So what's this War about anyway?

[Oliver]

A sentence in English can sometimes mean more than one thing, and can mean something other than you intend it to mean. When you say "it's not a muslim problem in general", there are multiple ways to take this. I think I know how you intend it, but I'm not sure. In any case, jihadis are indeed a small minority of muslims. However, it IS a muslim problem in general in several senses:
1) fellow muslims are actually the number 1 target of jihadis, and jihadis kill more muslims than people of any other religion
2) while jihadis are a small minority, those who sympathize with and tolerate their presence are a large minority. And that's a MAJOR problem.
3) widespread cultural values within the arab world which often ARE adopted by majorities (such as oppression of women and low value placed on education) have led those countries to chronic failure and create environments fertile for the rise of jihadi ideology.

What to do about it? Well, Iraq and Afghanistan are part of what we're doing about it. We've fractured the old stability of the middle east, exposed fault lines which were always there, forcing the jihadis to do battle to hold what should be their heartland (and they are losing that battle and alienating muslims in the process by their visciousness). We are demonstrating rather vividly that the old way of doing things will lead to continuing failure, that they cannot escape paying a price for those failures, and offering them help in finding a way out of the old pathologies. But none of those things can happen when they are ruled by despots.

Edit: oh, and this is entirely cultural, NOT racial. Race has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Well, I refuse to believe that if you hit me in the face until I accept your opinion is the right way to do anything. I also honestly believe that this is what democracy or Jesus is about.

Also the "oppression" of women is a weak argument for the majority of women who use to live this tradition. It's like saying that the church forces their members to go to church on Sundays because if they weren't raised religious, they wouldn't have to do this.

But in any way - that's not your business to decide what's a wrong or right just because something is outlandish or you don't like it. I guess you have the same western understanding of law and order. You can't force opinions violently if you believe in free speech, free opinions or democracy in general.

Now to fight extremist fundamentalists in all religions would be to show people that our way of life is better. But reality shows that this isn't the case concerning family values - to get back to the "women oppression". In Muslim countries this is a big argument to adopt western openness because it destroys family values. That's a fact. The same is pornography.

These are just two examples for Fundamentalist arguments.
So what to do? Force them to have unstable social values and pornography, too? Or would it be better to start with our problems on this issue?

Another thing is the influence in the Middle East. Jihadists argue that the western world doesn't care about their opinion at all. And that's also true. If someone refuses to give us the needed oil, we have a long history of replacing such unwanted people.

Matter of fact is that I don't remember that one single Muslim country invaded or tried to militarily intervene in a western country in the last 50 years.

So the western world has no arguments concerning "We are better". It's simply not true.

Also the occupation and declaration of Israel was violently. It was foreseeable that this will result in conflicts.

Just imagine the native Americans invading and declaring West Virgina as their own country.You really think your Government wouldn't play the Palestinians and blow them off the face of the earth? That's exactly what would happen, wouldn't it?

So please don't argue we are/were/will be better. That's BS, and you know that as much as I do.

 

[Oliver]

I dont think anyone would contest that Hussein was a nice guy, but my bottom viewpoint that a country being told to disarm or another country will use their big, massive 'shock and awe' weapons to stop them, killing a large number of civilians who have, nor want anything to do with their pr*ck leader, is a staggering hypocrisy that creates a world that I simply do not want to live in.

I thank you for your wise opinion, Undesired Walrus. And I apologize that I have a hard time to add something to your post - so I quoted only this part of your post because this argument from you completely nailed it in my opinion.

 

[Oliver]

The German Nazi party, which some of them keep trying to revive in America.

DR

Nope, the German Nazi Party was in Germany. I guess you meant the American Nazi Party, but just give a sign if you need some laws concerning this problem.

 

[g4macdad]

I'm demonstrating that your logic is spurious. So, about my question?

You're demonstrating a flawed analogy of an actuality. Your logic seems equally spurious to me.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I can do without the world's sympathy if it is only available when we are bloodied and bruised. I'd much rather have a few actual allies than an entire world of sympathizers.

I'd disagree with that. While you do make a valid point that the world's sympathy only available in times of national tragedy is a tad hypocritical, I'd say that the people of the world owning a humanitarian view of the United States is more important than government allies. And I'd say that because Al Qeada, and I'd use especially the example of the homegrown suicide attacks in London, are very much a stateless ferocity. They belong to an intrinsic hatred and ideology that are departed from the governments.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, I refuse to believe that if you hit me in the face until I accept your opinion is the right way to do anything.

Killing your enemy is not the equivalent of hitting someone in the face.

Have you ever heard of a game-theory problem called the prisoner's dilemma? It's a game-theory problem of two players interacting where each player can benefit by trying to screw over his opponent, but where both players will be better off if they help each other than they will be if they both try to screw each other over. If you only play once, the choice is clear: screw over the other player. But the dynamic changes if you play repeated rounds, because you can build trust. And what's the winning strategy? It's called "tit-for-tat": start out being nice, but then just do to the other player whatever they did to you last round. This strategy has been tested against LOTS of other strategies, from being aggressive to being really nice, and it comes out on top consistently. Even the more complicated strategies which do well have similar characteristics, one if which is you MUST retaliate against aggression. If you do not, aggressive strategies thrive, and everyone is worse off.

Also the "oppression" of women is a weak argument for the majority of women who use to live this tradition. It's like saying that the church forces their members to go to church on Sundays because if they weren't raised religious, they wouldn't have to do this.

You're comparing behavior enforced by violence or the threat of violence, to voluntary choices people make on their own. That's pathetic, Oliver. Even for you. This is moral relativism at its absolute worst.

But in any way - that's not your business to decide what's a wrong or right just because something is outlandish or you don't like it.

God damned right I don't like fathers killing their own daughters because they were seen with the wrong boy. And god damned right it IS my business to decide that that is wrong. Do you even realize that the position you're trying to argue for doesn't permit ANY moral judgment on ANY topic at all? Slavery, rape, child abuse, torture, ANYTHING? No, you don't realize it, because you're not above making judgments about others. You just make sure you pick politically correct targets when you make your judgments.

Now to fight extremist fundamentalists in all religions would be to show people that our way of life is better.

How clueless are you, exactly? Our way of life is better, IF you have our values for what "better" means. Change those, and no, no example we can set will look "better" to them. Not when they think it's worse for women to get an education, or show their faces in public, etc.

But reality shows that this isn't the case concerning family values - to get back to the "women oppression". In Muslim countries this is a big argument to adopt western openness because it destroys family values. That's a fact.

First off, I'm not impressed with arab concepts of "family values", especially since honor killings figure into them. And second, this rather contradicts your previous point: the don't have the same values as we do, and so they WILL NOT change their behavior based on us setting a good example for them. Because we CANNOT set what they would consider a good example without abandoning our own core values.

So what to do? Force them to have unstable social values and pornography, too?

Oh yeah, because if there's one thing our soldiers are forcing down the throats of Iraqis, it's pornography.

Matter of fact is that I don't remember that one single Muslim country invaded or tried to militarily intervene in a western country in the last 50 years.

Can you name one Muslim country which was even close to capable of invading a western country? No. They are all far too weak for that, which is why they don't. But Pakistan has gotten in scrapes with India within that time period, Israel's neighbors have attacked it, and a number of middle eastern countries HAVE engaged in violent aggression towards the west. They just use terrorist proxies to do it instead of conventional militaries because they are so weak. But weakness is not, and has NEVER been, a moral virtue.

So the western world has no arguments concerning "We are better". It's simply not true.

Bull. Nobody really believes that, LEAST of all middle easterners. Just look at the flow of people, and you'll see the truth. People are LEAVING the middle east for the west, NOT the other way around. The middle east is full of failing states and societies. Their only significant exports are violence and oil, and it's not through any ability of their own that they can export the latter.

 

[Oliver]

Killing your enemy is not the equivalent of hitting someone in the face.

Have you ever heard of a game-theory problem called the prisoner's dilemma? It's a game-theory problem of two players interacting where each player can benefit by trying to screw over his opponent, but where both players will be better off if they help each other than they will be if they both try to screw each other over. If you only play once, the choice is clear: screw over the other player. But the dynamic changes if you play repeated rounds, because you can build trust. And what's the winning strategy? It's called "tit-for-tat": start out being nice, but then just do to the other player whatever they did to you last round. This strategy has been tested against LOTS of other strategies, from being aggressive to being really nice, and it comes out on top consistently. Even the more complicated strategies which do well have similar characteristics, one if which is you MUST retaliate against aggression. If you do not, aggressive strategies thrive, and everyone is worse off.

You're comparing behavior enforced by violence or the threat of violence, to voluntary choices people make on their own. That's pathetic, Oliver. Even for you. This is moral relativism at its absolute worst.

God damned right I don't like fathers killing their own daughters because they were seen with the wrong boy. And god damned right it IS my business to decide that that is wrong. Do you even realize that the position you're trying to argue for doesn't permit ANY moral judgment on ANY topic at all? Slavery, rape, child abuse, torture, ANYTHING? No, you don't realize it, because you're not above making judgments about others. You just make sure you pick politically correct targets when you make your judgments.

How clueless are you, exactly? Our way of life is better, IF you have our values for what "better" means. Change those, and no, no example we can set will look "better" to them. Not when they think it's worse for women to get an education, or show their faces in public, etc.

First off, I'm not impressed with arab concepts of "family values", especially since honor killings figure into them. And second, this rather contradicts your previous point: the don't have the same values as we do, and so they WILL NOT change their behavior based on us setting a good example for them. Because we CANNOT set what they would consider a good example without abandoning our own core values.

Oh yeah, because if there's one thing our soldiers are forcing down the throats of Iraqis, it's pornography.

Can you name one Muslim country which was even close to capable of invading a western country? No. They are all far too weak for that, which is why they don't. But Pakistan has gotten in scrapes with India within that time period, Israel's neighbors have attacked it, and a number of middle eastern countries HAVE engaged in violent aggression towards the west. They just use terrorist proxies to do it instead of conventional militaries because they are so weak. But weakness is not, and has NEVER been, a moral virtue.

Bull. Nobody really believes that, LEAST of all middle easterners. Just look at the flow of people, and you'll see the truth. People are LEAVING the middle east for the west, NOT the other way around. The middle east is full of failing states and societies. Their only significant exports are violence and oil, and it's not through any ability of their own that they can export the latter.

Just out of curiosity: Where do you get your propaganda from? Are you jewish?

And can you back up your claims about inner-familiar killings or other killings? Maybe in Numbers?

Your whole post portrays radical racism and support for violence against things you don't accept because they are about muslims. That's why I guess you are a jewish extremist.

Care to clean up your house, too? Or maybe stop genocide in Africa?

No!

 

[mr rosewater]

Just out of curiosity: Where do you get your propaganda from? Are you jewish?

And can you back up your claims about inner-familiar killings or other killings? Maybe in Numbers?

Your whole post portrays radical racism and support for violence against things you don't accept because they are about muslims. That's why I guess you are a jewish extremist.

Care to clean up your house, too? Or maybe stop genocide in Africa?

No!

Oh and you edited to add extremist.

Just wanna save this little gem.

 

[Skibum]

Just out of curiosity: Where do you get your propaganda from? Are you jewish?

And can you back up your claims about inner-familiar killings or other killings? Maybe in Numbers?

Your whole post portrays radical racism and support for violence against things you don't accept because they are about muslims. That's why I guess you are a jewish extremist.

Care to clean up your house, too? Or maybe stop genocide in Africa?

No!

WOW, I'm not sure what to say.

Calling someone a radical racist while exhibiting signs of being a radical racist himself.

To think that anti semitism was a fleeting idea in Germany.

 

[Oliver]

WOW, I'm not sure what to say.

Calling someone a radical racist while exhibiting signs of being a radical racist himself.

To think that anti semitism was a fleeting idea in Germany.

I'm impressed. Care to point it out where I'm a racist? I'd really love to see that.

 

[Oliver]

Oh and you edited to add extremist.

Just wanna save this little gem.

That's true - I don't want to hurt people who are no extremists. Sorry for my kindness.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just out of curiosity: Where do you get your propaganda from? Are you jewish?

Quite frankly, when a German starts demanding to know whether or not I'm jewish, I'm not about to tell him. Nothing personal, but Germans don't exactly have a good track record of handling that sort of information well.

You know, at first I thought you were just ignorant. But you're not. Well, actually, you are, but you're not ONLY ignorant. You're also bigotted and immature, and quite clearly NOT interested in learning or honest debate. I don't get my propaganda from anywhere, I get my information from lots of sources.

And can you back up your claims about inner-familiar killings or other killings? Maybe in Numbers?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA330181999
Hundreds each year in Pakistan. And many more women are kept in line out of fear of such killings. And the practice isn't confined to Pakistan either. But I'll let you do a little googling of your own if you're actually interested. I doubt you will, though.

Your whole post portrays radical racism

Nothing I've said is about race. It's about ideology and values. Neither of those things has ANY intrinsic connection to race. You're getting desparate if such accusations are the only thing you can resort to in order to try to counter my argument.

and support for violence against things you don't accept because they are about muslims. That's why I guess you are a jewish extremist.

Yeah, cause you know those guys who were killing all those germans 65 years ago? Jewish extremists.

Care to clean up your house, too? Or maybe stop genocide in Africa?

I'd like to stop genocide in Africa. But tragically it won't happen, and people like you are part of the reason. You don't seem to understand what it actually takes to stop a genocide: it takes killing the people doing it until they decide to stop. Oh, the bitter irony of a German not understanding that sad fact.

Oh, and do you know who's doing the killing in Darfur? Muslim militias. The borders of the muslim world are bloody indeed.

 

[Skibum]

That's true - I don't want to hurt people who are no extremists. Sorry for my kindness.

Uhhuh, I think it's pretty obvious what's in your mind.

 

[Oliver]

Then you're wrong if you say I hate Jews and/or love Muslims. Read again, point it out or apologize for this claim.

 

[Skibum]

Then you're wrong if you say I hate Jews and/or love Muslims. Read again, point it out or apologize for this claim.

Are you X, you insert negative quality sure makes you look like an X.


Has a pretty prejudicial and racist tone if I've ever seen one.

So no, no apology to you. Only enlightenment of your mindset for me.

 

[Oliver]

Quite frankly, when a German starts demanding to know whether or not I'm jewish, I'm not about to tell him. Nothing personal, but Germans don't exactly have a good track record of handling that sort of information well.

Sorry for my straightness - but my first thought was "Paranoia?"

You know, at first I thought you were just ignorant. But you're not. Well, actually, you are, but you're not ONLY ignorant. You're also bigotted and immature, and quite clearly NOT interested in learning or honest debate. I don't get my propaganda from anywhere, I get my information from lots of sources.

Well, that's fine - I get my information from Muslims I actually ask about Radical Muslims. Right on the other side of the street.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA330181999
Hundreds each year in Pakistan. And many more women are kept in line out of fear of such killings. And the practice isn't confined to Pakistan either. But I'll let you do a little googling of your own if you're actually interested. I doubt you will, though.

Well, guess who's our partner we don't have the courage to touch in our "War against the Axis of Evil: Pakistan

pathetic

And I don't agree that you accept thousands of dead in Iraq while you are completely opposed to hundreds killed in Pakistan. Wouldn't it be the better choice to reform the world? Probably not because they have WMD's.

My point still is: The Society itself has to change that - not a military intervention that results in a bloody Mess like Iraq. Undesired Walrus is right about that - I also don't want live in a world like that in which violence justifies more violence.

Nothing I've said is about race. It's about ideology and values. Neither of those things has ANY intrinsic connection to race. You're getting desparate if such accusations are the only thing you can resort to in order to try to counter my argument.

I know what you mean by Racism by Race - but I don't know the English term for "ethnically Racism", meaning the hate against a whole ethnic group.
Because that's what you portrayed here and I have no interest in getting into a flame war about it splitting a million of hairs.

Yeah, cause you know those guys who were killing all those germans 65 years ago? Jewish extremists.

That is no point at all because whatever you meant, it was 65 years ago. I'm 33.

I'd like to stop genocide in Africa. But tragically it won't happen, and people like you are part of the reason. You don't seem to understand what it actually takes to stop a genocide: it takes killing the people doing it until they decide to stop. Oh, the bitter irony of a German not understanding that sad fact.

That's interesting: If you already know that this will not happen: What is the reason for the genocide? You seem to know it.

Oh, and do you know who's doing the killing in Darfur? Muslim militias. The borders of the muslim world are bloody indeed.

Quite frankly - I'm not very familiar with Dafur. Shall we go there instead Iraq? Do they have Oil?

 

[Oliver]

Are you X, you insert negative quality sure makes you look like an X.

Has a pretty prejudicial and racist tone if I've ever seen one.

So no, no apology to you. Only enlightenment of your mindset for me.

Well, then spell it out - what do you mean by this?

Uhhuh, I think it's pretty obvious what's in your mind.

Or are you a coward?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry for my straightness - but my first thought was "Paranoia?"

No, it's called me being a smartass. I'm hardly scared of you.

Well, that's fine - I get my information from Muslims I actually ask about Radical Muslims. Right on the other side of the street.

http://www.memri.org

Well, guess who's our partner we don't have the courage to touch in our "War against the Axis of Evil: Pakistan

I don't know what to do about Pakistan. Do you? I doubt it. But that sure as hell won't stop you from complaining. And hey, it's not like anyone expects Germany to do anything about these sorts of problems.

pathetic

Took the words right out of my mouth.

And I don't agree that you accept thousands of dead in Iraq while you are completely opposed to hundreds killed in Pakistan. Wouldn't it be the better choice to reform the world? Probably not because they have WMD's.

That was, umm... incoherent.

My point still is: The Society itself has to change that

Look, I'm all for societies self-reforming. But the arab/muslim world isn't doing that. And they've made their problems the problems of the rest of the world. I lost my patience for waiting for them to reform themselves at about 10:00 AM (Pacific time) on September 11, 2001.

I also don't want live in a world like that in which violence justifies more violence.

Whether or not you want to live in such a world, you do live in such a world. Pretending reality is otherwise isn't going to do anyone any good. When retribution does not follow aggression, you get more violence, not less.

That is no point at all because whatever you meant, it was 65 years ago. I'm 33.

Jump, quick, before it goes over your head!

That's interesting: If you already know that this will not happen: What is the reason for the genocide? You seem to know it.

Ethnic and tribal tensions that go way back. Do a little digging yourself for once. But you don't need to know the origins of this particular genocide to know that only violence will stop it, because violence is the only thing that has EVER stopped ANY genocide, other than the perpetrators running out of victims. I guess we could wait for that to happen - would you prefer that solution?

Quite frankly - I'm not very familiar with Dafur. Shall we go there instead Iraq? Do they have Oil?

Sudan has oil. But it's mostly in southern Sudan, not western Sudan. Talisman, a Canadian oil company, used to have large interests there. But they mostly divested because of human rights protests (there was a bit of a civil war in southern Sudan before the Darfur crisis). Would you like to know what foreign country has the largest oil interests in Sudan now? China. Talisman's divestment didn't help, because China took up the slack and, unlike Talisman, doesn't care at all about its public image or about violence going on in other parts of the country. One guess as to whether or not the UN Security Council will ever approve military action to stop the genocide.

 

[Azure]

You're demonstrating a flawed analogy of an actuality. Your logic seems equally spurious to me.

There you go once again.

Just answer the damn question already.

 

[Pardalis]

Well, that's fine - I get my information from Muslims I actually ask about Radical Muslims. Right on the other side of the street.

I find this bit funny.

So when you want to know some things about Islam you just go to the other side of the street and ask your friends who are Muslim.

So, you do pretty much the same thing here on this forum. You have something you want to know about America, and you log on here and ask Americans.

My question is: do you get in the same long never-ending arguments as you do here with your friends from the other side of the street?