[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think you nailed it when you said "join the civilized world." Although what you meant was "adopt western notions of morality and culture."

Since this discussion is about banning burkas in France, I think asking that Muslims who live in western countries adopt our notions of morality and culture is perfectly valid. I ask the same of Asian immigrants, and people from everywhere really.

But Muslims bringing up the crusades just sticks in my craw. Give it a rest already. You don't see the west still whining about Muslims occupying Spain, do you?

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If the Taliban succeed in taking control of Pakistan then they'll be in control of some 30-55 nuclear weapons of strengths potentially ranging into the megaton range.

It is this potential threat that has the US so tied up trying to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan & northwest Pakistan because India made it clear that if the Taliban take control of that nuclear arsenal then India will immediately act to prevent the Taliban fron using those weapons. Were I India I'd do the same.

I don't think Pakistan could realistically attack the US wiht nuclear weapons, could they? I don't think they have ICBMs, or whatever they are called these days. While the Taliban may not be in charge, Islamists are rife in the Pakistani military and intelligence service, and probably other arms of government.

I agree that Pakistan is the main threat, but that threat is currently contained by Musharaff. Also, NATO has several military bases in the area, most notably Afghanistan. And if Pakistan is the biggest threat the Muslim world has, then you don't have much to worry about.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Since this discussion is about banning burkas in France, I think asking that Muslims who live in western countries adopt our notions of morality and culture is perfectly valid. I ask the same of Asian immigrants, and people from everywhere really.

Granted, though you did not specifry this in your post. You just said "muzzies," so I assumed you meant all "muzzies."

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree that Pakistan is the main threat, but that threat is currently contained by Musharaff.

Say what?


This isn't about an all out war - (tho any local threat of using nukes is certainly pretty serious). It's about a whole bunch of suiciders willing to do whatever it takes. And it's not as if the majority of Muslims wouldn't get in on this. I don't share Bart's concern to his degree, but I don't think it's baseless either.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

Since this discussion is about banning burkas in France, I think asking that Muslims who live in western countries adopt our notions of morality and culture is perfectly valid. I ask the same of Asian immigrants, and people from everywhere really.

Granted, though you did not specifry this in your post. You just said "muzzies," so I assumed you meant all "muzzies."

I have my prejudices, so in the back of my head I probably meant all Muslims. But really, what they do in their own countries is up to them, even if I think it's often barbaric.

[EyeBrock]

Really, I think Churchill summed it well in the late 1890's.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith"

There are many decent Muslims but until Islam has it's own reformation, rennaissance, age of reason etc, they will be stuck following 14th century morals and ideals.

Unless mainstream Islam becomes more socially reasonable, Muslims, (especially immigrants to the west) will be viewed as potential troublemakers with loyalties promised elsewhere.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Say what?


This isn't about an all out war - (tho any local threat of using nukes is certainly pretty serious). It's about a whole bunch of suiciders willing to do whatever it takes. And it's not as if the majority of Muslims wouldn't get in on this. I don't share Bart's concern to his degree, but I don't think it's baseless either.

It's not baseless, it's just over-rated. Suicide bombers are not an existential threat; they're a nuisance. Wiping out 3000-odd souls along with the World Trade Center disrupted the military and economic strength of the US barely one iota.

Admittedly, this is a big issue in France, due to some misguided liberal policy decisions to allow virtually unrestricted immigration from former French colonies.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Really, I think Churchill summed it well in the late 1890's.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith"

There are many decent Muslims but until Islam has it's own reformation, rennaissance, age of reason etc, they will be stuck following 14th century morals and ideals.

Unless mainstream Islam becomes more socially reasonable, Muslims, (especially immigrants to the west) will be viewed as potential troublemakers with loyalties promised elsewhere.

Churchill might be a bit extreme for my tastes, like when he wanted to gas the Iraqis/Kurds.

[EyeBrock]

Hey, on gas, it was a weapon of it's time. Lots of white boys died gassed in the trenches of France.

No different than nuking Nagasaki if you look at moral justification. Death is death.

Using modern day morals on past events is an exercise in futility. What is interesting is that Churchill called it as was then and really, that assessment still stands.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Hey, on gas, it was a weapon of it's time. Lots of white boys died gassed in the trenches of France.

No different than nuking Nagasaki if you look at moral justification. Death is death.

Using modern day morals on past events is an exercise in futility. What is interesting is that Churchill called it as was then and really, that assessment still stands.

I agree he called it - in fact maybe the ideas we're all repeating are his.

But as for moral justification, to me there's a big diff between being in all out war, fighting for survival of a country and in colonial adventures. I agree that judging the past by our standards is a mugs game. But the Brits screamed bloody murder when the Germans first used gas in WW1 and still bring it up now. And, his opinions on using gas on pretty defenseless people certainly adds to the lens thru which to view his comments on Muslims.

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

Really, care to back that up bud. Loons exist across the board. Whatever you can throw at me I can throw right back at ya two fold.

I'll give you something to chew on.

What about the Spanish Inquisition...

Yeah, 500 years ago the Catholics were up to no good and then it was the Catholics themselves who put an end to that nonsense. Since you want to play that game, what systematic atrocity caused by Muslims in the name of Islam has been put to an end by Muslims?

Name just one and you'll win this debate point.

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

Zipperfish, you really are what can be described as the wheat among the mostly chaff here without blindly falling into stereotypes and propaganda and looking into your own self before starting to hurl at others. I only wish there were more rational posters like you here.

No one is beyond reproach, every one has there own supply of nut jobs but to judge an entire section of population by the actions of few is clearly wrong. But why is it guilty until proven innocent and not the other way round ?

Cheers

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Hey, on gas, it was a weapon of it's time. Lots of white boys died gassed in the trenches of France.

No different than nuking Nagasaki if you look at moral justification. Death is death.

Using modern day morals on past events is an exercise in futility. What is interesting is that Churchill called it as was then and really, that assessment still stands.

It is worth noting that in the last 1920's and early-to-mid 1930's Churchill was *alone* among Western leaders in speaking out about the threat posed by the little corporal from Austria.

I point this out to underline Churchill's astute grasp of world events, world trends, and their security implications both to the UK and to the West in general.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If the Taliban succeed in taking control of Pakistan then they'll be in control of some 30-55 nuclear weapons of strengths potentially ranging into the megaton range.

It is this potential threat that has the US so tied up trying to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan & northwest Pakistan because India made it clear that if the Taliban take control of that nuclear arsenal then India will immediately act to prevent the Taliban fron using those weapons. Were I India I'd do the same.

I don't think Pakistan could realistically attack the US wiht nuclear weapons, could they? I don't think they have ICBMs, or whatever they are called these days. While the Taliban may not be in charge, Islamists are rife in the Pakistani military and intelligence service, and probably other arms of government.

I agree that Pakistan is the main threat, but that threat is currently contained by Musharaff. Also, NATO has several military bases in the area, most notably Afghanistan. And if Pakistan is the biggest threat the Muslim world has, then you don't have much to worry about.

If the Taliban obtain 30-55 nuclear weapons they will absolutely use them on India as they have said repeatedly that they will do exactly this. It's one of the reasons they are popular in Pakistan is because of their sponsorship of attacks on India like the Mumbai attack. While this may not be an attack on the USA I think it stands to reason the US has a valid interest in not seeing a nuclear war erupt on the subcontinent?

Also, if the Taliban have a few nukes, doesn't it stand to reason that they'll try to smuggle one or more of them into the USA...especially across our notoriously porous southern border?

[EyeBrock]

Good point Bart.

Churchill is somebody I admire despite my working class roots and that fact that my family was made up of Irish socialists bent on revolution.

Churchill called it as it was on so many things.

He was a man born into privilege, yet when he was fired from his admiralty job in WW1, he joined his regiment in the trenches of the Somme. He was a rich guy, he could have got a cushy posting back in Blighty, but he didn’t.

[andyt]

desertdude desertdude:

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

So since Islam started 600 years after Christianity, we can look forward to your reformation any time now.

For atrocities I'd go with honor killings, stoning and beheading and female circumcision for 1000 Alex. Also rape as judicial punishment. Charging women that are raped with adultery. Making women wear burkas etc and denying them education. Boy Thursdays in Astan. 911 and other terrorist acts. The list seems endless, really.