# ...and they call us the bad guys...



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I remember a friend of mine telling me about how Iran was at one point (under Palavhi[sp?] I assume) a somewhat western thinking country...seems to me that they enjoy living like cavemen though...

I'm sorry...but it seems that the entire middle east has it's head up its ass...


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I'm sorry...but it seems that the entire middle east has it's head up its ass...


Hard to argue with that....

But I'm sure someone here will figure out a way!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It is interesting to see how diversity fans will defend this clear infringement on people's basic freedom.

On the other hand, maybe the government will overplay its hand and cause people to passively or actively resist it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Something tells me none of us would like to be the victim of one of those "consultations".


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I remember a friend of mine telling me about how Iran was at one point (under Palavhi[sp?] I assume) a somewhat western thinking country...seems to me that they enjoy living like cavemen though...
> 
> I'm sorry...but it seems that the entire middle east has it's head up its ass...


Of course it was "western thinking". The CIA engineered a coup to overthrow what had been a democratically elected government, and installed a pro-western "monarchy" most noted for cheap oil paid for with an arsenal of weapons effectively used to supress dissent.

Of course it was western thinking that the current Iranian government doesn't like. You might too, if your government and culture were destroyed by the "west".

Not that I'm defending the current oppressive policies. Religious thugs, all believing "I'm the decider".

Down with religious bigotry! Up with secular democracy!

-full circle


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I challenge anyone to find one Muslim organization or for that matter an individual Muslim who will go on record in stating they disagree with these actions.

Find one Muslim organization or an individual Muslim who will state their name and disagree with ANY terrorist act committed by a Muslim aganist a non-Muslim,...

In hundreds if not thousands of cases across Europe, (including the U.K.) no Muslim will go public and state that they disagree with a crime committed by a Muslim,....

Yet Muslim leaders living all over Europe claim they are victims of discrimination by the countrys that have taken them in and allowed them to bring their relatives to. 

They are used to being in the majority. They're not that in Europe. Therefore they say they feel like victims. This is, in my view, a disguised desire for dominance. Certainly this was the impression a Dutch Muslim leader who, in 2004, called secularism "A disgusting form of oppression."

By this logic, the only way NOT to oppress a Muslim is to hand all power over to them and allow them to oppress you!

Please do not take my word as truth, inform yourselves.

In the name of peace, tolerance, love, and understanding, much of Europe has given their culture's away to Islamic fundamentalism. You are either with these people or you are against them. (Not just as their enemy but as someone they wish to kill!)

But there is fundamentalism is all religions right? True, but does anyone know of hate and violence being institutionalized in such a mass manor in ANY other religion?

I encourage all to find a Muslim living in the U.S. or the U.K. and befriend them on one level or another. Let them tell you about what their relgion says about non-Muslims.:icon_pale: Islam on any level is not a live and let live religion.

"While Europe Slept" How Radical Islam is Destroying the West From Within.
by Bruce Bawer
ISBN 0-385-51472-7
Doubleday

Compelling stuff,

Regards,

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Of course it was "western thinking". The CIA engineered a coup to overthrow what had been a democratically elected government, and installed a pro-western "monarchy" most noted for cheap oil paid for with an arsenal of weapons effectively used to supress dissent.
> 
> Of course it was western thinking that the current Iranian government doesn't like. You might too, if your government and culture were destroyed by the "west".
> 
> ...


Heh, this is classic. Basically, "Not that I am defending this, but really, it is all our fault."


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Heh, this is classic. Basically, "Not that I am defending this, but really, it is all our fault."


No, you miss the point. Newton's 3rd law of physics.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> No, you miss the point. Newton's 3rd law of physics.


If you are appealing to that, then you are indeed saying the West is culpable, as you have identified it as one of the forces needed for the 3rd law to apply. QED.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

127.72 MHz said:


> They are used to being in the majority. They're not that in Europe.


Wait a few years. Their fertility rates are quite astonishing. (and in their city quarters, they certainly are the majority).



127.27 MHz said:


> Therefore they say they feel like victims. This is, in my view, a disguised desire for dominance. Certainly this was the impression a Dutch Muslim leader who, in 2004, called secularism "A disgusting form of oppression."
> 
> By this logic, the only way NOT to oppress a Muslim is to hand all power over to them and allow them to oppress you!


Bill,

You rather precisely describe their thinking. Future generations will at some point tell us how they intend to deal with it...

Best,
A.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I'm sorry...but it seems that the entire middle east has it's head up its ass...


Gabba Goul,

I think the ones with the head up their bottom are the Westerners who defend this tactics. In order to appease or to engratiate themselves or because they are anti-Western ideologists.

Anyway.

Best,
A.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Of course it was "western thinking". The CIA engineered a coup to overthrow what had been a democratically elected government, and installed a pro-western "monarchy" most noted for cheap oil paid for with an arsenal of weapons effectively used to supress dissent.


Mossadeq wasn't as "democratic" as most liberal revisionists would like now to remember. He was very much in the mold of Hugo Chavez and began by nationalizing oil, cozying up to the Reds and stifling dissent.

This nonsense in blaming what is going on now on actions from 50 to 60 years ago silly. The people of Iran and the rest of the middle east have within them, as we did in 1776, to react against what they see as oppression. These are countries with a wealth of natural resources, most at least, and could be successful is they so chose to be. Instead a handful of elites lord power over the rest and it is all too easy to blame the misery on Jews and the west. What's unfortunate is that there are many in the west that buy into this.

Please explain to me how political repression, oppression of free speech, oppression of religious expression, imprisonment of people for failing to obey religious laws, television shows that use stuffed animals and cartoons to teach children how to blow themselves up as martyrs are the fault of the west.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Albert,



Albert said:


> Wait a few years. Their fertility rates are quite astonishing. (and in their city quarters, they certainly are the majority).


I have the solution for Europe - Mexican immigrants. Its win, win all around.
Europe needs people, preferably those who support secular, liberal democracy. Mexicans can fill this bill. The Euro is stronger than the USD so it will mean more in remittances home to Mexico. The US border will be more secure and European birthrates will skyrocket. Since most Mexicans are Catholic, Vatican City will surely approve. And since Alitalia is about to be liquidated the EU will have the transport capacity to stage a massive airlift.

And perhaps the biggest benefit - a massive influx of Mexican immigrants would mean you could finally get decent Mexican food and a good Margarita in Europe. The Texas Embassy in London has edible Mexican food but not more than that, and try and get a decent Margarita in Paris or Munich let alone Kiev or Sofia.

A genius plan if I do say so myself!

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Find a Muslim who will condemn terrorism? How about this:

ON JULY 6, 170 of the world's leading Muslim clerics and scholars gathered in Amman, Jordan, where, in an unprecedented display of inter-sectarian collaboration, they issued a joint fatwa denouncing all acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. Never before had representatives of every major sect and school of law in Islam assembled as a single body, much less addressed issues of mutual concern.

Yet the message of the Amman declaration against terrorism was neither new nor unique. Despite lingering misperceptions in the West, since Sept. 11, 2001, hundreds of fatwas have been issued by Muslim groups and clerical leaders around the world denouncing terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in particular. Needless to say, the fatwas have had no influence on murderous jihadists such as the Jordanian-born Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi. Four months after the July 6 gathering, in what may not be a coincidence of timing, Amman became his group's latest target.

In one way in particular, the Amman fatwa targeted the likes of Zarqawi. Among its many pronouncements against violence and extremism was an all-encompassing statement reaffirming the long- standing principle that no one but a qualified Muslim cleric could issue a fatwa. It was meant as a direct rebuke of Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi, neither of them clerics or scholars, who routinely issue their own -- illegitimate -- fatwas declaring, among other things, jihad on the United States. These fatwas have as much legitimacy for the Muslim clerics as a papal bull issued by a Catholic Church youth leader would for the Vatican.

Moreover, the Amman declaration signaled an implicit, if belated, recognition on the part of the international Muslim clergy of what many scholars of Islam and observers of the region have been saying for decades: The conflicts taking place in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world are not the result of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West but rather are part of an internal conflict among Muslims. In that light, the Amman declaration was, above all, an attempt by Islam's clerical leaders to re-exert some measure of influence in the war to define the faith and practice of more than a billion people.

Read more at https://rezaaslan.com/writings/LAT_nov06.html

See also:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I have no desire to defend repression of secular people in Iran or elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is foolish to oversimplify the situation. What is going on in Iran is that there is a conflict between the hard-liners and the reformists, and whenever we see this kind of crackdown it is because the hard-liners feel that their position is becoming weaker.

https://rezaaslan.com/

As I say, what they are doing is indefensible, but it is not the universal position of the Iranian people.

And, before we get too smug about how free we are in the West, and about our cherished institutions like the free press, take a look at suppression of unfavorable press coverage of the monarchy in Spain: https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2007/07/its-journalism-people.html


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Albert,
> 
> I have the solution for Europe - Mexican immigrants. Its win, win all around.
> Europe needs people, preferably those who support secular, liberal democracy. Mexicans can fill this bill. The Euro is stronger than the USD so it will mean more in remittances home to Mexico. The US border will be more secure and European birthrates will skyrocket. Since most Mexicans are Catholic, Vatican City will surely approve. And since Alitalia is about to be liquidated the EU will have the transport capacity to stage a massive airlift.
> ...


This is actually a really good idea...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Did not the people of Iran elect their government? Are they not a democracy? While these repressive religious hardliners might not represent all of the Iranian people, do they not represent the majority?

Just curious.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Albert,
> 
> I have the solution for Europe - Mexican immigrants. Its win, win all around.
> Europe needs people, preferably those who support secular, liberal democracy. Mexicans can fill this bill. The Euro is stronger than the USD so it will mean more in remittances home to Mexico. The US border will be more secure and European birthrates will skyrocket. Since most Mexicans are Catholic, Vatican City will surely approve. And since Alitalia is about to be liquidated the EU will have the transport capacity to stage a massive airlift.
> ...


Karl,

Although your proposal sounds a bit original and imaginative (if not ironic ) I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea, really. I would also welcome educated African, Indian or Asian immigrants. No problem there.

I just see two issues: (a) the market for unskilled labour in Europe is diminished due to the excessive welfare systems, so the "typical" immigrant people wouldn't necessarily find the work they actually do find in the U.S. and (b) this doesn't solve the issue of large, encapsulated local Muslim majorities in Europe.

Other than that I think it's actually a sensible proposal - at least compared to further Muslim immigration.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

127.72 MHz said:


> I challenge anyone to find one Muslim organization or for that matter an individual Muslim who will go on record in stating they disagree with these actions.


try this one:
https://www.cair-net.org/includes/Anti-TerrorList.pdf



> Please do not take my word as truth, inform yourselves.


my cursory Google search came up with something fairly easily & I'm not a scholar.



> But there is fundamentalism is all religions right? True, but does anyone know of hate and violence being institutionalized in such a mass manor in ANY other religion?


oh for pete's sake, history is full of such extremist minorities

that said, I admit to being fearful and angry and apalled at the violence and hate being preached and accepted by some visible Muslims in Europe, not to mention the actions of believers in some parts of the Middle East. It is scary stuff.

-religious zenophobia overfloweth


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Mossadeq wasn't as "democratic" as most liberal revisionists would like now to remember. He was very much in the mold of Hugo Chavez and began by nationalizing oil, cozying up to the Reds and stifling dissent.


the point was Mossadeq was THEIR leader, not a puppet of the West. Wanna invade Venezuala?



> This nonsense in blaming what is going on now on actions from 50 to 60 years ago silly.


It's not hard to see social consequences of political actions taken by governments still reverberating decades later, all over the world. Are you blind ?



> Please explain to me how political repression, oppression of free speech, oppression of religious expression, imprisonment of people for failing to obey religious laws, television shows that use stuffed animals and cartoons to teach children how to blow themselves up as martyrs are the fault of the west.


Won't try, not my point. Intolerance, political repression, coercion and hate-mongering are afflictions of many governments.

-bad behavior speaks for itself


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Did not the people of Iran elect their government? Are they not a democracy? While these repressive religious hardliners might not represent all of the Iranian people, do they not represent the majority?
> 
> Just curious.


Wayfarer,

I am afraid the answer is no. It is of course right that the radical islamists have a sizeable number of backers in the population (as most oppressive regimes do). However, parliament candidates have to be vetted by a religious committee. Religious committees are also involved in the legislatory process, they control some of the security services etc. etc.

Please see the following Wikipedia articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_Government_of_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Guardians

I think it's fair to say that the Iranian people are NOT free to elect their government nor are they free to express their opinion or have a political discourse. The Iranian political system is about as "free" as the Soviet Union in the 60s.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> And, before we get too smug about how free we are in the West, and about our cherished institutions like the free press, take a look at suppression of unfavorable press coverage of the monarchy in Spain: https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2007/07/its-journalism-people.html


Sorry Jack, but that's bollocks. If anyone publicised a sketch of you and your wife copulating, you would ask for legal action as well.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Albert said:


> Sorry Jack, but that's bollocks. If anyone publicised a sketch of you and your wife copulating, you would ask for legal action as well.


My personal feelings are entirely beside the point. Whatever I might think of someone who created fanciful sketches involving me, however insulting they are, in the United States we don't have a law permitting prosecution and confiscation of printed matter that degrades and insults the head of state. How many years' imprisonment for insulting the king is equivalent to beatings for insulting the Prophet? My point is that people in the United States, both Left and Right, see Islam as uniquely repressive, and the facts show that the desire to silence unpopular political ideas, particularly if presented in a confrontational form, is almost universal even in the "free" West.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Mossadeq wasn't as "democratic" as most liberal revisionists would like now to remember. He was very much in the mold of Hugo Chavez and began by nationalizing oil, cozying up to the Reds and stifling dissent.
> 
> This nonsense in blaming what is going on now on actions from 50 to 60 years ago silly.


Okay, try a little thought experiment. Say we have an election in the United States. It's imperfect, as all elections are, and the person elected is imperfect, as all elected officials are, but he is the person we elected.
Now say that another country doesn't like the person we elected, so they engineer a coup and install a dictator more to their liking. And say he rules with an iron fist, torturing, imprisoning people, but also modernizing our way of life (although there are some of us who look at what he calls "modernizing" as a way of imposing a foreign way of life on us.
How long do you think it would take for Americans to think that we should take our lead from the country that engineered the coup and installed the dictator?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> My personal feelings are entirely beside the point. Whatever I might think of someone who created fanciful sketches involving me, however insulting they are, in the United States we don't have a law permitting prosecution and confiscation of printed matter that degrades and insults the head of state. How many years' imprisonment for insulting the king is equivalent to beatings for insulting the Prophet? My point is that people in the United States, both Left and Right, see Islam as uniquely repressive, and the facts show that the desire to silence unpopular political ideas, particularly if presented in a confrontational form, is almost universal even in the "free" West.


Jack,

If an opinion is shown in such an over-excessively tasteless and personally injuring form, it's not so much a political statement but a deliberate personal insult. Hence, I think it's justifiable to stop the publication of such a display.

Best,
A.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

tabasco said:


> try this one:
> https://www.cair-net.org/includes/Anti-TerrorList.pdf
> 
> my cursory Google search came up with something fairly easily & I'm not a scholar.
> ...


One need not be a scholar to know that it is quite a long shot to find an example like the one you site. Not only that but any Muslim doing so could very well find themselves on a list to be killed for doing so.

Is it your position that Islam is a peaceful religion?

History may be full of examples of of religious extremists but one would like to think that there may have been some sort of evolution. Islam is stuck in the seventh century. (for Pete's sake!)

Regards,

Bill 
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Albert said:


> ...this doesn't solve the issue of large, encapsulated local Muslim majorities in Europe.
> 
> Other than that I think it's actually a sensible proposal - at least compared to further Muslim immigration.


Just wait until Turkey is allowed to join the EU!


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Just wait until Turkey is allowed to join the EU!


Not gonna happen.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bill,



127.72 MHz said:


> Is it your position that Islam is a peaceful religion?


Let's review the bidding. You said:

I challenge anyone to find one Muslim organization or for that matter an individual Muslim who will go on record in stating they disagree with these actions.

Find one Muslim organization or an individual Muslim who will state their name and disagree with ANY terrorist act committed by a Muslim aganist a non-Muslim,...

Tabasco found a (large, influential) Muslim organization that says this:

In the light of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:
1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.
2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.
We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur'an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him. We urge all people to resolve all conflicts in just and peaceful manners.

He didn't claim that Muslim is a peaceful religion. That would be you changing the subject.

How is the fatwa that Tabasco quoted not a valid response to your challenge?

Jack


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

The case for an Islamic Fascism definition of this phenomenon is concluded, I believe. If so, the only q is how to counteract it successfully. 

You cannot rely on dissidents from their ranks, b/c of fear and the culture that consists mainly of devout Muslims that believe staunchly in the system of an absolute leader. It has even a name "velayat faqih", spelling excuses needed, probly.
You heard about the insult inflicted on them by the Danish cartoons and by knighting Rushdie, but you didn't hear one pip of protest against the attacks in Spain and Britain, to name a few instances, nada, zero, nil.

So the solution rests w our resolve in the face of this Hitlerian, fascist ideology, that threatens our way of life very really and near.

One way to do it is what a group of Israeli and US prominent persons try to do. They try to advance the idea of presenting their repressive internal policies against women and minorities as genocide, and this catches fire fast.

Other ways are available also, I believe. Money transfer control, surveillance, etc..


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I have no desire to defend repression of secular people in Iran or elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is foolish to oversimplify the situation.


And equally foolish to over-complicate it. The standard MO for a Middle Eastern strong-man thug has been the same for over 150 years. It's a simple 3 step plan: 
1. Oppress the people. Support the most repressive and basic version of Islam. Keep the people largely poor, uneducated and constantly in fear of the government. 
2. Steal their lands and overtax them. Use the proceeds to enhance your status of invincibility and to bribe or kill anyone who wants to challenge your authority.
3. Then blame all of their problems on the West (or sometimes on a neighboring country, especially if their are religious differences). Keeping the focus on someone else and not on the real sources of oppression is the key to making the plan work...and the easiest to actually pull off, given #1 above.

If you keep them riled up about how evil the West is and how it is the source of all of their problems and at the same time keep them provincial and uneducated, they have conclusively proven that you can keep them from overthrowing the dictators in their midst. When effectively applied it has yet to fail as a governing principal in the Middle East.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> And equally foolish to over-complicate it. The standard MO for a Middle Eastern strong-man thug has been the same for over 150 years. It's a simple 3 step plan:
> 1. Oppress the people. Support the most repressive and basic version of Islam. Keep the people largely poor, uneducated and constantly in fear of the government.
> 2. Steal their lands and overtax them. Use the proceeds to enhance your status of invincibility and to bribe or kill anyone who wants to challenge your authority.
> 3. Then blame all of their problems on the West (or sometimes on a neighboring country, especially if their are religious differences). Keeping the focus on someone else and not on the real sources of oppression is the key to making the plan work...and the easiest to actually pull off, given #1 above.
> ...


Why be so narrow minded ? If you were to simply eliminate all references to *geography* in your above statement you would be much closer to historical accuracy.

-


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

> One need not be a scholar to know that it is quite a long shot to find an example like the one you site. Not only that but any Muslim doing so could very well find themselves on a list to be killed for doing so.


If you don't like my prior examples, try this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmed_Ghamidi

I just read about this fellow in this morning's WSJ (print edition), quoting the Boston Globe of July 22, 2007. If you tried pretending to be somewhat interested, you might learn something new.



> Is it your position that Islam is a peaceful religion?


Did I say *anything* about Islam and "peaceful religion"?



> History may be full of examples of of religious extremists but one would like to think that there may have been some sort of evolution.


Yes, it's clear you might like to think that, evidence to the contrary.

-not a scholar, just curious


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Bill,
> 
> Let's review the bidding. You said:
> 
> ...


Because it only forbids assisting with or performing acts of terrorism against other Muslims. If they had meant to include infidels, infidels would have been specifically mentioned. We are not.

ie, 1 would have been written thus:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians, whether believers or infidels, are haram (forbidden) in Islam.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

What is your evidence that the authors of this document, when using the words "civilians", "persons", "innocent lives", and "all creation", intended to refer only to Muslims? You're just making this up.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

tabasco said:


> the point was Mossadeq was THEIR leader, not a puppet of the West. Wanna invade Venezuala?


Just like Kim Jong-Il is THEIR leader in NK. I suppose just because they are the declared leader then hands off. And yes, if Chavez begins to disrupt oil production and exports (which he would be crazy to do) we should take military action.



> It's not hard to see social consequences of political actions taken by governments still reverberating decades later, all over the world. Are you blind ?


Then I suppose the French are OK to invade Italy for what Caesar did in Gaul in 60BC. And the US should fire bomb Buckingham palace because of what the British Army did to the White House during the War of 1812. At what point do a people and a country take responsibility for their failures and stop blaming others? Playing the victim maybe convenient and intellectually simple but it hardly allows a society to prosper. I don't see the Japanese sulking and planning terrorist attacks against the US in retaliation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, try a little thought experiment. Say we have an election in the United States. It's imperfect, as all elections are, and the person elected is imperfect, as all elected officials are, but he is the person we elected.
> Now say that another country doesn't like the person we elected, so they engineer a coup and install a dictator more to their liking. And say he rules with an iron fist, torturing, imprisoning people, but also modernizing our way of life (although there are some of us who look at what he calls "modernizing" as a way of imposing a foreign way of life on us.
> How long do you think it would take for Americans to think that we should take our lead from the country that engineered the coup and installed the dictator?


Jack, 
You should ground your arguments in reality. If... what if... let's say... let's imagine... for argument sake lets say....

I suppose if we allow ourselves flights of fancy anything is possible. Lets try THIS thought experiment: The Iranians have a real election where all political parties are free to participate and the result is a government that is not a cancer on civilization, does not fund terrorists and does not repress women, intellectuals (including journalists) and minorities.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Get real.

We can't know how Iran would have developed if we hadn't installed Pahlavi in 1953, but it is clear that by putting him into power and keeping him there the United States created fertile ground for the Islamic resistance that took over.

And if you think forty or fifty or sixty years is too long to hold a grudge, think about the continuing fights over the Confederate flag and the "War of Northern Aggression".


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> And equally foolish to over-complicate it. The standard MO for a Middle Eastern strong-man thug has been the same for over 150 years. It's a simple 3 step plan:
> 1. Oppress the people. Support the most repressive and basic version of Islam. Keep the people largely poor, uneducated and constantly in fear of the government.
> 2. Steal their lands and overtax them. Use the proceeds to enhance your status of invincibility and to bribe or kill anyone who wants to challenge your authority.
> 3. Then blame all of their problems on the West (or sometimes on a neighboring country, especially if their are religious differences). Keeping the focus on someone else and not on the real sources of oppression is the key to making the plan work...and the easiest to actually pull off, given #1 above.
> ...


Our friends Pahlavi and Hussein managed to be pretty successful without tying their repressive regimes up with Islam.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> And if you think forty or fifty or sixty years is too long to hold a grudge, think about the continuing fights over the Confederate flag and the "War of Northern Aggression".


It's been a while since the fight over the confederate flag has yielded a body count. But Jack for your analogy to hold true we would have to imagine the Governor of Georgia ordering secret KKK operatives to retaliate against the north. People protesting and screaming and yelling is a far cry from what is going on in the middle east.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

Curious definition of success you have! When you have to flee your country and live in exile or end up with a noose around your neck its hard to consider your political tenure a success. Yes its true that even the most stunning political careers often end in defeat but if its the end that counts then Saddam and the Shah were utter failures.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The fight over the Confederate flag? Yes.
It's certainly within living memory, though, that resentment of the North's victory in the Civil War, and the desire to maintain white supremacy in the South, created a substantial body count.
https://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Jack,
> 
> . . . if its the end that counts then Saddam and the Shah were utter failures.
> 
> Karl


Hi, Karl,

You're begging the question. I wouldn't concede that it's the end that counts. Both Pahlavi and Hussein were successful in maintaining their power and wealth for decades, which is better than most strongmen can manage. It's kind of like being a Mafia capo--the pay and benefits are good, but the retirement plan leaves something to be desired.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Bill,
> 
> Let's review the bidding. You said:
> 
> ...


Jack,...This isn't "Bidding." Taken at the face value of your post you've won Jack! I was wrong and you were right,....You found a Muslim organization that spoke out against an act of terrorism.

You're not interested in flatly stating your position, you're interested in debating. You could pick a position out of a hat a debate against or for the position based upon your personal mood.

I arrived at my position on the subject by reading the thoughts of diplomats, think tank geeks, and others in the know.

But hey maybe you should join the diplomatic corps and I believe you might be able to take care of the whole mess,...

I also NEVER mentioned the Koran,...YOU did Jack. (and to be forthright I don't believe you know "Jack" about the Koran)

But since you have mentioned the Koran and is does in fact say some violence is forbidden why do you think radical factions, especially in the middle east, have turned towards violence in the name of Islam? The answer is quite commonly taught in first year college courses Jack. (one need not be a scholar)

Where do these radial Muslims get their information about the Prophet's views from Jack? I mean you mentioned the Koran. Have you ever read any part of the Koran?

I suspect you don't wish to add an opinion as to where all other cultures of the world are to turn against radical Islam. You only wish to poke a hole in a statement posted on an internet chat board. (and you're pretty good at it Jack)

Regards,

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> What is your evidence that the authors of this document, when using the words "civilians", "persons", "innocent lives", and "all creation", intended to refer only to Muslims? You're just making this up.


You obviously know nothing about Islam. This is common teaching throughout the religion. You only have to type "Muslims infidels believers" into Google and go down a few paragraphs in the very first article to appear to read the following. After that there about 342,000 other articles that pretty much say the exact same thing. Infidels don't count. Period. They don't deserve to live. That's a core belief of Islam.

"Non-believers - atheists under Islam do not have "the right to life ". They are to be killed. According to Islamic culture, sins are divided into great sins and little sins. Among the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery and so on. Courageous apostates aim to skewer the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of a faith that commands the allegiance of a billion people-as well as the hypocrisies of those Western defenders of Islam who would not tolerate its strictures in their own cultures."

But I'm sure you'll come up with some lame argument about how your more qualified to speak about Islam than this woman from Iran who used to be a Muslim.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

> Just like Kim Jong-Il is THEIR leader in NK. I suppose just because they are the declared leader then hands off. And yes, if Chavez begins to disrupt oil production and exports (which he would be crazy to do) we should take military action.


OK, I see, your Hummer might starve, huh ?



> Then I suppose the French are OK to invade Italy for what Caesar did in Gaul in 60BC. And the US should fire bomb Buckingham palace because of what the British Army did to the White House during the War of 1812. At what point do a people and a country take responsibility for their failures and stop blaming others? Playing the victim maybe convenient and intellectually simple but it hardly allows a society to prosper. I don't see the Japanese sulking and planning terrorist attacks against the US in retaliation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Yes, that's exactly my point. Iran (and every other state) needs to get on with life.

You may have confused my earlier posts with approving of Iran's behavior. I don't, I was suggesting some historical context may shed some light on why.

-increasingly intolerant


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

android said:


> You obviously know nothing about Islam. This is common teaching throughout the religion. You only have to type "Muslims infidels believers" into Google and go down a few paragraphs in the very first article to appear to read the following. After that there about 342,000 other articles that pretty much say the exact same thing. Infidels don't count. Period. They don't deserve to live. That's a core belief of Islam.
> 
> "Non-believers - atheists under Islam do not have "the right to life ". They are to be killed. According to Islamic culture, sins are divided into great sins and little sins. Among the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery and so on. Courageous apostates aim to skewer the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of a faith that commands the allegiance of a billion people-as well as the hypocrisies of those Western defenders of Islam who would not tolerate its strictures in their own cultures."
> 
> But I'm sure you'll come up with some lame argument about how your more qualified to speak about Islam than this woman from Iran who used to be a Muslim.


What woman? All I see is some words with quotation marks around them, but unsourced quotations are essentially worthless.

I don't claim to know more about Islam than almost anyone, and what I do know I don't like. It is clear, though, that people who see Islam as a unitary force, with no room for internal disagreement and a single ideology on the important issues facing the world are ignorant of the true dynamics of the religion and its people, and their ignorance is likely to lead to errors in public policy. 
For example, before the invasion of Iraq Bush was unaware of the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Not that he didn't know the fine points that divide them--he didn't even know there were two major divisions of the religion even within Iraq. That's a level of ignorance that seems to have been pretty costly to America and our troops in Iraq.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

127.72 MHz said:


> Jack,...This isn't "Bidding." Taken at the face value of your post you've won Jack! I was wrong and you were right,....You found a Muslim organization that spoke out against an act of terrorism.
> 
> You're not interested in flatly stating your position, you're interested in debating. You could pick a position out of a hat a debate against or for the position based upon your personal mood.
> 
> ...


It's not one organization, it's pages and pages of organizations.

My goal is not to win debaters' points, but to try to advance the understanding of the issues. From what I know of Islam I think it's pretty bad: it's repressive; it fosters the oppression of women; at least some of its varieties support the torture and killing of innocent people.

In other words, it's a lot like Christianity, or any other religion. Lots of Muslims don't want their religion to be judged purely on the basis of Osama bin Laden? Lots of Christians wouldn't want their religion to be judged purely on the basis of Fred Phelps, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Your post shows some progress by referring to "radical Islam", showing some awareness that the people who want to kill infidels who publish cartoons of Muhammad or let women drive cars may not be the whole religion.

I have a hard time believing that Islam is compatible with the Western values of pluralism, tolerance, equality for all people, freedom of expression, democracy, and limited government. There are people who know a lot more about the religion who agree with me. Still, even if I'm right and they're wrong, Islam isn't going away, so I don't think we're going to get anywhere by universally condemning it instead of learning how to deal with them.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> For example, before the invasion of Iraq Bush was unaware of the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Not that he didn't know the fine points that divide them--he didn't even know there were two major divisions of the religion even within Iraq. That's a level of ignorance that seems to have been pretty costly to America and our troops in Iraq.





jackmccullough said:


> ...but unsourced quotations are essentially worthless.


So are unsourced assertions of fact. I'm fascinated about your ability to speak with authority about what Bush did and didn't know. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the source of your wisdom and insight. :teacha: Did this lack of knowledge also extend into the Departments of State and Defense and the oversight committees of Congress, or was Mr. Bush singularly ignorant of such basic facts?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> So are unsourced assertions of fact. I'm fascinated about your ability to speak with authority about what Bush did and didn't know. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the source of your wisdom and insight. :teacha: Did this lack of knowledge also extend into the Departments of State and Defense and the oversight committees of Congress, or was Mr. Bush singularly ignorant of such basic facts?


Try this on:

First to come up on Google: Bush+shiite+sunni+knowledge. 
A _*teeny*_ bit of the iceberg.

-know nothing


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> So are unsourced assertions of fact. I'm fascinated about your ability to speak with authority about what Bush did and didn't know. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the source of your wisdom and insight. :teacha: Did this lack of knowledge also extend into the Departments of State and Defense and the oversight committees of Congress, or was Mr. Bush singularly ignorant of such basic facts?


Wow, direct hit there.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> It's not one organization, it's pages and pages of organizations.
> 
> My goal is not to win debaters' points, but to try to advance the understanding of the issues. From what I know of Islam I think it's pretty bad: it's repressive; it fosters the oppression of women; at least some of its varieties support the torture and killing of innocent people.
> 
> ...


So you wish to "Advance the understanding of the issues?"

Right Jack, yet your replies show either sheer ignorance or an individual who only wishes to muddy the water of understanding by pointing to examples that are one in a million and not represenative of the issue as a whole.

Oh, and my post shows "Some progress," by referring to radial Islam? (gee wiz Jack I'm flattered,...not.)

It's difficult to take your post at face value because your premise lacks understanding of basic cause and effect in terms of how Islam operates.

Perhaps you need to lay off the underground internet chat rooms for a spell and pick up a book from time to time. A subscrition to The Economist would be a good start and work your way into books from there.

In short your premise that Islam, radical Islam or the Islam that is taught in Mosques all over the world, is a lot like Christianity "Or other religions," is absurd.

I haven't the time or the will to enlighten you but one of the main points made by world theologians about Islam is that the Religion is stuck in the seventh century. (I hope a dim light might have flickered for you Jack)

This is said about the religion as a whole, mainstream and otherwise. (I know Jack with a little googling I'm sure you will be able to find a zelot from another religion who is quite radical,...which would be the exception)

One example sited in a paper I recently read by a post doctoral canidate is that most anyone will concede that it would not be fair to judge the Roman Catholic church by it's actions during the inquisitions. Yet one of Islam's main issues in dealing with our modern world is that it has been unable to adapt.

Educating one's self to this truth requires delving into the issue beyond the front of your nose.

Enjoy yourself Jack.

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Heh, this is classic. Basically, "Not that I am defending this, but really, it is all our fault."


It's a little too easy to dismiss our responsibilities like that, don't you think?

I am not a West-hater but it would be about time we stopped bickering about that point. Yes, Western powers have not exactly been pristine in their support of democracy in recent times. From the US promoting dictatorships and coups in South America, to France doing the same in Africa, to Britain and the US in the Middle East... We do have responsibilities.

That does not mean I agree completely with Jack. First, on the whole I still think the West (in general) did more good than bad in promoting democracy, but we do have a really patchy past. I am also glad that (on the whole) we are making progres in getting rid of this kind of politics (although the US still supports Saudi Arabia, France still supports Chad, and so on).

Second, and more importantly, in the precise example of Iran it is hard to ignore British and American responsibilities in enabling the Islamists to seize power. But that point being granted, it has been almost 30 years now. Let's focus about the despicable things the Iranian regime is doing now.



Albert said:


> I think it's fair to say that the Iranian people are NOT free to elect their government nor are they free to express their opinion or have a political discourse. The Iranian political system is about as "free" as the Soviet Union in the 60s.


The political system is indeed not free, but it's a stretch to put it on par with a full-fledged dictatorship like the USSR in the 1960s. I would say it's more somewhere like Saudi Arabia now (repression is a little worse in Iran, but on the whole it's similar). Definitely not a democracy in any case.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Étienne said:


> It's a little too easy to dismiss our responsibilities like that, don't you think?
> 
> I am not a West-hater but it would be about time we stopped bickering about that point. Yes, Western powers have not exactly been pristine in their support of democracy in recent times. From the US promoting dictatorships and coups in South America, to France doing the same in Africa, to Britain and the US in the Middle East... We do have responsibilities.
> 
> ...


Bravo Etienne!

While I think it is importaint to examine the root effect of the political decisions previous politicians from ALL over the world have made, at one point or another we need to live in the HERE AND NOW.

Or we could just roll in the mudd so to speak and all act like we're hot shots employed by a government think tank and continue to vomit up history while we let our political leaders give our collective country's, cultures, and ways of life away to Islam. (That would be a good idea right fellas?)

The question is: Is there a lesson to be learned by the actions of Governments all over central and northern Europe who have, in the name of tolerance, love, and multiculturalism, accommodated Muslims who as a whole see these actions as signs of weakness only to be exploited?

While something can still be done about this issue!

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Étienne said:


> The political system is indeed not free, but it's a stretch to put it on par with a full-fledged dictatorship like the USSR in the 1960s. I would say it's more somewhere like Saudi Arabia now (repression is a little worse in Iran, but on the whole it's similar). Definitely not a democracy in any case.


Etienne,

I don't think that you were told how to dress in the Soviet Union. And I think the number of executions in Iran might be higher. And I wouldn't be surprised if Iran has labour camps. Even the structure of the political system and the security services is similar.

I would actually think that Iran is LESS free than the Soviet Union in the 60s.

All the best,
A.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Albert,

Plus at least one could get a drink during the Soviet era. Not to mention that Iran has been responsible for more American deaths in the last 25 years (through their terrorist proxies) than the Soviets were in their 70+ years of existence.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> It's a little too easy to dismiss our responsibilities like that, don't you think?


This is not my viewpoint, I was summarizing the post prior. My view is similar to the one you just espoused.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

tabasco said:


> Try this on:
> 
> First to come up on Google: Bush+shiite+sunni+knowledge.
> A _*teeny*_ bit of the iceberg.
> ...


Quote:


> ...Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith...


Clearly an unimpeachable source with no particular ax to grind...:crazy:


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Albert said:


> I don't think that you were told how to dress in the Soviet Union. And I think the number of executions in Iran might be higher. And I wouldn't be surprised if Iran has labour camps. Even the structure of the political system and the security services is similar.


Come on, you don't have a political secret service as active as the USSR (or the Shah regime for that matter). You have elections that, if not completely free, at least change things, etc.

In Saudi Arabia, women have even stricter dress codes, are not allowed to drive (they are in Iran), to work, to be out of home without a male relative... There are more executions, and no elections at all (restricted or otherwise). They even sponsored radical islamist groups for years. And yet we say nothing.



Wayfarer said:


> My view is similar to the one you just espoused.


Okay, I misread you then, sorry.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Quote:
> 
> Clearly an unimpeachable source with no particular ax to grind...:crazy:


If you think he's so unreliable it should be a simple matter for you to disprove his assertion.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> If you think he's so unreliable it should be a simple matter for you to disprove his assertion.


Without attempting to unravel the gordian knot of illogic that is this post, let me just say I never said it was true or untrue. I only asked how it was that YOU were so certain it was true. Frankly I don't care.

But if the best source of facts you can muster are internet blog rants and partisan ravings by institutionalized GOP haters, then forgive me if I don't buy into your little premise...which, by the way, even if true proves exactly nothing.

I'd love to see an empirical historical study on the depth of FDR's knowledge of the various aspects and tenets of Shinoism prior to the start of WWII. I'm certain he must have been a scholar on that point.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

> Without attempting to unravel the gordian knot of illogic that is this post, let me just say I never said it was true or untrue. I only asked how it was that YOU were so certain it was true. Frankly I don't care.


Wm Shakespeare's Hamlet "methinks the [lady] doth protest too much"



> But if the best source of facts you can muster are internet blog rants and partisan ravings by institutionalized GOP haters, then forgive me if I don't buy into your little premise...which, by the way, even if true proves exactly nothing.


https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/15/national/main2270058.shtml

_Certain key sectors of US society also display a dangerous ignorance, Muslim advocates say. Topping the list this month is *Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D) of Texas,* the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In an interview with Congressional Quarterly last week, he could identify the historic Sunni-Shiite split but didn't know that Al Qaeda is Sunni or that Hizbullah, which fought Israel this summer in Lebanon, is Shiite_.

Hmmm, I'd guess you're a constituent of that honorable member.

-proud zenophobe


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

tabasco said:


> Wm Shakespeare's Hamlet "methinks the [lady] doth protest too much"


Wow. I'm afraid you got me there. I'm done in. Please don't respond to any more of my posts. Your wit and knowledge of overused Shakespearian quotes is more than I can deal with.



tabasco said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/15/national/main2270058.shtml
> 
> _Certain key sectors of US society also display a dangerous ignorance, Muslim advocates say. Topping the list this month is *Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D) of Texas,* the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In an interview with Congressional Quarterly last week, he could identify the historic Sunni-Shiite split but didn't know that Al Qaeda is Sunni or that Hizbullah, which fought Israel this summer in Lebanon, is Shiite_.
> 
> ...


Ummm. No. I'm not. El Paso is about as geographically distant from me as...oh, let's see, Wisconsin, for example.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for providing documentary evidence of my earlier point. On second thought, feel free to attack me any time.



Mark from Plano said:


> Did this lack of knowledge also extend into the Departments of State and Defense and the oversight committees of Congress, or was Mr. Bush singularly ignorant of such basic facts?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> If you think he's so unreliable it should be a simple matter for you to disprove his assertion.


My goodness I marvel at the sharp wit of one who's been boning up on the rules and technique of Parliamentary Debate,...

Although quite adept at High School level ridicule,...Not much to add in terms of an educated opinion.

Bill 
Portland, Oregon


----------

