Confed999

Then you do not believe their own words.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Leader

Is number one on bin Leaden's list above Israel or Iraq, he attacks us because we are not Muslims. His view is that we have a choice, convert or die.

__________________

jth298

Muffinman, please explain the context of your question.

thank you

Trooth

The question still remains, is the US the chief target because it is not a muslim state, or because of the effect it has on muslim states?

For example :-
If it is the former (i.e. not a muslim state) then it is an all out war. Because the US is never going to become a muslim state.

If it is the latter then perhaps some analysis of the impact that US foreign policy might be having. We have to be adult enough to accept that our (i.e UK as well) foriegn policy might be worth analysis - even if only to prove to ourselves that it isn't the cause. This is the bit of the debate that i don't see happening at the highest levels.

jth298

I agree and would add that this debate would be beneficial at every level. If there is any question that our foreign policy is suspect, wrong or at the worst illegal (i.e. in contradiction of Geneva convention, human rights or even war crimes) then these issues should be debated in an open, non-partisan and democratic manner. As you say, unfortunately we do not see this.

themuffinman

I am not againts muslims or any religion. In the U.S. Islam should follow the same rules as christians.

I am not sure the opinions of people that are not residents of Hamtramck would really matter?

But the point here is as clear as the nose on any of our faces...

The City Councilman is a Muslim ...Hello??? This may be a hint of things to come...
(http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog...lah/007326.php)

If the Christian 10 Commandments are banned from a Court House in Georgia why would the preaching of a religion, which is exactly what the call to prayer is, be fine when broadcast 5 times a day into every building, be it Gov't, commercial or residential, via the Airwaves??

Why can't the muslims create a radio station, then the calls for prayer could be tuned in or OUT as each resident wishes?


Another question is why aren't the folks at the ACLU screaming their heads off?? Isn't this exactly what the Founding Fathers warned about? Government getting involved in religious issues? If this is not establishing a religious tenent for the muslims I do not know what it is!

I mean the ACLU is behind the Cross coming off of City Seals...isn't it? I understand that is to avoid offending other religions that might have to glimpse it as a Police Car passes? Believe me...Hearing the name of a false god (allah) screamed out 5 times a day over loud speakers is very offensive to Christians..

Oh yeah, now I remember, the ACLU will fight to the death for the rights of all religions EXCEPT Christians.

Perhaps we should check into the funding of the ACLU? We might just find a middle eastern name or two on the list! Or would that be a violation of their rights?

I would also like to know where those pesky Atheists are when you need them...Instead of trying to disrupt a Prayer Day Celebration they ought to be in Hamtramck protesting this crazy muslim stunt!

And Finally...If people have to be called and compelled to pray five times a day what does that say for the religion? That the people are like naughty children that need to be reminded??

Perhaps the Christian Churches should follow suit? I mean the Bible says we are to Pray without ceasing, So I guess by the standards of Hamtramck City Council we could broadcast Prayer reminders 24/7? Perhaps the Muslims would not be offended to hear the call to pray as " Jesus is God or ONLY Jesus Saves or Jesus is the Only Messiah" raining down on them from the air, hour after hour?

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body. USMC
Semper Fi

Confed999

It is.
This debate has been going on for decades. What hasn't been covered? What, besides complete withdrawl (not an option), hasn't been tried?

Trooth

Why is complete withdrawal not an option? When was the last time that was debated at the highest level?

Who decided that an interventionist foreign policy (as advocated by the US, UK, France, Russia etc) is the only way forward? When did that debate happen?

Why is ROI not near the top of AQ's hitlist (a fairly devout Catholic nation) if the issue is only about religious conversion? Why not Italy?

Why Australia?

Why do we allow coincidences to prevail that must surely give the wrong impression to those that would think ill of us. Such as restoring the non-democracy in Kuwait, not taking a hard line on the tyranny that is Saudi Arabia, laying pipelines in Afghanistan that the Taleban and refused to let us build? Do we not care how these might appear?

I am not saying that any of the above is right or proper, or even that i believe in it all, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a debate about it.

With regards to the UN, can the UN actually pass a resolution against Palestinian terrorists? Who would the members states pass it against? I didn't think there was a member state that would fit the bill?

For those that would dismantle the UN, would you propose something in its place or the abandonment of it completely? Would you therefore prefer the WWI approach of the grand alliances, or perhaps the imperialistic approach to international dispute and cooperation? Something would take the place of the vacuum that would exist when the light were finally switched of in Geneva and New York.

Confed999

The world economy depends on oil. Our "allies" depend on us to be there.
But they're still on the list. I'd say logicly the ones that can hurt them the most are the ones they wrote down first. The USA is at the top of the list because we can kill them the most efficently, thus we are the greatest threat.
I don't care what government people have, as long as it isn't advocating killing people in the name of God. They can have a theocracy, if they can think up a benevolent one.
A resolution condemning the terrorist groups, and their supporters, would be a good start. Why does a resolution have to be against a geographical reigon?

Trooth

We "liberated" Kuwait to restore an non-democratic oppressive regime. The impression we might have given is that we didn't care about Iraqi's or Kuwaiti's but only about securing the flow of oil.

In fact it was this conflict that caused Bin Laden to go overboard, because he wanted to send his mujahadeen in to attack the Iraqi's but the Saudi's didn't want a bar of him. They preferred the US/UK. But what i don't understand was why the US/UK got involved to fight a former ally to restore a non-democratic regime, using another tyranny (Saudi Arabia) as an ally.

I don't know if it does. But the UN resolutions have always tended to be started by one nation, sponsored by others and aimed at one or more. I am sure i read something in the charter about terrorism (therefore they might not feel they have to condemn it). However much like the other bits, perhaps discussing this, or passing such a resolution would make people feel happier about the role of the UN. In which case the debate would be healthy.

Confed999

How opressive is it? I know Kuwaiti citizens both from work and the internet, they speak of Kuwait as quite western. The non-citizens don't have it so well, but where do non-citizens have it as well as citizens? I don't know all of the details of their constitutional monarchy, so please enlighten me.

Trooth

From what i understand the formation of Political parties is illegal. Only about 10% of the population can vote, none of whom are women. Women in general don't get much in the way of rights. The state owns all the TV, Radio etc . All imported books etc are censored.
There has been a lot of reports about torture being used to extract confessions and there are apparently a number of disappeared and political prisoners.

Granted i don't think it is oppressive in the Iraq sense (mind you there are only about 2m Kuwaitis so smaller numbers don't mean less oppression). But all we did was restore the previous Kuwaiti regime. Why didn't we sort out that one into a full democracy? We could have, we liberated the place.

If nothing else i think sometimes we give out confused messages, even if our intentions are completely honourable and above board.

Confed999

That sounds like a good idea.
That's fine with me too, their rules.
Last time it was up for a vote women's suffrage only lost by 2 votes, unless I'm mistaken it won't be long before they can vote. I'm sure they will be subject to the same restrictions of citizenship as the men.
That can't be accurate. Women hold quite a bit of power in Kuwait life. After a quick search I find that women hold positions of Director of the University of Kuwait, Kuwaiti Ambassador to Austria, and Undersecretary of Higher Education within the Ministry of Education, for example.
Local stuff sure, but they can have satelite TV and internet connections. They can go to the mall and rent US movie DVDs and buy US music.
Not sure about that one. After a quick search I find that it is one of the freest in the mid-east. Only a few hundred books are banned, mostly dealing with controversial writings on Islam. I don't really have much of a problem with that either.
I can say that about the US and UK too.
Neither of us have one, why force it on them.

Praxus

What is the obsesion with Democracy, the only major philosopher I can think of that supported it was Socrates and ironicly it killed him.

We should have instituted a Constitional Republic based on the idea of individual rights.

Trooth

Confed - Remember you have to think back ten years ago, not now. Women weren't even allowed to drive then. That was the society we restored. I am pleased that it has improved, by all accounts women may soon obtain the right to vote, which is good. But it was further away ten years ago.

Praxus - Why didn't we instigate a Constitional Republic based on the idea of individual rights?