Sept 11th was Just Punishment
- Thread starter Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- punishment
Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar said:
Earthquakes are the result of government conspiracies? As much as I love blaming government for things, there are just so many things that they aren't responsible for at all.
As for Bush being skinned alive...I guess that's justifiable because the early church skinned Hypatia alive, huh?
As an Irish person I'm considered to be of very dubious character by a sizeable minoroty of the UK's population, Humberside police most notably. Need I and my countrymen (and women) consider our activities in this light?
Certainly if you're trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards you. If you express Republican sentiments towards a vehement Unionist it may help to explain why they smacked you with a 2by4 later in the evening.
It doesn't make their actions correct, but if you expressed those sentiments in a particularly insensitive way (perhaps expressing a general support for the armed struggle when someone dear to that person died as a result of the armed struggle), you may wish to modify the way in which you express those sentiments so as to encourage discourse rather than conflict in the future
The problem is that in these societies the means do not exist to consult the people on whether they want to be democracies or not.
And those people in charge of those countries (be they the political or religious leaders) feel threatened as a result and will wish to defend themselves against these changes.
Having a third party come in and tell them how rotten their process of government does two things:
- It amplifies this feeling of threat
- It gives them a readily available target for their hostility
I don't have a problem with the U.S. promoting (its brand of) democracy. I do have a problem with it being characterised as a panacea and with armed means being used to implement it.
w.t.f happened here ? sorry
Certainly if you're trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards you. If you express Republican sentiments towards a vehement Unionist it may help to explain why they smacked you with a 2by4 later in the evening.
It doesn't make their actions correct, but if you expressed those sentiments in a particularly insensitive way (perhaps expressing a general support for the armed struggle when someone dear to that person died as a result of the armed struggle), you may wish to modify the way in which you express those sentiments so as to encourage discourse rather than conflict in the future
The problem is that in these societies the means do not exist to consult the people on whether they want to be democracies or not.
And those people in charge of those countries (be they the political or religious leaders) feel threatened as a result and will wish to defend themselves against these changes.
Having a third party come in and tell them how rotten their process of government does two things:
- It amplifies this feeling of threat
- It gives them a readily available target for their hostility
I don't have a problem with the U.S. promoting (its brand of) democracy. I do have a problem with it being characterised as a panacea and with armed means being used to implement it.
w.t.f happened here ? sorry
Some Friggin Guy
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 854
I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but...
Strict Muslim law doesn't alow dancing, singing, radios, music, or other such "trivialities". While I don't know for certain, I am fairly confident in the idea that it also does not allow posting on internet message boards.
I think what we're deling with here is someone who is a little more entertaining than a regular sock puppet.
I vote we call him a "muppet".
Strict Muslim law doesn't alow dancing, singing, radios, music, or other such "trivialities". While I don't know for certain, I am fairly confident in the idea that it also does not allow posting on internet message boards.
I think what we're deling with here is someone who is a little more entertaining than a regular sock puppet.
I vote we call him a "muppet".
Hmmmmm...... the name "Shaikh Saiid" is suspicious.
1). "Shaikh" is usually spelled differently in English transliteration e.g., with an "e" and not an "a".
2). "Saiid" is usually spelled "Said", as well.
3). "Shaikh" (as the author spells it) is a title of nobility, like "Lord" or "von". It literally means the leader of a clan or tribe. The vast majority of Arabs do not have this title, any more than most jews are "rabbi so-and-so" or most English "Lord so-and-so".
Either the author doesn't know English too well, or the name itself is a hint that he's a troll.
1). "Shaikh" is usually spelled differently in English transliteration e.g., with an "e" and not an "a".
2). "Saiid" is usually spelled "Said", as well.
3). "Shaikh" (as the author spells it) is a title of nobility, like "Lord" or "von". It literally means the leader of a clan or tribe. The vast majority of Arabs do not have this title, any more than most jews are "rabbi so-and-so" or most English "Lord so-and-so".
Either the author doesn't know English too well, or the name itself is a hint that he's a troll.
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
Cleopatra said:
You know You have a remarkable propensity for feigning ignorance when it suits You Cleo, my statement was :
"Naw he's a troll prolly a Israili or American agent provocateur..........."
You do this as a matter of course.
It reminds me of when I used to play EQ ( look it up ) there was a whole clique of asian players who would cheat and when you called them on it in public ( in SHOUT) the response was " solly me no speeky the engrish" BS. , But when in a coo-opeative situation were quite capable of velly good engrish , and if you reported thier behavior they would log.
Your delebrate "misunderstanding" of stated phrases is anathema to the depth of Your responses. The case of your lack of English skills , if that is so which I doubt, should at least make You aware of that shortcoming and alert You to review the post at hand at least twice.
You misquote and diverge off topic and if it is a language problem , again I suggest thorough review before you respond.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
JamesM said:
Come on, I already told you guys it's The Iron Sheik. Let's just let Hulkamania loose to run wild on him!!!
Re: Re: Sept 11th was Just Punishment
How do you know that there is any society that prefers not to be a democracy? Do those who have political power necessarily express the preferences of an entire society? Suppose there is a military coup in the USA and there are no more elections in the USA. Would you say that American society prefers to not be a democracy?The Don said:
Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar said:
Hmmm...
You know I would think cities like Amsterdam and Coopenhagen would be on the top of the list of Allah's targets if this was true.
Maybe DD or Plindboe can clear this up.
Have you been hit by any major earthquakes lately?
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
There are more then a few examples of a society embracing different political system than the one we enjoy, primary example being Islamic Theocracy, secondly Monarchys ( despotic or benevolent) . We as Americans ( Westerners ) think that we have found the be all and end all of political systems, To which I assent, BUT that doesn't mean it works for all or is desired by all.
The declaration that "If they only knew" these people we discuss would embrace western style democracy borders on religious extreamism. Let them enjoy wiping thier asses with corncobs and thier 13yr old bride marriages , You will not convince them they are wrong. Any overt attempt to "enlighten " them smacks of the black shirt missionary.
The declaration that "If they only knew" these people we discuss would embrace western style democracy borders on religious extreamism. Let them enjoy wiping thier asses with corncobs and thier 13yr old bride marriages , You will not convince them they are wrong. Any overt attempt to "enlighten " them smacks of the black shirt missionary.
TillEulenspiegel said:
What does it mean for a society to be "embracing" a political system? Does it mean that very few people try to learn foreign languages after they are adults and get away to other places? Does it mean that there aren't very many active revolutionaries? Does that mean that the suicide rate is low?
Perhaps there could be some kind of referendum or election to determine what kind of political system people want? How about every four years or so?
There are more then a few examples of a society embracing different political system than the one we enjoy, primary example being Islamic Theocracy, secondly Monarchys ( despotic or benevolent)
Well, according to the left, until a few years ago, the prime example of a society with "values that are just DIFFERENT from ours", which "embraced a different system", and that therefore should not be "forced to changed to suit OUR needs" in an act of "cultural imperialism", was--you guessed it--the USSR and the eastern block in general.
After all, if SO MANY countries "embraced socialism", SURELY this is proof that democracy is not for everyone, and that the west has no claim to superiority?
We all know how that ended: for a variety of reasons, the eastern block collapsed, and it turned out--surprise, surprise--that, except for a tiny and violent minority at the top, the vast majority of people did want democracy and capitalism, but state control refused to let them have it.
The same is true with the Muslim world. The vast majority of people want more freedom, not less; more technology, not less; more enjoyment of life, not less; and so on. Like with late, unlamented eastern block, a small, violent minority at the top is busy telling the west how "their society" wants nothing from it, how "their people" really LIKE living in the 13th century, how religious freedom, technology, and so on is a "foreign idea", how "real muslims" have NO interest in democracy, etc., etc., etc.
But if that's true... and if the people are soooooooo supportive of the leader's "vision" and "traditional society".... why do all these countries find it necessary to have, like the late USSR, political prisons, one-party sysyem, and state-controlled media? The reason, of course, is that it ISN'T true: it's just a cover story these despots tell gullible westerners. Why they believe it, I have no idea...
The declaration that "If they only knew" these people we discuss would embrace western style democracy borders on religious extreamism. Let them enjoy wiping thier asses with corncobs and thier 13yr old bride marriages , You will not convince them they are wrong.
Indeed so. I mean, we all know that democracy is something waaaaaaaaay too complicated and delicate for women... I mean, for blacks... I mean, for those dark-skinned people from strange-sounding places to mess with. Of course, don't take MY word for it: just ask the woman's husband, or the black man's plantation owner, or the muslim's despotic leader, if they REALLY want the vote. They all say "no"! So, what right have we to FORCE such foreign things on them???
Well, according to the left, until a few years ago, the prime example of a society with "values that are just DIFFERENT from ours", which "embraced a different system", and that therefore should not be "forced to changed to suit OUR needs" in an act of "cultural imperialism", was--you guessed it--the USSR and the eastern block in general.
After all, if SO MANY countries "embraced socialism", SURELY this is proof that democracy is not for everyone, and that the west has no claim to superiority?
We all know how that ended: for a variety of reasons, the eastern block collapsed, and it turned out--surprise, surprise--that, except for a tiny and violent minority at the top, the vast majority of people did want democracy and capitalism, but state control refused to let them have it.
The same is true with the Muslim world. The vast majority of people want more freedom, not less; more technology, not less; more enjoyment of life, not less; and so on. Like with late, unlamented eastern block, a small, violent minority at the top is busy telling the west how "their society" wants nothing from it, how "their people" really LIKE living in the 13th century, how religious freedom, technology, and so on is a "foreign idea", how "real muslims" have NO interest in democracy, etc., etc., etc.
But if that's true... and if the people are soooooooo supportive of the leader's "vision" and "traditional society".... why do all these countries find it necessary to have, like the late USSR, political prisons, one-party sysyem, and state-controlled media? The reason, of course, is that it ISN'T true: it's just a cover story these despots tell gullible westerners. Why they believe it, I have no idea...
The declaration that "If they only knew" these people we discuss would embrace western style democracy borders on religious extreamism. Let them enjoy wiping thier asses with corncobs and thier 13yr old bride marriages , You will not convince them they are wrong.
Indeed so. I mean, we all know that democracy is something waaaaaaaaay too complicated and delicate for women... I mean, for blacks... I mean, for those dark-skinned people from strange-sounding places to mess with. Of course, don't take MY word for it: just ask the woman's husband, or the black man's plantation owner, or the muslim's despotic leader, if they REALLY want the vote. They all say "no"! So, what right have we to FORCE such foreign things on them???