Islam Vs. The World

Too Good Reports ^ | December 2, 2001 | Alan Caruba

[timestax]

bttt

[powderhorn]

Are they or are they not entitled to live as sovereign peoples free from outside interference. Did they and do they go and force the industrialized world to consume their resources, come in, and impose leaders who will do business with the West?

The Palestinians reject the sovereignty of Israel. They could have kept their land and lived in peace with Israel but they chose war in 1967 and have never changed their position. Only in Bazaro-world does the loser of a war dictate the peace. Article 21 of the PLO Charter states that the Palestinian revolution must "reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine." So the sovereignty of Palestine could only mean the elimination of Israel. The Palestianians declare that there must be a winner and a loser, and so far they have been on the losing end.

The Arabs backed the losing side in both WWI and WWII. So, is it any surprise that the west came in and supported leaders that they could do business with? Or would it have made more sense for the west to support leaders that they couldn't do business with? Perhaps in Bazaro-world.

[timestax]

bttt

[A. Pole]

Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Johann Gauss, Albert Einstein were Muslims?

No, the Muslim subjects like enslaved Byzantine Greeks and Hindus had superior mathematical knowledge for which their Muslim masters got credit.

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

These islamic animals are just flat out retarted!!!

[timestax]

Yeah they are!!

[timestax]

bttt

[AGAviator]

Islamics are about 20% of the world's population and almost all the population of the Middle East. Only in Barazro world does 1% of the world's population call the shots for 90% of the people in the region and then get the US to bankroll them in the bargain.

[powderhorn]

Islamics are about 20% of the world's population and almost all the population of the Middle East. Only in Barazro world does 1% of the world's population call the shots for 90% of the people in the region and then get the US to bankroll them in the bargain.

It would seem like a contradiction, wouldn't it? But then, there's another question: why would the west want to return to the 12th century to do business? This is a major stumbling block. Islamics see Islam as having more sovereignty than individual nations. It's hard to take people seriously who feel that it is not a crime to kill someone as long as they are not Islamic. What it boils down to is that there is no point in treating the Islamic nations as equal partners in trade until they are ready to join the civilized world.

[timestax]

These wierdos are so uncivilized they should be destroyed in my opinion.

[geege]

one of my favorite pictures........

angcat

[AGAviator]

There's plenty of them who don't want to "kill somebody because they're not Islamic." Hundreds of millions of them in fact. They just don't make the headlines because they're doing pretty much the same thing your average US citizen does in his daily life. That doesn't sell newspapers or make the ratings go up.

[powderhorn]

There's plenty of them who don't want to "kill somebody because they're not Islamic."

I'm sure that you are right. When the Islamic nations are ready to root out not only the active terrorists, but also the mullahs who preach hatred and advocate violence against non-Islamics, then Islam will be worthy of respect.

[AGAviator]

You have to bring some to get some. We need to make sure we're not supporting regimes which practice violence against them, either by fellow Islamic dictators or others, or we will have the monumental task of attempting to impose our will on people all over the world who outnumber us four to one.

[powderhorn]

We need to make sure we're not supporting regimes which practice violence against them,...

I do understand this, but am also very pessimistic about Islamic leaders taking any significant role in world politics. Any theocracy is at least 500 years out of date. The regimes that exist in place of pure Islamic rule are willing to take the necessary steps to trade with the rest of the world. Islamic rule, it seems, would prefer to have the rest of the world regress 500 years. Neither the current regimes or the Islamic people within those nations see democracy, the rule of law or individual rights as options. Our problem is: what regime do we want to support, one that we can do business with or one that we can't do business with?

[timestax]

bump

[AGAviator]

Right up there with the most politically repressive Islamic regimes are those which we consider our allies: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Uzbekistan. The militant fundamentalism that comes out of these places is as much a reaction agsinst their home-grown autocrats cracking the heads of their own people as any international politics.

These regimes frequently use Islam to legitimize their own political actions, and thus set the stage for another kind of Islam in opposition to them.

It is not an accident that nearly all the hijackers were from countries we consider our allies, but we are busy bombing and attacking a non-allied country which merely made the mistake of allowing them to pass through its territory, and then thumbed its nose at us.

If we were to support regimes which have "liberty and justice for all" as their goal we would not have to try to determine who is a good dictator and who is a bad one.