The super liberal opinion of the middle east (1 Viewer)

[mikhail]

Firstly Liberals or people who call themselves liberal are more than often of the opinion that countries I the middle east how their own beliefs that should be respected and we just don’t understand them.

That’s all very well but the fact that countries in the middle east treat women as second class citizens. Women getting executed for adultery. Women are sold into sex slavery. Traditional genital mutilation on little girls.

So surely here comes the problem with believing in a liberal way of thinking surely we cant just say we cant get involved in other countries affairs yes maybe in allot of cases but this is 50% of the population of these countries that’s got to be real terror.

I’m not saying liberals don’t condemn this but the method of this is just saying "this shouldn’t happen".

Its like watching a women get raped in the street and standing there saying "this shouldn’t be happening maybe if I talk of my dissatisfaction of this happening it will stop".

The reality is we have a duty to humanity if we want to claim to be the great civilised countries to put this right because globalisation is happening borders are getting blurred and other countries problems are becoming are problems if we like it or not. Which coincides with global terrorism which is merely a by product of globalisation the conflict in Saudi Arabia not reached all the way to the other side of the world.

We have to settle are differences isolation seems impossible I’m not saying this means dropping bombs it does mean supporting the liberal minded people in these countries that don’t believe that the treatment of women is ok don’t believe terrorism is justified through religion and believe religion shouldn’t be intertwined with the government.

These people do exist often the more educated people within these countries.

There is differences in any culture but there has to be international human right laws that need to be upheld. Was slavery just part of Americas culture?

We also must protect are selves by force if necessary.




However don’t get the idea I’m some kind of right winger who supports the republicans in the US because I consider them a bunch of fools that have no real long term plans on how exactly they are carrying out this "war on terror".domestically it consists mainly of destroying civil liberties of its own citizens in a pathetic attempt to somehow "protect" them from attacks from enemies they know. Attacks in places they don’t know.

 

[shuamort]

Amnesty International is consider to be a "liberal" organization. I was president of my chapter in high school. I remember writing letter campaigns to women who were imprisoned for riding bikes (which is against the Islamic laws). Here's their section on just women.

Albania: Violence against Women in the Family: "It's not her shame"

Iran: Amnesty International condemns violence against women demonstrators in Iran

Statement on Condemnation of Female Genital Mutilation

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Amnesty International is consider to be a "liberal" organization. I was president of my chapter in high school. I remember writing letter campaigns to women who were imprisoned for riding bikes (which is against the Islamic laws). Here's their section on just women.

Albania: Violence against Women in the Family: "It's not her shame"

Iran: Amnesty International condemns violence against women demonstrators in Iran

Statement on Condemnation of Female Genital Mutilation

A letter writing campaign? Tell me did it work? :roll:

 

[shuamort]

A letter writing campaign? Tell me did it work? :roll:

Actually, yes it has. Due to pressure on the Brazilian government in 1989, they released two prisoners of conscience who had protested against the gov't. It was a man and his wife who had been tortured and we were graced by a visit from them here in Minnesota. The couple had been tortured in the same room while the other had watched. The man recounted the events which included a tube of glass inserted into his urethra and then smashed.

So next time before you get smug and roll your eyes, maybe it's best you do some research.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, yes it has. Due to pressure on the Brazilian government in 1989, they released two prisoners of conscience who had protested against the gov't. It was a man and his wife who had been tortured and we were graced by a visit from them here in Minnesota. The couple had been tortured in the same room while the other had watched. The man recounted the events which included a tube of glass inserted into his urethra and then smashed.

That hurts me just thinking about it.

So next time before you get smug and roll your eyes, maybe it's best you do some research.

I was talking about the riding bikes thing. There's only one thing that these radicals understand and it's not a letter writing campaign.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Firstly Liberals or people who call themselves liberal are more than often of the opinion that countries I the middle east how their own beliefs that should be respected and we just don’t understand them.

That’s all very well but the fact that countries in the middle east treat women as second class citizens. Women getting executed for adultery. Women are sold into sex slavery. Traditional genital mutilation on little girls.

So surely here comes the problem with believing in a liberal way of thinking surely we cant just say we cant get involved in other countries affairs yes maybe in allot of cases but this is 50% of the population of these countries that’s got to be real terror.

I’m not saying liberals don’t condemn this but the method of this is just saying "this shouldn’t happen".

Its like watching a women get raped in the street and standing there saying "this shouldn’t be happening maybe if I talk of my dissatisfaction of this happening it will stop".

The reality is we have a duty to humanity if we want to claim to be the great civilised countries to put this right because globalisation is happening borders are getting blurred and other countries problems are becoming are problems if we like it or not. Which coincides with global terrorism which is merely a by product of globalisation the conflict in Saudi Arabia not reached all the way to the other side of the world.

We have to settle are differences isolation seems impossible I’m not saying this means dropping bombs it does mean supporting the liberal minded people in these countries that don’t believe that the treatment of women is ok don’t believe terrorism is justified through religion and believe religion shouldn’t be intertwined with the government.

These people do exist often the more educated people within these countries.

There is differences in any culture but there has to be international human right laws that need to be upheld. Was slavery just part of Americas culture?

We also must protect are selves by force if necessary.




However don’t get the idea I’m some kind of right winger who supports the republicans in the US because I consider them a bunch of fools that have no real long term plans on how exactly they are carrying out this "war on terror".domestically it consists mainly of destroying civil liberties of its own citizens in a pathetic attempt to somehow "protect" them from attacks from enemies they know. Attacks in places they don’t know.

This is only the far-left way of thinking. I think that their society is stuck in 1600s and it will be very hard to bring it ahead 400 years without force. Their religion is also treated much like christianity was in Europe c.1300.

 

[cnredd]

Actually, yes it has. Due to pressure on the Brazilian government in 1989, they released two prisoners of conscience who had protested against the gov't. It was a man and his wife who had been tortured and we were graced by a visit from them here in Minnesota. The couple had been tortured in the same room while the other had watched. The man recounted the events which included a tube of glass inserted into his urethra and then smashed.

So next time before you get smug and roll your eyes, maybe it's best you do some research.

2 points...

A) Did the NYTimes show pictures like Abu gharib and get international condemnation on all of the news stations as their top story?

B) Do you think the Middle Eastern civilization is just a tad different from Brazil?

 

[shuamort]

A) Did the NYTimes show pictures like Abu gharib and get international condemnation on all of the news stations as their top story?

B) Do you think the Middle Eastern civilization is just a tad different from Brazil?

A) What?

B)Yup, of course it is. But my point was showing that letter writing campaigns have worked.

 

[cnredd]

A) What?

My point was that the media does not cover incidents of good news like your letter writing campaign compared to the bad news and isolated incidents like they do about our military...

B)Yup, of course it is. But my point was showing that letter writing campaigns have worked.

When dealing with rational people...

You don't have that when dealing with the Middle Eastern civilization...

Allah said so...

 

[millsy]

Firstly Liberals or people who call themselves liberal are more than often of the opinion that countries I the middle east how their own beliefs that should be respected and we just don’t understand them.

So surely here comes the problem with believing in a liberal way of thinking surely we cant just say we cant get involved in other countries affairs yes maybe in allot of cases but this is 50% of the population of these countries that’s got to be real terror.

I’m not saying liberals don’t condemn this but the method of this is just saying "this shouldn’t happen".

Actually it was Pierre Trudeau who was instrumental in creating the International Declaration of Human Rights. And he was a very liberal Canadian, which puts him roughly three football fields left of Ralph Nader.

As a very liberal person, I do believe that there are basic rights and wrongs that are Universal. I refuse to accept "grotesque oppression simply because it is institutionalized". We do know what's right and wrong. And that doesn't mean cultures have to be all the same.

I think our difference comes in how we try to get them to change. You are absolutely wrong in saying that liberals just sit there and say "that is wrong". But there are more affective mechanisms for change than carpet bombing.

I think that China is a good example of how things can be changed from the outside without force.

And YES I know that China and the Middle East aren't the same.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually it was Pierre Trudeau who was instrumental in creating the International Declaration of Human Rights. And he was a very liberal Canadian, which puts him roughly three football fields left of Ralph Nader.

As a very liberal person, I do believe that there are basic rights and wrongs that are Universal. I refuse to accept "grotesque oppression simply because it is institutionalized". We do know what's right and wrong. And that doesn't mean cultures have to be all the same.

I think our difference comes in how we try to get them to change. You are absolutely wrong in saying that liberals just sit there and say "that is wrong". But there are more affective mechanisms for change than carpet bombing.

I think that China is a good example of how things can be changed from the outside without force.

And YES I know that China and the Middle East aren't the same.

How so? China still has a horrid record on human rights, and the only reason that they're progressing is that they adopted the "evil's" of capitalism which seems to be one of the big no-no's of the liberal elitests who themselves profit so proficiently by exploiting the very same system that they claim to oppose; IE, Noam Chomsky fetches millions for his tours and books (worked for the Pentagon too by the way), Michael Moore invests in Halliburton, and Ted Kennedy isn't just in bed with big oil, his family is big oil.

 

[millsy]

How so? China still has a horrid record on human rights, and the only reason that they're progressing is that they adopted the "evil's" of capitalism which seems to be one of the big no-no's of the liberal elitests who themselves profit so proficiently by exploiting the very same system that they claim to oppose; IE, Noam Chomsky fetches millions for his tours and books (worked for the Pentagon too by the way), Michael Moore invests in Halliburton, and Ted Kennedy isn't just in bed with big oil, his family is big oil.

I didn't say that China is a world leader when it comes to human rights, I said it is changing for the better, and doing so without force.

As far as Kennedy and Moore, I'm not sure what point you are making other than to try to drag a couple of names through the mud, but I will say this.

I don't believe that in today's politics a political figure can truly represent real conservative or liberal values. It just takes too much money to get elected. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, if you are not ready to get into bed with some type of corporation, whether it be Oil, Tobacco, Pharmaceutical whatever, you will not be able to raise enough money to win an election.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't believe that in today's politics a political figure can truly represent real conservative or liberal values. It just takes too much money to get elected. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, if you are not ready to get into bed with some type of corporation, whether it be Oil, Tobacco, Pharmaceutical whatever, you will not be able to raise enough money to win an election.

Kennedy isn't in bed with big oil he is big oil.

 

[millsy]

Kennedy isn't in bed with big oil he is big oil.

ok, you got me. Please go back and read my post again, and everytime I said "in bed with" please read "either in bed with, or come from".

It's still the same on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

ok, you got me. Please go back and read my post again, and everytime I said "in bed with" please read "either in bed with, or come from".

It's still the same on both sides of the aisle.

Well it's not really the same thing because I don't see the Republicans railing against big oil, also, I don't see the Republicans calling for tax hikes while all the while keeping their own money in offshore accounts to avoid said taxes alla Kennedy.

 

[millsy]

Well it's not really the same thing because I don't see the Republicans railing against big oil, also, I don't see the Republicans calling for tax hikes while all the while keeping their own money in offshore accounts to avoid said taxes alla Kennedy.

Well, that is nowhere near the topic of this thread

If you think that Liberals own hypocrisy then start another thread, and we can have that out.

 

[shuamort]

My point was that the media does not cover incidents of good news like your letter writing campaign compared to the bad news and isolated incidents like they do about our military...

When dealing with rational people...

Rational people do not torture.

You don't have that when dealing with the Middle Eastern civilization...

Allah said so...

Sure you do:
Letters Help Prevent Amputation of 16 Year Old
The sentence of cross amputation passed on 16-year-old Mohamed Hassan Hamdan, member of the Ja'afra ethnic group (an Arab group in South Darfur), was quashed in December 2003 by the Appeal Court in Nyala, South Darfur State, on the grounds that the accused was a child. The sentence was commuted to a year of imprisonment in a reformatory. Mohamed Hassan Hamdan has now been sent to a reformatory in Khartoum. External pressure from the UA Network was reportedly one factor that led authorities to reconsider the sentence.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I didn't say that China is a world leader when it comes to human rights, I said it is changing for the better, and doing so without force.

very slowly changing, yes.

why do you think they are changing? IMO, its the all mighty dollar. the problem with the ME is they still live in ancient times. the only people there with money are the rulers. the common man still has no clue what it means to be "middle class"

as long as the rulers keep the people in the dark ages, terrorism will flourish and so will radicalism.

this is why i chuckle everytime i hear a liberal blame America for terrorism. if we were the reason, then we would have them here at home.

the people responsible for terrorism are the people RULING the ME and not allowing the common man to have anything in life but a hard way to go.

 

[millsy]

very slowly changing, yes.

why do you think they are changing? IMO, its the all mighty dollar. the problem with the ME is they still live in ancient times. the only people there with money are the rulers. the common man still has no clue what it means to be "middle class"

as long as the rulers keep the people in the dark ages, terrorism will flourish and so will radicalism.

this is why i chuckle everytime i hear a liberal blame America for terrorism. if we were the reason, then we would have them here at home.

the people responsible for terrorism are the people RULING the ME and not allowing the common man to have anything in life but a hard way to go.

I believe that you're correct that money is what's pushing change in China. I also agree that because of the society the job is more difficult in the ME.

I do agree that people who believe the US is solely responsible for terrorism have been drinking some kind of Kool-Aid. But, the U.S. does not have it's hands clean when it comes to the cause of terrorism.

But, the cause of terrorism is certainly for another thread.

 

[Gardener]

Is there no end to these manichean world views expressed in this forum that toss out the word "liberal" and then proceed to describe that which isn't liberal at all?

Liberality is based upon value systems, and these value systems are based upon mortality. Liberality involves an actual understanding of these values rather than simply parroting the opinions of others.

There is certainly no shortage of various anarcho-syndicalists, neomarxists and others of the far left who are merely leftist, but are not liberal. The difference between these people and liberals has to do with the attachment to dogma -- belief based upon conformity to the beliefs of others rather than values -- as well as the degree of moral relativism. Liberality is based upon morality, while it is these leftists who engage in the sort of moral relativism that simply acts as a cheap vehicle to explain away their hypocricy and lack of consistant values. It is these people who are too often described when people engage in knee-jerk attacks on liberals, and not actual liberals. In fact, the process of demonization of the word liberal has been so methodical and so effective, that there are hardly any actual liberals around any more. To an increasing degree, folks treat politics as if it were immutable faith, with people on both sides of the political spectrum becoming entrenched and dogmatic.

Sure, there are dogmatic hypoctites on the far left. There are dogmatic hypocrites on the far right. Heck, there are stupid people everywhere. Seems to me that if people would be a little less hung up on this world view where something is either/or where one champions either a "conservative" point of view or a "liberal" point of view, and start to see some shades of grey and gradation, instead, perhaps more people would realize that it is really the extreme viewpoints that elicit an equally extreme response. Just as the extreme leftists do not represent liberality, th eextreme right does not represent conservatism. I do not consider Fred Phelps a representative of conservatism. It might be nice if fewer people picked out equally extreme leftists as their representative for liberality.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Is there no end to these manichean world views expressed in this forum that toss out the word "liberal" and then proceed to describe that which isn't liberal at all?

Liberality is based upon value systems, and these value systems are based upon mortality. Liberality involves an actual understanding of these values rather than simply parroting the opinions of others.

There is certainly no shortage of various anarcho-syndicalists, neomarxists and others of the far left who are merely leftist, but are not liberal. The difference between these people and liberals has to do with the attachment to dogma -- belief based upon conformity to the beliefs of others rather than values -- as well as the degree of moral relativism. Liberality is based upon morality, while it is these leftists who engage in the sort of moral relativism that simply acts as a cheap vehicle to explain away their hypocricy and lack of consistant values. It is these people who are too often described when people engage in knee-jerk attacks on liberals, and not actual liberals. In fact, the process of demonization of the word liberal has been so methodical and so effective, that there are hardly any actual liberals around any more. To an increasing degree, folks treat politics as if it were immutable faith, with people on both sides of the political spectrum becoming entrenched and dogmatic.

Sure, there are dogmatic hypoctites on the far left. There are dogmatic hypocrites on the far right. Heck, there are stupid people everywhere. Seems to me that if people would be a little less hung up on this world view where something is either/or where one champions either a "conservative" point of view or a "liberal" point of view, and start to see some shades of grey and gradation, instead, perhaps more people would realize that it is really the extreme viewpoints that elicit an equally extreme response. Just as the extreme leftists do not represent liberality, th eextreme right does not represent conservatism. I do not consider Fred Phelps a representative of conservatism. It might be nice if fewer people picked out equally extreme leftists as their representative for liberality.

Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are the leaders of the Democratic party. With the exception of Lieberman I challenge you to name one leader in the Democratic party who has not gone the way of the fringe left and don't tell me Hillary she's only pretending to be a moderate for her presidential bid just like her husband did.

Noam Chomsky, the quintesential leftist is like a god to liberals world wide.

 

[Mikkel]

Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are the leaders of the Democratic party. With the exception of Lieberman I challenge you to name one leader in the Democratic party who has not gone the way of the fringe left and don't tell me Hillary she's only pretending to be a moderate for her presidential bid just like her husband did.

Noam Chomsky, the quintesential leftist is like a god to liberals world wide.

Harry Reid is a liberal, but I wouldn't consider him 'fringe left'. Mark Warner certainly isn't as liberal as those named, though it's debatable of whether or not he's a leader. The same is true for John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Wes Clark. And if you think Bill Clinton is 'fringe left', you must be pretty far right. He did a whole lot of 'pretending' to be moderate once he was in office too. If Hillary does the same, I see no difference between her and an ACTUAL moderate.

 

[mikhail]

Id call the republican party pretty far right this is looking at it from a european view.

I wouldnt call the democrats anything like left wing more like centerist but its all relative.

 

[millsy]

Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are the leaders of the Democratic party. With the exception of Lieberman I challenge you to name one leader in the Democratic party who has not gone the way of the fringe left and don't tell me Hillary she's only pretending to be a moderate for her presidential bid just like her husband did.

Those people are the leaders of the democratic party, but I do not believe they represent liberal values.

I believe that a lot of these people show what's so wrong with the democratic party today. They cave to perceived political pressure.
Now, you can debate whether or not the liberal view is the right one but these people are not liberals. They are soft, and weak, and try to dress up like republicans to win elections. You said it yourself, Hillary's moving to the middle to try to win an election.

Liberals are not inspired by the democratic leaders the way conservatives are by republicans leaders.

.............in my humble opinion.