|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 12:53 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
Quote:
(btw, I prefer to be called "Jeanette", not "Jean".) |
||
| Mar 31st, 2003 10:59 AM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Jean, its very relavant to the argument. I cant write a book calling for the sexual molestation of farm equipment, but it means nothing unless people start acting on it. There was wars in the history of Judism, but they are not commiting those wars now. Islamic fundies are causing them now. THAT is the problem. |
||
| Mar 31st, 2003 10:52 AM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
||
| Mar 31st, 2003 10:51 AM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
||
| Mar 31st, 2003 09:16 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | Jeanette, how many Jews do you know that are going on television wanting to destroy Muslims and Christians? How many Jews are homicide bombers? Exactly. | ||
| Mar 31st, 2003 12:17 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"Why did he make that promise in the first place, if he was not certain of being able to keep it?" You know, there is a point where you can simply admit you didn't understand an issue fully and let it die. Nothing in certain in life but two things: Death and failure. At the time, Bush felt he could live up to his promises, I mean, Saddam was/is a real life villain. He's nobody's hero, and everyone knows it. It was reasonable to expect that he could follow through with his promises and certainly wasn't setting the Kurds up for a fall. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 09:17 PM | |||
| theapportioner |
Speaking of His Majesty the Shah, it was an Iranian popular revolt that led to his sacking. A rejection of a blatant attempt at Westernization, and a corrupt regime. Yes, the United States helped to bring him to power. But this revolt, I think, did not come about because of American micro-meddling necessarily, but because of a rejection of over-Westernization, essentially. Many different groups, ideologies, participated in the revolt, but it was the fundamentalists that ultimately took power. People forget this -- they assume it was always a fundamentalist revolt. Now, 70% of Iranians are under 30 years old, because of a baby boom inspired by the revolution. They want reforms. By many accounts the fundamentalist facade is collapsing. The revolution is dying. What does this remind me of? The Soviet Union. My points: 1) Popular will exists in the "Islamic world", at least in the Iranian case. 2) The reform of Iranian government, and civilization, should take its natural course. Hegemonistic meddling, even in neighboring countries, will hurt this natural course. Will it prevent it? Maybe, depends on how far the US will go. 3) I believe that, if we improved relations with the "Islamic world" generally, it will lead to the openness and the moderating of ideology that we are seeing in China. Of course this will take time. 4) Any reconstruction of Iraq's political structure will have to take a local flavor. We cannot simply transplant our Constitution there. We should be wary of over-Westernization. It will have to give the utmost respect to Islam, and balance the tensions of the various ethnic groups within Iraq. But what does the Bush administration know about Islam? |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 08:56 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
As for the Old Testament, you say that Christians technically should follow the rules in it, but that they do not. If the Old Testament is sacred to Christians and a good Christian should follow it, then one could easily make the same arguements you make against Islam based on the Koran. Furthermore, Jews follow the Old Testament very closely. Again, because of this, one could make the same arguements against Judaism that you make against Islam because of what is written in the Koran. Quote:
|
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 04:38 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"So that makes it just fine to allow civilians to suffer and die?" I realize my answers are dismissed by you almost as quickly as I give them, so I will keep this brief. Those sanctions could have been lifted at any time had Hussein realized staying in power in Iraq was more harmful to his people than beneficial. I dare say, he gives not one iota for the safety and well being of those he governs. Fault lies on both sides, but responsibility lies solely with him. He was too weak to choose the right course of action. "That still doesn't explain why we set up the Shah instead of a democracy." History, while one part truth to two parts fabrication, is not a fairy tale. The Shah himself was not even involved in his own coup. Read up on what you're citing, or else don't bother. He was the man who had the most inherent support already, he was the only viable option for overthrowing the rightfully placed government of Iran. "What about the first Gulf war, when we urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, and then did nothing to help them as they were slaughtered." Let me use my capslock. Maybe you'll catch it this time: PRESIDENT BUSH HAD NO DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED HOSTILITIES AGAINST IRAQ. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 04:22 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
It may not say it in the Quran, but guess what, you would be wearing one. Old Testament. Doesn't apply to Christians except for Commandments. When Christ was shown as the Messiah, it was transformed into Christianity, at least that is most theologists teachings on the subject. Except if you are Messiahic Jew, which means you believe Jesus was the Son of God and the First Coming, but you keep with Jewish regulations and laws, which if you want to get real technical, Christians should to. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 02:16 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
And by the way, nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman must wear a burka. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 01:34 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Jeanette, moral equivelence will get you with a burka over your body. Sorry, but its a truth. Christians DID do evil things, but the New Testament does not command people to murder non-followers of the Messiah. Before you get into the crusades; the crusades happened because Muslim invaders were pushing themselves to conquer the world, so we decided that wanst going to happen, and fought them back. The Christians won the first Crusade. The Muslims fought back a bit in the second, and then the third and fourth ones which were not sponsored by the Vatican saw the Muslims winning back Jeruslem. The Koran and the collection of holy text that the Muslims use tell them about conquering non-muslims in battle. There is a difference between religous text influencing people to do something by a misinterpitation and when the text itself says what Allah commands. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 01:25 PM | |||
| Jeanette X | I have found that most of the things which Muslims are accused of (usually truthfully) have also been done by Christians at one point or another in history. | ||
| Mar 30th, 2003 01:16 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Quote:
Man, we piss these people off because we are not Muslim and/or we are not under their Muslim theocracy govt. It's that simple, dude. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 12:41 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
They've been in place ever since simply to keep Iraq more maleable to the UN's ministrations over his country. So that makes it just fine to allow civilians to suffer and die? The Soviets had Mosaddeq in their pocket, and were planning on using him for purposes of economical sabotage. It was of critical importance, not just to the United States, but to the non-social world, that such a thing did not come to pass. That still doesn't explain why we set up the Shah instead of a democracy. Actually, we censured him and then reported his actions to the UN, who made a full examination of the affair and eventually took action against him. Did the UN move with blinding speed? No. Did more Kurds die in the interim? Yes. Did we, in the end, help the Kurds? Yes. What about the first Gulf war, when we urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, and then did nothing to help them as they were slaughtered |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 06:12 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"What about my point about the sanctions?" Really, the wholes in your limited knowledge could consume worlds. Why were the sanctions imposed? August 6, 1990, just four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, sanctions were imposed by the UN as the first multilateral act of war against Iraq. A year after the coalition rebuffed Saddam imperialistic endeavours, the sanctions were kept in place as to pressure him into releasing captured prisoners of war - which he did, hesitantly. They've been in place ever since simply to keep Iraq more maleable to the UN's ministrations over his country. Thats the official explanation. The real reason is because of twits like you who refused to see Bush the First carry the war to the conclusion it should have rightly come to; Removing Hussein from power. Domestic pressure, and unfavourable regard for what the public saw as a personal war between Bush and Saddam, kept the US from pursuing a regime change in Iraq, so instead, we were persuaded to continue sanctions rather than wage a war against the nation of Iraq which was the direction we were heading in. Really, what was your point? "Why did we set him up instead of a democracy?" Christ, now you're championing the misinformation of Michael Moore. The operation against Iran's premier in 1953, code-named TP-AJAX, was the blueprint for a succession of CIA plots to foment coups and destabilize governments during the cold war - including the agency's successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the disastrous Cuban intervention known as the Bay of Pigs in 1961. But back to Iran; the Truman administration rejected the plan, but President Eisenhower approved it shortly after taking office in 1953, because of fears about oil and Communism. You see, its hard for you to imagine anything but the fat happy life you lead now (thanks, by the way, to men like Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson), but the cold war was not only very real then, but the stakes were so high it wasn't about winner take all, it was about preventing mutually assured destruction. The Soviets had Mosaddeq in their pocket, and were planning on using him for purposes of economical sabotage. It was of critical importance, not just to the United States, but to the non-social world, that such a thing did not come to pass. "He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian." Christ, you lack the reading comprehension most of us had by third grade. We trained him, along with untold numbers of others, so they could defend their worthless homeland against the very much imperialist actions of the Russians. That does not make him an employee of the CIA. "And that makes it acceptable that we did nothing to help the Kurds?" Actually, we censured him and then reported his actions to the UN, who made a full examination of the affair and eventually took action against him. Did the UN move with blinding speed? No. Did more Kurds die in the interim? Yes. Did we, in the end, help the Kurds? Yes. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 12:21 AM | |||
| theapportioner |
Quote:
Now, "Western culture". What is it? Is it unified? Would you say that it is diverse? Look at the diversity within I-Mockery. Now, how can you make the generalizations you are making about a meta-culture that you know next to nothing about, when our own culture is not at all unified? I rest my case. |
||
| Mar 30th, 2003 12:07 AM | |||
| Jeanette X |
A) We are going after Saddam to protect ourselves and to liberate those people and he is bringing his forces into the urban centers. War is ugly, welcome to the world. What about my point about the sanctions? B)It was far from democratic What was it then? The Shah wasn't democratic either. Why did we set him up instead of a democracy? C)bin Laden never, repeat NEVER, worked for the CIA. What he did was reactivate the intelligence network we laid out when we assisted the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. Besides, even if we had directly helped him, it makes him the backstabbing asshole, not us. "He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm) D) We were backing Iraq against what we though were a greater threat to us. And that makes it acceptable that we did nothing to help the Kurds? We also urged the Kurds and the Shiites of Iraq to rise up against Saddam during the first Persian Gulf war, and then we did not back them up as we promised. |
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 11:44 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
A) We are going after Saddam to protect ourselves and to liberate those people and he is bringing his forces into the urban centers. War is ugly, welcome to the world. B)It was far from democratic C)bin Laden never, repeat NEVER, worked for the CIA. What he did was reactivate the intelligence network we laid out when we assisted the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. Besides, even if we had directly helped him, it makes him the backstabbing asshole, not us. D) We were backing Iraq against what we though were a greater threat to us. |
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 11:29 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
As for the Shah, did you know that WE destroyed a democratic system in Iran and installed the Shah? Did you know that Osama Bin Laden used to work for the CIA? Did you know that Saddam was once our ally, and when he gassed the Kurds, all we did was mildly censure him? |
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 11:20 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
And how would those sanctions get lifted? Oh, ya, their leader lets in inspectors. But, he didn't do that. the Shah was a bad chapter, but again, that was an Arab screwing over his own people. Its not like we gave him orders to be an asshole. |
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 11:16 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 11:09 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
What about the anti-Christian sentiment in our culture? Every group that people identify with gets picked on by someone. What makes the Muslims so special? Of all the groups that have gotten screwed over in or by the US, they have the least to bitch about. Sorry if it is harsh, but its true. And when you look at those countries, they are getting screwed more by their own than by us. |
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 10:14 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Do you know about the Muslims detained in California? The rhethoric of Christian leaders against Islam? If we want people to stop joining fundamentalist Muslim groups, maybe we should stop pissing off Muslims in general... |
||
| Mar 29th, 2003 07:36 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Actually multicultural understanding places emphasis on the whole instead of the individual. That is why people are classifed as being "white", "Black", "asian", "latino", etc. instead of "John Small", "Luther Johnson", "Kim Lee", etc. Wow, Rorschach, you sound like a Fear Factory CD. But you have bells of truth ringing. I fear for the future where we try to be so... "one".. that we lose our Borders, Language and Culture. Quote:
Let me elaborate in the time I have: The people who Western Civilization is against right now, the Muslim Fundmentalist, are interested in understanding us to the point where they can come about unseen and destroy us. They don't have a face or a state or a loyalty to anyone except for their god. They truly do not care if you came up to one living in your hometown right now and said "Yes, I do understand we are from different cultures, and we should talk about learn about each other." If he had the chance to do it without getting caught, you would be dead. Muslim fundementalist do not understand "multiculturalism", "understanding", "Tolerance", any of that. They understand one simple thing, that no matter how you attack it, is always going to be the same: You convert or you die. They do not have a third direction. There is no shades of gray to lead to a black and white here. The whole senario is black and white. Convert or die. You will praise Allah as your god or you die. There is no exceptions, no quarter given. They will kill us if they have the chance. We are facing an enemy that does not care about your height, weight, eye color, skin tone, nose size, penis length, brest size, hair color, number of teeth, your college, your favorte metal band, your brand of car, your political affiliation. They care about one thing: Muslim or no. Muslim or infidel. Muslim or death. I'm sorry if this is something that some people don't want to face, but burying your head in the sand will only make it easier for them to depacitate you. |
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
