|
Post by Cranky on Nov 19, 2006 14:08:29 GMT -5
........we tolerate this behaviour in our civilized countries? Umm....reread your line and you just answered the question. Western societies MUST tolerate civilized customs and religions otherwise we become what we resent...and laugh at. Having said that, the limit here is, what is civilized? And by whose account? As far as I am concerned, there should no quarter given to repressive social custmos born from cutoms of ownership and control. I don't buy this "freedom of religion" bs when it conflicts with basic human rights and freedoms. Here is what our constitution says....Article Two Fundamental Freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association. By definition, religion can not strip anyone of their fundamantal rights by it's practice.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 19, 2006 14:38:38 GMT -5
I agree. Also, for the record, why is it that the rest of the civilized world has to tolerate what the Muslim world does? Don't all people have the right to exist? Don't all colours, religions and sexual orientation breath the same air and drink the same water? Why should Muslim women be subjected to this kind of abuse in civilized society? What stunning breakthroughs or discoveries have the Muslim world discovered in the last 300 years? Do you ever see Muslims take to the street in any civilized country to protest an atrocity committed by Muslims? No! So why should we tolerate this behaviour in our civilized countries? If you come to live in a Western Society, be one of us, and don't try to change what we are, to what you left behind. I dont claim to be an expert, in fact far from it .... but I believe the Muslim counter arguement to your post would be that there were many inventions/discoveries/breakthroughs that were attibuted to Westerners that were in fact the brainchild of Muslims many years before, but they were never given credit. They would also argue that the most prosperous time for such breakthroughs in Muslim society was in the Dark Ages - a period where the western world was in despair. Undoubtably someone will ask what inventions? what discoveries? what breakthroughs? ... well I don't know, I don't read Muslim websites ... but I can google and more than one website suggest the above is true and refer to the discovery of "refraction" and "pulmonary circulation" by Muslims among these "many inventions/discoveries/breakthroughs". Depends on whose version of history you care to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 19, 2006 14:49:45 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert, in fact far from it .... but I believe the Muslim counter arguement to your post would be that there were many inventions/discoveries/breakthroughs that were attibuted to Westerners that were in fact the brainchild of Muslims many years before, but they were never given credit. They would also argue that the most prosperous time for such breakthroughs in Muslim society was in the Dark Ages - a period where the western world was in despair. Undoubtably someone will ask what inventions? what discoveries? what breakthroughs? ... well I don't know, I don't read Muslim websites ... but I can google and more than one website suggest the above is true and refer to the discovery of "refraction" and "pulmonary circulation" by Muslims among these "many inventions/discoveries/breakthroughs". Depends on whose version of history you care to believe. I'll have you all know that I invented the internet (free porn) and I am NOT Muslim...... How much weight does one put on technological/science advances? If that was the only measuring stick of a society then the Nazis could claim a stand on the pantheon of greatness within Western civilization.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 19, 2006 16:17:33 GMT -5
If you are a fundamentalist Muslim, you believe this about those who are non Muslim:
1) They must convert to Islam
2) They must become subservient to Islam
3) They must die if they don't do neither of the above
This is what the west is dealing with today. These Shari schools are turning out a bunch of mind bent followers who are growing in numbers. At this rate of conversion, most of the Muslim world will be of this mindset in 20 years. What are we, in the west, doing to combat this now? Are we going to wait until 2030 and see Europe become predominantly Muslim, with their Nuclear arsenal built by the secular Western Civilization? This is why the Netherlands, France and other parts of Europe must make their stand now, or lose the opportunity to do so later.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 19, 2006 17:11:34 GMT -5
Islamic fundamantalist by themselves are more of a nuisance then a threat. They brought down a couple of building? And? Israel brought down half of Lebanon and Lebanon still survives. Even if we lose a city the Western Civilization will not collapse, in fact, it will get stronger. Mildly catastrophic events tend to galvanize people rather then fragment them.
My biggest concern is not the fundamantalist themselves, but rather the countries behind them. For example.....
*Iran is about to invade the shiekdoms. It supplies a radical group composed of Sudanese nationals with nuclear weapons to blow up New York. The US finds itself in a position responding with force against whom? Sudan? Iran? Who?
*China is about to invade Taiwan. It supplies nukes to any number of Arab radicals and they set off a nuke in NY. How does the US respond? Is Taiwan the priority or shutting down the radicals and their country?
At best, Islamic fundamentalist, by themselves, can only create limited fear and minor damage to the West. However, over-reaction to fundamentalism will leave the West blind, vulnerable and vindictive. Blind to what may be a "bigger picture", vulnerable because they can misappropriate required force and vindictive to societies who have no control over radicals within their midst.
Last but not least....
The US has over 50% of all the worlds military capability. The US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have 70% of the worlds military capability. None of them are even under the slightest threat of Islam establishing 10% of the population, never mind controlling majority. Even in France, the Muslims compose several percent of the population and even at the most optimistic birth rates (and French birth declines), they will only be about 18% to 20% of the population by 2030.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 19, 2006 17:58:49 GMT -5
It only takes a couple of Nukes to create a catastrophic domino effect, if strategically delivered. Would the economy of the world be effected if New York were to disappear? How about the destruction of most of Saudi Arabia's Oil Fields? The world would degenerate into anarchy, with people thrown out of work, food supplies being fought over and survival of the fittest.
On the United States, their star is on the decline economically. My own feeling is that the United States will never be destroyed by an external power, but from within. If you've followed the last two Presidential Elections, you have noticed that the Country has become polarized. Northern States, West Coast States and Most of the Large Cities have been solidly Democratic while the South, and Midwest have stayed Republican. The fight is between the Secularist movement, championed by the Democrats and the Traditionalist movement, mostly Christians, backing the Republican agenda. With massive immigration skewing the numbers more toward the Democrats, when that line is crossed and the Democrats elect the first woman or minority candidate, the unraveling of the United States Empire will have started. There is a better than even chance that we will see the first woman Presidential Candidate in Hillary Clinton or first minority Presidential Candidate in Barac Obama. If this happens, the United States that we know will be forever changed.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 19, 2006 18:54:53 GMT -5
A couple of nukes? How much damage do you think that nukes cause? A thousand mile radius? 500 mile radius? Would you believe that a LARGE nuke only cause immediate catastrophic effects only over a 20-30 mile radius? While nukes can cause huge loses in cities strictly because of their population densities, they are close to useless against scattered targets.
Let's say...
They hit Ras Tanura port in Saudi Arabia, there are still several other ports that can be used and it will take only a year or two to extend a pipeline to another port. Or lets say they hit Abqaiq, a super oil field. It will NOT go up like a Hollywood movie. At worse, they will raise a huge plum of radioactive dust that will settle in the surrounding region. Not a so serious problem for a country as big as Saudi Arabia. While a good portion of oil production comes from Saudi Arabia, it is scattered enough all over the world as to make one or two hit nothing more then an economic nuisance.
The ONLY real effect of a nuke or two are the after effects. How will the US react if it is hit? Who will it respond against? How will Russia react if Moscow was hit? Paris? London?
I have often said on these pages that I fear that the Middle East is going nuclear. Other then a concern for my own safety (living near a big Western city), my biggest fear is not that a nuke or two will end the world or kill a few hundred thousand people, my concern is the after effects (or should I say over-reactions?) . Worse still if nukes are used with not so hidden agendas. If Iran backs a terrorist nuke against Israel, tens of millions will die. If Pakistan backs a terorrist nuke against India, hundreds of millions will die. If North Korea seriously threatens nukes against the US or supplies a terrorist nuke, North Korea will be turned to glass.
As for the impending economic implosion of the US, I beg to differ. I have been sitting here patiently for over 5 years waiting for a reccession, so real estate prices can collapse so I can buy at 30 cents to the dollar. All I have to show for my patience is less hair. The reality of the situation is that unlike the British Empire or the Romans, or almost all the countries in the world, the US is self contained as far as natural resources. It has more then enough land to grow it's food requirement and the worlds BIGGEST coal deposits. It can build nuclear plants to supply energy and can use it's coal deposits to substitute petroleum for 300 to 400 years into the future. While the US may face strong economic gusts, it will not leak and it will not sink. In fact, only Canada has as strong a future. Of the other major countries, China and Russia also have the land mass and the energy, but they are either underdeveloped or overpopulated.
To go back to the original discussion.....
Muslim terrorist can not cripple the West or destroy the world. We can if we irrationally over-react to them. Think of them as cancer cells that need to be contained or destroyed without damaging the organ in specific or the body in general.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 19, 2006 22:13:03 GMT -5
Yes, a cancer cell, but a cancer cell that is growing with nothing to stop it.
On the U.S. economy, you just have to look at the trade deficit and their national debt and we should all be concerned. If they fall under the weight of their debt, we'll follow. 90% of what we produce is traded to the United States.
On the Nukes, we also have to remember the radiation fall out that will take decades to dissipate. It ends up in the water supply, and the environment of the area. No it won't destroy any Western Country, but it signifies to radical Islam, that they can strike at the infidels and will bring them fresh recruits. Unfortunately, it will probably be Israel first and that means the end of a few Islamic capitals, if this were to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Nov 20, 2006 0:17:49 GMT -5
I hadn't realized how volatile a situation Europe had become on this issue until I saw a 5-part series on CBC. A lot of European countries are worried about eventually losing their way of life. Really -- can you blame them? Just look at Canada! "Those who claim to know" suggest that blue-eyes blond-haired people will have gone the way of the dinosaur well before the end of this century, as interracial marriage becomes the norm. Not sure that this really should be an issue, but it will be the result of national boundaries disappearing and continued co-mingling. Add inter-faith marriages to the mix and pretty soon (and this was suggested the middle of the 20th century) there will really be only two faith streams (and actually that is the way it is right now: Abrahamic monotheism [Jusaism, Islam, and Christianity] *, and Eastern mysticism and animism [just about everything else]). But I digress. "Keeping the faith (or culture)" breeds exclusivism . . . and eventually hatred and war. *Interesting that the three Abrahamic faiths are at such loggerheads with each other. But that is for another time, another discussion, another thread. I'm not aware of the 3 monotheistic faiths being at loggerheads with each other. The best book I've read on the madness of moral relativism ("A Refutation of Moral Relativism" was published by Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College and featured an Islamic Oxford scholar as the central defender of moral absolutism. It's a word that makes people cringe, but which in fact only signifies that moral principles are intrinsic, and not arbitrary - the basis for the idea that human beings have invilable rights. If you, good reader have ever used the word "should", you are a dogmatic moral absolutist as every sane person should be it's our human nature. I read somewhere recently that Italy will be a mostly Muslim nation by 2050. As far as the burka is concerned, a difference between the Islamic and Christian inspired societies is their approach to the problem of evil or behaviours. Islam seeks to remove all temptation. Christianity doesn't seek temptation but aims to overcome it. The so-called enlightenment often had (and still has) the curious ideal of individuals doing whatever they want, an inhuman ethic that denies reason, the most singularly human faculty. A paradox in the face of the lip service to reason.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Nov 20, 2006 0:26:52 GMT -5
That way I wouldn't have to put a bag over her head anymore. Heh heh heh. Sicko. Good one Yankee Borat.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 20, 2006 3:18:50 GMT -5
Do you ever see Muslims take to the street in any civilized country to protest an atrocity committed by Muslims? It was described in this very thread: Thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims demonstrated against the abductions. Many of the protests included women in head scarves who oppose the secularity law but viewed the Iraqi blackmail attempt as worse.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 3, 2006 23:48:15 GMT -5
I read an article in today's Toronto Star, that said, in 30 years, Russia will have a Muslim Majority. While regular white Russians are having an average of 1.4 children per couple, the Muslim population are averaging 4 children per couple. If this trend continues, Russia will become a Muslim nation, with all of Russia's nuclear arsenal, in my lifetime. Scary thought!
|
|