by all means GO. I'm sure you'll enjoy it there, up until you tell them you're an atheist, of course. At which point, in most Muslim countries, you'll be arrested. But don't worry, only a handful of them will outright execute you. And you won't even have to worry about a trial if the mobs in the street get to you first.

[Wilber]

It has full relevance, not just to your topic, but to the topic of this thread. The Cycle of Violence is born of imperialism.

In this case, the imperialism of the Ottoman Empire, the original imperialists in this region.

[G Huxley]

Actually they were preceded by the Mongols, Seljuks, Abbasids, Byzantines, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians etc. Ibn Khalidun noted this pattern in the Middle Ages. The next arrogant hubristic imperialists just continue along making the same dumb mistakes and then they get replaced by the next.

Edited May 27, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Then by all means GO. I'm sure you'll enjoy it there, up until you tell them you're an atheist, of course. At which point, in most Muslim countries, you'll be arrested. But don't worry, only a handful of them will outright execute you. And you won't even have to worry about a trial if the mobs in the street get to you first.

I've been through 8 Islamic countries and I have told countless Islamic people that I'm an atheist in those countries. I've never been so much as threatened with arrest by it, and obviously I clearly wasn't executed.

Edited May 27, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

And why is no one from the west - who has such oh-so-much concern over the killing of Muslims - going over there and hacking a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban to death?

American woman try reading the news sometime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Edited May 27, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Forced on them? What was there before Jordan, before Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Sand dunes. None of these places had any national governments. They were simply far flung, dusty corners of some empire or other. The west created countries and borders so they could run their own affairs and we didn't have to. What else do you think they should have done? Just continued to rule? Just left?

As for the the west supporting or opposing this or that government over the last century, yes, well that happened everywhere in the world. It happened more in Central and South America than most other places, and those regions aren't blood baths. It happened in Asia, but they've been pretty stable for a while. Nowhere in the world is terrorism and religious violence anywhere near as commonplace as in the Muslim countries.

The commonality is not western imperialism but Islam.

Ah yes the noble imperialists. Argus stop choking on Kipling's dust.

The ones that typically cry about Muslims killing people, are those who are just jealous their government is doing its share, and want to funnel as many weapons as possible to Muslims in the region so that they can go and kill each other.

And by the way, the Chinese and Russians have been much more direct in their subjugation and butchery of Muslims than the Americans, and the world's Muslims could not seem to care less. The Russians butchered 200,000 mostly civilians in Chechnya, and no one knows how many Muslims the Chinese have killed.

I consider Russia Western as in European imperialists. The Chinese are also in the imperial 'great game.' Or stupid game, whatever you want to call it since no one wins, and everyone loses. And the people who lose most are those who get the deepest into it.

Edited May 27, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest American Woman]

American woman try reading the news sometime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Try reading my post before responding with a totally irrelevant comment..

[Wilber]

Actually they were preceded by the Mongols, Seljuks, Abbasids, Byzantines, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians etc. Ibn Khalidun noted this pattern in the Middle Ages. The next arrogant hubristic imperialists just continue along making the same dumb mistakes and then they get replaced by the next.

Bummer

[eyeball]

Actually they were preceded by the Mongols, Seljuks, Abbasids, Byzantines, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians etc. Ibn Khalidun noted this pattern in the Middle Ages. The next arrogant hubristic imperialists just continue along making the same dumb mistakes and then they get replaced by the next.

The difference, the huge difference, is that we should have known better.

History is no excuse whatsoever for the behaviour of any imperialism that's occurred at the hands of any western democracy since the 2nd world war. It's practically unforgivable.

[G Huxley]

Eyeball: Exactly.

[G Huxley]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ten-attacks-on-mosques-since-woolwich-murder-8633594.html

Kristalnacht towards Muslims in the UK.

Edited May 27, 2013 by G Huxley

[Wilber]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ten-attacks-on-mosques-since-woolwich-murder-8633594.html

Kristalnacht towards Muslims in the UK.

Please provide evidence that these incidents were instigated by government and the authorities have done nothing to try and prevent them.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Wilber

[G Huxley]

Directly instigated no, the result of government military actions/human rights abuses abroad and the cycle of violence that creates yes.

[Guest]

Here's some more attacks on Muslims. (from the same newspaper) You don't suppose the EDL was behind these too, do you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/wave-of-attacks-in-shia-districts-of-baghdad-kills-66-people-8633685.html

Edited May 28, 2013 by bcsapper

[Wilber]

Directly instigated no, the result of government military actions/human rights abuses abroad and the cycle of violence that creates yes.

Well then there is no comparison to Kristtalnacht. Bunches of biggoted yobos using this as an excuse, yes. Kristallnacht, no.

[G Huxley]

BCSapper:

The result of the U.S./UK destroying Iraq.

They were warned in advanced the consequences of:
A. Invading

B. Disbanding the government and banning the former Baathists

C. Disbanding the military/Police.

They were clearly warned in advance that if that happened the country would be sent into chaos, and an ensuing power struggle would take place between the different ethnic/religious populations. The disbanded military/police were just going to go home jobless with the weapons and become insurgents and warlords.

Edited May 28, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Well then there is no comparison to Kristtalnacht. Bunches of biggoted yobos using this as an excuse, yes. Kristallnacht, no.

As I've said before. When its the Exact same as Kristalnacht its already too late. Things begin small and if they aren't controlled they get out of hand and snowball, then you have all on Kristalnacht domestically (abroad its already happened).

Edited May 28, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest]

BCSapper:

The result of the U.S./UK destroying Iraq.

They were warned in advanced the consequences of:

A. Invading

B. Disbanding the government and banning the former Baathists

C. Disbanding the military/Police.

They were clearly warned in advance that if that happened the country would be sent into chaos, and an ensuing power struggle would take place between the different ethnic/religious populations. The disbanded military/police were just going to go home jobless with the weapons and become insurgents and warlords.

Same as when Yugoslavia fell apart, I guess. Although I think the US/UK were more concerned about the consequences of not invading.

Think for a minute about what you are saying about the people who live there, though. They need a murdering thug to thoroughly oppress them in order for them not to try and blow each other to pieces. Don't you think they could at least give not killing each other a shot, just to see how it feels?

[Wilber]

As I've said before. When its the Exact same as Kristalnacht its already too late. Things begin small and if they aren't controlled they get out of hand and snowball, then you have all on Kristalnacht domestically (abroad its already happened).

No, Kristallnacht was engineered by the Nazi government with the party goon squad instigating and participating (SA) while the police stood still and watched. This is nothing like it.

[G Huxley]

Same as when Yugoslavia fell apart, I guess. Although I think the US/UK were more concerned about the consequences of not invading.

The consequences of not invading were pretty slim. We've seen the consequences of invading now.

Think for a minute about what you are saying about the people who live there, though. They need a murdering thug to thoroughly oppress them in order for them not to try and blow each other to pieces.

That's basically the consequences Gertrude Bell's creation of Iraq. Bell comitted suicide as it fell apart. The only way an artificial entity like Iraq filled with disparate often antithetical peoples can really survive is with a strongman, which is why Saddam was backed by the west for years.

I'm not saying it needs to be that way. I'm saying that's the consequences of the west creating the artificial state of Iraq, which was fundamentally going to fail based on its very design. It was created as it was because Churchill wanted Iraq's oil for the British Navy. Since it was a state created for oil, and enforced by violence, that has been its legacy.

Don't you think they could at least give not killing each other a shot, just to see how it feels?

I think they'll give each other a shot

The peoples of the region are fiercely independent, its in their tribal nature. If the tribes, ethnic groups etc. are left to their own devices, imo they would find a natural equilibrium, but because oil is involved they will never be left to their own natural devices.

Afghanistan is a perfect case in point. In the mid 20th century prior to western intervention during the Cold War, it was a peaceful country, with the tribes acting in a natural equillibrium, and even a stable central government, as it found an equilibrium with the tribes.