Do you think US policies are anti-Muslim?
-
Rob Graham wrote: What an absurd comparison! Coolidge din NOT have multiple palaces adorned with golden washroom facilities. Nor did Hoover gas any of his western farmers. To compare technological infrastructure expansion with the results of deliberate oppression is just plain silly. Shame on you. So, here is a better comparison. I am not sure you would like this one either. The British royal family does have multiple palaces. I think at least a couple of bathrooms in those might have some gold fixtures. And I who grew up in India (ruled by Britain until 1947 when I am sure most of Britain was electrified and very little of India was) have actually lived in houses without electricity or running water. Now, can I compare King George V to Saddam Hussein insofar as my personal inconvenience (from lack of electricity) was concerned? :sigh:
Vivic wrote: And I who grew up in India (ruled by Britain until 1947 when I am sure most of Britain was electrified and very little of India was) have actually lived in houses without electricity or running water. Based on your first hand experience, does this disparity among the wealth of nations have something to do with the hatred on the US?
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious Really? :omg: Stan's made it pretty clear a number of times that he thinks 90% of the worlds problems are down to Muslims and the other 10% down to Americans who voted for a democrat. Of course, before 2001 it was all down to the 10%, but hey times change. It really shouldnt come as any surprise to hear him say that. Anything that he perceives to be anti-American is automatically responsible for everything bad, it's a straightforward enough idea. Unfortunately for him things like seeking tolerant communities, the will to address problems by looking at their cause rather than their effects, and in this case specifically Islamic countries and leaders rooting out the extremists in their midst in horror at what they have done is all anti-American. If money doesn't physically change hands over it it is anti-American. I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic...
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
:laugh: Ah, come on. I merely question why being "anti-muslim" is automatically considered to be a bad thing. I don't at all blame people for being anti-American. And I am perfectly willing to look at causes rather than affect, as long as the causes considered do not automatically rise out of anti-American sentiments rather than an unbiased and honest analysis of the global situation. I will admit that I don't believe in "seeking tolerant communities". I believe that those tolerant communities, if they truly are, would not need to be sought out, they would be loudly joining in the chorus of civilization to stop this evil. The fact that they have to be sought tells me everything I need to know about them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: it is not uncommon to see someone singled out for wearing a traditional clothing of middle eastern region. Couldn't this be because it is rare? Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: You will hear lots of people, daily, repeating the concept that all terrorists are muslims. This breeds discontent and hatred I find it interesting that suicide bombers seem to be muslim (am I wrong/). There are plenty of other terrorist organizations out there, but I can not think of others that did this.
Bob Flynn wrote: Couldn't this be because it is rare? It is not rare to see a multitude of nationalities present. You will even see occasionally native american tribal symbols on my person (which used to be targed in the 70's). Last time I travelled this often, I only saw people singled out for not-cooperating, not pulled out of line for dress. Bob Flynn wrote: I find it interesting that suicide bombers seem to be muslim (am I wrong/). There are plenty of other terrorist organizations out there, but I can not think of others that did this. Hard to say. It takes a lot of "faith" to die for your cause, whether right or wrong. Suicide attacks make their statement in death. Others choose to live to make their statement in court, one takes publicity in martyrdom, the other in press zeal. Should it not be the action, bombing for political motivation, that is terrorism, regardless of suicide that should be addressed? There are quite a few in this town that would gladly drive a nuke into Iraq and blow up the whole country. They see absolutely no coincidental behavior or opinion to that of the suicide bombers, even though they would be committing suicide. There is no "clink" in the gears between the ears that shows that the two attitudes are similar. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away.
Like I said, our perceived religion, our alliance to Israel, and our military presence in Arab nations combined inspire radical Islamic hatred. You bring up an interesting point though. If our President were a radical Muslim, I have no doubt that these problems would go away; a radical Muslim would not be allied to Israel, nor would have a hostile military presence in an Islamic nation. If we backed Syria, befriended the Taliban, and invaded Israel, do you think we would still be getting attacked? I doubt it!
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
-
David Wulff wrote: I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic No way! Red is colour of Marxism.
fucking A!! But than, I am from a red state... :~ "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away.
Bob Flynn wrote: You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away. Not really. All these problems would go away only if ALL Americans are Muslims. Remember the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war and not one among the 35-odd Islamic countries said so much as 'boo'? :laugh:
-
Vivic wrote: And I who grew up in India (ruled by Britain until 1947 when I am sure most of Britain was electrified and very little of India was) have actually lived in houses without electricity or running water. Based on your first hand experience, does this disparity among the wealth of nations have something to do with the hatred on the US?
I think he was trying to relate Saddam Hussain's greediness to the Brit's based on an earlier post.
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious Really? :omg: Stan's made it pretty clear a number of times that he thinks 90% of the worlds problems are down to Muslims and the other 10% down to Americans who voted for a democrat. Of course, before 2001 it was all down to the 10%, but hey times change. It really shouldnt come as any surprise to hear him say that. Anything that he perceives to be anti-American is automatically responsible for everything bad, it's a straightforward enough idea. Unfortunately for him things like seeking tolerant communities, the will to address problems by looking at their cause rather than their effects, and in this case specifically Islamic countries and leaders rooting out the extremists in their midst in horror at what they have done is all anti-American. If money doesn't physically change hands over it it is anti-American. I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic...
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
I have frequently agreed with his point of view in various posts here, this is the first time that I saw it as intolerant or racist or anti-SOME_GROUP_OF_PEOPLE (not including liberals which I have definitely noticed, but tend to agree with :-D we will let you hang around though otherwise we would have to argue with ourselves ;P)
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The question assumes that there is something bad with being anti-muslim. I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious. Stan Shannon wrote: I doubt the Muslims are spending much time agonizing over being anti-American. There is a large number of people that htink this way. Look in France, Germany, and many other countries.
Bob Flynn wrote: I hope you were not serious. Why? Bob Flynn wrote: There is a large number of people that htink this way. Look in France, Germany, and many other countries. Yeah? So? Just because someone doesn't like does not automatically mean that you are the one that needs to be doing the soul searching. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Like I said, our perceived religion, our alliance to Israel, and our military presence in Arab nations combined inspire radical Islamic hatred. You bring up an interesting point though. If our President were a radical Muslim, I have no doubt that these problems would go away; a radical Muslim would not be allied to Israel, nor would have a hostile military presence in an Islamic nation. If we backed Syria, befriended the Taliban, and invaded Israel, do you think we would still be getting attacked? I doubt it!
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
-
Bob Flynn wrote: You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away. Not really. All these problems would go away only if ALL Americans are Muslims. Remember the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war and not one among the 35-odd Islamic countries said so much as 'boo'? :laugh:
-
I think he was trying to relate Saddam Hussain's greediness to the Brit's based on an earlier post.
-
I have frequently agreed with his point of view in various posts here, this is the first time that I saw it as intolerant or racist or anti-SOME_GROUP_OF_PEOPLE (not including liberals which I have definitely noticed, but tend to agree with :-D we will let you hang around though otherwise we would have to argue with ourselves ;P)
Bob Flynn wrote: this is the first time that I saw it as intolerant or racist or anti-SOME_GROUP_OF_PEOP Muslim is not a race it is a culture. As a culture it frequently enough includes attributes that are utterly antithetic to everything our culture holds dear. You simply cannot be infinitely tolerant toward all things all the time, at some point you have to be willing to say "Dude, you suck". I mean, you have no problem saying that to me - why do you have such a huge problem saying it so a Muslim? Maybe we need a thread about why so many people are anti-Stan :laugh: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I hope you were not serious. Why? Bob Flynn wrote: There is a large number of people that htink this way. Look in France, Germany, and many other countries. Yeah? So? Just because someone doesn't like does not automatically mean that you are the one that needs to be doing the soul searching. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Yeah? So? Just because someone doesn't like does not automatically mean that you are the one that needs to be doing the soul searching. Agreed, but I tend to think if most of the people in the room do not like you, then perhaps there is something wrong with you. Perhaps 'wrong with you' is ot the proper phrase, but rather I think that you may be doing something that makes them not like you and you should at least understand what it is rather than blindly say "who cares what they think". Who knows, you may in fact be doing something wrong without knowing it.
-
Well, that was not quite my point. Lets just say our president was Muslim with not adjective associated with it, and lets say that all of the same decisions were made. Would that make a difference in how we are percieved?
No. Look at Egypt: even though they are fairly religious, they are not fanatical (somewhat like the US), and thus, the Egyptian minister to Iraq was recently captured and beheaded by Islamic fanatics due to Egypt's friendliness with Israel and the US.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
-
Bob Flynn wrote: this is the first time that I saw it as intolerant or racist or anti-SOME_GROUP_OF_PEOP Muslim is not a race it is a culture. As a culture it frequently enough includes attributes that are utterly antithetic to everything our culture holds dear. You simply cannot be infinitely tolerant toward all things all the time, at some point you have to be willing to say "Dude, you suck". I mean, you have no problem saying that to me - why do you have such a huge problem saying it so a Muslim? Maybe we need a thread about why so many people are anti-Stan :laugh: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: As a culture it frequently enough includes attributes that are utterly antithetic to everything our culture holds dear. I am starting to think that there is something about the culture, but I do not know what it is yet. Is it the religion or is it poverty levels or something else. The PC way is to say it is extremist, but screw PC. I really want to look a little deeper. Stan Shannon wrote: say "Dude, you suck". I mean, you have no problem saying that to me - why do you have such a huge problem saying it so a Muslim? That would be like saying you whole town sucks because of what you say.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Yeah? So? Just because someone doesn't like does not automatically mean that you are the one that needs to be doing the soul searching. Agreed, but I tend to think if most of the people in the room do not like you, then perhaps there is something wrong with you. Perhaps 'wrong with you' is ot the proper phrase, but rather I think that you may be doing something that makes them not like you and you should at least understand what it is rather than blindly say "who cares what they think". Who knows, you may in fact be doing something wrong without knowing it.
Maybe it is because I have always prided myself on being the one person in the room that nobody liked. To me there is something uniquely American about that. Being an American is about individualism and that sort of requires not being too concerned about whether or not someone likes you. Still, I suppose, you are correct to the extent that if you can't leave the room you've got to find some common ground. But I am willing to go no further than half way - so the Muslims are going to have to work at least as hard at accomodating me as I am to accomodate them. If they don't than to heck with them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Maybe it is because I have always prided myself on being the one person in the room that nobody liked. To me there is something uniquely American about that. Being an American is about individualism and that sort of requires not being too concerned about whether or not someone likes you. Still, I suppose, you are correct to the extent that if you can't leave the room you've got to find some common ground. But I am willing to go no further than half way - so the Muslims are going to have to work at least as hard at accomodating me as I am to accomodate them. If they don't than to heck with them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Maybe it is because I have always prided myself on being the one person in the room that nobody liked. I too, can handle being the lone dissenting voice when I think I am right about the issue. Stan Shannon wrote: not being too concerned about whether or not someone likes you. not a big concern of mine either, otherwise I would be a liberal dem. Stan Shannon wrote: you've got to find some common ground That is what I was trying to get at with this thread. Not too many responses that actually get to the point though.
-
I am not a supporter of saddam, but I also don't support americans policy for iraq. I think that NATO thinks themselves as god's agent to have peace in this world. They forgot that there are more than 200 countries outside NATO, including INDIA, CHINA, JAPAN. If there missions were good, why didn't they make the UN to agree with them. Why countries rejected to support america in iraq, including pakisthan, india and others. There must be some reason for that. http://www.priyank.in/
Priyank Bolia wrote: Why countries rejected to support america in iraq, including pakisthan, india and others. There must be some reason for that. Well we now know why some countries rejected it from the oil for food scandal. Looks like france and russia was making a pretting good amount of money from saddam at the expense of the iraqi people. Just because some countries reject a policy does not mean it is for good reasons.
-
Vivic wrote: Remember the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war and not one among the 35-odd Islamic countries said so much as 'boo'? Based on this example, if we had a Muslim president, then Iraq would not be a problem in the eyes of so many muslims.
Bob Flynn wrote: Based on this example, if we had a Muslim president, then Iraq would not be a problem in the eyes of so many muslims. No, no, no, no. ALL Americans, or at least 95% or more, should become Muslims. Recall the percentage of Muslims in both Iran and Iraq. When two Muslim countries go to war, it is politics as usual; if a Muslim country is attacked by a non-Muslim country, it is persecution of the Muslims! India has a (and has had several) Muslim President and we atill are constantly in the bad books of Muslim countries over something or other! He is simply considered an "Uncle Tom". Same tag would apply if the US elected a Muslim as President. Don't look for logic. This whole thing is being driven by emotion, not logic. Why else would British subjects (Muslims though they might be but according to all reports they were pretty normal teenagers/young adults until recently) blow up other British subjects in the subways over farway Iraq or Afghanistan? Bad scene. I am glad my travel plans don't include Britain.