Slashdot Mirror

Judging from the international polling and studies to date, most notably the most recent global Pew poll (more details here), you're completely wrong. Obama has, in fact, genuinely changed the perception of both the United States and our interests. And the Nobel committee unanimously agreed that Obama has exemplified and personified the approach to world matters that the peace prize is meant to award.

European social democracies have been sitting there, giving their citizens a better quality of life than the US, for decades,

Lie. Pew Some guy. Besides that, any EU countries that do come out ahead are tiny little pissant countries compared to US (300 million). Let's hand-pick some US states of similar population and see how you do. Next please.

and there's no reason at all to assume it won't continue.

Bad logic. What would it continue, because it's worked "OK" in the past? False identification of future performance with past performance. The EU did OK post-WW2, during Internet bubble, during worldwide credit bubble, etc... Do you think that means that entitlement policies will _always_ work? Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

As the EU and the world increases in population (poor people breed like rabbits), per-capita productivity will go down. Now tell me how that effects a system where per-capita costs will stay flat or actually rise?

Good luck with that.

(Given how your national debt's going, the US should be more worried about where it will be in five years.)

Agreed. The socialist policies we've implemented will be our doom, as will the military adventurism of the neocons.

How is that an argument _for_ EuroSocialism again?

Exodus 34, 11-14. Leviticus 26, 7-9. Deuteronomy 2, 21-24. Deuteronomy 2, 26-25. Deuteronomy 7, 1-2. Joshua 6, 21. Joshua 10, 40-41. Most of Joshua, in fact. 1 Samuel 27, 8-9.

Hmm, seems all to be Old Testament to me.

Tell me, how many self-style Christians have you seen over the years beheading captives on TV?

You know, "striking at the neck":

8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

and

47.4: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them

So tell me, Einstein, which behavoirs do we see paraded around TODAY?

Is it the Old Testament ones you called attention to, or the KORANIC ones I've quoted above?

Got the balls to post a one-word answer to that question?

Why am I guessing the answer is a resounding chicken-shit "NO!"?

Got the guts to explain what happened to Theo Van Gogh?

Care to research the threat that Abdul Rahman lives under in Afghanistan?

Ummm, is that another chickenshit "No"?

Let's turn now to the pillars of Islam. The Sunni define five pillars of Islam: faith, prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. I notice very little in the way of genocide in there. Also, in light of any controlling authority over Islam as a whole, I would point out that interpretations of both the meaning of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam vary widely - but I will note that generally speaking most Muslims are of the opinion that anywhere a Muslim can live freely and follow his faith is part of Dar al-Islam.

Maybe so, but even if "most" Muslims agree with that characterization, there could still be literally hundreds of millions that adhere to a genocidal view of kaffirs daring to live in what was once dar al-Islam deserve to be, ummm, "wiped off the map".

Yeah, I know. It's hard to believe that's possible: someone openly stating that it's a goal to actually "wipe" an entire country, consisting of millions of people, entirely "off the map". Can you imagine how dangerous such a fundamentalist-Islamic-motivated person could be if he were to come to significant power to the point of actually being able to "wipe" an entire country "off the map"?

And considering that some polls reveal vast number of Muslims openly admit to supporting suicide attacks, I think it's safe to say that there's a good chance that a significant majority of Muslims at least tacitly support suicide attacks.

Scary, isn't it?

Lastly, once again, can you provide a citation from any vaguely organised group of Muslims who wish to reconquer Spain, please? Or would that puncture your rather one-sided view?

You didn't even bother looking for yourself, did you?

Good grief, the fact that you could be so damn ignorant about a belief that's utterly common in Islam is quite an indictment of your sheltered existence, isn't it?

Because calls for the retaking of al-Andulus have been going on for, ohhhh, about 500 years or so.

Is Al Qaeda loosely organized enough for you?

How about HAMAS?

How about all these "mainstream" Muslim clerics?

You sure seem to have an ignorant image of what goes on inside the world of Islam. Ever see

The only reason why criticism of inferior cultures is branded "racism" is due to the propaganda of postmodern revisionists who want to cultivate recalcitrant and supremacist Muslim votebanks.

You are such a freaking delusional paranoid. Any information contrary to your extremism is simply kowtowing to voting blocks or arab money. You are just like all other nutjobs with their personal bigotries and self-fulfilling prophecies. Stuck in a delusional echo chamber of your own making.

That's the whole point. It is NOT a minority position. It is a majority position.

You keep claiming that, but its complete bullshit. For you to go around proclaiming that people are not real muslims because they are not extremists would be funny if it weren't so fucked up. You know who else makes that claim? The fucking nutjobs. 99% of muslims would never accuse another muslim of being kafir, its only the crazy extremists who think like you do. No surprise since you are just as extremist as they are.

I have BEEN to Indonesia. All your claims are a steaming pile of obfuscatory bollocks. The entire Muslim population is behind Jemiah Islamiyah and other terror groups. Lock, stock and qiblah. They are less loose-lipped around me than they are around some westerner.

Whoopdeedoo. So when Gallup and Pew hired locals to do polling that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim - for example that indonesian support for suicide bombings against civilian targets went from 42% of the population in 2002 to 34% in 2007 that's just being tight lipped around westerners and Pew kowtowing to voting blocks and arab money. Your personal anecdotal coverage of the situation that the population is behind suicide bombings "lock, stock and qiblah" is soooo much more accurate. It was 100% support and that hasn't changed one bit since 9/11.

I'll take your silence on the $5B/yr from western nations during the east timor massacres as acceptance that the west sanctioned those killings. Sanctioned them a hell of a lot more than a bunch of muslim farmers and factory workers who don't have much more than a substinece living.

Ah, 82% were satisfied with the economy, which isn't unexpected given the rapid growth of recent years. Only 65% were satisfied that the government was doing a good job "on issues that were of most importance to them".

Source.

You'd be right. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167

That's a dangerous game you're playing. Other people could point at the lack of strikes in say, America and claim that that means people there are meek and don't mind being shafted by huge corporations.

In addition, if you're going to make cracks about how French think they're culturally superior and bullshit like that, let me point you to a survey which came to the conclusion that Americans are worse: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258 . Of course the Indians are the worst of the lot on that count, but then I knew that already, being from there. Go ahead, search for 'our culture' and you'll get to the right point. It's in the complete report.

The right to express dissent is not worth forfeiting for any economic gain.

Apparently most Russians would disagree with a six to one favoring of a strong economy over a strong democracy.
Depressing.

So, if someone rapes your daughter, would you want to go rape their daughter? The trouble with eye for an eye is that it makes you into something that you weren't before, and that's half the point of antagonization in the first place.

Tell me, do you think our troops are respected in Iraq when they indiscriminately kill people (like Al Quaida does). Or do you think there is more respect when they follow a stronger moral code? Do you think America has gained respect throughout the world because of showing strength through Guantanimo Bay? Over the last few years, respect for "tough" America has dropped through the floor from the rest of the world.

Speaking pragmatically, "timeouts" and "stern talking tos" are oh-so effective, as we've seen with this crop of youth.

Kids today are no worse than kids 20 years ago. I don't know about you, but I parent through respect. And that respect goes both ways. But please feel free to point me to factual studies that show that smacking a kid disciplines them better than not.

There's more to bringing up a kid than how you discipline them - things like how you let them get to the stage where you have to discipline them - don't use TV as a babysitter, get involved with your kids, etc...

[quote]That the U.S. had goodwill before 9/11 and then threw it away with the invasion of Iraq is a myth. [/quote]

You are the one reciting a myth. After 9-11, Le Monde proclaimed, "We are all Americans". The band outside Buckingham palace played the Star-Spangled Banner. All around the world, vigils were held, marches were held, and US embassies were plastered with flowers. Have you forgotten so soon? Well, perhaps polls will help remind you.

In some countries, positive opinions of America have more than halved.

All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.

Well, hate might be the wrong word, but the USA has a consistently poor image across most of the mainstream population in western countries, as well as the extremists. You can argue about the reason, but professional surveys return a fairly consistent result; America is untrusted at best. Perhaps if there were fewer arrogant individuals such as yourself who believe in the undying glory of your country this would be different?

Population as large as China, speak better English, democracy, no history of spying or dirty play and the only country outside US where a huge majority of population has a positive view of US. http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?Analys isID=1002

..US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims.

The scope is significantly larger than the Muslim and Arabic countries. Poll.

No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.

The problem is that whole attitude you've just displayed of "we are righteous, fair and unblemished, and everybody should just do as we say, because we're so right", when in fact, it's all just alienation, lack of self-critique, and cultural isolation. Because, looking at the US from the outside, and looking at things like the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, I'm not so sure China is so terrible by comparison. Sure, you don't have a single party regime. You have a two party regime! :-) Wow :-) Oh, and you're brain washed by a bad educational system and by violent video-games and movies that have portrayed large groups of brown-skinned individuals as hate-mongers and evil-doers, to be terminated by Soldier Hero. That, my friend, is called Indoctrination. And you had it in China. And you have it in the US. Face it. Look at it. Admit it.

The argument that the US invented the internet is riculous, and therefore, it has "more rights over it" is ridiculous. It is like saying all doctors can't use the scalpel because some guy, from some country, invented it.

Consider that neither do the peoples of the world want a crucial technology like the internet to be in the hands of a nation that arrests journalists that don't kneel to the government, that schemes against and slanders the UN on a periodic basis, and does that as a policy, that promotes pre-emptive wars based on lies, disrespects basic human rights (including kidnapping people abroad, turning them to torture, and abusing prsioners), and that creates some ill-begotten evil thing like the Patriot Act, etc. The fact the Bush administration is worried about this issue already shows which side to choose.

The US is widely mistrusted, for all the right reasons. For instance, if you read the 2002 World Bank World Survey on Trust, conducted with 36,000 people around the world, you'll find that people trust leaders of the U.N. much more than they trust the leaders of the U.S.
Also, in 2003, Time Magazine conducted a poll with more than 700,000 responses with the question: "who poses the greatest threat to world peace?" Options were: 1) North Korea; 2) Iraq; 3) The United States. The US was the answer chosen by 86%. (See here).
In another international poll, in 2003, the BBC found that 60% of the people "had a very unfavourable, or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American President."
And more up to date, two new world polls from 2005 show the same phenomenom: A poll from here and here show thats the U.S. is "broadly disliked." The last poll, (see here and here), with 23 countries and 23,000 interviewed during 2004, shows that the U.S. comes out last in "positive contribution". And we're not even talking about countries that nest the majority of terrorists. Can you imagine what those feelings are in, say, the Middle East?

The US has a bad reputation, image, and track record. And North-Americans wonder "why"? How about playing along with others, respecting global decisions, promoting health and education (instead of war) and promoting democracy through peace and social change, the only everlasting change. The internet is a crucial asset to the 21st century, and like the printing machines, it's a technology that belongs to mankind. Sorry. Live with it.