Sept 11th was Just Punishment

[Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar]

Muslims undertake jihad on US 911, because US is unjust, criminal and tyrannical, may God punish Americans. It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel, may both countries suffer great disgrace and humiliation. US has murdered millions in Palestine (The Prophet's Night Travel Land), Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, may Bush roast in Hell for that.

US arrogance has double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a "terrorist." 911 hijackers fight occupation and invasions of Muslim Holy Lands but Bush labels these are "terrorists". US wants to occupy Muslim countries, steal our oil, slaughter us with air craft and bombs, impose on us vile, corrupt agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed but on sick US capitalist exploit ideas. If Muslim refuse to agree, US will say you are "terrorists." If Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation tanks, it says they are "terrorists" whereas when Israeli pilots bombed United Nations building in Qana (in Lebanon) while was full of children and women, US stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at White House as a valued political leader, while woe, all woe is to the Muslims if he cry out for his rights. US is plainly leader of terrorism and crime in the world.

US calls jihad operations of New York "terrorist attack" but US does not consider it "terrorist attack" to hurl nuclear bombs at Japan. These bombs were hurled at the entire nation, including women, children and retirees. US does not consider it "terrorism" when milions of our sons and brothers in Iraq died. So, there is no base for US calling this 911 operation "terrorist".

Americans who burned in 911 inferno got a cruel trick after they awakened. All they can see all around them is many ovens - these are painful ovens prepared for them by Allah. The flames are shreiking and wratfhul. We ask Allah, The Almighty, to keep the furnaces roasting.

Conversely, Allah, Praise and Glory be to Him, with the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him, accepted 911 heroes as Martyrs where they enjoy many unwordly pleasures, thanks be to Allah for that.

[Jocko]

Well said, sir. With progressive thinking like that, your culture will crack that 15th century barrier in no time. All praise to Allah and his prophet Mohammed!

By the way, Sheik, what do you call 35,000 dead in Bam, Iran after the earthquake? Is that punishment as well?

I suggest that a moderator move this nutcase to the Flame Wars section ASAP. This is likely to get ugly fast.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
< BULLS**T >

Don't you have some women to stone and some Jews to kill?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
Muslims undertake jihad on US 911, because US is unjust, criminal and tyrannical, may God punish Americans. It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel, may both countries suffer great disgrace and humiliation. US has murdered millions in Palestine (The Prophet's Night Travel Land), Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, may Bush roast in Hell for that.

US arrogance has double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a "terrorist." 911 hijackers fight occupation and invasions of Muslim Holy Lands but Bush labels these are "terrorists". US wants to occupy Muslim countries, steal our oil, slaughter us with air craft and bombs, impose on us vile, corrupt agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed but on sick US capitalist exploit ideas. If Muslim refuse to agree, US will say you are "terrorists." If Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation tanks, it says they are "terrorists" whereas when Israeli pilots bombed United Nations building in Qana (in Lebanon) while was full of children and women, US stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at White House as a valued political leader, while woe, all woe is to the Muslims if he cry out for his rights. US is plainly leader of terrorism and crime in the world.

US calls jihad operations of New York "terrorist attack" but US does not consider it "terrorist attack" to hurl nuclear bombs at Japan. These bombs were hurled at the entire nation, including women, children and retirees. US does not consider it "terrorism" when milions of our sons and brothers in Iraq died. So, there is no base for US calling this 911 operation "terrorist".

Americans who burned in 911 inferno got a cruel trick after they awakened. All they can see all around them is many ovens - these are painful ovens prepared for them by Allah. The flames are shreiking and wratfhul. We ask Allah, The Almighty, to keep the furnaces roasting.

Conversely, Allah, Praise and Glory be to Him, with the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him, accepted 911 heroes as Martyrs where they enjoy many unwordly pleasures, thanks be to Allah for that. :tr:

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Psiload
:tr:

God, I hope not. He could be an endless source of fun. Just remember, I got to him first.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jocko


God, I hope not. He could be an endless source of fun. Just remember, I got to him first.

Isn't there enough of his ilk to go around on this forum?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well said, sir. With progressive thinking like that, your culture will crack that 15th century barrier in no time. All praise to Allah and his prophet Mohammed!




:biggrin:

OK I better laugh quick before I am called an anti-Muslim racist...

[American]

Allah will protect you from all of our basic tracing methods.


Like these guys (http://www.redneckhigh.com/AC130video.html).

[Luciana]

Easy, folks. It's very likely he's trolling, but we can't be sure with just one post.

Please let's try to avoid hurling insults at this point. He has an opinion, he's entitled to it. We all hope he can back this up with strong arguments and is willing to endure the debate that this can spark. I'm sure someone will take the trouble to debate with him with solid arguments.

If this a troll, why feed his need for attention-seeking? Why get indignant and thus play his game?

If he's not (and with one post we can't be sure of anything), then we can have a civil debate? His post is filled with hate. Maybe we could counter that with rationality?

All said and done, I was the first to give this thread a single star...

[Cleopatra]

Another one that follows Huzington's tradition.This one is trying to ridicule the Arabs.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Isn't there enough of his ilk to go around on this forum?

Sure there is... but you just don't get this kind of purity or quality from AUP or the others who shall remain nameless. I mean, this joker can't even mention "America" or "Israel" without throwing in the obligatory "may they burn in the fires of yadda yadda yadda" disclaimer. This is pure gold, baby.

Maybe I should give it a try.

"AUP, may his left-mousing finger cramp with the flames of perdition and get caught in his scrolling wheel, will probably become fast friends with this guy."

Hey, that's kind of fun. I guess extremist islamic culture isn't all bad after all.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
All they can see all around them is many ovens - these are painful ovens prepared for them by Allah. The flames are shreiking and wratfhul. We ask Allah, The Almighty, to keep the furnaces roasting.


Honestly,
How does one have a rational debate with statements like these?

Is this different from some Xian fundie saying God is giving homosexuals aids as divine punishment?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Easy, folks. It's very likely he's trolling, but we can't be sure with just one post.

Please let's try to avoid hurling insults at this point. He has an opinion, he's entitled to it. We all hope he can back this up with strong arguments and is willing to endure the debate that this can spark. I'm sure someone will take the trouble to debate with him with solid arguments.

If this a troll, why feed his need for attention-seeking? Why get indignant and thus play his game?

If he's not (and with one post we can't be sure of anything), then we can have a civil debate? His post is filled with hate. Maybe we could counter that with rationality?

All said and done, I was the first to give this thread a single star...

You right, I shouldn't have jumped right to insulting him -- though I still think he deserved it -- however, do you honestly think if he's speaking his true opinion there's such thing as a civil debate possible with him? I'm not advocating banishment and violence but I have yet to meet an extremist who can be persuaded to change his opinion with just reason alone.

P.S. Who looks at those star ratings anyway? :)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jocko

By the way, Sheik, what do you call 35,000 dead in Bam, Iran after the earthquake? Is that punishment as well?


Considering Iran just got pelted by meteorites too one might question just whose side Allah is on!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
Muslims undertake jihad on US 911, because US is unjust, criminal and tyrannical, may God punish Americans. It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel, may both countries suffer great disgrace and humiliation. US has murdered millions in Palestine (The Prophet's Night Travel Land), Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, may Bush roast in Hell for that.

US arrogance has double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a "terrorist." 911 hijackers fight occupation and invasions of Muslim Holy Lands but Bush labels these are "terrorists". US wants to occupy Muslim countries, steal our oil, slaughter us with air craft and bombs, impose on us vile, corrupt agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed but on sick US capitalist exploit ideas. If Muslim refuse to agree, US will say you are "terrorists." If Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation tanks, it says they are "terrorists" whereas when Israeli pilots bombed United Nations building in Qana (in Lebanon) while was full of children and women, US stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at White House as a valued political leader, while woe, all woe is to the Muslims if he cry out for his rights. US is plainly leader of terrorism and crime in the world.

US calls jihad operations of New York "terrorist attack" but US does not consider it "terrorist attack" to hurl nuclear bombs at Japan. These bombs were hurled at the entire nation, including women, children and retirees. US does not consider it "terrorism" when milions of our sons and brothers in Iraq died. So, there is no base for US calling this 911 operation "terrorist".

Americans who burned in 911 inferno got a cruel trick after they awakened. All they can see all around them is many ovens - these are painful ovens prepared for them by Allah. The flames are shreiking and wratfhul. We ask Allah, The Almighty, to keep the furnaces roasting.

Conversely, Allah, Praise and Glory be to Him, with the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him, accepted 911 heroes as Martyrs where they enjoy many unwordly pleasures, thanks be to Allah for that.

I'm actually disappointed with the response you got so far. this being a board for skeptics I'm sorry that you haven't received the proper amount of replies based upon your overuse of Allah.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Considering Iran just got pelted by meteorites too one might question just whose side Allah is on!

Wow, news to me. Can locusts be far behind? Maybe its time I started going to church again.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Is this different from some Xian fundie saying God is giving homosexuals aids as divine punishment?

Yes, it's worse. Rational adults know that AIDS as punishment is laughable. It's not true, and it never happened - unlike 9/11.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You right, I shouldn't have jumped right to insulting him -- though I still think he deserved it -- however, do you honestly think if he's speaking his true opinion there's such thing as a civil debate possible with him? I'm not advocating banishment and violence but I have yet to meet an extremist who can be persuaded to change his opinion with just reason alone.

Because if he accuses Americans of all evil things, answering him with hate, in his mind, is akin to proving his point, you know? And it reflects bad on us - any doubt he might claim no one answered him seriously because he's right after all? :rolleyes:

P.S. Who looks at those star ratings anyway? :)

I barely remember this system exists. But with such a post, how can anyone resist? :D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery


Because if he accuses Americans of all evil things, answering him with hate, in his mind, is akin to proving his point, you know? And it reflects bad on us - any doubt he might claim no one answered him seriously because he's right after all? :rolleyes:



I barely remember this system exists. But with such a post, how can anyone resist? :D

I honestly do not know how to reason with a person who thinks 9/11 was a "good" thing. What's a counter argument to that?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery


Because if he accuses Americans of all evil things, answering him with hate, in his mind, is akin to proving his point, you know? And it reflects bad on us - any doubt he might claim no one answered him seriously because he's right after all? :rolleyes:

Do you honestly think this guy - if he's for real - gives a flying filarski about burden of proof? Wake up! You could react by doing the chicken dance in the nude for him, he'd still hate the west.

Please, if you're looking to convince an extremist, work on the next Jehovah's Witness that comes to your door. But don't give this idiot more credit than he's due.

Besides, Jehovah's Witnesses have never destroyed national landmarks, as far as I'm aware. Much safer to start with that kind of nut.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What's a counter argument to that?

Simple:

Afghanistan just ratified its Constitution. Argument over.

[a_unique_person]

Shaikh, appeals to the supernatural, eg, god, don't usually get much credence here.

[Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar]

As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

Well I would have to say that given the numbers, God has to be more pissed off at the Iranians than the US.

[a_unique_person]

The idea that those who receive punishment because they have not followed god's teaching is also an appeal to a supernatural authority. I have criticised Israeli settlers in the West Bank for believing that when they are attacked by Palestinians, it is because god is not protecting them because they have not obeyed his teachings properly. It doesn't lead to logical resolutions of problems. The idea that god would punish all of Bam, because maybe 50% of people were sinners, is pretty ridiculous.

[TillEulenspiegel]

OOOh! OOOOh! Can I try ? I wanna Try!

You are the bottom of my shoe, you Satan worshiping spawn of dogs and son of a pig eating whore!

Naw he's a troll prolly a Israili or American agent provocateur...........he didn't condemn Joooooooos or Isreal enuf. Also the switch between bad english and use of words like conversely ..HE HE.
Nice amateur try tho =)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Troll


Well I would have to say that given the numbers, God has to be more pissed off at the Iranians than the US.

By a factor of roughly 12, by my calculations. And He sent an earthquake, which is much more impressive than 4 jets.

I'm guessing troll on the Mad Sheik. No one could be this idiotic and still know how to use a computer.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

Then why are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Atlantic City and New York still standing?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

Hi there, troll! Quick question for you.

If God killed 35,000 Iranians, most of them certainly muslims, for listing to music and watching satellite TV, don't you think God would also be upset by your using a computer to surf the internet?

I hope you're posting from a meteor-proof cellar someplace.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The idea that those who receive punishment because they have not followed god's teaching is also an appeal to a supernatural authority. I have criticised Israeli settlers in the West Bank for believing that when they are attacked by Palestinians, it is because god is not protecting them because they have not obeyed his teachings properly. It doesn't lead to logical resolutions of problems. The idea that god would punish all of Bam, because maybe 50% of people were sinners, is pretty ridiculous.


Again. You cannot build a sentence without refering to Israel. How can you blame somebody if he calls you obsessed?

And you know what? You are wrong.Where did you see that? This is not what the wackos Isrealis believe...They believe that they have to stay in the West Bank because the voice of Abraham asks them to stay there.They believe that they can hear to the voice of Abraham...

Please Unique, don't behave like a woo-woo.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jocko


No one could be this idiotic and still know how to use a computer.

Uh, have you forgotten the other thread you posted in recently? :D

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Then why are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Atlantic City and New York still standing?

Excellent point, Grammatron. Many of the dead in Iran died directly as a result of the Arab world's relative lack of socio-economic development, which is arguably due to their strict adherence to the Koran and their incessant habit of taking political cues from religious leaders.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
OOOh! OOOOh! Can I try ? I wanna Try!

You are the bottom of my shoe, you Satan worshiping spawn of dogs and son of a pig eating whore!

Naw he's a troll prolly a Israili or American agent provocateur...........he didn't condemn Joooooooos or Isreal enuf. Also the switch between bad english and use of words like conversely ..HE HE.
Nice amateur try tho =)

I am starting to to think along these lines too, but as I have said in other threads, you can only reply to the topics as they come. If it turns out that this is just a practical joke, then it's not that much time wasted, and the ratio of hoaxes to legitimate posts is still very low. Better to play it straight than start jumping at shadows in every thread.

[Monketey Ghost]

what's a flying filarski?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
Muslims undertake jihad on US 911, because US is unjust, criminal and tyrannical, may God punish Americans. It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel, may both countries suffer great disgrace and humiliation. US has murdered millions in Palestine (The Prophet's Night Travel Land), Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, may Bush roast in Hell for that.

US arrogance has double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a "terrorist." 911 hijackers fight occupation and invasions of Muslim Holy Lands but Bush labels these are "terrorists". US wants to occupy Muslim countries, steal our oil, slaughter us with air craft and bombs, impose on us vile, corrupt agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed but on sick US capitalist exploit ideas. If Muslim refuse to agree, US will say you are "terrorists." If Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation tanks, it says they are "terrorists" whereas when Israeli pilots bombed United Nations building in Qana (in Lebanon) while was full of children and women, US stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at White House as a valued political leader, while woe, all woe is to the Muslims if he cry out for his rights. US is plainly leader of terrorism and crime in the world.

US calls jihad operations of New York "terrorist attack" but US does not consider it "terrorist attack" to hurl nuclear bombs at Japan. These bombs were hurled at the entire nation, including women, children and retirees. US does not consider it "terrorism" when milions of our sons and brothers in Iraq died. So, there is no base for US calling this 911 operation "terrorist".

Americans who burned in 911 inferno got a cruel trick after they awakened. All they can see all around them is many ovens - these are painful ovens prepared for them by Allah. The flames are shreiking and wratfhul. We ask Allah, The Almighty, to keep the furnaces roasting.

Conversely, Allah, Praise and Glory be to Him, with the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him, accepted 911 heroes as Martyrs where they enjoy many unwordly pleasures, thanks be to Allah for that.

It is disgraceful the use of Allah (praise and glory be to Him) and Muhammad (peace be upon him) are used improperly above. The peace and glory of Allah can stand up to reasoned discourse in the light of day and need not rely on the cowardly thoughts of terrorists in the night to make the point. Peace cannot come at the end of a bomb and the faithful should come out and tell the world that so that a more adult discussion may begin.

:halo:

[NoZed Avenger]

I'll give 5 to 1 that his ISP resolves to no where near "the middle east."


Make it 10 to 1.


N/A

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
OOOh! OOOOh! Can I try ? I wanna Try!

You are the bottom of my shoe, you Satan worshiping spawn of dogs and son of a pig eating whore!

Naw he's a troll prolly a Israili or American agent provocateur...........he didn't condemn Joooooooos or Isreal enuf. Also the switch between bad english and use of words like conversely ..HE HE.
Nice amateur try tho =)

An Israeli agent? Were you drinking again?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Again. You cannot build a sentence without refering to Israel. How can you blame somebody if he calls you obsessed?

And you know what? You are wrong.Where did you see that? This is not what the wackos Isrealis believe...They believe that they have to stay in the West Bank because the voice of Abraham asks them to stay there.They believe that they can hear to the voice of Abraham...

Please Unique, don't behave like a woo-woo.

I can only go on what I have read. After a Palestinians attack on a settlement, that was exactly what one of the residents said. God was punishing them. Not the Palestinians, god. They had to get more in line with what god wanted from them to prevent more attacks. I was only using this as an example, because it came to mind. Xian fundies also use such logic, for example, the old fatal car crash that has a survivor. God must have been looking after them. This when their friends are dead and they are suffering horrific injuries. There are many such examples.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I can only go on what I have read. After a Palestinians attack on a settlement, that was exactly what one of the residents said. God was punishing them. Not the Palestinians, god. They had to get more in line with what god wanted from them to prevent more attacks. I was only using this as an example, because it came to mind. Xian fundies also use such logic, for example, the old fatal car crash that has a survivor. God must have been looking after them. This when their friends are dead and they are suffering horrific injuries. There are many such examples.


I have never heard about that. Those Israelis don't care about Palestinians and they behave as if they are not there. All they care is to return to "Judea" and "Samaria". This is how the demonstrate their religious fanaticism.

BTW. How come and you turned the discussion to Israel again?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


BTW. How come and you turned the discussion to Israel again?

Might as well ask why a crocodile bites you. It's what he does.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jocko


Might as well ask why a crocodile bites you. It's what he does.

"My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush" Bobby Boucher

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



I have never heard about that. Those Israelis don't care about Palestinians and they behave as if they are not there. All they care is to return to "Judea" and "Samaria". This is how the demonstrate their religious fanaticism.

BTW. How come and you turned the discussion to Israel again?

because that was the most ridiculous example that came to mind. As you say, those Israelis don't care about palestinians, and act as if they are not there. The attack was a punishment from god, not a palestinian attacking them. about as logical as saying 9/11 or Bam was an act of god.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


about as logical as saying 9/11 or Bam was an act of god.

Er, Bam was an act of God. At least the underwriters will call it such.

[hammegk]

Plaigarizing from elsewhere (thanks you-know-who-you-are):


Three strangers strike up a conversation in the airport passenger lounge in Bozeman, Montana, awaiting their flights.

One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer. Another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show and the third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East.

Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures.

Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind out side is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still no plane comes.

Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly he speaks,
"At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are few."

The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, "Once
my people were few," he sneers, "and now we are many. Why do
you suppose that is?"

The Montana cowboy shifts his toothpick to one side of his mouth
and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a drawl, "That's
'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet, but I do believe
it's a-comin'."

Any questions?

[WildCat]

Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar, if you're for real (and I highly doubt it), think about this: Allah has been crapping all over the Middle East ever since the Moors were kicked out of Spain (probably for dancing, as there were no sinful cd's back then). One oppresive, tyrannical despot or theologian monstrosity after another. Blood feuds, civil wars, horrid economies, etc. It might as well still be 1490 there.


Maybe the reason isn't because of dancing, ya know?

[Ed]

Aw hell, is it over? This could have been fun.:(

[shemp]

Again, I missed the floor show.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

Hey, I remember you!!! You used to wrestle in the WWF!! The Iron Sheik. You used to come out and sing the Iranian national anthem, and then cheat during all your matches. But Hulk Hogan ultimately beat your ass!!

Watchya gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!

[demon]

Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar:

"may Bush be skinned alive."

Amen, at least you got that right!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by demon
Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar:

"may Bush be skinned alive."

Amen, at least you got that right!

A lesson to Democrats... be careful who you hitch your wagon to.

Er, I meant Dean, not the Mad Sheik.

[The Don]

Muslims undertake jihad on US 911, because US is unjust, criminal and tyrannical, may God punish Americans.

That the US is considered unjust is a point of view - I consider it fair to make that point so long as the person making the point is willing to entertain counter arguments.

Something the U.S. needs to understand is that it is considered to be unjust by a sizeable minority of the planet's population. It may wish to consider its activities in this light.

It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel, may both countries suffer great disgrace and humiliation. US has murdered millions in Palestine (The Prophet's Night Travel Land), Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, may Bush roast in Hell for that.

I'd like to see some form of back-up for the assertion that millions have died as a result of the actions of Israel and/or the U.S. I suspect the numbers are "only" tens of thousands.

The U.S. does however need to understand that a lot of people feel that it is waging war on their country, people and religion. That way it won't be quite as "what the f***?" next time something ghastly happens

US arrogance has double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a "terrorist." 911 hijackers fight occupation and invasions of Muslim Holy Lands but Bush labels these are "terrorists".

Everybody labels their enemies "terrorists" and their friends "freedom-fighters"

US wants to occupy Muslim countries,

Amost certainly not. This would be too messy and expensive

steal our oil,

No, I think they'd settle for a cheap guaranteed supply

slaughter us with air craft and bombs,

If this had been a primary objective, they'd have done it on a much wider scale by now. The "slaughter" as you term it is a by product of trying to obtain the oil

impose on us vile, corrupt agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed but on sick US capitalist exploit ideas.

The U.S. (and most of the rest of the West) is evangelical about democracy and see it as the ideal form of government. In the same way I see curry as the ideal form of food.

I would not presume to force curry on all of my friends. I think the U.S. needs to understand that some societies may prefer not to be democracies.

If Muslim refuse to agree, US will say you are "terrorists." If Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation tanks, it says they are "terrorists" whereas when Israeli pilots bombed United Nations building in Qana (in Lebanon) while was full of children and women, US stopped any plan to condemn Israel.

I personally feel that the U.S. has a selective blind spot where it comes to Israel. It sees Israel as a country under siege from its neighbours and wishes to help it out.

The U.S. could start to change a lot of people's opinion of itself if it were more willing to condemn Israel and actually put pressure on Israel to behave in a responsible way.

Muslim extremists could start to change a lot of people's opinion of themselves if they were more willing to work with Israel as a done deal.

Extremists in either camp are in any case much more interested in preserving their own spheres of influence than making any real attempt to effect change.

At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at White House as a valued political leader, while woe, all woe is to the Muslims if he cry out for his rights. US is plainly leader of terrorism and crime in the world.

People generally are very poor at understanding the other fellow's point of view (and I include you in this). The U.S. cannot understand why people don't agree with it, after all it is politically and economically very successful. GWB presumably cannot understand why anuone would want to be a Muslim when the "true" religion is clearly Christianity.

Saying that the U.S. is a leader or terrorism is to take a VERY select view of the facts. If your world view is that everything should be conducted with respect to Sharia law then yes, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world is a corrupting unfluence. This however makes you just as immovable in your views (and just as "wrong" in my opinion) as those in the West who would seek to impose their views against the will of the people.

The reason why U.S. things are popular is because people want them. You cannot blame the U.S. for everything. If you feel that your society is losing its moral values you may want to review whether these moral values could use some updating.

US calls jihad operations of New York "terrorist attack" but US does not consider it "terrorist attack" to hurl nuclear bombs at Japan. These bombs were hurled at the entire nation, including women, children and retirees. US does not consider it "terrorism" when milions of our sons and brothers in Iraq died. So, there is no base for US calling this 911 operation "terrorist".

I agree that the use of nuclear weapons was dreadful, even more so if you subscribe to the belief that their inital use was at least to some extent a warning to the Soviet Union.

The reasoning applied at the time was that the loss of life involved in the use of nuclear weapons would be small compared to the number of lives lost in the invasion of the Japanese main islands. This could be treated as as an argument "after the fact" but a case can be made.

The United States has also officially declared war on the Japanese (and that includes the whole nation).

No official delclaration of war was received w.r.t. 11 September - so we're comparing apples and oranges

Also if you believe that the use of nuclear weapons was unjustified - two wrongs do not make a right

Americans who burned in 911 inferno got a cruel trick after they awakened. All they can see all around them is many ovens - these are painful ovens prepared for them by Allah. The flames are shreiking and wratfhul. We ask Allah, The Almighty, to keep the furnaces roasting.

Conversely, Allah, Praise and Glory be to Him, with the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him, accepted 911 heroes as Martyrs where they enjoy many unwordly pleasures, thanks be to Allah for that.

Religious babble.


I do accept that many people are dead set againt the U.S. ideals and methods. I accept that many people feel that this justifies the events of September 11.

What I don't ever see is a realistic list of conditions which would need to be met before the jihad is called off. The reason for this is of course that it's a different sect each time.

THe U.S. could of course help itself by being less of a bully and a cry-baby. This is true of all nations not just the U.S.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive. This post suggests that the Shaikh (sic) is not Iranian. Over on Internet Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=72575) however, he claims to be Iranian. (Or at least be located there). The title 'Sheikh' is taken by older men of some standing in the community, it's not normally used as part of user name on a computer. Also the transliteration Al-Shar is unusual. It's pronounced, and usually written, Ash-Shar. Shar starting with a solar letter. Of course, he could just be an old Arab guy in Iran who like to hang out in internet cafes.

[Crossbow]

Wow! This Allah person has no sense of humor for such a supreme being.

First, he kill hundreds of Muslims during the 9/11 attacks, then he kills tens of thousands of Muslims via the Bam earthquake.

Some supreme beings just take themselves waaaaay too seriously.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Wow! This Allah person has no sense of humor for such a supreme being.

First, he kill hundreds of Muslims during the 9/11 attacks, then he kills tens of thousands of Muslims via the Bam earthquake.

Some supreme beings just take themselves waaaaay too seriously.

I resent that

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ed


I resent that

Ooops! My bad!

Please allow me to rephrase:

Some supreme beings (with the obvious exeception of the always noble and wise 'Ed') take themselves waaaay too seriously!

How is that?

:p

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by The Don:
Something the U.S. needs to understand is that it is considered to be unjust by a sizeable minority of the planet's population. It may wish to consider its activities in this light.

As an Irish person I'm considered to be of very dubious character by a sizeable minoroty of the UK's population, Humberside police most notably. Need I and my countrymen (and women) consider our activities in this light?

I would not presume to force curry on all of my friends. I think the U.S. needs to understand that some societies may prefer not to be democracies.

The problem is that in these societies the means do not exist to consult the people on whether they want to be democracies or not.

[JamesM]

The Sheikh peppers his nonsense with Islamic terminology, in much the same way that Huzington uses Marxist vocabulary. Could they perhaps be related?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM
The Sheikh peppers his nonsense with Islamic terminology, in much the same way that Huzington uses Marxist vocabulary. Could they perhaps be related?


No. He is not Huzington, he is an Israeli agent.

[The Don]

As an Irish person I'm considered to be of very dubious character by a sizeable minoroty of the UK's population, Humberside police most notably. Need I and my countrymen (and women) consider our activities in this light?

Certainly if you're trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards you. If you express Republican sentiments towards a vehement Unionist it may help to explain why they smacked you with a 2by4 later in the evening.

It doesn't make their actions correct, but if you expressed those sentiments in a particularly insensitive way (perhaps expressing a general support for the armed struggle when someone dear to that person died as a result of the armed struggle), you may wish to modify the way in which you express those sentiments so as to encourage discourse rather than conflict in the future

The problem is that in these societies the means do not exist to consult the people on whether they want to be democracies or not.

And those people in charge of those countries (be they the political or religious leaders) feel threatened as a result and will wish to defend themselves against these changes.

Having a third party come in and tell them how rotten their process of government does two things:

- It amplifies this feeling of threat
- It gives them a readily available target for their hostility

I don't have a problem with the U.S. promoting (its brand of) democracy. I do have a problem with it being characterised as a panacea and with armed means being used to implement it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
Muslims undertake jihad on US 911, because US is unjust, criminal and tyrannical, may God punish Americans. It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel, may both countries suffer great disgrace and humiliation. US has murdered millions in Palestine (The Prophet's Night Travel Land), Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, may Bush roast in Hell for that.

Interesting. And what actions did the 3000+ people killed on that fateful day do to murder millions in Palestine and cause suffering and humiliation? And where is your evidence against them? And why was retribution not sought in an international court?

It is not even REMOTELY justifiable to hurt, maim, and kill individuals who have done no wrong against you just because others, even those in their government, have.

I fully agree that we have no business interfering over there, but that doesn't justify wholesale mass murder.

I also agree that the US was wrong to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when another solution was clearly on the table. But again, that doesn't justify the actions of the 9/11 attackers.

9/11 was a despicable example of mass murder, for the stupidest of reasons. It has no justification whatsoever.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Please let's try to avoid hurling insults at this point. He has an opinion, he's entitled to it. We all hope he can back this up with strong arguments and is willing to endure the debate that this can spark. I'm sure someone will take the trouble to debate with him with solid arguments.

If this a troll, why feed his need for attention-seeking? Why get indignant and thus play his game?

If he's not (and with one post we can't be sure of anything), then we can have a civil debate? His post is filled with hate. Maybe we could counter that with rationality?

Very wise and considered words from you, as per your usual. Thank you.

[Skeptic]

It has committed hideous and unjust acts criminal both directly or through its incest patriarch with Israel,

What I want to know is what the hell an "incest patriarch" is.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

Earthquakes are the result of government conspiracies? As much as I love blaming government for things, there are just so many things that they aren't responsible for at all.

As for Bush being skinned alive...I guess that's justifiable because the early church skinned Hypatia alive, huh?

[shanek]

Originally posted by shanek
Earthquakes are the result of government conspiracies? As much as I love blaming government for things, there are just so many things that they aren't responsible for at all.

As for Bush being skinned alive...I guess that's justifiable because the early church skinned Hypatia alive, huh?

Hmmm...I just realized that I defended government and Bush in the same post! It's NOT gonna be a good day... ;)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by shanek


Hmmm...I just realized that I defended government and Bush in the same post! It's NOT gonna be a good day... ;)

See? His curse is working already!

[The Don]

As an Irish person I'm considered to be of very dubious character by a sizeable minoroty of the UK's population, Humberside police most notably. Need I and my countrymen (and women) consider our activities in this light?

Certainly if you're trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards you. If you express Republican sentiments towards a vehement Unionist it may help to explain why they smacked you with a 2by4 later in the evening.

It doesn't make their actions correct, but if you expressed those sentiments in a particularly insensitive way (perhaps expressing a general support for the armed struggle when someone dear to that person died as a result of the armed struggle), you may wish to modify the way in which you express those sentiments so as to encourage discourse rather than conflict in the future

The problem is that in these societies the means do not exist to consult the people on whether they want to be democracies or not.

And those people in charge of those countries (be they the political or religious leaders) feel threatened as a result and will wish to defend themselves against these changes.

Having a third party come in and tell them how rotten their process of government does two things:

- It amplifies this feeling of threat
- It gives them a readily available target for their hostility

I don't have a problem with the U.S. promoting (its brand of) democracy. I do have a problem with it being characterised as a panacea and with armed means being used to implement it.


w.t.f happened here ? sorry

[Doubt]

I have PM'd AN@S. Lets see what he has to say about this new poster.

I do think I smell a sock here, but don't know the area enough to be sure.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but...


Strict Muslim law doesn't alow dancing, singing, radios, music, or other such "trivialities". While I don't know for certain, I am fairly confident in the idea that it also does not allow posting on internet message boards.

I think what we're deling with here is someone who is a little more entertaining than a regular sock puppet.


I vote we call him a "muppet".

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


As an Irish person I'm considered to be of very dubious character by a sizeable minoroty of the UK's population, Humberside police most notably. Need I and my countrymen (and women) consider our activities in this light?





Ah! But Shane, the fact is that you are indeed dubious! :D

[Skeptic]

Hmmmmm...... the name "Shaikh Saiid" is suspicious.

1). "Shaikh" is usually spelled differently in English transliteration e.g., with an "e" and not an "a".

2). "Saiid" is usually spelled "Said", as well.

3). "Shaikh" (as the author spells it) is a title of nobility, like "Lord" or "von". It literally means the leader of a clan or tribe. The vast majority of Arabs do not have this title, any more than most jews are "rabbi so-and-so" or most English "Lord so-and-so".

Either the author doesn't know English too well, or the name itself is a hint that he's a troll.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


An Israeli agent? Were you drinking again?

You know You have a remarkable propensity for feigning ignorance when it suits You Cleo, my statement was :

"Naw he's a troll prolly a Israili or American agent provocateur..........."

You do this as a matter of course.

It reminds me of when I used to play EQ ( look it up ) there was a whole clique of asian players who would cheat and when you called them on it in public ( in SHOUT) the response was " solly me no speeky the engrish" BS. , But when in a coo-opeative situation were quite capable of velly good engrish , and if you reported thier behavior they would log.

Your delebrate "misunderstanding" of stated phrases is anathema to the depth of Your responses. The case of your lack of English skills , if that is so which I doubt, should at least make You aware of that shortcoming and alert You to review the post at hand at least twice.

You misquote and diverge off topic and if it is a language problem , again I suggest thorough review before you respond.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by JamesM
The Sheikh peppers his nonsense with Islamic terminology, in much the same way that Huzington uses Marxist vocabulary. Could they perhaps be related?

Come on, I already told you guys it's The Iron Sheik. Let's just let Hulkamania loose to run wild on him!!!

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Don
The U.S. (and most of the rest of the West) is evangelical about democracy and see it as the ideal form of government. In the same way I see curry as the ideal form of food.

I would not presume to force curry on all of my friends. I think the U.S. needs to understand that some societies may prefer not to be democracies.

How do you know that there is any society that prefers not to be a democracy? Do those who have political power necessarily express the preferences of an entire society? Suppose there is a military coup in the USA and there are no more elections in the USA. Would you say that American society prefers to not be a democracy?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar
As for this earthquake many Iranians live not based on the ruling of Shari'a, God forbid. When they used to follow Muhammad's edicts, Peace be upon him, they were in great joy and dignity, to God belong credit and praise. But depraved dancing, sinful CD, and obscene satellite has brought God's withering wrath upon Iranians Also this earthquake could result from conspiracy weapons of US, may Bush be skinned alive.

Hmmm...

You know I would think cities like Amsterdam and Coopenhagen would be on the top of the list of Allah's targets if this was true.

Maybe DD or Plindboe can clear this up.
Have you been hit by any major earthquakes lately?
;)

[The Fool]

Come on people...Lets give the guy a chance... This "skinning alive" concept he proposes could be the cornerstone of a new peace initiative.

[TillEulenspiegel]

There are more then a few examples of a society embracing different political system than the one we enjoy, primary example being Islamic Theocracy, secondly Monarchys ( despotic or benevolent) . We as Americans ( Westerners ) think that we have found the be all and end all of political systems, To which I assent, BUT that doesn't mean it works for all or is desired by all.

The declaration that "If they only knew" these people we discuss would embrace western style democracy borders on religious extreamism. Let them enjoy wiping thier asses with corncobs and thier 13yr old bride marriages , You will not convince them they are wrong. Any overt attempt to "enlighten " them smacks of the black shirt missionary.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


An Israeli agent? Were you drinking again?

I'm pretty sure he's joking about that one, Cleo. The point is that "shaikh" is a troll...

[The idea]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
There are more then a few examples of a society embracing a political system different from the one we enjoy, the primary example being Islamic Theocracy, secondly Monarchies (despotic or benevolent) .

What does it mean for a society to be "embracing" a political system? Does it mean that very few people try to learn foreign languages after they are adults and get away to other places? Does it mean that there aren't very many active revolutionaries? Does that mean that the suicide rate is low?

Perhaps there could be some kind of referendum or election to determine what kind of political system people want? How about every four years or so?

[Skeptic]

There are more then a few examples of a society embracing different political system than the one we enjoy, primary example being Islamic Theocracy, secondly Monarchys ( despotic or benevolent)

Well, according to the left, until a few years ago, the prime example of a society with "values that are just DIFFERENT from ours", which "embraced a different system", and that therefore should not be "forced to changed to suit OUR needs" in an act of "cultural imperialism", was--you guessed it--the USSR and the eastern block in general.

After all, if SO MANY countries "embraced socialism", SURELY this is proof that democracy is not for everyone, and that the west has no claim to superiority?

We all know how that ended: for a variety of reasons, the eastern block collapsed, and it turned out--surprise, surprise--that, except for a tiny and violent minority at the top, the vast majority of people did want democracy and capitalism, but state control refused to let them have it.

The same is true with the Muslim world. The vast majority of people want more freedom, not less; more technology, not less; more enjoyment of life, not less; and so on. Like with late, unlamented eastern block, a small, violent minority at the top is busy telling the west how "their society" wants nothing from it, how "their people" really LIKE living in the 13th century, how religious freedom, technology, and so on is a "foreign idea", how "real muslims" have NO interest in democracy, etc., etc., etc.

But if that's true... and if the people are soooooooo supportive of the leader's "vision" and "traditional society".... why do all these countries find it necessary to have, like the late USSR, political prisons, one-party sysyem, and state-controlled media? The reason, of course, is that it ISN'T true: it's just a cover story these despots tell gullible westerners. Why they believe it, I have no idea...

The declaration that "If they only knew" these people we discuss would embrace western style democracy borders on religious extreamism. Let them enjoy wiping thier asses with corncobs and thier 13yr old bride marriages , You will not convince them they are wrong.

Indeed so. I mean, we all know that democracy is something waaaaaaaaay too complicated and delicate for women... I mean, for blacks... I mean, for those dark-skinned people from strange-sounding places to mess with. Of course, don't take MY word for it: just ask the woman's husband, or the black man's plantation owner, or the muslim's despotic leader, if they REALLY want the vote. They all say "no"! So, what right have we to FORCE such foreign things on them???

[hammegk]

It's getting hard to see which group is farther from contact with any reality: our EuroTrash or our AussieScum.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by hammegk
It's getting hard to see which group is farther from contact with any reality: our EuroTrash or our AussieScum.

:mad: :confused:

WTF does this mean?

What does it have to do with anything going on in this thread?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mike B.


:mad: :confused:

WTF does this mean?

What does it have to do with anything going on in this thread?
He has problems....humor him.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk
Any questions?

Yes. Isn't it evil to be tacitly endorsing the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people just because you don't like the actions of a handful?

[The Don]

Originally posted by The idea

How do you know that there is any society that prefers not to be a democracy? Do those who have political power necessarily express the preferences of an entire society? Suppose there is a military coup in the USA and there are no more elections in the USA. Would you say that American society prefers to not be a democracy?

I don't *know* pre se but I did listen to a radio interview with a prominent Kuwaiti intellectual (about two months ago so his name escapes me) who expounded at great length how ot was somuch better to have someone (for example) who knew about drains in charge of the drains rather than some politician who was elected but knew nothing about them.

He was also quite disparaging about a democratic process in which:

- most of the participants are profoundly ignorant about the issues
- most participants do not seek to be informed they vote based on soundbites
- most people are not "of a sufficient calibre" to understand the issues
- A democratic process whereby you tend to vote for the party rather than the person
- The quality of the candidates themselves
- The whole party political system

He also opined that democracy encourages corruption by placing people who are in need of campaign funds in the hands of special interest groups.

He also said that democracy forces policies which are based around popularity rather than what is right for the country. It means hard decisions (like what to do about the pension time bomb) are never tackled.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by The Don:
Certainly if you're trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards you. If you express Republican sentiments towards a vehement Unionist it may help to explain why they smacked you with a 2by4 later in the evening.

It doesn't make their actions correct, but if you expressed those sentiments in a particularly insensitive way (perhaps expressing a general support for the armed struggle when someone dear to that person died as a result of the armed struggle), you may wish to modify the way in which you express those sentiments so as to encourage discourse rather than conflict in the future

This is completely beside the point. The 3,000 people who perished in the WTC attack probably didn't have any strong opinions or prejudice towards Islam. I fail to see how their behaviour in any way justified the Bin Laden's actions. The only behavioural modification that's going to mollify those with an unswervable belief in the omnipotence and swift retribution of Allah is the abandonment of centuries of enlightenment and political development, in exchange for the Sharia. Feel free to grow a beard, get rid of the drinks cabinet and circumcise your female relatives.

And those people in charge of those countries (be they the political or religious leaders) feel threatened as a result and will wish to defend themselves against these changes.

Having a third party come in and tell them how rotten their process of government does two things:

- It amplifies this feeling of threat
- It gives them a readily available target for their hostility

Gosh, I hadn't thought of that, dictators and theocrats (whatever about the vast majority of the population) may feel threatened, poor lambs. As if paranoia and hate figures weren't defining characteristics of totalitarian regimes in any case.

I don't *know* pre se but I did listen to a radio interview with a prominent Kuwaiti intellectual (about two months ago so his name escapes me) who expounded at great length how ot was somuch better to have someone (for example) who knew about drains in charge of the drains rather than some politician who was elected but knew nothing about them.

Are you acquainted with Churchill's line about democracy being the worst form of government? Naturally drains in a democratic society are prone to mismanagement, as opposed to totalitarian regimes which, as a rule, don't have any drains to begin with.

He was also quite disparaging about a democratic process in which:

- most of the participants are profoundly ignorant about the issues
- most participants do not seek to be informed they vote based on soundbites
- most people are not "of a sufficient calibre" to understand the issues
- A democratic process whereby you tend to vote for the party rather than the person
- The quality of the candidates themselves
- The whole party political system

A career with the EU beckons.

He also opined that democracy encourages corruption by placing people who are in need of campaign funds in the hands of special interest groups.

He also said that democracy forces policies which are based around popularity rather than what is right for the country. It means hard decisions (like what to do about the pension time bomb) are never tackled.

And those societies and countries sans democracy are untainted by corruption, I suppose? By virtue of the absence of democratic accountabilty, dictators are able to place the good of the entire country above all other concerns, such as their own enrichment for instance? And aren't theocracies and oligarchies run by special interest groups.

All systems of government are to a greater or lesser extent only as good as the people running them and the people voting for them. People are prone to stupidity, corruption and avarice. The thing about democracy is that people are accountable to their peers for their actions. Laws are in place to prosecute corrupt officials and politicians. Complain about corrupt officials and leaders in totalitarian regimes, and you end up suspended from a rope.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


You know You have a remarkable propensity for feigning ignorance when it suits You Cleo, my statement was :

"Naw he's a troll prolly a Israili or American agent provocateur..........."

You do this as a matter of course.

It reminds me of when I used to play EQ ( look it up ) there was a whole clique of asian players who would cheat and when you called them on it in public ( in SHOUT) the response was " solly me no speeky the engrish" BS. , But when in a coo-opeative situation were quite capable of velly good engrish , and if you reported thier behavior they would log.

Your delebrate "misunderstanding" of stated phrases is anathema to the depth of Your responses. The case of your lack of English skills , if that is so which I doubt, should at least make You aware of that shortcoming and alert You to review the post at hand at least twice.

You misquote and diverge off topic and if it is a language problem , again I suggest thorough review before you respond.


TillEulenspiegel

If you were joking please accept my apologies. I do not think that it's a matter of language because I speak better English than you do. It's your stance towards Israelis that made me believe that you were serius but I was wrong and I am sorry.

[Giz]

Originally posted by The Don


I don't *know* pre se but I did listen to a radio interview with a prominent Kuwaiti intellectual (about two months ago so his name escapes me) who expounded at great length how ot was somuch better to have someone (for example) who knew about drains in charge of the drains rather than some politician who was elected but knew nothing about them.

He was also quite disparaging about a democratic process in which:

- most of the participants are profoundly ignorant about the issues
- most participants do not seek to be informed they vote based on soundbites
- most people are not "of a sufficient calibre" to understand the issues
- A democratic process whereby you tend to vote for the party rather than the person
- The quality of the candidates themselves
- The whole party political system

He also opined that democracy encourages corruption by placing people who are in need of campaign funds in the hands of special interest groups.

He also said that democracy forces policies which are based around popularity rather than what is right for the country. It means hard decisions (like what to do about the pension time bomb) are never tackled.

You're sooo right! Which alternative should we opt for? Lets see, limited numbers of people who know best and will be comfortable ordering everyone else around:
Fascism
Communism
Aristocratic Oligarchy
Theocracy
Military Junta
Ooh I just can't pick, won't a great leader come along and make the choice for me?

One other thought, when you discount the worth of your fellow citizens opinions based on a lack of interest or intelligence do you think that democracy could be improved if before you were allowed to vote in any election you had to pass a current events and IQ test? Perhaps we could do something similar for reproduction? Who knows where this great idea can take us!

On a plus side your "prominent kuwaiti intellectual" ably demonstrated why the Middle-East is in such a mess.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Ed:
Ah! But Shane, the fact is that you are indeed dubious!

The legal difference between dubiousness and lovable rogueishness is clearly defined. ;)

[charley_bigtime]

>I do not think that it's a matter of language because I speak better English than you do.


>It's your stance towards Israelis that made me believe that you were **serius** but I was wrong and I am sorry.

Sorry Cleo - had to do it. ;)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Giz


You're sooo right! Which alternative should we opt for? Lets see, limited numbers of people who know best and will be comfortable ordering everyone else around:
Fascism
Communism
Aristocratic Oligarchy
Theocracy
Military Junta
Ooh I just can't pick, won't a great leader come along and make the choice for me?

One other thought, when you discount the worth of your fellow citizens opinions based on a lack of interest or intelligence do you think that democracy could be improved if before you were allowed to vote in any election you had to pass a current events and IQ test? Perhaps we could do something similar for reproduction? Who knows where this great idea can take us!

On a plus side your "prominent kuwaiti intellectual" ably demonstrated why the Middle-East is in such a mess.

Exactly!!!

This Kuwaiti sounds a lot like fascism.

This could have been said in Italy in the 1930s.
i.e.

"The people are too stupid and uninformed to rule themselves."
"Democracies are too inefficent."

Besides how are we Westerners to know what people want. Maybe all those North Koreans like to be starved by the government...:p ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
>I do not think that it's a matter of language because I speak better English than you do.


>It's your stance towards Israelis that made me believe that you were **serius** but I was wrong and I am sorry.

Sorry Cleo - had to do it. ;)


Maybe you don't know enough English either... Have you seen TE's spelling? This is the only reason I get involved in dialogues with him :p ( I am joking TillEulenspiegel ...)

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Maybe you don't know enough English either... Have you seen TE's spelling? This is the only reason I get involved in dialogues with him :p ( I am joking TillEulenspiegel ...)


You'll have to cut me some slack - I'm kinda new round here.:D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Yes. Isn't it evil to be tacitly endorsing the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people just because you don't like the actions of a handful?

Nah, just realistic. Go ahead, learn Arabic & convert. Your head will still be on the next pole to mine if we continue to pretend this is not going to end in massive bloodshed.

It could be stopped -- assasinate every nutball cleric even hinting at sharia as a valid lifestyle -- and after you go through a few in each congregation, someone who values his life will show up to tone the message down.

Of course no one has the balls to do this so a few billion will have to die. I hope I'm wrong, or at least that some of planet will remain habitable.


Mike B.: This board, like life, is a smorgasboard. Take what you understand & like; leave the rest.

[hgc]

Originally posted by The Don


I don't *know* pre se but I did listen to a radio interview with a prominent Kuwaiti intellectual (about two months ago so his name escapes me) who expounded at great length how ot was somuch better to have someone (for example) who knew about drains in charge of the drains rather than some politician who was elected but knew nothing about them.

He was also quite disparaging about a democratic process in which:

- most of the participants are profoundly ignorant about the issues
- most participants do not seek to be informed they vote based on soundbites
- most people are not "of a sufficient calibre" to understand the issues
- A democratic process whereby you tend to vote for the party rather than the person
- The quality of the candidates themselves
- The whole party political system

He also opined that democracy encourages corruption by placing people who are in need of campaign funds in the hands of special interest groups.

He also said that democracy forces policies which are based around popularity rather than what is right for the country. It means hard decisions (like what to do about the pension time bomb) are never tackled. Another true believer in Plato's Republic.

Almost everything he said may be correct in regards to democracy, but of course non-democratic governments have even worse results. The most useful cliche to remember in this case is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no Philosopher King.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Exactly!!!

This Kuwaiti sounds a lot like fascism.

This could have been said in Italy in the 1930s.
i.e.

"The people are too stupid and uninformed to rule themselves."
"Democracies are too inefficent."

Besides how are we Westerners to know what people want. Maybe all those North Koreans like to be starved by the government...:p ;)

Apart from the periodic ability to vote for Joe Schmo, how does a democracy differ from a non-elected form of government.

Please try to compare like with like. The temptation is to compare a repressive non-elected government with a liberal democracy. I suspect that there are parts of every democratic country in which free speech is curtailed to some extent.

I have no realistic way of influencing government policy on a national or local level. From what I can see (again I'm reliant on the quality of media I can receive, usually pretty poor), policy is governed by (in no particular order)

- Dogma (we will raise/lower taxes because our party always raises/lowers taxes)
- Media outrage (all guns are banned because the media whips up outrage about a single incident)
- The mob (baying for information on all sex offenders to be made available to everyone)
- Playing to the peanut gallery (lowering taxes and raising spending just before an election)

How can this be a sane way to run any type of organisation let alone a country ? Why are we so wedded to the concept of democracy when almost everything else in life (families, religion, corporations, public bodies) are undemocratic.

I hold that it is once again the desire to have the feeling that we can influence the outcome which is important not actually caring about democracy (otherwise more people would actually bother to vote).

So let's have local politicians for the minor stuff and an Oligarchy to do the important stuff (which is periodically deposed in a series of coups).

[c0rbin]

society embracing a political system different from the one we enjoy

Just curious...how could a "society" embrace anything without being polled or taking somesort of consensus-building vote?

Sounds a little like some form of democracy to me--even if we elect a monarch, like they do in weird places like Naboo.

[Skeptic]

"The Don" seems to have tired of the "irrational" way democracies are run, and hankers instead for a benevolent dictator who will ruled "rationally" and lead the country towards "good government". After all, who cares about "the right to vote for Joe Schmo" when it doesn't really effect anything and only leads to "irrational" governments?

This is classic fascism, which leads straight to the gulags and the concentration camps. First of all, it distrusts the people as essentially irrational and hysterical, who therefore only act (or elect people who act) in "irrational" ways. What people actually want is of no account, as long as his highness "The Don" had decreed it irrational. Second, once you get your "rational" leader who is running the country with a "rational" policy and not by "irrational" things like the vote of the people, then--by definition--you have achieve perfect rationality.

So there is no need for any open debate with the great leader and his wonderful plans; there really isn't any need for the right to protest his rational policies; and certainly no right to actually oppose them. You don't want to go back to the "irrational" period where EVERYBODY could state their irrational opinion, do you? What has THAT ever achieved?

So the press is only allowed one, "rational" voice. If you speak against it, you are first sent to a reeducation camp to correct the errors in your "dogmatic, emotional thinking" and see the "rationality" of the leader. And, finally, if you STILL resist, you are an "enemy of progress" and can be simply shot out of hand. (Trial by jury? What, and let those nasty lawyers EMOTIONALLY influence the IRRATIONAL jury in your favor, when it is so clear you are guilty? Forget it.)

THIS, "TheDon", is what you REALLY are asking for to replace the "irrational" democracies where you "cannot influence anything".

[Giz]

Originally posted by The Don



I hold that it is once again the desire to have the feeling that we can influence the outcome which is important not actually caring about democracy (otherwise more people would actually bother to vote).

So let's have local politicians for the minor stuff and an Oligarchy to do the important stuff (which is periodically deposed in a series of coups).

Would these coups be at mandated 5 year intervals with a minimum of fuss in the handover or would there be blood on the streets?

How would the Oligarchy avoid becoming a corrupt, nepotistic, elite clique lording it over the herd?

I mean I agree with you about the dire state of our electorate (and it truly depresses me) but I honestly believe that all the alternatives have been worse.

Incidentally, why have local Mayors? Surely it would be more efficient to have clerks run local government - if you're willing to see a dictatorship at a national level who cares that you can't vote on who runs the drains and dustbin collection?

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Don
I hold that it is once again the desire to have the feeling that we can influence the outcome which is important not actually caring about democracy (otherwise more people would actually bother to vote).

If a relatively small percentage of the people who are eligible to vote actually vote, then doesn't that mean that each actual vote is relatively significant? If each actual vote is relatively significant, then why would you characterize a vote as being motivated by a "desire to have a feeling that we can influence the outcome"? Significant means having an influence, doesn't it?

Suppose an organization has a mere 100 people who actually vote. For example, suppose X wins with 40 votes, Y loses with 37 votes, and Z loses with 23 votes. Any one person who voted for X can say, "If I had voted for Y, then X would have gotten 39 votes and Y would have gotten 38 votes, so X would still have won. That was close, but pointless. My vote didn't influence the outcome."

In your view, what percentage of people ought to vote and how much of an impact should each vote have?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Maybe you don't know enough English either... Have you seen TE's spelling? This is the only reason I get involved in dialogues with him :p ( I am joking TillEulenspiegel ...)


My spel chekker don't wurk.

"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry."-
Sheik Yerbouti AKA Frank Zappa

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Indeed so. I mean, we all know that democracy is something waaaaaaaaay too complicated and delicate for women... I mean, for blacks... I mean, for those dark-skinned people from strange-sounding places to mess with. Of course, don't take MY word for it: just ask the woman's husband, or the black man's plantation owner, or the muslim's despotic leader, if they REALLY want the vote. They all say "no"! So, what right have we to FORCE such foreign things on them??? [/B]

The majority of your post is ill focused . The USSR was a corrupt political construct that dissolved after 70 torturous years and not the type of culturally ingrained religious outlook we are discussing here. The entire Moslem civilization is saturated with the religion of Islam, the buildings with thier rococo filigrees are actually prayers to Allah, the design of rugs ditto ( with an added hidden flaw , sense no one but Allah can be perfect) everything from the obvious to the sublime is a prayer or a service to Allah and not the voting pattern of the 23rd congressional district. Your lack of understanding of this fact is the judgmental error many make when dealing with , not just the fanatics but the ordinary Moslem.

They may desire certain aspects of freedom we enjoy but they do not want Mecca or Damascus to be New York. They do want to live by the guidelines of the Q'ran as interpreted by Imams. The most "enlightened" country in the middle east is Saudi Arabia, they strictly observe the Q'ran and most aspects of Shari'ah, they have morals police and execute people for adultery and other crimes against Allah. A seeming majority of the populas wants to rid itself of the house of Saud and do you know why? Not because they are oppressed , but because they view the rulers as "too western" and want to separate themselves from the West. Look at Afganistan , we removed the Taliban only to see that the constitution includes that " no law will go against the teachings in the Q'ran". So these folks we liberated are marching backwards ( in our estimation ) towards the conditions we liberated them from . That may be hard for you to understand but that is the case. What goes in Boise Idaho will not fly in Lebanon or the Sudan or in Iraq.

The last paragraph was so stupid I just had to include it as a laugh for all who didn't get to enjoy it the first time.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


The legal difference between dubiousness and lovable rogueishness is clearly defined. ;)

I stand corrected.

[Ed]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel



The most "enlightened" country in the middle east is Saudi Arabia, they strictly observe the Q'ran and most aspects of Shari'ah, they have morals police and execute people for adultery and other crimes against Allah.


The most enlightened country in the mid-east is Isreal.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
The most enlightened country in the mid-east is Isreal. It's a perspective thing.

[LillyThePink]

O/T BillyTk you have timesensitive PM ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
O/T BillyTk you have timesensitive PM ;)
&lt;off-topic&gt;Thanks Lilly! Have read and replied.&lt;/off-topic&gt;
*wanders off humming the Mission Impossible theme...*

[The Don]

Originally posted by Skeptic

This is classic fascism, which leads straight to the gulags and the concentration camps. First of all, it distrusts the people as essentially irrational and hysterical, who therefore only act (or elect people who act) in "irrational" ways. What people actually want is of no account, as long as his highness "The Don" had decreed it irrational. Second, once you get your "rational" leader who is running the country with a "rational" policy and not by "irrational" things like the vote of the people, then--by definition--you have achieve perfect rationality.

So there is no need for any open debate with the great leader and his wonderful plans; there really isn't any need for the right to protest his rational policies; and certainly no right to actually oppose them. You don't want to go back to the "irrational" period where EVERYBODY could state their irrational opinion, do you? What has THAT ever achieved?

So the press is only allowed one, "rational" voice. If you speak against it, you are first sent to a reeducation camp to correct the errors in your "dogmatic, emotional thinking" and see the "rationality" of the leader. And, finally, if you STILL resist, you are an "enemy of progress" and can be simply shot out of hand. (Trial by jury? What, and let those nasty lawyers EMOTIONALLY influence the IRRATIONAL jury in your favor, when it is so clear you are guilty? Forget it.)

THIS, "TheDon", is what you REALLY are asking for to replace the "irrational" democracies where you "cannot influence anything".

In MY benevolent dictatorship, I'd like there to be a free press (in the company I run, everybody gets to voice an opinion) so that the debate can be informed. At a point in time, the debate has to stop and the action put in place at this stage as Supreme Ruler I would state my decision and if necessary show my workings out (in much the same way as the Chief Executive of a large company does).

At least I wouldn't end up in the postion we have here in the UK regarding Foundation Hospitals. In brief, the Government tried to introduce legislation to give Hospitals much more scope to manage themselves. The belief is that these will be more efficient than the monolothic health service.

People who oppose these plans say that they will attact all the best staff and leave the rest of the health service denuded. They will be the death of the health service.

In order to get the bill though parliament, it had to be watered down to such a degree that there isn't a hope that any benefits will be achieved whilst introducing all sorts of extra costs. In effect both sides lose out and we get the worst of both possible worlds.

In my dictatorship I would have taken the "facts" under advisement, made a decision one way or the other and would have to live with the consequences of my decision.


Democracy is being touted as a panacea and is being implemented throughout the world. It IS a good form of government but unless you have in effect an elected dictatorship (as we did in the UK under Thatcher), nothing very much happens.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Giz


Would these coups be at mandated 5 year intervals with a minimum of fuss in the handover or would there be blood on the streets?

How would the Oligarchy avoid becoming a corrupt, nepotistic, elite clique lording it over the herd?

I mean I agree with you about the dire state of our electorate (and it truly depresses me) but I honestly believe that all the alternatives have been worse.

Incidentally, why have local Mayors? Surely it would be more efficient to have clerks run local government - if you're willing to see a dictatorship at a national level who cares that you can't vote on who runs the drains and dustbin collection?

I suggest that the means of the coup be decided by the coup leaders. Tanks in the streets does have a pleasant post-modernist tang about it.

Thanks to the rigourous purging process, the Oligarchy would be kept on its toes. Of course you could argue thet we're already ruled by an Oligarchy (the % of MPs and senior civil servants who went to a small cross section of schools an universities is still high).

The Mayors are there so that the great unwashed have someone to throw tomatoes at

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
It's a perspective thing.

It is? When were the last Saudi elections held? How about the fact that Saudi Arabia is officially segregated into "white/colored"--er, I mean, "muslim/non-muslim"?

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is? When were the last Saudi elections held? How about the fact that Saudi Arabia is officially segregated into "white/colored"--er, I mean, "muslim/non-muslim"? From the perspective of many people, none of that matters. What matters to them, what, to them, is truly enlightening, is the word of God. All that matters is that they are free to worship God and carry out his will, and that his laws are obeyed by all. That's freedom.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by mummymonkey:
From the perspective of many people, none of that matters. What matters to them, what, to them, is truly enlightening, is the word of God. All that matters is that they are free to worship God and carry out his will, and that his laws are obeyed by all. That's freedom.

If there's an obligation on the rest of us to yield to the will of Allah, then that isn't freedom, nor have I heard of any mad mullah describing it thus.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
If there's an obligation on the rest of us to yield to the will of Allah, then that isn't freedom ... Not from our perspective, no.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
... nor have I heard of any mad mullah describing it thus. I've not heard it from any mullah, mad or otherwise. I'm not in the business of listening to their sermons. I've heard it from a great many arab muslims though.

Where's the problem here? Our view of what it is to be 'free' is not the same throughout the world. It's hardly news.

[Skeptic]

From the perspective of many people, none of that matters. What matters to them, what, to them, is truly enlightening, is the word of God. All that matters is that they are free to worship God and carry out his will, and that his laws are obeyed by all. That's freedom.

...as Torquemada would say.

Yes, I agree with you: "from the perspective" of religious bigots who find practicing the "one true religion" the only thing that's "true freedom", and consider human rights, elections, etc., meaningless, Saudi Arabia is more enlightened than israel. It sure has a lot more of that "true religion" thing without the annoying civil rights that tend to interfere with it.

Of course, "from the perspective" of Stalin, killing 30,000,000 or so in the Gulags was justified, so it's just a "matter of perspective" whether it was a good or bad thing.

[Flo]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Where's the problem here? Our view of what it is to be 'free' is not the same throughout the world. It's hardly news.

Upon reading some of the interventions on this forum, that is exactly the problem ... ;)

Of course, everybody knows that muslims all over the world, being fundamentally stupid, illiterate, and uninformed, have no idea whatsoever of how perfect our societies are, since none of them have ever had any access to any kind of information outside the Friday sermon at the Mosque. If it was otherwise, how could they fail to revolt against their leaders, repudiate islam, and ask for the immediate implementation of the exact same institutions that bring absolute happiness in all the Western Hemisphere ?
;)

[aerocontrols]

I offer my congratulations to Shaikh Saiid Al-Shar.

Most Effective
Troll
Ever


He's long gone, and all you folks are still stirred up. I think he found your G spot or something.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Ed



The most enlightened country in the mid-east is Isreal.

Agreed, It was an oversight , should have read most enlightened Moslem country.

"There is more stupidity in the universe than hydrogen, and it has a longer shelf-life" - Shiek Yerbouti

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by mummymonkey:
Where's the problem here? Our view of what it is to be 'free' is not the same throughout the world. It's hardly news.

The problem is that you seem to be making a case for moral relativism. From the Nazi perspective Jews were indeed little better than vermin and a lot less than human beings. Aryan blood was being polluted by crossbreeding with the Semites, and the Jews were responsible for everything from military defeat, economic meltdown, communist agitation and contamination of the water supply. In which case you could say that all the Nazi's felt they were doing was "freeing" Germany from it's terrible Jewish affliction. But then you'd be euphemising mass murder.

The Muslim world can be as free as it wants to be by it's own definition of the word. As long as the consequences of Arab "freedom" don't manifest themselves in attempts to deprive the rest of us of what we understand as freedom. When that happens, then there is a problem.

Originally posted by Flo:
Of course, everybody knows that muslims all over the world, being fundamentally stupid, illiterate, and uninformed, have no idea whatsoever of how perfect our societies are, since none of them have ever had any access to any kind of information outside the Friday sermon at the Mosque. If it was otherwise, how could they fail to revolt against their leaders, repudiate islam, and ask for the immediate implementation of the exact same institutions that bring absolute happiness in all the Western Hemisphere ?

Strawman. I don't think that anyone has argued that a) Muslims all over the world are fundamentally ignorant and illiterate and b) that societies in the West are perfect.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
The problem is that you seem to be making a case for moral relativism. I'm not making the case for anything. Just pointing out that the opinion that Israel is the most enlightend nation in the mid-east depends on which side of the fence you're on. So to speak. I didn't say I agreed with any of it. Just mentioning that alternative views exist and I think it's important to understand those views and how and why they exist.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The idea that those who receive punishment because they have not followed god's teaching is also an appeal to a supernatural authority. I have criticised Israeli settlers in the West Bank for believing that when they are attacked by Palestinians, it is because god is not protecting them because they have not obeyed his teachings properly. It doesn't lead to logical resolutions of problems. The idea that god would punish all of Bam, because maybe 50% of people were sinners, is pretty ridiculous.

AUP misses the point once again!

The idea that an invisible man who lives in the sky is actively doing anything at all is what is "pretty ridiculous".

The invisible pink unicorn that lives in my attic could kick Allah's ass any-old time! :D

-z

[Skeptic]

Of course, everybody knows that muslims all over the world, being fundamentally stupid, illiterate, and uninformed, have no idea whatsoever of how perfect our societies are, since none of them have ever had any access to any kind of information outside the Friday sermon at the Mosque. If it was otherwise, how could they fail to revolt against their leaders, repudiate islam, and ask for the immediate implementation of the exact same institutions that bring absolute happiness in all the Western Hemisphere ?

It's simple, really.

They "fail to revolt" for the same reason citizens of the Soviet Union "failed to revolt", citizens of North Korea "fail to revolt", citizens of nazi Germany "failed to revolt", and the fictional denizens of Orwell's 1984 "failed to revolt": they live under corrupt, violent, thuggish dictatorships where daring to revolt or even protest usually leads to prison or worse.

By your "logic", the fact that in 1985 the Soviet Union existed--like Arab dictatorships exist today--is good enough "proof" that the Russians really LOVED Stalin and Communism, like the Libyans today all LOVE Quaddafi or the Iraqis last year all LOVED Hussein. I mean, just look at what the official, government-controlled press said!

[Skeptic]

I'm not making the case for anything. Just pointing out that the opinion that Israel is the most enlightend nation in the mid-east depends on which side of the fence you're on.

Indeed so. And I am just pointing out the the opinion that the earth is a sphere depends on which side on the fence you're on, and it's important to understand why some people think the earth is flat.

[Ed]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
I'm not making the case for anything. Just pointing out that the opinion that Israel is the most enlightend nation in the mid-east depends on which side of the fence you're on. So to speak. I didn't say I agreed with any of it. Just mentioning that alternative views exist and I think it's important to understand those views and how and why they exist.

Who would sincerely argue the opposite side of this argument? What might they say? Is your position that all positions in all discussions deserve consideration?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm not making the case for anything. Just pointing out that the opinion that Israel is the most enlightend nation in the mid-east depends on which side of the fence you're on.

Indeed so. And I am just pointing out the the opinion that the earth is a sphere depends on which side on the fence you're on, and it's important to understand why some people think the earth is flat.

I am waiting for you to stop saying the world is flat.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Don

I don't *know* pre se but I did listen to a radio interview with a prominent Kuwaiti intellectual (about two months ago so his name escapes me) who expounded at great length how ot was somuch better to have someone (for example) who knew about drains in charge of the drains rather than some politician who was elected but knew nothing about them.


Yeah, the truth is Democracy is a terrible form of government. It only looks good when you compare it to its alternatives.

When you think about it, the things we like about democracy, the freedoms we enjoy, are not really democratic at all. Rather these are principles that have been set apart from democracy to protect them from being voted away by a majority of idiots.

Did this Kuwaiti fellow have a suggestion for a better form of government?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Yeah, the truth is Democracy is a terrible form of government. It only looks good when you compare it to its alternatives.

When you think about it, the things we like about democracy, the freedoms we enjoy, are not really democratic at all. Rather these are principles that have been set apart from democracy to protect them from being voted away by a majority of idiots.

Did this Kuwaiti fellow have a suggestion for a better form of government?

He was suggesting a continuation of the existing Kuwaiti model of government, effectively an absolute monarchy underpinned by a combination of theocracy and oligarchy (providing advice to the monarch).

This may or may not be good for Kuwaiti citizens, and it certainly stinks for the foreign workers but my point way to indicate that there are other models of government and that these other models of government are supported, and in some cases are deemed to be successful by those who live under them.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Don


He was suggesting a continuation of the existing Kuwaiti model of government, effectively an absolute monarchy underpinned by a combination of theocracy and oligarchy (providing advice to the monarch).

This may or may not be good for Kuwaiti citizens, and it certainly stinks for the foreign workers but my point way to indicate that there are other models of government and that these other models of government are supported, and in some cases are deemed to be successful by those who live under them.

It is sort of hard to know that if they don't have an opportunity to express themselves, right?