3:11 So what. So a Christian Europe can't be represented by the interest of Europeans, they have to bow down to foreign interests. Muslims the go to western Europe go there by their own free will knowing that Europe is white and Christian. I don't hear this guy complaining about the lack of Christian representation in Arab lands.
And by the way, I'm an atheist.
This whole "real" news network is just a joke, a leftist joke.
If you don't know anything about the christian representation in the "Arab land", then you better not "assume" it's lacking and say nonsense that only makes look like a fool.
I'm a Muslim Arab living in the "Arab land" and every day I meet a christian, every few days I'm in a church or a chapel for Christians in here. They don't seem to lack representation. Stop speaking crap like that if you don't know what facts are. Arab land is not only Saudi Arabia. Idiot!!!!
you mean Islam is civilization and fascism is suppression through social pressure. You are there for a fascist whom does not like living in a civilization.
Practicing Muslims should be discouraged through social pressure and alienation. Just like Neo-Nazis, fascists, and other religious deviants like the West Borough Baptist nuts.
@Neweddy24 Didn't Islam bring us algebra?Look how Muslims treated Christians during the Crusades and then compare that to how Christians treated Muslims when the tables turned.The extremists who blow crap up aren't practicing the Muslim faith any more than Tomothy McVeigh,Jim Jones, or David Koresh followed Christianity.
Yeah so, since we already put up with one denomination of religious idiots why not just pile another one on. I know that the majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. I don't really care about that. They should be excluded from our society for believing in a dogma of oppression and repression. So should Christians for that matter, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
The Muslim nations have no international voice or power because of the actions taken by the Colonial powers to split them up into small feuding states. The British Imperial Empire had this all as part of their plan to exploit resources.
Oh shut the fuck up Akturk, how many times can Bush say "we are not at war with Islam" before you get it? He was at war with people who happened to be Muslim, and a LOT of the conservatives do hate Muslims inherently, but Bush is not a hate-filled racist. He's an idiot, and he doesn't use his brain to think analytically about anything, but he isn't a bigot.
I'm a liberal, but SHUT THE FUCK UP. Morocco and Indonesia are Muslim, how are they supposed to be part of a "Muslim World" FAIL
He was at war with people who happened to be not at war with usa. you can't tell with a straight face that the iraqis or the afghan people were at war with or had animosity towards usa or americans. had these countries been culturally closer to the average white american would there be so much popular support for attacking afghanistan and iraq over absolutely no shred of evidence that either gov't supported or took part in planning the 9-11 attacks ?
well, the war in Afghanistan is different. The taliban DID provide safe-harbor to terrorists, whether or not you think that warfare itself is the efficient or effective solution is irrelevant. Our government DID think it was useful and the people were behind it. But Americans were totally ready to invade Europe following 9-11. There were marches in the streets to literally fight France's opposition to our wars. [continued]
taleban wasn't involved in 9-11... they were on the payroll of the european and american gov'ts in exchange for policing drug (heroine) production. They wouldn't have been so stupid to bite the arm that fed them.
the truth is someone has led the stupid american masses to believe that the average muslim is a nutjob who is a threat to the world and this made it all so easy to turn a blind eye to the sufferings of these people... the media in the usa was so biased they just reported civilian casualties as if it's they are just numbers to be crunched when the truth was 5 year old children were treated in ill equipped hospitals for burns that made it impossible for their parents to recognize their own kids.
all I'm saying is it's intellectually lazy to say "we fought them cuz their Muslim". How many Muslim countries is the U.S actively not fight? All of them [save for Iraq and Afghanistan]. Saudi Arabia is one of our closest allies (unfortunately), we have intricate dealings with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Morocco is a popular tourist attraction, and even Iraq is officially our ally. it's about geopolitics and resources, not religion. If Europe had oil, we'd fight them
I get your point but aside from that what really upsets me as a human being was the lack of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that were killed, wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, raped and abused in many other ways. All this happened in a nation claiming to be a moral authority on human rights and freedom, a nation that has turned 180 degrees at the face of slightest of fears. And the easiest way out is to blame bush/cheney and whitewash the american people...
I don't support the wars at all, I don't support warfare of any kind. But most people do, and for most people Afghanistan was still justified. Iraq was total bullshit, but it was all about making money, and the American people are very poorly educated and taught to worship a flag (yeah, like the Nazis).
Honestly, on 9-12-01 we should have said "fuck yourself" and rebuilt, instead we didn't, and now the whole world is a goddamn mess
if I were to make a list of who to blame for this mess, usa would end up somewhere in the middle. the middle eastern countries have a lot of issues that aren't caused by the west and to blame usa for these issues would be to defend the people who are responsible for them.
but this war, thus the instability and injustice of it has played so much into the hands of the radical muslims, I can't stop to think whether it's intentions were to prevent attacks on americans rather than instigate them.
As the story goes, the Taliban bit the hand that fed them when they refused to hand over the leaders of the plot.
I agree with Craigipedia, no nationality has a monopoly on xenophobia and Fear is a powerful tool. since no special allocations had to be made to attack Iraq, compassion wasn't as potent an issue as fear of another attack.
more attacks on the US would lead to more power for those who seek more wars so ... radicals on both side win. That's what they want.
refused to hand over ? when the fuck were they asked after 9-11 ? oh right, they weren't.
I don't recall negotiations with taleban after 9-11, only press conferences. plus, none of the men involved in 9-11 were afghans, were residing in afghanistan or evidence to suggest they were al-qaeda members was presented to the taleban. any legitimate gov't of any sovereign country would act the way the taleban did at the face of pure allegations. would you hand over us citizens on mere accusations ?
can you ask a gov't that is up until 9-11 considered a legitimate one, to hand over people based in their country without having the diplomatic decency to share any evidence so that they have more than your word to rely on ?
with a little empathy, you would understand that international relations shouldn't be forced down people's throats unilaterally anytime a stronger country asks a smaller one to do as told. you see, afghans and iraqis have respect for themselves too.
these are my final words on the post 9-11 world related issues. I can't agree with the mindset of the people who claim to hold higher values than others, consider themselves civilized and yet have no issues acting as hypocrites when faced with fear or inconveniences.
if you believe in your values, it shouldn't matter to you whether the person you deal with shares them or not, in order for you to treat them according to your values. yes, terrorists are evil people, should you be one too ?
there are many technicalities to extradition and a president threatening another country with destruction isn't one of them...
death penalty, political crimes, possibility of an unfair trial etc. all factor in when extraditing criminals and it's not an automated process as you present it to be. why would you expect afghanistan to just hand you over anyone you wish unless you make a case for it first especially when in US all extradition is subject to review by US courts ?
yes, a nation can ask another nation to hand over suspected criminals without providing "sufficient" evidence and negotiations can be started to work out the terms of the transfer (Not that Bush ever had any intent to do anything other than go to war).
the attack on Iraq was unilateral, the attack on Afghanistan had the support of NATO the UN and Afghanistan's neighbors including Iran, showing that the Taliban didn't have too many nations in the world considering it a legitimate government.
they can ask but then they shouldn't be surprised to hear no for an answer especially when they are threatening the other nation which is as clear a violation of sovereignty as it can get as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. I'm sure you wouldn't have such an interference by use of military threat from any other country. why should you expect less of anyone else ?
the mindset of ppl that have no issue acting as hypocrites when it suits their needs is a universal one. Every nation on Earth has exhibited the tendency and Fear weather it be of Islam or of the US is a powerful political tool.
In the case of values, Fear isn't about treating others according to your values its about getting ppl to throw their values out the window for the sake of security.
the point is no other nation claims to the moral high ground in international relations to this degree except for united states. and somehow, through propaganda perhaps, this naive thought of being morally superior is carved into the heads of the americans and this helps look the other way at the sight of horrible crimes committed on other nations. it's as if somehow all these murders, rapes, cases of torture etc. can be justified as easily as that, or worse denied because of this mentality.
All other nations claim the moral high ground in international relations, its a bi-product of having a foreign policy.
No one was surprised that the Taliban refused to do what the UN called on them to do and no one was surprised when the NATO alliance declared war on the Taliban government.
It has nothing to do with moral superiority for the majority of ppl it has to do with being busy with their own lives. The fact that ppl in uniforms commit crimes doesn't mean we find it justifiable.
no other nation uses that excuse as internal policy to justify plotting and executing coups, policing the world and starting wars all around the globe; since world war 2, there is korea, vietnam, most of south america, libya, iraq, afghanistan just to name a few.
united states is not a source of stability for the world, it has done more harm than good following an interventionist international policy and destabilized large parts of the world single-handedly.
Since WWII China has gone to war with India, India has gone to war with Pakistan, Yugoslavia tore itself to pieces, Russia went to war with Kosovo and Georgia, Somalia fought a civil war, the Sudan has been in conflict, the 6 day war between Israel and the middle east took place while the US did little more than watch...
I'm not saying the US has clean hands I'm just saying Human Conflict is not some US conspiracy dropped on an otherwise peaceful world.
you get to simplify military intervention and the military justice system, I get to simplify the extradition process.
another principle of sovereignty is that every nation has the responsibility to protect those within their borders and the NATO alliance believed it had the authority to attack the Taliban government in pursuit of that goal.
Does any other "Islamic" nation rank higher on the list that Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Does brainwashing just explain all the ills of the world?
I believe your simplification didn't accurately describe the process and could easily be interpreted as a justification of military intervention which is the main point of discussion. NATO is not the ultimate council on truth and fairness...It doesn't have authority on anything but it's own decisions.
Decisions made by a bunch of countries forming an alliance to pursue the interests of it's members can't be referred as if they are worthy of recognition unless you believe might makes right.
When China threatens to use force against Taiwan or Tibet or when Russia invades its smaller neighbors, when Pakistan and India face off over Kashmir is that US manipulation?
Nations have conflicts, that's why they have militaries. The US has caused a few in its history and will cause more in the future but no more than the Ottomans or British or any future global power.
No international law is legitimate unless it is enforceable, so for better or worse for now might does make .... in charge.
Thank you for proving my point that USA, when unveiled of it's civilization bringing, democracy singing, moral superiority pretending mask of hypocrisy... is a destructive bully that is a threat to world peace.
To accept what you call "Law" is to accept that it actually isn't, that there is no actual international law which determines right from wrong, only one that determines weak from the powerful... When there is no law, there is no "right" by which USA can claim righteousness.
My point is moral superiority has nothing to do with it lol
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were about fear not benevolence. National leaders would have been found derelict of their responsibility had we not invaded Afghanistan but Iraq was unnecessary.
There is no international law aside from treaties and international norms, but there are no cops to call if someone breaks international norms.
All Politicians claim "righteousness", notice I said might equals responsible not right
My problem as mentioned before isn't just with the weak justification of wars, but how the wars are fought. Carpet bombing a city full of people, drone attacks in densely populated areas, torture, rape, pillaging etc. even when disclosed is received with most indifferent attitude by the american people ? what creates this bloodthirsty flocks of people ? my opinion is all the self-righteousness pumped through the propaganda machine that claims moral superiority on the basis of being american.
There is no such thing as a clean, humanitarian or civilized war ... war is never pretty. You don't ask ppl to go out and kill ppl but be nice about it.
It has nothing to do with moral inferiority complexes... it has nothing to do with moral superiority ... a few ppl feel superior no matter what but that's just life
It has to do with our responsibility to get out without leaving things worse than when we went in and to be more responsible with power rather than react in fear.
it's well known that us troops used rape systematically to discourage people from joining the resistance. there are even reports of children being raped to make their parents reveal information. I'm appalled that you find this amusing but whatever, you obviously don't think it's a big deal unless it happens in your country to your white altar boys.
Whatever way you try to describe it, bombing of civilian populated areas were done for one reason, to create disgruntlement among iraqi population
I can tell you if some soldiers raped me and left me alive the first thing I would do is join the resistance and blow up every mother.... thing I can get my hands on... but if Muslims somehow respond differently that's new to me...
Its done to KILL PEOPLE ... that's the goal of WAR not to hurt feelings or create "disgruntlement"
I could give a .... crap about a white alter boy
They rape because their cowards with guns not because someone ordered them to do it.
rape is discouraging people who are likely to join a resistance group. they fear such a possible outcome in case of capture and weigh in the social death and humiliation they would suffer as a result and are discouraged from joining resistance groups. that is the most simple way one can be explained so I'm sorry if you don't get it this time.
I did not say it was a great plan, I said it was their plan and it obviously backfired along with many of other plans in iraq and afghanistan. These people being stupid or mistaken takes nothing away from the fact that they are immoral.
the same base that trains pilots to drop agents of all colors under the rainbow in vietnam that still to this date continue to cause horrible birth defects.
but all the pilot has to do is fly and push a button just as they would with a bomb ...but I guess that's applicable since all the rapist has to do is thrust.
So its not all Americans are Evil its all Americans are Idiots?
push a button.... knowing that it delivers a lethal poison which is designed o kill all the crops of the vietnamese causing mass starvation and many other side effects such as birth defects...
morally, there isn't much of a difference between the two so they might as well be the product of the same system.
actually we had that argument and I have told you about three times that not being effective is not an excuse for not being immoral, it's just insult to injury on behalf of americans.
It's like you beat your kid to do his homework and you argue it's not immoral as long as he's flunking.
delivering chemical weapons is immoral, so it's not different, it's the same dirty way to fight the war. i guess, the us army/navy/air force hasn't learned much since vietnam on ethics of war.
to kill a man who's intent on killing you is very easily justifiable. self-preservation, when options are absolutely clear, is one law of nature we all have the right to follow. bombing a military base, for the same reason, is justifiable.
bombing the villagers, who raise crops for consumption in the military base on the other hand, is plain immoral. it's clear that you have to jump a logical hoop in order to equate villagers as people intent on killing you.
that's the problem with war... its at best coordinated brutality.
The side that plays by the rules you outlined would lose and the survivors would be left at the will of the victor.
The supply chain is the first thing you cut off even if it means going to the source. At best you can convince the ppl to stop supplying the opposition or get the opposition to surrender without war... but if you can't do either of those... brutality wins
rape is cowardice and brutal but mostly cowardice.
we have the geneva conventions and many other protocols that define many of the issues at hand, but then again, by simply not declaring war, united states side stepped all those quite conveniently.
usa vs iraq doesn't really fall into the category of the survivor-victor-mercy reasoning you defined anyway. firstly, the conventional war was fought only in iraqi soil, also iraq was clearly the much weaker side so it's not possible to chalk us crimes up to fear of consequences of losing the war.
sorry that I have to pass on the opportunity to respond to any more posts since sunshine has just crept into my room and I haven't had any sleep yet, plus lines are getting blurrier by the minute.
anyway, despite our obvious differences, I must thank you for your time and for your input into this discussion.
sorry for keepin you up, it was a fun conversation we monopolized this post with lol
did get annoying at times but I think we have more in common than in difference... possibly...
I'm sure we can both agree that there are better ways to achieve national interests than war. As a christian I'd say, the cure for these Earthly conflicts is love.
no they are helping the opposition survive. the distinction is clear. is a condom manufacturer responsible for helping rapists get away with their crimes if they wear condoms when they rape women ? if the logic of it requires just that extra step or loop to come to the conclusion that they do, it's not sound reasoning imho.
Moral support is irrelevant if they don't have full bellies and weapons to fight with so unless the priest was offering sanctuary they wouldn't be a valid target but otherwise ... yah
The goal in war is not to aid the oppositions survival but to deprive them of it
There is no nice way or civilized way to do that other than to try to do it as little as possible
sorry about this one .. but, if the condom manufacturer (or supplier more likely) knew they were supplying known rapists with condoms wouldn't they be a bit culpable?
and wouldn't it be a good idea to cut off the rapists from the supply of condoms ... or victims?
GWB was a blowhard politician ... the criminals that violated the code of military conduct were criminals... the soldiers that did their job and still did things that would be criminal in a state of peace deserve a little more respect than to just assume they're all evil idiots...
they may have told someone they were raping ppl to weaken their resolve but they were actually just evil bastard criminals.
If they were acting on illegal orders then the orders should have been refused
the fact remains and that is the only thing that matters -the facts- that rape was used as a weapon of war and no hypothetical argument on the benefits or therelackof can change this. Have you wondered why Abu Ghraib photos of actual rapes etc. were never released ?
anyway, the only question you have to answer is "are you morally ok with this ?".
they might not like to look at them like they don't like to look at how cows are processed into burgers but I don't think people eating burgers mind cows being slaughtered so long as it's done at some place they don't see.
likewise, not liking to see rape isn't the same as being supportive of / indifferent to it as long as you think it's serving you a benefit.
you miss the point. I am arguing that people "can" tend to turn a blind eye to the harshness of reality when it's working in their favor.
so you shouldn't argue americans not wanting to see the abu ghraib photos as an indication of their moral values. if you didn't intend to make that argument, I apologize for misunderstanding.
I was getting kinda short so it coulda been a miscommunication
... My point was most (not all, there are sick ppl in the world) Americans don't need to see abuses in order to realize abuses are being committed
What we want after that is for the criminals to be punished, the abuses to end and the UCMJ to be followed and applied according to the civilized rules we try to run our wars by.
We hold ourselves to high standards and fall short often ... but raping as policy is pure unsanctioned Evil
the people whom americans have trusted twice as representatives of their will, effectively defined torture as a legal method of extracting information. the knowledge of this was public, everybody could learn about it, so none of the nazi german defense of "we didn't know" applies here.
does this or does this not reflect on the morality of the american people when their democratically elected government is officially supporting torture ?
There's a reason the Republicans were wiped from power in '08 but with a two party political system we didn't have many better options to work with (trust me it was pretty sad).
The government doesn't officially support torture though a few politicians still do.
Torture is still a violation of the UCMJ I keep referring to.
Were a bit like Iran... one party wants to hand more power to the CIA while the other wants to strengthen the FBI. Fear vs Law
they actually have the authority and responsibility to refuse orders that violate the code of military conduct though cowards often don't act on that authority or responsibility
That's what happened in Iraq ... that's what happens anywhere in the world at any point in time and its not unique to Americans
quite amazing how you jumped to that conclusion from my comment...
blaming America for problems caused in Iraq by American soldiers isn't remotely connected to the vague generalization that you portray in your straw man argument, is it ???
"united states is not a source of stability for the world, it has done more harm than good following an interventionist international policy and destabilized large parts of the world single-handedly."
the "shock and aww" thing was about cutting off Saddam from command and control not inspiring ppl to rise up on the streets of Iraq against Saddam no matter what Bush said... ppl don't climb out of bomb shelters to overthrow dictators when their nation is under attack.
yeah, baghdad was full of bomb shelters, right. this is a borderline stupid argument.
what's so difficult to understand, haven't you read a single page of ww2 history ?
you bomb to destroy infrastructure, you bomb to create terror among civilians, all of this in turn causes people to be disgruntled so they either revolt against their leadership or are less likely to resist the occupation as their will would be mostly broken. these are similar to ancient siege tactics kids know about...
constant fear created by bombings -they specifically change the times of bombings and leave a day off etc. so people can't adjust to when and how the bombings will occur, so their minds can't create some sort of order amidst the chaos o adjust to it-, lack of clean water, medical supplies, food etc. all contribute to create massive disgruntlement among the people of the literally under-siege city.
please read on civil war of yugoslavia, there are some great examples of this bombing psychology.
read about terror bombings in yugoslavia of the bosnian cities by the serbs. it wasn't about killing, it was about demoralizing and terrorizing the bosnian people of sarajevo.
evil is not the right word... selfish and immoral would be my primary choices. selfish in that they must get what they want and immoral in that they don't really care how they get it.
it's understandable as your social and economic system is designed to breed selfish and immoral people to create more capital but not so much excusable as in the case with iraq and the treatment of iraqis.
and to answer your question on "islamic" countries, despite the question being completely irrelevant unless you have scientific proof of how the majority religion in any society effects the Human Development Index ... anyway, here are the statistics.
HDI - Turkey 79, Bosnia 76, Albania 70, Malaysia 66, Oman 56, Libya 55, UAE 35, Qatar 33, Kuwait 31, Brunei 30,
The relevance of the question was that the video referred to Islamic representation in the forums of global leadership and since Turkey still ranks at the top of the list you sited it seems like they should count as a leader in the world.
But just like any other power in the world they get no respect so ... I guess it is pointless lol
it's at the bottom of the list among the countries I mentioned.
all this militarization, all this ultra-nationalistic ideologies attached to social darwinist enlightenment era fantasies have brought nothing but misery to the citizens of turkey. we starve to feed an oversized army while people die in thousands because of poorly constructed buildings in earthquakes that the japanese would laugh at.
ideal would be for the world to give up on war as a tool of statecraft and litigate their conflicts before some authorized body that everyone trusts... but do you see Israel and Palestine sitting down before a court any time soon?
The US navy has a responsibility to patrol the global sea lanes because it has the capability ... might makes responsible
things get worse when Americans say "we don't care about the world, we just want security"
stop re-living post WW2 glory days and you can see that things are actually better when US isn't involved in shaping the world according to it's corporate needs. we don't want no more wars destabilizing middle east to secure oil pipelines for american consumption half-way across the globe.
When Americans say "we just want security", we tend to give those corporate needs full sway over our diplomatic and military power.
Wars destabilize oil supply and make the price of oil go up and American oil companies more profitable ...
You want the American electorate paying attention and the military of the US being used to maintain stability rather than spread democracy .. there are no post WWII glory days
Democracy is spread diplomatically not military. The interventions are about Fear
On another topic, Turkey is a member of NATO (the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen) and Turkey and Saudi Arabia are members of the G-20 witch is replacing the G-8 as a forum for global leadership.
However, to listen to these guys those two nations just don't seem to matter much in global affairs.
don't get me started on Turkey... turks are a useless, brainwashed, self-centered nation. it's hopeless to teach this old dog new tricks. the same self-righteous mentality which leads refusal to accept and deal with the truth has ensured that Turkey stayed as a poor, ignorant, paranoid country isolated from europe and disliked by all of it's neighboring states. turkey ranks as 50 in Qual.of Life , and as 79 in Human Devel. index which says a lot more than a G-20 membership for turkish citizens.
There's a reason there is no Muslim great power... they have no resources, and the only country that could potentially be one (Iran) is a dilapidated authoritarian theocracy.
The Palestinians sure could have used some Arab/Muslim representation in the Security Council when the Israelis began their butchery in Gaza Dec-08/Jan-09, euphemistically called Operation Cast Lead. Not that the Israelis would have been deterred by any UN sanction mind you. They never will be as long as their accomplice, the US, blindly supports them.
btw Paul spare us the paranoia mongering with the debunked government narrative about Al-Quaida terrorism. No one with half a mind believes it.
I would hope that you would be against genocide and killing in general. What country do you reside in? Unless your country is void of any hatred towards others, which would be extremely unlikely, the irony applies to you also.
Your statement is wrong on so many levels, and counterproductive.
Haha, I'm sorry that you dont know about the quarrels of other peoples.
I'm by no means condoning genocide or any killings -- on the contrary, I made that comment precisely because my people are trying to get THEIR genocide recognized by the country that perpetrated it. Just look up Ottoman history, and you'll know what I mean.
does the ottoman empire exist anymore? i thought it was wiped out sometimes after wwI turkey was founded in 1923 or something like that. Armenians should be happy that the nation the did the alleged genocide are now extinct, they try to wipe you out but in turn they were wiped out. if it anything, the ottoman empire was made up of Egypt, Syria parts of Saudi Arabia parts of Jordon, Palestine, Lebanon and Armenian, why not mad at everyone? i'm sure they all had a part in it, right?
thanks for driving my point across mate! Most religions are like this, and that is the reason why they are so widely practiced to this day. Anyway tatsu-san have a good day and oyasuminasai!! I assume you are nihonjin right?
hahah you should check out my profile, im white guy lol but live in Indonesia and my wife and family are Indonesian. i used to be able to speak ok nipongo, but now its no good i had to learn when i was an aikibudoka with the jiyushinkai long time ago it seems haha, we did everything in japanese when we were on the mat, outside the dojo we could speak how ever we want but inside it was nipon haha
True, it was made up of different regions. However, the government was in Turkey, and it was committed mostly out of Turkish nationalism and supremacism. The modern state of Turkey should at least recognize this -- much like Germany recognizes the Holocaust, even though today it may not be an empire nor a Nazi state.
As a governing body, you must, to a certain extent, bear the responsibility of the history of your nation -- even if it may be hard to swallow.
ummmm Turkish died during that time too. I don't think yu understand the history of it. The Ottoman empire was weak, and it was quite literally their last war. You had huge amounts of deaths on both sides. Armineans living in IStanbul and other big cities weren't forced out. Attrocities happen, and I don't think any gov't can condemn it until they apologize for the bullshit they did in history especially the US gov't. genocide of natives, and enslavement of africans.
Do you realize that your last sentence made no damn sense? Perhaps you could proofread before posting ;-)
I agree with the rest of your comment, except for the part about atrocities happening on both sides, because what the ottomans did to the Armenians was a calculated and an organized campaign of extermination; Armenians WERE forced out of cities/villages en mass (especially in Eastern Turkey) on death marches into the Syrian desert.
thank you for your replay after posting i thought to my self, "doh,going to have to go thou all the hate mail in the morning" my main point was that the event happen almost 100 years ago, the "saviors" were infants or vary small children at the time, the people that would have given the orders and thous who carried them out are now long dead. there no one left to take the blame, as for Turkey taking the blame it would be like Canada taking the blame for the us atomic bombing of japan in ww2
Thats faulty logic. The Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey are not the same as Can. and US. It was in Turkey that the Ott. gov't, was centralized, and from where the same Turkish nationalism/supremacism had emerged (which is still TODAY a part of Turkish society and politics), that had in turn been responsible for the genocide.
Let me give you a better comparison:if Turkey denies, it would be like the UK denying all the actions that it had been responsible for when it was an empire 150 years ago.
the republic of turkey and the ottomans had completely different government setups, the ottomans were a religious state were as the republic of turkey is secular to almost an extreme level. the culture was also different. i used example USA and Canada because both were fighting on the same side in ww2 and the cultures are similar if u see a Canadian and an American u could not real tell the difference.
It's funny that the Western World tends to support the fundamentalists in the Muslim/Arab world. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. All run by Religiously convicted psychopaths
Anti-Islam propaganda today is a GOD send for the Media to sell more papers and make money. Instead of identifying the causes of tension which exist in the Muslim world, the media like to equate everything to everything being religiously driven. Apartheid Israel would never survive politcally if they were killing just Brown people without a religion.
what some people don't really understand is that Islam is not just a faith, its a complete way of life, dealing with everything from when we wake up till we go to sleep. in Islam we have a state, its a universal state we call it "Ummah" every Muslim is a members of this Ummah. 1 out of 4 human beings on earth are Muslims that's about 1.5 billion Muslims and generally speaking there is no representation of this large group of people, image what we could do if we were organized :D
@lordblazer, there are a lots of "faiths" that are not just faith but a ways of life, even Judaism can be called a way of life, it has laws and rules dealing with most of the things we do as human being. Islam is same, we have rights and limits on Everything we do in life, name something there is a rule about it :p now to have to believes of there way of life to fallow there rules is a different thing altogether :/
@neverindoub, my wife is a muslimah and she is far from oppressed did you know women in the USA was given the right to vote only about 50-60 years ago? and Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago, that is just on example if your making a comment about the scarf, are Orthodox christian women oppressed? how about Jewish women or nuns? are they oppressed to? if its about rights, women have more rights then men do in Islam, if you really care, you can msg me and we can talk :D
Are you blaming the voters for oppressing your right to free speech, or YouTube for enacting the rule that x many negative votes will in fact censor it?
I think it's rather silly to criticize people for voicing their disagreement with you. Wouldn't that be the real crime against freedom of speech?
I don't undrestand this man's argument: these organizations organize at the NATION-STATE level, not the religious one. Islam isn't one single STATE, hence it is incumbent upon them to prove such a theocratic nation-state to put forth TO the world-wide international community.
I'm currently writing a thesis on this. Iraq was the last Middle Eastern country to aspire to the status of a great power - it was wealthy, it was powerful, it was secular, it had the highest standard of living in the region, its leaders were motivated by an ideology of pan-Arab solidarity especially when it came to Israel and Palestine, and it was prepared to defy imperialism. Now Iraq is utterly destroyed. And people wonder why some Arabs and Muslims are nostalgic for Saddam Hussein.
one good thing about life----we all will get what we deserve...Liberals for being idiots and sell outs, Muslims --for being enemies of the West, Conservatives --for not being strong enough
at around 10:00 mins what does he mean by the "traditional western controll over the mid east" the muslim ottoman empire was the most dominate force in the region up untill the first world war for centuries.
the interview full of basic twists and Muslim lies...at the heart of it ---is simple envy and resentment that Muslims are not strong and somebody else is ...Muslims believe that they supposed to rule the world and they are not...The Muslims never fight for real justice
The anti-Islamic trend is spreading because Islam is not just another religion , and Muslims--not just immigrants...Islam has an imperialistic agenda to impose itself with its primitive full of hate garbage on all, and Muslims immigrants more like invaders , they want to change the host countries to Islamic ones ...
this is a bit of a joke, so we in the west should give musims unequal representation simply because they are of a minorty faith? well in most every muslim nation being a nonmuslim means that you are a officially recognized second class citizen, they have special taxes just for not being a muslim, they will not allow other religious groups to entire sites that were sacred to them 600yrs before Mohammmad even was born.
really intellectual muslims need to be up front about the hypocrisy
if we talked about politics you would probably call me a liberal...and you might disagree with all of my views on religion...
but i completely agree, this is PC nonsense. Islam is antithetical to freedom. basically what i am saying is I agree, we are not being honest about Islam.
Im not trying to play politics here, but whether its Bush saying bullshit like Islam is a religion of peace or Obamas saying the same shit and to "reach out." to the muslim world. Fuck Islam...
I argue that the doctrine of Islam is inherently murderous and crazy...
Free speech and Islam cannot co-exist as it is against Islam to even question or revise itself...
Muslims that are "peaceful" are only peaceful because they are forced by secularism, science and modernity to disregard much of what is in the quran and hadith...
Yep, its total BS. Im not sure if the Real news types would ever take up arms against Islam, in defense of the very values which they claim to hold.
you've never lived in a muslim country before uh? I've spent time in Turkey. Let me tell you. Only the extreme elements who want islamic sharia imposed on the population are pretty much the rejects of Turkey XD... Seeing that Turkey is a secular society. Very strong secularism. Thanks to Ataturk :D
sorry if I offended but I think it is time is this world to lead by example, lay down our arms and just live together not fighting and killing but just excepting the other person for who they are.
it's ok and i know how you feel but those people are hiding beyond the religion and who helping them the u.s.a government because of their bad policy , i am a muslim from GUINEA(west Africa)but my friend they don't teach us to kill or insult somebody, i can walk by you ,you never gonna know if i am muslim or not...please open your eyes go back from the time of the indian or the slavery , it is the same thing is going on here. thank you
It became respectable when the Muslim faith refused to make that big leap into democracy, racial and sexual equality. They must move from the 15th century into the 21st century. Now, not tomorrow!
I dont like labels...and it may seem contradictory...but i hold to libertarian or progressive ideas...
fuck all religion...fuck islam...fuck the prophet mohammed...
read these books and find out why they do the things they do.
its not a perversion of any kind. its right there in the text. in summary islam is basically convert, subjugate or kill the entire world. question it and you die...
there can be no freedom without free speech. islam is the antithesis of freedom...
furthermore, the only reason judaism and christianity have been moderated is because of great people that have used reason to render most of the nonsense in these books unteneble....islam needs a reformation or it needs to be destroyed before it destroys us...
i know some may say im parroting Hitchens or Harris, but thats essentially what their ideas are for...to kill bad ideas with reason. And religion is one of our worst ideas...
Islam is Fascism. Sharia Law is a collection of dark age barbaric rules that Islam wants to enforce, open your eyes.
globalchaos1984 1 year ago
3:11 So what. So a Christian Europe can't be represented by the interest of Europeans, they have to bow down to foreign interests. Muslims the go to western Europe go there by their own free will knowing that Europe is white and Christian. I don't hear this guy complaining about the lack of Christian representation in Arab lands.
And by the way, I'm an atheist.
This whole "real" news network is just a joke, a leftist joke.
FreeAgentXIII 1 year ago
ok mister "atheist" idiot...
If you don't know anything about the christian representation in the "Arab land", then you better not "assume" it's lacking and say nonsense that only makes look like a fool.
I'm a Muslim Arab living in the "Arab land" and every day I meet a christian, every few days I'm in a church or a chapel for Christians in here. They don't seem to lack representation. Stop speaking crap like that if you don't know what facts are. Arab land is not only Saudi Arabia. Idiot!!!!
FireFlyWW 1 year ago
Islam is a plight upon civilisation. Like fascism. I don't see the harm in suppressing it through social pressure.
Neweddy24 1 year ago
you mean Islam is civilization and fascism is suppression through social pressure. You are there for a fascist whom does not like living in a civilization.
hardyk1 1 year ago 4
Practicing Muslims should be discouraged through social pressure and alienation. Just like Neo-Nazis, fascists, and other religious deviants like the West Borough Baptist nuts.
Neweddy24 1 year ago
@Neweddy24 Didn't Islam bring us algebra?Look how Muslims treated Christians during the Crusades and then compare that to how Christians treated Muslims when the tables turned.The extremists who blow crap up aren't practicing the Muslim faith any more than Tomothy McVeigh,Jim Jones, or David Koresh followed Christianity.
IWLocal8 1 year ago
Yeah so, since we already put up with one denomination of religious idiots why not just pile another one on. I know that the majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. I don't really care about that. They should be excluded from our society for believing in a dogma of oppression and repression. So should Christians for that matter, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Neweddy24 1 year ago
@Neweddy24 "Excluded from our society"???
I take it you're not a fan of the US Constitution.(specifically the 1st Ammendment)Sorry to read that.
IWLocal8 1 year ago
sanction israel
marniespeaks 2 years ago
The Muslim nations have no international voice or power because of the actions taken by the Colonial powers to split them up into small feuding states. The British Imperial Empire had this all as part of their plan to exploit resources.
klard 2 years ago
Oh shut the fuck up Akturk, how many times can Bush say "we are not at war with Islam" before you get it? He was at war with people who happened to be Muslim, and a LOT of the conservatives do hate Muslims inherently, but Bush is not a hate-filled racist. He's an idiot, and he doesn't use his brain to think analytically about anything, but he isn't a bigot.
I'm a liberal, but SHUT THE FUCK UP. Morocco and Indonesia are Muslim, how are they supposed to be part of a "Muslim World" FAIL
Craigipedia 2 years ago
He was at war with people who happened to be not at war with usa. you can't tell with a straight face that the iraqis or the afghan people were at war with or had animosity towards usa or americans. had these countries been culturally closer to the average white american would there be so much popular support for attacking afghanistan and iraq over absolutely no shred of evidence that either gov't supported or took part in planning the 9-11 attacks ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
well, the war in Afghanistan is different. The taliban DID provide safe-harbor to terrorists, whether or not you think that warfare itself is the efficient or effective solution is irrelevant. Our government DID think it was useful and the people were behind it. But Americans were totally ready to invade Europe following 9-11. There were marches in the streets to literally fight France's opposition to our wars. [continued]
Craigipedia 2 years ago
taleban wasn't involved in 9-11... they were on the payroll of the european and american gov'ts in exchange for policing drug (heroine) production. They wouldn't have been so stupid to bite the arm that fed them.
ufster81 2 years ago
the truth is someone has led the stupid american masses to believe that the average muslim is a nutjob who is a threat to the world and this made it all so easy to turn a blind eye to the sufferings of these people... the media in the usa was so biased they just reported civilian casualties as if it's they are just numbers to be crunched when the truth was 5 year old children were treated in ill equipped hospitals for burns that made it impossible for their parents to recognize their own kids.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
[continued]
all I'm saying is it's intellectually lazy to say "we fought them cuz their Muslim". How many Muslim countries is the U.S actively not fight? All of them [save for Iraq and Afghanistan]. Saudi Arabia is one of our closest allies (unfortunately), we have intricate dealings with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Morocco is a popular tourist attraction, and even Iraq is officially our ally. it's about geopolitics and resources, not religion. If Europe had oil, we'd fight them
Craigipedia 2 years ago
I get your point but aside from that what really upsets me as a human being was the lack of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that were killed, wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, raped and abused in many other ways. All this happened in a nation claiming to be a moral authority on human rights and freedom, a nation that has turned 180 degrees at the face of slightest of fears. And the easiest way out is to blame bush/cheney and whitewash the american people...
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
I don't support the wars at all, I don't support warfare of any kind. But most people do, and for most people Afghanistan was still justified. Iraq was total bullshit, but it was all about making money, and the American people are very poorly educated and taught to worship a flag (yeah, like the Nazis).
Honestly, on 9-12-01 we should have said "fuck yourself" and rebuilt, instead we didn't, and now the whole world is a goddamn mess
Craigipedia 2 years ago
if I were to make a list of who to blame for this mess, usa would end up somewhere in the middle. the middle eastern countries have a lot of issues that aren't caused by the west and to blame usa for these issues would be to defend the people who are responsible for them.
but this war, thus the instability and injustice of it has played so much into the hands of the radical muslims, I can't stop to think whether it's intentions were to prevent attacks on americans rather than instigate them.
ufster81 2 years ago
sorry, reverse that last sentence so that it reads
"instigate attacks on americans rather than prevent them"
now it should make sense.
ufster81 2 years ago
As the story goes, the Taliban bit the hand that fed them when they refused to hand over the leaders of the plot.
I agree with Craigipedia, no nationality has a monopoly on xenophobia and Fear is a powerful tool. since no special allocations had to be made to attack Iraq, compassion wasn't as potent an issue as fear of another attack.
more attacks on the US would lead to more power for those who seek more wars so ... radicals on both side win. That's what they want.
smg1one 2 years ago
refused to hand over ? when the fuck were they asked after 9-11 ? oh right, they weren't.
I don't recall negotiations with taleban after 9-11, only press conferences. plus, none of the men involved in 9-11 were afghans, were residing in afghanistan or evidence to suggest they were al-qaeda members was presented to the taleban. any legitimate gov't of any sovereign country would act the way the taleban did at the face of pure allegations. would you hand over us citizens on mere accusations ?
ufster81 2 years ago
a simple question.
can you ask a gov't that is up until 9-11 considered a legitimate one, to hand over people based in their country without having the diplomatic decency to share any evidence so that they have more than your word to rely on ?
with a little empathy, you would understand that international relations shouldn't be forced down people's throats unilaterally anytime a stronger country asks a smaller one to do as told. you see, afghans and iraqis have respect for themselves too.
ufster81 2 years ago
these are my final words on the post 9-11 world related issues. I can't agree with the mindset of the people who claim to hold higher values than others, consider themselves civilized and yet have no issues acting as hypocrites when faced with fear or inconveniences.
if you believe in your values, it shouldn't matter to you whether the person you deal with shares them or not, in order for you to treat them according to your values. yes, terrorists are evil people, should you be one too ?
ufster81 2 years ago 3
supposedly, between 9-11-01 and 10-7-01 the W Bush administration spent time trying to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and his associates.
weather they were Afghan or not is irrelevant since they were in Afghanistan.
I don't know that OBL ever claimed to not be a member of al-qaeda or not to have sanctioned the attacks on 9-11.
the US extradite suspected criminals to foreign countries all the time.
smg1one 2 years ago
there are many technicalities to extradition and a president threatening another country with destruction isn't one of them...
death penalty, political crimes, possibility of an unfair trial etc. all factor in when extraditing criminals and it's not an automated process as you present it to be. why would you expect afghanistan to just hand you over anyone you wish unless you make a case for it first especially when in US all extradition is subject to review by US courts ?
ufster81 2 years ago
yes, a nation can ask another nation to hand over suspected criminals without providing "sufficient" evidence and negotiations can be started to work out the terms of the transfer (Not that Bush ever had any intent to do anything other than go to war).
the attack on Iraq was unilateral, the attack on Afghanistan had the support of NATO the UN and Afghanistan's neighbors including Iran, showing that the Taliban didn't have too many nations in the world considering it a legitimate government.
smg1one 2 years ago
they can ask but then they shouldn't be surprised to hear no for an answer especially when they are threatening the other nation which is as clear a violation of sovereignty as it can get as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. I'm sure you wouldn't have such an interference by use of military threat from any other country. why should you expect less of anyone else ?
ufster81 2 years ago
the mindset of ppl that have no issue acting as hypocrites when it suits their needs is a universal one. Every nation on Earth has exhibited the tendency and Fear weather it be of Islam or of the US is a powerful political tool.
In the case of values, Fear isn't about treating others according to your values its about getting ppl to throw their values out the window for the sake of security.
smg1one 2 years ago
the point is no other nation claims to the moral high ground in international relations to this degree except for united states. and somehow, through propaganda perhaps, this naive thought of being morally superior is carved into the heads of the americans and this helps look the other way at the sight of horrible crimes committed on other nations. it's as if somehow all these murders, rapes, cases of torture etc. can be justified as easily as that, or worse denied because of this mentality.
ufster81 2 years ago
All other nations claim the moral high ground in international relations, its a bi-product of having a foreign policy.
No one was surprised that the Taliban refused to do what the UN called on them to do and no one was surprised when the NATO alliance declared war on the Taliban government.
It has nothing to do with moral superiority for the majority of ppl it has to do with being busy with their own lives. The fact that ppl in uniforms commit crimes doesn't mean we find it justifiable.
smg1one 2 years ago
no other nation uses that excuse as internal policy to justify plotting and executing coups, policing the world and starting wars all around the globe; since world war 2, there is korea, vietnam, most of south america, libya, iraq, afghanistan just to name a few.
united states is not a source of stability for the world, it has done more harm than good following an interventionist international policy and destabilized large parts of the world single-handedly.
ufster81 2 years ago
Since WWII China has gone to war with India, India has gone to war with Pakistan, Yugoslavia tore itself to pieces, Russia went to war with Kosovo and Georgia, Somalia fought a civil war, the Sudan has been in conflict, the 6 day war between Israel and the middle east took place while the US did little more than watch...
I'm not saying the US has clean hands I'm just saying Human Conflict is not some US conspiracy dropped on an otherwise peaceful world.
smg1one 2 years ago
you get to simplify military intervention and the military justice system, I get to simplify the extradition process.
another principle of sovereignty is that every nation has the responsibility to protect those within their borders and the NATO alliance believed it had the authority to attack the Taliban government in pursuit of that goal.
Does any other "Islamic" nation rank higher on the list that Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Does brainwashing just explain all the ills of the world?
smg1one 2 years ago
I believe your simplification didn't accurately describe the process and could easily be interpreted as a justification of military intervention which is the main point of discussion. NATO is not the ultimate council on truth and fairness...It doesn't have authority on anything but it's own decisions.
Decisions made by a bunch of countries forming an alliance to pursue the interests of it's members can't be referred as if they are worthy of recognition unless you believe might makes right.
ufster81 2 years ago
When China threatens to use force against Taiwan or Tibet or when Russia invades its smaller neighbors, when Pakistan and India face off over Kashmir is that US manipulation?
Nations have conflicts, that's why they have militaries. The US has caused a few in its history and will cause more in the future but no more than the Ottomans or British or any future global power.
No international law is legitimate unless it is enforceable, so for better or worse for now might does make .... in charge.
smg1one 2 years ago
Thank you for proving my point that USA, when unveiled of it's civilization bringing, democracy singing, moral superiority pretending mask of hypocrisy... is a destructive bully that is a threat to world peace.
To accept what you call "Law" is to accept that it actually isn't, that there is no actual international law which determines right from wrong, only one that determines weak from the powerful... When there is no law, there is no "right" by which USA can claim righteousness.
ufster81 2 years ago
My point is moral superiority has nothing to do with it lol
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were about fear not benevolence. National leaders would have been found derelict of their responsibility had we not invaded Afghanistan but Iraq was unnecessary.
There is no international law aside from treaties and international norms, but there are no cops to call if someone breaks international norms.
All Politicians claim "righteousness", notice I said might equals responsible not right
smg1one 2 years ago
My problem as mentioned before isn't just with the weak justification of wars, but how the wars are fought. Carpet bombing a city full of people, drone attacks in densely populated areas, torture, rape, pillaging etc. even when disclosed is received with most indifferent attitude by the american people ? what creates this bloodthirsty flocks of people ? my opinion is all the self-righteousness pumped through the propaganda machine that claims moral superiority on the basis of being american.
ufster81 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a clean, humanitarian or civilized war ... war is never pretty. You don't ask ppl to go out and kill ppl but be nice about it.
It has nothing to do with moral inferiority complexes... it has nothing to do with moral superiority ... a few ppl feel superior no matter what but that's just life
It has to do with our responsibility to get out without leaving things worse than when we went in and to be more responsible with power rather than react in fear.
smg1one 2 years ago
There are many ways to fight wars. All the horrors carried out by americans were carried out on purpose and were easily preventable.
Raping of male iraqi prisoners were done to discourage resistance as americans knew that for middle eastern men it's very humiliating to be raped.
Cities were carpet bombed so with each day passed as the civilians suffered there was an increasing chance of revolt against Saddam.
Pillaging iraqi artifacts done to destroy national recollection etc.
the list goes on
ufster81 2 years ago
SERIOUSLY!
Is there someone out there that really enjoys being imprisoned and raped?!
These weren't war plans these were lack of discipline, training and the fact that war is hell and death and most ppl cant handle it.
Several Female US service personal have been raped, is that some military strategy to keep them obedient or something?
Carpet Bombing leaves wastelands not hollowed out buildings ... nobody cared about revolts against Saddam by the time troops entered Baghdad.
smg1one 2 years ago
it's well known that us troops used rape systematically to discourage people from joining the resistance. there are even reports of children being raped to make their parents reveal information. I'm appalled that you find this amusing but whatever, you obviously don't think it's a big deal unless it happens in your country to your white altar boys.
Whatever way you try to describe it, bombing of civilian populated areas were done for one reason, to create disgruntlement among iraqi population
ufster81 2 years ago
I can tell you if some soldiers raped me and left me alive the first thing I would do is join the resistance and blow up every mother.... thing I can get my hands on... but if Muslims somehow respond differently that's new to me...
Its done to KILL PEOPLE ... that's the goal of WAR not to hurt feelings or create "disgruntlement"
I could give a .... crap about a white alter boy
They rape because their cowards with guns not because someone ordered them to do it.
smg1one 2 years ago
flies right over your head doesn't it ?
rape is discouraging people who are likely to join a resistance group. they fear such a possible outcome in case of capture and weigh in the social death and humiliation they would suffer as a result and are discouraged from joining resistance groups. that is the most simple way one can be explained so I'm sorry if you don't get it this time.
ufster81 2 years ago
there is something wrong with you
you do realize your arguing for the military efficacy of rape as a weapon right?
So if that's the great US war plan and it works so well why is crap still exploding 8 years later?
smg1one 2 years ago
I did not say it was a great plan, I said it was their plan and it obviously backfired along with many of other plans in iraq and afghanistan. These people being stupid or mistaken takes nothing away from the fact that they are immoral.
ufster81 2 years ago
"immoral" ... you love a good understatment don't ya?
Gee... I wonder what base teaches soldiers to rape ppl
smg1one 2 years ago
the same base that trains pilots to drop agents of all colors under the rainbow in vietnam that still to this date continue to cause horrible birth defects.
ufster81 2 years ago
funny ...
but all the pilot has to do is fly and push a button just as they would with a bomb ...but I guess that's applicable since all the rapist has to do is thrust.
So its not all Americans are Evil its all Americans are Idiots?
smg1one 2 years ago
push a button.... knowing that it delivers a lethal poison which is designed o kill all the crops of the vietnamese causing mass starvation and many other side effects such as birth defects...
morally, there isn't much of a difference between the two so they might as well be the product of the same system.
ufster81 2 years ago
were back at you arguing for the military effectiveness of rape you know that right?
and making them morally equivalent witch kinda puts a lie to the "different ways to fight a war" argument you had earlier...
what is this "real men don't use airplanes in war"?
smg1one 2 years ago
actually we had that argument and I have told you about three times that not being effective is not an excuse for not being immoral, it's just insult to injury on behalf of americans.
It's like you beat your kid to do his homework and you argue it's not immoral as long as he's flunking.
delivering chemical weapons is immoral, so it's not different, it's the same dirty way to fight the war. i guess, the us army/navy/air force hasn't learned much since vietnam on ethics of war.
ufster81 2 years ago
forget effectiveness and morality its illegal ... and that's a pretty big step considering war is by definition the absence of law
There is no clean way to fight a war ... and if you plan to kill your kid rather than educate them beatings would be very effective
chemical weapons were to clear the foliage so they could aim the bombs better and kill PEOPLE
smg1one 2 years ago
there is war and there is brutality.
to kill a man who's intent on killing you is very easily justifiable. self-preservation, when options are absolutely clear, is one law of nature we all have the right to follow. bombing a military base, for the same reason, is justifiable.
bombing the villagers, who raise crops for consumption in the military base on the other hand, is plain immoral. it's clear that you have to jump a logical hoop in order to equate villagers as people intent on killing you.
ufster81 2 years ago
that's the problem with war... its at best coordinated brutality.
The side that plays by the rules you outlined would lose and the survivors would be left at the will of the victor.
The supply chain is the first thing you cut off even if it means going to the source. At best you can convince the ppl to stop supplying the opposition or get the opposition to surrender without war... but if you can't do either of those... brutality wins
rape is cowardice and brutal but mostly cowardice.
smg1one 2 years ago
we have the geneva conventions and many other protocols that define many of the issues at hand, but then again, by simply not declaring war, united states side stepped all those quite conveniently.
usa vs iraq doesn't really fall into the category of the survivor-victor-mercy reasoning you defined anyway. firstly, the conventional war was fought only in iraqi soil, also iraq was clearly the much weaker side so it's not possible to chalk us crimes up to fear of consequences of losing the war.
ufster81 2 years ago
The US military doesn't fight to tie they fight to win. They don't drop bombs to disgruntle they drop bombs to kill and destroy
I don't think I said anything about mercy...
US vs Iraq was about fear not indifference...
W preempted congress and then dared them to cut funding for our soldiers in harms way so it was quite convenient
Notice our current President opposed that war from day one and opposed the resolution giving W authority to prepare for the invasion
smg1one 2 years ago
sorry that I have to pass on the opportunity to respond to any more posts since sunshine has just crept into my room and I haven't had any sleep yet, plus lines are getting blurrier by the minute.
anyway, despite our obvious differences, I must thank you for your time and for your input into this discussion.
my bed is calling for me... I must go now.
ufster81 2 years ago
sorry for keepin you up, it was a fun conversation we monopolized this post with lol
did get annoying at times but I think we have more in common than in difference... possibly...
I'm sure we can both agree that there are better ways to achieve national interests than war. As a christian I'd say, the cure for these Earthly conflicts is love.
(Matt 22: 37-40)
... but that's just me ...
smg1one 2 years ago
the next election cycle after the war in Iraq started the Democrats (Bush is a Republican) gained control of the US House and Senate
The next Presidential election America elected the Democrat that opposed the war in Iraq from the begining
smg1one 2 years ago
If the villagers are helping the opposition kill you its not that big of a hoop to jump through
but you don't rape or abuse the villagers for satanic purposes you cut them off from the opposition... sometimes its just taking out a bridge
smg1one 2 years ago
no they are helping the opposition survive. the distinction is clear. is a condom manufacturer responsible for helping rapists get away with their crimes if they wear condoms when they rape women ? if the logic of it requires just that extra step or loop to come to the conclusion that they do, it's not sound reasoning imho.
ufster81 2 years ago
it's even possible to kill priests in war with this logic.
priests provide moral support for our enemy troops thus helping the opposition to fight against us so it's ok to kill priests.
come to think of it, even actors and actresses that act in movies that boost morale of troops are fair game in war.
ufster81 2 years ago
Moral support is irrelevant if they don't have full bellies and weapons to fight with so unless the priest was offering sanctuary they wouldn't be a valid target but otherwise ... yah
The goal in war is not to aid the oppositions survival but to deprive them of it
There is no nice way or civilized way to do that other than to try to do it as little as possible
smg1one 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry about this one .. but, if the condom manufacturer (or supplier more likely) knew they were supplying known rapists with condoms wouldn't they be a bit culpable?
and wouldn't it be a good idea to cut off the rapists from the supply of condoms ... or victims?
like I said, the target could just be the bridge.
smg1one 2 years ago
Comment removed
smg1one 2 years ago
You do know the Army trains soldiers and the Air Force trains pilots right?
smg1one 2 years ago
they both have "US" in front of their names, right ?
ufster81 2 years ago
that's why they call them suicide bombers genius! They get to wipe away all that social death and humiliation in one last act of vengeance!
Helping your enemy get weapons to kill more of your soldiers is not a sound military policy!
smg1one 2 years ago
no it's not... read one post above.
i recall seeing GWB saying the war is won and over many years ago ?
do you suggest these people are incapable of misjudgment with one of such epic proportion still in our recollection ????
ufster81 2 years ago
GWB was a blowhard politician ... the criminals that violated the code of military conduct were criminals... the soldiers that did their job and still did things that would be criminal in a state of peace deserve a little more respect than to just assume they're all evil idiots...
they may have told someone they were raping ppl to weaken their resolve but they were actually just evil bastard criminals.
If they were acting on illegal orders then the orders should have been refused
smg1one 2 years ago
the fact remains and that is the only thing that matters -the facts- that rape was used as a weapon of war and no hypothetical argument on the benefits or therelackof can change this. Have you wondered why Abu Ghraib photos of actual rapes etc. were never released ?
anyway, the only question you have to answer is "are you morally ok with this ?".
ufster81 2 years ago
Because the vast majority of Americans don't like looking at pictures of ppl being raped...
guess that explains the moral superiority thing cus I don't even have to consider asking myself that question, I already know the answer.
Its a violation of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice and it just adds more pointless evil to the occasionally necessary evil of war
smg1one 2 years ago
they might not like to look at them like they don't like to look at how cows are processed into burgers but I don't think people eating burgers mind cows being slaughtered so long as it's done at some place they don't see.
likewise, not liking to see rape isn't the same as being supportive of / indifferent to it as long as you think it's serving you a benefit.
ufster81 2 years ago
and you don't consider that evil?
you kinda disturb, me you know that? ... just a little bit...
smg1one 2 years ago
you miss the point. I am arguing that people "can" tend to turn a blind eye to the harshness of reality when it's working in their favor.
so you shouldn't argue americans not wanting to see the abu ghraib photos as an indication of their moral values. if you didn't intend to make that argument, I apologize for misunderstanding.
ufster81 2 years ago
I was getting kinda short so it coulda been a miscommunication
... My point was most (not all, there are sick ppl in the world) Americans don't need to see abuses in order to realize abuses are being committed
What we want after that is for the criminals to be punished, the abuses to end and the UCMJ to be followed and applied according to the civilized rules we try to run our wars by.
We hold ourselves to high standards and fall short often ... but raping as policy is pure unsanctioned Evil
smg1one 2 years ago
lets put things into perspective then...
the people whom americans have trusted twice as representatives of their will, effectively defined torture as a legal method of extracting information. the knowledge of this was public, everybody could learn about it, so none of the nazi german defense of "we didn't know" applies here.
does this or does this not reflect on the morality of the american people when their democratically elected government is officially supporting torture ?
ufster81 2 years ago
"we didn't know" never applied ...
There's a reason the Republicans were wiped from power in '08 but with a two party political system we didn't have many better options to work with (trust me it was pretty sad).
The government doesn't officially support torture though a few politicians still do.
Torture is still a violation of the UCMJ I keep referring to.
Were a bit like Iran... one party wants to hand more power to the CIA while the other wants to strengthen the FBI. Fear vs Law
smg1one 2 years ago
they actually have the authority and responsibility to refuse orders that violate the code of military conduct though cowards often don't act on that authority or responsibility
That's what happened in Iraq ... that's what happens anywhere in the world at any point in time and its not unique to Americans
smg1one 2 years ago
so as long as it's not unique to americans, it's all right...
is it so difficult to take a moral stand when it goes against nationalistic pride ?
ufster81 2 years ago
yahhhh that's exactly what I'm sayin un-huh suuuure
taking a moral stand when it goes against national pride? no wait, lets be productive and blame all the worlds problems on America in stead
smg1one 2 years ago
quite amazing how you jumped to that conclusion from my comment...
blaming America for problems caused in Iraq by American soldiers isn't remotely connected to the vague generalization that you portray in your straw man argument, is it ???
ufster81 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oh no I went back for that argument :)
"united states is not a source of stability for the world, it has done more harm than good following an interventionist international policy and destabilized large parts of the world single-handedly."
just ran it to a plausible conclusion
smg1one 2 years ago
the "shock and aww" thing was about cutting off Saddam from command and control not inspiring ppl to rise up on the streets of Iraq against Saddam no matter what Bush said... ppl don't climb out of bomb shelters to overthrow dictators when their nation is under attack.
smg1one 2 years ago
yeah, baghdad was full of bomb shelters, right. this is a borderline stupid argument.
what's so difficult to understand, haven't you read a single page of ww2 history ?
you bomb to destroy infrastructure, you bomb to create terror among civilians, all of this in turn causes people to be disgruntled so they either revolt against their leadership or are less likely to resist the occupation as their will would be mostly broken. these are similar to ancient siege tactics kids know about...
ufster81 2 years ago
you obviously aren't reading a word I'm typing ....
Bombs don't disgruntle ppl they kill ppl ... generals dont make war plans that disgruntle ppl they make war plans that KILL PEOPLE
... ...
smg1one 2 years ago
constant fear created by bombings -they specifically change the times of bombings and leave a day off etc. so people can't adjust to when and how the bombings will occur, so their minds can't create some sort of order amidst the chaos o adjust to it-, lack of clean water, medical supplies, food etc. all contribute to create massive disgruntlement among the people of the literally under-siege city.
please read on civil war of yugoslavia, there are some great examples of this bombing psychology.
ufster81 2 years ago
the correct term is "terror bombing"... please read on this if you haven't already.
ufster81 2 years ago
ok ...bull shit man bull shit... cut the P.C. semantic mess lol you're just trying to tick me off lol
smg1one 2 years ago
Yugoslavia was about ethnic cleansing .. duh
They WANTED TO KILL EVERYBODY!
Disgruntlement was NOT the GOAL
smg1one 2 years ago
read about terror bombings in yugoslavia of the bosnian cities by the serbs. it wasn't about killing, it was about demoralizing and terrorizing the bosnian people of sarajevo.
ufster81 2 years ago
because what the Serbs wanted at the end was peaceful coexistence right? What was the Ethnic Cleansing about?
smg1one 2 years ago
You seem to have this idea that Americans are somehow inherently Evil... whats that about?
smg1one 2 years ago
evil is not the right word... selfish and immoral would be my primary choices. selfish in that they must get what they want and immoral in that they don't really care how they get it.
it's understandable as your social and economic system is designed to breed selfish and immoral people to create more capital but not so much excusable as in the case with iraq and the treatment of iraqis.
ufster81 2 years ago
and to answer your question on "islamic" countries, despite the question being completely irrelevant unless you have scientific proof of how the majority religion in any society effects the Human Development Index ... anyway, here are the statistics.
HDI - Turkey 79, Bosnia 76, Albania 70, Malaysia 66, Oman 56, Libya 55, UAE 35, Qatar 33, Kuwait 31, Brunei 30,
that should do it.
ufster81 2 years ago
The relevance of the question was that the video referred to Islamic representation in the forums of global leadership and since Turkey still ranks at the top of the list you sited it seems like they should count as a leader in the world.
But just like any other power in the world they get no respect so ... I guess it is pointless lol
smg1one 2 years ago
it's at the bottom of the list among the countries I mentioned.
all this militarization, all this ultra-nationalistic ideologies attached to social darwinist enlightenment era fantasies have brought nothing but misery to the citizens of turkey. we starve to feed an oversized army while people die in thousands because of poorly constructed buildings in earthquakes that the japanese would laugh at.
ufster81 2 years ago
Comment removed
smg1one 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what is it like a golf* score? 79 is lower than 30 on the HDI?
You just described the condition of the entire world
I bet there are even Japanese (who have some pretty darn sophisticated infrastructure) who would say the same thing you just said in reverse.
smg1one 2 years ago
ah I see now... yah, you shoulda listed those in order lol
I havn't paid too much attention to the HDI lately
smg1one 2 years ago
that's not ideal its just the way it is ...
ideal would be for the world to give up on war as a tool of statecraft and litigate their conflicts before some authorized body that everyone trusts... but do you see Israel and Palestine sitting down before a court any time soon?
The US navy has a responsibility to patrol the global sea lanes because it has the capability ... might makes responsible
things get worse when Americans say "we don't care about the world, we just want security"
smg1one 2 years ago
stop re-living post WW2 glory days and you can see that things are actually better when US isn't involved in shaping the world according to it's corporate needs. we don't want no more wars destabilizing middle east to secure oil pipelines for american consumption half-way across the globe.
ufster81 2 years ago
When Americans say "we just want security", we tend to give those corporate needs full sway over our diplomatic and military power.
Wars destabilize oil supply and make the price of oil go up and American oil companies more profitable ...
You want the American electorate paying attention and the military of the US being used to maintain stability rather than spread democracy .. there are no post WWII glory days
Democracy is spread diplomatically not military. The interventions are about Fear
smg1one 2 years ago
On another topic, Turkey is a member of NATO (the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen) and Turkey and Saudi Arabia are members of the G-20 witch is replacing the G-8 as a forum for global leadership.
However, to listen to these guys those two nations just don't seem to matter much in global affairs.
smg1one 2 years ago
don't get me started on Turkey... turks are a useless, brainwashed, self-centered nation. it's hopeless to teach this old dog new tricks. the same self-righteous mentality which leads refusal to accept and deal with the truth has ensured that Turkey stayed as a poor, ignorant, paranoid country isolated from europe and disliked by all of it's neighboring states. turkey ranks as 50 in Qual.of Life , and as 79 in Human Devel. index which says a lot more than a G-20 membership for turkish citizens.
ufster81 2 years ago
There's a reason there is no Muslim great power... they have no resources, and the only country that could potentially be one (Iran) is a dilapidated authoritarian theocracy.
Craigipedia 2 years ago
I'm glad our world leaders realize that Muslim ideology needs to be suppressed. Hopefully they can still save Europe.
Neweddy24 2 years ago
The Palestinians sure could have used some Arab/Muslim representation in the Security Council when the Israelis began their butchery in Gaza Dec-08/Jan-09, euphemistically called Operation Cast Lead. Not that the Israelis would have been deterred by any UN sanction mind you. They never will be as long as their accomplice, the US, blindly supports them.
btw Paul spare us the paranoia mongering with the debunked government narrative about Al-Quaida terrorism. No one with half a mind believes it.
rfalfonse 2 years ago 4
Ha, look at that Turk talking about ending genocides and stopping killings -- how ironic!
martinkun167 2 years ago
I would hope that you would be against genocide and killing in general. What country do you reside in? Unless your country is void of any hatred towards others, which would be extremely unlikely, the irony applies to you also.
Your statement is wrong on so many levels, and counterproductive.
Always look in the mirror first.
Quadcam 2 years ago
Haha, I'm sorry that you dont know about the quarrels of other peoples.
I'm by no means condoning genocide or any killings -- on the contrary, I made that comment precisely because my people are trying to get THEIR genocide recognized by the country that perpetrated it. Just look up Ottoman history, and you'll know what I mean.
martinkun167 2 years ago
does the ottoman empire exist anymore? i thought it was wiped out sometimes after wwI turkey was founded in 1923 or something like that. Armenians should be happy that the nation the did the alleged genocide are now extinct, they try to wipe you out but in turn they were wiped out. if it anything, the ottoman empire was made up of Egypt, Syria parts of Saudi Arabia parts of Jordon, Palestine, Lebanon and Armenian, why not mad at everyone? i'm sure they all had a part in it, right?
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
thanks for driving my point across mate! Most religions are like this, and that is the reason why they are so widely practiced to this day. Anyway tatsu-san have a good day and oyasuminasai!! I assume you are nihonjin right?
lordblazer 2 years ago
hahah you should check out my profile, im white guy lol but live in Indonesia and my wife and family are Indonesian. i used to be able to speak ok nipongo, but now its no good i had to learn when i was an aikibudoka with the jiyushinkai long time ago it seems haha, we did everything in japanese when we were on the mat, outside the dojo we could speak how ever we want but inside it was nipon haha
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
True, it was made up of different regions. However, the government was in Turkey, and it was committed mostly out of Turkish nationalism and supremacism. The modern state of Turkey should at least recognize this -- much like Germany recognizes the Holocaust, even though today it may not be an empire nor a Nazi state.
As a governing body, you must, to a certain extent, bear the responsibility of the history of your nation -- even if it may be hard to swallow.
martinkun167 2 years ago
ummmm Turkish died during that time too. I don't think yu understand the history of it. The Ottoman empire was weak, and it was quite literally their last war. You had huge amounts of deaths on both sides. Armineans living in IStanbul and other big cities weren't forced out. Attrocities happen, and I don't think any gov't can condemn it until they apologize for the bullshit they did in history especially the US gov't. genocide of natives, and enslavement of africans.
lordblazer 2 years ago
Do you realize that your last sentence made no damn sense? Perhaps you could proofread before posting ;-)
I agree with the rest of your comment, except for the part about atrocities happening on both sides, because what the ottomans did to the Armenians was a calculated and an organized campaign of extermination; Armenians WERE forced out of cities/villages en mass (especially in Eastern Turkey) on death marches into the Syrian desert.
martinkun167 2 years ago
thank you for your replay after posting i thought to my self, "doh,going to have to go thou all the hate mail in the morning" my main point was that the event happen almost 100 years ago, the "saviors" were infants or vary small children at the time, the people that would have given the orders and thous who carried them out are now long dead. there no one left to take the blame, as for Turkey taking the blame it would be like Canada taking the blame for the us atomic bombing of japan in ww2
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
Thats faulty logic. The Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey are not the same as Can. and US. It was in Turkey that the Ott. gov't, was centralized, and from where the same Turkish nationalism/supremacism had emerged (which is still TODAY a part of Turkish society and politics), that had in turn been responsible for the genocide.
Let me give you a better comparison:if Turkey denies, it would be like the UK denying all the actions that it had been responsible for when it was an empire 150 years ago.
martinkun167 2 years ago
the republic of turkey and the ottomans had completely different government setups, the ottomans were a religious state were as the republic of turkey is secular to almost an extreme level. the culture was also different. i used example USA and Canada because both were fighting on the same side in ww2 and the cultures are similar if u see a Canadian and an American u could not real tell the difference.
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
I would never hurt anyone and defend with my life there right to freedom of religion.
Peace will overcome.
Th2EyA0rEa1MoN2gUs 2 years ago
It's funny that the Western World tends to support the fundamentalists in the Muslim/Arab world. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. All run by Religiously convicted psychopaths
darkriver29 2 years ago
Anti-Islam propaganda today is a GOD send for the Media to sell more papers and make money. Instead of identifying the causes of tension which exist in the Muslim world, the media like to equate everything to everything being religiously driven. Apartheid Israel would never survive politcally if they were killing just Brown people without a religion.
darkriver29 2 years ago
what some people don't really understand is that Islam is not just a faith, its a complete way of life, dealing with everything from when we wake up till we go to sleep. in Islam we have a state, its a universal state we call it "Ummah" every Muslim is a members of this Ummah. 1 out of 4 human beings on earth are Muslims that's about 1.5 billion Muslims and generally speaking there is no representation of this large group of people, image what we could do if we were organized :D
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
Shintoism is a complete way of life too.
lordblazer 2 years ago
@lordblazer, there are a lots of "faiths" that are not just faith but a ways of life, even Judaism can be called a way of life, it has laws and rules dealing with most of the things we do as human being. Islam is same, we have rights and limits on Everything we do in life, name something there is a rule about it :p now to have to believes of there way of life to fallow there rules is a different thing altogether :/
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
you haven't met many moderate and progressive muslims uh? they exist just like christians who aren't conservative or far right looneys.
lordblazer 2 years ago
Actually, 750 million are Muslims and the other 750 million are oppressed female slaves
neverindoubt 2 years ago
@neverindoub, my wife is a muslimah and she is far from oppressed did you know women in the USA was given the right to vote only about 50-60 years ago? and Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago, that is just on example if your making a comment about the scarf, are Orthodox christian women oppressed? how about Jewish women or nuns? are they oppressed to? if its about rights, women have more rights then men do in Islam, if you really care, you can msg me and we can talk :D
tatsukogarasu 2 years ago
Are you blaming the voters for oppressing your right to free speech, or YouTube for enacting the rule that x many negative votes will in fact censor it?
I think it's rather silly to criticize people for voicing their disagreement with you. Wouldn't that be the real crime against freedom of speech?
dopplesoldners 2 years ago
I don't undrestand this man's argument: these organizations organize at the NATION-STATE level, not the religious one. Islam isn't one single STATE, hence it is incumbent upon them to prove such a theocratic nation-state to put forth TO the world-wide international community.
NwZ2 2 years ago
Who the fuck is this Turkish clown Serner Akturk?
God, this goes to show you can spew out total bullshit lies far faster than it takes to counter such crap.
robertmike57 2 years ago
I'm currently writing a thesis on this. Iraq was the last Middle Eastern country to aspire to the status of a great power - it was wealthy, it was powerful, it was secular, it had the highest standard of living in the region, its leaders were motivated by an ideology of pan-Arab solidarity especially when it came to Israel and Palestine, and it was prepared to defy imperialism. Now Iraq is utterly destroyed. And people wonder why some Arabs and Muslims are nostalgic for Saddam Hussein.
blackiron60 2 years ago 2
@BNPxTRUTH
one good thing about life----we all will get what we deserve...Liberals for being idiots and sell outs, Muslims --for being enemies of the West, Conservatives --for not being strong enough
Kbrt111 2 years ago
at around 10:00 mins what does he mean by the "traditional western controll over the mid east" the muslim ottoman empire was the most dominate force in the region up untill the first world war for centuries.
TheEvolver311 2 years ago
@TheEvolver311
the interview full of basic twists and Muslim lies...at the heart of it ---is simple envy and resentment that Muslims are not strong and somebody else is ...Muslims believe that they supposed to rule the world and they are not...The Muslims never fight for real justice
Kbrt111 2 years ago
@TheEvolver311
dont you think?
Kbrt111 2 years ago
and this fuck Muslim from California is twisting all...Europeans were supporting Christian Europe?? after we bomb the hell out of Serbia ????
Kbrt111 2 years ago
The anti-Islamic trend is spreading because Islam is not just another religion , and Muslims--not just immigrants...Islam has an imperialistic agenda to impose itself with its primitive full of hate garbage on all, and Muslims immigrants more like invaders , they want to change the host countries to Islamic ones ...
Kbrt111 2 years ago
Islam is a political ideology , totalitarian and backward----one day Islam will be treated fully as another Nazi ideology ...rightly so
Kbrt111 2 years ago
this is a bit of a joke, so we in the west should give musims unequal representation simply because they are of a minorty faith? well in most every muslim nation being a nonmuslim means that you are a officially recognized second class citizen, they have special taxes just for not being a muslim, they will not allow other religious groups to entire sites that were sacred to them 600yrs before Mohammmad even was born.
really intellectual muslims need to be up front about the hypocrisy
TheEvolver311 2 years ago 2
chill...
if we talked about politics you would probably call me a liberal...and you might disagree with all of my views on religion...
but i completely agree, this is PC nonsense. Islam is antithetical to freedom. basically what i am saying is I agree, we are not being honest about Islam.
Im not trying to play politics here, but whether its Bush saying bullshit like Islam is a religion of peace or Obamas saying the same shit and to "reach out." to the muslim world. Fuck Islam...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
Reaching out to Muslims that aren't shit brained murderous whackos is prudent,
If most Muslims weren't peaceful there'd be a lot more violence.
But this liberal guilt BS with these videos is a joke.
robertmike57 2 years ago
@robertmike57
it is Liberal BS
Kbrt111 2 years ago
I argue that the doctrine of Islam is inherently murderous and crazy...
Free speech and Islam cannot co-exist as it is against Islam to even question or revise itself...
Muslims that are "peaceful" are only peaceful because they are forced by secularism, science and modernity to disregard much of what is in the quran and hadith...
Yep, its total BS. Im not sure if the Real news types would ever take up arms against Islam, in defense of the very values which they claim to hold.
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
WoW the "real news" now supporting turkish hegemonial ambition.
The usual bullshit, but a little more stinky.
galuiot 2 years ago
BNP?
Your self-disqualifying, go away Nazi.
bulldogger 2 years ago
defending islam ?
im unsubbing
walkerda5nine 2 years ago
@walkerda5nine
no one cares...
0xTRX007 2 years ago 4
you've never lived in a muslim country before uh? I've spent time in Turkey. Let me tell you. Only the extreme elements who want islamic sharia imposed on the population are pretty much the rejects of Turkey XD... Seeing that Turkey is a secular society. Very strong secularism. Thanks to Ataturk :D
lordblazer 2 years ago 2
I think the question you should be asking is" How the Muslims have givin themselves a bad name?"
Th2EyA0rEa1MoN2gUs 2 years ago 3
u should rspect people view......how come you can insult our religion? you can said whatever you want, thats your opinion but don't insult....
nfally2007 2 years ago
sorry if I offended but I think it is time is this world to lead by example, lay down our arms and just live together not fighting and killing but just excepting the other person for who they are.
Th2EyA0rEa1MoN2gUs 2 years ago
it's ok and i know how you feel but those people are hiding beyond the religion and who helping them the u.s.a government because of their bad policy , i am a muslim from GUINEA(west Africa)but my friend they don't teach us to kill or insult somebody, i can walk by you ,you never gonna know if i am muslim or not...please open your eyes go back from the time of the indian or the slavery , it is the same thing is going on here. thank you
nfally2007 2 years ago
It became respectable when the Muslim faith refused to make that big leap into democracy, racial and sexual equality. They must move from the 15th century into the 21st century. Now, not tomorrow!
12quillemall5321 2 years ago 2
I dont like labels...and it may seem contradictory...but i hold to libertarian or progressive ideas...
fuck all religion...fuck islam...fuck the prophet mohammed...
read these books and find out why they do the things they do.
its not a perversion of any kind. its right there in the text. in summary islam is basically convert, subjugate or kill the entire world. question it and you die...
there can be no freedom without free speech. islam is the antithesis of freedom...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
furthermore, the only reason judaism and christianity have been moderated is because of great people that have used reason to render most of the nonsense in these books unteneble....islam needs a reformation or it needs to be destroyed before it destroys us...
i know some may say im parroting Hitchens or Harris, but thats essentially what their ideas are for...to kill bad ideas with reason. And religion is one of our worst ideas...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
u are a ass hole ..bastard
nfally2007 2 years ago
oh did i offend you? poor baby...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
@nfally2007 it would be an asshole...
Th2EyA0rEa1MoN2gUs 2 years ago