T_igger_cs_30

I hate to post this Sir, but I read earlier

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Reach out to Taleban, says Browne

A classic strategy used by Gen Kitson, while I am not totally opposed to negotiating with the enemy, I do not feel we are in a position to at this time without looking weak.

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

7thsfsniper

Sad, sad, sad to say, but I have to agree with officer. For awhile this place was flush with "go get 'em George" patriots. Then the WTT site got cleaned up, survivors made into millionares, and all those Ol Glorys waving on every vehicle rotted and fell to the roadway. Then congress decided that steroid use in major league baseball was more important than a war. Many of us have not or ever will forget, but it seems to be the same bunch that remembers the Alamo and Pearl harbor. And in another 20 maybe 30 years(barring GTW or COMWEC) we'll be gone and someone else can have this real estate.

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

7thsfsniper

Quote:
The NDP wants us to cuddle the Taliban instead of killing them.

I hate to post this Sir, but I read earlier

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Reach out to Taleban, says Browne


Quote:
The UK should talk to elements within the Taleban who can be persuaded to change sides


This sounds like the movie a few years ago with Jack Nicholson "Mars Attacks". The aliens are invited and land on the whitehouse lawn. as they exit the ship a bird flies over and they whip out disintigration rays and toast everyone there. Get back in the ship and leave. The pres(Nicholson) says it was all a misunderstanding and we will make every effort to welcome you in peace. So they come back, walk into congress, and after a short speech that no one understands, they whip out ray guns and disintigrate congress. Which was disturbing(and funny in a dark way) is the fact it is almost exactly how this whole extremist thing has been handled all over the world.

Adux

Hardly,

If you were plundered for 200 years, killed, enslaved and all. I dont think jealousy would be first emotion. But then again it is different era, different rules. The West forgets that there were great civilizations before it came along, The world did not start the last 500 years.China and India were the economic superpowers of the world for centuries and the bastion of science, military and academics. And before that was the Middle east and Egypt. Anyways lead civilization will always rise and fall, just like a boom and a recession. The only constant thing in this world is 'change'.

Yup,

He still hasnt told me how an Islamic governace will be equal at the same time be true to the term 'Islamic'. It cant, therefore the whole 'Islamic state' term should be put in the bin. Too many people have died, too many are suffereing under them. Democratic Secular and Humanistic government is the answer.

7thsfsniper

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper;
474960People can hate the west, blame the west, whatever. I think they are just jealous. Maybe if they get together and overthrow thier oppressors on thier own like we did(absolutely no offense to the Brits here) they would have more pride in what they accomplish and try harder to preserve it.

Ok, let me rephrase that. The US did actually have some help france.

The oppression started long before they immigrated here, it just followed them.

Jealousy, to a point(its 1:30am my brains beginning to shutdown)for lack of better word. But the fact is lots of people want what we got, thats why they immigrate. I'll finish this thought later, Iknow there was a point when I started, good talking with you all, Goodnight.

brokensickle

[/quote]


Snipe,

I believe that there is a general cabal within Islam even though all Muslim parties don't see completely eye to eye or tooth to tooth. I can see in Ag Muslim's comment no real conceding but a from childhood to present sort of conditioning that says Muslim Good, all "infidel's bad. Sharia real good, secular real bad. IMO there is a lot on his mind that reflects that ideal that comes through in his post.

I get the idea by the results of what I see and hear that secretly there are many high-fives and dances behind the scenes by the 'so called' "moderates" in the Islamic community when another "infidel" bites the dust.

Before 911 I held no anger or animosity toward the Muslim. But ever since I've been watching and listening to everything Muslim world wide and to my dismay I have learned a whole lot that I do not like about what they are up to as modern nation builders for the glory of Allah.

Save turkey, all Muslim nations are violent and cruel in general toward anyone and everyone not Muslim and the same to fellow Muslim's not towing the line of the other. And I come away thinking, why would I want my country even vaguely resembling anything Muslim? Why would I even consider them for the moniker of "peaceful religion"?

It seems when in the Qu'ran it intimates anything peaceful it is for the Muslim only and the sharp edge of the sword for anything not submitting (Islaming) to Allah. The Muslim kills for Allah, can't they wait for Allah to take vengeance so we know it's really by his hand we die, and not the hand of his followers? And if they secretly poison the wells of the "Infidel's" as to show a 'sign for Allah' are they not employing 'Takiya' for Allah who is not killing the "Infidel" himself. Either they are taking the Qu'ran way out of context or they are doing the job that Allah isn't.

And to the original topic, 'Muslim's suing' when people who have the audacity criticize their violent actions and the ways that they live that give all of us "infidel's" reason to criticize. What do they expect would happen? We all convert? Submit? Roll over? They can slash a throat but we can't draw a cartoon. If Allah hates the cartoons he can smite the artist himself. He doesn't need the help of mere mortal Muslim men...Does he? The Muslim takes a lot upon himself to be the judging hand of Allah. I wonder what Allah's opinion is of all this violence in his name.

Just wondering...



Ivan

__________________
"Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

Adux

kohinoor diamond which sits on top of the Queen's crown belong to us, the west financed their progress how?
Anyways this is not the thread for that, For every person who wants to go to West, there are 2 who wants to stay back; I am one of them.

7thsfsniper

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I'm not much for monarchy either. As far as your statistic, OK. Personally I wouldn't care if not one more anybody came here. But if you do, come prepared to be an American. Not a hyphenated American, no african-latino-indian-whatever. I am of european descent only third or fourth generation on my fathers side. But I am American, nothing else. Our constitution allows for many freedoms and not one I would take away or discriminate. Those who understand that and behave in kind do just fine here. If you don't like it or want to come, thats fine my friend, to each his own I say.

Officer of Engineers

I like General Hillier's comment on this. "The only thing I'm interested in negotiating with the Taliban is the terms of their surrender."

__________________
Chimo

7thsfsniper

Sickle,

No argument from me. I was only commenting on brownes plan to get certain factions of the taliban to switch sides. (yeah right, I'm sure they'll make great allies) If I remember right Sadaam was an ally once. Boy that worked out great! I thought the analogy was funny because how many times do we offer the olive branch only to have them hang a US flag on it and burn it in the streets.

click on the link that tigger posted on #181, it explains.

HistoricalDavid

Guys, guys, haven't you heard the news?

Real graffiti. It seems Nietzsche has been resurrected!

Attached Images

(R)SP_A0084 tj.jpg (125.6 KB, 33 views)

__________________
HD Ready?

Agnostic Muslim

The problem with trying to make a nuanced argument is that often people are just incapable of, or unwilling to, wrapping their heads around the fine distinctions attempted.

Since you have taken the liberty to, for all intents and purposes, call me a bigot, my challenge to you is to show me where exactly I have ever stated that "Muslim good, all infidels bad - Shariah good, secular real bad" - barring which, sir, you are a bald faced liar.

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Elbmek

There is not a religion on earth, (well apart from Buddhism) that has a bloodless foundation. The worst by far is christianity. But Islam seems hell bent on catching up - fast. I do not care what the Quaran says, or does not say, nowhere will it advise followers to go around blowing up, beheading or any other form of killing. People, and I use the term loosely, will always see what they want to see in the written word and interpret it to suit their own sadistic desires.

__________________
Never lie, then you have nothing to try and remember.

Agnostic Muslim

* Sigh* I'll attempt this this once more.

Firstly - Adux, &sniper and Brokensickle have made various incorrect assumptions. The first is to treat the Muslim world as some sort of monolithic entity, it is not. The forms of Islam practiced,the nature of each Muslim State, the society, laws, customs etc. are all influenced by not just religion, but the culture of the area, the history of that nation and the internal and external dynamics that influence them.

Going back to the discussion - Adux, you were asked to validate your allegation that "Intolerance and dislike for interfaith dialog were widespread amongst Muslims, any more than other religions". My quarrel with you is over your mention of Islam speficically, and as I mentioned before, if you wish to re-characterize your argument as one that speaks of "widespread intolerance in all/most religions", most of my objections are removed.

Returning to that "specifically Islam" argument - You made two general arguments (that I could distinguish anyway)

1. You argued "widespread intolerance" on the basis of polls.

2. You argued "widespread intolerance" on the basis of the "legal codes" of most Muslim States.

Firstly, you argued that polls show widespread intolerance (and by widespread I take you mean a majority) - here are the ones you posted:

When it comes to polls, from my first posts on this forum, I have argued that support for AQ, the Taliban and OBL, does not indicate anything concrete in terms of whether Muslims (Pakistanis in this case) support terrorism or extremism. The reasons as I argued with Chanakya, were that we do not know how many of those Pakistanis do not consider these organizations to be responsible for terrorism (people I talked to in Pakistan during my last trip there argued that the US and Israel were conducting the bombings in Iraq to kill Muslims, blame AQ and attack more Muslim countries.

Way out conspiracy theories - sure - I disagreed with them then and do now, but regardless of whether the rationale is cockamamie, the fact that these people do not look at AQ as being responsible for such acts does cast a lot of doubt on what such "general" polls tell us.

Other more direct questions in the same poll are much more revealing:
The last part, as self serving as it may be, does not come across as the attitude of an "intolerant extremist bent on destruction". It sounds pretty human to me - normal people want to improve their lives, have money, raise families in comfort. Extremists spit at anything to do with the US as the "great defiling Satan".

There was question over which poll was outdated, and I will admit I erred in posting a Pew poll that was from 2006 (vs your 2007 TFT poll). However I also posted a 2008 TFT poll that shows a huge decrease in the numbers of support for AQ/OBL/Terrorism. Here are some snapshots from it:

In the News Archive - Polls: Musharraf, al Qaeda losing support

This particular "latest poll" shows across the board that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis reject extremism. That support for AQ and the Taliban is plummeting is an excellent sign, because it shows that more and more Pakistanis are beginning to realize that these organizations are not what they have attempted to sell themselves as to Pakistanis and Muslims in general.

So on the basis of polls dear Adux. I would argue that your suggestion of "widespread intolerance and dislike for interfaith dialog" is wrong.

However, in that context, I will admit that these polls do tell us much about whether Pakistanis would respect the rights of religious minorities etc. I don't believe I have come across any recent polls that study those attitudes that would be far more pertinent to the discussion at hand. However a lack fo support for extremism does indicate a positive direction.

The second argument you raised in defense of your claim later...

Agnostic Muslim

Your second argument was on the basis of the "legal codes" of most Muslim nations. Again, every nation is influenced by its own set of dynamics, so I will argue form the perspective of Pakistan, though I think some general observations can be taken and applied elsewhere.

First, I have never argued that Muslim nations do not posses discriminatory or oppressive laws. Nor have I argued that any of those laws are acceptable, bar the restrictions on the President and Prime Minister. I do not agree with those restrictions, but since I see little practical impact on the lives of minorities by those restrictions, I am willing to forgo opposition to them (for the time being) so that more important institutional and structural reforms are not side tracked by the extremist minority. Those reforms are more essential, because in their absence the extremists always have the argument that it is the lack of their form of religion and politics that has caused the mess.

I have also not advocated "Shariah Law" - I have argued in favor of "Islamic Governments" (and I reiterate, that I do so reluctantly, seeing the polarization between the West and the Muslim world - IMO a recipe for further violence within Muslim nations if "secular" government is seen as "selling out" or capitulating to the West). I do not believe the two to be the same, in the context of the interpretation of Shariah as it is applied in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabi and elsewhere.

When I refer to an "Islamic Government" it is more along the lines of Pakistan. We are an "Islamic Republic", yet we have just held perhaps the fairest elections in our history, with an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis arguing in favor of democracy, and electing moderate, liberal parties to office.

We have had a free, liberal and vibrant media for several years now, and when Musharraf attempted to impose restrictions, Pakistanis overwhelmingly told him what they thought, at the polls. The new Prime Minister today repealed the media restrictions.

We have suffered form some draconian laws instituted by another autocrat, Pres. Zia-ul-Haq, but thankfully the Womens Protection Bill passed by Musharraf repealed some of the horrible conditions placed upon women.

The debate over the repeal of those laws was carried out in the print and electronic media, with overwhelming support from the general populace. The repeal was also validated, several times (as Musharraf ***** footed around the objections of the Mullah's) by Islamic Scholars in the Council of Islamic Ideology.

Do we have shortcomings? Absolutely. Attempts were made to remove the listing of ones faith on Passports and ID cards, but failed when Musharraf caved into Mullah pressure. However, as of 2001, Greece and Turkey also require religion on National ID cards (not sure if that has been removed now).

The point is that even in a quasi democracy/quasi dictatorship - political stability, economic growth and the presence of a vibrant media and civil society allowed Pakistan to engage in a national discourse over issues of significant import. This, when there was very little ownership and felt by Citizens in the Government.

In the twenty years (from Zia's death) we have seen a sea change across the social and economic spectrum, despite political upheavals, martial law, a mini war, sanctions, terrorism. We have seen a progressive change, a positive change, with freedom and rights that would have been unimaginable during Zia's reign. We have a lot more to do, and our democracy is but a nascent one, but with a little luck (political stability and continuity in democracy), the changes in Pakistan will only accelerate - and we will do so as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as we have so far, and hopefully some day the Office of President and Prime Minister shall be open to anyone - regardless of religion, race or sexual orientation.