The short of it is, a Muslim in Britain noticed that the lid on BK's ice cream cones (ice cream cones have lids?) featured a swirled-cone design that, when turned 90 degrees CCW, resembles the arabic word for Allah. Initiate apology and recall.
What does everyone think, a little crazy or a lot of crazy?
Edit - Maybe I should be more worried, but I really found the quote from the Muslim who reported this really quite funny.
[ March 16, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think it's crazy that ice cream cones have lids to begin with. Why would an ice cream cone have a lid? That's just wrong. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
See, now if it looked like the Virgin Mary people would be worshipping it. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Or selling it on ebay.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Maybe Muslims should re-design their Allah script so that it doesn't look so much like random swirls that people might draw Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Wow. That's really ridiculous.
Hardly worthy of a boycott.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Makes good business sense to just change the design. Why antagonize an entire faith over something so small?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It might make good business sense, but it's still ridiculous that it caused offense. It wasn't THAT similar, it was obviously not intentional, and it's a freakin' swirl. I doodle things like that all the time, maybe they should boycott me. But I don't sell anything.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I just showed the picture of the cone (without the script next to it) to my Muslim friend from Saudi Arabia and asked her what she thought. She immediately said it resembled the word for Allah. Of course, she said there are a whole lot of words and symbols which resemble the word for Allah, so it's not too surprising. She did think it was kind of weird that it was on an ice cream cone, but not sacriligeous.
By the way, the reason the cone has a lid is that it comes pre-wrapped in a little package. Burger King is apparently too cheap to pay for soft-serve machines in Britain.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Be wary as you walk through out your life for the hidden little landmines of Islam.
Yes, it's cheaper and easier for BK to change the design. Yes, they should do that rather than anger customers...
But jeez, I'm tired of bending over backwards for these people and they haven't even instituted Sharia here... (yet)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go draw a comic of the prophet... (Wait, No I won't. I don't want a fatwa....)
Pix
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Muslim world says jump, everyone else says how high. Great.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Our university uses a bank/company for disbursing the loan refunds to students that's called "Higher One." Maybe all of us who believe in God, or a Higher One, should boycott THEM. That seems to be a definite sacrilegious violation, much moreso than a swirl.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Not quite quoting the Pixiest or Swampjedi:
quote: Be wary as you walk throughout your life for the hidden little landmines of Judaism.
I'm tired of bending over backwards for these people and they haven't even instituted Jewish law here yet. I mean, we're the freakin' majority here, not them. If They get offended by something I do that I can easily and painlessly change, then it's Their problem, not mine. Who are They to tell me what I'm doing is offensive to their culture.
OK, I know it's an extreme example comparing apples and oranges, but I'm trying to make a point. Why can't we simply respect another culture's religious beliefs so as to live in harmony with them rather than saying in effect: "their particular belief is silly, so why should I make an effort to offend them"?
I'm not talking about forcing our women to wear veils because a particular minority is offended by the sight of a woman's face. I'm not even talking about forcing Burger King to change it's cone design because it offends someone--if they wanted to institute a new ad campaign featuring a crucifix bathed in urine, I wouldn't favor the government banning it. What I am talking about is people getting all up in arms about changing certain behaviors in non-lifestyle-altering ways in order to be better neighbors. It's this Us vs. Them mentality that drives me nuts.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Well said, Brian.
I'm also alittle put off by people who insist of comparing values of differing faiths. I hear alot of "I wouldn't be offended, so they shouldn't be either." The religions are not the same and the points of emphasis are different. The image of Christ and an image of Mohammad are not regarded with similar attitudes and therefore it is not the place of a Christian to deem what Muslims may or may not be offended by. And this extends to all faiths.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:"The design simply represents a spinning ice-cream cone."
Now, I am totally illiterate in Arabic, but I've seen the script, and everything they write looks like spinning ice cream cones to me.
But what do I know. Chinese script looks like TV antennae to me.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Brian, Your argument would hold water if they were polite about it instead of going ape caca and throwing murderous riots over every little thing... There were no riots, much less murderous ones about "Piss Christ" just a bunch of grousing from the christians.
My comment went beyond the icecream incident. It has nothing to do with who's the majority. It's simply the muslim world acting like petulent children over and over again.
I don't appriciate your fake quote. I know how you meant it and I appriciate the disclaimer at the top, but for someone who doesn't read it carefully it really looks like I said that. (and there are a lot of people who don't read carefully on the internet...)
Pix
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tante, you crack me up. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, 'cause the Christian community never act like petulant children over ANYTHING.
-pH
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
mmm... sacrilicious
There's such a thing as being too sensitive, and I think this is definitely a case of that. It seems like the Muslim community is constantly overreacting to this kind of stuff, I just don't know if it's because they want to prove how afraid everyone is of them when they make threats, or if they are really that fanatical. Not all Muslims obviously, but it's a very loud percentage.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
For the record, I can read Arabic and when I first saw the cone, I immediately thought it referred to Allah. It even has the vowels! Just saying.
However: one crazy attention-seeking man does not a Muslim community/world make. It would be racist and essentializing to think his actions representative of any larger affiliation.
This sort of thing happens in America all the time--remember the lady urging a boycott of McDonald's because their coffee scaled her when she was driving with it between her thighs?
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Exactly Kristen. And if Burger King wants to sell this cone cover in Arabic countries than they should respect the people and customs of that country. Everyone is saying how the muslim world is making people jump but its being sold in an arabic country. If that cone lid had been sold in say france and a bunch of Muslims got angry then i could see it being an overreaction. Just my thoughts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: This sort of thing happens in America all the time--remember the lady urging a boycott of McDonald's because their coffee scaled her when she was driving with it between her thighs?
People seem to recall both the details and the main point of that case in variant and odd ways.
Perhaps this works better as an example of media misrepresentation or urban folklore variation from the source material?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It wasn't in a predominantly Muslim country. It was in the UK.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I guess I'm still steamed over the cartoon scandal. I don't care what Muslim sensitivities are, murderous riots kinda make me utterly non-compliant.
Now that I think about it and bypass the gut reaction, I admire the man for doing what he did. Instead of killing people or inciting violence, he acted as a civic-minded person should. Of course, this assumes that his call for jihad wasn't a call for violence.
I feel like a hypocrite, honestly. What this fellow did is what I'd do, in his shoes.
****
pH, how many Christian murderous rampages can you mention in the last year? How many people have mobs of Christians injured?
I don't have a problem with Muslims. I have a problem with crazy people who want me to believe as they do or die, regardless of their 'religion' or lack of it. I think I can say I loathe the 'Protestant' KKK with just as much passion as I do the radical Islamics.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
O in Britian. Didn't notice that the first time... Well then I am a little more annoyed about the whole thing.
And as to radical christians. I am sure there are some somewhere in the world. Killing and rampaging around. It went on in, was i scotland or ireland? Well the protestants and Catholics were killing eachother in droves. Is that all over now? I hope so...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't care what Muslim sensitivities are, murderous riots kinda make me utterly non-compliant.
It's important to remember that the people involved in those murderous riots represent only a tiny fraction of the Muslim world. To condemn all Muslims and to discount all Muslim concerns because of the egregious behavior of a small percent of Muslims is by definition racist.
I've been appalled at how easily people in the west are willing to justify our racist attitudes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: pH, how many Christian murderous rampages can you mention in the last year? How many people have mobs of Christians injured?
I don't have a problem with Muslims. I have a problem with crazy people who want me to believe as they do or die, regardless of their 'religion' or lack of it. I think I can say I loathe the 'Protestant' KKK with just as much passion as I do the radical Islamics.
What about within the past two thousand years? Crusades, anyone? Forced conversion of natives when the Catholics "discovered" South and Central America?
Arguably, many Christians believe that everyone should do as they do or die.
Oh, and don't even get me started on Katrina being a righteous punishment from God on all the "sinners" of New Orleans. Yeah, all those people just got what they had coming. Especially the gays. Because otherwise, why would the hurricane have hit on the weekend of Southern Decadence (aka Gay Mardi Gras)?
-pH
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
quote:It's important to remember that the people involved in those murderous riots represent only a tiny fraction of the Muslim world. To condemn all Muslims and to discount all Muslim concerns because of the egregious behavior of a small percent of Muslims is by definition racist.
In this case, it's one individual.
I don't like the term 'racist' because it really doesn't take into account that people from all races are Muslim. Anti-arabism, maybe?
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
quote: Oh, and don't even get me started on Katrina being a righteous punishment from God on all the "sinners" of New Orleans. Yeah, all those people just got what they had coming. Especially the gays. Because otherwise, why would the hurricane have hit on the weekend of Southern Decadence (aka Gay Mardi Gras)?
Please tell me this was an example and not your personal opinion. Because I find that that a scary concept. Scary in the "I can't believe people think that way," not scary in the "i think God is going to smite me way."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Of course I don't think that God was smiting the sinners of New Orleans. I live in New Orleans.
But there really, honestly were individuals, religious leaders, and churches who expressed that opinion. It's sick.
-pH
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Good. I agree. It is sick. I doubted that that is what you meant but I wanted to make sure. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Anti-arabism would be wrong to since most Muslims are not Arab. But even more, anti-islamism or anti-semitism are specific terms and I was seeking for a broad term. Perhaps the term "bigoted" would be more accurate but I still prefer the term racists. Webster dictionary defines race as "2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics". By that definition, it is justifiable to refer to Islam or Judaism or Mormonism as races even though they are genetically diverse groups.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Arguably, many Christians believe that everyone should do as they do or die.
Show me those people. Show me the ones that say such a thing - I want to see proof. You have a big burden of proof too, to cover your use of the word "many."
Christian belief is exactly the opposite - we want people to live. We want them to live eternally. That's our goal, that's what we work toward that's what our God commands us to do - go out and make disciples of all nations not so people can die, but so they can live. That's a very far way away from "everyone should do as we do or die."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And the charges of racism come out, of course... *yawn* Just another variation of Godwin's Law...
Pix
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But what happens if people don't become Christians and follow Christian ideals?
Eternal damnation.
There are plenty of religions who have that same viewpoint.
All I'm saying is that "Everybody who is not Our Religion X, which is the Only True Religion, is going to be killed/punished/damned/smited (smitten?) by Thor's Hammer" is not unique to Islam.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Belle,
I agree with you that of course it is. But we certainly can't claim that Christians, as a group, have always acted that way. We have been quite as guilty of the "believe as we do or die" as any religion.
And it is perhaps even more egregious, as that attitude is so clearly contrary to how we are supposed to act.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I suppose the part where I said I had a problem with Muslim extremists was ignored. Sheesh. Lemme repeat it again - I have no problems with Muslims who don't want to kill me or subject me unwillingly to their laws.
pH, only God knows what the point of Katrina was. Anyone who claims otherwise (glares at Pat Robertson) needs to shut up. I find the people who claim it was punishment to be pious simpletons, myself.
Also, I think there's quite a difference in "if you chose that path, you'll die then get damnation" and "if you don't chose our way, we'll kill you and send you to hell." Quite a bit of difference. I don't have a problem with the first. After all, lots of people think the same about me.
Yes, Christians have had issues. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christ. How long ago has that been? Do we need to be constantly crucified for what happened all those years ago? I'm criticizing extreme Islam for what is happening now. Not 500 years ago, not 1000 years ago. Now. I don't hold folks accountable for the sins of their fathers. "You did the same thing when you were little" sounds like a pathetic excuse from a teenager, trying to guilt trip his parents.
I really think you need to be more careful reading posts. I don't appreciate having words stuck in my mouth again. Please don't use me as a focus for whatever animosity you may have toward this subject.
[ March 14, 2006, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Swampjedi ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, Christians have had issues. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christ. How long ago has that been?
How long since when. The crusades ended about 900 years ago? The spanish inquisition was over 500 years ago? Witch hunts ended around 400 years ago. Legal persecution of Mormons ended about a century ago. Prohibition of Native American religions ended less than half a century ago. Mass execution of Jews, JWs and gypsies hasn't happened for 60 years? The most recent IRA bombings were less than 5 years ago. The most recent bombing of an abortion clinic was less than a year ago.
But no, Christians shouldn't be condemned for these acts. The reason its wrong to condemn Christians for these acts isn't because they are all long past but because they all represent the acts of only a subset (and often a very tiny subset) of Christians. It's wrong to condemn all of Christianity for what only some Christians do. That's the point and it is why we bring this up when people start condemning Islam for the current violence.
The point isn't that we did the same thing when we were little. It is that similar things have happened and are happening in our culture right now. Those who want us to believe that violence is a problem unique to Islam are simply wrong. Yes some Muslims use the Koran to justify violent acts. Some Christians use the Bible to justify wars and some Jews use the Torah to justify terrible things. This is a problem of humanity and not the problem of one religion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would appreciate it if you did not use that word as a pejorative. Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Thats just dumb. The letter on the far right is connected to the one on it's left, making it an "l" and not an "a". What that swirly says is more "leleleh" than "allah". Silly people and their reading stuff wrong.
The fact that people are overly aware of Muslim sensitivities comes second to the fact that THE ICE CREAM SPELLS GIBBERISH!
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
My deepest apologies, rivka. I removed it. I can assure you, it won't happen again. [Edit: something tells me there's an object lesson in that. ]
Rabbit, if you'll look, I've been very careful numerous times now to specify that it's extreme people who are the problem. Extreme folks in any group. Any group. Please, please read carefully before posting in the heat of the moment - because I completely agree with you.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I also find it interesting how quickly BK responds to its Muslim customers yet still doesn't provide sufficient healthy and vegetarian food for its Western customers.
Granted, I'm not going to start a jihad over it... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thank you. Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Once again, I'm sorry.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Yes, Christians have had issues. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christ. How long ago has that been? Do we need to be constantly crucified for what happened all those years ago? I'm criticizing extreme Islam for what is happening now. Not 500 years ago, not 1000 years ago. Now. I don't hold folks accountable for the sins of their fathers. "You did the same thing when you were little" sounds like a pathetic excuse from a teenager, trying to guilt trip his parents.
I really think you need to be more careful reading posts. I don't appreciate having words stuck in my mouth again. Please don't use me as a focus for whatever animosity you may have toward this subject.
Well, I find blaming people for a natural disaster and claiming that they don't "deserve" to be helped because they brought it upon themselves to be a horrible thing, and that certainly WAS done in the name of Christ. I can criticize Christianity plenty for things that are being done "now" as opposed to things that happened, say, in the 20th century, since those "don't count."
I don't appreciate you assuming that I had some personal vendetta against you in my posts, and I CERTAINLY don't appreciate you telling me that I'm not reading carefully enough. Believe it or not, the fact that I disagree with what you're saying doesn't mean that I'm not reading what you're saying. And the fact that I'm disagreeing with a sentiment that you as well as a few other people hold doesn't mean that I'm singling you or anyone else out. In fact, my first post on this thread was in direct response to something that The Pixiest said, not you. Believe it or not, I have better things to do with my day than cruise around Hatrack and look for ways to deliberately misread your posts and "use [you] as a focus toward whatever animosity [I] have toward this subject."
You seem to think that I have some sort of terrible, vengeful agenda against Christianity, and that most assuredly is not true.
But don't be surprised if I focus more directly (and negatively) on YOUR posts from now on. Whether or not that's the "mature" thing to do, it certainly is the HUMAN thing to do, given the attitude that you've now displayed towards me. Believe it or not, I don't appreciate you putting words and attitudes into my mouth in the exact same manner as you're accusing me of doing. It's sad, really. I kind of liked you.
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Heh. The pH level of this thread is now uncomfortably acidic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Once again, I'm sorry.
No need to apologize again. I am quite aware that it does not occur to many Christians that there are people who view the Pharisees (I would say Prushim) as beloved and wise ancestors. (aka ChaZaL)
I'm not offended, and I appreciate your consideration of my sensibilities. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I read what you said quite careful and posted in a calm considered manner not in the heat of the moment. I know you said your problem was only with Muslim extremists. My response was most specifically to your inference that Christian violence was different than Islam violence because Christian violence was all ancient history. It isn't. My point was not to condemn you, Islam or Christianity but that if we honestly looked at our own culture we would find more similarity with some of these angry Islamic extremist than we are wont to admit.
Why do you consider it important to mention the religion of the extremists at all? Why does it matter? Violence is an inappropriate way to address problems. Period. It doesn't matter whether you are a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Marxist, an Anarchist, a Republican, a Democrat or a Chicago Bulls fan. Violence is not ethical. You don't have to look very hard to see that no one group is more violent than the others.
The problem in the world today is that far too many people on everyside have a double standard. One standard to justify their own actions and another for the actions of others. We condemn the use of violence by terrorists, but condone the use of much greater violence by our own countries. International laws that say its OK for countries to bomb but not OK for rebels to bomb have no ethical justification beyond protect those who already have power. That double standard is at the root of many problems.
The recent riots in many parts of the world were not a simple response to a few mean spirited cartoons. They were a reflection of wide spread fears that our "war on terror" is really a war on Islam.
People have been far to quick to condemn people as irrational zealots and far to slow to look at the whole environment that leads to these events.
The Piss Christ didn't lead to Christian's rioting in the streets because no Christians were seriously worried that laws might be passed that restrict their right to worship. No Christians were worried that their homes might be bombed and their children shot. No Christians were worried that they might disappear into a secret prison. When the Piss Christ was made, there no one was seriously calling for an all out war on Christianity.
But these things are happening, at least on a small scale, to Muslims right now. Is it any wonder in the current environment that many Muslim people are scared?
When people are scared, they over react, and they often react with violence. This isn't a tenet of Islam nor is it unique to Muslims. It is a human character trait. If we recognized that perhaps we would do more to promote better understanding rather than throwing more fuel on the fire.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Ouch . I'm sorry that I've come off that way. I absolutely don't think that you have any vendetta against me. It just seemed to me that I said something that hit one of your pet peeves. I do that sometimes - heck, I did it here. Like being misunderstood. I stated several times that I was against Christian abortion clinic bombers and KKK members just as much as Muslim rioters, and still the criticism kept coming up.
I wonder how many times I'll apologize on this thread. I do like to argue passionately, but I don't want to make people mad. I'm sorry I've done that to you. You're welcome to focus negatively on my posts if you want - I deserve that.
Now, to focus on your points -
You're right. Pat Robertson, among others, claims all sorts of stuff in the name of Christ. Nothing makes me madder. I would love to root out all of the unChristlike behavior in Christians everywhere - but I can only do that in myself. [Of course, as my post above shows, I am not the best at that.]
However, I still see that as very different from what some radical Muslims are doing. Robertson claimed some natural event as the hand of God. Radical Muslims will act as the hand of God, and destroy the city and kill the people themselves. That's a huge difference.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Rabbit - agreed. Christian violence and stupidity is worse to me, because it angers me that people could twist the Bible that way. My only point was just because members of "my group" were/are bad doesn't mean I can't criticize members of "their group" for something similar.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:My only point was just because members of "my group" were/are bad doesn't mean I can't criticize members of "their group" for something similar.
My question is "Why do we persist in identifying violent individuals as "Muslims", or "Christians" in the first place?" In doing so we imply that Islam or Christianity is somehow responsible for the violence. This implication is far more dangerous when we make the criticism against another group than when we make it against our own group.
I know Christian teachings pretty well and find it very difficult to understand how anyone could twist the words of Christ to justify violence. When I hear people like Pat Robertson using Christianity to justify hate I'm apalled but I know that he is not representative of the teaching of Christ.
I haven't studied the Koran so I don't really understand Islam in the way I understand Christianity. When some Muslim claims that the Koran justifies crimes against humanity, I am much more likely to assume there is some truth in his words. I think most westerners are in this same situation. When a Muslim extremist speaks, we have a tendency to assume that this extremism is indicative of some deep flaw in Islam as a whole in a way we are unlikely to do with Christians.
When I point out that Christian extremists have been and still are guilty of many of the same extremes, it is not to say we can't criticize members of "their group" for something similar.
The point is to teach by analogy. You know that Christ taught a gospel of love and peace yet still some extremists are able to twist his teachings to justify hate and war. Nothing Christ said can justify the torture, killing and hatred that extremists have done in his name. If this is true for my religion, then perhaps it is true of Islam as well. Perhaps what so called "Islamic Extremists" are doing is as far removed from Mohammad's teaching as Hitler acts were removed from Christ's teachings. Perhaps all this hatred and violence has nothing to do with religion at all, but simply reflects a basic human tendency to justify what we want to do by distorting our cultures moral codes.
My deepest fear is that we have entered into a positive feedback loop. Islamic peoples are afraid that the West is out to destroy their religion and western peoples are afraid that they are out to destroy our freedoms. In that state of fear, we say things against Islam that many Muslims take as evidence that we really are out to destroy their faith. They then respond ways that we take as evidence that they really are opposed to our freedoms. I fear that the whole situation is spinning out of control. If it continues, extremist on both sides who want an all out war between Islam and west will get their way and millions will die.
What we need now are strong voices of reason and compassion. People who are willing to put aside their fears and seek real understanding. Unfortunately, no one seems to be taking that role. Instead the media seems to grasp every opportune ice cream cone lid to fan the flames.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I think it's human nature to group people who are outside our own "group" however it is defined.
I think, as for the rest, you're spot on. This is the conclusion that I've reached having been posting here today.
The media is a major problem. Extremes sell, and so that's what we get.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: You're right. Pat Robertson, among others, claims all sorts of stuff in the name of Christ. Nothing makes me madder. I would love to root out all of the unChristlike behavior in Christians everywhere - but I can only do that in myself. [Of course, as my post above shows, I am not the best at that.]
However, I still see that as very different from what some radical Muslims are doing. Robertson claimed some natural event as the hand of God. Radical Muslims will act as the hand of God, and destroy the city and kill the people themselves. That's a huge difference.
I think that advocating the neglect of a devastated city is ALSO attempting to act as the hand of God. The thing is, I am really, really upset by Christians like that as well because they make life that much more difficult for Christians like myself (and probably you, as well!). In other words, because some Christians are so harsh and judgmental towards others, I, as a Christian, feel the need to overcompensate in order to keep people from shutting me out as "one of THOSE." I mean, I'm far, far from perfect, but I think it's a lot better to be flawed and admit that I'm not always right than it is to claim that you know for certain what God wants and intends and everyone else is a heathen sinner.
Does that make sense?
-pH
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Yes, it makes perfect sense. I had no idea that Robertson had advocated neglect. That's stupid even for him. He missed the mercy part of Jesus, I think?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:He said: "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims."
There are many, many Muslims in England. This is one man.
This is "his" jihad, and it is likely to remain his jihad.
It appears that what BK did was consult some recognized authorities on things of concern to the Muslim community -- the Muslim Council of Britain. That body has commended BK. Seems like a win-win for BK. Even though they are spending "thousands of pounds" you really can't get advertising that good for so little money. Sure, it might lose them some business from people who will be upset either because they didn't notice in the first place (like Mr. "my jihad") and from some who are upset because they "caved in to Muslim demands." But everyone else? They'll acknowledge that BK did a smart and sensitive thing. Certainly many Muslims who don't mind eating at BK already will be supportive and understanding. That can't really hurt.
Also...please remember that the riots and the murders, and rock throwing, and what have you, are done by a minority of people within the broader community. An angry minority, to be sure, but still...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And here is Mr. Pat Robertson's latest.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
pH, I totally understand. It makes me really sad when I hear songs like John Lennon's imagine that lump organized religion or christianity in with all the things that are wrong with the world. For me, the teachings of Jesus Christ have been not only a source of comfort and joy but also a motivation to work toward peace and social justice in the world. It grieves me greatly that those same teachings have been used for evil so often many can't see the good in them at all.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
You know, it isn't just Muslims who get all bent out of shape when they perceive something meant innocently as offending their religion. There are folks in all religions, I'd bet, who raise a ruckus when their personal sensibilities are offended by something not meant to be religious in nature.
I've experienced this from Christians before, and I'll tell you all a little story about it.
I used to work as a cashier in a retail store. One day as I was ringing up a customer's purchase, the customer and I got into a friendly little conversation. I can't remember what the conversation, was about or what spurred me to make the offensive comment, but in response to something the customer said, I laughed and replied, "Maybe in my next life."
Well, this set off the next customer in line, who got all red in the face and said something to the effect that she was a Christian and that what I had just said was highly offensive to her. Huh? It was just a figure of speech, I told her. Not good enough. The whole time I was ringing up her purchase (the previous customer had taken off, perhaps afraid that the new customer would start in on him or her next), the woman went on about how I should be ashamed of myself for saying something so Satanic, that I should apologize to her, and that she should report me to the manager and that I should lose my job.
Sheesh. Well, I didn't apologize, because I didn't say anything wrong, and I guess she cooled off and didn't go to the manager because I never heard any more about it. But the incident has always stuck in my mind as an example of how some people seem to think that they have some sort of inalienable right to never have to see or hear anything that offends them, but that they are not bound by any such constraints.
Edited to add, because I didn't see Bob's post before I wrote this:
quote:Outspoken US Christian evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson has accused Muslims of planning world domination, and said some were "satanic".
Isn't that kind of like projection or something. I mean, is he seriously going to sit there and claim that he wouldn't take the job of world dictator if the opportunity presented itself. I've watched that man on TV. He's shameless. But at least I know that he doesn't speak for even a small minority of US Christians. Apparently he hasn't figured out that Islam is not monolithic, despite the use of the word "some".
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
From Bob's article:
quote:[Robertson] went on to say that "Islam is not a religion of peace", and "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen whether you like it or not, is world domination".
The thing is, you could probably say the same thing about Christianity. I could point to all sorts of historical evidence for Christianity's violent tendancies and point out that many sects of Christianity are highly evangelical. This would obviously be just as disengenuous as what Robertson said.
As others before me have noted, it's fostering this kind of Us vs. Them mentality that we don't need.
quote:I mean, is he seriously going to sit there and claim that he wouldn't take the job of world dictator if the opportunity presented itself. I've watched that man on TV. He's shameless.
Exactly.
Also, that woman you mentioned needs some serious cultural diversity experience and fast. There are probably quite a few Buddhists and Hindus who would take offense to what she said, and with much better reason.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Quoting Pix (for real):
quote: Brian, Your argument would hold water if they were polite about it instead of going ape caca and throwing murderous riots over every little thing... There were no riots, much less murderous ones about "Piss Christ" just a bunch of grousing from the christians.
My comment went beyond the icecream incident. It has nothing to do with who's the majority. It's simply the muslim world acting like petulent children over and over again.
I don't appriciate your fake quote. I know how you meant it and I appriciate the disclaimer at the top, but for someone who doesn't read it carefully it really looks like I said that. (and there are a lot of people who don't read carefully on the internet...)
Pix
I didn't mean the quote bit as an attack on you personally, nor did I . My earlier post was spur-of-the-moment and harsh in tone, but I don't regret it, because the point I made still is valid. Though tempered by your later posts, which I appreciate, your initial post--"be wary as you walk through life for the little landmines of Islam . . . I'm tired of bending over backwards for these people" did nothing to separate the actions of radical Muslims from the religion of Islam. Nor did it take into account the other factors that lead to rioting, as Rabbit brought up.
The BK incident is an example of positive relations with another culture. A company inadvertently does something that causes offense to people of another culture, finds out they caused offense, and then rectifies the situation. I didn't see any riots, or any hate-filled diatribes, or anyone "bending over backwards."
Quoting swampjedi:
quote: Now that I think about it and bypass the gut reaction, I admire the man for doing what he did. Instead of killing people or inciting violence, he acted as a civic-minded person should. Of course, this assumes that his call for jihad wasn't a call for violence.
I feel like a hypocrite, honestly. What this fellow did is what I'd do, in his shoes.
Nice to bypass the gut reaction. Now if only everyone else would do it.... (that isn't a dig on anyone specific on the board, btw)
Quoting Rabbit:
quote: It makes me really sad when I hear songs like John Lennon's imagine that lump organized religion or christianity in with all the things that are wrong with the world.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who reacts that way to "Imagine." On one hand you have this great song, all about people uniting to fight hate and violence, trying to live together...and it's ruined by taking a dig at religion. It's sad that people believe that a peaceful world would automatically have to be one without religion.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Imagine really bothers me. It's SOOOO beautiful but then you listen to the words and it's all about communism.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I am tired of people getting so publicly offended by their religious beliefs.
I am a Christian and I try to apply the teachings of Jesus Christ to my walk through life. I screw up and gossip or overreact or judge others just like everyone else but I work to be a better person every day.
I am bombarded with atheist and other anti-Christian messages on a daily basis. Just flip through basic cable to see what I mean. Yet, I am not offended. I see Christian leaders speak out in a way that I feel is completely contradictory to the Bible and I am not offended (disgusted and annoyed but not offended). It bothers me but as a Christian, I think it is my job to look at my world and decide which of things are better for me in my walk with the Lord. I am strong in my faith so things like this do not offend me or change what I believe in. My faith will be the same tomorrow. So it makes me wonder, why are people offended? Does it change your own personal faith to see something offensive? I think it says more about your conviction of faith than it does about the offensive material.
A recent example: We had a Black History Program at my middle school and a female minister came to speak. She read a poem called "The Creation" and spoke about finding purpose in life and going at it with gusto. The message was very appropriate to our student population and was not religious but the poem was. Several of my non-Christian colleagues were highly offended not only that she was a minister but that she read a poem "about God." Both teachers failed to hear the rest of the message since they were so angered and complained to me asking if I was offended even though they know I am a Christian. I told them that this particular poem is in our lit books and is part of the 7th grade curriculum and it bothers me more that we had an assembly for black history but we would be lynched if we ever had a white history assembly (that is another whole can of worms). Both teachers are highly offended by anything Christian and both have alienated students who are believers. I am not offended by their attitudes as a Christian but I have to wonder why they get so upset. If they have such strong convictions, why does it bother them? I think it is because they are not very strong in their beliefs after all and that scares them so they lash out at religion.
We can't go around trying to make the world conform to our religious or moral views. We have to hold onto what we believe in spite of the world. Taking offense is counter-productive and a waste of time and energy.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I am bombarded with atheist and other anti-Christian messages on a daily basis.
I hope you recognize the difference between atheist and anti-Christian.
Because I think the rest of your post is spot-on. I honestly don't understand how such easily offended people manage to not have a nervous breakdown every day.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Jux, of course. Atheist messages are anti-Christian but not all anti-Christian messages are atheist. I say it in that way because one of my friends is offended by being called an atheist even though that is what she is.
And the truth is, she does seem to have a nervous breakdown every day. Maybe if she just had a little faith....
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mandy, I'm an atheist, but I'm not anti-christian. I think there's a lot of cool things about christianity and if I thought there really was a god I'd be one. Heck, I wish there was a god, but all the wishing in the world won't make him real.
I'm glad you have faith. Faith can be a great comfort. So please, don't label me anti-christian just because I don't believe.
I think people are offended by PDC (Public Displays of Christianity) is because it's "cool" to be offended by PDC. Not to mention the fact that some high profile christians have poisoned the image of christianity in general.
Also, it's easy to get upset at the bleakness of atheism. With no afterlife to look forward to it's easy to lose the meaning in one's life. This can cause people to lash out, like Michael Nudow(sp) or our very own KoM. It's people like this who poison the image of atheists.
So on the topic of god, let us, me and thee, agree to disagree and be neither anti-christian nor anti-atheist.
Pix
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think she was kidding . . . Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I am bombarded with atheist and other anti-Christian messages on a daily basis. Just flip through basic cable to see what I mean.
Hm. Leaving aside the issue others have addressed -- which is that being atheist is not the same thing as being necessarily anti-Christian -- I'm not sure where on basic cable you can see atheist messages. The closest thing might be "Star Trek: TNG."
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I told them that this particular poem is in our lit books and is part of the 7th grade curriculum and it bothers me more that we had an assembly for black history but we would be lynched if we ever had a white history assembly (that is another whole can of worms).
Does it occur to you that 80% of what is taught in the public schools is "white history" -- and that there is no *need* to have such an assembly?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
And "lynched" might've been a poor word-choice, there... Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I didn't mean it literally TL. And the truth is there are more minority authors in my 7th grade lit book than white authors (though I will do a count for sure when school is back in session next week). Also the history teachers I work with do a better job teaching well rounded American and Texan history than in years past. We have swung the other way in education. Again, another can of worms altogether and I do not really want to stir up animosity and derail the original topic.
Pix, I was kidding (thanks Rivka) but I appreciate your response. I guess the idea of no afterlife does leave me with a feeling of hopelessness and I wonder how atheists combat that. So you're right; it does seem bleak to me especially because some of the atheists I know are so miserable with their lives and I, as a Christian, attribute much of that to the God-shaped void I feel they have. But I also completely agree that some Christians *cough*Pat Robertson*cough* give Christianity a bad name.
So back on topic, I think it is stupid to get upset about an ice cream swirl. The intent was not to offend. The intent was to entice one to eat ice cream. Is Allah against ice cream? Is it because it is too hot in the Middle East and the ice cream would melt? (Whoops- that was probably offensive to non-Middle Eastern Muslims-sorry) So, while I applaud BK’s attempt to be politically (religiously?) correct here, I really think they just need to tell them to get over it.
[edited to repair a floating comma}
[ March 16, 2006, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: MandyM ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
This is only minutely related to the icecream issue. But....
In this thread, and in others, many (myself included) have argued that certain incidents (ie, terrorism, wild cultural intolerance) do not represent broader groups (ie, Muslims or Iraqis). Others (most notably starLisa) have argued the opposite: that terrorist attacks are indicative of, or worse, enabled by a broader support.
Enter poll by Program on International Policy Attitudes:
What the Iraqi Public Wants: There are many interesting statistics in this report, but the portion that I'm focusing on here is on page 7.
quote:Overall, 47% [of Iraqis] say they approve of "attacks on US-led forces" (23% strongly).
Points to consider: 1. "Approve" doesn't necessarily mean "support." 2. 88% of Sunnis approve of attacks, 77% strongly. 3. 80% of Iraqis think the US plans permanent bases in Iraq. 4. Only 23% think the US would withdraw troops if the new government asked.
So. What do you think? Does this kind of thing justify what some have said about taking the war on terrorism to more extreme ends? Does this indicate that actual material support for terrorism could be broader than most of us thought originally? Or is this more an expression of widespread frustration and desperation among Iraqis?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I guess the idea of no afterlife does leave me with a feeling of hopelessness and I wonder how atheists combat that.
I've never fully understood this sentiment. I'm an atheist, and the notion that there is no afterlife doesn't leave me feeling at all hopeless.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Exactly. No afterlife doesn't mean no point to life. If there's no afterlife, it makes this life all the more important.
It means that this life is an end unto itself, rather than a means to a better afterlife. In my mind, that gives it much MORE hope.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Juxtapose- It's not just the Iraqi's. Remember people in Palestine democratically voted a terrorist party into power. That alone would indicate that it's not just a small minority that support terrorism. Additional polling and statistics just stregnthen that thought. I don't buy what some people have said about it being a small minority. Even if it was a small minority, it would be the minority in power-the ones who hold absolute political, social, economic, and religious power. They are in a position to extend their influence so that their small minority becomes the majority, hence the poll figures.
The religious/political leaders are the cancer in these societies. I'm convinced that if they were not there to stir up hatred among the people that there truly would be a minority of people who support the terrorist cause.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BQT: keep in mind that Hamas's presence in the region is least a terrorist party. They are also, oddly, the largest humanitarian assistance organization in palestine (while not being registered as such, they dispense the most in-kind and monetary aid directly to the population). It is because they help out needy palestinians and are seen as free of the corruption that paralyzes the rest of the Authority (resulting in large amounts of aid not reaching the people) that they got into power.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yes, I've heard te argument before...Hamas are a bunch of humanitarian do-gooders that have built up social infrastructure, etc etc. True or not, they are still a terrorist organization. Even Hitler did good things for the German people such as helped the economy and increase worker's rights.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course they're also a terrorist organization, but you're the one choosing to attribute the votes for them to that instead of the much better explanation that people voted for them because they're seen as helping the people there.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
True. Also, some of the factors that swayed people to choose Hamas (social improvements, corruption of the then current administration, anti-Americanism) were not all terrorist related. However, to support an organization that has as one of its stated objectives, "the destruction of Israel," seems contradictory to the statements that Islam is a peace-loving religion. I find it hard to imagine people in this country voting in the KKK cause they help build a lot of schools and stuff. Hamas started as a terrorist organization, is still primarily a terrorist organization, and what it does on the side doesn't really negate that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just ask yourself how many people in the US support Ann Coulter or assorted religious conservatives who have supported similar destruction of (among other things) all gay people, all muslims, et cetera. Are we not a peace-loving people?
I do think the statement that Islam (or any other religion) is peace-loving, or has any other human characteristic, is incorrect. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like Buddhism, like every other religion, is practiced by humans, and humans are complex beings with many disparate motives.
As for Hamas being primarily a terrorist organization, I quote from the Council on Foreign Relations:
quote:Is Hamas only a terrorist group? No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas' efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.
Is support for them support for their anti-Israeli agenda? Perhaps, in many cases. Does support for them exist mainly because of their anti-Israeli agenda? Doubtful. Would many people all over the world support an organization that keeps them clothed and fed, with medical care and spiritual counseling, even if some of the goals of that organization were morally unsettling? Most certainly, we can point to similar things happening frequently in every country on the face of this earth.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I like the stats posted by Juxtapose.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: However, I still see that as very different from what some radical Muslims are doing. Robertson claimed some natural event as the hand of God. Radical Muslims will act as the hand of God, and destroy the city and kill the people themselves. That's a huge difference.
I believe that the point that some of the others are making is that you're (not you specifically - this a generic you despite me quoting you ) making this an us vs. them issue. Which it is not. Just as Pat Robertson is not representative of Christians, the radical few are not representative of Muslims everywhere. The issue is not us vs. them, it's just us
All of the religions that I know of teaches mankind to be good, kind, helpful - all the good things we can be. But what we do is to take that and pervert the religion into something where we can point fingers at others and say "You aren't like us, die!"
The whole ice cream cone thing, I find the Muslim objections laughable. Why would I care about what somebody else does? My religion, my beliefs are my own. Nobody else can affect them if my belief is strong. Why should I be bothered by what somebody else says - everybody is free to their own beliefs. Of course, the problem is that not every person (not Muslim or Christian or Jew, but person) thinks that way Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I like having you here to read, Fahim. Thank you.)
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
But isn't it an "us" (non-radical) versus "them" (radicals)? I know I feel that Pat Robertson is on the other side. Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
But isn't it all in the end "us" (humans) vs. "them" (humans)? All of our conflicts come out of our humanity - the religions, the races, the schisms are just something for us to blame it all on. Of course, that's just my opinion Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:But isn't it an "us" (non-radical) versus "them" (radicals)?
In a way, if you (we) let this be true, then they win.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
As far as the Iraqi stats that Juxtapose posted and BaoQingTian's comments about Hamas goes, I'd like to offer a few of my observations (Sorry to lump it all in one post but I'm lazy )
The Iraqi stats, sure the Iraqi's want the US out of their country but does that actually translate into Islam vs. Christianity or East vs. West? If somebody came into your own country with their army and didn't seem as if they were going to leave, wouldn't you feel as if they were invaders and want them out? It doesn't necessarily, have to be about religion We have had a similar situation here in Sri Lanka. Over the centuries, Sri Lanka has been invaded several times by India. When the civil war here was at it's height, Indian forces came to Sri Lanka as peace keepers. Despite the fact that they were invited by the Sri Lankan government, did Sri Lankan's view them as friends? No, they got hit by both sides because everybody viewed them with suspicion
As for Hamas, there is another Sri Lankan parallel. We have a political party called the JVP here. Twice in the past, they've gone on killing sprees - attempts to overthrow the government. Thousands on both sides were killed. Twenty years after the last time they did that, the party is one of the prominent ones here in Sri Lanka. The very people they killed are ready to vote them into power because they are supposed to be the least corrupt and the most in tune with the "common man". One would think that people would remember their bloody past, one would also think that people would remember that even today that they are rather bigoted and racist in their outlook. But one would be wrong
Our choices aren't always about religion or about politics. Sometimes it's from basic fears or basic needs. We are all after all, human Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:But isn't it an "us" (non-radical) versus "them" (radicals)?
In a way, if you (we) let this be true, then they win.
I see your point - afterall, we're all human. The last thing that I wanted to imply was some sort of lack of humanity to "them." If we lose sight of that humanity, then all is lost.
The way I see it, if I don't fight Pat Robertson for the definition of "Christian" in the public eye, then I've lost something very important.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Thanks, all, for your thoughts. Here's where mine have been taking me.
For awhile now, I've been fairly sure about one thing: For the first time in oh-so-long, I agreed with George W about something. The call to bring home the troops has been increasing in volume steadily for some time now. But I always thought of it as a mistake on the part of the Democrats. No American wants their countrymen and women in danger more than necessary, but well...I thought our continued presence in Iraq was necessary. A duty we had incurred.
Now, I'm not so sure.
We've failed every mission we set out to accomplish in Iraq besides the actual toppling of Saddam, which - as great as that was - doesn't excuse the ways we let down the Iraqi people. I'm not going to turn this into a finger pointing game, so sigh with relief.
When we began this war, perhaps the most important, least publicized goal to accomplish in Iraq was, "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people." I say that, of course, with the benefit of hindsight. And, as this poll has made blindingly obvious, we've failed to do that.
So I'm forced to conclude, tentatively, that the anti-war people, all this time, for the right reasons or not, have been right. It's written in the subtext of this poll, and is becoming clearer and clearer to me. The USA is no longer in a position to directly help the Iraqi people. We're losing the will, we're running out of money, and worst of all, we're out of credibility.
We should put it to a general popular vote and be done with it. If they say, "leave," we should begin pulling out troops, and be gone in under a year.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Fahim: I agree with CT; you're definitely an asset to Hatrack. You're post reminded me of something a friend of mine pointed out. He's a Mexican citizen, here in France studying in the same program as I am. We were talking about the fact that the Mexican presidential election is coming up soon. I asked him what the general feeling of Mexicans was towards the current president, Vicente Fox, who can't run again due to term limits. His response surprised me. He said, in effect, that Fox hasn't done very much at all for the Mexican citizens, but his support is really high. This because Mexico's former presidents had a habit of blatantly stealing from the Mexican people, and essentially Fox is popular not because he's done anything great, but because he isn't nearly as corrupt as previous presidents.
I think the situation in Mexico can be applied to the Palestinian situation as well. Arafat, and the Fatah movement, will go down in history as one of the most hideously corrupt in the world. Ever wonder why in spite of the massive amounts of money the European community (and the U.S.) have donated over the past 30 years, live still really sucks for the average Palestinian. It isn't because of the horrible oppression heaped upon them by a tyrannical Israeli government, as some s would have you believe. It's because the very organizations we entrusted our money to turned around and stole the money we gave them. A friend who's from the region once told me there's a huge dichotemy in the Palestinian-controlled areas. On one hand, there's the horrid slums and ghettos that CNN is fond of showing. And then, behind thick walls and gates, there's lavish million-dollar mansions belonging to those who are well-connected politically. It's no wonder that given the chance, the Palestinian people are going to say they're fed up with all the corruption and vote into power the one organization that seems to be doing something to help them.
This is not to say that I support the decision to elect Hamas. I think it was a huge setback to peace in the region, and in the world. But I think saying that this vote shows that all Palestinians are terrorists is absurd.
Juxtapose:
quote: We've failed every mission we set out to accomplish in Iraq besides the actual toppling of Saddam, which - as great as that was - doesn't excuse the ways we let down the Iraqi people. I'm not going to turn this into a finger pointing game, so sigh with relief.
I don't agree with this premise at all. It seems to me more like the propaganda fed to us daily by the extreme anti-war groups than an actual fact.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Brian,
Which portion of the mission there do you feel has been a success? We haven't destroyed or captured any WMDs, and we've created more terrorists than we've captured. While we HAVE installed a democracy there, relations between demographics are very tense. We can debate the whole "on the brink of civil war" thing, but I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate how strained the situation is. Corruption is rampant, and the US is viewed there rather unfavorably, to put it lightly. If there's some aspect that I've overlooked, I'd love to see it. Non-Saddam related ones, please, since I've already acknowledged that.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: He said, in effect, that Fox hasn't done very much at all for the Mexican citizens, but his support is really high. This because Mexico's former presidents had a habit of blatantly stealing from the Mexican people, and essentially Fox is popular not because he's done anything great, but because he isn't nearly as corrupt as previous presidents.
Sorry to go off on a tangent but I did feel that this bore commenting upon In the US and in other developed countries, you believe in democracy and have faith in the system ... well, most of the time But the same situation that you describe in Mexico and the Palestine exists all over the region here. Of course, my opinion of anybody who enters politics is rather low - unless they prove themselves to be different. It is a dirty game where power seems to corrupt and absolute power seems to corrupt absolutely.
Over here, it's hard to choose who to vote for because it really doesn't matter. No matter who comes to power, the corruption will go on and the only ones to suffer are the people who voted these scoundrels in in the first place. Gone are the days here when people came into politics to serve their fellow human being - now they're only out to serve their own needs ...
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Which portion of the mission there do you feel has been a success?
If you'll look closely at my post, you'll notice that I didn't claim any specific successes in Iraq. What I DO dispute strongly is the claim that "we have failed every mission we have set out to accomplish in Iraq." From what I've seen, there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that we've "failed."
Look. I'm just as much of a pragmatist as the next person. I realize that the goals we set out to accomplish when we started the campaign in Iraq, namely to topple the Hussein regime and replace it with a freely elected in the middle east, were lofty and perhaps unattainable. However, I'm not ready to pronounce the war in Iraq a "failure." After all, it took several years of U.S. occupation for Germany to rebuild, and there weren't large groups of extremists willing to kill their own people to get into power. I view the establishment of a democracy, feeble as it is in it's infancy, as a HUGE success, and the fact that the majority of Iraqi citizens want the right to live peacefully and the right to vote, is very positive.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:But I think saying that this vote shows that all Palestinians are terrorists is absurd.
I hope that this wasn't in reference to my post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The very people they killed are ready to vote them into power.
Evidently, even the dead get to vote in Sri Lanka. Now that's a progressive democratic policy.
(Sorry Fahim, I know what you meant and it was a very valid point, but I just couldn't resist interpreting that sentence literally.)
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
LOL. I should read what I actually type more carefully Incidentally, the dead do get to vote in Sri Lanka - you'd be surprised how many dead people turn up at the polls and the doppelgängers, man, this must be the country where they all migrated to ... But that's another story Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:But I think saying that this vote shows that all Palestinians are terrorists is absurd.
I hope that this wasn't in reference to my post.
No, it wasn't. It was in reference to an idea espoused by those who already think Islam is inherently a terrorist religion (and thus all Palestinian arabs are our enemies) and see the Hamas vote as confirmation of that fact.
I actually agree with much of your post, with the exception of
quote: However, to support an organization that has as one of its stated objectives, "the destruction of Israel," seems contradictory to the statements that Islam is a peace-loving religion.
It seems to me that the desire to have a government that has your own best interests in mind is strong enough to cause you to vote for them, regardless of their militancy (which IIRC was downplayed greatly in the campaign.) It doesn't in anyway excuse the results of the vote, which I totally condemn, but it does offer another, more probable line of reasoning for it rather than "Palestinian Muslims are terrorist-lovers." (again, not your words, but words I've definitely heard.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Well then I am a little more annoyed about the whole thing.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)