NationStates Jolt Archive

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.
We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.
That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

They want their country following their interpretation of the shariah laws very strictly I guess.

They actually do hate our freedom. They can't stand the idea of women being free to work, sue for divorce, dress whichever way they want, etc. They certainly can't stand the idea that each religion is treated the same as Islam.

but im sure they dont hate Americas unwavering support of Israel

:rolleyes:

Having been to the ME, the average Muslim doesn't hate the United States. Well they probably don't like it much since the shrub took office.

However, everybody I met were decent people.....

They actually do hate our freedom. They can't stand the idea of women being free to work, sue for divorce, dress whichever way they want, etc. They certainly can't stand the idea that each religion is treated the same as Islam.

:rolleyes: :D :D

Oh my, can you really believe all this crap? Can't you imagine it has to do with carpet bombings, tortures, mock elections, organised coups, stealing of natural ressources and such other joyous specialities?

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology?

According to Islam, the "right" ideaology is Democracy without Nationalism - ie. Not American Democracy, which is what is being forced down the throats of Iraqis whether they like it or not. Nationalism is frowned upon in Qur'an because it leads to needless and senseless wars, but what the US is doing over there is flag waving and saber rattling and, frankly, that is anti-Islam and it makes the US look anti-Islam.

... and as for each religion treated the same way of islam, let me laugh, with US presidents taking oath on the bible and common prayers being hold by the govt. And Bushie saying he takes advice from God at breakfast.

According to Islam, the "right" ideaology is Democracy without Nationalism - ie. Not American Democracy, which is what is being forced down the throats of Iraqis whether they like it or not. Nationalism is frowned upon in Qur'an because it leads to needless and senseless wars, but what the US is doing over there is flag waving and saber rattling and, frankly, that is anti-Islam and it makes the US look anti-Islam.

That's why there are so many democracies in the Middle East, I guess...

According to Islam, the "right" ideaology is Democracy without Nationalism - ie. Not American Democracy, which is what is being forced down the throats of Iraqis whether they like it or not. Nationalism is frowned upon in Qur'an because it leads to needless and senseless wars, but what the US is doing over there is flag waving and saber rattling and, frankly, that is anti-Islam and it makes the US look anti-Islam.

Ahh but there is a big problem for the hard core types; the establishment clause.

It invalidates the Shariah laws.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

There's several things to remember:

A) Arabs hate Jews (as do all Gentiles) - America gives $8.3million per day to Israel. What does Israel do with the money? Buy old Soviet guns and tanks and kill Palestinians (Arabs). Thats why 9/11 happened, and it will happen again if America continues to fund Israel

B) Democracy is a reltively new idea, and not many people like it. To be honest, I dont even think it works. Look at America now, we basically vote in a dictator. We voted in George Bush, he went to war against Iraq when the majority of his citizens didnt want to, and there's nothing we can do about it. Our national leaders are not being held responsible for their actions. Or look at Germany, look at all their anti-Nazi laws. Thats no democracy, thats a dictatorship! What kind of democracy tells its people what they can and cannot say, or wear? Germany has been royally screwed by the Allies.....twice.
Thus, I think democracy has had its day in the sun.

C) Democracy seems right to you because its all you know. Women being oppressed and beaten seems wrong to us because we dont allow that kind of thing anymore. You cannot look at a country through your own "culture goggles." Just because we say it is wrong in our country, doesnt mean it is wrong. Countries need to keep their nose out of everyone's business.

That's why there are so many democracies in the Middle East, I guess...

Just about every Middle Eastern country is a Democracy.

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.
"Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example...We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security."--Osama Bin Laden
sorry, your attempts to make this a 2-d issue have failed.

Ahh but there is a big problem for the hard core types; the establishment clause.

It invalidates the Shariah laws.

In a sense, yes, but the hard-core types are few in number and are calmed down quite easily and made to see reason ... unless you do it at the end of a gun.

I think it's to do with Isreal Palestinian conflict.. I wonder why.. It's like people getting killed hundred miles away and get angry over it. Do they really hate the jews THAT much? I think yes. To do with Jerusalem too.

And Freedom. American freedom to them is evil from a religious standpoint. To do as you please, and allow people to fall into sin and into hell or corrupt others with immoralities like showing thighs. CAn't imagine what would happen if you give out porno on the streets.

:rolleyes: :D :D

Oh my, can you really believe all this crap? Can't you imagine it has to do with carpet bombings, tortures, mock elections, organised coups, stealing of natural ressources and such other joyous specialities?
Do you even know what a carpet bombing is? Obviously not. Carpet bombing eliminates sqare miles of buildings. We don't do that anymore.

The mock elections are perpetrated by their own leaders, whom we do business with because they are the folks in charge, and we need the oil.

As for stealing natural resources, you must be high. If we steal them then why does OPEC exist? The oil producers set their own prices.

In a sense, yes, but the hard-core types are few in number and are calmed down quite easily and made to see reason ... unless you do it at the end of a gun.

I don't think so. Maybe not in Iraq. I'm not too sure. Because you can imagine that the vast majority of the population are very religious. To them, I guess, would be better you gouge your eye than falling into hell because of sin.

According to Islam, the "right" ideaology is Democracy without Nationalism - ie. Not American Democracy, which is what is being forced down the throats of Iraqis whether they like it or not. Nationalism is frowned upon in Qur'an because it leads to needless and senseless wars, but what the US is doing over there is flag waving and saber rattling and, frankly, that is anti-Islam and it makes the US look anti-Islam.
How do you figure? Democracy didn't originate in Islamic nations, and it's rare there today. It doesn't seem to me that Islam sees any democracy as "right".

To say that the Middle East or the Arab world hates the United States for a single reason is pretty foolhardy. The hatred I believe can be traced back to a famous Muslim author (Who's name I can't remeber for the life of me) who spent time in the United States. He objected to what he saw as the decadance of American culture and declared it incompatible with Islamic culture. More recently the United States and its unquestioning support of Israel has more than pissed of a sizable chunk of the region.

The hatred everyone is so concerned about right now however has a very definite root. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, specifically Zbigniew Brzezinski, in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet forces invading at the time. Though he didn't exactly like America at the time, he was willing to work with us to drive out the Russians. He only became a terrorist to the US when he objected to American forces been stationed in his home country of Saudi Arabia after Saddam invaded Kuwait. When the troops remained after the Gulf War he called the Saudis puppets of America and was stripped of his citizenship there. I'm pretty sure we all know the rest of the story.

Link (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm)

How do you figure? Democracy didn't originate in Islamic nations, and it's rare there today. It doesn't seem to me that Islam sees any democracy as "right".

No, it didn't originate with Islamic nations, but it was propogated by them. The Middle East was democratically electing its leaders when Europe was under Catholic/Monarch rule. Most countries in the Middle East still democratically elect its leaders.

You can do a google on democracy and islam and find the connections.

Otherwise, here's a pretty good article on the subject: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0728/p08s03-cojh.html

It's op/ed, but it covers some good points.

There's several things to remember:

A) Arabs hate Jews (as do all Gentiles)


I am neither an Arab, nor a Gentile, yet I don't hate Jews, does this mean I am, in fact, Jewish? Or could it just be that you are making unsubstantiated and false claims again?

I am neither an Arab, nor a Gentile, yet I don't hate Jews, does this mean I am, in fact, Jewish? Or could it just be that you are making unsubstantiated and false claims again?
Maybe you shouldn't take claims about Jews seriously from someone with Hitler in their name.

No, it didn't originate with Islamic nations, but it was propogated by them. The Middle East was democratically electing its leaders when Europe was under Catholic/Monarch rule. Most countries in the Middle East still democratically elect its leaders.

You can do a google on democracy and islam and find the connections.

Otherwise, here's a pretty good article on the subject: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0728/p08s03-cojh.html

It's op/ed, but it covers some good points.
I thought that the Islamic world in the middle ages was ruled by the caliphate? Are you saying the caliph was elected?

Maybe you shouldn't take claims about Jews seriously from someone with Hitler in their name.

I'm just trying to make a habit of calling this one on his spurious claims.

They certainly can't stand the idea that each religion is treated the same as Islam.
Ha, tell that to a Christian.

...

Oh damn, was that me making a generalisation? :rolleyes:

I agree with that - I'm no expert, or even amateur on this subject, but an opinion expressed by one with 'Hitler' in their name and residing in a region called 'nazi Europe' can hardly be called objective and unbiased.

There's several things to remember:

A) Arabs hate Jews (as do all Gentiles) - America gives $8.3million per day to Israel. What does Israel do with the money? Buy old Soviet guns and tanks and kill Palestinians (Arabs). Thats why 9/11 happened, and it will happen again if America continues to fund Israel

B) Democracy is a reltively new idea, and not many people like it. To be honest, I dont even think it works. Look at America now, we basically vote in a dictator. We voted in George Bush, he went to war against Iraq when the majority of his citizens didnt want to, and there's nothing we can do about it. Our national leaders are not being held responsible for their actions. Or look at Germany, look at all their anti-Nazi laws. Thats no democracy, thats a dictatorship! What kind of democracy tells its people what they can and cannot say, or wear? Germany has been royally screwed by the Allies.....twice.
Thus, I think democracy has had its day in the sun.

C) Democracy seems right to you because its all you know. Women being oppressed and beaten seems wrong to us because we dont allow that kind of thing anymore. You cannot look at a country through your own "culture goggles." Just because we say it is wrong in our country, doesnt mean it is wrong. Countries need to keep their nose out of everyone's business.
Hitler Jr is back! Are you still on my brother's land? Jeez! Get the hint already!

Plenty of Arabs and Gentiles don't hate jews....you just don't want to feel lonely...poor hatemonger.

You should keep your nose out of everyone's business...namely their racial background for a change.

I'm just trying to make a habit of calling this one on his spurious claims.
Thats fair enough. Still I doubt people take it seriously, at least anyone who doesn't already think like that. Its like a "resident Nazi" gimmick.

Thats fair enough. Still I doubt people take it seriously, at least anyone who doesn't already think like that. Its like a "resident Nazi" gimmick.
I just keep hoping if we poke him with sticks he'll start frothing at the mouth.

I just keep hoping if we poke him with sticks he'll start frothing at the mouth.

Nah: that would be too close to flamebaiting. Pointing out that his statements often have little basis in reality is probably sufficient.

:rolleyes: :D :D

Oh my, can you really believe all this crap? Can't you imagine it has to do with carpet bombings, tortures, mock elections, organised coups, stealing of natural ressources and such other joyous specialities?

Or how we go to such lengths to destablize every country that has anything we want. To say that the Middle East hates us because they hate our freedom is like saying that we invaded Iraq to bring them democracy or invaded Afghanistan to wipe out heroin.

They hate us because we rob and ruin them; we rob and ruin them because we can. Just like we do in South America and all over Africa, though Europe does plenty of that in Africa too. That's why we only invade countries that are in danger of becoming too democratic or too stable.

Or how we go to such lengths to destablize every country that has anything we want. To say that the Middle East hates us because they hate our freedom is like saying that we invaded Iraq to bring them democracy or invaded Afghanistan to wipe out heroin.

They hate us because we rob and ruin them; we rob and ruin them because we can. Just like we do in South America and all over Africa, though Europe does plenty of that in Africa too. That's why we only invade countries that are in danger of becoming too democratic or too stable.
We rob the middle east? Then why can OPEC still set prices? I was under the impression that robbery got you something for nothing. Where's all my free oil?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

If we lived under the islamic rule, we'd revolt.

Its their fault their in such a situation. If they wanted democracy, they revolt.

I just wanted to say this:

Iran is fairly pro-America if you look past the Theocracy that rules with an iron fist.

I thought that the Islamic world in the middle ages was ruled by the caliphate? Are you saying the caliph was elected?

In the first thirty years after Prophet Muhammad's death, that was the case.

Everyone in the Islamic Ummah voted for their leader out of several candidates. It actually caused conflict and schism, but that is a rule held sacred by shari'a.

Leaders are to be elected, period.

After the death of Ali bin-abi-Taleb, the Ummayed's took power and came up with the whole "heirarchy" crap, where the eldest son of the Caliph becomes next in line to the throne. That system was NOT advocated by Islam. Islam is against such a system.

Actually, the Shari'a also gives the followers of Islam the right to peacefully refuse to carry out the leader's orders if he is deemed unfit to rule.

But, you're so anti-Islam, this will be disregarded completely by you, right? :rolleyes: .. You'll just turn to the chapter in the Shari'a that advocates capital punishment.

Iran is fairly pro-America if you look past the Theocracy that rules with an iron fist.
It's true. Throughout the Middle East, the best-selling soft drink is Coca Cola. Or locally produced versions. How's that hatred of Western values? :p

In the first thirty years after Prophet Muhammad's death, that was the case.

Everyone in the Islamic Ummah voted for their leader out of several candidates. It actually caused conflict and schism, but that is a rule held sacred by shari'a.

Leaders are to be elected, period.

After the death of Ali bin-abi-Taleb, the Ummayed's took power and came up with the whole "heirarchy" crap, where the eldest son of the Caliph becomes next in line to the throne. That system was NOT advocated by Islam. Islam is against such a system.

Actually, the Shari'a also gives the followers of Islam the right to peacefully refuse to carry out the leader's orders if he is deemed unfit to rule.

But, you're so anti-Islam, this will be disregarded completely by you, right? :rolleyes: .. You'll just turn to the chapter in the Shari'a that advocates capital punishment.
Yes, I probably will.

You say that the Middle Easterns are stupid people who generalize a lot when they spew hatred at you Americans. You claim that the American administration is the blame, not the people of America..

Here, the thread starter, Teranius, asks why the Middle East hates 'America'.. But then he points to a claim made by one fucking individual, Al-Zarqawi, and says that it is proof that the entire MIDDLE EAST hates America..


God, does anyone else see the damn irony? :rolleyes:

But then again, we Middle Easterners have gotten quite used to the double-standards the West uses against us.

We rob the middle east? Then why can OPEC still set prices? I was under the impression that robbery got you something for nothing. Where's all my free oil?
It's not robbery, it's extortion.

A good organised criminal knows that you do not rob someone once, you bleed his resources slowly under threat of violence. Robbery is for amateurs, making someone work for you for a reduced fee is the intelligent way to go about material acquisition.

Of course you don't have free oil. But thanks to pro-Western dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and others, the West receives oil at a much lower price than it would be if those countries were truly free to charge whatever they liked. Contrary to what the badly informed American public believes, OPEC actually gives the West an excellent price and a first-rate supply/demand management service too. After all, half the countries in OPEC are American allies. Like, duh.

And that's why the last thing a lot of those countries need is democracy, if Western interests are considered. A government representative of the will in the people, in a lot of cases, will increase the price of oil for us and funnel the revenue into their domestic social programmes.

And that's why the last thing a lot of those countries need is democracy, if Western interests are considered. A government representative of the will in the people, in a lot of cases, will increase the price of oil for us and funnel the revenue into their domestic social programmes.
Wasn't that going on in Saudi Arabia for a long time? Huge numbers of unemployed people getting welfare checks from the Saud family's oil wealth.
Hell, the US isn't wealthy enough to do that. How could the Saudis be that wealthy if we're extorting them?

It is true that OPEC sets petroleum prices, but it is my understanding that almost all of the oil for which the price is being set is extracted by Western companies. These companies for the most part have contracts that were drawn up by the nations in which they were based when the nation whose oil they are extracting was freed from the former nation. Wait, maybe that was the most confusing way I could possibly have stated that. I'm trying to say: when the Western nations that owned the Middle East granted it political freedom, they required that the new governments that were to run those former colonies contract with Western companies for the extraction of oil. So, it can very easily be stated that the West 'steals' the Middle East's oil, because they set up a system in which primarily Westerners would profit. I know this much more than most people on this thing are willing to read, so thank you if you've made it this far.

In addition, I agree wholeheartedly with Greenmanbry that the West generally fails to look at the Middle East in 3 dimensions. Unfortunately, that seems to be how most societies look at other societies. Until that changes, we're doomed to this nightmare cycle of war and deprivation.

Nationalism is frowned upon in Qur'an because it leads to needless and senseless wars,
Bull, it's because it leads to people beginning to think of something other than their religion on a grand scale, which almost inevitably leads to people either dumping their religion or trying to change it, thus lessening the religion's control.

If we lived under the islamic rule, we'd revolt.

Its their fault their in such a situation. If they wanted democracy, they revolt.
They are revolting...just look at the clothes they wear!

(Old Randy River commercial)

You say that the Middle Easterns are stupid people who generalize a lot when they spew hatred at you Americans. You claim that the American administration is the blame, not the people of America..

Here, the thread starter, Teranius, asks why the Middle East hates 'America'.. But then he points to a claim made by one fucking individual, Al-Zarqawi, and says that it is proof that the entire MIDDLE EAST hates America..


God, does anyone else see the damn irony? :rolleyes:

But then again, we Middle Easterners have gotten quite used to the double-standards the West uses against us.

Hey, it's not a double standard to go and stereotype an entire region for the actions of a few, then turn around and complain when people do it to you....

Oh wait...yeah...yeah that IS a double standard....

But it's a GOOD thing to have standards, isn't it???? :eek:

Wasn't that going on in Saudi Arabia for a long time? Huge numbers of unemployed people getting welfare checks from the Saud family's oil wealth.
Hell, the US isn't wealthy enough to do that. How could the Saudis be that wealthy if we're extorting them?
Very briefly, during the 1980s, yes. However, an individual's average annual income has now fallen by a factor of 3, to less than $8,000 and continues to fall. Pretty small considering they are fuelling a multi-trillion dollar global economy. Increasingly what you see is poverty as the state ceases to be in a position to provide a welfare state. Oil endowment is a finite thing, and the population has grown. Most strikingly, the enormous royal family, estimated at 30,000 members, all expect to live a life of opulence. You can't give that many people the lifestyle of a king (or at least a significant MD or CEO) without seriously distorting the economy. The deal worked briefly, not for a while now though. You can't blame the people for thinking a decade ahead and wanting a change. But under the status quo we have imposed for our benefit, they cannot be allowed to have it.

The trick in the Middle East is not to give people democracy, but to impose the right kind of dictatorship.

Very briefly, during the 1980s, yes. However, an individual's average annual income has now fallen by a factor of 3, to less than $8,000 and continues to fall. Increasingly what you see is poverty as the state ceases to be in a position to provide a welfare state. Oil endowment is a finite thing, and the population has grown. Most strikingly, the enormous royal family, estimated at 30,000 members, all expect to live a life of opulence. You can't give that many people the lifestyle of a king (or at least a significant MD or CEO) without seriously distorting the economy. The deal worked briefly, not for a while now though. You can't blame the people for thinking a decade ahead and wanting a change. But under the status quo we have imposed for our benefit, they cannot be allowed to have it.

The trick in the Middle East is not to give people democracy, but to impose the right kind of dictatorship.
Ahem, last time I checked the Saudi's didn't exactly fund the best schools in the world.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

For starters, when did Zarqawi become the spokesperson for all of the Middle East?

For seconds, isn't it a shame that the invasion of Iraq removed one of the most secular leaders in the Middle East? He hated Islamic fundies which is primarily why he and Bin Laden were at odds. Women in Iraq have fewer freedoms now than they had under Saddam.

And this should also remind you as to why those who a) call all of the insurgents "remenants of the old regime", and b) also equate all of the insurgents to Zarqawi are clearly oversimplifying the case.

The former regime was secular. Zarqawi is not. They may have allied themselves against a common enemy, however they come from very diferent philosophies on many issues.

Zarqawi's origins were with a terrorist group that set up shop in the Kurdish region of Iraq AFTER the US had placed the Kurds under their protection. Which is to say that his group existed beyond the range of Husseins control.

Don't you wish GW had taken out Zarqawi before the invasion like the military told him they could and pressured him to do? Why didn't he? Zarqawi was one of his talking points to show Iraq as harbouring terrorists. No more Zarqawi would have removed the only existing tenuous link between Iraq and al Qaeda. The case for war was slim enough that they didn't want to remove any of their talking points. The fact that Zarqawi's camp existed under the protection of the US no fly zone was just never mentioned in press briefings - go figure.

Now, as to the rest of the theory that is being extrapolated from this one single statement. I suggest you go back and reread Bin Laden's fatwa declaration against the US. In it he listed several foreign policy decisions of the US that - if reversed - would lift the Fatwa.

In other words, "you leave us alone - we leave you alone". This runs completely counter to the idea suggested here which is that lame, over-tired "they hate our freedom".



Hey - Here is a thought for you.

If Arabs really hate our freedom, then this attempt to liberate them was doomed from the start, and GW should have known that. By accepting this oft-repeated basic premise of his about how things supposedly really are in the Middle East - this makes this war an even stupider proposition than before.

"They hate our freedom, but we are going to liberate them anyway."

Yeah?

Good fucking luck with that then......trying to ram something down their throats that they don't want at the point of a gun.


Fortunately for all concerned the premise is wrong. It's hyperbole - nothing more.

Ahem, last time I checked the Saudi's didn't exactly fund the best schools in the world.
The Saudi Royal family is an enormous entity, and is a part of this mafia. One individual can be in the pay of the US government, another could be laundering money for anti-American terrorists, but it is a family business, they are not going to have public disputes about it. This makes them vulnerable to their own contradictions, just like any large crime family, when a multitude of agendas collide. It is far from a perfect arrangement. But on the whole, for the West, Saudi Arabia is "the right kind of dictatorship". It works for us, most of the time. That's what counts.

The Saudi Royal family is an enormous entity, and is a part of this mafia. One individual can be in the pay of the US government, another could be laundering money for anti-American terrorists, but it is a family business, they are not going to have public disputes about it. This makes them vulnerable to their own contradictions, just like any large crime family, when a multitude of agendas collide. It is far from a perfect arrangement. But on the whole, for the West, Saudi Arabia is "the right kind of dictatorship". It works for us, most of the time. That's what counts.
Without an educated populace the common person is never going to actually make any real amount of money. If they had the vocational skills all of the foreigners wouldn't need to be imported to do the jobs they do.

Very briefly, during the 1980s, yes. However, an individual's average annual income has now fallen by a factor of 3, to less than $8,000 and continues to fall. Pretty small considering they are fuelling a multi-trillion dollar global economy. Increasingly what you see is poverty as the state ceases to be in a position to provide a welfare state. Oil endowment is a finite thing, and the population has grown. Most strikingly, the enormous royal family, estimated at 30,000 members, all expect to live a life of opulence. You can't give that many people the lifestyle of a king (or at least a significant MD or CEO) without seriously distorting the economy. The deal worked briefly, not for a while now though. You can't blame the people for thinking a decade ahead and wanting a change. But under the status quo we have imposed for our benefit, they cannot be allowed to have it.

The trick in the Middle East is not to give people democracy, but to impose the right kind of dictatorship.
Still, how does any of that support the extortion hypothesis? Average income may have fallen, but let's face facts. They produce nothing but oil. Israel has no oil, but it's a leader in high tech industries. They're doing fine. You can't expect to build an economy on one commodity and prosper forever.

For starters, when did Zarqawi become the spokesperson for all of the Middle East?

For seconds, isn't it a shame that the invasion of Iraq removed one of the most secular leaders in the Middle East? He hated Islamic fundies which is primarily why he and Bin Laden were at odds. Women in Iraq have fewer freedoms now than they had under Saddam.

And this should also remind you as to why those who a) call all of the insurgents "remenants of the old regime", and b) also equate all of the insurgents to Zarqawi are clearly oversimplifying the case.

The former regime was secular. Zarqawi is not. They may have allied themselves against a common enemy, however they come from very diferent philosophies on many issues.

Zarqawi's origins were with a terrorist group that set up shop in the Kurdish region of Iraq AFTER the US had placed the Kurds under their protection. Which is to say that his group existed beyond the range of Husseins control.

Don't you wish GW had taken out Zarqawi before the invasion like the military told him they could and pressured him to do? Why didn't he? Zarqawi was one of his talking points to show Iraq as harbouring terrorists. No more Zarqawi would have removed the only existing tenuous link between Iraq and al Qaeda. The case for war was slim enough that they didn't want to remove any of their talking points. The fact that Zarqawi's camp existed under the protection of the US no fly zone was just never mentioned in press briefings - go figure.

Now, as to the rest of the theory that is being extrapolated from this one single statement. I suggest you go back and reread Bin Laden's fatwa declaration against the US. In it he listed several foreign policy decisions of the US that - if reversed - would lift the Fatwa.

In other words, "you leave us alone - we leave you alone". This runs completely counter to the idea suggested here which is that lame, over-tired "they hate our freedom".



Hey - Here is a thought for you.

If Arabs really hate our freedom, then this attempt to liberate them was doomed from the start, and GW should have known that. By accepting this oft-repeated basic premise of his about how things supposedly really are in the Middle East - this makes this war an even stupider proposition than before.

"They hate our freedom, but we are going to liberate them anyway."

Yeah?

Good fucking luck with that then......trying to ram something down their throats that they don't want at the point of a gun.


Fortunately for all concerned the premise is wrong. It's hyperbole - nothing more.
I agree. It was stupid to go into Iraq. We had nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

Okay, it's a coincidence that this is exactly what I'm learning about in school.

Here's one of my school books (Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar):

The Islamic Political System is based on the following main principles:

1. Sovereignty of Allah

2. Khalifah of Mankind (Vicegerency of Man)
- Man must carry out the will of God.

3. Legislation by Shura (Consultation)
- Make legislations and decisions by the process of Shura. Shura means to take decisions by consultation and participation. There is no scope for despotism in Islam.

4. Accountability of government
- The Islamic political system makes the ruler and the government responsible firstly to Allah and then to the people. The ruler and the government are elected by the people to exercise powers on their behalf.

5. Independance of judiciary
- The Judiciary is independent of the Executive. The head of the state or any government minister could be called to the court if necessary. They would be treated no differently from other citizens.

6. Equality before law
- The Islam political system ensures equality of all citizens before the law. It does not recognise any discrimination on the basis of language, colour, territory, sex or descent.

That's typed right out of the book. Enjoy!

6. Equality before law
- The Islam political system ensures equality of all citizens before the law. It does not recognise any discrimination on the basis of language, colour, territory, sex or descent.

That's typed right out of the book. Enjoy!
Bwahahahahahahaha. Hey, don't feel too bad, it's translated from theory to working model at least as well as communism did. :D :D :D

Okay, it's a coincidence that this is exactly what I'm learning about in school.

Here's one of my school books (Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar):

The Islamic Political System is based on the following main principles:

1. Sovereignty of Allah

2. Khalifah of Mankind (Vicegerency of Man)
- Man must carry out the will of God.

3. Legislation by Shura (Consultation)
- Make legislations and decisions by the process of Shura. Shura means to take decisions by consultation and participation. There is no scope for despotism in Islam.

4. Accountability of government
- The Islamic political system makes the ruler and the government responsible firstly to Allah and then to the people. The ruler and the government are elected by the people to exercise powers on their behalf.

5. Independance of judiciary
- The Judiciary is independent of the Executive. The head of the state or any government minister could be called to the court if necessary. They would be treated no differently from other citizens.

6. Equality before law
- The Islam political system ensures equality of all citizens before the law. It does not recognise any discrimination on the basis of language, colour, territory, sex or descent.

That's typed right out of the book. Enjoy!
I notice number six doesn't mention religion, and it is wrong in regards to discrimination in the legal system based on sex.

Still, how does any of that support the extortion hypothesis? Average income may have fallen, but let's face facts. They produce nothing but oil. Israel has no oil, but it's a leader in high tech industries. They're doing fine. You can't expect to build an economy on one commodity and prosper forever.


It's because all the profits from the oil go either to rulers of the country or the Western companies who extract the oil. The reason Israelis were able to diversify was because they had capital when they moved to Israel. The average Middle Easterner has very little, thus has nothing to invest in new ventures. Coincidentally, that is the same reason why Bush's tax cuts for the rich will help to destroy USA's middle class and eventually, USA's economy. If Middle Eastern nations had a profit sharing system, they would have a basis for building entrepreneurship, and eventually a healthy economy, a la Taiwan.

"The problem with the French is that they have no word for 'entrepreneur',"

-George W Bush

It's because all the profits from the oil go either to rulers of the country or the Western companies who extract the oil. The reason Israelis were able to diversify was because they had capital when they moved to Israel. The average Middle Easterner has very little, thus has nothing to invest in new ventures. Coincidentally, that is the same reason why Bush's tax cuts for the rich will help to destroy USA's middle class and eventually, USA's economy. If Middle Eastern nations had a profit sharing system, they would have a basis for building entrepreneurship, and eventually a healthy economy, a la Taiwan.

"The problem with the French is that they have no word for 'entrepreneur',"

-George W Bush
Yet none of those saudi princes wants to bring industry to his country in anticipation of the oil drying up and with it their wealth?

I notice number six doesn't mention religion, and it is wrong in regards to discrimination in the legal system based on sex.

Have you ever thought that MAYBE, just MAYBE that Muslims aren't really being faithful? I mean from everything I've seen the Koran never says anything about treating women the way they're being treated. I know the Bible has changed since the original text due to the interference of man.

Yet none of those saudi princes wants to bring industry to his country in anticipation of the oil drying up and with it their wealth?


Just like Americans make no effort to reduce their energy comsumption in anticipation of said event. People tend not to think too far ahead. Especially when it mostly will be their children suffering for it.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.
They don't perceive it as "freedom and liberty", they perceive it as going against their religion.

An American President named Woodrow Wilosn was a great advocate of the "right to self-determination".

This does not mean that it is a good idea to enforce a system of government on a people through the use of a foreign army of occupation, no matter how much you might think that that system is preferable.

:rolleyes: :D :D

Oh my, can you really believe all this crap? Can't you imagine it has to do with carpet bombings, tortures, mock elections, organised coups, stealing of natural ressources and such other joyous specialities?"I lost my wife, lost my arm, my sister can't see, we lost our running water and my daughter is sick from drinking out of mud puddles, but you know what really pisses me off? ......Democracy!"

Blaming the US is often a convenient dodge for corrupt governments who don't want an angry mob of people rioting in the streets. I suspect that a lot of that goes on in the middle east. Does anyone have evidence one way or another?

"I lost my wife, lost my arm, my sister can't see, we lost our running water and my daughter is sick from drinking out of mud puddles, but you know what really pisses me off? ......Democracy!"
What if they had invaded (I'm sorry 'pacified') the US instead of the other way round, would you be happy about that?

Blaming the US is often a convenient dodge for corrupt governments who don't want an angry mob of people rioting in the streets.
True, so is blaming terrorism, communism, in fact having some sort of enemy on whom to focus public attention is a very important thing to all types of governments, dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, whatever. The Cold War for example, actually served the interests of both sides for quite a long time.

We rob the middle east? Then why can OPEC still set prices? I was under the impression that robbery got you something for nothing. Where's all my free oil?

If someone stopped you on the street, pointed a gun at you and demanded your wallet, then gave you a few dollars for your trouble, would he have completed a valid sales transaction from a strong bargaining position or would he have robbed you?

When the mafia walks into local businesses and says "nice place you got here. Be a shame if a bunch of thugs came around and started busting the place up. We at Nunzio and da Boys security consulting can make sure that don't happen for the low low price of 80% of your before tax profits. But don't feel under any pressure to accept now, sit back and watch our demsonstration of what happens to businesses who don't sign up for our security package" have they just sold a legitimate service to a willing client?

Just because you have a piece of paper saying that it was OK doesn't mean it isn't robbery. And if you think that OPEC doesn't take cues from the most powerful country on Earth you're out of your mind.

Islam is a very tolerant religeon and it has been for a thousand years, though what it does not do is tolerate Injustice and thats what they feel has been done to them. Also maybe western culture messing with their lives for the past 50-200 years has something to do with it.
And in the Qu'ran only Muhammeds wives were required to wear veils as a sign of their status, but Islam was hijacked by the males at some point (like Christianity and Judaism) and all woman were made to follow the tradition of Muhammeds wives.
And of Muslims hating Jews yes it is also like some Christians hate jews for killing Jesus, It is because Muhammed saw the Jews as his brothers and respected and admired them. He even changed some rituals of Islam to better fit with judaism, but then as he came into the open with his religeon, The Jews started to mock and criticize him and after years of this mocking he change the Way of prayer back to Mecca from Jerusalum, and again prayed 3 times a day.

"I lost my wife, lost my arm, my sister can't see, we lost our running water and my daughter is sick from drinking out of mud puddles, but you know what really pisses me off? ......Democracy!"
I don't remember the people of Hungary, their country wrecked by the Germans in WW2, being too thrilled about being given communism and "reconstructed" by the USSR.

Just because you have a piece of paper saying that it was OK doesn't mean it isn't robbery. And if you think that OPEC doesn't take cues from the most powerful country on Earth you're out of your mind.
Exactly my point, the West is actually running not so much an empire in the traditional sense, but a highly lucrative racket. We're living off the proceeds of organised crime really, simply conducted at such high levels and with so much supporting documentation that it is no longer crime. I have no trouble accepting this as the way things are, believe me I'm the last guy you'll see chaining himself to a tree over it. But it annoys me how many people there are who keep saying "No, no, it can't be, we're so good!" It's ignorance.

We Put Military Air Bases On Their Holy Grounds.
That Is Like Slapping Someones Mother Silly!!!

I don't remember the people of Hungary, their country wrecked by the Germans in WW2, being too thrilled about being given communism and "reconstructed" by the USSR.

"Do you remember how happy Poland was to be "Liberated" (and yes, that's what the Nazi's called it), by Germany?

We Put Military Air Bases On Their Holy Grounds.
That Is Like Slapping Someones Mother Silly!!!
Quick question. How much of that ground is holy? We didn't put bases in Mecca or Medina. We put bases within Saudi with the full permission of the Saudi government.

Quick question. How much of that ground is holy? We didn't put bases in Mecca or Medina. We put bases within Saudi with the full permission of the Saudi government.
Except it's an absolute monarchy which tortures then decapitates people it doesn't like. I don't think it had much of a mandate to agree to any such request from its people. And what is the US doing building bases in a country with that kind of government, anyway? After all, it's illegal to do business with Iran.

I like how Americans go all frothy at the mouth about dictatorships which are a nuisance, and completely ignore the subject of dictatorships which are very helpful and accomodating. Indeed to the point of refusing to utter the word "dictatorship", and defending their government as legitimate. I'm not referring specifically to you, this is a general observation about Americans. I'm not stupid, I know full well that every nation acts out of self interest irrespective of moral considerations except where convenient. But its weird to constantly see people in denial about it. The West didn't get to its current position of power by handing out civil rights and democracy, generally by replacing one inequitable system with one of their own preference. It's just common sense.

Except it's an absolute monarchy which tortures then decapitates people it doesn't like. I don't think it had much of a mandate to agree to any such request from its people. And what is the US doing building bases in a country with that kind of government, anyway? After all, it's illegal to do business with Iran.

I like how Americans go all frothy at the mouth about dictatorships which are a nuisance, and completely ignore the subject of dictatorships which are very helpful and accomodating. Indeed to the point of refusing to utter the word "dictatorship", and defending their government as legitimate. I'm not referring specifically to you, this is a general observation about Americans. I'm not stupid, I know full well that every nation acts out of self interest irrespective of moral considerations except where convenient. But its weird to constantly see people in denial about it. The West didn't get to its current position of power by handing out civil rights and democracy, generally by replacing one inequitable system with one of their own preference. It's just common sense.

Dude, I'm no fan of the Saudi family. They're just the lesser of two evils right now. It's either the corrupt money grubbing Saudis, or the wahabbis who, if given power, would use it to try make the entire world a conservative muslim society by any means necessary.

I thought that the Islamic world in the middle ages was ruled by the caliphate? Are you saying the caliph was elected?

From the very first Caliph to the very last Caliph, he was elected.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

Actually after Bush got Elected I think Muslims saids, " And that is why Democracy is wrong and bad. It lets that thing(Bush) to rule over you. Anything that allows that can't be good."

Bull, it's because it leads to people beginning to think of something other than their religion on a grand scale, which almost inevitably leads to people either dumping their religion or trying to change it, thus lessening the religion's control.

Ummm ... yeah ... and you gained this learned insight into Islamic history and Qur'an ... where? Your own mind or have you actually read Qur'an? :rolleyes:

I notice number six doesn't mention religion, and it is wrong in regards to discrimination in the legal system based on sex.

You'll find in a great majority of Islamic countries, women are treated with greater equality than they are treated in the US. Some small and very obnoxious governments - such as the Taliban - forced women to wear burkas, but you cannot take the Taliban as a model of Islamic government.

Women choose whether or not they want to cover their hair. They choose. Simple as that. In some places, such as Iran, it is required by law for women to cover their hair when in public whereas in other Muslim nations, such as Turkey, it is against the law to wear headscarves in government buildings or university.

Before you go nuts on that, though, remember that in the United States, by law, you must wear clothing in public. Public modesty laws are in effect in every nation on the planet. Some are more lax than others.

The same holds true for men as well. Certain areas of the male body must be covered. In Iran, you can't go around in tight jeans and show off the package. Does anyone ever scream that it's sexist against men? No. They don't.

Women choose. Simple as that.

Islamic government works. It has proven to work for 1400 years. The US has only been around for just over 200 years and it is awash with massive problems including, but not limited to: election fraud, skyrocketing crimerates, lack of government oversight, out of control government spending, ever increasing poverty rates, corporate welfare, and a divisiveness the country has not seen since 1860.

When you perfect your system, then you can go proposing it (not imposing it) to the rest of the world.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.
Our "freedom and liberty" is a defining characteristic of our nation, which has a foreign policy contradictory to "freedom and liberty". You cannot force anyone to be free, they have to come about it on their own or else it doesn't mean anything and is even resented. If we had a foreign policy that didn't involve our being in the middle east at all, then this wouldn't be a problem.

The same holds true for men as well. Certain areas of the male body must be covered. In Iran, you can't go around in tight jeans and show off the package. Does anyone ever scream that it's sexist against men? No. They don't.

Women choose. Simple as that.

Excuse me? Yea, men have to cover thier package, but it is still obviously sexist. Women can't go ANYWHERE in public without a male family member. That's basically saying all women alone in public are assumed to be doing something conspicuous. And I'm sure a number of women in Iran don't mind the restrictions, but it is mandatory.

Or have you not heard of the morality police?

Excuse me? Yea, men have to cover thier package, but it is still obviously sexist. Women can't go ANYWHERE in public without a male family member. And I'm sure a number of women in Iran don't mind the restrictions, but it is mandatory.

Or have you not heard of the morality police?
I read a story a few months ago about their morality police. A dormatory caught on fire. The morality police would not allow the girls to escape the burning building unless they were wearing their veils. If I remember correctly, over a dozen girls died as a direct result.

I read about a girl who was hanged post haste after a judge sentenced to death for 3 counts of prostitution.

She was 16.

But the pedophiles who had sex with her?...

Lol, why would they be punished? :rolleyes:

If you don't know the answer to why they hate us then you are an idiot.

I read a story a few months ago about their morality police. A dormatory caught on fire. The morality police would not allow the girls to escape the burning building unless they were wearing their veils. If I remember correctly, over a dozen girls died as a direct result.

The only reason that that sort of institutionalized chauvanism isn't still a factor in our society is because of the commercial development of our culture. Any society in which women contribute equally to the resources of each family will start treating women better. If those countries were allowed to manage their resources without the interference of the IMF or the USA or, granted, the EU their countries would follow a very similar course. People are not so wildly different in any way that can be dismissed as simply "cultural" that they need to be molded by supposedly more enlightened societies. "White Man's Burden" has rightfully been discredited for many years now.

The only cultures that avoid blatant sexism to begin with are those in which women take a significant role in food production early in their civil development, like certain native american tribes, or hunter/gatherer societies. The rest of us have wait to reach that level of development until the industrial or post-industrial levels.

Before you go nuts on that, though, remember that in the United States, by law, you must wear clothing in public. Public modesty laws are in effect in every nation on the planet. Some are more lax than others.


Not to mention that in many parts of the US it is actually illegal (not mearly declasse) for men (and only men) to wear hats in government buildings.

The only reason that that sort of institutionalized chauvanism isn't still a factor in our society is because of the commercial development of our culture. Any society in which women contribute equally to the resources of each family will start treating women better. If those countries were allowed to manage their resources without the interference of the IMF or the USA or, granted, the EU their countries would follow a very similar course. People are not so wildly different in any way that can be dismissed as simply "cultural" that they need to be molded by supposedly more enlightened societies. "White Man's Burden" has rightfully been discredited for many years now.

The only cultures that avoid blatant sexism to begin with are those in which women take a significant role in food production early in their civil development, like certain native american tribes, or hunter/gatherer societies. The rest of us have wait to reach that level of development until the industrial or post-industrial levels.

Interesting indeed. A significant number of women attend universities and have careers in Iran, before and after 79'.

Amazing how women were treated in Iran changed for the worse after that year, isn't it?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.


youre right in those surrondings gays or anyone who the gvt didnt like would be jailed or executed with no reason besides we dont like you

They want their country following their interpretation of the shariah laws very strictly I guess.


yes so why dont they have their representative elected in iraq then they can have the laws their way

I think that if you don't belve in "Allah" or folow the teachings of the "Koran".
You are an "Infidel", and as such, you should "DIE".

Not to mention that in many parts of the US it is actually illegal (not mearly declasse) for men (and only men) to wear hats in government buildings.


but do they enforce those laws or are they laws passed a long time ago when it was thought improper?
check out http://www.dumblaws.com

I think that if you don't belve in "Allah" or folow the teachings of the "Koran".
You are an "Infidel", and as such, you should "DIE".


wow man thats just a lot extreme dont ya think?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.
This is one of the biggest loads of bullshit cooked up by Americans over the past few years. I don't doubt that Zarqawi hates democracy and wants Islamic dictatorship, but I strongly doubt that his opinions are shared by everyone, or even many people, in the Middle East.

No, the people of the Middle East hate America because the USA more often than not supports the dictatorship that is taking away their freedom. I'm thinking of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and most of the other such countries in that region.

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

lumping terrorists and the middle east is like lumping jerry fallwell and the entire united states. both are crazy radicals that have a very small and loyal following but dont speak for the rest of their societies. in fact, maybe they hate us because we never distinguish between the terrorists and the citizens, or at least, our cruise missles never do.

I think that if you don't belve in "Allah" or folow the teachings of the "Koran".
You are an "Infidel", and as such, you should "DIE".

Nice flame! :rolleyes:


youre right in those surrondings gays or anyone who the gvt didnt like would be jailed or executed with no reason besides we dont like you

Saddam and even the Islamic Republics have used minorities as scapegoats.

As said before, the IR regularily harasses the Ba'hai population in Iran, but don't create such a crude image for the middle east. At least not Iranians, I swear, most of us are quite nice. :)

This is one of the biggest loads of bullshit cooked up by Americans over the past few years. I don't doubt that Zarqawi hates democracy and wants Islamic dictatorship, but I strongly doubt that his opinions are shared by everyone, or even many people, in the Middle East.

No, the people of the Middle East hate America because the USA more often than not supports the dictatorship that is taking away their freedom. I'm thinking of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and most of the other such countries in that region.


good point thats definitely true, but many people could think that democracy is bad simply because thats the way they were brought up

lumping terrorists and the middle east is like lumping jerry fallwell and the entire united states. both are crazy radicals that have a very small and loyal following but dont speak for the rest of their societies. in fact, maybe they hate us because we never distinguish between the terrorists and the citizens, or at least, our cruise missles never do.


true true
but see over there religion is a big part of politics over here you mention religion at all, at least a large one anyway, youre labeled a fantic or a zealot

Women can't go ANYWHERE in public without a male family member.


I'm not sure how long you've been out of Iran, but this is technically no longer true. Also, it does not apply to other Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Turkey, etc.

true true
but see over there religion is a big part of politics over here you mention religion at all, at least a large one anyway, youre labeled a fantic or a zealot

right, the way cuddling up to the conservative coalition made everyone think the republicans were zealots. religion is a big part of politics here too my friends, judging by the way morals were played up in this election. religion is a part of any society, but calling all those ay-rabs emotional and silly just makes us look that much more condenscending to them.

B) Democracy is a reltively new idea, and not many people like it. To be honest, I dont even think it works. Look at America now, we basically vote in a dictator. We voted in George Bush, he went to war against Iraq when the majority of his citizens didnt want to, and there's nothing we can do about it. Our national leaders are not being held responsible for their actions. Or look at Germany, look at all their anti-Nazi laws. Thats no democracy, thats a dictatorship! What kind of democracy tells its people what they can and cannot say, or wear? Germany has been royally screwed by the Allies.....twice.
There's something very ironic about someone who is openly a Nazi complaining that Germany or the USA is not sufficiently libertarian!

Just about every Middle Eastern country is a Democracy.
You must have a very loose interpretation of the term.

I just wanted to say this:

Iran is fairly pro-America if you look past the Theocracy that rules with an iron fist.
I doubt it. They don't even have proper diplomatic relations with America. The dialogue between the two governments consists entirely of ultimatums, threats, and defiant responses.

right, the way cuddling up to the conservative coalition made everyone think the republicans were zealots. religion is a big part of politics here too my friends, judging by the way morals were played up in this election. religion is a part of any society, but calling all those ay-rabs emotional and silly just makes us look that much more condenscending to them.


i know its big but people complain here over there its a given that religion be involved in politics. yes this country's government was based on religion in the beginning but then they passed the separation of church&state and it opened the door for people to complain everytime anything religiousmostly christian, is involved. take the county seal of LA the smallest thing on it was a cross and people tried to have it changed because of the cross but the funny thing is there is a much larger likeness of a Goddess which is also a religious symbol and nothing was said about that

I doubt it. They don't even have proper diplomatic relations with America. The dialogue between the two governments consists entirely of ultimatums, threats, and defiant responses.

mmm, im thinking hes talking about the citizens. we butt out and let them see how crappy their government is. and wow! all of a sudden people see western ideas as good instead of using them as scapegoats for the state of their lives. i say, let democracy speak for itself.

I'm not sure how long you've been out of Iran, but this is technically no longer true. Also, it does not apply to other Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Turkey, etc.

Turkey? I'm sure it doesn't. They have a deomcracy and not a theocracy like the IR. But you right, the policy of women in public has relaxed a bit, but it's still very strict and sexist. If women choose like you say they do, then the restrictions obviously aren't needed.

And I guess all my female family members are just lying to me when they say they didn't like the clothing restrictions

i know its big but people complain here over there its a given that religion be involved in politics. yes this country's government was based on religion in the beginning but then they passed the separation of church&state and it opened the door for people to complain everytime anything religiousmostly christian, is involved. take the county seal of LA the smallest thing on it was a cross and people tried to have it changed because of the cross but the funny thing is there is a much larger likeness of a Goddess which is also a religious symbol and nothing was said about that
and georgia just put stickers on their textbooks saying that evolution is "just a theory." religion is HUGE in politics. hell, id say two-thirds of the threads here are about religion in politics. all im saying is this society aint as secular as we pretend we are. saying the middle east is too entangled in religion to see straight is the pot calling the kettle black.

and georgia just put stickers on their textbooks saying that evolution is "just a theory." religion is HUGE in politics. hell, id say two-thirds of the threads here are about religion in politics. all im saying is this society aint as secular as we pretend we are. saying the middle east is too entangled in religion to see straight is the pot calling the kettle black.



i didnt say they were blinded by their religion. and yes religion is huge an we are not as secualr as some say but we are also not as religious as i understand you are saying and georgia put that label on the books so there would not be a lawsuit in their state because there was one in another state over the same thing

Not to mention that in many parts of the US it is actually illegal (not mearly declasse) for men (and only men) to wear hats in government buildings.
I would think that would be a security measure so the cameras could catch your face.

I would think that would be a security measure so the cameras could catch your face.


good point. didnt think of that it does make sense

i didnt say they were blinded by their religion. and yes religion is huge an we are not as secualr as some say but we are also not as religious as i understand you are saying and georgia put that label on the books so there would not be a lawsuit in their state because there was one in another state over the same thing

we are religious. there is no way a devout athiest could win an election. okay, fine, maybe georgia was covering its ass, but kansas tried to hinder teaching evolution in public schools. preachers move droves to the polls to vote on things like gay marriage and abortion rights. there was talk for months on the news that kerry wasnt religious enough to be president. what i object to is us thinking its crazy that the mullahs have so much power while we have all kinds of televangilists that do the exact same thing.

we are religious. there is no way a devout athiest could win an election. okay, fine, maybe georgia was covering its ass, but kansas tried to hinder teaching evolution in public schools. preachers move droves to the polls to vote on things like gay marriage and abortion rights. there was talk for months on the news that kerry wasnt religious enough to be president. what i object to is us thinking its crazy that the mullahs have so much power while we have all kinds of televangilists that do the exact same thing.


thats true.
but some of it could be a retaliation to the anti-religious events i guess you could call them in the country. but otherwise that is very true

What if they had invaded (I'm sorry 'pacified') the US instead of the other way round, would you be happy about that?
Almost inevitably, if that were to happen, the invading country would be totalitarian or extremely authoritarian, in which case i would have no problem kicking ass. However, we do not face a truly sizable portion of the population in Iraq. If we did we would be seriously more screwed than we currently are.

thats true.
but some of it could be a retaliation to the anti-religious events i guess you could call them in the country.
and the reaction in the middle east could be the anti-cultural events i guess you could call them in the country.

Almost inevitably, if that were to happen, the invading country would be totalitarian or extremely authoritarian, in which case i would have no problem kicking ass. However, we do not face a truly sizable portion of the population in Iraq. If we did we would be seriously more screwed than we currently are.


does that part about the population mean that the majority of iraqis dont want democracy?

From the very first Caliph to the very last Caliph, he was elected.
So was Saddam.

There's something very ironic about someone who is openly a Nazi complaining that Germany or the USA is not sufficiently libertarian!

I never said I wanted them to be democratic nations.
I'm just pointing out that the Allies want us to believe that they implemented democracy in Germany, but all they've done is replace one fascist regime with another.

and the reaction in the middle east could be the anti-cultural events i guess you could call them in the country.


well yes.
so iguess it might be that they want the freedom to express their views without fear of oppression and because of the possible oppression they feel they have to protect themselves with violence and malicious actions thats possible right?

So was Saddam.

So was Bush. Evil people sometimes weasel their way into democratically elected positions.

What's yer point?

Wow you people seriously do not know whats going on. When you have some twisted ass psycho like Hussein using murder to get rid of his political opponents and oppress a nation that should be stopped. If we turn a blind eye to all of that it will spread. A problem must be contained at its source. Afghanistan is a piece of shit cus when you have local war lords fighting for control over a few sand huts thats not really a democracy and when dumbasses blow themselves up killing others in the name of God thats just fucking stupid and should be stopped.

Wow you people seriously do not know whats going on. When you have some twisted ass psycho like Hussein using murder to get rid of his political opponents and oppress a nation that should be stopped. If we turn a blind eye to all of that it will spread. A problem must be contained at its source. Afghanistan is a piece of shit cus when you have local war lords fighting for control over a few sand huts thats not really a democracy and when dumbasses blow themselves up killing others in the name of God thats just fucking stupid and should be stopped.


no one ever listens to me when i say that

Wow you people seriously do not know whats going on. When you have some twisted ass psycho like Hussein using murder to get rid of his poltical opponents and oppress a nation that should be stopped. If we turn a blind eye to all of that it will spread. A problem must be contained at its source. Afghanistan is a piece of shit cus when you have wocal war lords fighting for control over a few sand huts thats not really a democracy and when dumbasses blwo themselves up killing others in the name of God thats just fucking stupid and should be stopped.

And you should be banned for spewing incoherent and unintelligible dribble

And you should be banned for spewing incoherent and unintelligible dribble


mayb you should re-read the comment and try to comprehend what hes sayin

we are religious. there is no way a devout athiest could win an election. okay, fine, maybe georgia was covering its ass, but kansas tried to hinder teaching evolution in public schools. preachers move droves to the polls to vote on things like gay marriage and abortion rights. there was talk for months on the news that kerry wasnt religious enough to be president. what i object to is us thinking its crazy that the mullahs have so much power while we have all kinds of televangilists that do the exact same thing.
Last time I checked, the televangelists in this country couldn't sentence a 13 year old girl to death by stoning for being impregnated, I assume raped but the article didn't say, by her 15 year old brother. He got 150 lashes, but if he survived that was the end of his punishment. You might want to retract your statement.


http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/october/izadi_161004.shtml

well yes.
so iguess it might be that they want the freedom to express their views without fear of oppression and because of the possible oppression they feel they have to protect themselves with violence and malicious actions thats possible right?

they cant go to war to stop our meddling, so what are they going to do? most will stop carring. some will try to overthrow their government in a democratic revolution and get killed by the republican guard or the cia. and the third option is terrorism. all of them suck, and im not condoning terrorism, but you see how if you are a patriot in a puppet government how your back is kind of against the wall? but then again, they might just hate our freedom and our puppies and 99 cent big gulps from seven-eleven.

they cant go to war to stop our meddling, so what are they going to do? most will stop carring. some will try to overthrow their government in a democratic revolution and get killed by the republican guard or the cia. and the third option is terrorism. all of them suck, and im not condoning terrorism, but you see how if you are a patriot in a puppet government how your back is kind of against the wall? but then again, they might just hate our freedom and our puppies and 99 cent big gulps from seven-eleven.


good point and i especially like the last part about freedom, puppies and big gulps, nice touch

So was Bush. Evil people sometimes weasel their way into democratically elected positions.

What's yer point?

If I remember correctly, Saddam gained power by a coupd'tat performed by the baathists.

Wow you people seriously do not know whats going on. When you have some twisted ass psycho like Hussein using murder to get rid of his political opponents and oppress a nation that should be stopped.

I think we're all aware of whats going on, thank you.
Who are you to call Hussein a "twisted ass psycho?"
Why is it our responsibilty?

If we turn a blind eye to all of that it will spread. A problem must be contained at its source. Afghanistan is a piece of shit cus when you have local war lords fighting for control over a few sand huts thats not really a democracy

How dare you call another country a "piece of s***"

when dumbasses blow themselves up killing others in the name of God thats just fucking stupid and should be stopped.

Once again I ask, who are you to say what is stupid? Just because you do not understand it, doesnt make it stupid.
Stop flaming other countries and their leaders.

they cant go to war to stop our meddling, so what are they going to do? most will stop carring. some will try to overthrow their government in a democratic revolution and get killed by the republican guard or the cia. and the third option is terrorism. all of them suck, and im not condoning terrorism, but you see how if you are a patriot in a puppet government how your back is kind of against the wall? but then again, they might just hate our freedom and our puppies and 99 cent big gulps from seven-eleven. The Republican Guard is the sorry ass Iraqi "elite" forces of Hussein. They surrendered by the thousands for the corrupt governmnet that shoved them into the army.

And you should be slapped in the face repeatedly with a heavy object for naming yourself or relating yourslef to anything of NAZIS. Face facts- Allies win war. NAZI leaders kill themselves rather than face their punishment and thats the end of them. You shouldn't proclaim yourslef to be one of them when you're some little fat ass kid who probably lives in America. Read a history book dumbass. Let me just put it simple for you since your dumbass dropped out of some hickass southern US high school. NAZI bad Allie good. You're American you should be with Allies. They win wars.
Excuse me, but flaming is against forum rules. You may disagree with him, but please keep the personal insults in private.
Thank you.

And you should be slapped in the face repeatedly with a heavy object for naming yourself or relating yourslef to anything of NAZIS. Face facts- Allies win war. NAZI leaders kill themselves rather than face their punishment and thats the end of them. You shouldn't proclaim yourslef to be one of them when you're some little fat ass kid who probably lives in America. Read a history book dumbass. Let me just put it simple for you since your dumbass dropped out of some hickass southern US high school. NAZI bad Allie good. You're American you should be with Allies. They win wars.

Thanks for the flame, I'll pass it on to the mods.

Last time I checked, the televangelists in this country couldn't sentence a 13 year old girl to death by stoning for being impregnated, I assume raped but the article didn't say, by her 15 year old brother. He got 150 lashes, but if he survived that was the end of his punishment. You might want to retract your statement.


http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/october/izadi_161004.shtml
by exact same thing i didnt mean stone thirteen year old girls to death. i meant they used religious fervour as a basis for political support. i appologize for the confusion.

1. Would you like to go to school having to practice for gas attacks rather than fire drills?
2. Again read a history book and Saddam gained power by violent means and held his power with a harsh rulke.
3. Actually it is stupid. When you are toild by some "militia leader" that all enemies must die and so go strap a bobmb to yourslef and run towards them then detonbate it. Doesn't that seem a bit abnormal to you?
4. Next time post something that makes sense.

There's these too : http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/iran_executions_191204.shtml

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/leyla_161204.shtml

Oh, I'm sorry, the thirteeen year old got away with only 105 lashes. An appropriate punishment, don't you think Freedomstein?

Thanks for the flame, I'll pass it on to the mods.Wow I don't care. Idiot that wasn't a shot at you if you had read it correctly. More towards the power established in WW2 that fell to our power, The Allies. Next time read.

1. Would you like to go to school having to practice for gas attacks rather than fire drills?
2. Again read a history book and Saddam gained power by violent means and held his power with a harsh rulke.
3. Actually it is stupid. When you are toild by some "militia leader" that all enemies must die and so go strap a bobmb to yourslef and run towards them then detonbate it. Doesn't that seem a bit abnormal to you?
4. Next time post something that makes sense.

You are looking at the middle east through the eyes of Western culture. Step outside your bubble and look at things from their side. Everything has at least two sides.

The Republican Guard is the sorry ass Iraqi "elite" forces of Hussein. They surrendered by the thousands for the corrupt governmnet that shoved them into the army.
yeah, i know, and they killed people trying to liberalize the government or watch american tv before they surrendered by the thousands. in fact, that response didnt realy have to do with anything i was saying...

by exact same thing i didnt mean stone thirteen year old girls to death. i meant they used religious fervour as a basis for political support. i appologize for the confusion.
You posted this : what i object to is us thinking its crazy that the mullahs have so much power while we have all kinds of televangilists that do the exact same thing.

They have some control, but nowhere near what the mullahs have. Several orders of magnitude less, actually.

Regardless of which side or culture. When theres film footage a a dead American body being burned and drug through the streets that should be proof enough.

There's these too : http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/iran_executions_191204.shtml

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/leyla_161204.shtml

Oh, I'm sorry, the thirteeen year old got away with only 105 lashes. An appropriate punishment, don't you think Freedomstein?


i thought the 13 year old was a girl and if so she shouldnt have been punished at all if it was rape or anything besides consensual

thats true.
but some of it could be a retaliation to the anti-religious events i guess you could call them in the country. but otherwise that is very true
What anti-religious events? The only things I can think of are when religious nuts try to cross the line (like putting a huge 10 commandments monument in front of a courthouse) and they're called on it. Then the religious nuts who don't get their way whine about how they're being oppressed by people who hate religion. :rolleyes:

Wow I don't care. Idiot that wasn't a shot at you if you had read it correctly. More towards the power established in WW2 that fell to our power, The Allies. Next time read.

WOW that makes me laugh!
Does anyone else see something about "power establishment" here? lol
And you should be slapped in the face repeatedly with a heavy object for naming yourself or relating yourslef to anything of NAZIS. Face facts- Allies win war. NAZI leaders kill themselves rather than face their punishment and thats the end of them. You shouldn't proclaim yourslef to be one of them when you're some little fat ass kid who probably lives in America. Read a history book dumbass. Let me just put it simple for you since your dumbass dropped out of some hickass southern US high school. NAZI bad Allie good. You're American you should be with Allies. They win wars.

Face it kid, you flammed me.
And you're too ashamed to admit it.
You're also not mature enough to be in these forums if you resort to flamming.
*shakes head*

Maybe you should watch the news man I know not everyone there isn't like that but what I said stands true.

There's these too : http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/iran_executions_191204.shtml

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/leyla_161204.shtml

Oh, I'm sorry, the thirteeen year old got away with only 105 lashes. An appropriate punishment, don't you think Freedomstein?
yo, what they do is bad. i never said it wasnt. good job, muslims stone people. i dont see what in my statement needs retracting?

You posted this :

They have some control, but nowhere near what the mullahs have. Several orders of magnitude less, actually.

Meh ... give it time. The Mullahs didn't always have the power they enjoy today, either. The Evangelist Christian Reich is growing in power in the US. We can either nip it in the bud now or revolt against it later.

You posted this :

They have some control, but nowhere near what the mullahs have. Several orders of magnitude less, actually.
grrrr, same thing in theory, neither culture seperates church and government. and some mullahs stone people. some televangilists burn pokemon cards. but you cant condem an entire ociety because a few crazies take up the scripture to do bad things.

What anti-religious events? The only things I can think of are when religious nuts try to cross the line (like putting a huge 10 commandments monument in front of a courthouse) and they're called on it. Then the religious nuts who don't get their way whine about how they're being oppressed by people who hate religion. :rolleyes:


ok buddy if youd read my earlier post then you might understand that if anyone in this country brings religion into any political decision then they are labeled a zealot or fanatic by some group. and yes there are fanatics but then again most of the ten commandments are actually laws think about it.
:rolleyes:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

Empathize with your enemy.

Wow you people seriously do not know whats going on. When you have some twisted ass psycho like Hussein using murder to get rid of his political opponents and oppress a nation that should be stopped. If we turn a blind eye to all of that it will spread. A problem must be contained at its source. Afghanistan is a piece of shit cus when you have local war lords fighting for control over a few sand huts thats not really a democracy and when dumbasses blow themselves up killing others in the name of God thats just fucking stupid and should be stopped.
It should be stopped, but by the people being oppressed. You can't force anyone to be free. To do so renders freedom unearned and therefore meaningless and even resented. When the people themselves rise up and over throw thier oppressors, that will be a HUGE brillian mark in their history that will forever be remembered with great pride and will influence their future national character.

Flamming? When did insulting get a new term?

Well if Im a little kid then that means you're an old man. If thats true you seriously have NO LIFe if you want to argue with a kid on a forum. You should instead go get a job and quit welfare and stop mooching off everyones hard earned money.

This proves my point.....you write like a 13-year-old.
I'm sorry I've wasted your time.
Never again will I try to have an intelligent debate with you.

To say that the Middle East or the Arab world hates the United States for a single reason is pretty foolhardy. The hatred I believe can be traced back to a famous Muslim author (Who's name I can't remeber for the life of me) who spent time in the United States. He objected to what he saw as the decadance of American culture and declared it incompatible with Islamic culture. More recently the United States and its unquestioning support of Israel has more than pissed of a sizable chunk of the region.

The hatred everyone is so concerned about right now however has a very definite root. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, specifically Zbigniew Brzezinski, in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet forces invading at the time. Though he didn't exactly like America at the time, he was willing to work with us to drive out the Russians. He only became a terrorist to the US when he objected to American forces been stationed in his home country of Saudi Arabia after Saddam invaded Kuwait. When the troops remained after the Gulf War he called the Saudis puppets of America and was stripped of his citizenship there. I'm pretty sure we all know the rest of the story.

Link (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm)


The name you can't quite think of is Syed Kutb, you could hardly be blamed for having a problem remembering a name so short on what 'The Onion' calls 'life giving vowels'!.
It's worth noting that the movement he represented in Islam and the movement bin Ladin represents were for long considered heretical, largely due to their extreme views.
Saudi Arabia is rather resented in the Arab world, so is Kuwait. The saying about Kuwaitis is that 'they are too lazy to clean their fingernails'. The reson for the resentment was the disgraceful behavior abroad of Saudi royalty and rich people and Kuwaiti rich people, who would vacation abroad, indulgeing themselves in bad behavior in the West, and makeing the Arabs look like a bunch of hypocrites about their religion.
Other writers in the more extreme right wing view of the Muslim religion include Maulana Maudoodi, anyone who read him knows that the extremist view is that both Capitalism and Communism were big jails for people.
I really appreciate your putting that link about the Reagan-Bush era stuff and the first Bush administration's part in these things. Too bad that many will reject the truth because of the source! I wish that the old Newsweek magazines I have lying around with pictures of the 'brave Mujahadeen' could be found on-line! It's a shame because that would illustrate the whole mess as well as anything.
In order for the Afghans to bring down the Soviets I don't think they needed anything more than help for their refugees. Afghans can make firearms out of scrap metal. Afghans have a game called bushkazi where they bodyslam one another on horseback. Afghans are used to beating technologically superior forces, they've been doing so since the days of Alexander. Soviet Communism collapsed from within. There was no need for decades of obsession with bringing them down. It just made great copy.
As far as the U.S's dealings in the Middle East, it would have served us far better to force both sides in the Israeli -Palestinian conflict to come to a good agreement and to make both sets of chuckle-heads stick to it. This would have saved many Israeli lives and many Arab lives. But NOOOO there always has to be an enemy. With the Soviet Union gone, the post of Evil Empire had to be filled again.

The way Bush acts like he's on the hotline to God all the time is really a disgrace too, I get sick of it and I'm a Christian. I wish he'd either share God's phone number or shut the hell up about it. It's bordering on a form of blasphemy which is condemned in no uncertain terms in Scripture.

Flamming? When did insulting get a new term?
Since Usenet came into vogue. "Flaming" is from old Usenet slang, at least as far as I know. So, since the eighties-ish.

Last time I checked, the televangelists in this country couldn't sentence a 13 year old girl to death by stoning for being impregnated, I assume raped but the article didn't say, by her 15 year old brother. He got 150 lashes, but if he survived that was the end of his punishment. You might want to retract your statement.


http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/october/izadi_161004.shtml
The ONLY reason they don't in America, is because of over riding secular laws that prohibit such barbarism. Otherwise, these nut jobs would be enforcing Levitical codes. Just talk to a few of those whack jobs, they'll proudly admit to it.

It should be stopped, but by the people being oppressed. You can't force anyone to be free. To do so renders freedom unearned and therefore meaningless and even resented. When the people themselves rise up and over throw thier oppressors, that will be a HUGE brillian mark in their history that will forever be remembered with great pride and will influence their future national character.


we are not forcing them to be free we are giving them an elction and whoever they elect will obviously be the group that the majority wants in power.

It should be stopped, but by the people being oppressed. You can't force anyone to be free. To do so renders freedom unearned and therefore meaningless and even resented. When the people themselves rise up and over throw thier oppressors, that will be a HUGE brillian mark in their history that will forever be remembered with great pride and will influence their future national character. Very true but recall back to the American Revolution things may have turned outr diffent had the French not helped us. A strong military like ours was built to maintain democracy and establishing elsewhere is a matter of principle. While others are dying it can not be ignored. If that happened in America would you want Allied nations to look away seeing it as our problem?

Apparently Al-Zarqawi is a made up character used to scare Americans, probably developed by some American organization. Some men captured said this man doesn't exist, and they work for someone else. There is only one photo of him, no videos, only recordings supposedly belonging to him. An investigation to his supposed home in Jordan came up with no records of him. Also, use common sense.....How many terrorists do any of us know from Jordan?

Im 14 actually and Id rather not have to invest too much time in response to some random person. Besides you were immatuer enough to reply its sweet that you care. Unfortunately for you I don't swing that that way. Look elsewhere and next time when replying to me don't wast your time with some dumbass response that makes me type something like this.


except that his response was intelligible and uh youre obviously not much older than you say if you are because of your blatant and tactless use of profanity

except that his response was intelligible and uh youre obviously not much older than you say if you are because of your blatant and tactless use of profanity well you see thats the great thing about it. You can express whatever you want in any way because you don't knwo anyone. And if you do you should get real friends. Im a completely different person in real life. Think I walk up to random people and call them dumbasses? You're not too intelligent then either if you thought I did. what is intelligible anyways? I believe you meant intelligent? Not much older than I say? I just openly admitted my age.

Now lets see how far fetched a response to that will go.

ok buddy if youd read my earlier post then you might understand that if anyone in this country brings religion into any political decision then they are labeled a zealot or fanatic by some group. and yes there are fanatics but then again most of the ten commandments are actually laws think about it.
:rolleyes:
You mentioned anti-religious acts, yet there are so few anti-religious acts in America, that they for all intsneive purposes don't exist.

Further, I wasn't calling you a zealot, so just take a deep breath and calm down. I was refering to the few loud individuals in America who constantly try to push religion into government. I am non-religious and pay my taxes, therefore it is immoral to spend my tax money to promote any religion.

Finally, yes, 3 of the 10 commandments exist in our nation's laws. Those 3 are based on concepts that we don't need religion to know that they are wrong; don't steal, don't kill, don't lie. Beyond that, the 10 commandments have no place in a government building. That is a religious display and should be kept on private property, not government property.

I am willing to make one exception though. The 10 commandments can be displayed if they put one monument for EVERY religion in that community, plus one for the non-religious. Otherwise, the government is not acting neutrally, and is therefore acting inappropriately with money paid by taxpayers who do not hold such religious beliefs.

well you see thats the great thing about it. You can express whatever you want in any way because you don't knwo anyone. And if you do you should get real friends. Im a completely differnet p[erson in real life. Think I walk up to random people and call them dumbasses? You're not too intelligent then either if you thought I did. what is intelligible anyways? I believe you meant intelligent? Not much older than I say? I just openly admitted my age.


i never said you walk up to random people and call them names did i?,
and intelligible is a synonym for understandable look it up,
and its not anyways its anyway,
and i was just making sure you wernt lying about youre age and poointing out that mostly only immature early teenagers use profanity the way you do. and im sure you can find other words so please stop using profanity.

Very true but recall back to the American Revolution things may have turned outr diffent had the French not helped us. A strong military like ours was built to maintain democracy and establishing elsewhere is a matter of principle. While others are dying it can not be ignored. If that happened in America would you want Allied nations to look away seeing it as our problem?
the impotece aint coming from the people, and when it does, we squash it. remember the chah in iran? remember chile before pinoche? does sandanista ring any bells? a reformer can only be a reformer if hes also pro-american and won't go through the steps needed to industrialize his economy. if you can point me toward a real live democratic revolution supported by over a third of the population.

okay, listen, let's pretend that thrid world countries are butterflies. theyre all going into their cocoon stages right now and getting indusry, building fledgling industries, getting educated. believe me, at some point there will be a legitimate people's revolution and then they can form a democracy. but the us cant slice open the cocoon no matter how ugly it is or else the butterfly is going to die. similarly, you cant just go into a country and order them to become a democracy. they need a middle class, they need educated people, they need national heroes, and they need to WANT democracy. its painfull and boring to wait, but its better than having a world of dead butterflies.

we are not forcing them to be free we are giving them an elction and whoever they elect will obviously be the group that the majority wants in power.
We're not forcing them to be free? Then what was the forced deposition through the use of guns and bombs all about?

You mentioned anti-religious acts, yet there are so few anti-religious acts in America, that they for all intsneive purposes don't exist.

Further, I wasn't calling you a zealot, so just take a deep breath and calm down. I was refering to the few loud individuals in America who constantly try to push religion into government. I am non-religious and pay my taxes, therefore it is immoral to spend my tax money to promote any religion.

Finally, yes, 3 of the 10 commandments exist in our nation's laws. Those 3 are based on concepts that we don't need religion to know that they are wrong; don't steal, don't kill, don't lie. Beyond that, the 10 commandments have no place in a government building. That is a religious display and should be kept on private property, not government property.

I am willing to make one exception though. The 10 commandments can be displayed if they put one monument for EVERY religion in that community, plus one for the non-religious. Otherwise, the government is not acting neutrally, and is therefore acting inappropriately with money paid by taxpayers who do not hold such religious beliefs.


um ok so few anti-religious acts that every time someone mentions God in a public place or govrnment situation that someone makes a huge deal out of it such as the cross i was talking about earlier and the pledge and i never said you said i was a zealot and im not hyped up so i cant calm down

Very true but recall back to the American Revolution things may have turned outr diffent had the French not helped us. A strong military like ours was built to maintain democracy and establishing elsewhere is a matter of principle. While others are dying it can not be ignored. If that happened in America would you want Allied nations to look away seeing it as our problem?
The comparisson fails, because the French did not go arrest King George, blow up his army and then tell us we're going to set up our own government. We started the revolution ourselves. After that France helped us with some money and military assistance.

You mentioned anti-religious acts, yet there are so few anti-religious acts in America, that they for all intsneive purposes don't exist.

Further, I wasn't calling you a zealot, so just take a deep breath and calm down. I was refering to the few loud individuals in America who constantly try to push religion into government. I am non-religious and pay my taxes, therefore it is immoral to spend my tax money to promote any religion.

Finally, yes, 3 of the 10 commandments exist in our nation's laws. Those 3 are based on concepts that we don't need religion to know that they are wrong; don't steal, don't kill, don't lie. Beyond that, the 10 commandments have no place in a government building. That is a religious display and should be kept on private property, not government property.

I am willing to make one exception though. The 10 commandments can be displayed if they put one monument for EVERY religion in that community, plus one for the non-religious. Otherwise, the government is not acting neutrally, and is therefore acting inappropriately with money paid by taxpayers who do not hold such religious beliefs.

yeah, what he was getting at is there is this rabid anger towards people mentioning the ten commandments. i know its logical, i know they dont belong in coutrthouses, i know religion is highjacking the system. but every time you shout like this and jump up and down and say the religious people are becoming dangerous, you just created 5 more zealots. for every action there is a reaction. everytime you try to take god out of the pledge of allegiance you alienate churchgoers who might be pro-schools or anti-war. that's what he meant when he was talking about reaction to anti-religious acts, i think.

i never said you walk up to random people and call them names did i?,
and intelligible is a synonym for understandable look it up,
and its not anyways its anyway,
and i was just making sure you wernt lying about youre age and poointing out that mostly only immature early teenagers use profanity the way you do. and im sure you can find other words so please stop using profanity. Will do. But if you say you've never used profanity you're a liar.

We're not forcing them to be free? Then what was the forced deposition through the use of guns and bombs all about?


we removed a supporter of terrorists and a tyrant and if the people really want a tyrant then they will elect one

The comparisson fails, because the French did not go arrest King George, blow up his army and then tell us we're going to set up our own government. We started the revolution ourselves. After that France helped us with some money and military assistance. That made no sense. We did not arrest King George. He lived in England. We didn't blow up their army we defeated them. we started it true, but you said one must stand up for themselves. The French navy helped us surround and defeat the British at Yorktown.

Will do. But if you say you've never used profanity you're a liar.


i never said i have never used profanity did i?
so please stop putting words in my mouth and only talk about what i say not what you want people to think i said.

we removed a supporter of terrorists and a tyrant and if the people really want a tyrant then they will elect one
you really think well let an election of a tyrant stand if its not our tyrant? i think thats a little naive

That made no sense. We did not arrest King George. He lived in England. We didn't blow up their army we defeated them. we started it true, but you said one must stand up for themselves. The French navy helped us surround and defeat the British at Yorktown.
we started the revolution and asked the french for help. thats where the comparison fails

That made no sense. We did not arrest King George. He lived in England. We didn't blow up their army we defeated them. we started it true, but you said one must stand up for themselves. The French navy helped us surround and defeat the British at Yorktown.

please try and keep up, he combined in a comparison to what we're forcing over in Iraq.

the impotece aint coming from the people, and when it does, we squash it. remember the chah in iran? remember chile before pinoche? does sandanista ring any bells? a reformer can only be a reformer if hes also pro-american and won't go through the steps needed to industrialize his economy. if you can point me toward a real live democratic revolution supported by over a third of the population.

okay, listen, let's pretend that thrid world countries are butterflies. theyre all going into their cocoon stages right now and getting indusry, building fledgling industries, getting educated. believe me, at some point there will be a legitimate people's revolution and then they can form a democracy. but the us cant slice open the cocoon no matter how ugly it is or else the butterfly is going to die. similarly, you cant just go into a country and order them to become a democracy. they need a middle class, they need educated people, they need national heroes, and they need to WANT democracy. its painfull and boring to wait, but its better than having a world of dead butterflies.Very well put. One DR was the French Revolution but that quickly fell apart and it wqas more of a Republic but thye had the idea set forth.

you really think well let an election of a tyrant stand if its not our tyrant? i think thats a little naive
once again putting words in my mouth

please try and keep up, he combined in a comparison to what we're forcing over in Iraq.
1. You actually read all 12 pages of posts?
2. I started that topic with him so I can reply when I wish
3. Im eating a well let me unwrpa it...looks like a burger from McDonalds so forgive me for being a wee bit behind.

um ok so few anti-religious acts that every time someone mentions God in a public place or govrnment situation that someone makes a huge deal out of it such as the cross i was talking about earlier and the pledge and i never said you said i was a zealot and im not hyped up so i cant calm down
Can you use punctuation next time? I'm really not trying to flame you here, but I'm a hard time trying to figure out where one thought ends and the next begins.

The "mentions of god" that are getting bad reactions are things that are FORCED upon the crowd. For example the pledge of allegiance. The pledge was written in the 19th century and had no mention of god. In 1954, the Knights of Columbus pushed a bill through congress, with the help of McCarthy and other nut jobs, that added "under god" to the pledge.

First of all, this was an act of congress, even thogh the Constitution says "congress shall make no long . . . respecting the establishment of religion". Secondly, this pledge is something that children in school HAVE TO recite. Therefore, this is an unconstitutional pledge that forces our children to pledge allegiance to their nation and God (specifically the Abrahamic god, since "God" is capitalized). This is an establishment of religion and it is in appropriate to exist as a law and as a compelled pledge. I wouldn't have any problem with it if the law were repealed and the pledge was no longer used in schools. If you want to use it at a football game, fine, I don't care. It is only when government mandates such things that I have a problem.

we started the revolution and asked the french for help. thats where the comparison fails wow he said how we fought the revolution on our own. Thats a lie and things didnt happen the way he posted them. What comparison? Where do you even get comparison? I was simply revising his post

1. You actually read all 12 pages of posts?
2. I started that topic with him so I can reply when I wish
3. Im eating a well let me unwrpa it...looks like a burger from McDonalds so forgive me for being a wee bit behind.

merely on what you quoted and what I've been browsing, it should have been enough, two minutes and I got the full gist of the comparison. It's not that hard

yeah, what he was getting at is there is this rabid anger towards people mentioning the ten commandments. i know its logical, i know they dont belong in coutrthouses, i know religion is highjacking the system. but every time you shout like this and jump up and down and say the religious people are becoming dangerous, you just created 5 more zealots. for every action there is a reaction. everytime you try to take god out of the pledge of allegiance you alienate churchgoers who might be pro-schools or anti-war. that's what he meant when he was talking about reaction to anti-religious acts, i think.
I hate having to shout, or jump up and down. I shouldn't have to, but at the same time, awareness needs to be raised. A dialogue about these things needs to exist. There is some galvinization, but that's just how it is whenever there is a social movement. It was the same way with civil rights and women's sufferage. You can't change something, unless you make noise about it.

By the way its a Quarter Pounder from McDonalds.

merely on what you quoted and what I've been browsing, it should have been enough, two minutes and I got the full gist of the comparison. It's not that hardDidnt say it was hard I was just asking if you had read it all.

That made no sense. We did not arrest King George. He lived in England. We didn't blow up their army we defeated them. we started it true, but you said one must stand up for themselves. The French navy helped us surround and defeat the British at Yorktown.
That's they key word, they HELPED us. They didn't do it FOR us, like we did for the Iraqis.

i never said i have never used profanity did i?
so please stop putting words in my mouth and only talk about what i say not what you want people to think i said. SIR YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN!!!!

By the way its a Quarter Pounder from McDonalds.

I prefer the Big Mac myself, or the whopper if I'm at Burger King.

Can you use punctuation next time? I'm really not trying to flame you here, but I'm a hard time trying to figure out where one thought ends and the next begins.

The "mentions of god" that are getting bad reactions are things that are FORCED upon the crowd. For example the pledge of allegiance. The pledge was written in the 19th century and had no mention of god. In 1954, the Knights of Columbus pushed a bill through congress, with the help of McCarthy and other nut jobs, that added "under god" to the pledge.

First of all, this was an act of congress, even thogh the Constitution says "congress shall make no long . . . respecting the establishment of religion". Secondly, this pledge is something that children in school HAVE TO recite. Therefore, this is an unconstitutional pledge that forces our children to pledge allegiance to their nation and God (specifically the Abrahamic god, since "God" is capitalized). This is an establishment of religion and it is in appropriate to exist as a law and as a compelled pledge. I wouldn't have any problem with it if the law were repealed and the pledge was no longer used in schools. If you want to use it at a football game, fine, I don't care. It is only when government mandates such things that I have a problem.


i understand about the punctuation and i will try to do better with that.
And yes the pledge did not origionally have God in it but school children do not have to say the pledge. that is actually, i think, a common misconception.
it is because most parents do not tell their children this or do not care that the children say it. And in the declaration of independance talks about a creator and that is religious therefore it must be changed. i have not read all of the constitution so i am not sure if there is any mention of God besides the separation of church and state thing. although im pretty sure there is or at least was in the original because, after all, this country was founded on christian values and morals by christians.

That's they key word, they HELPED us. They didn't do it FOR us, like we did for the Iraqis. Irrelevant. There are people who were fighting against that government. We just lent a rather large helping hand. Actually I think I had posted this more towards Afghanistan but..

SIR YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN!!!!
Please refrain from typing in all caps, especially when telling someone else to calm down.
;)

SIR YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN!!!!


Thank you for the honorific but i am not angered or excited so therefore i do not need to calm down. i was just asking people to please stop "putting words in my mouth".

calm down!!!! for the last time sir you need to calm down!!!!!!

I prefer the Big Mac myself, or the whopper if I'm at Burger King.Ever have In & Out?

calm down!!!! for the last time sir you need to calm down!!!!!!


if you are still refering to me, thank you once again for the honorific, but i think you are the one who needs to calm down seeing as how you are the one using so many exclamation points. You would know if i needed to calm down and also what can you do to me?

Ever have In & Out?

No I haven't. I don't think they have them in my area (the northeast US).

Im merely using excalmation points to express my concern for your calmness. Now for the last time sir you need to calm down, please do not make me resort to pulling an LAPD and striking you with a flashlight multiple times.

The middle east hates us because we are better than them.

we have more freedom. we have a government that doesnt kill those who oppose it. we have civil rights. we have a stable economy based on more than one item. we have free enterprise. we have cars, houses and puppies.

maybe the middle east hates us because theyre all having bad hair days below their turbans and burkas (whatever those things the middle eastern women wear) I mean seriously. You know a group of people who wear turbans have to have something going on under there.

maybe they hate us because we love kittens. we love slushie puppies. we love american idol (except me). we love stupid reality shows and MTV. We love foot-long hot dogs and cordless mice.

they might hate us because of our stupid celebrities and pop culture. I can see them hating us because of mary kate and ashley olsen. and rosie o' donnel. No one likes her anyways, and that could drive nearly any country to the brink of civil war.

They hate us mostly because of out government. Maybe its because they cant understand the likes of the governator's take on english, or because of dubya's "incompetency".

No I haven't. I don't think they have them in my area (the northeast US). Yeah I live in Southern California so yeah..

Im merely using excalmation points to express my concern for your calmness. Now for the last time sir you need to calm down, please do not make me resort to pulling an LAPD and striking you with a flashlight multiple times.


Ok. but i think you mean an LAPO(officer) if that actually exists not a whole department. and i do not find that funny if it was meant to be.

i understand about the punctuation and i will try to do better with that.
And yes the pledge did not origionally have God in it but school children do not have to say the pledge. that is actually, i think, a common misconception.
it is because most parents do not tell their children this or do not care that the children say it. And in the declaration of independance talks about a creator and that is religious therefore it must be changed. i have not read all of the constitution so i am not sure if there is any mention of God besides the separation of church and state thing. although im pretty sure there is or at least was in the original because, after all, this country was founded on christian values and morals by christians.
Thanks for taking the punctuation thing well.

The pledge is something that children may opt out of, but they don't know that. Also, if one child opts out of it, then that sets him up as a social target for the other children. Children are VERY cruel about picking on someone who does something differently. Having the pledge in class sets up that situation. What is the child supposed to do, fake it? Wouldn't that make him a liar then?

Also, the Declaration mentions "nature's god". The Constitution mentions religion twice, both times it is put into exclusionary terms.

Article 17 says that no religious test may be used for public office.
The first ammendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . . respecting the establishment . . . "

Finally, this country both was and was not found on christian values and morals. The laws that exist today are not based on christian values and morals, though christianity adopted these basic values. You don't need the bible to tell you that stealing and murder are wrong. All of our laws are based on reasoned morality.

The middle east hates us because we are better than them.

we have more freedom. we have a government that doesnt kill those who oppose it. we have civil rights. we have a stable economy based on more than one item. we have free enterprise. we have cars, houses and puppies.

maybe the middle east hates us because theyre all having bad hair days below their turbans and burkas (whatever those things the middle eastern women wear) I mean seriously. You know a group of people who wear turbans have to have something going on under there.

maybe they hate us because we love kittens. we love slushie puppies. we love american idol (except me). we love stupid reality shows and MTV. We love foot-long hot dogs and cordless mice.

they might hate us because of our stupid celebrities and pop culture. I can see them hating us because of mary kate and ashley olsen. and rosie o' donnel. No one likes her anyways, and that could drive nearly any country to the brink of civil war.

They hate us mostly because of out government. Maybe its because they cant understand the likes of the governator's take on english, or because of dubya's "incompetency".Best post Ive seen so far. And seriously though besides the turbans why the hell( I must use hell in this one to express my extreme concern)do they wear thick ass( see above) horse blanket thingys when theyre in the middle of a desert. Thats just plainly stupid. Then they have to drink the same water they give their camels and stuff because theyre burning up. Then the people who don't have blanketys on wear these ..umm..rags that make bums glow with pride that theyre better dressed.

Ok. but i think you mean an LAPO(officer) if that actually exists not a whole department. and i do not find that funny if it was meant to be.officer(s) case you don't recall it happened on more than one occasion and im sorry if they beat you too hard.

Irrelevant. There are people who were fighting against that government. We just lent a rather large helping hand. Actually I think I had posted this more towards Afghanistan but..
Not irrelevant, WE did most of the fighting in the revolution. France did a great deal as well, but they didn't do most of it. Besides, they were at war with England anyway and they saw helping us as a way of stretching the English thin. In contrast, we did ALL of the fighting in Iraq. The people did not rise up and revolt at all. Therefore, the two events are unequatable.

Thanks for taking the punctuation thing well.

The pledge is something that children may opt out of, but they don't know that. Also, if one child opts out of it, then that sets him up as a social target for the other children. Children are VERY cruel about picking on someone who does something differently. Having the pledge in class sets up that situation. What is the child supposed to do, fake it? Wouldn't that make him a liar then?

Also, the Declaration mentions "nature's god". The Constitution mentions religion twice, both times it is put into exclusionary terms.

Article 17 says that no religious test may be used for public office.
The first ammendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . . respecting the establishment . . . "

Finally, this country both was and was not found on christian values and morals. The laws that exist today are not based on christian values and morals, though christianity adopted these basic values. You don't need the bible to tell you that stealing and murder are wrong. All of our laws are based on reasoned morality.


Good point about them not knowing. And yes some children are very cruel but not all. And i agree about the natures God thing but that would also be the Christian God. And i think christianity had the values first, but yes most laws are also based on reasoned morality. but over all i agree with you on that.

im lost between the department and punctuation stuff. umm whats goin on

Engalnd was not at war with France at the time. The French- Indian wars had ended earlier. Now stop taking mixed views alright. We're replying cus you said how one nation must do its own fighting. I said how thats not true since France had helped us. Do not bring others such as Iraq into this.

im lost between the department and punctuation stuff. umm whats goin onLot of random posting and crap. Not too much. I was bored came online to check out my nation and I clicked a link then I was in an arguement with some NAZI dude.

OK how bout lets talk about this...

...where did morals originate? who told people murder was wrong?

In order to understand the fact that laws are based on reasoned morality, you have to understand that morality originated from God.

I hope that was relevant. im tryng to make sense here.

officer(s) case you don't recall it happened on more than one occasion and im sorry if they beat you too hard.


Yes i know its happened but i think it was an immature attempt at a joke that not many people would find funny

OK how bout lets talk about this...

...where did morals originate? who told people murder was wrong?

In order to understand the fact that laws are based on reasoned morality, you have to understand that morality originated from God.

I hope that was relevant. im tryng to make sense here.Not trying to sound stupid here but you're making me do alot more typing than I wou;ld have preferred too. You do have a good point and you make sense not like the otehrs who take random shits at each other. Someone else care to answer him?

Best post Ive seen so far. And seriously though besides the turbans why the hell( I must use hell in this one to express my extreme concern)do they wear thick ass( see above) horse blanket thingys when theyre in the middle of a desert. Thats just plainly stupid. Then they have to drink the same water they give their camels and stuff because theyre burning up. Then the people who don't have blanketys on wear these ..umm..rags that make bums glow with pride that theyre better dressed.


ok, they were the Blanket thingys as you called them to provide shade so that they are not dehydrated in the desert.
and im sure you can find other words to express your "extreme concern" please

And my compliments to Jordan(horseteets) who i think is the only one who has managed to get grand alliance to like him

Good point about them not knowing. And yes some children are very cruel but not all. And i agree about the natures God thing but that would also be the Christian God. And i think christianity had the values first, but yes most laws are also based on reasoned morality. but over all i agree with you on that.
Nature's god was a convention of the day to describe "whatever it was that made things the way they are and whatever makes the rules that we live by." In other words, nature and the laws of physics. Thomas Jefferson, the man that wrote the Declaration of Independence, was NOT a christian. He was a diest, only because he couldn't figure out how things came to be if not for a creator. They didn't have big bang theory, evolutionary theory, abiogenesis theory, or any of those things back then. Read the Jefferson Bible sometime, it is the new testament, but with all of the "magic" removed. Jefferson rewrote the new testament as a secular, non-magical book of philosophy.

Also, christianity is only 2,000 years old, and the 10 commandments are only 3,000. The reasoned morality that does not allow theft and murder is as old as civilization itself. You can find those values in most every recorded civilization, ever.

I just wanted to say this:

Iran is fairly pro-America if you look past the Theocracy that rules with an iron fist.

I wonder why, is it because the leader of Iran is thinking, "You know, they're a lot like us."?

ok, they were the Blanket thingys as you called them to provide shade so that they are not dehydrated in the desert.
and im sure you can find other words to express your "extreme concern" please
This brings us back into US involvemnet. We can make those third world countries so better but the majority is so ignorant they would rather commit suicide in the hope of killing a coalition soldier.

Engalnd was not at war with France at the time. The French- Indian wars had ended earlier. Now stop taking mixed views alright. We're replying cus you said how one nation must do its own fighting. I said how thats not true since France had helped us. Do not bring others such as Iraq into this.
Yes they were, and so were a few other countries as well. The nation must rise up on its own, not to be forced to rise up. France did not force us to rise up. France did not fight the war FOR us and then TELL us that we are going to establish a democracy. This is how your comparisson between the American revolution and the Iraqi war fails.

Nature's god was a convention of the day to describe "whatever it was that made things the way they are and whatever makes the rules that we live by." In other words, nature and the laws of physics. Thomas Jefferson, the man that wrote the Declaration of Independence, was NOT a christian. He was a diest, only because he couldn't figure out how things came to be if not for a creator. They didn't have big bang theory, evolutionary theory, abiogenesis theory, or any of those things back then. Read the Jefferson Bible sometime, it is the new testament, but with all of the "magic" removed. Jefferson rewrote the new testament as a secular, non-magical book of philosophy.

Also, christianity is only 2,000 years old, and the 10 commandments are only 3,000. The reasoned morality that does not allow theft and murder is as old as civilization itself. You can find those values in most every recorded civilization, ever.


i had forgotten that Jefferson was indeed a deist but he was not the only one to writ the declaration he had "advisors" you could call them that helped him. And good point about the morals.

Just because God gave the Hebrews the 10 commandments 3k years ago doesnt mean he couldnt have told people right from wrong before then.

It's perplexing to think of why a man would feel bad if he killed another man if he didnt know murder was wrong. a conscience had to be placed in the heart of mankind, and a conscience wouldnt come from a big bang.

This brings us back into US involvemnet. We can make those third world countries so better but the majority is so ignorant they would rather commit suicide in the hope of killing a coalition soldier.


What?

Im sure someone is now frantically typing away at a response to that.

Just because God gave the Hebrews the 10 commandments 3k years ago doesnt mean he couldnt have told people right from wrong before then.

It's perplexing to think of why a man would feel bad if he killed another man if he didnt know murder was wrong. a conscience had to be placed in the heart of mankind, and a conscience wouldnt come from a big bang.


nice, nice

Originally Posted by HorseTeets
The middle east hates us because we are better than them.

We are not better than anyone. Sure a select few of them may be radical killers, but we have our own too. Sure some of their nations are ruled by dictators, but I'm sure America would've been too had it been around for more than 200 years.

While it may be difficult to say that we are not better than they are, when comparing the power and influence of America with Muslim powers, you must still accept the fact that that doesn't make us better than them. We're different, not superior.

I wonder why, is it because the leader of Iran is thinking, "You know, they're a lot like us."?

heh

Im sure someone is now frantically typing away at a response to that.


To the only thing i could think of that would work with what you had said or are you finally refering to someone else?

We are not better than anyone. Sure a select few of them may be radical killers, but we have our own too. Sure some of their nations are ruled by dictators, but I'm sure America would've been too had it been around for more than 200 years.

While it may be difficult to say that we are not better than they are, when comparing the power and influence of America with Muslim powers, you must still accept the fact that that doesn't make us better than them. We're different, not superior.

Notice that whole post was cynical and humorous?

We are not better than anyone. Sure a select few of them may be radical killers, but we have our own too. Sure some of their nations are ruled by dictators, but I'm sure America would've been too had it been around for more than 200 years.

While it may be difficult to say that we are not better than they are, when comparing the power and influence of America with Muslim powers, you must still accept the fact that that doesn't make us better than them. We're different, not superior.


True, but we are superior in some ways, economically, and militarily but thats about it

Yes they were, and so were a few other countries as well. The nation must rise up on its own, not to be forced to rise up. France did not force us to rise up. France did not fight the war FOR us and then TELL us that we are going to establish a democracy. This is how your comparisson between the American revolution and the Iraqi war fails.
*Sigh* 1.I never meant to make a comparison as I stated before. 2. I also said this was towards Afghanistan if you can read and interpret 3. I also stated that the French gave assistance 4. The French- Indian wars had ended before the AR 5. War between France and England resumed during the Napoleonic Wars which were much later than the AR

wasnt a joke. More of a fact. If the police say calm downa nd you dont they resort to whatever measures they see fit. And Im sure that one NAZI supporter would get a cheap laugh since he seems to fuind the murder of millions of people something to be entertained about.

Not in America, and damn sure not in any 1st rate power in the world today. Police can only use the amount necessary to restrain you. They can not use any means necessary.

Except when you pull a deadly weapon on them.

i had forgotten that Jefferson was indeed a deist but he was not the only one to writ the declaration he had "advisors" you could call them that helped him. And good point about the morals.
His "advisor" was John Locke, or at least his philosophical writings. Most of the opening to the Declaration is a series of almost direct quotes from Locke's writings. They're not QUITE word for word, but they're pretty close. After the opening paragraphs, there's the list of gripes about how the colonies were being ruled.

Thanks! ^_^

Wasn't that going on in Saudi Arabia for a long time? Huge numbers of unemployed people getting welfare checks from the Saud family's oil wealth.
Hell, the US isn't wealthy enough to do that. How could the Saudis be that wealthy if we're extorting them?

The US does do that (as in do something to curry public favor), how do you thing rich Americans get "elected"? They spend money to make themselves look good.

If you are in control of a mine (say, gold) and its natural value (under open market conditions) would be $1000 a pound, but I extort you into selling it all to me for $500 dollars a pound and nobody has to go to war, are you not still being extorted, even though you may be making a killing (say, $100 in costs per pound)?

To the only thing i could think of that would work with what you had said or are you finally refering to someone else?
Hence "someone"

Not in America, and damn sure not in any 1st rate power in the world today. Police can only use the amount necessary to restrain you. They can not use any means necessary.

Except when you pull a deadly weapon on them.


They can use the force but they will be punished for it if it is proved to be excessive.

According to Islam, the "right" ideaology is Democracy without Nationalism - ie. Not American Democracy, which is what is being forced down the throats of Iraqis whether they like it or not. Nationalism is frowned upon in Qur'an because it leads to needless and senseless wars, but what the US is doing over there is flag waving and saber rattling and, frankly, that is anti-Islam and it makes the US look anti-Islam.Well here was the true answer on the first page, and as usual, nobody cared.

The reason the ME has such distain for the US is the same as the reason most of the world has the same feelings. We've become nationalist to a fault. America first! That pretty much sums up the attitude of many Americans and particularly this administration. Well that's just dandy if you're American, however it doesn't buy you much love from those who aren't.

How would you feel if your house burned down and you lost everthing. And while the Fire Department was there they drove over a corner of your neighbors lawn and broke one of his sprinkler heads. He comes out and even though you've lost everything and don't even know where you'll sleep that night, all he wants to talk to you about is his little problem and he wants to know who's gonna fix it.

You'd think this guy is a complete insensitive asshole wouldn't you?





Congratulations America, we've officially become the asshole neighbor. We got the biggest obnoxious house on the block, we're always playing the stereo too loud, we're always parking in front of the neighbors driveways and our dog is constantly crapping on everyone else's lawn.

And all we bitch about is the fact that we can't park our RV on the street without getting a ticket.

His "advisor" was John Locke, or at least his philosophical writings. Most of the opening to the Declaration is a series of almost direct quotes from Locke's writings. They're not QUITE word for word, but they're pretty close. After the opening paragraphs, there's the list of gripes about how the colonies were being ruled.

Thanks! ^_^


Yes, the life,liberty, and property part was changed to life, liberty, and ursuit of happiness right?
I think John adams or maybe it was franklin that was also one of his "advisors" but i may be wrong

True, but we are superior in some ways, economically, and militarily but thats about it

But we are not better people than them, which was what was implied in what I quoted.

His "advisor" was John Locke, or at least his philosophical writings. Most of the opening to the Declaration is a series of almost direct quotes from Locke's writings. They're not QUITE word for word, but they're pretty close. After the opening paragraphs, there's the list of gripes about how the colonies were being ruled.

Thanks! ^_^

Most of his advisors present at the time were christians though.

Not in America, and damn sure not in any 1st rate power in the world today. Police can only use the amount necessary to restrain you. They can not use any means necessary.

Except when you pull a deadly weapon on them. Some offciers do resort to beating you down with a flashlight which was some say "unnessacry force". Why else would it be all over the news?

But we are not better people than them, which was what was implied in what I quoted.

But we sure are smarter

Hence "someone"


You were supposed to answer my question you didnt. so what didnt you understand, the What or the ? ?

Yes, the life,liberty, and property part was changed to life, liberty, and ursuit of happiness right?
I think John adams or maybe it was franklin that was also one of his "advisors" but i may be wrong
I believe thats part of the preamble. That part was never changed.

Some offciers do resort to beating you down with a flashlight which was some say "unnessacry force". Why else would it be all over the news?

An old journalism quote-- "If it bleeds, it leads"

Bull, it's because it leads to people beginning to think of something other than their religion on a grand scale, which almost inevitably leads to people either dumping their religion or trying to change it, thus lessening the religion's control.

whats better, religious control that generally makes you think about how you live and live good (to avoid punishment after death), or american nationalised capitalism, where the poor fight wars to protect the business interests of the rich (under the lie that they are protecting their country and freedom) and the push to buy, buy, buy; consume, consume, consume?

You were supposed to answer my question you didnt. so what didnt you understand, the What or the ? ? Damn do you need everything in bold letters for you? HENCE SOMEONE SOMEONE CAN FIT ANY DESCPRITION NOW CALM DOWN!!!!!!

But we sure are smarter


Prove it. Because ther are some pretty dumb people in the us and im sure there are some pretty smart people over there

They can use the force but they will be punished for it if it is proved to be excessive.

You just said exactly what I said, only in a different way.

But we are not better people than them, which was what was implied in what I quoted.


Yes, true

I believe thats part of the preamble. That part was never changed.


you sure?
and please stop telling me to calm down before i really do need to calm down, because in the words of someone i know and horseteets knows "I'm a psychopath"
just kidding but seriously if you dont stop i might actually need to calm down.

You just said exactly what I said, only in a different way.


true true

you sure? I said I believe thats my view.

Most of his advisors present at the time were christians though.
Please name one. Then please explalin the Treaty of Tripoli. It was written in 1796 under president Washington and rattified in 1797 under president Adams.

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

We're not forcing them to be free? Then what was the forced deposition through the use of guns and bombs all about?
You seem to believe that the vast majority of Iraqis despise us and want us to unilaterally pull out. The reality of the situation is the opposite. The leader of what the msm calls insurgents isn't even iraqi but is a Jordanian. If outside support was cut off the insurgency would die off within 4 months, easy.

whats better, religious control that generally makes you think about how you live and live good (to avoid punishment after death), or american nationalised capitalism, where the poor fight wars to protect the business interests of the rich (under the lie that they are protecting their country and freedom) and the push to buy, buy, buy; consume, consume, consume?

Not all the poor fights wars. I know well-off people who have gone to Iraq. Business interests arent the reasons for war. People who claim bush went to iraq for oil should be shot, im afraid to say. (thats for a whole new topic)

buy buy buy, consume consume consume-- thats the essence of capitalism and consumerism. if you dont like that move to cuba

If you think that america would be just as safe if we didnt go off to hunt terrorists, then you fall under the same category as those who think bush went to iraq for oil.

Please name one. Then please explalin the Treaty of Tripoli. It was written in 1796 under president Washington and rattified in 1797 under president Adams.

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Was that during or in the aftermath of the Barbary pirates debacle?

There's several things to remember:

A) Arabs hate Jews (as do all Gentiles) - America gives $8.3million per day to Israel. What does Israel do with the money? Buy old Soviet guns and tanks and kill Palestinians (Arabs). Thats why 9/11 happened, and it will happen again if America continues to fund Israel

B) Democracy is a reltively new idea, and not many people like it. To be honest, I dont even think it works. Look at America now, we basically vote in a dictator. We voted in George Bush, he went to war against Iraq when the majority of his citizens didnt want to, and there's nothing we can do about it. Our national leaders are not being held responsible for their actions. Or look at Germany, look at all their anti-Nazi laws. Thats no democracy, thats a dictatorship! What kind of democracy tells its people what they can and cannot say, or wear? Germany has been royally screwed by the Allies.....twice.
Thus, I think democracy has had its day in the sun.

C) Democracy seems right to you because its all you know. Women being oppressed and beaten seems wrong to us because we dont allow that kind of thing anymore. You cannot look at a country through your own "culture goggles." Just because we say it is wrong in our country, doesnt mean it is wrong. Countries need to keep their nose out of everyone's business.

Holy Cow can you believe whats coming out of your mouth. How is women being beaten good in any way? I mean really think about this, as human beings we have a sense of morals, we dont even have to be instilled with them, that face is that what is wrong is wrong. And as for democracy not working and America being a dictatorship? Where do you get this stuff from Mein Kampf I mean democracy has worked. During the watergate scandle we had all kinds of crap to happen with our vp and then our pres and we ended up with a president, that was really never the original vp. There was no rebellion, there was no civil war, there was nothing, we took it, looked the problem in the eye and our democracy triumphed, pure and simple.

Prove it. Because ther are some pretty dumb people in the us and im sure there are some pretty smart people over there

can we say "mob mentality"

thats all we've faced in iraq. sheep too stupid to figure out their own opinions

Also, christianity is only 2,000 years old, and the 10 commandments are only 3,000. The reasoned morality that does not allow theft and murder is as old as civilization itself. You can find those values in most every recorded civilization, ever.

Correct. Isn't the oldest known recorded laws those of Hamurabi?

You seem to believe that the vast majority of Iraqis despise us and want us to unilaterally pull out. The reality of the situation is the opposite. The leader of what the msm calls insurgents isn't even iraqi but is a Jordanian. If outside support was cut off the insurgency would die off within 4 months, easy.
Look at the polls, there is a very large and significant segment of the Iraqi population that resent us and the democracy we're forcing upon them.