What They're Teaching Saudi Kids

[Jocko]

I am an electronics technician, an engineer, a college professor, a wood worker, and a pilot therefore I think that I am reasonably well qualified to make up my own mind as to what I buy.

Wow, I'm sorry, I underestimated your relevant experience in advertising and marketing.

Er, as for me I have purchased three orders of McNuggets in my life some years ago because they were something that I had not had before and they only cost one dollar. By the way, I understand that McDonalds is having revenue problems that all of there increased advertising has not helped a great deal restoring their market share. P.S.: I hardly eat at McDonalds at all any more, since there food is not really all that good.

You missed the point. Why would anyone buy them? Because they obviously do. Oh, BTW, McD's is doing quite well, with same-store sales up 7% in April. And their market share still hovers in the 42% range, in spite of increasing competition and aggressive territorial expansion. Why? Because they have the strongest brand. They invest in it heavily and it pays dividends.

Thanks for admitting your fallibility and I do think that is fair to say that advertising has a bit to do with my buying habits. However you original statement said something far more powerful about the influence of advertising and that is the something which I disagree with.

Sorry, but you're saying you don't think it's happening doesn't contradict my point that you're not SUPPOSED to think it's happening. Think of it like hypnosis... your behavior can be modified, tweaked and exploited, but not forced to do something it would never do consciously.

And that, in conclusion, is why radical madrasses are a real concern and a real threat. They exploit the prejudices, ignorance and fear found in the ir students' own homes. They don't create it, but they reinforce it.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, they were all killed by the U.S. I do not know why that is so hard for you to understand, but it is just that simple.

Sorry I'm so simple-minded, but I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that "foreign al Qaeda terrorists killing Iraqis = U.S. killing Iraqis."

I've heard of the "blame America first" brigade. Congratulations on having demonstrated there is also a "blame America first, last, and always" brigade.

Well I never said anything about the Saudi public education program you speak of being a recent development.

And yet, you said earlier:

Then that is still a great many people who have been killed by the USA who should have never been killed by the USA. It is due to this action and many others why there is such entrenched and popular anti-West sentiment in the Middle East (as indicated by the Saudi public education program).

So the Saudis hate us because of what we've done in Iraq since early 2003, but they were teaching their kids to hate us well before then. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

On Monday you called me "pathetic" and on "Tuesday" you called me a "tool", so I wonder what you will call me today.

How about an idiot? Let's try that one on for size.

You know, it's actually quite easy to get me to stop calling you names. All it takes is refraining from posting information that has already been discredited, ESPECIALLY after you've been called on it.

If 25,000 Iraqis have been killed as you say (but for some reason you do not count the deaths of Iraqis in the military),

Wrong again. The UNDP figures are TOTAL excess deaths, from ALL sources. It includes Iraqi military and security forces (both those killed during the initial invasion and in subsequent fighting against terrorists), as well as terrorist deaths. I specifically said so. Are you so stupid that you couldn't figure that out, or do you think we're so stupid we wouldn't notice you were lying about my claims?

Or if 30,000 Iraqis have been killed as Bush says,

Well, the UNDP numbers and Bush's statement weren't given at the same time - I think Bush's statement came more than a year later, and it only represents an approximation anyways, so I don't know why you think it represents any kind of discrepency.

Or if 45,000 Iraqis have been killed as media analysis has concluded,
Or if 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as the Lancet studies have show,

The media analysis is a different can of worms. Whatever its advantages or problems, it's a radically different way of measuring deaths. In fact, it's not actually even measuring the same thing - both the Lancet and the UNDP measure EXCESS deaths, the number of deaths (due to ANY cause) which can be attributed to a mortality level above prewar level. These media reports only report violent deaths, but they also have no method by which they can subtract a pre-war background level from the figures. You can prefer whichever metric you like, but they're simply NOT measuring the same thing.

The Lancet study, however, was EXACTLY the same kind of study as the UNDP study, with the exception that the UNDP study was more than 20 times as large, and didn't skip any provinces. Therefore the UNDP study is in ALL respects preferable to the Lancet study. If you think the media analysis is better than the UNDP study, fine, go ahead, but to continue to rely on a sampling study that has been superceded by MUCH more extensive and reliable results using the SAME methodology is simply inexcusable.

Then that is still a great many people who have been killed by the USA who should have never been killed by the USA.

Oh, pardon me. I guess if you pick the right position, actually getting the facts right doesn't really matter. Sorry, but getting the facts right DOES matter, regardless of what position you want to take. But you seem perpetually uninterested in doing that.

Yeah, I think "idiot" works for today.

 

[BPSCG]

How about an idiot? Let's try that one on for size.

You know, it's actually quite easy to get me to stop calling you names. All it takes is refraining from posting information that has already been discredited, ESPECIALLY after you've been called on it.

I'm assuming you were typing the above before you saw this little gem of Crossbow's:

Yes, they were all killed by the U.S. I do not know why that is so hard for you to understand, but it is just that simple.

Otherwise, you'd have probably had a few more choice names for him.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm assuming you were typing the above before you saw this little gem of Crossbow's:

Yeah, I saw that. But unfortunately I don't think I do have quite the word to describe him - simple profanities can convey my emotional response, but they don't adequately capture his dishonesty. Crossbow has a bit of a language problem. Apparently, a terrorist in Iraq can blow themselves up and kill innocent bystanders, but that counts as Americans killing both the terrorist and the bystanders. Similarly, in Crossbowland, you can get fired with out actually, you know, getting fired. When you get to redefine the meaning of words (like "kill" and "fire") arbitrarily, you can make all sorts of crazy claims.

 

[Manny]

Yeah, I saw that. But unfortunately I don't think I do have quite the word to describe him - simple profanities can convey my emotional response, but they don't adequately capture his dishonesty.

Propagandist for the other side.

 

[fishbob]

Just remember this next time you hear someone say that our presence in Iraq is what's creating terrorists. Nope. They're being created in first grade. And we'll never be rid of them until "our friends, the Saudis" and other Muslim governments stop breeding them.

Misquote. I have not heard that yet, except from you.
What I have heard is that our presence in Iraq is what is creating terrorists in Iraq.

 

[fishbob]

Wow, you know, I went to Sunday school for a few years as a kid. I don't recall anything along those lines. How about you elaborate? Or is this another case of "they did it in the 14th century, therefore it's a valid tool for flimsy moral equivalency today" kind of thing?

I bet you did not go to a southern baptist church or one of those charismatic sect churches. Sit through some of those and tell me there is no moral equivalency.

 

[Crossbow]

Sorry I'm so simple-minded, but I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that "foreign al Qaeda terrorists killing Iraqis = U.S. killing Iraqis."

I've heard of the "blame America first" brigade. Congratulations on having demonstrated there is also a "blame America first, last, and always" brigade.

Well perhaps that is because foreign al Qaeda terrorists you are so concerned about were not actually in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps you have not noticed this item as it has been extensively covered in the media. By the way, it now looks like most of the terrorism being perpetuated in Iraq is now being done by Iraqis.

And yet, you said earlier:
So the Saudis hate us because of what we've done in Iraq since early 2003, but they were teaching their kids to hate us well before then. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

If you knew anything about Middle Eastern history then it would make a lot of sense.

There has been a very long standing of hatred of Europeans among many in the Middle East for centuries (refer to the Crusades that occurred about 1000 years ago). Whereas more recent events (such as the Iraq War), and several others (the Israel situation, the way the Kurds and Shiites were abandoned after the first Gulf War, proliferation of Western Culture into the Middle East, and so on) have done a great deal to exacerbate that hatred as well as hatred against the USA in the last several years.

 

[Jocko]

I bet you did not go to a southern baptist church or one of those charismatic sect churches. Sit through some of those and tell me there is no moral equivalency.

Sorry, Bob, I've spent a fair amount of time in Alabama and rural Florida. While I never spent a Sunday with the Pentacostals, I've dealt with them on other levels and there's nothing that even comes close to comparing. If your experiences differ, I'd love to hear more, of course.

 

[jj]

So, what's the difference between the Wahibists in Saudi Arabia, and the Dominionists in the USA?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[BPSCG]

By the way, it now looks like most of the terrorism being perpetuated in Iraq is now being done by Iraqis.

Nononononono... It's the Americans who are killing the Iraqis. I have it on no less an authority than...you.

C'mon, CB; pick one line and stick to it, wouldya?

There has been a very long standing of hatred of Europeans among many in the Middle East for centuries (refer to the Crusades that occurred about 1000 years ago). Whereas more recent events (such as the Iraq War), and several others (the Israel situation, the way the Kurds and Shiites were abandoned after the first Gulf War, proliferation of Western Culture into the Middle East, and so on) have done a great deal to exacerbate that hatred as well as hatred against the USA in the last several years.

So the Crusades generated such a deep, rich hatred of all things western that they were able to nurture and keep alive that hatred for centuries.

But now we've really gone and pissed them off.

O...kayyyy....

 

[Ziggurat]

proliferation of Western Culture into the Middle East,

Western culture doesn't get forced on anyone. It proliferates because it is attractive, and people CHOOSE it (or parts of it). So if they're pissed off at the proliferation of Western culture in the Middle East, they're really mad at their fellow middle-easterners for having the gall to choose something from another culture. In other words, who they're REALLY mad at is each other. How the fact that the Islamists hate Barbie advances your argument, I'm not really sure. Maybe there's a word in there somewhere you've redefined which ties it all together.

 

[Jocko]

So, what's the difference between the Wahibists in Saudi Arabia, and the Dominionists in the USA?

I know! I know!

"Wahabists" is actually a word people use.

What do I win?

 

[BPSCG]

... they're really mad at their fellow middle-easterners for having the gall to choose something from another culture. In other words, who they're REALLY mad at is each other.

People's Exhibit A: Gaza. Now that the Israelis have made it damned near impossible to kill a Jew, they're shooting each other up. People get mad at me every time I compare the Palis to the Silastic Armourfiends of Striterax, but the comparison gets more apt every day.

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades? My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on my dad's side were enslaved by Egyptians. But you know what? I'm over it, and so is my sister.

 

[bjb]

I don't see much difference in their goals. I think the difference is that the Wahibists are mainstream in their society and they recieve government support. The nutcase Christians we have in the US are just as bad but they are outsiders on the lunatic fringe, not at all representative of mainstream Americans. Also, they don't recieve government support. Fortunately, we still have some seperation between church and state here in the U.S.

Another difference between us 'n' them is that our society also has the concept of hate speech, which I think applies to the Battlecry people. I'm sure they have the idea of hate speech in Saudi Arabia, but it seems to apply only to those who critizise Islam

 

[bjb]

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades? My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on my dad's side were enslaved by Egyptians. But you know what? I'm over it, and so is my sister.

We should try apologizing for all the US troops we sent over during the Crusades. Maybe that will help.

 

[Jocko]

We should try apologizing for all the US troops we sent over during the Crusades. Maybe that will help.

Throw in some steep reparations and you may be on to something.

 

[Crossbow]

Nononononono... It's the Americans who are killing the Iraqis. I have it on no less an authority than...you.

C'mon, CB; pick one line and stick to it, wouldya?

I am not changing lines, but please try to keep up with this next bit of data.

The foreign al Qaeda terrorists did not exist in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.
By the same token, the indigenous Iraqi terrorists did not exist in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.

It was the US invasion of Iraq that has created and sustained these events therefore it is the US that is responsible for them.

So the Crusades generated such a deep, rich hatred of all things western that they were able to nurture and keep alive that hatred for centuries.

But now we've really gone and pissed them off.

O...kayyyy....

That is indeed the way many of them feel. Much in the same way that many Christians blame Jews of today for the killing of Jesus about 2000 years ago. Neither of these ideas is very logical, but both of them do have there strong adherents all the same.

For those of you who know a bit about history, I apologize for bogging down the thread with details, but some people [BPSCG] are just too lazy to do their own research. Hopefully, he will be able to at least review these three high points of the Crusades and thus get a better idea of just the long lasting and profound hatred that some Muslims have against all things European and Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Siege_of_Jerusalem

Siege of Jerusalem

... Meanwhile, siege engines were constructed and seven days later on July 15 [1099], the crusaders were able to end the siege by breaking down sections of the walls and entering the city.

Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter in Solomon's Temple (known today as Al-Aqsa Mosque), the crusaders spared few lives. According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, in what some believe to be an exaggerated account of the massacre which subsequently took place there, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."[3]. Other accounts of blood flowing up to the bridles of horses are reminiscent of a passage from the Book of Revelation (14:20). Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."[4]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

Bernard of Clairvaux preaches the crusade [Second Crusade, 1146]

... But an even greater show of support came from the common people. St. Bernard wrote to the Pope a few days afterwards: "I opened my mouth; I spoke; and at once the Crusaders have multiplied to infinity. Villages and towns are now deserted. You will scarcely find one man for every seven women. Everywhere you see widows whose husbands are still alive".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre

Siege of Acre [Third Crusade, 1191]

... It was now up to Richard and Saladin to finalize the surrender of the city. The Christians began to rebuild Acre’s defenses, and Saladin collected money to pay for the ransom of the imprisoned garrison. On August 11 Saladin delivered the first of the three planned payments and prisoner exchanges, but Richard rejected this because certain Christian nobles were not included. The exchange was broken off and further negotiations were unsuccessful. On August 20, Richard thought that Saladin had delayed too much, and had 2700 of the Muslim prisoners from the garrison of Acre killed, including women and children despite having promised that he would only sell the prisoners off. The Muslims fought back in an attempt to prevent this, but they were defeated. On August 22 Richard and his army left the city, now fully under crusader control. ...

 

[Manny]

I don't see much difference in their goals. I think the difference is that the Wahibists are mainstream in their society and they recieve government support. The nutcase Christians we have in the US are just as bad but they are outsiders on the lunatic fringe, not at all representative of mainstream Americans. Also, they don't recieve government support. Fortunately, we still have some seperation between church and state here in the U.S.

Another difference between us 'n' them is that our society also has the concept of hate speech, which I think applies to the Battlecry people. I'm sure they have the idea of hate speech in Saudi Arabia, but it seems to apply only to those who critizise Islam

Don't forget the airplanes. That's another difference.