NationStates Jolt Archive

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

I imagine they wouldnt be very pleased, just like Christians in Saudi Arabia arent very pleased

but you have to remember that what happens in Saudi Arabia shouldnt be a reflection of the Muslim faith

They wouldn't like it one bit, but just because the Saudis are assholes doesn't mean we have to sink to their level.

I imagine they wouldnt be very pleased, just like Christians in Saudi Arabia arent very pleased

but you have to remember that what happens in Saudi Arabia shouldnt be a reflection of the Muslim faith

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press? And more to the point, since Saudia Arabia is where all Muslims point towards when they worship, why do they support and stand for such things?

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press?
because just because someone else does it as well it doesnt make it right

Yep. It is hypocrisy. In a way we should feel proud of ourselves that we're tolerant enough to let it happen. Why should we lower ourselves to the level of religious intolerance?

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press?
Because of organizations like CAIR, which by the way has ties to terrorism, that spend millions on PR and file countless lawsuits to make Islam seem like a poor, persecuted minority group.

because just because someone else does it as well it doesnt make it right

You have missed the point. In the UK racial tollerance and religious tollerance is upheld in law. Where as in Saudia Arabia the complete opposite is true. What I am asking is why Muslims should expect us to do what they themselves cannot. They complain as if Islamaphobia is a serious act of persecution but in reality its a cultrual myth overplayed by the media and the minds of ingnorent people.

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press? And more to the point, since Saudia Arabia is where all Muslims point towards when they worship, why do they support and stand for such things?

Those people who are complaining are generally in western countries not Saudi
Arabia.

You have missed the point. In the UK racial tollerance and religious tollerance is upheld in law. Where as in Saudia Arabia the complete opposite is true. What I am asking is why Muslims should expect us to do what they themselves cannot.
So if they do it in another country, its okay to discriminate against them?

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press? And more to the point, since Saudia Arabia is where all Muslims point towards when they worship, why do they support and stand for such things?
Not their natural home? There are plenty of muslims who are BORN into the countries you are talking about (the US, Canada, Britian and so on). Are they the only ones who get to complain then?

Who says they support it? You don't see muslims rushing off to become Saudi citizens do you? That to me would signal real support.

So if they do it in another country, its okay to discriminate against them?

No, I am basicly saying that Muslims who complain about standards of racial tollerance in this country should remove the log from their own eye before takeing the speck from ours

So if they do it in another country, its okay to discriminate against them?

No, his point is is that it's silly to complain about something when 'your own' people are doing the exact same thing 'back home'.

Who says they support it? You don't see muslims rushing off to become Saudi citizens do you? That to me would signal real support.

Well if they dont, they obviously are not doing enough about it. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be Islams spiritual home. So why do they not fix this problem of intollerance.

No, I am basicly saying that Muslims who complain about standards of racial tollerance in this country should remove the log from their own eye before takeing the speck from ours
It isn't their eye, it's someone elses. Let me ask the question again. Is is okay to discriminate against someone just because someone else who happens to share the same religion discriminates against your religion?

You have missed the point. In the UK racial tollerance and religious tollerance is upheld in law. Where as in Saudia Arabia the complete opposite is true. What I am asking is why Muslims should expect us to do what they themselves cannot.
because the laws in Saudi Arabia arent a reflection of the Qu'ran for the most part, so we shouldnt see it as a country ruled under Muslim law - its a country ruled by people who use Islam as a way to maintain their control

So we shouldnt put in laws against Muslims just because someone who has taken the Qu'ran and corrupted it to maintain their power has made laws against Christians

I know where im going with this, its just quite hard to put into words

You have missed the point. In the UK racial tollerance and religious tollerance is upheld in law. Where as in Saudia Arabia the complete opposite is true. What I am asking is why Muslims should expect us to do what they themselves cannot. They complain as if Islamaphobia is a serious act of persecution but in reality its a cultrual myth overplayed by the media and the minds of ingnorent people.
I don't know how you can seriously sit there and lump all muslims into one tidy little group. It's a ridiculous as doing the same to ANY faith. Muslims exist amongst every ethnic group. They even have DIFFERENT political beliefs AND opinions about Saudi Arabia *gasp*.

Islamaphobia IS a serious act of persecution. Just as the attacks on Christians in Indonesia are serious acts of persecution. You don't want all Christians to be judged the same based on the actions of a few, do you? Then why are you doing it to others?

because the laws in Saudi Arabia arent a reflection of the Qu'ran for the most part, so we shouldnt see it as a country ruled under Muslim law - its a country ruled by people who use Islam as a way to maintain their control

Isnt Saudi Arabia's Constitution the Qu'ran?

I think that Neo wants our governments to enforce our religious biases in the same manner that the Saudis enforce theirs.

But we're a secular society. We already impose (at least in the US) a great deal of restriction on religion here.

No, I am basicly saying that Muslims who complain about standards of racial tollerance in this country should remove the log from their own eye before takeing the speck from ours
You are blaming these muslims in your country of intolerance simply because they belong to a religion that those in Saudi Arabia also follows.

Perhaps the plank in YOUR eye is making that sensible in your view, but I just don't get it.

No, his point is is that it's silly to complain about something when 'your own' people are doing the exact same thing 'back home'.
Cripes...all muslims are from Saudi Arabia now? :rolleyes:

Islamaphobia IS a serious act of persecution.

Islamaphobia is not supported by a government. It is cultrual at its lowest level. People feeling fear because of the events of the last few years. Unlike Saudia Arabia where it is enshrined in law. I dont see any religious persecution enshrined in law.

Isnt Saudi Arabia's Constitution the Qu'ran?
it might be, but its interpreted in a very corrupted way

for example, if they were to truly use the Qu'ran as their laws, then they wouldnt persecute people for being homosexual etc, as according to the Qu'ran Allah made everyone and its only up to Allah to judge people

In Saudi Arabia they use the Qu'ran and religion to control the populace

I think that Neo wants our governments to enforce our religious biases in the same manner that the Saudis enforce theirs.


No, I want the Saudi's to enforce religous tollerance and for Muslims to stop complaining about levels of religous tollerance when their spiritual homeland cant get it right.

Cripes...all muslims are from Saudi Arabia now? :rolleyes:

Saudi Arabia is Islams spirtiaual home, in the same way that Israel is Judaisms spirtiual home and to a lesser extent Christianity.

Islamaphobia is not supported by a government. It is cultrual at its lowest level. People feeling fear because of the events of the last few years. Unlike Saudia Arabia where it is enshrined in law. I dont see any religious persecution enshrined in law.
And religious persecution goes against the ideas of Islam

No, I am basicly saying that Muslims who complain about standards of racial tollerance in this country should remove the log from their own eye before takeing the speck from ours

How do you know all Muslims support the Saudi regime?

Well if they dont, they obviously are not doing enough about it. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be Islams spiritual home. So why do they not fix this problem of intollerance.
How would you know they're not doing enough? Do you actually have any idea of the various muslim coolitions, NGOs, activists and so on that are working hard to do exactly what you are asking them to do? You want them to try to 'fix' their problems, and many are trying to do just that. Just because they haven't succeeded to the extent you are demanding does not make their effort meaningless or absent.

Don't try to justify the intolerance among some people in your nation as okay just because Islam doesn't have its own house in order. Would you condem Christians in the same way?

Cripes...all muslims are from Saudi Arabia now? :rolleyes:

Yup. That's *exactly* what I said, you sure got the better of me there sport. :rolleyes:

And religious persecution goes against the ideas of Islam
Now that's not really true. Under sharia even christians and jews, who are tolerated, are faced with restrictions that endanger their economic and even physical welfare.

Islamaphobia is not supported by a government. It is cultrual at its lowest level. People feeling fear because of the events of the last few years. Unlike Saudia Arabia where it is enshrined in law. I dont see any religious persecution enshrined in law.
Not the point. You are still blaming ALL muslims for the actions of the government of Saudi Arabia. It doesn't make sense. Phrase your issue in another way.

Now that's not really true. Under sharia even christians and jews, who are tolerated, are faced with restrictions that endanger their economic and even physical welfare.
Sharia =/= the Qu'ran

its partially based on the Qu'ran, yes, but its not the Qu'ran

Now that's not really true. Under sharia even christians and jews, who are tolerated, are faced with restrictions that endanger their economic and even physical welfare.

How do you know all Muslims uphold or would like to see Sharia law implemented....anywhere?

Saudi Arabia is Islams spirtiaual home, in the same way that Israel is Judaisms spirtiual home and to a lesser extent Christianity.
So all Jews are responsible for the government of Israel? (and to a lesser extent, so are the Christians?)

Sharia =/= the Qu'ran

its partially based on the Qu'ran, yes, but its not the Qu'ran
It's muslim law based on their religion. It's therefore a part of Islam.

How would you know they're not doing enough? Do you actually have any idea of the various muslim coolitions, NGOs, activists and so on that are working hard to do exactly what you are asking them to do? You want them to try to 'fix' their problems, and many are trying to do just that. Just because they haven't succeeded to the extent you are demanding does not make their effort meaningless or absent.


They are quite happy to continually very publicly criticsise western governments for their supposed intollerance. So why are they able to do that and it not be hypocracy


Don't try to justify the intolerance among some people in your nation as okay just because Islam doesn't have its own house in order. Would you condem Christians in the same way

Intollerance in Britian and America is NOT GOVERNMENT ENFORCED. It may be cultural and deep routed but there is no religious police force going round hunting down mosques and deporting Muslims. The same is not true of Saudia Arabia and Chrisitans. In my mind, Muslims complaining about religious tollerance in the UK/US have no idea how good they have it.

Seeing as Saudi Arabia's repressive government is part able to survive due to the financial support it recieves from the west, it would be rather pervers to argue that the repressive nature of the regime makes it acceptable to lower our own standerd of personal freedom.

"We've funded your repression over there... so how can you expect liberty when you come here?!"

How do you know all Muslims uphold or would like to see Sharia law implemented....anywhere?
I don't think all of them do. I just think we need to be vigilant and try to stop those who want to impose sharia on everyone.

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

Because it is their choice ... we chose a different path (and I think better) but just because it does not fit with our idiology but it does with theirs

It's muslim law based on their religion. It's therefore a part of Islam.
its law based on the Qu'ran

i could easily make a heavily persecuting law based on the New Testament, as places have done in the past, but it wouldnt be part of Christianity

Neo, and others here. You are all thinking about this, understandably, from the perspective of a secular democratic system. The Saudi's do no have this form of system, they have an autocratic theocratic monarchy system.
The Saudi's, those that rule there anyway, would probabbly find everything you suggested in your first post perfectly reasonable. It fits their way of thinking and their belief structures.
This does not mean that it fits with Muslim beliefs, just with the Saudi ruling class belief. To try to force or demand that other countries use the same system as you are used to is to be intolerant in itself. You do not have to like their system, but if they would accept this system being applied against them (and I believe that they would, and are probably slightly bemused that it is not)
then it is cultural imperialism to say that they are wrong. They are just different.

I happen to believe that an open secular democratic society is far better for the individual citizens. But that is a different argument.

Yup. That's *exactly* what I said, you sure got the better of me there sport. :rolleyes:

Forgive me for paraphrasing this:

No, his point is is that it's silly to complain about something when 'your own' people are doing the exact same thing 'back home'.

Perhaps you could explain it then if I have interpreted this comment erroneously?

its law based on the Qu'ran

i could easily make a heavily persecuting law based on the New Testament, as places have done in the past, but it wouldnt be part of Christianity
Sure it would. The laws established by a religion and based on it's text are part of the religion.

So all Jews are responsible for the government of Israel? (and to a lesser extent, so are the Christians?)

Saudi Arabia is a Theocracy. Its government should therfore be based on Religion. Israel (to the best of my knowlegde) is not a Theocracy.

It's muslim law based on their religion. It's therefore a part of Islam.
So was the Inquisition based on the Christian religion. It was a part of the religion, but not one that would have been, or is accepted by all practicioners of the Christian faith.

I don't think all of them do. I just think we need to be vigilant and try to stop those who want to impose sharia on everyone.

Stop those who want to impose sharia law...from doing what?

Reproducing?

then it is cultural imperialism to say that they are wrong. They are just different.


There are these things called HUMAN RIGHTS which contridict these ideas. Its not cultural imperialism to expect freedom of religion.

So was the Inquisition based on the Christian religion. It was a part of the religion, but not one that would have been, or is accepted by all practicioners of the Christian faith.
Right. The inquisition was a christian evil. Much like sharia law is a muslim evil. Most christians nowadays are ashamed of the inquisition. Maybe most muslims are equally ashamed of the bigoted sharia laws. I don't know. I do know that at least some muslims still want sharia imposed worldwide. Osama bin Laden is one of those.

Sure it would. The laws established by a religion and based on it's text are part of the religion.
no theyre not, theyre part of the laws of the country - very few (i would think) Muslims follow the laws of Saudi Arabia

Just because a government has interpreted a religious text to base their laws on to try and give them legitimacy in order maintain their power does not mean that its part of the religion

Stop those who want to impose sharia law...from doing what?

Reproducing?
Stop them from imposing religious law that threatens the rights of other people.

no theyre not, theyre part of the laws of the country - very few (i would think) Muslims follow the laws of Saudi Arabia

Just because a government has interpreted a religious text to base their laws on to try and give them legitimacy in order maintain their power does not mean that its part of the religion
Sounds ironically what happens all the time with many religions including Christianity

Stop them from imposing religious law that threatens the rights of other people.

Ah, yes. I suppose I should expect to see Osama running for President of the USA sometime soon?

Or are you actually concerned about the welfare of the citizens of Saudi Arabia and wish to see this theocracy dismantled?

Ah, yes. I suppose I should expect to see Osama running for President of the USA sometime soon?

Or are you actually concerned about the welfare of the citizens of Saudi Arabia and wish to see this theocracy dismantled?
Honestly I couldn't care less about the people of Saudi Arabia. I'm just concerned about trying to keep my country as free and secular as possible.

They are quite happy to continually very publicly criticsise western governments for their supposed intollerance. So why are they able to do that and it not be hypocracy
Because not all these people support Saudi Arabia. You are still missing the point that you can not paint all Muslims the same, regardless of whether Mecca is their spiritual 'home' or not. I don't agree with my own government...am I a hypocrite because I criticise the corruption in the Canadian government, when so many band councils (native governments) are corrupt too? You are confusing criticism with complaining. Criticism should have purpose...to improve things. Complaining is not constructive. These muslims that are criticising your (and their) government are not likely to be the kind that blindly support Saudi Arabia. No doubt they ALSO see the flaws in the Saudi government. However, you should be happy that they feel free enough to speak their mind in your country...it says a lot about the kind of freedom your people are guaranteed. Telling them to shut up until Saudi Arabia is more open is silly, and doesn't help anyone. It won't solve a thing. Bringing issues up, criticising and offering alternatives, talking, debating, arguing, agreeing, disagreeing...these are the things that make democracies STRONGER. You should be encouraging that...not singling out one group for silence.



Intollerance in Britian and America is NOT GOVERNMENT ENFORCED. It may be cultural and deep routed but there is no religious police force going round hunting down mosques and deporting Muslims. The same is not true of Saudia Arabia and Chrisitans. In my mind, Muslims complaining about religious tollerance in the UK/US have no idea how good they have it. I think they absolutely know how good they have it, especially if they have fled a repressive nation. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be fighting to make things even better. That is progress. It doesn't happen on its own.

Honestly I couldn't care less about the people of Saudi Arabia. I'm just concerned about trying to keep my country as free and secular as possible.

And your country is currently under threat from Sharia law?

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

OMG. I can't imagine that happening. Shit.. If that happeneds, I better start packing my bags and run to Thailand. There's going to be lots of cry for Christian blood in Muslim countries like mine. I kid you not.

And your country is currently under threat from Sharia law?
Currently no, just under threat from the christian version. Still, it's a good idea to stay vigilant against all threats.

Right. The inquisition was a christian evil. Much like sharia law is a muslim evil. Most christians nowadays are ashamed of the inquisition. Maybe most muslims are equally ashamed of the bigoted sharia laws. I don't know. I do know that at least some muslims still want sharia imposed worldwide. Osama bin Laden is one of those.
Absolutely there are still those who want to use religion to oppress. Unfortunately, some of those people have come into power under Islam. All I can hope for is the rise of the secular state worldwide...because religion has ALWAYS been used as a form of power over people, and I'd like to think we are able to rise above that.

Islam just happens to be the religion in political acendency right now. That isn't the fault of all muslims, just a few.

Currently no, just under threat from the christian version. Still, it's a good idea to stay vigilant against all threats.

Stay viligant against non-existing threats?

Step into my office, I think you may need a prescription.

Stay viligant against non-existing threats?

Step into my office, I think you may need a prescription.
Actually it's a threat on the distant horizon. What do you think Osama bin Laden's working toward? It's a world-wide sharia state.

Stay viligant against non-existing threats?

Step into my office, I think you may need a prescription.
I will take the prescription though.

Actually it's a threat on the distant horizon. What do you think Osama bin Laden's working toward? It's a world-wide sharia state.

I think he's working toward coming back from the dead. And I can't give a prescription without some medical and psychological evaluation/investigation. :p

There are these things called HUMAN RIGHTS which contridict these ideas. Its not cultural imperialism to expect freedom of religion.

It is. Human Rights are, believe it or not, a cultural Idea that arose in the Western Democratic cultural tradition. They are not absolute or culturally nutral. To insist that other cultures abide by them is pure cultural imperialism. Nothing more and nothing less.

It is. Human Rights are, believe it or not, a cultural Idea that arose in the Western Democratic cultural tradition. They are not absolute or culturally nutral. To insist that other cultures abide by them is pure cultural imperialism. Nothing more and nothing less.
Maybe some level of cultural imperialism is a good thing.

Maybe some level of cultural imperialism is a good thing.
Maybe...but at least admit that it IS cultural imperialism.

Which we have.

Done.

Maybe some level of cultural imperialism is a good thing.

I am not denying that, at all. But as Sinhue said, recognise it.

It is. Human Rights are, believe it or not, a cultural Idea that arose in the Western Democratic cultural tradition. They are not absolute or culturally nutral. To insist that other cultures abide by them is pure cultural imperialism. Nothing more and nothing less.

Do to others as you would do to you. Surely thats a universal law?

Do to others as you would do to you. Surely thats a universal law?
Nope. It's not universal because some cultures view members of other groups as inferior. You don't treat an inferior being the same as yourself.

Do to others as you would do to you. Surely thats a universal law?
But very flexible. If you self-flagellate, is it okay for you to force others to do the same?

Edit: I LOVE that flagellate sounds a lot like flatulate.

Do to others as you would do to you. Surely thats a universal law?
Do you want people to lump all Christians together and blame them ALL for the actions of a few? Then why do it to Muslims? That's not a very nice version of the Golden Rule.

Do to others as you would do to you. Surely thats a universal law?

It is a formulation of Kant's golden rule. It depends upon a view that humans are inherently rational in what they do. A view that is highly dubious. There are many people who would do unto others all that they can get away with doing. The do unto others as you would have them do to you is just a cultural position, again.

It is very difficult to get your thinking outside of the box that your culture imposes around it. To be religiously intolerent feels and seems wrong to us, but that is due to our culture, not due to such intolerence being inherently and absolutely wrong.

If something is to be absolutely wrong then the basis for this has to come from one of two places.
1. An exteranal source of moral value. i.e. a God. In which case religious intolerence would be right, not wrong, as there would be a true belief and false beliefs.

or

2. Human nature. And if this is the case then intolerence, if it were absolutely wrong, would not occur in human society as we could not act contrary to our nature.

This leaves that either there are no absolute rights or wrongs, or that religious intolerence is not wrong.

Do to others as you would do to you. Surely thats a universal law?

And in a room with one homosexual rapist, we'll all end up fucking each other in the ass. Oh, great idea, that.

And in a room with one homosexual rapist, we'll all end up fucking each other in the ass. Oh, great idea, that.
Sorry, that's not the analogy that Gandhi used.

I think it was men poking each others's eyes out. But the ass metaphor is more revolting, so I'll stick with it.

Sorry, that's not the analogy that Gandhi used.

I think it was men poking each others's eyes out. But the ass metaphor is more revolting, so I'll stick with it.
More revolting to you perhaps...

Personally, I find the eye analogy scarier... :D

More revolting to you perhaps...

Personally, I find the eye analogy scarier... :D

It's one thing if it's between consenting adults (the ass thing).

Between ugly looking homophobes, it's probably not a pretty sight.

More revolting to you perhaps...

Personally, I find the eye analogy scarier... :D
Maybe it's dependent on one's sex. I'd much rather lose an eye.

It's one thing if it's between consenting adults (the ass thing).

Between ugly looking homophobes, it's probably not a pretty sight.
This conversation is getting stranger and stranger by the moment:)

Maybe it's dependent on one's sex. I'd much rather lose an eye.
I doubt you'd really choose that if you had to...especially if it was gentle...

Ay, I'll stop there. Pointless really:)

I doubt you'd really choose that if you had to...especially if it was gentle...

Ay, I'll stop there. Pointless really:)
One eye? The choice is clear. Both eyes? That would be a problem.

This conversation is getting stranger and stranger by the moment:)
I've seen two homosexuals having sex (walked in on them, minor deal).
Seen an avowed heterosexual raping another man.

I know which one was disgusting, and which one was fine.

It isn't their eye, it's someone elses. Let me ask the question again. Is is okay to discriminate against someone just because someone else who happens to share the same religion discriminates against your religion?

we're not saying it's okay, just that it's wrong.

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

We're all an affront to Islam anyway so they can get outraged about whatever they want for all I care, whether it's wholesale purging of the Muslim community or someone not ending all their sentences with "Allah is great!".

Nope. It's not universal because some cultures view members of other groups as inferior. You don't treat an inferior being the same as yourself.

I'm sorry but logic is universal. It is not logical for someone to view someone else as inferior due to an accident of birth. There is no good reason.

I'm sorry but logic is universal. It is not logical for someone to view someone else as inferior due to an accident of birth. There is no good reason.

Tell that to a Calvinist. There's one on this forum. That's what he believes.

I'm sorry but logic is universal. It is not logical for someone to view someone else as inferior due to an accident of birth. There is no good reason.
Hmmm...and you are viewing your own position as superior to the position held by extremist Muslims? Logic is NOT universal.

I'm sorry but logic is universal. It is not logical for someone to view someone else as inferior due to an accident of birth. There is no good reason.
Lack of logic has nothing to do with it. They use logic. Their thinking starts with the premise "islam is the true religion in it's final perfected form". They then reason that all other religions are inferior, all adherents to those religions who still reject islam have a flaw in their character or their intellect, therefore the adherents to other religions are inferior. It's logic, just based on a false premise.

Hmmm...and you are viewing your own position as superior to the position held by extremist Muslims? Logic is NOT universal.

I'm not viewing Arabs as a people as bad because they are Muslims. I am angry that they seek fit to insult Britain for its ethnic tollerance when Saudi Arabia is unable to deal with its own tollerance. I dont view them as infiror, I view them as wrong in this case.

Lack of logic has nothing to do with it. They use logic. Their thinking starts with the premise "islam is the true religion in it's final perfected form". They then reason that all other religions are inferior, all adherents to those religions who still reject islam have a flaw in their character or their intellect, therefore the adherents to other religions are inferior. It's logic, just based on a false premise.

It's what Mormons believe. Or Calvinists. Or any religion that believes that its members are Elect.

I'm not viewing Arabs as a people as bad because they are Muslims. I am angry that they seek fit to insult Britain for its ethnic tollerance when Saudi Arabia is unable to deal with its own tollerance. I dont view them as infiror, I view them as wrong in this case.
But not all Muslims are arabs...nor are all arabs Muslims.

Nor do most Muslims come from Saudi Arabia.

Nor do most Muslims have any control over what Saudi Arabia does.

The Muslims living in your country as citizens DO, however, have some control over what happens in THAT country. Doesn't it make sense to try to fix what you can?

And again, you've ignored the fact that many of these people ARE working to change repressive Islamic regimes. Just because they haven't succeeded yet doesn't make their critiques invalid.

I'm not viewing Arabs as a people as bad because they are Muslims. I am angry that they seek fit to insult Britain for its ethnic tollerance when Saudi Arabia is unable to deal with its own tollerance. I dont view them as infiror, I view them as wrong in this case.

They are wrong, by your cultural standards, The UK is wrong for being tolerant by the Saudi cultural standards. So what.

They are wrong, by your cultural standards, The UK is wrong for being tolerant by the Saudi cultural standards. So what.

Do to others what you would have done to you

I think thats a fairly logical system. I see no reason why it should not apply to everyone.

Do to others what you would have done to you

I think thats a fairly logical system. I see no reason why it should not apply to everyone.
Neo, we've already addressed this. So go back to our reasons WHY it does not apply to everyone, and then address THAT. (it's a nice, but simplistic notion)

Also, please answer the issues I keep bringing up.

But not all Muslims are arabs...nor are all arabs Muslims.

Nor do most Muslims come from Saudi Arabia.

Nor do most Muslims have any control over what Saudi Arabia does.

The Muslims living in your country as citizens DO, however, have some control over what happens in THAT country. Doesn't it make sense to try to fix what you can?

And again, you've ignored the fact that many of these people ARE working to change repressive Islamic regimes. Just because they haven't succeeded yet doesn't make their critiques invalid.

Neo Cannen? I'm not on your ignore list, am I?

Do to others what you would have done to you

I think thats a fairly logical system. I see no reason why it should not apply to everyone.
Logic has nothing to do with it. "Do unto others..." is a nice little piece of advice. That's it. It's not an argument which can be checked for logical consistency. It's just a statement.

Do to others what you would have done to you

I think thats a fairly logical system. I see no reason why it should not apply to everyone.

It is a logical system. So is mathematics. So is Nazi thinking. So is intolerant theocracy. They are all logical. Logic does not have anything to do with an attitude or system being right. It just means that it is consistent.

There is something illogical in a religious community in a tolerant culture preaching intolerance. This is only because they are being inconsistent. They use the tolerance to be intolerant. That it is inconsistant is not a reason for it to be wrong, however.
Your position, that Saudi Arabia is wrong to have the rules it has is actualy inconsistent with living in, and wanting a tolerant society. Your attitude towards their beliefs is one of intolerance. It is not, however wrong, it is just illogical.

Do not try to justify something as being right because it is logical. Moral value and logic are disconnected (The Kantian's can shoot at me now, if they want.)

Logic has nothing to do with it. "Do unto others..." is a nice little piece of advice. That's it. It's not an argument which can be checked for logical consistency. It's just a statement.

It does actually derive logically from the concepts of rationality and equality. These seem to be being taken as unquestionable by Neo-Cannen, and as such it would be logical for him.

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

Yes this is a problem. The main problem I see is a lack of religious tolerance. If this can be bridged. You will see alot more peace in the world. Other than that I would suggest that "Westren" countries not copy what some "Muslim" countries do. Stooping to the same level will encourage more violence. Not all Muslim countries practice what Saudi Arabia does. As an American I think the government should rethink its position on Saudi Arabia anyway.

Yes this is a problem. The main problem I see is a lack of religious tolerance. If this can be bridged. You will see alot more peace in the world. Other than that I would suggest that "Westren" countries not copy what some "Muslim" countries do. Stooping to the same level will encourage more violence. Not all Muslim countries practice what Saudi Arabia does. As an American I think the government should rethink its position on Saudi Arabia anyway.

Nonesense, Marrakech II! As a Muslim you whole-heartedly support the Saudi regime, as Saudi Arabia is the centre of your Universe! This means you should immediately forfeit your right to criticise policies and expose discrimination against Muslims in Western nations!

;)

EDIT: [/sarcasm]

FFS!

Nonesense, Marrakech II! As a Muslim you whole-heartedly support the Saudi regime, as Saudi Arabia is the centre of your Universe! This means you should immediately forfeit your right to criticise policies and expose discrimination against Muslims in Western nations!

;)
I dont support the Saudi regime at all. Neither does alot of Muslims I know. People are not stupid. They know its corrupt. The Saudi Arabian government is not the center of Islam. Never has never will. Its the holy places in Saudi Arabia that are a part of Islam. Governments come and go with the tides.

As far as your comments. It shows alot of ignorance of other peoples.

I dont support the Saudi regime at all. Neither does alot of Muslims I know. People are not stupid. They know its corrupt. The Saudi Arabian government is not the center of Islam. Never has never will. Its the holy places in Saudi Arabia that are a part of Islam. Governments come and go with the tides.

As far as your comments. It shows alot of ignorance of other peoples.

Yes, thank you for that. It was sarcasm.

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

It's all to do with oil, I'm afraid - at least it is with the US. The Saudis have access to huge oil reserves, and the US are not going to upset them in case they lose out. This is why alternative power is a good thing - get rid of the Saudi regime!

It's all to do with oil, I'm afraid - at least it is with the US. The Saudis have access to huge oil reserves, and the US are not going to upset them in case they lose out. This is why alternative power is a good thing - get rid of the Saudi regime!
Who takes over after the Saud family is gone? A wahabi muslim theocracy? Another crime family? I just don't see a secular democracy springing up in that place any time soon.

It's all to do with oil, I'm afraid - at least it is with the US. The Saudis have access to huge oil reserves, and the US are not going to upset them in case they lose out. This is why alternative power is a good thing - get rid of the Saudi regime!

And how long do you think it would take the US to take Saudi Arabia?

Yes, thank you for that. It was sarcasm.

Ok, well it is difficult sometimes to tell who is being sarcastic and who isnt. Without the benefit of tone of voice its hard.

And how long do you think it would take the US to take Saudi Arabia?

Depends if they're still in Iraq.

Depends if they're still in Iraq.
Iraq borders Saudi Arabia. We could just shift our forces accross the border. Not that we would. The saudis are the lesser of two evils.

Depends if they're still in Iraq.

I bet that it would take a week to complete the main military defeat, and approximately 1 year to annihilate the population.

Seed the place with Americans and we're done.

Who takes over after the Saud family is gone? A wahabi muslim theocracy? Another crime family? I just don't see a secular democracy springing up in that place any time soon. I was more thinking that they'd lose their influence. No wars just yet… ignore what I said about no more Saudi regime.

So all Jews are responsible for the government of Israel? (and to a lesser extent, so are the Christians?)
Christians are not responsible for the Genocideal Gov of Israel.

How do you know all Muslims uphold or would like to see Sharia law implemented....anywhere?

Why are ALL Christians a threat to Saudi Arabia? You seem to forget that Muslims do there share of genralising and unlike Christian/Post-Christian nations they act upon it.

Christians are not responsible for the Genocideal Gov of Israel.
Nor for your bad spelling:)

All Muslims are not responsible for the government of Saudi Arabia.

I am really starting to suspect that I've made Neo Cannen's ignore list for some reason:(

And again, you've ignored the fact that many of these people ARE working to change repressive Islamic regimes. Just because they haven't succeeded yet doesn't make their critiques invalid.

YES IT DOES. You cant go around criticsing others for what you yourself cannot do. Untill Saudi Arabia can be said to be a tollerant society then Muslims living in Western countries should have nothing but gratiude for the level of equality that Western countries offer. They should not complain about little niggley cultural problems.

As far as I can see Muslims in this country rant and rave far more about "Islamaphobia" and racisim of the people here than they ever do about Saudi Arabia. Which one is worse? The one enacted by a fragment of the population or the one enforced by an entire government.

I am really starting to suspect that I've made Neo Cannen's ignore list for some reason:(

I've found that if you
a) have linked your argument to an incontrivertible study that was peer reviewed, and
b) if that peer review says there aren't any holes in the study, to their dismay, and
c) if that argument and study contradict what Neo says,

d) he'll ignore you, as will others

Nor for your bad spelling:)
:D

I've found that if you
a) have linked your argument to an incontrivertible study that was peer reviewed, and
b) if that peer review says there aren't any holes in the study, to their dismay, and
c) if that argument and study contradict what Neo says,

d) he'll ignore you, as will others

Nice flame, care to offer proof?

Nice flame, care to offer proof?

I've already posted many times about the National Self-Defense Survey.
I also posted the peer review in question.

No one and I mean no one - has rebutted the study.

You just keep on about "more guns = more murder" which the study disproves.

YES IT DOES. You cant go around criticsing others for what you yourself cannot do. Untill Saudi Arabia can be said to be a tollerant society then Muslims living in Western countries should have nothing but gratiude for the level of equality that Western countries offer. They should not complain about little niggley cultural problems.
Then no person in the US should be complaining about crime in other countries, not when they have the highest proportion of their own citizens in jails. Ridiculous, no? Just as ridiculous as saying a WHOLE DIVERSE group can not critique your nation just because some other country with which most muslims have no power over whatsoever is not playing nice.

You just keep on about "more guns = more murder" which the study disproves.

And I quoted Home office statistics at you, proving that the UK with its stricter gun laws has a lower murder rate. Though it is rising now, that has nothing to do with gun laws seeing as the laws havn't changed. The study only talks within the confines of America. Like it or not, more guns do equal more deaths.

Christians are not responsible for the Genocideal Gov of Israel.
Since when is Israel genocidal? Do you even think before you type?

And I quoted Home office statistics at you, proving that the UK with its stricter gun laws has a lower murder rate. Though it is rising now, that has nothing to do with gun laws seeing as the laws havn't changed. The study only talks within the confines of America. Like it or not, more guns do equal more deaths.

I asked you specifically to prove that it is true everywhere. You said it is ALWAYS true.

So why is it not true in the US?

Even without the study, you never answered AT ALL why guns have increased by 50 percent in 10 years to 300 million guns - but murder and violent crime have dropped over that time period.

You never, ever answered why that would be true, if your hypothesis is true.

Either the facts are true, and your hypothesis is false - more guns does not always mean more murder, or you're ignoring the facts.

Then no person in the US should be complaining about crime in other countries. not when they have the highest proportion of their own citizens in jails.

I agree. Quite frankly I am fed up of the American opinon on the world seeing itself as supiror. America needs to take a good long look at itself and fix itself before even leaving its borders


Ridiculous, no? Just as ridiculous as saying a WHOLE DIVERSE group can not critique your nation just because some other country with which most muslims have no power over whatsoever is not playing nice.

You would agree that Muslims would proberbly be a whole lot more vocal if the laws in Saudi Arabia were enacted against them in Britain. I think if they seriously believe that the UK is so horribly racist and biggoted in its views they should look long and hard at Saudi Arabia.

Since long ago christians and muslims have been fighting, espicially during the crusades

We hurt the muslims by giving Isreal too the jewish people, this was done by the UN (the real UN) after WW2 because they had no place to go

We helped them by supplying them with weapons and money to fight off the Russians during the cold war

We hurt them by not fullfilling our deals we had made to the muslims after the russians were gone, Osama Bin Ladens anger is now towards USA

They Hurt us in bombings on our soil and elsewhere

We Hurt them in Gulf War

They Hurt us again in other bombings

We hurt them in Afghanistan and then into Iraq (again)


It is my opinion that we are destined to fight, it is not christian vs muslim it is USA versus Militant muslims, so the clear answer is, that we must fight them in their own territory, we should bomb their buildings and show them what its like, they obviously arnt stopping, or planning too, and we all know Bush went into Iraq to get oil, but still, is it that bad?...teh only bad thing is that he lied, and we all know he did. We are stronger, if the militants want to conduct attacks on us, and other countries support it we should destroy them, Middle Easteners that hate the USA are the real opponents and should die!

I've found that if you
a) have linked your argument to an incontrivertible study that was peer reviewed, and
b) if that peer review says there aren't any holes in the study, to their dismay, and
c) if that argument and study contradict what Neo says,

d) he'll ignore you, as will others

Sounds like Neo... he and I have covered this HUNDREDS of times.

He can't admit he is ever wrong,

He can't back up any of his arguments,

He appears incapable of reading any point that disagrees with him, and

He is, apparently, allergic to evidence.

You would agree that Muslims would proberbly be a whole lot more vocal if the laws in Saudi Arabia were enacted against them in Britain. I think if they seriously believe that the UK is so horribly racist and biggoted in its views they should look long and hard at Saudi Arabia.
What would that prove exactly? That Saudi Arabia is worse than the UK? So what? Most of those Muslims you are talking about ARE NOT FROM SAUDI ARABIA. This isn't a "you're with us, or you're with Saudi Arabia" issue, even though you seem to be trying to make it such.

What would that prove exactly? That Saudi Arabia is worse than the UK? So what? Most of those Muslims you are talking about ARE NOT FROM SAUDI ARABIA. This isn't a "you're with us, or you're with Saudi Arabia" issue, even though you seem to be trying to make it such.
Ive never been to Saudi Arabia sounds like its hot and full of camels, the lack of porn and alcohol would be a real turn off as well. So why the hell are people so intrested in it and its people?

What would that prove exactly? That Saudi Arabia is worse than the UK? So what? Most of those Muslims you are talking about ARE NOT FROM SAUDI ARABIA. This isn't a "you're with us, or you're with Saudi Arabia" issue, even though you seem to be trying to make it such.

What I am trying to prove is that while Muslims may believe that the UK is somehow a terrible place for a Muslim to live, because our society is somehow intollerant, they should consider their own spirtiual homeland as an example of actuall intollerance. They think that its because they are not Muslim that they are intollerant and that if there were more Muslims, there would be more understanding. But the fact is that in a country made up ENTIRELY of Muslims there is intollerance forged into the govenmental system. I think Muslims criticising any western nations tollerance are extremely ungrateful and hypocritcal.

I asked you specifically to prove that it is true everywhere. You said it is ALWAYS true.

So why is it not true in the US?

Even without the study, you never answered AT ALL why guns have increased by 50 percent in 10 years to 300 million guns - but murder and violent crime have dropped over that time period.

You never, ever answered why that would be true, if your hypothesis is true.

Either the facts are true, and your hypothesis is false - more guns does not always mean more murder, or you're ignoring the facts.

You notice that Neo neglects to point out that Israel has a zero-tolerance gun law... and about the greatest per-capita gun crime rate in the world.

Sounds like Neo... he and I have covered this HUNDREDS of times.

He can't admit he is ever wrong,

He can't back up any of his arguments,

He appears incapable of reading any point that disagrees with him, and

He is, apparently, allergic to evidence.

Grave and Idle

Believes he is supiror to everyone

Refuses to accept other points of view and brushes them off with a personal insult to the participent

Will not listen to another piece of evidence longer than two pages from a website

Ive never been to Saudi Arabia sounds like its hot and full of camels, the lack of porn and alcohol would be a real turn off as well. So why the hell are people so intrested in it and its people?
1 It controls the richest oil wells in the world.
2 It's citizens fly planes into US buildings.
3 It's a repressive regime.
4 It's the source for funding and ideology that drives a big chunk of Islamist terrorism.
5 The Saud Family that rules it holds quite a large chunk of the US economy in stock and bonds.

What would that prove exactly? That Saudi Arabia is worse than the UK? So what? Most of those Muslims you are talking about ARE NOT FROM SAUDI ARABIA. This isn't a "you're with us, or you're with Saudi Arabia" issue, even though you seem to be trying to make it such.

I think Neo has been reading Chick Tracts.

You notice that Neo neglects to point out that Israel has a zero-tolerance gun law... and about the greatest per-capita gun crime rate in the world.

Now why is that do you think? Maybe because Israel is in the middle of a war on its own territory!

What I am trying to prove is that while Muslims may believe that the UK is somehow a terrible place for a Muslim to live, because our society is somehow intollerant, they should consider their own spirtiual homeland as an example of actuall intollerance. They think that its because they are not Muslim that they are intollerant and that if there were more Muslims, there would be more understanding. But the fact is that in a country made up ENTIRELY of Muslims there is intollerance forged into the govenmental system. I think Muslims criticising any western nations tollerance are extremely ungrateful and hypocritcal.
You want them to grovel their thanks to you? Let me ask...is it ONLY muslims who you feel are not supposed to critique your nation? Or are other groups included? Is ANYONE allowed to critique the UK?

Now why is that do you think? Maybe because Israel is in the middle of a war on its own territory!

No - Neo... not talking about warfare... talking about 'domestic' violence. That is Israeli-on-Israeli gun crime.

1 It controls the richest oil wells in the world.
2 It's citizens fly planes into US buildings.
3 It's a repressive regime.
4 It's the source for funding and ideology that drives a big chunk of Islamist terrorism.
5 The Saud Family that rules it holds quite a large chunk of the US economy in stock and bonds.
And there you get to the crux of the issue all of you are bullshitting about, this isnt religion its economics. The goverment fills your mind with crap about ideology when really its lubricating the wheels of capatalism their intrested in. Its a bit irrelevant that they have a repressive regime, just like its not important that its hot there and you cant get good porn or beer. Get my point?

You would agree that Muslims would proberbly be a whole lot more vocal if the laws in Saudi Arabia were enacted against them in Britain. I think if they seriously believe that the UK is so horribly racist and biggoted in its views they should look long and hard at Saudi Arabia.

Well, there's the fact that the UK is a democracy, which means that change can convievably be made. What's anyone in Saudi Arabia going to do, write the royals an angry letter? At best they'll just ignore you. Besides, your argument of "It's okay, because other people are worse" isn't all that hot.

No one is arguing the fact that Saudi Arabia has an atrocious human rights record, but that doesn't suddenly make smaller instances of racism okay. And as I said earlier, nothing's changing in Saudi Arabia without military intervention. Plus there's the fact that, does anyone even need to say that Saudi Arabia is a messed up country? It kind of goes without saying.

In any case, it's been said plenty of times before, but a Islamic theocracy being oppressive doesn't somehow waive the right of all Muslims to expect fair treatment. And the argument that, since their laws are based off an interpretation of Islamic law, Muslims are culpable, reminds my of an old joke I just made up:

Q: Why aren't all Christians held responsible for Adolf Hitler's warped interpretation of Christianity?

A: Because that would be retarded.

2 It's citizens fly planes into US buildings.
Stop generalizing.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sa00000_.html - The Saudi Constitution is not just the Shari'ah - unless Article 2 - 83 don't count.

Grave and Idle

Believes he is supiror to everyone

Refuses to accept other points of view and brushes them off with a personal insult to the participent

Will not listen to another piece of evidence longer than two pages from a website

Not true, Neo... I have never claimed superiority to anyone on the forum.

I have claimed to have a better knowledge of the Bible than some... like... those that still haven't read it... and those who have yet to finish it...


I have never offered a personal insult, either... unless you consider my comments about the fact that you always ignore everyone's points... to be an insult. (Shame that even THIS thread bears me out)

Finally - the problm isn't the LENGTH of the 'websites' you claim as evidence, Neo. The problem is that they are usually contradictory, rarely provable, ALWAYS biased... and often... well, just propoganda.

And there you get to the crux of the issue all of you are bullshitting about, this isnt religion its economics. The goverment fills your mind with crap about ideology when really its lubricating the wheels of capatalism their intrested in. Its a bit irrelevant that they have a repressive regime, just like its not important that its hot there and you cant get good porn or beer. Get my point?
No.

1 It controls the richest oil wells in the world.
2 It's citizens fly planes into US buildings.
3 It's a repressive regime.
4 It's the source for funding and ideology that drives a big chunk of Islamist terrorism.
5 The Saud Family that rules it holds quite a large chunk of the US economy in stock and bonds.

DC you are going over the top here. (point 2 particularly)
1. True, but irrelevant to the subject.
2. A few extremists did this. Every nation has its extremists, do not generalise unreasonably. (American citizens blew up a nursery in Oaklahoma City. Therefor I could say that Americans blow up nurseries.)
3. True and this is the subject of this discussion. Repressive yes, wrong, depends upon your perspective.
4. Not proven, put possible
5. So what.

Stop generalizing.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sa00000_.html - The Saudi Constitution is not just the Shari'ah - unless Article 2 - 83 don't count.
Ok, no Saudis were involved in 9/11. Does my head being firmly planted in the desert sands make you happy?

Well, there's the fact that the UK is a democracy.

Constitutional Monarchy, actually....

You want them to grovel their thanks to you? Let me ask...is it ONLY muslims who you feel are not supposed to critique your nation? Or are other groups included? Is ANYONE allowed to critique the UK?

I dont want them to grovel and thank us. I want them to be more active in criticising their own country. It seems that every time a Muslim has anything to say in the media or to the government of the UK it is to complain. Perhaps they should be saving that effort for going and doing something about Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that the criticism of a broadly ethinicly tollerant nation is taking far more attention than the criticism of an oppenly racist and intollerant nation.

Finally - the problm isn't the LENGTH of the 'websites' you claim as evidence, Neo. The problem is that they are usually contradictory, rarely provable, ALWAYS biased... and often... well, just propoganda.

You claim that and never back it up.

No.
Economics drive everything, idiots listen to what the media has to tell them, retards do what they tell them and the public belives what they tell them.

I dont want them to grovel and thank us. I want them to be more active in criticising their own country. It seems that every time a Muslim has anything to say in the media or to the government of the UK it is to complain. Perhaps they should be saving that effort for going and doing something about Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that the criticism of a broadly ethinicly tollerant nation is taking far more attention than the criticism of an oppenly racist and intollerant nation.
Ok. I think the Kings should shape up their act. Happy?

DC you are going over the top here. (point 2 particularly)
1. True, but irrelevant to the subject.
2. A few extremists did this. Every nation has its extremists, do not generalise unreasonably. (American citizens blew up a nursery in Oaklahoma City. Therefor I could say that Americans blow up nurseries.)
3. True and this is the subject of this discussion. Repressive yes, wrong, depends upon your perspective.
4. Not proven, put possible
5. So what.
I was responding to the question of why anybody cares about Saudi Arabia. All those are relavent to the question. As for 2, yes it was a big generalization, but if our nation was attacked by a bunch of people from some other country we would certainly be paying that country alot of attention. Watching that their people don't try something else of equal stupidity.

Economics drive everything, idiots listen to what the media has to tell them, retards do what they tell them and the public belives what they tell them.
It's not all economics. Some of it is security.

You claim that and never back it up.

No - Neo... when you post a site to support an argument, and in the margin it says that the company supporting it is something like "a member of the Christian Coalition Against"..... whatever... it is fairly easy to see there COULD be some bias?

I have never offered a personal insult, either... unless you consider my comments about the fact that you always ignore everyone's points... to be an insult. (Shame that even THIS thread bears me out)


You claim that I ignore people when in fact I reply but you do not consider the reply to your standard when your standard is me admiting I am wrong. Have you ever considered that someone other than you is right. I've never seen you do it. I on occation have made it clear I have made errors in places. But you continoulsy just say "well its obvious he twists scripture" and when I ask why you have said on occation "he does" in a roundabout way and left it at that.

No - Neo... when you post a site to support an argument, and in the margin it says that the company supporting it is something like "a member of the Christian Coalition Against"..... whatever... it is fairly easy to see there COULD be some bias?

Bias does not make something valueless. You need to get out of year 7 history mode. The author of a source does not render a source invalid. If that were true, every single historical document of any value about WW2 would have to be swiss. You have often said "I have come to the conclusion that X article is written by a tweleve year old" despite the fact that it is often intensively deep theology and very intellgently written. If thats not claiming supirority I dont know what is. And on many occation you have simpely refused to read my sources because of their origin. Frankly if anyone here is allergic to evidence, its you.

It's not all economics. Some of it is security.
No

Ok, no Saudis were involved in 9/11. Does my head being firmly planted in the desert sands make you happy?
Just because a few Saudi citizens were involved in 9/11 doesn't mean all of the citizens would do the same. I have a Canadian citizenship. I once stole from a convenience store, does that mean that Canadian citizens are thieves?

Constitutional Monarchy, actually....

Don't mean they ain't democratic in the parts that matter.

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.
Both Islam and Christianity are wonderful tools to maintain gender stereotypes and 'keep womyn in their place'. Your Christian nation under Bush, even though its not a proclaimed theocracy is just as bad as Saudi Arabia, just in more sutble ways.

I was responding to the question of why anybody cares about Saudi Arabia. All those are relavent to the question. As for 2, yes it was a big generalization, but if our nation was attacked by a bunch of people from some other country we would certainly be paying that country alot of attention. Watching that their people don't try something else of equal stupidity.

OK. I accept your argument with regard to points 1, 4 and 5. You are still generalising on 2 though., It was some individuals, not the nation as a whole that did this. Do you watch all Austrians like this because Hitler was an Austrian?
Please stop generalising a few extremists and a powewrful ruling elite into the people of the country in general.

Just because a few Saudi citizens were involved in 9/11 doesn't mean all of the citizens would do the same. I have a Canadian citizenship. I once stole from a convenience store, does that mean that Canadian citizens are thieves?
Yeah. Damn thieving Canadians. Seriously, I know the vast majority of Saudis aren't terrorists, but I won't ignore that their country provides the money, manpower, and ideology that drives groups like Al Quaeda. It's important to keep tabs on that country because a small but significant segment of it's population assists my nation's enemies.

You claim that I ignore people when in fact I reply but you do not consider the reply to your standard when your standard is me admiting I am wrong. Have you ever considered that someone other than you is right. I've never seen you do it. I on occation have made it clear I have made errors in places. But you continoulsy just say "well its obvious he twists scripture" and when I ask why you have said on occation "he does" in a roundabout way and left it at that.

Actually, Neo - I am not the only person that says you 'ignore' things... or post biased sources, etc.

Within this thread, I believe both Sinuhue and Whispering Legs have noticed the same thing?

In fact:


I've found that if you
a) have linked your argument to an incontrivertible study that was peer reviewed, and
b) if that peer review says there aren't any holes in the study, to their dismay, and
c) if that argument and study contradict what Neo says,

d) he'll ignore you, as will others



Also - I guess you don't read all my posts... I have humbled myself on several occassions.. one within the last few days.

Your Christian nation under Bush, even though its not a proclaimed theocracy is just as bad as Saudi Arabia, just in more sutble ways.

Just so you know, I am British and so "My nation" is not America. And unlike Saudi Arabia, America and Britan hold onto the concept known as "freedom of religion/thought" which is one of what is known as "HUMAN RIGHTS" which apply for all HUMANS.

Both Islam and Christianity are wonderful tools to maintain gender stereotypes and 'keep womyn in their place'. Your Christian nation under Bush, even though its not a proclaimed theocracy is just as bad as Saudi Arabia, just in more sutble ways.
Just as bad? Last I checked women were allowed to drive here. Plus people here, both male and female, are able to vote for local and national offices.

Yeah. Damn thieving Canadians. Seriously, I know the vast majority of Saudis aren't terrorists, but I won't ignore that their country provides the money, manpower, and ideology that drives groups like Al Quaeda. It's important to keep tabs on that country because a small but significant segment of it's population assists my nation's enemies.
It's not proven. If you can give me indisputable evidence that Saudi Arabia does all that is written above, then you have shut me up.

Don't mean they ain't democratic in the parts that matter.

You claimed it was a 'democracy'... and it isn't.

Sure, it has 'democratic' elements... but it is STILL a Constiutional Monarchy.

People do the same thing talking about the US... they say it's a 'democracy', when what THEY MEAN is that it has a moderately democratic form of government... but the US isn't a democracy, either.

I dont want them to grovel and thank us. I want them to be more active in criticising their own country. It seems that every time a Muslim has anything to say in the media or to the government of the UK it is to complain. Perhaps they should be saving that effort for going and doing something about Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that the criticism of a broadly ethinicly tollerant nation is taking far more attention than the criticism of an oppenly racist and intollerant nation.
I'm only going to ask this one more time, because I'm getting tired,

Why do you insist on saying that all muslims are responsible for Saudi Arabia, especially when the majority of muslims are NOT from Saudi Arabia?

Both Islam and Christianity are wonderful tools to maintain gender stereotypes and 'keep womyn in their place'. Your Christian nation under Bush, even though its not a proclaimed theocracy is just as bad as Saudi Arabia, just in more sutble ways.
HerPower, female emancipation stems from an economic need of a country to progress to the system we have. Saudi Arabia sucks so bad there isnt enough imported foreign labour, or education system to raise their children for them so disgustingly enough the women have to do it.

Just as bad? Last I checked women were allowed to drive here. Plus people here, both male and female, are able to vote for local and national offices.
Many Muslim countries not only allow females to vote but they allow them to run for office.

It's not proven. If you can give me indisputable evidence that Saudi Arabia does all that is written above, then you have shut me up.
It's a well known fact that certain members of the Saud family have given money to terrorist organizations, and that OBL's brand of Islam is pretty much the Saudi families prefered Wahabi type. Also they fund the construction and operation of madrasses in central asia that teach hatred of non-muslims and of the west. Here's an article detailing some other links between the saudis and terrorism. You'll not that it's clearly not a mainstream Bush-loving source. http://the-spark.net/newspaper/i708/4f04.html

Bias does not make something valueless. You need to get out of year 7 history mode. The author of a source does not render a source invalid. If that were true, every single historical document of any value about WW2 would have to be swiss. You have often said "I have come to the conclusion that X article is written by a tweleve year old" despite the fact that it is often intensively deep theology and very intellgently written. If thats not claiming supirority I dont know what is. And on many occation you have simpely refused to read my sources because of their origin. Frankly if anyone here is allergic to evidence, its you.

Actually, Neo - I almost ALWAYS read your sources... even if I disagree with them... if I THEN choose to think they are rubbish, that is having READ them first.

I do not believe I have EVER said "that X article is written by a tweleve year old"... not sure where you got that from, actually...

And YES, Neo... Bias DOES make something valueless, unless corroborated. And - when I read a source that directly opposes other sources that I trust more... and there is NO corroboration, and only 'belief' as evidence... I suspect that the 'bias' IS invalidating their argument.

But, yes - you make a good point... even with WW2 evidence, one STILL needs to be selective. It is accepting 'bias' uncorroborated that allowed people to believe they had REALLY found Hitler's diary...

You claimed it was a 'democracy'... and it isn't.

Sure, it has 'democratic' elements... but it is STILL a Constiutional Monarchy.

People do the same thing talking about the US... they say it's a 'democracy', when what THEY MEAN is that it has a moderately democratic form of government... but the US isn't a democracy, either.

You're talkin' about an unrepresentative direct democracy, then? A representative democracy is still a democracy. The US is a democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy P Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Many Muslim countries not only allow females to vote but they allow them to run for office.
We're talking about Saudi Arabia here. Not other muslim countries.

It's a well known fact that certain members of the Saud family have given money to terrorist organizations, and that OBL's brand of Islam is pretty much the Saudi families prefered Wahabi type. Also they fund the construction and operation of madrasses in central asia that teach hatred of non-muslims and of the west. Here's an article detailing some other links between the saudis and terrorism. You'll not that it's clearly not a mainstream Bush-loving source. http://the-spark.net/newspaper/i708/4f04.html
Isn't it ALSO a well known fact that Bush himself is 'in bed' with Saudi families? That he owns oil concerns with the 'ibn Ladin' family, for example... and that he met with his ibn Ladin business partners in New York, the day after September 11th?

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press? And more to the point, since Saudia Arabia is where all Muslims point towards when they worship, why do they support and stand for such things?

not their natural home? Only foreigners are muslims, eh? Nice prejudices you have there

Right, so theoretically, according to Neo's logic, if there was a religion I followed, and the monarchy of a country were practicing a corrupted version of my religion a few thousand miles away, repressing people of other religions and the like, I would lose my right to not be discriminated against until I could somehow single-handedly stop all the repression in this other country?

Wow. Some logic.

You're talkin' about an unrepresentative direct democracy, then? A representative democracy is still a democracy. The US is a democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy P Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Actually - the US was formed on principles designed directly to OPPOSE democracy.

The USA is a Federal Republic... note 'republic'.

You are confusing 'democratic' forms of government (i.e. those in which people have some influence), with 'Democracy'.

Isn't it ALSO a well known fact that Bush himself is 'in bed' with Saudi families? That he owns oil concerns with the 'ibn Ladin' family, for example... and that he met with his ibn Ladin business partners in New York, the day after September 11th?
Yeah, everyone knows that too.

And YES, Neo... Bias DOES make something valueless, unless corroborated. And - when I read a source that directly opposes other sources that I trust more... and there is NO corroboration, and only 'belief' as evidence... I suspect that the 'bias' IS invalidating their argument.


Ok you have now convinced me that you are a twelve year old as they are the only people I know who put forward this arguement. Grave, go speak to a British High school history teacher. If you say Bias makes something valueless they will just laugh at you. All bias does is change a slant on which an event/infomation is given. The actuall infomation remains, and the more infomation there is, the less intepretation is nessecary and the less bias they can be. But Bias never invalidates a source. Ever. Please go do a history GCSE before you talk to me again about bias. :D

Saudi Arabia is at least as bad as Irak was under Saddam. The problem is, Saudi Arabia is our biggest ally in the Middle East, so we can't really stop them at this point.

Saudi Arabia is at least as bad as Irak was under Saddam. The problem is, Saudi Arabia is our biggest ally in the Middle East, so we can't really stop them at this point.
Stop them doing what, sucking and not selling porno?

Actually - the US was formed on principles designed directly to OPPOSE democracy.

The USA is a Federal Republic... note 'republic'.

You are confusing 'democratic' forms of government (i.e. those in which people have some influence), with 'Democracy'.

re·pub·lic Pronunciation Key (r-pblk) n.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
c. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
d. A nation that has such a political order.

As my good friend the dictionary shows, one can be both a republic and a democracy, they ain't mutually exclusive. Remember how a democracy was a system of government where, in most cases, the people elect officials? Now remember how in a republic, the state is headed by an elected official? You keep implying that the only democracy is a direct democracy, which just ain't true.

Since when is Israel genocidal? Do you even think before you type?
Do you ever watch unbiased news?

Ok you have now convinced me that you are a twelve year old as they are the only people I know who put forward this arguement. Grave, go speak to a British High school history teacher. If you say Bias makes something valueless they will just laugh at you. All bias does is change a slant on which an event/infomation is given. The actuall infomation remains, and the more infomation there is, the less intepretation is nessecary and the less bias they can be. But Bias never invalidates a source. Ever. Please go do a history GCSE before you talk to me again about bias. :D

I did an O level in History. I have a master's degree in the History and Philosophy of Science. I am not a 12 year old. Clear on that Neo.
Bias does invalidate a source when that source shows no corroboratory evidence. If this were not the case then you could take a jesussaves post here as evidence that God exists. No-one is claiming that a source has to be unbiased, but a source is only as reliable as its factual suppport shows it to be.
If Fox News were to claim that Bush is doing well in foreign affairs, they can be believed as long as they justify this claim, by showing, for example, how the middle east peace process is back on line. If, however they claimed that Bush is doing well on the trade deficit, this would not be believable, the facts do not support the opinion. Fox News is biased. One story is justifiable, the other not. It is not a matter of the bias of the source, it is a matter of the justification of the opinion.

No, but my point is is that Muslims complain about being indirectly persecuted by racial intollerance of a people in a land not their nautral home where as Chrisitans are persecuted as a matter of law. So why do the Muslims get all the press? And more to the point, since Saudia Arabia is where all Muslims point towards when they worship, why do they support and stand for such things?

Just because Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca (which happens to be in Saudi Arabia) does not mean they support what's going on in the country. I'd bet most Muslims in the US and other western countries completely disagree with what's going on in Saudi. It's an extremist religious regime which is not a reflection of the religion as a whole.

Just because your holy land is in a country doesn't mean you agree with that country's government.

Do you ever watch unbiased news?
Genocide involves attempting to wipe out an ethnic group. If Israel was trying to eradicate the palestinians it would have been done by now.

Ok you have now convinced me that you are a twelve year old as they are the only people I know who put forward this arguement. Grave, go speak to a British High school history teacher. If you say Bias makes something valueless they will just laugh at you. All bias does is change a slant on which an event/infomation is given. The actuall infomation remains, and the more infomation there is, the less intepretation is nessecary and the less bias they can be. But Bias never invalidates a source. Ever. Please go do a history GCSE before you talk to me again about bias. :D

Enough with the ad hominem, Neo.

I HAVE a GCSE in History, actually.

And, I'm afraid you are wrong... NO piece of evidence is considered accurate... ALL evidence requires corroboration... so there is no such thing as a reliable source - UNTIL it is supported by other evidence.

And bias is one of the factors that will affect HOW you judge a source.

If you are presented with three accounts of an event, and two of them say one thing, and one says another... you will lend more credence to the multiple evidences. However, if the one source was part of a reliable correlated set, and the multiple sources were propoganda - you would weight the evidence differently.

You might use the 'propoganda' as flavour... to give ideas about how some people felt, or were portrayed, but you wouldn't regard them as a reliable source.

Genocide involves attempting to wipe out an ethnic group. If Israel was trying to eradicate the palestinians it would have been done by now.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
...
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

The way I see it...Israel is guilty.

Just because Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca (which happens to be in Saudi Arabia) does not mean they support what's going on in the country. I'd bet most Muslims in the US and other western countries completely disagree with what's going on in Saudi. It's an extremist religious regime which is not a reflection of the religion as a whole.

Just because your holy land is in a country doesn't mean you agree with that country's government.

I believe that Neo is also confusing Mecca and Saudi Arabia...

Just because you have a respect for a monument or place WITHIN a country, does not mean you hold that country in any special esteem.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
...
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

The way I see it...Israel is guilty.
Doesn't matter how you see it. Hell, officially Darfur isn't a genocide, and the way those people are being treated is much more brutal than the way the palestinians are being treated. Plus the palestinians with their terrorism and support for terrrorist organizations have brough much of their trouble on themselves.

Doesn't matter how you see it. Hell, officially Darfur isn't a genocide, and the way those people are being treated is much more brutal than the way the palestinians are being treated. Plus the palestinians with their terrorism and support for terrrorist organizations have brough much of their trouble on themselves.

Surely, their 'terrorism' is their attempt to regain their own land?

So - if the nations that originally colonised the US decided to resettle their colonies... and the current US population resisted... they would be 'terrorists'? And - if those colonising nations then used WMDs on the US, it would be okay - because the US would have 'brought it on themselves'?

Meh but saudi arabia has given us so many great things like dates and um oh yeah that abudant supply of oil which feeds the multinational oil conglomerates and continues to pollute our bloody environment. and osama not to forgot that @#$%^&*&*()(^$^(*%$*#&*%$(&^_*^)%(%($(*^^*&(**()(**&*^&^ fool :mad: :mp5:

re·pub·lic Pronunciation Key (r-pblk) n.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
c. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
d. A nation that has such a political order.

As my good friend the dictionary shows, one can be both a republic and a democracy, they ain't mutually exclusive. Remember how a democracy was a system of government where, in most cases, the people elect officials? Now remember how in a republic, the state is headed by an elected official? You keep implying that the only democracy is a direct democracy, which just ain't true.

It doesn't change the fact that it is a STATED historical aim, in the formation of the US, that it NOT be a democracy... which was believed to be an 'evil' form of government.

The differentiating characteristic between a republic and a democracy - is that, in a Republic... not everyone gets to vote.

Now - you look at the US elections, and you say 'yes, but everyone voted on November 2nd, right'? And you WOULD be right... but THOSE people did not elect the President... and, in fact, lack the POWER to elect a President.

What November 2nd elected, was the Electors... who are the ONLY people who get to vote for the next leader of the United States.

Thus - while being democratic... the US is very clearly, NOT a democracy.. but IS a Republic... and a Federal Republic, at that.

Surely, their 'terrorism' is their attempt to regain their own land?

So - if the nations that originally colonised the US decided to resettle their colonies... and the current US population resisted... they would be 'terrorists'? And - if those colonising nations then used WMDs on the US, it would be okay - because the US would have 'brought it on themselves'?
They left willingly. When the Arab armies tried to destroy Israel the palestinians left in order to let the Arabs kill off the Jews without worrying about muslim casualties. Is it any wonder Israel won't let them back in? Israel didn't kick the palestinians out.

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

Stop trying to impose your will on Saudi Arabia. It's stupid. You'll never win. Deal with the problems in your own country before worrying about someone else's.

We already know how anti-Islam you are. Why, instead of disguising it as hatred against Saudi, don't you just put in your sig "I hate Muslims" and be done with it?

...Israel didn't kick the palestinians out.of course not[/sarcasm]

Isnt Saudi Arabia's Constitution the Qu'ran?

NO! FOR THE 100th TIME NO IT IS NOT!

Jesus, man, pay attention.

Stop trying to impose your will on Saudi Arabia. ...Tell that to the Saudi Diktator...

I wish the diktator would go away.

I believe that Neo is also confusing Mecca and Saudi Arabia...

Just because you have a respect for a monument or place WITHIN a country, does not mean you hold that country in any special esteem.
This is how we do
Nobody do it like we do it so show us some love

No, I want the Saudi's to enforce religous tollerance and for Muslims to stop complaining about levels of religous tollerance when their spiritual homeland cant get it right.

Oy ... you are so ignorant. Saudi Arabia isn't the Muslim spiritual homeland. Paradise is the Muslim spiritual homeland. Saudi Arabia just happens to be where the Kabbah is. We don't pray towards Saudi Arabia, we pray towards the Kabbah. If, in 100 years, the Kabbah happens to be within the borders of a different country, we will still pray towards it.

Frankly, we don't care what country it's in.

NO! FOR THE 100th TIME NO IT IS NOT!

Jesus, man, pay attention.dont Jesus him, its not rigth... :D

Tell that to the Saudi Diktator...

I wish the diktator would go away.

Meh ... he's the king. He controls the money and the army. Not much I, an American, can do about him.

Stop trying to impose your will on Saudi Arabia. It's stupid. You'll never win. Deal with the problems in your own country before worrying about someone else's.

We already know how anti-Islam you are. Why, instead of disguising it as hatred against Saudi, don't you just put in your sig "I hate Muslims" and be done with it?

Because Islam is only one of his many whipping-boys?

Because Islam is only one of his many whipping-boys?

Heh ... does he have others? I hadn't noticed.

Heh ... does he have others? I hadn't noticed.
He's not too keen on evolutionists, but he doesn't really blame them for serious crimes and transgressions against humanity.

This is how we do
Nobody do it like we do it so show us some love

Is that an approval, or should I expect snipers?

He's not too keen on evolutionists, but he doesn't really blame them for serious crimes and transgressions against humanity.
Darwin stinks.

Is that an approval, or should I expect snipers?
Approval I suppose.

He's not too keen on evolutionists, but he doesn't really blame them for serious crimes and transgressions against humanity.

Meh ... I imagine he just jumps on whatever bandwagon the news media is showing him. He perpetually ignores me because I prove him wrong at every turn of the hat. Frankly, I'm surprised his head didn't explode when CNN, BBC, Fox, and MSNBC all showed the transcript of the major fatwah *against* Osama bin Laden.

Heh ... does he have others? I hadn't noticed.

Well, don't get him started on homosexuals... (if you know what I mean... that sounded different in my head...)

Maybe he doesn't hate Muslims... he just hates what they 'do'?

Or some other, tired, lame, old excuse.

Approval I suppose.

Well that's good... I'd hate to get snipers turning up on my door for defending Islam against hate-breeders...

Meh ... I imagine he just jumps on whatever bandwagon the news media is showing him. He perpetually ignores me because I prove him wrong at every turn of the hat. Frankly, I'm surprised his head didn't explode when CNN, BBC, Fox, and MSNBC all showed the transcript of the major fatwah *against* Osama bin Laden.
The only news I watch is CBC, CNN, and Al-Jazeera.

Well that's good... I'd hate to get snipers turning up on my door for defending Islam against hate-breeders...
I don't know about snipers but I can send some Sudanese brothers to show up with some .45's :D

Maybe he doesn't hate Muslims... he just hates what they 'do'?


Yeah ... all this prayer and charity really sucks. We should pinch up our faces and poo-poo the world outside arm's length.

I don't know about snipers but I can send some Sudanese brothers to show up with some .45's :D

Woo! Now there's a party. :D

The only news I watch is CBC, CNN, and Al-Jazeera.

Well I would suggest some more right slanted networks. I get a good view of every side by mixing up those above and others. Then you can truly figure out what is bs and what is real. We even watch French TV5 sometimes. It's very funny from an American perspective.

I don't know about snipers but I can send some Sudanese brothers to show up with some .45's :D

If they turned up with some Subway, I'd be happier... :)

It doesn't change the fact that it is a STATED historical aim, in the formation of the US, that it NOT be a democracy... which was believed to be an 'evil' form of government.

The differentiating characteristic between a republic and a democracy - is that, in a Republic... not everyone gets to vote.

Now - you look at the US elections, and you say 'yes, but everyone voted on November 2nd, right'? And you WOULD be right... but THOSE people did not elect the President... and, in fact, lack the POWER to elect a President.

What November 2nd elected, was the Electors... who are the ONLY people who get to vote for the next leader of the United States.

Thus - while being democratic... the US is very clearly, NOT a democracy.. but IS a Republic... and a Federal Republic, at that.


I know I keep saying this, but you must keep missing it or something: a representative democracy is still a democracy. And while the electoral college system might not be terribly fair, we are still voting for officials, who then elect the president. It may not be the best form of the system, but it is still 100% democratic. And before you try to argue against it again, yes, representative democracies are still democracies, and republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive.

Darwin stinks.
I would expect most of the stench would be gone by now. He's been dead for a while. But a couple of weeks after he passed I'd wager he did stink pretty badly.

Well I would suggest some more right slanted networks. I get a good view of every side by mixing up those above and others. Then you can truly figure out what is bs and what is real. We even watch French TV5 sometimes. It's very funny from an American perspective.
Yeah I watch TQS, SRC, etc. But I don't know if anyone knows of French channels.

If they turned up with some Subway, I'd be happier... :)
I love Subway - especially the seafood sub.

The only news I watch is CBC, CNN, and Al-Jazeera.

I like to watch Fox from time to time in order to get the bias of the Right on the story at hand. It's a good way to filter things. I do watch Al-Jazeera, but can only see what the CBC is up to on the internet. CNN is a rarity. I generally get news originally from NPR and go to other media outlets for more information or a different spin.

I love Subway - especially the seafood sub.

Just adding my 2 cents, Mancino's is so much better than Subway... ;)

And while the electoral college system might not be terribly fair, we are still voting for officials, who then elect the president.

Actually, you're not. Unless you're a Delegate to the State Party Convention, you don't elect the Electorate. It's from the Delegation that the Electorate is chosen by vote of each Senatorial District for each Party Convention.

Just adding my 2 cents, Mancino's is so much better than Subway... ;)
My friend is a little.... extreme when it comes to things he likes. He once beat up a guy for bad-mouthing Subway, hah.

I dont want them to grovel and thank us. I want them to be more active in criticising their own country.
All Muslims are from Saudi Arabia?

It seems that every time a Muslim has anything to say in the media or to the government of the UK it is to complain.
Yes...they are British citizens too. They exercise their freedom of speech.

Perhaps they should be saving that effort for going and doing something about Saudi Arabia.
All Muslims are from Saudi Arabia?

It seems to me that the criticism of a broadly ethinicly tollerant nation is taking far more attention than the criticism of an oppenly racist and intollerant nation.

How do you know that Muslims don't routinely campaign against the Saudi regime?

The UK/US or other Western nations were to adopt any of the following policies towards Muslims

- Deport all practising Muslims from their countries
- Make all forms of Islamic prophsying illegal but allow Christian prophsying
- Make it illegal to be a Muslim and citizen of their country
- Make it illegal to bring a copy of the Qu'ran into the country
- Create a religious police force desigened to minimise the level which Islam is practised in the UK
- Teach that Christianity is the only true religion as part of the national curriculum from an early age and that Islam is wrong and evil
- All Christians who convert to Islam are executable under law
- All Mosques to be banned

I think that most Muslims would, quite rightly be outraged. So why then is Saudia Arabia allowed to get away with these exact things except replace the words "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Mosque" with "Church" etc.

Well hon, thats a very good question. You might want to query the Bush family on that one seeing as they're such good pals with the Saudis, shielding them from all harmful press and providing them with an embassy and security unparelleled by any other in this country. Yup, if anyone has the answer to that one, it will be one of the filthy rich Bushs who've made a fortune with the help of their very undemocratic Saudi friends.

I love Subway - especially the seafood sub.

Yes, Subway is good... much better than snipers. :)

All Muslims are from Saudi Arabia?


Hadn't you heard? When you become Muslim, you become instantly Arabic and gain Saudi citizenship and a Saudi passport and become a subject of the Saud royal family.

The racial change was a little painful at first, but it only takes about an hour to complete the mutation and that time is spent filling out the forms to renounce your current citizenship so the Saudis can adopt you.

And that's the news from the real world. Goodnight.