Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iraq was a fairly modern country until we destroyed it.
Iraq was a dictatorship held together by a fiercely secular totalitarian. You're not helping your point. And yes, we should have left Saddam there because the Muslim world has basically shown time and again that anytime they get democracy they always end up voting in theocracy and ushering in sectarian violence that, again, goes back hundreds and hundreds of years before the US was ever even an idea in George Washington's head.
Iraq ultimately wasn't destroyed by the "US" --- the sectarians destroyed Iraq. Iraq had every opportunity to be a new shining democracy in the Middle East. But the religion thwarted that opportunity. Remember, we also "destroyed" Japan and Germany even more completely than we ever did to Iraq. Germany and Japan were simply lucky to not have the burden of a centuries old blood feud to fill the vacuum. Culture. Religion. It matters.
That's why the Russians are right on Syria. Assad is an ******* dictator, but he's the only thing keeping the Muslim majority from completely wiping out one of the last remaining Christian populations in the Middle East.
Muslim nations always do better with dictators at the helm who are willing to quash religious extremism brutally.
{Our "support for dictators," btw, is also one of the oft-cited reasons why terrorist sympathizers say we "get what we deserve." Proving that when it comes to the Middle East and the Muslim world, you can never, ever win. Best to abandon them altogether, IMO. Let them sell their oil to each other.}
The progressives believe the best way to counter terrorism is to keep going about your lives and tragically more people will die because this is the new norm. The lack of counter terrorism by the EU means they've accepted human casualty of their citizens as a norm. They want to assimilate more Muslims and more bombings will happen because the ones carrying out the attacks are those that have been living in the EU for a long time and many are fully assimilated but still have pledged to commit attacks. Radicalization should be a crime there.
Why do the progressives think it's a good idea to allow backwards people inbreed with people in modern societies.
Iraq was a dictatorship held together by a fiercely secular totalitarian. You're not helping your point. And yes, we should have left Saddam there because the Muslim world has basically shown time and again that anytime they get democracy they always end up voting in theocracy and ushering in sectarian violence that, again, goes back hundreds and hundreds of years before the US was ever even an idea in George Washington's head.
Dang, I'm not making my point and then you go and repeat my point. Yes, we should have left Saddam alone.
Quote:
Iraq ultimately wasn't destroyed by the "US" --- the sectarians destroyed Iraq. Iraq had every opportunity to be a new shining democracy in the Middle East. But the religion thwarted that opportunity. Remember, we also "destroyed" Japan and Germany even more completely than we ever did to Iraq. Germany and Japan were simply lucky to not have the burden of a centuries old blood feud to fill the vacuum. Culture. Religion. It matters.
That's why the Russians are right on Syria. Assad is an ******* dictator, but he's the only thing keeping the Muslim majority from completely wiping out one of the last remaining Christian populations in the Middle East.
Muslim nations always do better with dictators at the helm who are willing to quash religious extremism brutally.
{Our "support for dictators," btw, is also one of the oft-cited reasons why terrorist sympathizers say we "get what we deserve." Proving that when it comes to the Middle East and the Muslim world, you can never, ever win. Best to abandon them altogether, IMO. Let them sell their oil to each other.}
We can't condemn others for what we rationalize away.
"We" absolutely can because "we" are not a chosen ideology of faith. It's almost like saying we can't condemn Neo-Nazi violence because we don't condemn military action at the state level.
I will absolutely condemn Muslims for subscribing to bull**** beliefs that are catalysts for violence, war and terror.
On the contrary, you can't really condemn someone for being French. Or Canadian. Or Japanese.
One is ultimately a chosen condition/affliction. The other is a condition of birth.
The progressives believe the best way to counter terrorism is to keep going about your lives and tragically more people will die because this is the new norm.
Sorry, when has our actions stopped people from being killed?
Quote:
The lack of counter terrorism by the EU means they've accepted human casualty of their citizens as a norm. They want to assimilate more Muslims and more bombings will happen because the ones carrying out the attacks are those that have been living in the EU for a long time and many are fully assimilated but still have pledged to commit attacks. Radicalization should be a crime there.
Why do the progressives think it's a good idea to allow backwards people inbreed with people in modern societies.
Maybe you have a point but I'm not familiar with your family tree.
These bombings will NEVER end. When will liberals get it thru their fat skulls that Muslims don't want Western freedoms. They hate us.
We are all effing doomed because liberals have their weird fantasy that everyone has to be treated fairly. No...sorry...but if you're throwing gays off the roof tops in your home country....while the whole town stands around watching and does NOTHING.....then these kinds of bombings are going to occur when these people move to the USA, England, France, etc.
Liberals are Idiots!
Well, your own Dear Leader just gave a speech to the Saudis where he said Islam is "one of the world's great Faiths"...so perhaps you should take it up with him.
"We" absolutely can because "we" are not a chosen ideology of faith. It's almost like saying we can't condemn Neo-Nazi violence because we don't condemn military action at the state level.
I will absolutely condemn Muslims for subscribing to bull**** beliefs that are catalysts for violence, war and terror.
On the contrary, you can't really condemn someone for being French. Or Canadian. Or Japanese.
One is ultimately a chosen condition/affliction. The other is a condition of birth.
We have led the violence and war and terror. It's an odd argument that states this is fine because we don't pretend to be peaceful.
Dang, I'm not making my point and then you go and repeat my point. Yes, we should have left Saddam alone.
The point you were trying to make was that Muslim nations exist which are modern, etc.
The point I am making is that those Muslim-majority nations which are marginally modern (and certainly not progressive by any stretch of the imagination) are such IN SPITE of the religion. Not BECAUSE of it. In fact, it is the top-down imposed secular nature of the Arab dictatorships that made them better places to be than their neighbors who are religious dictatorships, or even democractic theocracies.
Islam is the cancer retarding progress and growth. Totalitarianism is radiation, managing the spread.
Only a complete excision will save the patient, however.
We have led the violence and war and terror. It's an odd argument that states this is fine because we don't pretend to be peaceful.
We've "led" it, eh? Well, that's your opinion I guess. Strict non-interventionalism is something that was tried in the early 20th century. It's something we are - to this day - criticized for (on account of not getting involved soon enough in WW1 or WW2).
Islam, however, and the Muslim world, most assuredly attacked "the west" long before "the west" intervened in the Middle East. Lest we forget that the Ottoman Empire had its tentacles into eastern Europe up until WW1, and that the colonial period in that region was actually very brief. The current configuration of Arab states was not a creation out of thin air, but a partnership between Arabs and the European victors slicing up the Ottoman Empire that had been a literal scourge and source of terror in Europe for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.
And when it comes to the Middle East, outside of Iraq and Iran we have basically done nothing but kiss the asses of Arabs with oil for 100 years. And again, I don't see too many Iranian or Iraqi terrorists, do you?
The point you were trying to make was that Muslim nations exist which are modern, etc.
The point I am making is that those Muslim-majority nations which are marginally modern (and certainly not progressive by any stretch of the imagination) are such IN SPITE of the religion. Not BECAUSE of it. In fact, it is the top-down imposed secular nature of the Arab dictatorships that made them better places to be than their neighbors who are religious dictatorships, or even democractic theocracies.
Islam is the cancer retarding progress and growth. Totalitarianism is radiation, managing the spread.
Only a complete excision will save the patient, however.
Murdering millions is not a modern solution. I feel icky even replying to that idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
