Israel has some big nuts

[Strong_Man20]

Explain further. "Islamic" countries - those where the majority of the citizens practice Islam generally provide the fewest freedoms.

The only Middle Eastern country where an Arab or Muslim can vote is Israel. Israel provides more freedoms to Muslim citizens than any other country in the region.

Help me here.

Matt

There is no muslim state in the world at this present time that follows a true Khalafi law. Most muslim states are not allowed to vote and these corrupt leaders i.e. king Abdullah of Jordan, Sadam, Musharaf etc have all been supported and put there forcefully by America. The people do not want these scum bags yet they have no choice.

In Islam you have the freedom of speech, vote and women have the same equal oppurtunities and rights as men do. Some passages in the Quran make allot of sence however Islam has been corrupted by these leaders that were put there by America.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Islam has been corrupted by these leaders that were put there by America.

SM20

At what point do the citizens of those countries have to assume the responsibility for their own destiny?

How long will they let their "leaders" keep them down? Their leaders seek to blame America and Israel for their plight, because nothing unites a population like an enemy. (Consider GWBush's post 9/11 approval ratings).

Let;s look at Iran: We put the Shah there, who was then overthrown, and a theocracy was installed. How would you describe citizen freedoms there?

Did you know that even after Khatami was re-elected with 77% of the vote, the Guardian Council (the Islamic clerics) would not let him be inaugurated because too many moderates were elected to Parliament?

Here are corrupt leaders that were not installed by America.

Help me understand.

 

[Strong_Man20]

SM20

At what point do the citizens of those countries have to assume the responsibility for their own destiny?


How long will they let their "leaders" keep them down? Their leaders seek to blame America and Israel for their plight, because nothing unites a population like an enemy. (Consider GWBush's post 9/11 approval ratings).

At the present time it is a tough situation for them. Look at the scenario from their shoes; if they even challenge the regime in any way they face the possibility of being executed.

Let;s look at Iran: We put the Shah there, who was then overthrown, and a theocracy was installed. How would you describe citizen freedoms there?

Did you know that even after Khatami was re-elected with 77% of the vote, the Guardian Council (the Islamic clerics) would not let him be inaugurated because too many moderates were elected to Parliament?

Here are corrupt leaders that were not installed by America.

Help me understand.

Well like I said before Mat, most Muslim countries don’t practice true khalafi law including Iran. Even though there country seems to be Islamic I am sure it is not. But to be fair too Iran, the government there is much better than other Muslim countries, at least its country is not dictated by America.

 

[BuggyWhips]

instigating stuff like this get our shit fucked up...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Well like I said before Mat, most Muslim countries don’t practice true khalafi law including Iran. Even though there country seems to be Islamic I am sure it is not. But to be fair too Iran, the government there is much better than other Muslim countries, at least its country is not dictated by America.

Iran is better than most? When your country's religious leaders fail to inaugurate the elected President because Parliament is too moderate, you can hardly call yourself better than most. Better than whom? Iraq? As if that were cause for celebration!

AN Islamic country just wouldn't work. If history has shown us anything, it is that religion is mankind's most powerful tool for subjugation of others. In the middle ages it was Christianity, now it is Islam. It really is no different. How can you debate this?

And you;re right, if you challenge most Middle Eastern regimes, you'll be executed. Don;t they treat their "brethren" well? even if America installed these leaders, (a dubious cliam, for most of them), America isn;t the one treating their people poorly.

A Muslim's rights are more freely exercised here in the "terrible" US then anywhere in the Middle East.

Another thing America hsa done is throw enormous sums of money at the middle east. In addition to teh billions Egypt receives annually, our oil purchases have made the Saudi royals wealthy beyond calculation.

So why do their people live as bedouins?

You're going around in circles, and not addressing points...

 

[BigPhysicsBastard]

AN Islamic country just wouldn't work. If history has shown us anything, it is that religion is mankind's most powerful tool for subjugation of others. In the middle ages it was Christianity, now it is Islam. It really is no different. How can you debate this? (This is so fucking true!!!!, right on Matt!!!)



Another thing America hsa done is throw enormous sums of money at the middle east. In addition to teh billions Egypt receives annually, our oil purchases have made the Saudi royals wealthy beyond calculation.

So why do their people live as bedouins? (A-fucking-men to this too!!. When it gets down to it, money, muslims are just as corrupt as they portray us western "infidels")

 

[CRNT93]

religion is the root of all evil!

 

[Strong_Man20]

Iran is better than most? When your country's religious leaders fail to inaugurate the elected President because Parliament is too moderate, you can hardly call yourself better than most. Better than whom? Iraq? As if that were cause for celebration!

When I said most, I was referring to other Muslim countries were freedom of speech and to vote is less pronounced than it is in countries such as "Jordan".

AN Islamic country just wouldn't work. If history has shown us anything, it is that religion is mankind's most powerful tool for subjugation of others. In the middle ages it was Christianity, now it is Islam. It really is no different. How can you debate this?

This is something we cant debate on, we will just have to agree to disagree.

And you;re right, if you challenge most Middle Eastern regimes, you'll be executed. Don;t they treat their "brethren" well? even if America installed these leaders, (a dubious cliam, for most of them), America isn;t the one treating their people poorly.

A Muslim's rights are more freely exercised here in the "terrible" US then anywhere in the Middle East.

You’re correct; Americans are not treated in their homeland poorly.
However I think you are missing the jest of my point, these Muslim countries were they are treated poorly is because of corrupt leaders and there regimes, not because they are following an Islamic law.

America is guilty of supporting and appointing these leaders. Which is what keeps the ME divided and is where America gets their strength in order to occupy the ME.

Another thing America hsa done is throw enormous sums of money at the middle east. In addition to teh billions Egypt receives annually, our oil purchases have made the Saudi royals wealthy beyond calculation.

So why do their people live as bedouins?

You're going around in circles, and not addressing points...

If the Americans are so generous, then why are they purchasing petrol at a fraction of its value from the gulf?

If they have helped the ME as much as you say they have, then why does your government support and appoint someone like Sadam and then use him as an excuse to occupy the gulf region??

Your country refuses to kill him, but instead they kill innocent civilians in Iraq and shift all the blame on him. Does that sound fair to you??

 

[BigPhysicsBastard]

Your country refuses to kill him, but instead they kill innocent civilians in Iraq and shift all the blame on him. Does that sound fair to you??

I'm sorry, but that last paragraph is clean bullshit son.....Americans killing innocent Iraqi's?? Yeah, maybe a few get killed when Saddam decides to light one of our planes up with radar. Sorry, but that'll happen when you decide to crawl up an F-15E's ass and perform some Tomfoolery up there. Nothing that's going on right now in Iraq can be blamed on anyone else except that arrogant cock wipe sitting in the "presidential palace". Our embargo's on Iraq were meant to keep him from firing up the war machine.....but he just takes what little there is and hordes it for himself. His people live in slums while he "HAPPILY" eats caviar and drinks the finest wines and champaigns. Oh yes, he also keeps contracting painters to make more paintings of him. As if the 401 portraits of him around the city are still not enough. Fuck that man, we're not "shifting" any blame on Saddam, for once the U.S is almost completely not at fault for a bad situation in the ME.

 

[Stumpy (The Fucking dumbass Piece of Shit!)]

Stumpy,

I find it very difficult to believe that a diplomatic approach is the solution of getting justice for Palestinians. Israel has made it clear that they are not interested in peace. The problem with Israel is that they want everything in there plate and they are not willing to share.

It seems to me that Israel will not accept that Palestine belongs to them also, more so than the Jews. Israel’s idea of solving this conflict is by killing as many Palestinians as possible, they have broken every law by accordance with the Geneva conventions act. So I ask you, how can you talk about peace when they have shown only brutality towards the Palestinians?? It seems to me that Israel will only speak one language, and that is of violence.

So what would be the next step for Palestinians?? Continue fighting until Israel realise that they are not going no where either, until they allow Palestinians to declare there own independent state in the west bank.

And with; regards to your question about Hitler being in the same category as Sharon. Well just because he has not declared that he hates Palestinians, and would not like to see all of them killed does not mean he doesn’t.

And he may not have killed the same amount of people as Hitler did...but numbers don’t mean anything. Are you trying to tell me that someone like Timothy Mcveigh is not in the same category as the one who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks because he did not claim as many lives??

Like I said in my previous post, he was responsible for countless exterminations of Palestinians. One in mind was during the 1980's at a refugee camp in Beirut, which claimed thousands of lives.

The type of government I would support, is one that is there to serve the interest of the people and not the US or Israel. I favour a law that abides with Islam. One were you are allowed the freedom of speech and to vote.

Strong_Man20,

OK, let's try to wrap this up.

You bring up good points, some of which I disagree with, but you have this tendency not to answer my questions. If you want to engage in a discussion, then you have to answer the questions that are posed to you. Otherwise, there's no point in discussing things. If you scroll up this thread, you'll be able to see how I state my disagreements with what you say point by point.

If you disagree with me and don't want to address the specifics, then don't bother quoting me. Just state what you feel (and that's what you've been doing). When I see my post quoted, I actually expect direct feedback, i.e. my questions answered. Then you could ask your questions, so that way I can respond to that. I'm just laying down a general outline here - there can be no real discussion without one.

If you don't want to put in the time, that's totally fine. Just don't quote me, because I get my hopes up anticipating a real debate.

Back to the subject at hand.

You say that continued violence should get the Palestinians their independent state in the West Bank (and Gaza). Ok, but states and countries are not just won and created through violence. Violence is only a tool to get to a certain point, then the parties involved negotiate.

You know much about Middle Eastern history? Do you know how Lebanon and Syria got their independence, and how they fought against the French? The French left Syria when the various Syrian factions united against them. Once they became independent, it wasn't too long before the Islamists were put in their place because they cause too many social and political problems. The same applies to Iraq. I know you're going to argue that that's not the will of the Syrian and Iraqi people, but there's a reason why both Syria and Iraq are pro-Baath (the ruling socialist party). Yes they're ruthless dictatorships, but in terms of education, position in society, connections with the West, overall cosmopolitanism, the Islamists in Syria and Iraq cannot be even compared to the ruling elites. That's why they're popular with some of the poor, but it's not like they care about the common people. They have their own political aspirations. Once in power, they won't give two shits about the people who supported them. Look at the fascist, populist movements in Central Europe of the 1920's and 30's. They also claimed that they represented the will of the people and true Christian ideals. What did that give us? WWII.

I get the feeling that you greatly romanticize Islamist political and social ambitions. It's time for you to realize that nobody gives a shit about the common people, especially in the developing world. They're on their own, because they're just pawns in the hands of those who have money and power, or those who want money and power. That's pretty scary, I know, but that's the truth.

I have a lot more to say, but I don't want to blabber on forever. I'm done with this thread.

later......................