Amazon 7 #51 March 17, 2008 QuoteWhen I give talks on chemical terrorism, to be somewhat intentionally provocative (also helps make sure the audience is still awake ), I call it my personal vote for the most under-covered story of 2003 and semi-facetiously state that if Krar’s first name was “Ahmed” or “Mohammed” instead of "William," AG John Ashcroft would have been leading press conferences. That is the crux of the issue right there. With homegrown terrorists.. they are all fairly like minded to OTHER right wingers and I dont beleive this administration has been nearly as interested in watching THEIR activities. Its part of this administrations constituency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #52 March 17, 2008 QuoteWhile many around here may object to current occupant of the Oval Office (or the one prior to that or the possible next one), virtually none advocate overthrowing the government system (the Constitution) and governance by the rule of law (as opposed to theocracy or king). He may not say so in public.. but I am a firm believer in ACTIONS. The rule of law has been circumvented on MANY occasions by this administration...they are unwilling to accept oversight.. they have used the Patriot act in ways it was not intended.. and theri treatment of enemy combatants instead of as POW.. and the treatment of American citizens with surveillance is NOT what this country is suppossed to be about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #53 March 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteWe have lots of Christian extremists in the US, but that doesn't make them the majority of our population. No, it doesn't. In fact, you've now actually identified the real "tiny fraction". I’m not sure that the *per capita* number individuals willing to pursue politically or religiously motivated violence against civilians (i.e., terrorism) as a tactic is larger among one religious extremist group or another. I’d be very curious to see a comparative assessment. What happens to the *per capita* numbers if one starts to consider Irish-Americans supporting - tacitly and with direct financial contributions - the IRA and other Irish nationalist ‘resistance’ groups though the 1990s? Tacit support for terrorist tactics seems to be a possible major factor (independent variable). Hmmm? There's also a different calculus when considering domestic vs external attacks -- attacks that hurt/injure/kill one's neighbors or threaten one's economic prosperity are more often met with descrease in tacit &/or direct support, e.g., as was the case in North Ireland when the Provisional IRA assassinated the manager of a Du Pont Chemical facility located near Londonderry in February 1977. In 1976, Du Pont Chemical Company was the largest single employer in Londonderry County. In dealing with an internal, domestic threat in which the sub-state actors were dependent on the local populace, threats to the infrastructure and indigenous economy were unsuccessful. The campaign to target businessmen was “dropped quietly: without any public declaration.” Conversely in May 2004, radical Islamicists targeted employees at a Yanbu, Saudi Arabia petrochemical facility owned ABB Lummus Global Inc. Among those fatally shot were two Americans, two Britons, one Australian, one Canadian and one Saudi. Additionally, the body of the American plant manager was tied behind a Honda Accord and dragged through the streets. Slowing as they drove past a (boys) school, one of the terrorists reportedly “pointed to the blood-soaked and battered body of the American engineer and said, ‘This is the president of America.’” The industrial executive’s corpse became a brutalized effigy of the US President. The individual was viewed as inseparable from policies to which the terrorists objected, and furthermore, the battering of the plant manager’s body was gruesomely displayed by the terrorists as a pedagogical tool to young Saudi boys. The attack was also used in an effort to encourage Saudi nationals to join insurgent resistance to OIF. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #54 March 17, 2008 QuoteI’m not sure that the *per capita* number individuals willing to pursue politically or religiously motivated violence against civilians (i.e., terrorism) as a tactic is larger among one religious extremist group or another. I’d be very curious to see a comparative assessment. My thoughts were running along the lines of per capita involvement on each side. In the US today, I believe the number of people involved in fostering terrorism here or abroad is very low (discounting the notion that US troops in IRAQ are "terrorists"). Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see anything remotely equitable between support for terrorism (domestic or not) here and points abroad, though your reminder of past IRA support is eye opening. However, I'd love to see a comparitive assessment too. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #55 March 17, 2008 Quote I worry about this sort of thing that is occurring here. http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm Saudi-funded religious institutions, such as the American Muslim Council (AMC), have long been treated as representatives of the American Muslim community by the US government. Abdurahman Almoudi, the founder of the AMC, was a frequent visitor to White House under the Clinton and Bush administrations despite having publicly proclaimed support for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (he is now in jail for having illegally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Libyan government). High level political access has enabled such groups to penetrate the American prison system. The US Bureau of Prisons has relied on chaplain endorsements from the so-called Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS), a Saudi-funded organization.[24] The most egregious example of this penetration is the case of Imam Deen Umar, the Administrative Chaplain for the State of New York Department of Corrections. Umar, an American convert who made two visits to Saudi Arabia and studied at the GSISS, and the men he hired as chaplains, had exclusive access to the 13,000 Muslims in the New York prison system. According to then FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism John S. Pistole, Umar was found to have "denied prisoners access to mainstream imams and materials" and "sought to incite prisoners against America, preaching that the 9/11 hijackers should be remembered as martyrs and heroes."[25] While there is little evidence that al-Qaeda has recruited inside the American prison system, it is noteworthy that José Padilla (arrested in 2002 in connection with an al-Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States) first embraced radical Islam while in prison, as did Richard Reid (the so-called "shoe bomber" arrested in 2001) in the UK and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Jordan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #56 March 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo, extremism is not by definition a fringe phenomenon. Extreme means far from normal. QuoteQuoteWahhabism formed the creed upon which the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded and is the dominant form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. From your source: The neutrality of this article is disputed. About the only thing the editors seem to agree on is that the article is inaccurate. You should probably take the claims within with a grain of salt. Okay, you don't like Wikipedia, how about Time magazine? Quote But if the Saudis have often seemed hesitant about cracking down on extremism, it may be in part because their society has been so effective at breeding it. Youth unemployment is as high as 35% and most citizens lack any meaningful voice in political decisions. Perhaps most crucial of all is the need to democratize Saudi-style Islam. Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. N.B. It's kind of lame to keep criticizing my sources without providing any of your own to offer a counter argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #57 March 17, 2008 Quote Really quite a stretch to equating the Confederacy with Islamic extremists who deliberately target innocent civilians. As long as the irrelevant trolling is going on, why not talk about those pesky Brits? During the revolutionary war, the US only had about 250,000 troops. 25,000 killed and another 25,000 wounded. 20% casualty rate for the entire troops count? Huge. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both attended West Point. They were great leaders. Just because hippies and northerners don't understand that, it doesn't change facts. It's a Southern thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #58 March 17, 2008 QuoteN.B. It's kind of lame to keep criticizing my sources without providing any of your own to offer a counter argument. We don't have many good sources readily available to us, which is a big part of the problem. Our best sources of information are those that have been there, and made their own observations with an open mind. Another significant problem is that the term Wahhabi is considered by many to be pejorative. Would you expect to find unbiased information on Mexican immigration into the US by googling wetback?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #59 March 17, 2008 Quote The rule of law has been circumvented on MANY occasions by this administration...they are unwilling to accept oversight.. they have used the Patriot act in ways it was not intended.. and theri treatment of enemy combatants instead of as POW.. and the treatment of American citizens with surveillance is NOT what this country is suppossed to be about. I'm pretty sure the Bush Administration intended to use the Patriot Act they proposed exactly as they have. When proposed, the number of people interested in civil liberties was dwarfed by the rest of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #60 March 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteN.B. It's kind of lame to keep criticizing my sources without providing any of your own to offer a counter argument. We don't have many good sources readily available to us, which is a big part of the problem. Our best sources of information are those that have been there, and made their own observations with an open mind. So post these "fair and balanced" observations of yours. I'm sure we'd all be very interested in where you get your conviction that religious extremism is a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #61 March 17, 2008 I have been reading all the posts on this thread. Here is what I find crazy. For some reason if you go up to any rational logical person any where in the world and ask them do you hate people who destroy your home, or kill your family the answer would be yes. But for some reason the fear machine has made rational thinkers lose touch with reality. I can’t believe that we have people who think we are just hated for are culture, or for letting woman drive (which by the way they do in Iran as they go to school, as they work and share the same freedoms as men). How many horrible stories do we here on a national level about mothers killing there kids, or school shooting, or torturing prisoners the list can go on and on. If other countries only focused on the sensationalized stories and only the ones that show the worst of humane nature they would think we live in a shit hole, but we don’t. I also love the arrogance I see in the posts. So many are so sure we have such an awesome culture. Why can’t American culture be great for Americans and the Iranian culture be great for Iranians? What is this quality of forcing the American culture on others? Who is anyone to judge another culture specially when many cultural differences are about spirituality and individual roles. Most people grow up with a cretin back round and certain rules that they learn when growing up, it is ok to like or love the way you have been thought to live. It is however a great sighn of being closed minded to think your way is the only right way of doing things. Now to speed racers question. I read someone post they had said 9-11 happened before we invaded Iraq. Are people that out of touch with US history to think Iraq II is the first time we have done things that might provoke people in the Middle East? The truth no matter your right wing left wing what ever…. The truth if you can read is we have been influencing things in the middle east for decades, and before that it was the British. So do our actions in the past provoke hate, and disgust for us? I say 100% yes. When you have indirectly and directly destroyed homes, economies, governments, supported enemies of others, shot down passenger jets, and basically bullied people in there own home land there not going to like you. This is a simple concept if you hate me and hurt me I will hurt you. I’ll even go further. We would never have been attacked or even disliked if we had a different foreign policy. Don’t be lazy go and read about all the shady things we have done in the last 30-40 years. Put your self in their shoes and imagine it being down to you. How would you feel?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #62 March 17, 2008 QuoteSo post these "fair and balanced" observations of yours. I'm sure we'd all be very interested in where you get your conviction that religious extremism is a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. I've never been to Saudi Arabia, and have never claimed to have made such observations. In lieu of credible evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to accept that the majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia are radical fundamentalist Muslims; it's not probable. Have you been over there in, say, the last decade?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #63 March 17, 2008 Quote I worry about this sort of thing that is occurring here. http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm Extremely informative article. I don't know what it will take to break our deadlocked situation with the Saudis, but whatever it is probably doesn't involve wasting more resources and lives in Iraq. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #64 March 17, 2008 Quote Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both attended West Point. They were great leaders. Just because hippies and northerners don't understand that, it doesn't change facts. It's a Southern thing. Ummm, no. Picketts Charge....now that was clearly, a "Southern thing". Sorry man, any buffoon that would order such a thing....well, history speaks for itself. Robert E. Lee was a great man in many ways but as far as his military performance, luck was his primary asset."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,110 #65 March 17, 2008 > you would have us condemn the Allied forces during WW II, who > killed quite a deal more than 100,000. You are getting closer! We DID condemn the Japanese for killing so many Allied soldiers. We did NOT condemn the Allied troops who killed Japanese and German soldiers, even during the firebombings of civilians and dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians. Why? Did we use more humane methods? Did we have the moral upper hand? Did we not target civilians? No. The primary reason is the same reason most southerners don't condemn the Confederate Army leaders. And the same reason some Muslims don't condemn Hamas. They're "one of us (them.)" (I shouldn't need to add this note but I will - I am NOT COMPARING the Confederate Army, Hamas, the Unabomber or Captain Tibbets to each other. The above served to exemplify that we are all much more willing to overlook the bad stuff in "our heroes" because they are ours, and much more willing to find fault in "their guys.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #66 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo post these "fair and balanced" observations of yours. I'm sure we'd all be very interested in where you get your conviction that religious extremism is a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. I've never been to Saudi Arabia, and have never claimed to have made such observations. In lieu of credible evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to accept that the majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia are radical fundamentalist Muslims; it's not probable. Have you been over there in, say, the last decade? No, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. I guess anything that doesn't correspond with your point of view is automatically seen to be "non-credible". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #67 March 18, 2008 Quote> you would have us condemn the Allied forces during WW II, who > killed quite a deal more than 100,000. You are getting closer! We DID condemn the Japanese for killing so many Allied soldiers. We did NOT condemn the Allied troops who killed Japanese and German soldiers, even during the firebombings of civilians and dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians. Why? Did we use more humane methods? Did we have the moral upper hand? Did we not target civilians? No. The primary reason is the same reason most southerners don't condemn the Confederate Army leaders. And the same reason some Muslims don't condemn Hamas. They're "one of us (them.)" I see. So the fact that Japanese started the war in the first place does not in any way change the moral equivalence you insist exists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #68 March 18, 2008 QuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #69 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint. Quote Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. Yeah, that's not too bad. After all, "extremism is, by definition, a fringe phenomenon." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #70 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint. Quote Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. Yeah, that's not too bad. After all, "extremism is, by definition, a fringe phenomenon." Don't look now, but your selected quote does little to support your assertion that a significant proportion of Saudi Arabians are radicals. If you read the article, it also says the Saudi government has been taking steps to crack down on extremism. All in all, it's a pretty non-conclusive article, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #71 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint. Quote Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. Yeah, that's not too bad. After all, "extremism is, by definition, a fringe phenomenon." Don't look now, but your selected quote does little to support your assertion that a significant proportion of Saudi Arabians are radicals. If you read the article, it also says the Saudi government has been taking steps to crack down on extremism. Wow, way to switch it up. The debate was always about whether religious extremism was a significant portion of Saudi culture, which you consistently claimed was a fringe phenomenon. Rather than provide any supporting evidence to back up your view, you point to the typical lip service that Saudi officials have always been giving for Western consumption. Of course, you ignore the fact that the reason they need to give this lip service is because there already is a significant problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DHolland 0 #72 March 19, 2008 Ill take Alex Jones' position on all of this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #73 March 19, 2008 QuoteWow, way to switch it up. The debate was always about whether religious extremism was a significant portion of Saudi culture, which you consistently claimed was a fringe phenomenon. Rather than provide any supporting evidence to back up your view, you point to the typical lip service that Saudi officials have always been giving for Western consumption. Of course, you ignore the fact that the reason they need to give this lip service is because there already is a significant problem. I've not switched up. I readily acknowledged that I don't have sufficient information about Saudi Arabia. Nor has such information been provided in this thread. I have no reason to believe that Islam fundamentalists are anything other than a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, and without credible evidence to the contrary, it would not be logical for me to reject that hypothesis.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #74 March 19, 2008 Quote Quote Wow, way to switch it up. The debate was always about whether religious extremism was a significant portion of Saudi culture, which you consistently claimed was a fringe phenomenon. Rather than provide any supporting evidence to back up your view, you point to the typical lip service that Saudi officials have always been giving for Western consumption. Of course, you ignore the fact that the reason they need to give this lip service is because there already is a significant problem. I've not switched up. I readily acknowledged that I don't have sufficient information about Saudi Arabia. Nor has such information been provided in this thread. I have no reason to believe that Islam fundamentalists are anything other than a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, and without credible evidence to the contrary, it would not be logical for me to reject that hypothesis. Amazing. Congratulations, you win! Your persistence in the face of all that pesky evidence is remarkable indeed. Your prize is the coveted Wisdom of the Ostrich award. Enjoy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #75 March 19, 2008 QuoteYour persistence in the face of all that pesky evidence is remarkable indeed. What evidence was that? The Wikipedia article that even the editors claimed was not an accurate reflection of the topic, or the two page Time article that refuted your argument as much as it supported it?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
happythoughts 0 #57 March 17, 2008 Quote Really quite a stretch to equating the Confederacy with Islamic extremists who deliberately target innocent civilians. As long as the irrelevant trolling is going on, why not talk about those pesky Brits? During the revolutionary war, the US only had about 250,000 troops. 25,000 killed and another 25,000 wounded. 20% casualty rate for the entire troops count? Huge. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both attended West Point. They were great leaders. Just because hippies and northerners don't understand that, it doesn't change facts. It's a Southern thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #58 March 17, 2008 QuoteN.B. It's kind of lame to keep criticizing my sources without providing any of your own to offer a counter argument. We don't have many good sources readily available to us, which is a big part of the problem. Our best sources of information are those that have been there, and made their own observations with an open mind. Another significant problem is that the term Wahhabi is considered by many to be pejorative. Would you expect to find unbiased information on Mexican immigration into the US by googling wetback?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 March 17, 2008 Quote The rule of law has been circumvented on MANY occasions by this administration...they are unwilling to accept oversight.. they have used the Patriot act in ways it was not intended.. and theri treatment of enemy combatants instead of as POW.. and the treatment of American citizens with surveillance is NOT what this country is suppossed to be about. I'm pretty sure the Bush Administration intended to use the Patriot Act they proposed exactly as they have. When proposed, the number of people interested in civil liberties was dwarfed by the rest of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #60 March 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteN.B. It's kind of lame to keep criticizing my sources without providing any of your own to offer a counter argument. We don't have many good sources readily available to us, which is a big part of the problem. Our best sources of information are those that have been there, and made their own observations with an open mind. So post these "fair and balanced" observations of yours. I'm sure we'd all be very interested in where you get your conviction that religious extremism is a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #61 March 17, 2008 I have been reading all the posts on this thread. Here is what I find crazy. For some reason if you go up to any rational logical person any where in the world and ask them do you hate people who destroy your home, or kill your family the answer would be yes. But for some reason the fear machine has made rational thinkers lose touch with reality. I can’t believe that we have people who think we are just hated for are culture, or for letting woman drive (which by the way they do in Iran as they go to school, as they work and share the same freedoms as men). How many horrible stories do we here on a national level about mothers killing there kids, or school shooting, or torturing prisoners the list can go on and on. If other countries only focused on the sensationalized stories and only the ones that show the worst of humane nature they would think we live in a shit hole, but we don’t. I also love the arrogance I see in the posts. So many are so sure we have such an awesome culture. Why can’t American culture be great for Americans and the Iranian culture be great for Iranians? What is this quality of forcing the American culture on others? Who is anyone to judge another culture specially when many cultural differences are about spirituality and individual roles. Most people grow up with a cretin back round and certain rules that they learn when growing up, it is ok to like or love the way you have been thought to live. It is however a great sighn of being closed minded to think your way is the only right way of doing things. Now to speed racers question. I read someone post they had said 9-11 happened before we invaded Iraq. Are people that out of touch with US history to think Iraq II is the first time we have done things that might provoke people in the Middle East? The truth no matter your right wing left wing what ever…. The truth if you can read is we have been influencing things in the middle east for decades, and before that it was the British. So do our actions in the past provoke hate, and disgust for us? I say 100% yes. When you have indirectly and directly destroyed homes, economies, governments, supported enemies of others, shot down passenger jets, and basically bullied people in there own home land there not going to like you. This is a simple concept if you hate me and hurt me I will hurt you. I’ll even go further. We would never have been attacked or even disliked if we had a different foreign policy. Don’t be lazy go and read about all the shady things we have done in the last 30-40 years. Put your self in their shoes and imagine it being down to you. How would you feel?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #62 March 17, 2008 QuoteSo post these "fair and balanced" observations of yours. I'm sure we'd all be very interested in where you get your conviction that religious extremism is a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. I've never been to Saudi Arabia, and have never claimed to have made such observations. In lieu of credible evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to accept that the majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia are radical fundamentalist Muslims; it's not probable. Have you been over there in, say, the last decade?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #63 March 17, 2008 Quote I worry about this sort of thing that is occurring here. http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm Extremely informative article. I don't know what it will take to break our deadlocked situation with the Saudis, but whatever it is probably doesn't involve wasting more resources and lives in Iraq. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #64 March 17, 2008 Quote Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both attended West Point. They were great leaders. Just because hippies and northerners don't understand that, it doesn't change facts. It's a Southern thing. Ummm, no. Picketts Charge....now that was clearly, a "Southern thing". Sorry man, any buffoon that would order such a thing....well, history speaks for itself. Robert E. Lee was a great man in many ways but as far as his military performance, luck was his primary asset."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #65 March 17, 2008 > you would have us condemn the Allied forces during WW II, who > killed quite a deal more than 100,000. You are getting closer! We DID condemn the Japanese for killing so many Allied soldiers. We did NOT condemn the Allied troops who killed Japanese and German soldiers, even during the firebombings of civilians and dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians. Why? Did we use more humane methods? Did we have the moral upper hand? Did we not target civilians? No. The primary reason is the same reason most southerners don't condemn the Confederate Army leaders. And the same reason some Muslims don't condemn Hamas. They're "one of us (them.)" (I shouldn't need to add this note but I will - I am NOT COMPARING the Confederate Army, Hamas, the Unabomber or Captain Tibbets to each other. The above served to exemplify that we are all much more willing to overlook the bad stuff in "our heroes" because they are ours, and much more willing to find fault in "their guys.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #66 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo post these "fair and balanced" observations of yours. I'm sure we'd all be very interested in where you get your conviction that religious extremism is a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. I've never been to Saudi Arabia, and have never claimed to have made such observations. In lieu of credible evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to accept that the majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia are radical fundamentalist Muslims; it's not probable. Have you been over there in, say, the last decade? No, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. I guess anything that doesn't correspond with your point of view is automatically seen to be "non-credible". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #67 March 18, 2008 Quote> you would have us condemn the Allied forces during WW II, who > killed quite a deal more than 100,000. You are getting closer! We DID condemn the Japanese for killing so many Allied soldiers. We did NOT condemn the Allied troops who killed Japanese and German soldiers, even during the firebombings of civilians and dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians. Why? Did we use more humane methods? Did we have the moral upper hand? Did we not target civilians? No. The primary reason is the same reason most southerners don't condemn the Confederate Army leaders. And the same reason some Muslims don't condemn Hamas. They're "one of us (them.)" I see. So the fact that Japanese started the war in the first place does not in any way change the moral equivalence you insist exists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #68 March 18, 2008 QuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #69 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint. Quote Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. Yeah, that's not too bad. After all, "extremism is, by definition, a fringe phenomenon." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #70 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint. Quote Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. Yeah, that's not too bad. After all, "extremism is, by definition, a fringe phenomenon." Don't look now, but your selected quote does little to support your assertion that a significant proportion of Saudi Arabians are radicals. If you read the article, it also says the Saudi government has been taking steps to crack down on extremism. All in all, it's a pretty non-conclusive article, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #71 March 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, but the author of that Time magazine article was. You know, one of the numerous sourced arguments presented in this thread that you've chosen to trim from your reply rather than address. Forgive me if I don't consider a two page article in Time magazine to be a credible primary source of information about a culture that Americans are largely ignorant of. Having said that, I read the article, and it doesn't paint the same bleak picture you've been attempting to paint. Quote Many believe that Saudi extremism is fueled by a kind of religious fascism that is encouraged by official intolerance for anything other than the strict Wahhabi brand of the faith. Yeah, that's not too bad. After all, "extremism is, by definition, a fringe phenomenon." Don't look now, but your selected quote does little to support your assertion that a significant proportion of Saudi Arabians are radicals. If you read the article, it also says the Saudi government has been taking steps to crack down on extremism. Wow, way to switch it up. The debate was always about whether religious extremism was a significant portion of Saudi culture, which you consistently claimed was a fringe phenomenon. Rather than provide any supporting evidence to back up your view, you point to the typical lip service that Saudi officials have always been giving for Western consumption. Of course, you ignore the fact that the reason they need to give this lip service is because there already is a significant problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DHolland 0 #72 March 19, 2008 Ill take Alex Jones' position on all of this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #73 March 19, 2008 QuoteWow, way to switch it up. The debate was always about whether religious extremism was a significant portion of Saudi culture, which you consistently claimed was a fringe phenomenon. Rather than provide any supporting evidence to back up your view, you point to the typical lip service that Saudi officials have always been giving for Western consumption. Of course, you ignore the fact that the reason they need to give this lip service is because there already is a significant problem. I've not switched up. I readily acknowledged that I don't have sufficient information about Saudi Arabia. Nor has such information been provided in this thread. I have no reason to believe that Islam fundamentalists are anything other than a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, and without credible evidence to the contrary, it would not be logical for me to reject that hypothesis.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #74 March 19, 2008 Quote Quote Wow, way to switch it up. The debate was always about whether religious extremism was a significant portion of Saudi culture, which you consistently claimed was a fringe phenomenon. Rather than provide any supporting evidence to back up your view, you point to the typical lip service that Saudi officials have always been giving for Western consumption. Of course, you ignore the fact that the reason they need to give this lip service is because there already is a significant problem. I've not switched up. I readily acknowledged that I don't have sufficient information about Saudi Arabia. Nor has such information been provided in this thread. I have no reason to believe that Islam fundamentalists are anything other than a fringe phenomenon in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, and without credible evidence to the contrary, it would not be logical for me to reject that hypothesis. Amazing. Congratulations, you win! Your persistence in the face of all that pesky evidence is remarkable indeed. Your prize is the coveted Wisdom of the Ostrich award. Enjoy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #75 March 19, 2008 QuoteYour persistence in the face of all that pesky evidence is remarkable indeed. What evidence was that? The Wikipedia article that even the editors claimed was not an accurate reflection of the topic, or the two page Time article that refuted your argument as much as it supported it?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
