What? Like Turkey? They have a muslim government, refused to support the US in Iraq, but they don't support terrorism.
Turkey isn't an Islamic state [thanks to/because of] Mustapha Kamal. Also, Turkey refused to support the US in Iraq for reasons; It was a blatant breach of international law and more than 95% of Turks were against it. It is understood that when talking about the Arab/Mulsim world, Turkey stands out as an exception. Sorry for not pointing that out in my post.
Get a clue, people! Censorship is common practice all over the Arab/Muslim world, from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. The only difference here is that those countries have governments that are US-friendly (and, trust me, that's a euphemism!).
So, while I'm totally against Mahmoud&co's methods, I think it's unfair to demonize Iran in this way just because they dared to challenge US hegemony and refused to put up with the government forced on them by the US. Hold FREE elections in any of the aforementionned countries and you'll end up with Islamists in power (Just like Lebanon and Palestine recently, and Algeria in the early 90's). Of course, we all know how it turned out for Algeria; a civil war and hundred thousands dead. Palestine, under tremendous strain from the west, is about to dissolve a perfectly legitimate government. Lebanon ended up with most of its infrastructure in flames, millions displaced and a thousand dead.
Why is it that Islamists are bound to win in the Arab/Muslim world even if their agenda clearly calls for such aberrations as banning bathing suits on the beach? Well, because even rational thinkers like myself (who indulges in alcohol, smokes, and has casual sex), saw the Arab nationalism be put to death by the west and grew sick of decades of immobilism on the Palestinian issue. Yet, this is unlikely to happen as free elections in the Arab/Muslim world are a myth (with the previously introduced exeptions).
Just like it is hard to see why anyone would want to blow up an aircraft? I think that people are still thinking within the sandbox
Just like it is hard to see why anyone would invade a sovereign country? I think that people are still thinking about how US oil got under their sand.
Seriously, I'm not trying to troll here. The parent is insightful but dangerously narrow-minded.
I know that's an inflammatory statement, but law is supposed to benefit the public. If it doesn't benefit the public then there's no reason for a law to exist.
I'm afraid the reality is that laws benefits the ones who make them. Until we get rid of software patents and similar aberrations in IP laws, money will keep flowing to the wealthy and lawyers while hindering development.
Why support their greed? I think we can do without U2 anyway:D
I mean, last time I check, they were not even consider an Islamic country.
Last time I checked, most Americans wouldn't locate India on a map. I don't honestly expect them to tell an Arab from a Farsi, or a Sikh from a Pakistani.
When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!
We can say enough is enough when I have more processing power than I know what to do with it in a laptop that is small, lightweight and has 18 hours of battery life. Ultimately, I think we'll get there in 10 to 15 years.
I expect that we'll hit the atom barrier before that.
The opinion will turn against the Americans even if they didn't activate the device! Great publicity stunt for the opposing side.
Turn the opinion of who exactly? Iraqis who are even worse off than before 2003? The majority of people around the world who oppose the war? I'm genuinely curious about who you think's on your side.
We need to be ready and able to defend ourselves against such people -- if possible by stopping their plans
You mean their planes?
Seriously though, I agree with you that intelligence would play a role in avoididng more damage. The problem is that, from my standpoint, all the supposed "war against terror" achieved was stripping Americans of their liberties, killed thousands of perfectly innocent Iraqis and triggered a witch-hunt against Muslims that McArthur would be proud of.
The last two consequences are bound to alienate Arabs even more
before they come to fruition, and if not, by bringing them to justice afterwards. And the intelligence community has a valuable part to play in pursuit of these goals.
If you consider a bunch of guys put behind bars as having actual effect on defeating the terrorist threat and are OK with the Guantanamo-style secret prisons used around the world to torture people, then there's no much point in arguing with you.
When will the government start addressing the causes of the issue instead of spending so much resources on fighting a lost cause?
The only way to defeat "terrorism" is by getting rid of interventionism and changing the foreign policy. But then again, the goals of the people in power don't necessarily conform with the declared agenda.
I'm certain some good jokes will follow this, but at least learn from my mistake.
Funny how you turned the situation as if it were your fault. The problem is the infamous "patriot act" and the solution is to do whatever's possible to reclaim your rights.
Thanks slashdot, but if I wanted baseless scare mongering about the threat of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, I'd join the Republican Party.
Wow, didn't know Republicans were active in Britain.
Seriously though, you made an excellent point and I applaude you for it.
Why are the Chinese so lauded by the leftist frauds?
Communism, maybe.
Just so we're clear, I'm not fond of Chinese policies. I just argued that, a world with many poles beats one that's dominated by a single superpower. It won't change much, but it'll sure mitigate Washington's policies. The 2003 invasion of Iraq for example could have been avoided if there was some country that could stand up to the US. Also, we'll hopefully have some real progress on the Israel-Palestine issue and stop the carnage.
You're probably familiar with the concept of checks and balances (though your grandkids may not!), and that is more or less what emerging powers will help achieve on the world scene.
Umm, i already asked Shuttleworth fir this, and I'm gonna repeat the question here: Why is ALWAYS that the rest of the world should suffer for the poor laws made in the US ?
This is a legitimate question that can only be answered by comprehending the unilateralist nature of the modern world. The US has total military supremacy with a gigantic stockpile of nuclear warheads and troops in virtually every part of the world (in about 150 countries). This, along with a long history of interventionism (Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia, El Salvador, Vietnam, Iraq...) deters the few countries that oppose America's "savage capitalism". Also, economic strangulation has traditionaly been very a very effective tool. Condie talked about "birth pangs" in the M.E., I say the're "death pangs" of the American hegemon. The rise of China and the EU will eventually restore some balance in a world that's in dire need for it.
But for now, in one form or another, we are - sadly - all Americans!
The wearing of the Islamic veil can lead to exclusions from schools in France; Though in half the cases taken to court, the student gets back to school. For the anectode, the French justify it by saying that religious symbols shouldn't be allowed on school premises. It was only a matter of time before somebody went after the Christmas tree. How do you like'em apples! http://www.clubic.com/forum/rapport-explosif-des-i nspecteurs-de-l-education-t271800.html
I'm not French, but it sure seems to me like we could all learn something from them.
I looked and found about 10 negative comments concerning Jews in the Q'uran.
Christians in the Quran are often refered to as "the wanderers" and Jews as "the frowned-upon ones". Those should not be taken as derogatory statements but merely as the opinion of God. Jews have turned their back on Moses (as reported in the bible and the Quran) and were thus "cursed for all eternity". Christianity has emerged under obscure conditions and split into different movements (Shi'a is about 10% of the Muslim world, hardly comparable to what happened in Christianity).
Of course, if taken out of context, one might twist the real meaning of verses.
"Sharia is to have control over every aspect of life" and that non-Muslims should be subject to Muslim courts.
I'm afraid you're mistaken in here. Nowhere in the teachings of Muhammad (which is extensively documented) does it say that non-Muslims should be subjected to Sharia law. After the death of the Prophet, scholars started coming up with their own interpretations and that is where the Sharia, as we know it, originated from.
Is having a contradictory holy book unique to Islam?
The Quran is hardly contradictory. It came down in bits and pieces to the prophet and later verses supersede earlier ones. Most critics of Islam convenientely ignore that fact.
The problem is a lack of secularism in the Muslim world, and too many nations force the Q'uran on disagreeing Muslims and onto non-Muslims alike.
True! Now if only the US stops its interventionism which makes any change impossible maybe they could get somewhere in those countries. But that's a totally different subject...
Then there are the countries that have a death penalty on the books for Muslims who change to another faith (but never for non-Muslims who change to Islam).
Again, this is alien to the Quran and the Sunna (teachings of Muhammad). A Muslim who converted to another faith is not to be subjected to any punishment. When he/she changes back to Islam, however, he/she is to perform an additional task to be admitted back. What? Take a shower! (sic)
Another problem is that Islam is the only major religion founding by a rapacious maurauding warlord.
You're not making my task any easier, are you? I can't possibly change your mind in a post when you use such vociferous language. All I can do here is recommend you to watch PBS's "Muhammad. The life of a prophet" to get another perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a clue, people! Censorship is common practice all over the Arab/Muslim world, from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. The only difference here is that those countries have governments that are US-friendly (and, trust me, that's a euphemism!).
So, while I'm totally against Mahmoud&co's methods, I think it's unfair to demonize Iran in this way just because they dared to challenge US hegemony and refused to put up with the government forced on them by the US. Hold FREE elections in any of the aforementionned countries and you'll end up with Islamists in power (Just like Lebanon and Palestine recently, and Algeria in the early 90's). Of course, we all know how it turned out for Algeria; a civil war and hundred thousands dead. Palestine, under tremendous strain from the west, is about to dissolve a perfectly legitimate government. Lebanon ended up with most of its infrastructure in flames, millions displaced and a thousand dead.
Why is it that Islamists are bound to win in the Arab/Muslim world even if their agenda clearly calls for such aberrations as banning bathing suits on the beach? Well, because even rational thinkers like myself (who indulges in alcohol, smokes, and has casual sex), saw the Arab nationalism be put to death by the west and grew sick of decades of immobilism on the Palestinian issue. Yet, this is unlikely to happen as free elections in the Arab/Muslim world are a myth (with the previously introduced exeptions).
Seriously, I'm not trying to troll here. The parent is insightful but dangerously narrow-minded.
This has got to be one of the most insightful post on this thread. Thank you Dystopian Rebel, you just made my day.
You can mod me down now.
Seriously though, I agree with you that intelligence would play a role in avoididng more damage. The problem is that, from my standpoint, all the supposed "war against terror" achieved was stripping Americans of their liberties, killed thousands of perfectly innocent Iraqis and triggered a witch-hunt against Muslims that McArthur would be proud of. The last two consequences are bound to alienate Arabs even more
If you consider a bunch of guys put behind bars as having actual effect on defeating the terrorist threat and are OK with the Guantanamo-style secret prisons used around the world to torture people, then there's no much point in arguing with you.
When will the government start addressing the causes of the issue instead of spending so much resources on fighting a lost cause?
The only way to defeat "terrorism" is by getting rid of interventionism and changing the foreign policy. But then again, the goals of the people in power don't necessarily conform with the declared agenda.
If I wanted fear mongering info, I'd be watching Fox.
Won't somebody think of the children!
Seriously though, you made an excellent point and I applaude you for it.
The new FOSS motto: "Everytime you buy a SuSE product, a baby gecko dies!"
Just so we're clear, I'm not fond of Chinese policies. I just argued that, a world with many poles beats one that's dominated by a single superpower. It won't change much, but it'll sure mitigate Washington's policies. The 2003 invasion of Iraq for example could have been avoided if there was some country that could stand up to the US. Also, we'll hopefully have some real progress on the Israel-Palestine issue and stop the carnage.
You're probably familiar with the concept of checks and balances (though your grandkids may not!), and that is more or less what emerging powers will help achieve on the world scene.
Anyone lauding the Chinese, is indeed a "fraud"!
The wearing of the Islamic veil can lead to exclusions from schools in France; Though in half the cases taken to court, the student gets back to school. For the anectode, the French justify it by saying that religious symbols shouldn't be allowed on school premises. It was only a matter of time before somebody went after the Christmas tree. How do you like'em apples! http://www.clubic.com/forum/rapport-explosif-des-
I'm not French, but it sure seems to me like we could all learn something from them.
Indeed! http://mondediplo.com/2006/05/16bigpharma
Of course, if taken out of context, one might twist the real meaning of verses. I'm afraid you're mistaken in here. Nowhere in the teachings of Muhammad (which is extensively documented) does it say that non-Muslims should be subjected to Sharia law. After the death of the Prophet, scholars started coming up with their own interpretations and that is where the Sharia, as we know it, originated from.
The Quran is hardly contradictory. It came down in bits and pieces to the prophet and later verses supersede earlier ones. Most critics of Islam convenientely ignore that fact. True! Now if only the US stops its interventionism which makes any change impossible maybe they could get somewhere in those countries. But that's a totally different subject... Again, this is alien to the Quran and the Sunna (teachings of Muhammad). A Muslim who converted to another faith is not to be subjected to any punishment. When he/she changes back to Islam, however, he/she is to perform an additional task to be admitted back. What? Take a shower! (sic) You're not making my task any easier, are you? I can't possibly change your mind in a post when you use such vociferous language. All I can do here is recommend you to watch PBS's "Muhammad. The life of a prophet" to get another perspective.