So why is there a conflict in both these places?

Religion, Sam, religion. Bells just got you there.

If you want to look for deeper grounds on which we might excuse the violence in all the above places, then what do we say about internal violence? The oppression of non-muslims in islamic countries? What diamonds are they fighting over? What resource is at issue?

Religion, Sam, religion. Bells just got you there.

If you want to look for deeper grounds on which we might excuse the violence in all the above places, then what do we say about internal violence? The oppression of non-muslims in islamic countries? What diamonds are they fighting over? What resource is at issue?

You mean subjugation of minorities with less power? Blacks in a primarily white country? Like the US vs oil producing countries? The war in Iraq?:rolleyes:

Why would a country with 50,000 nukes care about any other country having one?

Or about communism?

Well, I'd agree with your position, except that there's relatively little oppression of minority religions by other groups. I don't necessarily take issue with religion per se, or even organized religion, but I do agree that when they intrude into humanitarian issues that they need to be stopped. Islam, I regret to say, is the man of the hour in that sense.

Depends on how you define oppression.

e.g. what do you consider these?

1. The US government demands that OBL be given up by the Taliban post 9/11. The Taliban demand proof that he is involved in 9/11. NATO then launches an offensive resulting in thousands of deaths.

2. Saddam and the US have a falling out. The US attacks Iraq resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

3. The US backs Ethiopian and Sudanese insurgents with millions of dollars destabilising the Sudanese government and resulting in the deaths of thousands.

4. Not to mention the war in Lebanon last August where the US was rapidly sending arms by courier to ensure the death of as many Lebanese people as they could.

I'm going to go through the arguments and isolate them by their fallacies.

You mean subjugation of minorities with less power? Blacks in a primarily white country?

Tu tuoque and false analogy.
Democratic administrations change: islamic ones are always islamic. The status of African-Americans (which is the correct term, Samwise) in the US was regrettable, and indeed regretted. No one is seeking to go back to that state. Yet, there are agitators all over the world seeking to re-establish the caliphate and really put the kufr in their place.

Like the US vs oil producing countries? The war in Iraq?
Red herring.
I was explicitly referring to internal protection of minorities. You are attempting to sideline the argument again; a good try, but ultimately wrong.

Why would a country with 50,000 nukes care about any other country having one?

False analogy.
A single nuke in the hands of an unstable government like the Iranian one is far more dangerous than those in the hands of almost any other nation on earth. The Iranian President, not to mention the Ayatollah, has threatened to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".

Or about communism?

What about communism?

Geoff

Tu tuoque and false analogy.
Democratic administrations change: islamic ones are always islamic. The status of African-Americans (which is the correct term, Samwise) in the US was regrettable, and indeed regretted. No one is seeking to go back to that state. Yet, there are agitators all over the world seeking to re-establish the caliphate and really put the kufr in their place.

So democratic institutions that subvert the rights of people (see Patriot Act and the latest news on FBI abuse of it. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc) are "changing"?


Red herring.
I was explicitly referring to internal protection of minorities. You are attempting to sideline the argument again; a good try, but ultimately wrong.


So am I. What is the conviction rate of "colored" people vs "white" people?
How is it different from the arrest rate?


False analogy.
A single nuke in the hands of an unstable government like the Iranian one is far more dangerous than those in the hands of almost any other nation on earth. The Iranian President, not to mention the Ayatollah, has threatened to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".

What is an "unstable" government?

One with a 200 year record of attacking other countries, using chemical biological and nuclear weapons and currently engaged in arms trade and funding worldwide conflicts,

OR

one that in the last 50 years has had only one defensive war, also funded by the above?



What about communism?

An ideological war by the "democrats"

Depends on how you define oppression.

I define it as oppressing religious minorities. Is that nebulous somehow? Is the US responsible for the ongoing oppression of religious minorities in nearly the same manner as in the 7th century? How did they manage that, being it that they've only been around for two centuries? Was the oppression of these minorities "predictive", somehow, in the time-honoured manner of Quranic science?

2. Saddam and the US have a falling out. The US attacks Iraq resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Ah! And necessitating the persecution of Christians and Jews and women and barbers and bakers and candlestick makers by islamist militias within Iraq. I see! You recall we were discussing domestic oppression?

3. The US backs Ethiopian and Sudanese insurgents with millions of dollars destabilising the Sudanese government and resulting in the deaths of thousands.

Hmm.

You seem not to be aware of the original conflict, which I find strange in someone devoted to getting at the roots of things.

First Sudanese Civil War

The year before independence, a civil war began between Northern and Southern Sudan. The Southerners, anticipating independence, feared the new nation would be dominated by the North.

Historically, the North of Sudan had closer ties with Egypt and was predominantly Arab and Muslim while the South was predominantly black, with a mixture of Christianity and Animism. These divisions had been further emphasized by the British policy of ruling the North and South under separate administrations. From 1924 on it was illegal for people living above the 10th parallel to go further south and for people below the 8th parallel to go further north. The law was ostensibly enacted to prevent the spread of malaria and other tropical diseases that had ravaged British troops, as well as to prevent Northern Sudanese from raiding Southern tribes for slaves. The result was increased isolation between the already distinct north and south and arguably laid the seeds of conflict in the years to come.

The resulting conflict, known as the First Sudanese Civil War, lasted from 1955 to 1972 and was heavily influenced by support from Islamic jihadists seeking to expand Salafist Arabic fundamentalism. In 1972, a cessation of the north-south conflict was agreed upon under the terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement. This led to a ten-year hiatus in the national conflict.

Second Sudanese Civil War

In 1983, the civil war was reignited following President Gaafar Nimeiry's decision to circumvent the Addis Ababa Agreement. President Gaafar Nimeiry attempted to create a Federated Sudan including states in Southern Sudan, which violated the Addis Ababa Agreement that had granted the South considerable autonomy. The Sudan People's Liberation Army formed in May 1983 as a result. Finally, in June 1983, the Sudanese Government under President Gaafar Nimeiry abrogated the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement (A.A.A.)[1]. The situation was exacerbated after President Gaafar Nimeiry went on to implement Sharia Law in September of the same year [2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan

The isolation "laid the seeds of conflict", eh? Hmm. I wonder what would have happened had non-muslim Sudanese been in contact with muslim Sudanese throughout. I wonder if the old sharia system would have been instituted, with its requisite dhimmitude. Admittedly it's not certain it would have been. There are only 64 examples out of 64 cases, after all. Perhaps if the Southerners had only accepted their state like good dhimmis, there'd have been no conflict either.

And how strange there was so much animosity when the Northerners - as you can clearly see - treated the Southerners with such kindness. Racism is so endemic, don't you think? And isn't it odd that the US should support an insurgent movement designed at obtaining equality and human rights by indirectly providing arms? Which, I add, started in 1990, if you read the above article - long after the North's genocidal campaign against them began.

Anyway, the American response is strange, so strange. Do...do you think they learned from another religious conflict where foreign powers supplied one side with weapons?

By the by, what weapons were these? I seem to recall reading that the Sudanese were more or less unarmed.

pwnage

4. Not to mention the war in Lebanon last August where the US was rapidly sending arms by courier to ensure the death of as many Lebanese people as they could.

A bit of a dramatic overstatement, even for you. Yet now that you mention the Syrian model, I find myself wondering what the Syrians and Iranians were doing by courriering arms to Hezbollah for the deliberate targetting of civilians long before the conflict. Or the huge buildup that Syria itself is doing right now! International politics is such a strange beast, don't you agree?

Geoff

I define it as oppressing religious minorities. Is that nebulous somehow? Is the US responsible for the ongoing oppression of religious minorities in nearly the same manner as in the 7th century? How did they manage that, being it that they've only been around for two centuries? Was the oppression of these minorities "predictive", somehow, in the time-honoured manner of Quranic science?

Ah but we're talking about persecution of minorities. Or aren't there any Christians in the US? Weren't the original "slaves" Muslims?



Ah! And necessitating the persecution of Christians and Jews and women and barbers and bakers and candlestick makers by islamist militias within Iraq. I see! You recall we were discussing domestic oppression?

Of course, domestic oppression is religious while political oppression is not?:rolleyes:

I distinctly recall the undomestic imprisonment of people (and their torture) in Guantanamo. Very undomestic, to be sure.


Hmm.

You seem not to be aware of the original conflict, which I find strange in someone devoted to getting at the roots of things.

Might want to go back just a little bit further to see why there was a North and South Sudan, no?



The isolation "laid the seeds of conflict", eh? Hmm. I wonder what would have happened had non-muslim Sudanese been in contact with muslim Sudanese throughout. I wonder if the old sharia system would have been instituted, with its requisite dhimmitude. Admittedly it's not certain it would have been. There are only 64 examples out of 64 cases, after all. Perhaps if the Southerners had only accepted their state like good dhimmis, there'd have been no conflict either.

And how strange there was so much animosity when the Northerners - as you can clearly see - treated the Southerners with such kindness. Racism is so endemic, don't you think? And isn't it odd that the US should support an insurgent movement designed at obtaining equality and human rights by indirectly providing arms? Which, I add, started in 1990, if you read the above article - long after the North's genocidal campaign against them began.

How "wonder"ful of you.

Considering that the money pouring in to sustain the conflict has always been from the undomestic British and US.

Anyway, the American response is strange, so strange. Do...do you think they learned from another religious conflict where foreign powers supplied one side with weapons?

By the by, what weapons were these? I seem to recall reading that the Sudanese were more or less unarmed.

pwnage


They were unarmed before the moolah poured in.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0614-BushSudan.html


A bit of a dramatic overstatement, even for you. Yet now that you mention the Syrian model, I find myself wondering what the Syrians and Iranians were doing by courriering arms to Hezbollah for the deliberate targetting of civilians long before the conflict. Or the huge buildup that Syria itself is doing right now! International politics is such a strange beast, don't you agree?

Geoff

And I wonder what the ME would be like devoid of Western interference in local politics and economy.

So democratic institutions that subvert the rights of people (see Patriot Act and the latest news on FBI abuse of it. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc) are "changing"?

Ah, I've seen the "latest news" and it seems the FBI did some unwarranted phone-tapping. And? It must now be proven that the information was being wrongfully used.

Guantanamo is not the systematic oppression of a given religious system, as I imagine you know. All your examples seem to be scraped up from the dregs of the argumentative barrel; you have yet to respond to any of my comments regarding sharia and dhimmitude at large in islamic nations.

So am I. What is the conviction rate of "colored" people vs "white" people?
How is it different from the arrest rate?

Which is it then that you wanted to discuss? Iraq or convictions among non-'whites'? You keep changing focus.

What is an "unstable" government?

One run by loonies.

One with a 200 year record of attacking other countries, using chemical biological and nuclear weapons and currently engaged in arms trade and funding worldwide conflicts,

? :confused: Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. They're trying, of course, or were.

OR

one that in the last 50 years has had only one defensive war, also funded by the above?

Is it the same one that oppresses religious minorities and hangs sixteen-year olds for being raped by their uncle? What do I win for a correct answer?

An ideological war by the "democrats"

...what? :confused:

Geoff

Ah but we're talking about persecution of minorities. Or aren't there any Christians in the US? Weren't the original "slaves" Muslims?

No.

Now, using your tu tuoque method of argumentation, what penalty then should the collective ummah pay for their enslavement of millions of Africans up until...well, today. Who should it be paid to?

Of course, domestic oppression is religious while political oppression is not?

So you're not going to answer my points, then. I see.

I distinctly recall the undomestic imprisonment of people (and their torture) in Guantanamo. Very undomestic, to be sure.

Is this the panties-over-the-head torture I hear so much about? And again, using your tu tuoque method, how does it compare to the treatment of religious internees in the ummah?

Might want to go back just a little bit further to see why there was a North and South Sudan, no?

Yes. I did. It doesn't excuse the behaviour of the muslim Northerners.

How "wonder"ful of you.

I know. I am wonderful.

Considering that the money pouring in to sustain the conflict has always been from the undomestic British and US.

It has? I thought that only started in the 1990s. I find it hard to believe the Brits would arm either populace, given that they were being so colonial back in the 1920s. Did you read this part of the article?

The resulting conflict, known as the First Sudanese Civil War, lasted from 1955 to 1972 and was heavily influenced by support from Islamic jihadists seeking to expand Salafist Arabic fundamentalism. In 1972, a cessation of the north-south conflict was agreed upon under the terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement. This led to a ten-year hiatus in the national conflict.

The Yanks only started in 1990.

Geoff

Ah, I've seen the "latest news" and it seems the FBI did some unwarranted phone-tapping. And? It must now be proven that the information was being wrongfully used.

Guantanamo is not the systematic oppression of a given religious system, as I imagine you know. All your examples seem to be scraped up from the dregs of the argumentative barrel; you have yet to respond to any of my comments regarding sharia and dhimmitude at large in islamic nations.


I think you'd find a lot of countries who have been at the receiving end of American democracy that would disagree with this.




Which is it then that you wanted to discuss? Iraq or convictions among non-'whites'? You keep changing focus.
I'm discussing the persecution of minorities. You can define them as you wish.



One run by loonies.

Loonies that kill other people? Consistently, over a long long period of time? Loony after loony?



? :confused: Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. They're trying, of course, or were.

Evidence? Besides the paranoia displayed by nuclear weapon owning countries?



Is it the same one that oppresses religious minorities and hangs sixteen-year olds for being raped by their uncle? What do I win for a correct answer?


More labels.

Are people in undeveloped countries at the same level of social awareness as those in developed countries?

The civil rights movement was just a few years ago, before which blacks were lynched for looking at a white women and Jews were gassed for being Jewish.

And this was a few generations ago.

They were unarmed before the moolah poured in.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0614-BushSudan.html

I see. So the problem is that they got some arms so that they could protect themselves from their kind, gentle islamic protectors and overlords. Of course! This is what I said before: if they'd just been good little dhimmis, there'd have been no war. I mean, there'd have been oppression and subjugation and slave raids and the general second-class treatment thing, but no outright war. Great.

And I wonder what the ME would be like devoid of Western interference in local politics and economy.

Much like it looked in the 7th century, I expect: or the 13th at least. Muslims in their place, non-muslims in theirs. Peace.

Or "submission", rather. You know.

Geoff

I think you'd find a lot of countries who have been at the receiving end of American democracy that would disagree with this.

Again: no comment, no answer to my comments. I can only assume that you yield to my point.

I'm discussing the persecution of minorities. You can define them as you wish.

Yet, you're not. Nationalism is one thing; legalized discrimination another.

Loonies that kill other people? Consistently, over a long long period of time? Loony after loony?

Not sure what you're arguing here.

Evidence? Besides the paranoia displayed by nuclear weapon owning countries?

Ah, how about threats? Words mean nothing in Iran, then?

More labels.

Are people in undeveloped countries at the same level of social awareness as those in developed countries?

And here I thought Iranians were as socially aware as we. You clamour for a Middle East unblemished by Western values: this is it. This is pure sharia.

Enjoy.

Geoff

PS:

The civil rights movement was just a few years ago, before which blacks were lynched for looking at a white women and Jews were gassed for being Jewish.

And this was a few generations ago.

Interesting example, Hitler. He had much in common with many leaders and movements in the Middle East today, a few generations later.

No.

Now, using your tu tuoque method of argumentation, what penalty then should the collective ummah pay for their enslavement of millions of Africans up until...well, today. Who should it be paid to?

I think if they just stop their policy of sustaining conflicts and discriminating between people, it will be enough.





Is this the panties-over-the-head torture I hear so much about? And again, using your tu tuoque method, how does it compare to the treatment of religious internees in the ummah?

I doubt there is any comparison between religious minorities in the ummah (as you call it) and the consistent use of puppet dictators and death squads to oppress whole countries. Even if you focus on "domestic" oppression, the CIA practice of kidnapping "suspects" and exporting them out of the country hardly makes for democratic ideals.



Yes. I did. It doesn't excuse the behaviour of the muslim Northerners.

Which is a direct result of the division of Sudan and differential treatment of both groups. Notice how many of the current conflicts are directly linked to British separatist policies?






It has? I thought that only started in the 1990s. I find it hard to believe the Brits would arm either populace, given that they were being so colonial back in the 1920s. Did you read this part of the article?

Did you read this:
http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=577


The Yanks only started in 1990.

Just continuing a long and glorious tradition.

Yet, you're not. Nationalism is one thing; legalized discrimination another.

Tomaytoes Tomahtos.



Not sure what you're arguing here.

Your definition of a loony.



Ah, how about threats? Words mean nothing in Iran, then?

Translated by the ever helpful Memri, no doubt.

No nationalism here, I presume?:rolleyes:



And here I thought Iranians were as socially aware as we. You clamour for a Middle East unblemished by Western values: this is it. This is pure sharia.

Looks very different from Mossadegh's government though, wouldn't you say?




Interesting example, Hitler. He had much in common with many leaders and movements in the Middle East today, a few generations later.

Strange. I had the same thought about the current state of the US government.

I think if they just stop their policy of sustaining conflicts and discriminating between people, it will be enough.

You do realize I said "the ummah" above? Progress.

I doubt there is any comparison between religious minorities in the ummah (as you call it) and the consistent use of puppet dictators and death squads to oppress whole countries. Even if you focus on "domestic" oppression, the CIA practice of kidnapping "suspects" and exporting them out of the country hardly makes for democratic ideals.

As opposed to keeping them so they can walk free. I agree that there is no comparison between the legalized oppression of millions of your neighbours and countrymen and the illegal export of a few handfuls of people to their home nations on suspicion of terrorism.

Which is a direct result of the division of Sudan and differential treatment of both groups. Notice how many of the current conflicts are directly linked to British separatist policies?

Were the Brits encouraging raids of the South for slaves in 1924? I forget. Earlier fusion would simply have meant earlier sharia and earlier dhimmitude for the Southerners.

I'll leave you the field for a little while - I have work to do - but don't get too comfortable.

Geoff

Translated by the ever helpful Memri, no doubt.

No nationalism here, I presume?:rolleyes:

Right, right. It's all mistranslation. :rolleyes:

Looks very different from Mossadegh's government though, wouldn't you say?

In which capacity?

Strange. I had the same thought about the current state of the US government.

Yes, yes. The US is executing millions of people in mass genocide. :rolleyes:

Back to history class for you.

Geoff

You do realize I said "the ummah" above? Progress.



As opposed to keeping them so they can walk free. I agree that there is no comparison between the legalized oppression of millions of your neighbours and countrymen and the illegal export of a few handfuls of people to their home nations on suspicion of terrorism.



Were the Brits encouraging raids of the South for slaves in 1924? I forget. Earlier fusion would simply have meant earlier sharia and earlier dhimmitude for the Southerners.

I'll leave you the field for a little while - I have work to do - but don't get too comfortable.

Geoff

Your ummah may not equal my ummah. ;)
I think the death squads killed more than a few people (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/school_of_the_americas) and from what I can see there were no Coptic Christians outside the ME for a long time. Masochists no doubt, like the Jews in Iran.

As for the exporting of suspects (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html), it might be interest you to know that they were not deported, but exported.

And I am all too familiar with British separatism.

India was under no danger from sharia after all.

Right, right. It's all mistranslation. :rolleyes:

Not mistranslation, so much as selective translation.


In which capacity?


You might want to read up on Iran before the US.


Yes, yes. The US is executing millions of people in mass genocide. :rolleyes:



Back to history class for you.

I'd say the dollars they sent to Sudan are being put to good use.

http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/197.shtml

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4053

Well, I'd agree with your position, except that there's relatively little oppression of minority religions by other groups. I don't necessarily take issue with religion per se, or even organized religion, but I do agree that when they intrude into humanitarian issues that they need to be stopped. Islam, I regret to say, is the man of the hour in that sense.

Why does this happen every single time?:mad:

This discussion had been an interesting and lively one up to this point.

And again, instead of discussing religion and God as per the discussion between Dawkins and Collins and by Dawkin's book, it has somehow become a slam Islam debate and how that is the only problem. The discussion was about the problem of religion and organised religion and their interference in the scientific, political and general society as a whole. This discussion was not about your hatred or your problem with Islam.

Thank you for having ruined what had been an interesting discussion.:mad:

Thats because Islam is evil.

Your ummah may not equal my ummah. ;)
I think the death squads killed more than a few people (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/school_of_the_americas) and from what I can see there were no Coptic Christians outside the ME for a long time. Masochists no doubt, like the Jews in Iran.

Too stubborn to leave in the face of hatred - or too afraid. Your rebuttal seems to imply that "if life was so bad, they should have left"; simultaneously there is the smell of scandal by the Copts around it. Is it too much to ask to expect an viewpoint out of you unbiased by your religion? Do all the victims of islam deserve it?

As for the exporting of suspects (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html), it might be interest you to know that they were not deported, but exported.

Ok. That interests me.

And I am all too familiar with British separatism.

You marched with Ghandi? Hodson killed your brother at Dehli? Your cousins were shot down at Amritsar?

More to the point: you honestly think you can blame the integral hatred Northern Sudanese have for Southern ones?

India was under no danger from sharia after all.

Yes. So maybe there's some advantage to separation then? Or is numerical superiority sufficient to avoid victimhood from sharia? I guess it depends on the scale being considered.

Geoff

Why does this happen every single time?:mad:

This discussion had been an interesting and lively one up to this point.

And again, instead of discussing religion and God as per the discussion between Dawkins and Collins and by Dawkin's book, it has somehow become a slam Islam debate and how that is the only problem. The discussion was about the problem of religion and organised religion and their interference in the scientific, political and general society as a whole. This discussion was not about your hatred or your problem with Islam.

Thank you for having ruined what had been an interesting discussion.:mad:

You are most welcome. :worship:

Bells, I find the discussion quite interesting and lively even now. I appreciate that islam is not the only problem, religion-wise: yet it is the greatest and I believe firmly in dealing with the big issues first, and the little ones thereafter. For my specific point is that political religion - and political islam especially - is the danger, which in fact is rather the issue anyway.

Best regards,

Geoff

Not mistranslation, so much as selective translation.

So the evil stuff should be balanced against the innocuous emissions? What an interesting thought. And if Bush were to opine in public that all muslims were evil and deserved death, that would be all right too? After all, the US administration does do a lot of good besides - they collect taxes, disperse them, support hospitals and schoolchildren and even little ponies and kittens.

You might want to read up on Iran before the US.

Ah - and so throwing out British and US influence necessitated the rise of extremist islamism? It was impossible to do so on nationalist grounds alone? Your position strikes me as a bit naive.

I'd say the dollars they sent to Sudan are being put to good use.

http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/197.shtml

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4053

Well at least you have admitted - through your avoidance of the issue - that the Southerners were basically being mauled at the will of the Northern Sudanese; and thereby, that the US support of the South was essentially a humanitarian gesture. Any military support would be.

Geoff

So the evil stuff should be balanced against the innocuous emissions? What an interesting thought. And if Bush were to opine in public that all muslims were evil and deserved death, that would be all right too? After all, the US administration does do a lot of good besides - they collect taxes, disperse them, support hospitals and schoolchildren and even little ponies and kittens.
That should make all the death squad victims feel a whole lot better. I mean, ponies!


Ah - and so throwing out British and US influence necessitated the rise of extremist islamism? It was impossible to do so on nationalist grounds alone? Your position strikes me as a bit naive.



You mean disassociating themselves from a foreign influence that was destructive to their people?

Well at least you have admitted - through your avoidance of the issue - that the Southerners were basically being mauled at the will of the Northern Sudanese; and thereby, that the US support of the South was essentially a humanitarian gesture. Any military support would be.

Well hopefully the Sudanese appreciate the fringe benefits of Western humanitarianism.

That should make all the death squad victims feel a whole lot better. I mean, ponies!

Hey! I think you understand now! :bravo: So it doesn't matter how, uh, "selective" MEMRI is supposed to be; it's the mere existence of the message that counts. Well done. We're making progress.

You mean disassociating themselves from a foreign influence that was destructive to their people?

Ugh. Back to the red herrings. Please answer the following:

so throwing out British and US influence necessitated the rise of extremist islamism? It was impossible to do so on nationalist grounds alone?

To be really honest, I'm not sure if you're deliberately avoiding my question or really don't follow. I'll restate more clearly: did throwing the Brits and American oil interests out require explicitly the rise of a religious extremist philosophy, or could above have been accomplished by a nationalist front alone?

Well hopefully the Sudanese appreciate the fringe benefits of Western humanitarianism.

Yes; the Southerners and Northerners both. ;) The Southerners, because they need it, and the Northerners, because they deserve it. Follow? It's subtle.

However, I know that someone as fiercely Boadicean about colonization as you is firmly on the side of the long-oppressed Southern minority, despite their not being muslim.

Not so?

Geoff

Hey! I think you understand now! So it doesn't matter how, uh, "selective" MEMRI is supposed to be; it's the mere existence of the message that counts. Well done. We're making progress.

Exactly, and the message is that the dictators and death squads make a mockery of the democratic society. Especially when they happen to support the MOST autocratic regimes and destroy the appearance of any that want to develop on their own.




To be really honest, I'm not sure if you're deliberately avoiding my question or really don't follow. I'll restate more clearly: did throwing the Brits and American oil interests out require explicitly the rise of a religious extremist philosophy, or could above have been accomplished by a nationalist front alone?


Again, what would you call a non-Western nationalist government? It appears that Mossadegh's NATIONALIST government did not go over too well, and the Shah had his own brand of nationalism which appears to involve torture and oppression.

And since the Islamists appear to be "their" people, guess who gets the vote?

What for example will be the consequence of US intervention in Iraq?
Do you see a nationalist movement arising there? Or a religiously fundamentalist one?

Yes; the Southerners and Northerners both. ;) The Southerners, because they need it, and the Northerners, because they deserve it. Follow? It's subtle.


Yup. Like the Sudan Peace Accord. Everything falls into place. Too bad the Sudanese end up as collateral damages.


However, I know that someone as fiercely Boadicean about colonization as you is firmly on the side of the long-oppressed Southern minority, despite their not being muslim.

Divide and Rule went out of fashion with the British. Doesn't work on me I'm afraid.

Exactly, and the message is that the dictators and death squads make a mockery of the democratic society. Especially when they happen to support the MOST autocratic regimes and destroy the appearance of any that want to develop on their own.

The US supports Iran and Saudi Arabia? Oh, I agree there's economic support of Egypt and even Syria, I believe: and for all that money they have bought...what?

Again, what would you call a non-Western nationalist government? It appears that Mossadegh's NATIONALIST government did not go over too well, and the Shah had his own brand of nationalism which appears to involve torture and oppression.

And again: the movement that overthrew him - did it explicitly need to be religious?

And since the Islamists appear to be "their" people, guess who gets the vote?

Here we agree.

What for example will be the consequence of US intervention in Iraq?
Do you see a nationalist movement arising there? Or a religiously fundamentalist one?

A fundamentalist one, of course: and why? Why not nationalist? Therein is the answer.

Yup. Like the Sudan Peace Accord. Everything falls into place. Too bad the Sudanese end up as collateral damages.

No - the southern Sudanese end up as collateral, precisely as they have been, since no one will lift a hand to protect them for fear of being thought anti-islamic. The Northerners, on the other hand, will continue precisely as they have been.

Divide and Rule went out of fashion with the British. Doesn't work on me I'm afraid.

Not my argument, of course; still, another good try.

Geoff

Well, I suppose the field is mine. I plant my spear in the windy tree, Odin to Odin, myself to myself.

Godesday!

Geoff

The US supports Iran and Saudi Arabia? Oh, I agree there's economic support of Egypt and even Syria, I believe: and for all that money they have bought...what?

Sure, or are you forgetting the "deal" with OPEC or the Shah?


And again: the movement that overthrew him - did it explicitly need to be religious?
Unfortunately, yes since all the democratically inclined were otherwise persuaded by the Savak


A fundamentalist one, of course: and why? Why not nationalist? Therein is the answer.

Apparently they are the only ones who will take on the West?

After all the West never did have much success against the Ayatollah or Sauds or Taliban or Hamas, did they?


No - the southern Sudanese end up as collateral, precisely as they have been, since no one will lift a hand to protect them for fear of being thought anti-islamic. The Northerners, on the other hand, will continue precisely as they have been.


Ho Hum

http://www.workers.org/2006/world/darfur-0608/

Oh: and regarding this "lack of separation" idea that Sam seems to be proposing as a panacea to end all conflict of islam with...well, everyone else...I submit the following link with a narration by Walid Shoebat. Note in particular the part about 3:00 in regarding the notion of "mixed states".

Geoff

Sure, or are you forgetting the "deal" with OPEC or the Shah?

Again, Sam: not the same thing. I was talking about Egypt and Syria. Have you recieved a blow to the head?

Unfortunately, yes since all the democratically inclined were otherwise persuaded by the Savak

Apparently they are the only ones who will take on the West?

Well, then that is a problem in its own right.

After all the West never did have much success against the Ayatollah or Sauds or Taliban or Hamas, did they?

Ah. Sophistry.

Ho Hum

Ho hum; Sam doesn't care about particulars. Post a disconnected link and run on.

Geoff

Don't see any link but-
This Walid Shoebat?

Sheila Musaji said of Shoebat that "This is an extremist Christian terrorist. This is not a former terrorist. This is a man who used to hate Jews and now hates Muslims, who used to commit violence against Jews and now justifies violence against Muslims."[2] In a CounterPunch article from 2004, Will Youmans noted that Shoebat had never come under criminal investigation in the US for his alleged terrorist activities, nor had he been threatened with deportation, although two other Palestinians in the US had faced deportation proceedings because of their alleged involvement with terrorist groups. Youmans suggests that Shoebat is effectively immune from prosecution or deportation because of his pro-Israel views. He also argues that Shoebat's religious convictions, including the belief that Jews will be forced to "accept Christ or perish in hell" when the Rapture comes, are intrinsically anti-Semitic. Furthermore, Youmans contends that Shoebat's beliefs are incompatible with efforts towards peace, because of the premillennial, dispensational doctrine that the Second Coming of Christ will be hastened by conflict in the Middle East.

By the way has he ever been held accountable for his terrorist activities?

Don't see any link but-
This Walid Shoebat?

By the way has he ever been held accountable for his terrorist activities?

He, unlike so many others, repents his crimes.

Is this part of your new "kill the messenger" strategy? Would it have been appropriate elsewhere?

Oh: about your healthy disinterest in human rights in Darfur - I loved the link. Here was an amazingly ignorant phrase from it:

U.S. troops carrying the UN flag invaded Korea in 1950 in a war that resulted in more than 4 million deaths. Still flying that flag, they have occupied and divided the Korean peninsula for over 50 years.

I had to read it twice before believing that anyone, anywhere, could actually believe that the Korean War was caused by American invasion. :bravo: Excellent link! LMAO

Here's another para:

The U.S. and European imperialist powers are responsible for the genocidal slave trade that decimated Africa, the genocide of the Indigenous population of the Americas, the colonial wars and occupations that looted three-quarters of the globe. It was German imperialism that was responsible for the genocide of Jewish people. To call for military intervention by these same powers as the answer to conflicts among the people of Darfur is to ignore 500 years of history.

Besides ignoring the much larger Arab slave trade of Africans - which, I might add, went on until quite recently in the Sudan - the author manages to work Hitler into her diatribe against US intervention, as if Hitler, too, was somehow in cahoots with the Americans, or supported by them. :rolleyes: And in the same article, she lambasts Jewish groups for signing petitions to protect Darfur. Nice!

So, again: kudos. Awesome link.

Wait: one more.

Now, due to the drought and the encroaching great Sahara Desert, there isn’t enough grazing land or enough farmland in what could be the breadbasket of Africa. Irrigation and development of Sudan’s rich resources could solve many of these problems. U.S. sanctions and military intervention will solve none of them.

The solution, instead, is MiGs and janjaweed raids? :rolleyes: Oh, my.

Geoff

[QUOTE]He, unlike so many others, repents his crimes.

Is this part of your new "kill the messenger" strategy? Would it have been appropriate elsewhere?

Ah does this work for all terrorists? Repentence in lieu of accountability?

Oh: about your healthy disinterest in human rights in Darfur - I loved the link. Here was an amazingly ignorant phrase from it:
I had to read it twice before believing that anyone, anywhere, could actually believe that the Korean War was caused by American invasion. :bravo: Excellent link! LMAO


You might be surprised to hear Korean opinions (http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/43kang1.htm) on it too.

Like why there is a North and South Korea (deja vu anyone?)



Besides ignoring the much larger Arab slave trade of Africans - which, I might add, went on until quite recently in the Sudan - the author manages to work Hitler into her diatribe against US intervention, as if Hitler, too, was somehow in cahoots with the Americans, or supported by them. :rolleyes: And in the same article, she lambasts Jewish groups for signing petitions to protect Darfur. Nice!

Hitler and the US? Never!!!

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAU20070127&articleId=4607


The solution, instead, is MiGs and janjaweed raids? :rolleyes: Oh, my.

Sustained by $$$ from humanitarians.

111

[QUOTE=GeoffP;1321624]

Ah does this work for all terrorists? Repentence in lieu of accountability?

Never heard of immunity in return for turning state evidence? :confused:

You might be surprised to hear Korean opinions on it too.

I might not. North Korean state-sanctioned opinions?

Like why there is a North and South Korea (deja vu anyone?)

LMFAO - Sam, I really did "lol" out loud just then. Back to school; off you go. OMG. I am not going to sit down and explain the Korean War to you. I'm not. I will simply inform you that it started with the invasion of South Korea by the North. The rest I leave you to Google; do try not to start with loonyopinions.com, won't you? :rolleyes:

Hitler and the US? Never!!!

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html

Yes, I'll admit that corporations were involved with Nazi Germany, assuming the links are correct. But not of support for his Final Solution, which was the point the author was trying to draw.

Geoff

Ha! I love it!

Didn't you know? America is directly responsible for every heinous historical occurrance! Did you know that Americans originated the concept of jihad back in the 8th century? And we killed muhammad in a plot to foment unrest in the present day middle east?

Gasp! And it was a Jewish woman that poisoned him, wasn't it? So the Mossad were in on it too.

Tricky buggers all.

Geoff

Never heard of immunity in return for turning state evidence? :confused:


So he was tried? Turned state evidence?


I might not. North Korean state-sanctioned opinions?

see edit. I have several Korean friends, not North Korean.


LMFAO - Sam, I really did "lol" out loud just then. Back to school; off you go. OMG. I am not going to sit down and explain the Korean War to you. I'm not. I will simply inform you that it started with the invasion of South Korea by the North. The rest I leave you to Google; do try not to start with loonyopinions.com, won't you? :rolleyes:

No I'll go by what the Koreans have told me.

Yes, I'll admit that corporations were involved with Nazi Germany, assuming the links are correct. But not of support for his Final Solution, which was the point the author was trying to draw.

One never knows does one?

Ah - Samwise found a South Korean prof even. Amazing. I was indeed surprised.

Loonies are far more epidemic than I thought. I also note the home site describes North Korean spies in the South as "The Unsung Heroes".

'Nuff said.

So he was tried? Turned state evidence?

No; avoided trial, because he fessed up. See?

see edit. I have several Korean friends, not North Korean.

You have several insane Korean friends, if they believe this shit. I have Korean cousins, and they don't agree with the statement that North Korean troops were "progessive forces".

One never knows does one?

Well, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Sam.

Geoff

Ah - Samwise found a South Korean prof even. Amazing. I was indeed surprised.

Loonies are far more epidemic than I thought. I also note the home site describes North Korean spies in the South as "The Unsung Heroes".

'Nuff said.

Its Korean opinion. As usual, the opinion of people from the place is subordinate to Western opinion of what their opinion should be.

Isn't that amazing?:rolleyes:

No; avoided trial, because he fessed up. See?

Sure he did. How many people did he murder again?

You have several insane Korean friends, if they believe this shit. I have Korean cousins, and they don't agree with the statement that North Korean troops were "progessive forces".

Sure you do. Ask them about the One Korea policy and why Korean websites don't say North or South.

http://www.korea.ac.kr/english/aboutus/EF1S01T00F00-0.jsp


Well, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Sam.


That is what I keep telling you.

111

Its Korean opinion. As usual, the opinion of people from the place is subordinate to Western opinion of what their opinion should be.

No, it's loony Korean opinion, as most Koreans don't believe this rot. As usual, you're implying that only the opinions you like are acceptable; the rest merely collaboration.

Isn't that amazing?

Geoff

111

Ignorance is bliss.

111

Sure he did. How many people did he murder again?

No idea. Have you a figure?

Sure you do. Ask them about the One Korea policy

It's strange that I'm able to divine their opinion on your nonsense, and yet I still don't take the extra step of preparing individual policy briefs for each of them on the basis of reunification policy. I guess some families are strange. Shall I email Dave and Kim then, and ask them that Sam (who doesn't believe they are real) needs to know what their preferences are between 10-point and One Korean Reunification plans? I'll let them know it's urgent.

In the meanwhile, perhaps you could roll your eyes up inside your head and check with your imaginary Korean contacts to decide whether or not they think you are for real. I remain unconvinced either way.

That is what I keep telling you.

Too late; you've been burned. Get a fire blanket. I hear aloe works wonders.

Geoff

It's strange that I'm able to divine their opinion on your nonsense, and yet I still don't take the extra step of preparing individual policy briefs for each of them on the basis of reunification policy. I guess some families are strange. Shall I email Dave and Kim then, and ask them that Sam (who doesn't believe they are real) needs to know what their preferences are between 10-point and One Korean Reunification plans? I'll let them know it's urgent.

In the meanwhile, perhaps you could roll your eyes up inside your head and check with your imaginary Korean contacts to decide whether or not they think you are for real. I remain unconvinced either way.


Geoff

Perhaps your contacts have no family in the North or missed out on the anti-US demonstrations a decade ago as well as a couple of years ago. Or perhaps they haven't been keeping up with the news.

http://www.twq.com/07spring/index.cfm?id=248

111

Perhaps your contacts have no family in the North or missed out on the anti-US demonstrations a decade ago as well as a couple of years ago. Or perhaps they haven't been keeping up with the news.

http://www.twq.com/07spring/index.cfm?id=248

Ah, the point was about whether or not the US invaded Korea to start the Korean War. I need not point out that they didn't.

I need not, but I have to anyway.

Geoff

111

111

Ah, the point was about whether or not the US invaded Korea to start the Korean War. I need not point out that they didn't.

I need not, but I have to anyway.

Geoff

That history has been revisited after the release of some documents by the USSR.

http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=3&news=2&newspaper=31

Well, opinion fluctuates widely between isolationism and interventionism, with each major party having had their turn.

Neither of course will ever be right, since each is criticized at will.

Meh.

That history has been revisited after the release of some documents by the USSR.

http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=3&news=2&newspaper=31

Oh, god. Revisionism. I think that pretty much says it all.

Geoff

Oh, god. Revisionism. I think that pretty much says it all.

Geoff

Thats what they call it when the views are anti-US.;)

Its based on this book "The Origins of the Korean War (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Korean-War-Liberation-Emergence/dp/8976966120/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8063171-8905411?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173592184&sr=8-1)" which makes an interesting read.


Making extensive use of Korean-language materials from North and South, and of classified documents, intelligence reports, and U.S. military sources, the author examines the background of postwar Korean politics and the arrival of American and Soviet troops in 1945. Cumings then analyzes Korean politics and American policies in Seoul as well as in the hinterlands.

Thats what they call it when the views are anti-US.

Yes. The evil Americans made the NKs cross the border. They're sneaky that way. ;) In fact, there were so few Americans in the ROK that the NKs really had to get in there. Right. :D

Geoff

PS: Have you actually read that book? :)

111

Well, I have a plane in a while, so I'm off. Good night.

You are most welcome. :worship:

Bells, I find the discussion quite interesting and lively even now. I appreciate that islam is not the only problem, religion-wise: yet it is the greatest and I believe firmly in dealing with the big issues first, and the little ones thereafter. For my specific point is that political religion - and political islam especially - is the danger, which in fact is rather the issue anyway.

Best regards,

Geoff
So you are quite happy to derail what had been an interesting topic of discussion into pursuing your pet project on these forums.

You do this in just about every single thread you seem to participate in. Your obsession with one particular religion is worrying. It is obvious you have no idea what this topic had originally been about.

I have had enough of people trolling threads to pursue their own little agenda. This has been going on quite a bit of late and this is not the first interesting thread that has been derailed.

And don't 'you're welcome' me. It was not meant to be a compliment or a thank you.

PS: Have you actually read that book? :)

Have you?:p

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Korea_war_statement.vp.html

111

So you are quite happy to derail what had been an interesting topic of discussion into pursuing your pet project on these forums.

My comment was specific to case, rather than general on a sliding scale of theology that is not supported. Nor, I might add, was it I that dragged in Korea and the whole lot of international distraction, which was utterly off-topic. International greed is one thing; but if a society cannot extend basic human rights to its citizens in the innocuous area of religion, well...:shrug:

You do this in just about every single thread you seem to participate in. Your obsession with one particular religion is worrying. It is obvious you have no idea what this topic had originally been about.

Not at all. I provided a direct illustration of the role of religion aside from the arena of international politics. It is the measure of domestic tolerance that indicates the scope of tolerance in belief, not of international politics, which is inevitably founded on greed and is thereby common to all humanity, Darwin bless us.

Obsession it might be, but not submission. I have my causes; and I pursue them, one at a time.

I have had enough of people trolling threads to pursue their own little agenda. This has been going on quite a bit of late and this is not the first interesting thread that has been derailed.

Then speak to the engineer at the derailing, O Bells impermeable. I do not drive the choo-choo.

And don't 'you're welcome' me. It was not meant to be a compliment or a thank you.

Nonetheless, I have. And I do. :D And I welcome, too, your transition of the thread into the Cesspool: it indicates that whatever your like or dislike, my argument has been noted.

I wish myself a well week and a joyous interruption of the regularly scheduled program.

Hail Geoff
:worship:

Have you?:p

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Korea_war_statement.vp.html

I note that with the exception of one point, all the events described took place after the invasion. I wonder what the North Koreans were doing in their nation to promote free discourse and ecumenicality? :D

Geoff

I note that with the exception of one point, all the events described took place after the invasion. I wonder what the North Koreans were doing in their nation to promote free discourse and ecumenicality? :D

Geoff

Well perhaps they were rather distracted by this:

During the American Military Government (1945-1948) and the period from the establishment of the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the South in August 1948 to the full-scale war in June 1950, the U.S. military and the fascist Rhee regime, allied with pro-Japanese Koreans, either imprisoned or killed hundreds of thousands of Korean nationalists and socialists in order to establish a separate, pro-American government in the South. This savage repression resulted in bloody armed struggle by the angry Korean peasants, workers, students, and soldiers all over southern Korea. Major armed uprisings took place in Daegu, Cheju Island, Yosu, and Sunchon. In Cheju island alone from 1948 to 1949, more than 30,000 Koreans were killed, out of 300,000 population, by the South Korean police/military forces and right-wing youth gangs under the direction of the American military officers.

Nor, I might add, was it I that dragged in Korea and the whole lot of international distraction, which was utterly off-topic.

I beg to differ.


I had to read it twice before believing that anyone, anywhere, could actually believe that the Korean War was caused by American invasion. :bravo: Excellent link! LMAO

Geoff

And their proof would be....?

So, your point is that North Korean communist zeal in the persecution of its own class enemies can be ignored and excused...in preference to the idea that they invaded the South to "save" it. I see. I wonder if North Korean soldiers committed any atrocities themselves during any of their offensives? But that of course would not be in keeping with the behaviour of the enlightened saviour, now would it?

Comrade Geoff

I beg to differ.

Beg or differ if you like; it changes nothing. Now how about answering some of my questions, as I have done all of yours?

Geoff

And their proof would be....?

So, your point is that North Korean communist zeal in the persecution of its own class enemies can be ignored and excused...in preference to the idea that they invaded the South to "save" it. I see. I wonder if North Korean soldiers committed any atrocities themselves during any of their offensives? But that of course would not be in keeping with the behaviour of the enlightened saviour, now would it?

Comrade Geoff

I would imagine killing hundreds of thousands of nationalists and socialists in the South might engender a civil war, don't you think?

Besides the point anyway. All the references are given at the end.

Beg or differ if you like; it changes nothing. Now how about answering some of my questions, as I have done all of yours?

Geoff

From the original topic where you claimed religion explained everything, the incidents in Africa, Arabia. Korea and Latin America all show a consistency that indicates that it is the degree of Western intervention which determines how regressive a society becomes.

Political interference plays a much bigger role than religion.

If the West would like to see democracy and progress in the ME, they have to stop interfering in and directing the internal politics and governance.

I would imagine killing hundreds of thousands of nationalists and socialists in the South might engender a civil war, don't you think?

First, it was the killing of tens of thousands. Let's not exaggerate.

Second, did the killing of hundreds of thousands in the North engender a civil war? If one side is stocked to the hilt with Soviet and Chinese weapons, is it really a civil war any longer? Which country is in a better economic position now?

Besides, the point anyway. All the references are given at the end.

No. It is the lapse in uniform treatment that is the point. I am a socialist, even a communist, but not a stupid one.

Geoff

From the original topic where you claimed religion explained everything, the incidents in Africa, Arabia. Korea and Latin America all show a consistency that indicates that it is the degree of Western intervention which determines how regressive a society becomes.

Incorrect. Those areas were regressive long before the Americans arrived on the scene, and still are. Lest you think Abraham Lincoln wrote sharia and fiqh for the Caliphates? :D

Political interference plays a much bigger role than religion.

Political religion is political religion.

If the West would like to see democracy and progress in the ME, they have to stop interfering in and directing the internal politics and governance.

Yes; because they were certainly headed in that direction prior. Why, it explains the Armenian genocide, and sharia, and dhimmitude all in one. Admittedly, 1400 years is not long enough for some systems; and entirely too much time for others.

Whosoever graspeth political islam hath grasped a firm handhold - around the throat of his neighbour.

Geoff

First, it was the killing of tens of thousands. Let's not exaggerate.

Second, did the killing of hundreds of thousands in the North engender a civil war? If one side is stocked to the hilt with Soviet and Chinese weapons, is it really a civil war any longer? Which country is in a better economic position now?

Is the better economic position of one compensation for the starvation, sanctions and dictatorship in the other?

No. It is the lapse in uniform treatment that is the point. I am a socialist, even a communist, but not a stupid one.

Geoff

What was the position of Korea before the USSR and USA decided to share it between them?

Incorrect. Those areas were regressive long before the Americans arrived on the scene, and still are. Lest you think Abraham Lincoln wrote sharia and fiqh for the Caliphates? :D



Political religion is political religion.



Yes; because they were certainly headed in that direction prior. Why, it explains the Armenian genocide, and sharia, and dhimmitude all in one. Admittedly, 1400 years is not long enough for some systems; and entirely too much time for others.

Whosoever graspeth political islam hath grasped a firm handhold - around the throat of his neighbour.

Geoff

You're very one-sided in your evaluation, since you appear to conveniently forget the stranglehold the West has had over the ME for the past 60 years, the same period when they evolved out of their Holocaust and endorsed civil rights as well as women's rights.

As for Lincoln, you might want to ask Fraggle Rocker about him.

Is the better economic position of one compensation for the starvation, sanctions and dictatorship in the other?

No. The sanctions are the result of infamously poor political handling. North Koreans don't even have the benefit of an immensely powerful imaginary friend to cradle them after they die of starvation because their government chooses to buy tanks rather than food, and here you are, dancing on their graves.

What was the position of Korea before the USSR and USA decided to share it between them?

Ah! So understanding is coming. The US and the USSR. Better.

Geoff

No. The sanctions are the result of infamously poor political handling. North Koreans don't even have the benefit of an immensely powerful imaginary friend to cradle them after they die of starvation because their government chooses to buy tanks rather than food, and here you are, dancing on their graves.

Ah! So understanding is coming. The US and the USSR. Better.

Geoff

Right now, however, the strings are being pulled by?

You're very one-sided in your evaluation, since you appear to conveniently forget the stranglehold the West has had over the ME for the past 60 years, the same period when they evolved out of their Holocaust and endorsed civil rights as well as women's rights.

And again: is sharia and dhimmitude the fault of the evil, evil West with their evil, evil human rights and no proper respect for Allah, the imaginary friend of islam? And even assuming your thesis is correct, what should the Americans do?: pay off the evil dictatorships that rule with an iron islamic hand, or pay off the evil islamic radicals that want to rule with a really iron islamic hand? Is there a reason that Indian resistance to British control was ecumenical and the upsurge in the ME is religious?

As for Lincoln, you might want to ask Fraggle Rocker about him.

What a quaint straw man. Look! He has a stovepipe hat on.

Geoff

Right now, however, the strings are being pulled by?

Kim's ego.

And again: is sharia and dhimmitude the fault of the evil, evil West with their evil, evil human rights and no proper respect for Allah, the imaginary friend of islam? And even assuming your thesis is correct, what should the Americans do?: pay off the evil dictatorships that rule with an iron islamic hand, or pay off the evil islamic radicals that want to rule with a really iron islamic hand? Is there a reason that Indian resistance to British control was ecumenical and the upsurge in the ME is religious?



The fact that religion has been a strongly uniting factor in the ME perhaps?

One that crosses the tribal barriers? And the total absence of any sort of political movement before the division of Arab lands by the British? A lack of experience with political systems?

Kim's ego.

Did he elect himself to the "Axis of Evil":rolleyes: ?

The fact that religion has been a strongly uniting factor in the ME perhaps?

One that crosses the tribal barriers? And the total absence of any sort of political movement before the division of Arab lands by the British? A lack of experience with political systems?

Is it the same reason that religious minorities are second-class citizens? Can that be a more generalized excuse, applicable to any scenario?: God made them do it? What a wondrous all-in-one that is.

Did he elect himself to the "Axis of Evil":rolleyes: ?

As a matter of fact, yes. Sam, is there some reason it would be impossible for him to simply be a bad leader? Are you drawn to facists or something?

Is it the same reason that religious minorities are second-class citizens? Can that be a more generalized excuse, applicable to any scenario?: God made them do it? What a wondrous all-in-one that is.

Minorities are second class citizens in any social group. The degree of oppression can be linked to the degree of education and social awareness, both of which are dependent on a progressive political structure that expands to include all.

Like the Dalits in India.

As a matter of fact, yes. Sam, is there some reason it would be impossible for him to simply be a bad leader? Are you drawn to facists or something?

I would rather see problems resolved than compounded.

Minorities are second class citizens in any social group.

Legally? In an egalitarian society?

I would rather see problems resolved than compounded.

I agree; that's why he should go.

Sam, the Dalits are an example: but what we're talking about here is a common politico-religious thread in legalized second-class citizenship.