True, but even after the war, they haven't moved one inch in the same direction as Vietnam. Look. I'm not saying that Islam isn't the right religion for Iran. If Iranians want Islam, so be it. But Muslims can't hide behind the notion that their total lack of success on the international stage is the US's fault whilst another nation that was PUMMELED by the US (far worse than ANYTHING done by Iraq in Iran) has somehow jumped leaps and bounds ahead of where it was. I didn't say that Vietnam was all rosie, just that compared it's advances from 1975 to 1995 with Iran's advances from 1980 to 2000? You'll see a marked difference, DESPITE the fact that Vietnam suffered FAR worse than any other nation on Earth has at the hands of the USA. And for another, Vietnam doesn't have hundreds of billions of dollars flowing in every year from oil revenue. IT has to rely on its ingenuity and not cushy petrol dollars for investment. Your other analogies don't sit right: Iran has all the makings of an industrialized nation: large stable population, centralized powerful government, cheep labor, LOTS of capital to invest... hmmm why is it that it hasn't advanced? Rivers & fertile land? You've got to be kidding with me. I won't deny the effects that a sound agrarian policy can have on industry: but Vietnam exports more industrial goods than any other Middle Eastern nation. Hmm... it's been the saving grace of Russia, Norway and Malaysia. Why not Iran? So, then am I to ascertain that we shouldn't debate the issue of the Middle East, and just blame them on the USA? OR are we to just excuse horrific actions because they are overshadowed by someone else's actions and/or influence? When is it right to look at an issue that is essentially non-American, and call it what it is? Look: I'm all for highlighting and debating all the nasty American issues. But, just the same: we have to be open to the fact, and be EQUALLY willing to debate, discuss, highlight the issues of other nations, cultures and religions. Again, not all issues come back on the USA. A great many of them do, but you can't always fall back on excuses that amount to, "Sure they do bad things, but BEHOLD what evils Americans do!" How is that even logical? So while the USA does bad stuff, everybody else's bad deeds get brushed under the carpet and/or blamed on the overwhelmingly negative influence of America? How does that make any logical sense? Lastly, I would say this: I'm not denying any of the accusations laid at the feet of the USA. But just like any person has to eventually be judged for his/her own actions, DESPITE earlier parental mishaps and/or influences, modern Islam has to be judged for what it is now. One can look at the past to ascertain the "why's" and the "how's", but right now, Islam is believed and led by very intelligent and competent minds. Those minds that guide Islam and Islamic nations are accountable for their actions and cannot fall back on the excuse: "Well, it's not our fault, it's T.E. Lawrence's & Gertrude Bell's, the Ottoman Empire's, America's, France's, Israel's or the UK's." Either Islamic people are adults with adult competencies or they are children. Which is it? ~String
Thats where she's from! but I think she still resides and studies somewhere in the U.S ...yes that evil evil country only to get a her prestigous little degree!
That is what I call shoddy journalism. I can't believe that in the 21st century people still churn out this sort of nonsense.
It's always "shoddy journalism" or some such excuse whenever Islam is criticized or brought to light. Please point out the exact inaccuracies of the article and provide the evidence to support your argument.
On January 1, to ring in the “infidel” New Year, Islam Online managed to outdo itself. It published a poem – and advertised it on all of its web pages, including its homepage – detailing the steps that one goes about to behead human beings. Here is exactly what the group posted, which is still up on its own page within Islam Online’s ‘Arts & Culture’ section: How to Behead Hold him Tie the arms behind his back And bandage his legs together Just by the ankles Blindfold the punk So that he won't hesitate as much For on seeing the sharp pointy knife He'll begin to shake And continuously scream like an eedyat And jiggle like a jelly Trust me–this will sure get you angry It’s better to have at least two or three brothers by your side Who can hold the fool Because as soon as the warm sharp knife Touches his naked flesh He'll come to know what'll happen It's not as messy or as hard as some may think, It's all about the flow of the wrist. No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream But ignore the donkey's ass And continue to slice back and forth You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe But don't stop Continue with all your might. About now you should feel the knife vibrate, You can feel the warm heat being given off, But this is due to the friction being caused.
Excuse me if I don't thank you We're supposed to consider such issues according to context. Enlightenment will not prevail amid poverty and exploitation. If we really want to blame a certain people or their religion, we need to leave them to their devices and stop interfering in their cultures. Unfortunately for everyone, though, the recovery of the mideast and the third world will take generations, and thus tends to require more patience than "civilized" and "enlightened" Westerners are generally willing to show. When the situation is so simplistic. You would use the phrase "we have to be open to the fact"? It is, precisely, the irrationality of the Western outlook, the stolid determination to judge and condemn, that invites such blunt counterpoints. The equivalent would be for some alien species to look at Democrats and Republicans in the United States and thereby condemn the whole of humanity. At which point one of their academics might venture the point, "You know, we eat our young if we deem them imperfect at birth." And another would wonder, "What the gzordimuk does that have to do with anything?" It's not always about that. Sometimes it's simply about reminding that we ought not judge entire cultures so brutally. Sometimes it makes sense because we have a hand in it. We come back to the phrase, "all things being equal." Because, all things being equal, life is what it is. But all things are not equal. American exceptionalism also includes our exceptional power and influence. In the nearly thirty years since the Iranian Revolution, for instance, we have yet to regard Iran as a country we can work positively with. Now, admittedly Khomeni didn't help that situation, but his death did not signal the automatic and total end of the problems his reign brought. We Americans rarely identify Iran according to its people, and tend to judge the whole society by its leaders. Are the leaders power hungry? Yes, it would seem so. I know, let's blame Islam. It's not like any other human beings, say, Christians or Americans or Chinese or Taoists? Right? Would you look at the CCRs and evangelicals (some would pretend they're separate groups) in the United States and define the whole of Christianity according to that outlook? What would that definition be, String? Really, don't be afraid to say it: If you looked at the so-called "CCRs" and evangelical Christians whose politics are a powerful influence in American society and defined the whole of Christianity according to your opinion of that particular movement, what would that definition be? Furthermore, if you actually did go back and read post #79, we can go so far as to skip the evangelicals, per se, and note that one of the things that makes the American endeavor work as well as it does is the fact that Christianity in this country is apostate. Are you prepared to condemn the whole of Christianity as apostate? As a general statement, I would go so far as to make the assertion, and it's hard to avoid the fact that it would, indeed, equal a condemnation of the faith in most people's opinions. So my question would be to ask what empowers and sustains that apostasy? And then I would ask whether you see those factors present in "Islamic" society. I've gone so far as to assert generally that it is wealth (e.g., greed) that empowers and sustains the American Christian apostasy. And I am confident that the specific factors describing that wealth and greed are not generally present (available) in Islamic societies. If you wish to "judge" Islam, all I'm asking is that you do so according to its status in the human endeavor. Attempting to hold it to a standard that depends on factors not present in Islamic society is an exercise in foolishness. If you prefer to think of things simplistically, think of it this way: (Islam) x (status) = (Value) (American) x (status) = (Value) Would you assert that the variable (status) is equal in each equation? Or would you simply throw out that variable, thereby ignoring history and its effects, in order to make it easier to reach your (Value) judgment? The ideologies are different, obviously. And yes, I prefer the American ideology to that I observe in the Islamic world. But a straight comparison of the two general paradigms that ignores history and its effects on the human condition within each classification is irresponsible. The thing is that people I'm expected to think of as intelligent—yourself included—are either playing stupid in that you are simply unable to grasp the point, or are viciously presuming S.A.M. stupid in order to not have to consider what her point might actually be. It is far easier to condemn a figment made surrogate than address the deeper, more complex issues at hand. And I don't actually think you're stupid, String. Maybe some of our other members who play the game, but not all of them, and certainly not you. To the other, though, I don't understand what profit you expect by holding your neighbors in such contempt. So S.A.M. and some others don't buy American and Western myths that strive to cast us as a blameless, noble people who have in our hearts naught but a pure idealism that so many among us openly condemn as foolish. That's no reason for folks to forfeit their intellectual prowess in pursuit of retribution. And sure, this form of retribution isn't bloody. But it's retribution, vengeance—vice—nonetheless. Whatever the problems facing the Islamic world, we in the West should have nothing to say about them if we are incapable of addressing them honestly and genuinely. We, and they, are part of the same human endeavor. If we refuse to give them any reason to accept that common bond, why would they want to? They're human beings, and your bigotry that demands the satisfaction of casting judgment and aspersion only reiterates the paucity of your standard of "adult competencies". If condemnation is so important to you, String, so be it. Just don't be surprised or outraged if other people find that priority repugnant, ridiculous, ignorant and juvenile. Given how many people in the U.S. seem to share your lust for judgment, would it be fair to condemn Americans, then, according to your sweeping standard? So be it. We're all repugnant, ridiculous, ignorant, and juvenile. Excuse me, then, if I don't thank you.
I'd like to see any Western country, bombed and treated the way the Middle Eastern countries have been for the past 60 years, reciprocate the way they have. How would any western country respond to militants being armed, anti-government elements being supported, democracy being undermined by using undue influence in their countries? How would they respond?
(Insert title here) It's the internet. Anyone with an opinion can find a place to voice it. FrontPage Magazine is a perfect example of that. • • • Uh ... in this case, dude, it's FrontPage Magazine. Good journalism is so much a minority at FPM that we are within reasonable bounds to consider it an accident if it occurs. Such a prim demand coming from you is hilarious, but it's easy enough: Well, in the first place, Kaufman might try pushing a legitimate link. For some reason, he is unwilling to go to the source. The link he offers in his article is not, in fact, to Islam Online, but to a propaganda site called Americans Against Hate. Unfortunately, because Kaufman chose to go with a secondary interpretation instead of the source, we are left scouring around the web in order to figure out what the hell he's talking about. To the other, viewing the AAH page and its "analysis", it is apparent that their characterizations of the discussions at Islam Online are lacking, to say the least. Just for starters. I always wonder about people who post deliberately inaccurate links and then primly demand that other people "point out the exact inaccuracies of the article and provide the evidence to support [their] argument". To the one, cynicism suggests it doesn't really matter, since you're not being honest to begin with. To the other, if you actually believe the crap you're pushing, there really isn't any point in arguing with such fanaticism. If it's not worth it to you to bring a proper, useful argument, why should anyone else play snipe-hunt for your satisfaction? If you want a dialogue, post in good faith. If not, keep up with what you're doing. • • • That's a question most prefer to avoid. To judge by how easily our home-grown firearms fanatics, by their own claims, would shoot someone, it seems pretty obvious that Americans under occupation would fight a scrappy, vicious, downright effective guerilla war. To the other, it's a hard question since (A) we're so powerful as a nation, and (B) we're so geographically vast. As to the second point, during World War II, cartoonist Theodore Geisel (yes, him) published a number of frames harshly criticizing noninterventionists, pacifists, and others who thought the war in Europe wasn't our business. Much of the condemning rhetoric surrounded the idea that the Nazis would, upon conquering Europe, come and conquer the United States. My response to such ideas is fairly simple: (1) As if. (2) Like they could hold the territory, even if they somehow managed to win. The scare tactic was, at its heart, irrational. Unless, of course, the good Doctor and his fellows were willing to pretend that Americans would lose such a fight, or that they would simply give over. Considering point (A) above, though, the political and military might of the American government suggests that if Americans ever find themselves fighting a scrappy, vicious, downright effective guerilla war, it will be against our own government. Difficult, indeed, is the pretense that Americans would permit the situation to get so far out of hand. On the one hand, the current imperial slide should never have gone so far as it has. To the other, though, it's a long way from where we are to the fulfillment of the apocalyptic militiaman's wet dreams.
tiassa: Just look over the last 250 years of American history for the answer. Think threat and response
It's a disaster, it's an incredible mess. In that context, I'm left thinking of a song by O.K. Go: "It's A Disaster" Crash and burn, crash and burn, crash and burn (crash and burn): Patience is the hallmark of the old and the infirm. Lived and learned, lived and learned, lived and learned (lived and learned): Out lived their lust and traded want in for concern, Singing, "That's all right! Yeah that's all right!" Aw that's all all all— So come on down, come on down, come on down (come on down): Get out our pestilence and vice and pass them around. And blow this town, blow this town, blow this town (blow this town): Jump off this ship before the shit just runs aground, Singin', "That's all right, Aw, that's all right." Aw that's all all all— It's a disaster! It's an incredible mess! But it's all we've got now. Yeah it's all we got! Howling with laughter, panic, alarm, and distress! But it's all we've got now. Yeah it's all we got! Head or tails, heads or tails, heads or tails (heads or tails): Are you dumb enough to break the mold, or smart enough to fail? Oh happy trails, happy trails, oh happy trails (happy trails): Can't beat a little bit of envy in your sails. Singin', That's all right! Yeah that's all right. Oh that's all all all— But it's a disaster! It's an incredible mess! But it's all we've got now. Yeah it's all we got! Howling with laughter, panic, alarm, and distress! But it's all we've got now. Yeah it's all we got! We've got this great thing going, and people try so hard to sell it to their kids. Yet, as I've grown up I've come to understand that it's only the dreamers and fools that actually believe it. For everyone else, "reality" reminds that such noble visions as the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave are just too damned expensive. I just hope we hold on long enough to finally get it right.
It hasn't done Russia all that much good, Norway had a sound government and economic structure before it had to handle the oil windfall, and Malaysia is heavily Muslim, which sort of alters the direction of argument. A comparison of Iran to Vietnam corrected for circumstances might be like comparing Texas to California. Why is Texas so poor ? Fundie Christianity ? Plays a role, sure, but there are other factors. Look, I agree with your indictment of Islam. But Iran is and has been in much different circumstances than Vietnam, and Vietnam is unusual even among similar countries - compare Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Laos. And the US has had an obvious role in discouraging liberalization of Iran by its own people, and pinning on Iran a fundie reactionary theocratic regime. That is much different than the regime that came to power in Vietnam. The US is to blame for its efforts, and their partial success at least, in putting and keeping fundie Islamic reactionaries in power in several ME states. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the various Gulf States etc, at least appear to have suffered as a consequence, from the developmental point of view. The Cold War was insufficient excuse even at the time. There is less excuse now.
I don't think they would react by hanging homosexuals, or young women who were victims of statuatory rape. I don't think one sect would go into the houses of worship of another sect of the same religion and set off explosives to kill women and children. I don't think they would behead innocent reporters. Islam has been a violent religion since long before the recent events. Islam was dealing in assassinations since at least the end of the eleventh century. I can understand Muslems not wanting to admit it but the fact is, Islam is a violent religion that does not value human life. That may not be the intent of the religion but it is how all too many of its adherents interpret it.
A review of the recent roles of Catholicism and Communism in South and Central America, say in the last fifty years of the 20th Century, might temper such judgments. Without going back into the well-known wars of recent centuries in Europe. Or the religious adherences and justifications within the US military, in recent years.
Let me put it this way. After 800 years of Muslim rule, the Indians are still speaking their own language and running their own country and practising their own (and varied) religions. Hows it going on your side?
Some of the worst of the fascist regimes in the region have been heavily Catholic, and the horrors they committed were often excused or justified as being necessary in the fight against godless Communism (or inflicted on pagan Indios, etc). Do I really need a citation? You didn't know the Argentinian "Dirty War" was waged by Catholics, for example ? You even have a split within the Church, in places like Honduras and Guatemala and Colombia, with atrocities worse than and similar to (or even identical with) beheadings committed by State Catholics against Liberation Catholics allied with trade unions and journalists and other Communists.
