Do you think US policies are anti-Muslim?
-
: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."
Stan Shannon wrote: 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. You make a good argument.
-
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: Muslim is not a race it is a culture. Right! I hear the left always screaming about the Jesus loving backward rednecks. does that mean that they are "intolerant or racist or anti-SOME_GROUP_OF_PEOPE" as well??????
Precisely. Also note that the very same people who refuse to accept that Islamic terrorism says any thing at all negative about Islamic civilization, will not hesitate to give you volumns of lectures about what the murder of a single gay student in Wyoming, or a black man in Texas by white rednecks says about the evils of US civilization as a whole. You have to remember that ultimately everyting is the fault of the US. There is not a single flaw in any other culture on the planet worth mentioning. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
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?
Actually, the US is widely admired. Just look at the lines in front of US embassies and consulates for visas. People recognize that the US is the most open society, far ahead of Britain despite all the talk about Britain's multiculturalism. You don't see people with a drive to succeed (success being defined by Western norms) having any problem with the US or the West. It is those who cannot handle CULTURE CONFLICTS who turn against the West. Look at the bombers. They were losers. They didn't have nice professional jobs like a college graduate in the US could aspire to. Heck, some of them even dropped out of college. They were destined to remain the "hewers of wood and the drawers of water" of today's society. They blamed their lot on British society and decided to "get even". Really, nobody thinks that the US should open up Fort Knox and distribute the gold to the world or do something similar. But it would help a lot (and hurt the US pocketbook a lot) if attention is paid to third-world not because of their mineral wealth (oil in the case of ISaudia Arabia, raq or Iran) or their strategic location. But if the US doesn't exploit these countries, it would be Britain. I think this fuels the resentment. My two cents.
-
... welcome to the world of "double-standards" my friend ... where hypocrites rule! ...I can't seem to understand all the hype over a few bomb explosions in UK ... while I sympathize with the families I cannot seem to understand what part of "war" in "War on Terror" don't people understand. I suppose people in UK think that war only means killing of Iraqi's and other nationals ... while they live their usual daily life.
Pete Madden wrote: ... welcome to the world of "double-standards" my friend ... where hypocrites rule! It really depends on one's worldview, I think. Americans are not used to their country being attacked, protected as they are by the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. So, until 9/11, they were quite comfortable in taking the war to other countries but were shocked when they were themselves attacked. Now, it can be (and is being) argued that American wars are fought by soldiers in uniforms fighting in accordance with Geneva Conventions while the terrorists are targeting civilians. What are these people going to say about the widely-held supposition (I don't want to call it a fact but the CIA operative in New Delhi was expelled after this incident) that the CIA planted a bomb on an Indian airliner in 1955 that was to have taken the Chinese premier Chou En-lai to the Bandung Conference? The bomb exploded in mid-air killing all except three persons but Chou took a different flight and so didn't die as envisaged by the bombers. Was the placing of a bomb on a civilian plane with the certainty that civilians would be killed an evil act or not? If so, is placing the bomb on a suburban train any different? Or, does morality change with time, the motives of the protoganist, location of the act, the financial/military muscle of those involved or (I KNOW this is going to be a red flag but isn't that the reason for the Soapbox?) the color of the skins of those who died? Such questions are never debated openly and will never be. Because they expose uncomfortable truths. This doesn't mean that I support the British bombers or the 9/11 hijackers. Far from it. But I do read history and recognize that everybody does something bad some time or other. But they scream the loudest when they are hit at. I cannot and do not subscribe to the view that civilians are legitimate targets.
-
Priyank Bolia wrote: I am not a supporter of saddam, but I also don't support americans policy for iraq. Agreed, we were there for invalid reasons. If you believe that was deliberate, I think that must be based on beleifs of bad intentions on the part of the US. Otherwise we can agree that it was a very bad mistake that now must be fixed as best as we can. I think that is what is happening now. We can not leave until Iraq is capable of self governance and self defense. Priyank Bolia wrote: Why countries rejected to support america in iraq, including pakisthan, india and others. There must be some reason for that. I do not know. Was it simply because they did not want the US in another muslim country? Or did they believe Saddam was innocent of the charges (answer this based on 2002 knowledge).
Bob Flynn wrote: I do not know. Was it simply because they did not want the US in another muslim country? Or did they believe Saddam was innocent of the charges (answer this based on 2002 knowledge). Pakisthan and Russia may have internal problems, I don't know. But I can talk about India, no one is supporter of saddam, and muslims are minority here. The government at that time was a supported by hindu extremists, even though india is very secular. So, the thing that "did not want the US in another muslim country" or "Saddam was innocent of the charges" is baseless. The reason is India has nothing to do with anti-muslim or anti-west thing. We at here fully condemn saddam hussain for his actions. But the US action was monopoly to rule the world. They didn't take the UN into confidence, and try to act as a superpower, god's messanger in this world to restore peace. Any any form of dictatorship, where saddam or US is highly unacceptable to the 1000 million people of union republic of India. http://www.priyank.in/
-
Priyank Bolia wrote: I am not a supporter of saddam, but I also don't support americans policy for iraq. Agreed, we were there for invalid reasons. If you believe that was deliberate, I think that must be based on beleifs of bad intentions on the part of the US. Otherwise we can agree that it was a very bad mistake that now must be fixed as best as we can. I think that is what is happening now. We can not leave until Iraq is capable of self governance and self defense. Priyank Bolia wrote: Why countries rejected to support america in iraq, including pakisthan, india and others. There must be some reason for that. I do not know. Was it simply because they did not want the US in another muslim country? Or did they believe Saddam was innocent of the charges (answer this based on 2002 knowledge).
Bob Flynn wrote: If you believe that was deliberate I don't know that, as I am not a genius of religious matters and global politics, that only americans know what there intentions were. But I do believe that not only the american government at fault, but the people too, because they don't stop the govenment. America is a democratic country, and its citizens can be made responsible for its government actions. 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.
kgaddy wrote: 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. The same is being thinked by people in those countries, that america invaded iraq for oil. I don't know saddam has how many american dollars but I know that france and russia are not individuals who can be wrong. they are free democratic nations, and their people don't think americans intension good enough to support them. http://www.priyank.in/
-
I don't think the Iraq war was a fight against Muslims. If the United States wanted to fight against Muslim nations, Iraq would be the least of the fish to fry. The Iraqi government was one of thew few secular middle eastern governments. Here is why Muslims see the United States as anti-Islam: we're seen as a Crusader nation in our policing of the world, especially in the Middle East. Even though the US is largely secular, with a secular government, we are seen as a Christian government with a Christian President, allied to Israel, radical Islam's #1 enemy. Defense of Israel, offensives on 2 Arab nations, seen as Christian, and an ally of Judaism, it's no wonder radical Islam hates the US and its allies.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
You can't blame israel for whatever america does or happen in it. The issue of israel has nothing to do with america or uk. http://www.priyank.in/
-
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. yes, you are right, president is a elected one, any relgion has to do nothing with it. In India few ignore people says our president is muslim and proud on him. But I say him Indian and have proud on him, The prime minister is sikh. But then also sometimes clash occurs, between various religions, majority of incidents are outside funded and nothing to do with religion. http://www.priyank.in/
-
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.
Vivic wrote: India has a (and has had several) Muslim President. The president is not elected on the basis of muslim religion, he is an indian and the most capable, on which every Hindu can be proud. Vivic wrote: and we atill are constantly in the bad books of Muslim countries over something or other! Ya, I fully agree with you, that some neighbour muslim country has not good attitude towards us. http://www.priyank.in/
-
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? Whatever the reason, but its wrong in a democratic secular country. In Delhi(India) I see teenagers girls wearing mini-shirts and rocking to dance bars and muslims womens still wearning burka. Its everyone right to decide his clothing and other should respect him. What france has done is not at all a good thing to see, why didn't they ban cross symbols in the neclace with the scarfs on forehead. Bob Flynn wrote: but I can not think of others that did this. That is a completely wrong belief and this thing changes the whole scenario. diamond is cutted by diamond, poison is treated by poison, but stains can't be removed by stains. Hate cannot be removed by hate. I seen a lot of anti-muslim feeling in the CP forums too. And people who oppose this hate feeling have to hear "idiot", "f***" from the self declared civilised world. People says that terrorism is a local problem to their country and they know how to tackle them. Then why are they fail uptill so far. They are the same people who cry out loud over the muslims killing in CHINA and say its way too inhumitarian. Now, they say kill the muslims and throw out the asians from my country, they are a big danger. They cry over the growing power of other nations, and ask for a ban on outsourcing, but they can't see people working whole night to match the US timing, even they get leaves on X-mas and work on diwali. The west has double standard over terrorism and can't see the terrorists camp in its allied nations occcupied lands in the afghan war. They can't see what is going in kashmir. When the militants puts banner everywhere asking the local hindus to leave in 24 hours. They can't see people still living in refugee camps in their own country. They can't see one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians killed in the Vietnamese war. They have thousands of nuke to protect the earth, but asks to sign non-proliferation treaty to others. I am glad that my government is not part of: http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=1058&categoryid=11131 http://www.priyank.in/
-
Vivic wrote: In the 1930s, many rural parts of the US didn't have electricity. I am sure the White House had electricity installed soon after Edison invented the light bulb in the 19th century. Can we compare Herbert Hoover/Calvin Coolidge to Saddam Hussein? 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. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
I can still compare that all americans have a very high living standard as compared to the rest of the world, should the third world attack america, as america does in iraq for saddam. http://www.priyank.in/
-
Actually, the US is widely admired. Just look at the lines in front of US embassies and consulates for visas. People recognize that the US is the most open society, far ahead of Britain despite all the talk about Britain's multiculturalism. You don't see people with a drive to succeed (success being defined by Western norms) having any problem with the US or the West. It is those who cannot handle CULTURE CONFLICTS who turn against the West. Look at the bombers. They were losers. They didn't have nice professional jobs like a college graduate in the US could aspire to. Heck, some of them even dropped out of college. They were destined to remain the "hewers of wood and the drawers of water" of today's society. They blamed their lot on British society and decided to "get even". Really, nobody thinks that the US should open up Fort Knox and distribute the gold to the world or do something similar. But it would help a lot (and hurt the US pocketbook a lot) if attention is paid to third-world not because of their mineral wealth (oil in the case of ISaudia Arabia, raq or Iran) or their strategic location. But if the US doesn't exploit these countries, it would be Britain. I think this fuels the resentment. My two cents.
Vivic wrote: They didn't have nice professional jobs like a college graduate in the US could aspire to. That your vision, only software engineers working in US are not with nice jobs, and flying a plane and attack preicisely on the tower needs great knowledge. I am sure they are not bill gates, but then also they don't want to die for USA filth($). The war is against ideas, discrimination and domination as oppesed to the war of muslims against christans. Why did they choose christans only for that why not Hindus, or israel. http://www.priyank.in/
-
Pete Madden wrote: But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which stated, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” I believe this executive order is still in effect.
-
Pete Madden wrote: ... welcome to the world of "double-standards" my friend ... where hypocrites rule! It really depends on one's worldview, I think. Americans are not used to their country being attacked, protected as they are by the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. So, until 9/11, they were quite comfortable in taking the war to other countries but were shocked when they were themselves attacked. Now, it can be (and is being) argued that American wars are fought by soldiers in uniforms fighting in accordance with Geneva Conventions while the terrorists are targeting civilians. What are these people going to say about the widely-held supposition (I don't want to call it a fact but the CIA operative in New Delhi was expelled after this incident) that the CIA planted a bomb on an Indian airliner in 1955 that was to have taken the Chinese premier Chou En-lai to the Bandung Conference? The bomb exploded in mid-air killing all except three persons but Chou took a different flight and so didn't die as envisaged by the bombers. Was the placing of a bomb on a civilian plane with the certainty that civilians would be killed an evil act or not? If so, is placing the bomb on a suburban train any different? Or, does morality change with time, the motives of the protoganist, location of the act, the financial/military muscle of those involved or (I KNOW this is going to be a red flag but isn't that the reason for the Soapbox?) the color of the skins of those who died? Such questions are never debated openly and will never be. Because they expose uncomfortable truths. This doesn't mean that I support the British bombers or the 9/11 hijackers. Far from it. But I do read history and recognize that everybody does something bad some time or other. But they scream the loudest when they are hit at. I cannot and do not subscribe to the view that civilians are legitimate targets.
Well said. I've always believed that you can't really sympathize until you've empathized. People are always saying what if this or that was different, would the outcome have changed? Maybe, maybe not. However, there are many, many factors affecting every aspect of the world every minute. If we are to truly have peace, we would need to believe in "one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL." As it stands, there is no such thing as equality in the world or within a country. If you were poor and wasn't able to live a good life, and you saw your neighbors were getting richer, you are obviously going to feel envy. It is a human characteristic that cannot be removed. However, it can be limited if you guarantee the most basic of rights to EVERY (think globally) individual. Healthcare is only one of these rights. Will human beings ever grow out of their greed? It's hard to say. But I like to hope that the ideology that Gene Roddenberry created in Star Trek is part of what awaits us in the hopefully, not-too-distant future. Now I must go and pay some never-ending bills. "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS
-
When?:confused:
-
When?:confused:
-
It is the US support of Israel, and many, many Jews are rabidly anti-Muslem, that causes your country to be percieved as such. It is a shame these Muslemes have forgotten the Kosovo-Nato war. If that, was indeed, just aimed at helping Muslems against serb violence. Nunc est bibendum!
You are absolutely right. This is one of the primary reasons for Muslims' disliking of US. Other reasons include : - The US's imposed wars on Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. - Killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people there without the discrimination of age or gender. - Their not so good foreign policies towards Muslim countries especially about the disputed regions like Chechnya, Kashmir, Cyprus etc. And a lot of others which are secondary... Steve Mayfield: "Coding in VB is like riding a tricycle...once you figured out how to peddle, its really hard to fall off." My Articles
-
Do you think US policies are anti-Muslim? Good question ... but unfortunately the answer depends on which side its coming from. If a group of people think the war in Afganistan was wrong then I pity those morons. But then again if another group of people think the war in Iraq was right I'd pity those morons too. Think of it this way ... if another country invades yours and tries to enforce a different kind of government will you take it or will you fight back? If you will fight back how long will you fight back? Of course the worst affected are those families who believe the Iraq war was wrong but have had to fight in Iraq or worse send a member of their family out there to fight ... put yourself in their shoes and you will notice how painful it gets when you cannot even blame. http://www.boreddude.com
Pete Madden wrote: If a group of people think the war in Afganistan was wrong then I pity those morons I think the other way. IMO, if a group of people think the war in Afghanistan was right than i pity those morons. How would you justify a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed by carpet bombing just to find a group of people who in the KILLER's opinion were responsible for 9/11 assault. And if for a moment I suppose that KILLERS were right in their opinion, then according to their own sources, the alleged person hid himself somewhere in Afghanistan. Is that a reason good enough to bomb a whole country. If you say yes, then we have got a huge number of such people who to us are equally killable as OBL is to u and Who did seek successfule asylums in European countries and US. e.g., Salman Rushdi (If you know about him). Steve Mayfield: "Coding in VB is like riding a tricycle...once you figured out how to peddle, its really hard to fall off." My Articles