Muslims are not inherently violent

I love how folks like the OP point to isolated incidents like this and try to say that "right wing fundamentalists" are on the same level as muslims, who commit atrocities such as these on a routine basis throughout the world.

I hate to risk trivializing the horrid tragedy in Norway by making a sports analogy, but people like the OP remind me of aggys when they point to the 2010 football season (a once in a decade anomaly) and then say "see, our program is better than UT's" and "see, recruiting rankings don't matter'.

Pointing to one anomaly of radical "christian" violence against a clear and consistent trend of muslim violence, and even wider sympathy for violence in the muslim world, fails miserably to prove the intended point.
 
HP and I don't agree a great deal on policy matters, but I can't find a single fault with his background on Operation Ajax.
I will say probably there were memos circulating that were worried about Iran aligning with the USSR, but even that was more about them aligning oil interests than anything else. Bottom line US wanted not only access and control of the oil in Iran, but also the income from the production.
 
Agreed Borna. Agreed.

Slugga, if I didnt know any better I would say you are my brother incognito.... and not because we agree on this issue, but just in the way you present your information and and clarity of your points. You and he are definitely on the same plane. Then again, he is an attorney. Something tells me you would make a good one.

If our politicians and "leaders" would just come clean that it is about national interest, and not about democracy and the betterment of the people, then I could at least sit back and say, "at least they are honest."

US middle eastern policy has always been about oil and control of "our" natural resources. We supported Saddam and the Shah and the Saudi family because of it. Not because they stood for democracy.

This is why I have consistently stated that the violence and hatred we see agains the US and the West is in many respects our own fault.

Do we know what the world would be like if Islamic countries were free to do as they pleased, without Western intervention? Im not sure, but I dont think that it would mean that Islam would be warring against the West. Thats highly speculative. If anything, our actions over the decades have only fueled the extremists and helped them to gain more followers than if the US had actually made efforts to improve the lives of those in the ME. I think you would see a more willing public to espouse Western thought and a Western way of life.
 
borna_horn, you may want to consider removing the photo of two unabashed Christians from your signature.
 
[qwuote]The muslims who commit these atrocities are still "right wing fundamentalists." The only difference is they are organized and much greater in number than other right wing fundamentalists.
 
Hpslugga,
I think we were basically agreeing about Iran. Beyond that I don't even know if we are talking about the same things at all.

The equating of 'right-wing X' to 'right-wing Z' doesn't seem to make sense at all to me. You just seem to be labeling all types of nut jobs as 'right-wing' and saying they are the problem. Do you leave out 'left-wing' folks? The above poster mentions several who were definately standing in the way of peace and committed all types of atrocities.
The problem to me isn't right wing or left wing. The problem is when those terms are followed by 'nut job.' Nut jobs are not limited to any religion, or to any political identity nor nationality. Nut jobs do as nut jobs are.
 
HPslugga,
I'm jiving with you now, and I agree in your 'statist' terming. Much better than my feeble attempt at a description.
 
Prodigal,

I think that applies to 99% of "Christians" in the US: in name only.

The US is not a Christian country in actuality, regardless of what most American's claim to be religiously. Likewise, most Muslims in America arent really Muslims. They dont fast, pray five times a day or abstain from alcohol or other vices. The vast majority of us pick and choose what aspects we want to go with and then pretend that our lack of adherence to the other tenents is ok.
 
I apologize in advance for the length of the following post. Unfortunately, it's necessary in this case to be long-winded.
 
Hpslugga,

Yes, let’s do discuss the issue of “consistent patterns”; because I was reminded, as I read through your post, of our first exchange a couple years ago, when you suggested we all read the Imperial Brain Trust for an excellent account of American foreign policy in the 20th century. I noted that the book was a Marxist history, and for that I was accused of being a pretty horrible person, who was merely throwing out a poison word in order to avoid “serious” discussion on the topic. You claimed with all seriousness that the book had nothing to do with Marxism, until I pointed out that the book described itself as a “Marxian economic history” right there in the first sentence of its forward.

The issue we now consider is kind of like that, in the sense that I have more command of the documents in question than you do. Let me put it bluntly: Either (1) you haven’t actually read PPS/23, or (2) you have intentionally misrepresented Kennan’s point of view. Deception is not your game; therefore I am forced to conclude that you haven’t read the document, and that, instead, you were merely quoting the portions of it that you stumbled across in some Marxist-oriented secondary history—very likely Imperial Brain Trust—and that your horizon of understanding cannot be larger than the scope of the limited quotation and the context in which the authors of that book framed it.

But let’s look at that quote again; here’s how you cited it:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I've actually read it in full. Where you get confused is when you fail to understand that 1) there are people in this world that have different values than you do and 2) you are not a better person than them, nor they you, because of those differences. Furthermore, I was right in asserting that you haven't read a whole roster of things I've referred to here and elsewhere, so I'm not sure how that puts you on some sort of pedestal. You repeatedly dodge points that I (and others) have put to you while accusing me of dodging points you (and others) have put to me, you've misrepresented what I've said while accusing me of misrepresenting what you (or others) have said, and you continually want to make my views the central issue of the discussion. It can never be that you have a bias or that you could ever be wrong. This is why I say lines of discussion like this are not serious. Further, they are a waste of time and a practice in irrationality. The only reason I participate in them is because I haven't had much to do this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top