It is precisely analogues. Your rational is weak and cowardice and highly imaginary.
No, it isn't. Iran has not, to my knowledge, attacked us or any of our allies since 481 B.C. On the other hand, Iran has suffered air strikes and a proxy war at our hands (Iraq was funded and encouraged by the United States to escalate the Iran-Iraq war). So while I'm not sure how cowardice has anything to do with it, why would my analogy be weak and imaginary?
The Muslim world would have you believe that we do bombing runs all over their neighborhoods...[snip] ...They would have you believe that we are the enemy simply because their God said so.
Some Muslims would, I'm sure, have me believe at least some of those things. Everyone else, including (apparently) you, would have me believe something. The question that I ask, and that any rational person ought to ask is: Who's right?
The answer in this case, and usually, is that no one is precisely right, and that the issue is more complex than anyone will or can represent. But in this case, it turns out:
1) We do undertake bombing runs on civilian neighborhoods, and western reporters tell us as much. See links in my previous post for starters.
2) We do oppress many people, Muslims among them. See links and books posted, above.
3) There are some good universities and libraries in the Muslim world. So I'm not sure where you get the idea there aren't.
4) They also have industry, but we are primarily responsible for its inadequacy.
5) We are also primarily responsible for their lack of individual opportunity. Again, see books I posted above for plenty of starting materials.
6) I've never had a Muslim try to convince me that he was my enemy because God said so. Some of them may undoubtedly believe that, but if you read Bin Laden's Fatwa, for instance, he demands only that we withdraw from the holy land (Saudi Arabia) and that we stop oppression of the Muslims. Whether you believe we actually engage in oppression or not, you'd have to admit that if we do, it's reasonable to demand that we stop.
"Ifs" don't exist. Again, let go of your fantasy. Join us in reality.
We'd be living in pre-stone-age conditions if we followed that advice. Basically all kinds of advancements we've made were made by people asking "what if?" I've chosen to ask what if there's really a good reason that the rest of the world doesn't like us. I came up with some pretty shocking answers.
They applaud when terrorist destroy civillians.
Of course they do. So do we. My claim isn't that it'd be dangerous to allow them nuclear weapons--it absolutely would be. I ask why it's fair not to and point out that it's dangerous for us to have them. Your answers, and the answers of those who think that's a dumb question/ statement, are quite telling, because they expose that we have no moral superiority, an illusion that certain elements work very hard to cultivate, because not to do so would erode their material superiority.
Stop being foolish and again..you're being a coward. Choosing right is exactly what is happening. What you mean is "be fair."
Is it ever right not to be fair? I think the two are nearly synonymous. Even doling out punishment to someone who deserves it is thought to be fair, so, I don't get your point here.
Why is it that your kind always cries about freedoms and liberties, but then are quick to blame America for antagonizing those who have no patience for freedom and liberties?
1) Because we established many of the regimes that have that lack of patience, and we actually prefer that in most instances. Because when we do our antagonizing, we trample those very freedoms and liberties. Because we are losing those same freedoms and liberties at home, not because some outside force is taking them from us, but because our own government, and our corporations, are.
Mutual respect? Are we declaring them "infidels" and chanting death to Iraq, Syria, Saudi, Iran, and Pakistan?
We're not necessarily chanting, but there's plenty of that sentiment to go around.
Are groups of Christians forming terror organizations where they are funded by government and venturing out to destroy other civilizations?
Yep. We call them corporations.
Honor does not mean hugging your problems away.
No, but it does mean showing respect to those who are less powerful than you. That's what we've repeatedly, flagrantly, cruelly, maliciously done around the world for decades. Hugs will not heal the damage we've done at this point. Possibly, just possibly, choosing to respect other points of view might begin to.
No, it is restraint.
Dismissing the notion of fighting for yourself and society today and gambling on the hope that the enemy won't hurt you in the future is pathetic. There is no honor in this.
I agree, but that's not what I'm for, or what I'm saying.
How has America given these people a reason to murder and destroy?
After I read some of the books I had posted above and checked through their bibliographies, I was shocked beyond belief. I literally wandered around in a daze for three months. I really had no idea just how bad our treatment of the rest of the world--or in fact our own citizens--is. We've done some terrible, terrible things in the name of globalization, economic growth, etc. Not always necessarily our government, though they've been involved in plenty. Our corporations, with government help, have wreaked so much death and destruction that a full accounting could never be made.
Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the former homes of flourishing civlizations (North Africa, Middle East, Oceania, South and Central America, Mexico, India, Russia) are now generally in abject poverty while places that were once only modestly wealthy (North America, Europe) are now extravagantly so? I would suggest to you a thorough study of the history of why this happened and how. I would say that anyone who undertakes such a study, from roughly 1050 to the present day, with especial emphasis on the period post World War I, will end up agreeing with me.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna. Their foundation belief is that “Allah is our objective and the Prophet is our leader. Qu’ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The vast majority of terrorists are members. They live within a sea of fundamentals full of futureless youth. At age 8, the combatant begins to read and learn the Qu’ran and the place of women. At age 12 he reads the Qu’ran several hours per day as the father indoctrinates him into the faith. At age 18 he has memorized the entire Qu’ran and after age 18 he comes to America and other countries as a member of the Brotherhood.
You really know that the vast majority of all terrorists are members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Here's what I found on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Which article paints rather a different picture than yours. The article is apparently based on a book by a Jewish author, so one would expect it to be too harsh, if anything. But Wikipedia is only moderately reliable; if you've got some better sources, I'd love to examine them.
This is why your view that we have given them reasons for their behavior is stupid. I don't believe our Forein Policy was such a big deal in the late 1920's.
Our foreign policy in the 1920's was not such a big deal--but England's was. We took over where the British left off post WWII.
Incidentally, Muslims everywhere are chanting "death to France" and "death to Denmark" over a cartoon. And these are the people of who's governments you wish to allow nukes to be fair?
Absolutely. We might find ourselves forced to respect them in that case. I think if we started doing that (not just paying lip service), we'd have a chance at a genuinely peaceful world.
But there's another issue here: even if the nuclear weapon issue is iffy (I admit it may be a little radical of me), nuclear energy is not. The middle east is aware, perhaps more than anyone else, that oil will eventually be running out.
Also, you seem to be arguing that our actions in Iraq (for instance, and by implication) are correct. Aren't you basing this on Arab rhetoric? How is the motivation any different then? It's obvious that the results are quite different; Iran isn't invading France or Denmark. This was my point.
Strength is identifying what is right and what is wrong and then choosing what is necessary.
I disagree. Strength comes in many forms, but I think that it takes more strength to choose what is right over what is easy. "Necessity" is a relative term--something is only "necessary" conditionally to support something else.
It is very foolish to allow a country that has sworn to destroy our allies and has a history of funding terror organizations the means to build a nuclear weapon. Life is too valuable to take a chance on a country like Iran.
Life is not as valuable as some other things like Love, honor, and compassion. We are, in a very real sense, just like the Muslims you don't seem to like so well, in that we seem to respond only to strength. I'd really like it if we responded to right, instead. If that can start to happen without anyone getting any more nuclear weapons, I'm all for it. To be clear, my position is that if anyone is to be allowed nukes, everyone should. But it would be far, far better if no one had them, or if perhaps only a few were under international control or something.
