(03-10-2009 01:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  A good first step would be to close down the Arab public school in Brooklyn called the Khalil Gibran school . Second step. Shut down the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Va., where their textbooks disparage Jews and Christians, alike. Then if they want to re-open Saudi must allow Christian, Jewish or even secular school in Saudi Arabia.

Shut down the Center for Islamic Pluralism, where estimates of Saudi spending is upwards of $75 billion to finance construction of thousands of mosques, schools and Islamic centers, the employment of at least 9,000 proselytizers and the printing of millions of books of religious instruction. (SNIP). The Center for Islamic Pluralism says Saudi Arabia has a “pervasive influence on Islamic education in the United States (that) has led to the development of a new breed of American: the jihadist.”

Just say No FU_CKING thank You to them and the Madrassa Coalition.

Of course, Congress is currently working on a similar solution - give each of these schools $7500 in vouchers per student. How do those of you who favor vouchers reconcile it with these sentiments (and even a minimal understanding of the first amendment)?

they attacked us because they hate everything about us, which is the opposite of themselves. Not to mention the fact that ideologically they wish to impose a Global Caliphate and Global Sharia Law. Pointing towards some of their talking points as "THE" reason, is far too simplistic. They are attacking countless places around the globe to this day, that have never had a military presence on the so called "Holy Land"(which in their total view, the entire world is their 'land' to be taken).

or as Walter Russell Mead framed this: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...018754.php

Quote:In God and Gold I argue that capitalist dynamism and the peculiarly individualistic and forward looking religious culture of the Anglo-Americans are the foundation of this system. The British and the Americans have liked capitalism more than other people, and they have had less trouble bridging the gap between capitalist change and religious tradition than other societies.

These characteristics make us strong, but they do not always make us loved. Catholic Spain, Jacobin France, Wilhelmine Germany, the Nazis, the communists, and Osama bin Laden all denounced the English-speaking peoples as cruel, greedy, hypocritical and vulgar. The Inquisition placed The Wealth of Nations on the Index of Forbidden Books. Napoleon reputedly denounced the British as a ?nation of shopkeepers.? For over a century, hatred of capitalism, hatred of Jews and hatred of the Anglo-American world has been a powerful ideological force. Since the Boer War, significant elements in European opinion have seen the Anglo-Saxon powers as allied with Jewish plutocrats in a plot to control the world. Churchill and Roosevelt were denounced as puppets of the Jews; today figures like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez speak for a powerful tradition of hatred and suspicion of the Anglo-American world and its Jewish allies.

More than 300 years ago, Oliver Cromwell summoned the English to a war against Catholic Spain using arguments we still hear today. Who are our enemies, Cromwell asked in 1656. His answer: the league of evil men throughout the earth. And why do they hate us? Because the evil that is in them sees and hates the good that we do here in England. Or in Cromwell?s own words, ?through that enmity that is in him against all that is of God, that is in you?? What are we fighting for? The future of liberty all over the world. Why will we triumph? Because God is on our side.

These are essentially the arguments of Ronald Reagan?s famous "evil empire" speech; they are the arguments that Tony Blair and George W. Bush made after 9/11. They are the arguments Churchill and Roosevelt made in World War II, the arguments Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson made in World War I, the arguments that British ministers and intellectuals made during the wars against Napoleon, the Jacobins, and against Louis XIV.

This isn?t just rhetoric. God and Gold chronicles the centuries-long war between the Anglo-Americans and their enemies and argues for the importance of understanding the cultural, religious, and financial roots of the English-speaking peoples because they form the foundation of America?s global position. Today we face a new kind of enemy. With American society divided over the nature of the threat and even in some quarters the existence of the threat it is more important than ever to understand what makes America strong, why others hate us, and what are the qualities that have enabled the Americans and the British to prevail in the contests that shaped our world.

(03-10-2009 03:09 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 11:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, what do we do about this?
Do we live and let live, or do we try to change their behaviour?
Make no mistake, it was our efforts to change this kind of behaviour that brought down the Twin Towers.
Not our buying their oil. Not our failure to ratify the Kyoto Accords. Not any of the reasons that have been given. This.

This is just over the top.

No, it isn't.
If you looked at the situation through Arab eyes rather than western eyes, you'd understand that.
I don't disagree that the presence of US troops is a provocation, particularly their presence in Saudi Arabia, the mother country of the faith.
But the presence of US troops is a problem not because they are troops but because they are infidels.
I think the Arabs would generally be happy with a "live and let live" situation, if only we would.
But whether we approach things from a Christian fundamentalist right-wing viewpoint or a secular humanist left-wing viewpoint, we are so certain of the moral superiority of our culture that we feel obligated to "fix" their "wrong" ideas.
And that's how you breed terrorists.

(03-11-2009 07:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 03:09 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 11:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, what do we do about this?
Do we live and let live, or do we try to change their behaviour?
Make no mistake, it was our efforts to change this kind of behaviour that brought down the Twin Towers.
Not our buying their oil. Not our failure to ratify the Kyoto Accords. Not any of the reasons that have been given. This.

This is just over the top.

No, it isn't.
If you looked at the situation through Arab eyes rather than western eyes, you'd understand that.
I don't disagree that the presence of US troops is a provocation, particularly their presence in Saudi Arabia, the mother country of the faith.
But the presence of US troops is a problem not because they are troops but because they are infidels.
I think the Arabs would generally be happy with a "live and let live" situation, if only we would.
But whether we approach things from a Christian fundamentalist right-wing viewpoint or a secular humanist left-wing viewpoint, we are so certain of the moral superiority of our culture that we feel obligated to "fix" their "wrong" ideas.
And that's how you breed terrorists.

Lotta truth here.

Perspective does not mean sh!t. You either feel it's wrong to lash women, or you don't. Spare us your "liberal, one party college educated, everything has gray area BS". Only the weak buy into arguments like that.

Terrorists are "breed the same way all children are breed, by FU_CKING. It's how they are indoctrinated by education that makes a child a terrorist. Appeasing the religious fanatics does not lend itself well toward the truth about right and wrong.

there were 'terrorist', i.e. Jihadist, well before the United States existed, seeking the same Global domination goals.

an orthodox reading of the Koran is what 'breeds terrorist'.

Robert Spencer addressed these wrong assumptions fairly throroughly last year after a paultard interview with John Stossel: Ron Paul and John Stossel: A feast of wrong assumptions

Quote:However, it is a false assumption that if we just leave them alone, by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and presumably also by abandoning Israel, then there will be peace. Muhammad's expansionist imperative is open-ended: "I have been commanded," he said, "to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah."

Do any Muslims take this seriously today? Well, just the other day a jihadist leader in Uzbekistan declared: "The goal of this campaign is not only Kabul, Kandahar, or Baghdad. The eyes of the nation of Muhammad are set on Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Delhi, Beijing, and other countries. This is our goal and, Allah willing, we will get there." Will people who think that way drop this goal if American troops leave their countries? Considering the fact that Muslims were conquering nations on the basis of the jihad ideology long before there even was a United States of America, that seems unlikely in the extremely.

only reason the middle east is muslim today is because they conquered it via Jihad doctrines, same reason Albania was conquered in the 1500's and Europe would've went this route had they not defeated the Jihad forces at Poiters.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

this is important, especially all the later in life Sura's which matter more under Islamic "Cancel and Replace" theology......as well as about 1300 years of History to back it up..

Quote:[b]"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who
are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,
and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty"
Qur'an, Sura 9:123

Quote:It's all about Iraq, isn't it?

Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Angola and...

...and pretty much wherever Islam is taken seriously:

(03-11-2009 11:12 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Perspective does not mean sh!t. You either feel it's wrong to lash women, or you don't. Spare us your "liberal, one party college educated, everything has gray area BS". Only the weak buy into arguments like that.

Terrorists are "breed the same way all children are breed, by FU_CKING. It's how they are indoctrinated by education that makes a child a terrorist. Appeasing the religious fanatics does not lend itself well toward the truth about right and wrong.

You are missing my point. Lashing women is wrong and should be stopped. But the "in your face" confrontional approach doesn't work in Asia. If your objective is to get the Statue of Liberty blown up, it's a good approach. If you have a different objective, you need a different approach.
I'm guessing you either (a) have never been to Saudi or (b) didn't pay much attention to the locals when you were there. You might read some Kipling. He understood Asia better than most any other westerner.

(03-10-2009 11:21 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 10:33 AM)Tripster Wrote:  .

Even a half-wit like Forest Gump knows 40 Lashes will put a 75 year old woman into fatal shock ... so this is basically an Execution.

And I am sure the woman and the guys were really juicing up to have some great and really nasty 75 year old sex.

What an ignorant 5th World mentality from a country that is supposed to in the 21st Century.

.

I would contend that US policy of locking people in cold cells for victimless crime is no less barbaric. This case is insane...and so are most of our laws.

Wow... putting someone in a "cold" cell for 30 days or whatever is comparable to 40 lashes and THEN being deported from your family if you survive? Possessing illegal drugs (what I assume your victimless crime is relating) is comparable to casually talking with two people?

Here's my take. If the Saudi's don't like what they are doing to themselves, then they can try and do something about it. If THEY aren't willing to stand up, then that's their tough luck. As a government, I would not allow them to export those opinions to this country, and I would not expect them to import mine. If they want aide, I can attach strings... otherwise... you're on your own. I'm tired of being the world's watchdog and wallet, and then being blamed when they steal from themselves.