|
I was trying to respond to this thread, but it got closed while i was writing this.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132382
My father is from Iran, but being a Christian Assyrian, he was persecuted and their family were forced to leave during the Islamic revolution. I can definitely see the influences that they have had on Assyrians, but in the end, Assyrians have been easily able to integrate into american society. Many assyrians in the town i'm from (turlock, ca) own businesses and are involved in the community. Even the mayor is now assyrian. I believe that the christian/catholic influence that they grew up with has had a deep impact on their integration with society. Some of the older assyrians definitely get "angry" easily and get offended from criticism, but the younger generation (my father) have easily adapted since anger is frowned upon by christians.
I think a part of the problem in europe though is the lack of multiculturalism in general. Most nations have a majority population of 90% or higher. In the united states, whites (europeans, middle easteners, arabs, jews) are barely a majority and are set to become a minority in the next few decades.
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
The best foreign policy the west can have is a tighter immigration policy, and a leave em alone policy. The muslim world is filled with civil wars and revolutions. Letting them fight amongst themselves is the best possible solution to end the animosity between the west and muslims. The most important step is solving the Israel problem. Israel represents the power of force and control to the muslim nations. In the west, israels creation is representation of trying to resolve the past misdeeds of the west upon the jews. From the crusades to the genocide, jews have been treated harshly and Israel is the west's plan of redemption. To muslims, however, it is an insult. They feel very threatened by their presence and their reaction as the article suggested is voilent and angry. No peace treaty will ever be agreed upon in israel while palestinians attempt to live there and I can only conclude that it will end up in bloodshed. The current situation there is who is going to strike first. Both sides know that if they strike first, then the world will support the other country as we witnessed with the flotilla raids.
That's all I have to say.
For a better understanding of this entire debate in the west vs islam I highly reccomend the following book I read in junior high.
http://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Year-War-Mideast-Affects/dp/0942617320
  
|
dont worry dude, Islam is a religion of peace.
We'd only be in trouble if Islam was a religion of War.
|
On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims."
I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical.
Sorry if this comes off a bit rough.
|
On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims.
Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^
|
I do NOT understand why Djzapz was warned for that post in the original thread. Other than that EXTREMELY good points all around. Gotta say. I agree with almost everything you posted.
|
On June 24 2010 12:05 intrudor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^
Europeon:http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/
I also can show you official FBI reports which show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980-2005 have been committed by adherents of the Islamic faith.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/
|
dude, on TL , you get warned.period. ive been warned for things like one liners before. oops..that was going to be a one liner...i gotta make it at least 2. see? 2 lines ^_^
|
On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims." I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical. Sorry if this comes off a bit rough.
I am saying it is wrong to associate the words radical muslim and terrorist together. Most muslims are "radical". Also, I believe it when you say that most terrorist acts are committed by non-muslims, however, if you add into the motivating factor, I believe muslims would dominate the "bomb for religious reasons" statistic. The word terror itself means to insight fear and panic. Most "terrorist" acts are simply criminal acts of agression and are improperly categorized. For example, Pearl Harbor was a war attack, not a terrorist attack, yet some definitions would include it as terrorism.
|
United States44257 Posts
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow.
|
On June 24 2010 12:10 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:05 intrudor wrote:On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^ Europeon: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/I also can show you official FBI reports which show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980-2005 have been committed by adherents of the Islamic faith. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/
dude...you gotta understand what methodology is here... if you gotta bring a report to disprove the fact that 99% of major terrorist attacks are committed by muslims, which is what we observe, than you gotta ask yourself; why are those reports in conflict with what we observe on our daily life and on CNN? gotta be the methodology...
whens the last time you heard about a Christian or a Jewish organization blowing up something that claimed more than say; 3 lives? its about methodology. lets start an investigation where we add up all terrorist attacks and see who commits them. Lets define things before we start. Please note, dear readers, that "terrorist attack" for the purpose of this expensive tax-financed report, denotes all attacks that are meant to bring TERROR!... i.e. we shall include all graffitis on buildings made by young 15 y-o white punks, and all bullying events at school. We shall also include verbal death threats and sexual assaults committed by famous actors and athletes.
Dude, face the facts, those reports are bullshit or you misquoted them. ^_^ 
|
On June 24 2010 12:15 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims." I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical. Sorry if this comes off a bit rough. I am saying it is wrong to associate the words radical muslim and terrorist together. Most muslims are "radical". Also, I believe it when you say that most terrorist acts are committed by non-muslims, however, if you add into the motivating factor, I believe muslims would dominate the "bomb for religious reasons" statistic. The word terror itself means to insight fear and panic. Most "terrorist" acts are simply criminal acts of agression and are improperly categorized. For example, Pearl Harbor was a war attack, not a terrorist attack, yet some definitions would include it as terrorism.
I will agree that most muslims are radical compared to the Western Point of view, and also applaud you in saying the first sentence. However, at the same time, there are also extremist Christians who will bomb abortion clinics. This doesn't mean Christians are "violent", it means the extremists themselves are fricking retarded. The main reason why Muslims MIGHT dominate the "bomb for religious reasons"(a narrow topic itself) is because the countries where they dominate have been utterly thrown into chaos, so of course there would be some Muslims in there who would see themselves as doing God's work. I think the same would happen if Iran invaded the US.
Also, I'm pretty sure(not positive) that most historians and people regard Pearl Harbor as a terrorist attack. Source where its not?
EDIT: Also, actually according to the FBI reports, there were more terrororist acts commited by extremist Jews than extremist Muslims.
DOUBLE EDIT
dude...you gotta understand what methodology is here... if you gotta bring a report to disprove the fact that 99% of major terrorist attacks are committed by muslims, which is what we observe, than you gotta ask yourself; why are those reports in conflict with what we observe on our daily life and on CNN? gotta be the methodology...
whens the last time you heard about a Christian or a Jewish organization blowing up something that claimed more than say; 3 lives? its about methodology. lets start an investigation where we add up all terrorist attacks and see who commits them. Lets define things before we start. Please note, dear readers, that "terrorist attack" for the purpose of this expensive tax-financed report, denotes all attacks that are meant to bring TERROR!... i.e. we shall include all graffitis on buildings made by young 15 y-o white punks, and all bullying events at school. We shall also include verbal death threats and sexual assaults committed by famous actors and athletes.
Dude, face the facts, those reports are bullshit or you misquoted them. ^_^
Please read it all before you start to call BS on my sources. Heres a graph which breaks down the activities of the "terrorist acts".![[image loading]](http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/terrorismbyevent.jpg)
Finally, the media is biased. I'm going to say it right now. Its like how crime was going down for a while yet the reporting on it skyrocketed.
|
On June 24 2010 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow.
I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other.
My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work.
|
On June 24 2010 12:26 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:15 darmousseh wrote:On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims." I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical. Sorry if this comes off a bit rough. I am saying it is wrong to associate the words radical muslim and terrorist together. Most muslims are "radical". Also, I believe it when you say that most terrorist acts are committed by non-muslims, however, if you add into the motivating factor, I believe muslims would dominate the "bomb for religious reasons" statistic. The word terror itself means to insight fear and panic. Most "terrorist" acts are simply criminal acts of agression and are improperly categorized. For example, Pearl Harbor was a war attack, not a terrorist attack, yet some definitions would include it as terrorism. I will agree that most muslims are radical compared to the Western Point of view, and also applaud you in saying the first sentence. However, at the same time, there are also extremist Christians who will bomb abortion clinics. This doesn't mean Christians are "violent", it means the extremists themselves are fricking retarded. The main reason why Muslims MIGHT dominate the "bomb for religious reasons"(a narrow topic itself) is because the countries where they dominate have been utterly thrown into chaos, so of course there would be some Muslims in there who would see themselves as doing God's work. I think the same would happen if Iran invaded the US. Also, I'm pretty sure(not positive) that most historians and people regard Pearl Harbor as a terrorist attack. Source where its not? EDIT: Also, actually according to the FBI reports, there were more terrororist acts commited by extremist Jews than extremist Muslims.
According to wikipedia "The attack on Pearl Harbor (called the Hawaii Operation or Operation Z by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, and the Battle of Pearl Harbor by some Americans)[6] was an unannounced military strike"
The military of the nation was involved in order to respond to the economic embargo against their nation (Embargos are an act of war and agression)
Also, I never perpetuated anywhere that I was concerned about terrorism in the OP. Most of the fighting happens internally or against Israel. What I am concerned with is the definite takeover of european politics by muslims. It almost happened in Spain a long time ago. They don't need to commit terrorist acts in order to increase their influence. To me terrorism is just a small symptom of a much larger problem.
EDIT:
A small problem called blowback.
|
On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 24 2010 12:31 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow. I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other. My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work.
While I value your expierence and the obvious insights it has brought into this discussion(such as that the Middle Eastern politics IS deeply attactched to the Islamic religion, I disagree with your analogy. Its more as if the "perfect" house comes in, invades over your house, smashes it into the ground, and declares itself the head. That's basically it.
|
United States33681 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
So relevant to so many people on TL.net!
That said, I can't say one thing or another about the OP myself :O
|
I feel like I am begining to sound rough, so I will still skim over this, but probably stop commenting. I feel like either I or you(probably me) am/are starting to become "enemies." I feel like we agree on certain major points, and we can live to disagree on the others. Nice discussion though, it did not resort to personal attacks.
Finally, when I started comenting on the "extremists are bad" I was just trying to make sure for others they didn't view harshly if I didn't clarify.
|
On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
Lol, I don't think anyone here is an "expert", but I am entitled to a view from my perspective. Other than turkey, the majority of the parties are influenced by religion. Khameni in Iran, the different parties in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.
|
On June 24 2010 12:49 Pandain wrote:
I feel like I am begining to sound rough, so I will still skim over this, but probably stop commenting. I feel like either I or you(probably me) am/are starting to become "enemies." I feel like we agree on certain major points, and we can live to disagree on the others. Nice discussion though, it did not resort to personal attacks.
Finally, when I started comenting on the "extremists are bad" I was just trying to make sure for others they didn't view harshly if I didn't clarify.
No problem, I blame it on my middle eastern family. JK!! lol.
|
On June 24 2010 12:44 Pandain wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 24 2010 12:31 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow. I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other. My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work. While I value your expierence and the obvious insights it has brought into this discussion(such as that the Middle Eastern politics IS deeply attactched to the Islamic religion, I disagree with your analogy. Its more as if the "perfect" house comes in, invades over your house, smashes it into the ground, and declares itself the head. That's basically it.
Hahaha, probably closer to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
