[Prime2U]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Thanks for your response, Prime2U (interesting name!), - here's mine... Re your first point ? could you just type out those ?rules? are that you are referring to? I have looked them up, but it isn?t clear. Thanks!

I haven't seen them myself for ears now. Basically the rules are that women have no rights, and that is a people will not convert on their own, it is ok to hostilely take them over and force them to convert. There are instances of this happening in history, and is actually the major causal factor for the Crusades.


As far as I know, the outrages and atrocities that are practised on the Afghani people by the Taliban are not rooted in Islamic law. However, as Christianity has done throughout its long history, it is easy for unscrupulous men to gain and keep power by a convenient interpretation of so called holy injunctions. [/QUOTE]

Ummm... The Taliban's ENTIRE government, all laws included, is 100% based on their interpretation of the Koran. There were no Tvs in the Koran, so no people should have a TV for example. The Koran says women should be covered, which is interpreted by most countries and not wear revealing clothing, but by the Taliban as completely covered with no skin showing anywhere. The entire government is based on their interpretation of Islam.

For the rest, ok, what you seem to be saying is that terrorism happen because extremists hate the west and the concept of democracy and want everyone to accept Islam.


My own view is that terrorism happens because people who are living in often appalling conditions throughout the world see the West (represented by America because it is the biggest and most extreme target) as being somehow to blame for their condition, and want to a. wake up their attention and b. make them suffer for their actions.


Now, does that view have any basis in fact or doesn?t it? [/QUOTE]

It does indeed have some basis, but it is not the principal cause. The people living in the horrid conditions are not generally the ones committing the terrorist acts, nor the ones so angry at the west. since he's the most visible right now, use Bin Ladin as an example. He's filthy stinking rich! Does he use his money to help out any of those poor suffering people in his country? now. He uses it to fund his terrorist camps and campaigns to further his spread of his form of Islam. Do the Taliban truly care for the common people of Afghan.? Not from any measure I've ever seen and I've followed then for longer than this crisis has been going on. So by looking at the evidence before us I would have to say that your points, though valid, are very minor ones in the whole picture.


Well, take a look at Saudi Arabia. The regime there has no respect for human rights at all, and continues to abuse its people. Washington supports the regime in Saudi, and Arabs know this. Why does Washington continue to support a regime with so little care for human rights? It is asking for trouble. Saudis grow up under this harsh rule, - which their leadership blames on the West (thus diverting attention from its own role). Certainly the West holds a share of blame ? for supporting the repressive regime in the first place. A breeding ground for anti-western terrorists, if ever I saw one. [/QUOTE]

This is a very good point, and I agree with much of it. I don't believe it's much of a breeding ground for terrorists...the country couldn't handle Bin Laden and his ways and exiled him. We can't just go around attacking every government we don't entirely like (otherwise we'd attack our own ). With Saudi we're trying to set an example and hope they change over time, and indeed they are, admittedly slowly. Would it be better to end support of them and let a new regime take them over, that could be drastically worse, or better to work with the one in place and try to improve the conditions for the people?


In Palestine, the Palestinians know that Israel is nothing without America. The US provides the tools that the Israelis use against the Palestinian population. The creation of the state of Israel was accomplished under the rule of the gun and the bayonet, and Britain played its part enthusiastically. Right or wrong, it happened. But for the Israelis to continue to extend their settlements further and further outwards from the original areas is wrong, without any shadow of a doubt, at least imho. The Palestinians respond to the Israeli attempts to extend their share of the land. Of course they do. Wouldn?t you? Their lives are hell. This is great breeding ground for terrorists who resent America. [/QUOTE]

The US used to supply the arms to Israel, and still does to an extent, but Israel is fully capable of producing it's own weapons and has been for some time now. You are absolutely right that Israeli expansion is wrong. The government does not condone this at all. This entire battle has been going on for that one city since the days of Jacob and Esau though, and both sides refuse to listen to reason and maintain a peace. It does seem like this would be a breeding ground for terrorism, but curiously, there aren't many reports of Palestinian terroristsm against any country other than Israel. I attribute this to the fact that they really aren't a malicious people. What we see if terrorists from other countries using Palestine as their excuse to wreak chaos.


As you yourself have made the point, American intervention throughout the Middle East is never disinterested. Like the rest of the West, the US depends on oil, which is its life blood. The history of American intervention in the Middle East is a history of protecting their vested interest.


American intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviets has had dire consequences, for example. After funding and arming the Taliban, acting in concert with Pakistan, America just fucked off and left them to it, after the Soviet threat was vanquished. A little more thought and a little less haste to be out of there might have worked wonders. But no, vested interest protection accomplished, off we go, bye bye. [/QUOTE]

Oil is a big issue. However, I wonder if it's as large an issue as it appears on the surface. If we adopted a stance of complete noninterference in all things middle eastern, there would be no reason for whatever governments were in control to not sell us oil. It's hard to be a wealthy sheik when all you have is a lot of unsold oil setting around, and America isn't getting on your nerves, so might as well take their money, if you get my point.
The US involvement in Afghanistan was a huge screw up, that's for sure. Amidst the fears of an ever expanding communist juggernaut we not only supplied the rebels with arms, our secret service formed the original "terrorist camps" and taught them gorilla and terrorist tactics. Chalk up a US mistake. We should have stayed involved and helped them for the new government...but it wasn't really as simple as that. The reason our actions were like that in the first place was so that no proof of US involvement could be leveled by the Soviets. If we had openly helped to establish the new government after USSR was ousted it could have led to WW3. We weren't just callously abandoning them.


(As I?m sure you are aware, there have been conflicts in which America has NOT intervened, - due to the fact it has no vested interest. I?m fine with America NOT intervening, by the way ? I don?t believe it is down to the US to go around sorting out the rest of the world. I believe all nations need to unite and pool resources in order to stop abuses of human rights where there is a clear need to do so ? after proper consideration and debate. Some of the elements needed for such a united peace keeping body are already in place, however, the problems of welding them into a coherent and cohesive whole are almost overwhelming. But it must be done, if our race is to move forward in amity.) [/QUOTE]

This is true, but I must also point out that there are conflicts in which we have intervened when we had no vested interest, particularly in central America. I don't really see a lot of gain in our involvement in Bosnia either. I agree with the need for a multinational organization to protect human rights and keeps peace between the nations, and the UN is developing into that spot. But it is relatively new in the scheme of things, and sometimes it looks entirely too much to the US for leadership. There are a lot of reasons for this, not least among them that if the populace views the action taken as a mistake it can be blamed on the US and not the government of that particular country. The US makes a nice scapegoat for nearly everyone.


The West?s overwheening arrogance, coupled with its assumption that its way is best also plays a big part in Arab resentment. Globalisation (driven largely by American and European vested interests) is homogenising cultures throughout the world, and the world loses much by its doing so. In the UK, American culture rules ok. McDonalds, Starbucks and a host of other franchises. The US way of doing business, with its lack of emphasis on worker rights and conditions (I am here comparing with other European countries such as Holland and the Scandinavian countries.) is here to stay, it looks like. The coca cola culture. I find it bland and boring, generally speaking, although as with anything else, there are also good things to have come out of globalisation. The increased ability to communicate that we have, for example, through media such as the internet. [/QUOTE]

on this we are going to simply have different opinions. I've been to the UK and I definitely wouldn't say you are overrun with 'american culture' And people equating American culture with fast food restaurants and coca cola are simply misguided because they have some products like these in heir country and that's where they come from. Personally I can't stand McDonalds Our culture runs much, much deeper than that, people just don't look beyond the obvious to see it. As far as our worker conditions... I suppose that depends. I think that on the whole we have excellent opportunities and conditions for workers. It's up to each individual person to decide how much he/she wants to accomplish and how good their lifestyle may be. Most impoverished that I see here tend to not have a very good sence of budget when it comes to buying luxury items versus the thinga that will let them have a healthy, provided for existance. You of course have your right to your view on these issues of our culture, and if you perceive the US in this light I'm sure many others do as well. But I'll continue to argue that it is not our fault if people don't care to look beyond the skim of glittering luxuries we have to get to know us how we really are.


But yes, freedom is a wonderful thing, and there is no denying that in many cases, we in the west have more freedom than in other parts of the world. However, there are different definitions of freedom ? freedom to work 9-5 at a job you hate, freedom to be mugged in the street, freedom to eat crap that will poison your body, freedom to watch material on tv that will poison your soul, freedom to be pressured by adverts 24 x 7 that are telling you your body and way of life are just not good enough, freedom to define yourself by your possessions, rather than who you are, freedom to live lonely in a city full of people... etc etc.


I?m not west bashing here. I love living in the West, and we have many freedoms which I for one do not wish to give up! But we don?t have a perfect society by any manner of means, and the freedoms we have do have their down side. I just wanted to mention a few of the more negative aspects, just so that you might have an idea of what other cultures might NOT want of what we have to offer.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, we have problems, there is no doubt of that. But I've never met one single person who has immigrated here who didn't believe that he was indeed blessed for the experience, and most I've talked to say that even with it's problems they are MUCH safer, healthier and living better here than they were in their old country.. I think this is a culture where you can make of yourself whatever you have the will and the ability to make yourself, and if you become a victim of these freedoms, the first place to start looking is within yourself for changes. THEN you can go out and look to change the rest.


Anyway, that?s my two cents worth. (More like a dollar, actually, sorry it?s so long. And I still haven?t said even part of what I wanted to... )


[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree , there not enough room to ever get everything said. Very good post, I enjoy debating with you

Prime