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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imagine really bothers me. It's SOOOO beautiful but then you listen to the words and it's all about communism.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't it an "us" (non-radical) versus "them" (radicals)? I know I feel that Pat Robertson is on the other side. Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 ...
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) 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 ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
