Muhammad Reveals...

[MMMMMM]

I don't criticize Arabs based on their race.

I only criticize such things as non-democratic/totalitarian regimes (whether religious governments or miltary regimes like Saddam Hussein's), repression of free speech, terror attacks, support of terrorist groups, belief in backwards/archaic customs which are also harmful, religious fanaticism with violent components, and rejection of the need to modernize or reform (ideologically speaking).

While these things can be found to some degree anywhere in the world, the greatest concentration of these negatives is found in the Middle East: in Muslim and/or Arab lands. I don't believe this has anything to do with race but rather has much to do the legacy of their religion their customs and practices. Certain ideologies and systems tend to foster violence and intolerance to a greater degree than do others.

When the Arab/Muslim world opens up ideologically and somehow finds a way to cast aside much of its antiquated ideologies and practices, then we can more realistically hope to see progress made in several areas: democratic, economic and human rights. However since personal freedoms and democracy are the antithesis of what many in the middle East believe is the right way to run things, don't look for this to happen anytime soon. Indeed, the new government in Afghanistan may soon be instituting--of all things--Sharia Islamic law.

[MMMMMM]

Of course most traffic problems are centered around major cities, and of course the public transit systems could be improved or expanded. All the things we've both said in this thread-within-a-thread are true regarding this--we could definitely have better mass transit; it's just that the European model for this isn't completely parallel or transferrable to the USA.

[IrishHand]

I only criticize such things as non-democratic/totalitarian regimes (whether religious governments or miltary regimes like Saddam Hussein's), repression of free speech, terror attacks, support of terrorist groups, belief in backwards/archaic customs which are also harmful, religious fanaticism with violent components, and rejection of the need to modernize or reform (ideologically speaking).

non-democratic/totalitatian regimes
You mean a government chosen by the wealthy minority? How about one in which only 1/2 of the eligible citizens vote for their president? What about one where only 1/3 vote for their congress? Interesting democracy where not only do the majority not vote, but even the will of the majority who do vote doesn't result in an individual being elected. Truly - this country is the Earth's bastion of democracy.

repression of free speech
There is a long, long list of restrictions on free speech in this country. Courts have all sorts of rules about whether something is "constitutionally protected speech", as opposed to "hate speech", "pornography", "fighting words", etc. Furthermore, even if you ignored that and pretended that you could in fact say whatever you wanted in this country - what's the point? Only a very select few have the ability to be heard.

terror attacks, support of terrorist groups
You mean a country that has a long, long history of training and funding present and future terrorists, as well as regimes that support them? The distinction between "freedom fighter", "guerilla" and "terrorist" is pretty grey. Bin Laden is a pretty disturbed fellow, but at least we were kind enough to train him and his boys in the first place.

belief in backwards/archaic customs which are also harmful
You mean a country that's never had a President (or Vice-President) who was anything other than a wealthy, educated, white male? Conversely, how about a country which forced/forces employers to choose a black candidate over an equal white candidate simply because he's black?

rejection of the need to modernize or reform (ideologically speaking)
How about a country that refuses to adapt to the obvious and indisputable realities of global warming and the systematic destruction of the global ecosystem?

[nicky g]

wha'? c'mon, as far as totalitarian regimes go, the chinese by themselves outnumber the arabs. day to day they get virtually zero press coverage despite human rights abuses on an inconceivably massive scale. think of burma, north korea (and south up until recently), latin america and all of eastern europe and the soviet block up until the 90s... blah blah blah. many of those places have opened up since (not china, and russia's democratic credentials are pretty shaky, as are many of the former soviet republics), but 10 years is not a significant time in world history - and many of them haven't. as i've said before, many of the middle eastern dictatorships are very strongly backed by the west (egypt, saudi, various gulf states, algeria, and in the past Iran under the Shah) and strongly resented by the local populations, not to mention viciously anti-Islamist.
Support for terrorism - I don't dispute that there's plenty of that, but that always happens amongst repressed populations and their sympathisers, and I think Western-backed terrorism has been just as pernicious. SYmpathy for the Palestinians, who I believe deserve sympathy, translates into sympathy for suicide bombings - which don't - but that's inevitable. Think of the massive support the IRA got from Irish Americans (pretty much all their money and weapons); the cause they represented deserved sympathy but neither they nor their methods deserved support - but most people have a hard time differentiating between the two.
One question that interests me - I've read that Muslims populations both largely support the 9/11 attacks (I don;t think this is true, though clearly many do), and that they largely believe that the attacks were an Israeli-Jewish conspiracy (often trotted out as proof of their lunatic anti-semitism and lack of touch with the real world). Given that Muslim populatins generally don't support Mossad activites, which is true (i'm not suggesting you ever claimed the latter, by the way - it's just that plenty of people do)?
anyway we've been discussing this forever so i'm going make this my last word on this subject - please respond, but I'm afraid that's it for me (what's that cheering I hear?)
Best, NG.

[MMMMMM]

The things you mention are legitimate concerns, but they pale in comparison to what's going on over there. Are you trying to somehow say that we have no more free speech or choice in government here than they do over there? LOL. And if that's NOT what you're trying to say, then what is your point? Are you just trying to bring up issues to be discussed? If so, maybe a new thread would be best, because your comparisons in no way refute my points (although it "sounds" like that's what you're trying to do so somehow).

[IrishHand]

You're indoctrinated to a Western view, which means you think their evils dwarf anything this country does or is. They have the opposite view. I was just pointing out the fact that your positions are highly dependent on your particular bias.

[MMMMMM]

China's internal policies are horribly repressive (as I've said numerous times on this forum). And of course they have the largest population. However my paragraph in the post to which you are responding referred to not only repression and totalitarianism, but also terrorism, support for terrorism, belief in pernicious archaic practices and customs, etc.. I said the greatest concentration of these things--read all of these things combined--is in the Middle East. Well, maybe it's not. But surely a damn high concentration of that stuff is found there.

I don't think the Mossad is in nearly the same category as the Palestinian/Arab terror groups. For one thing, their assassinations are targeted to political/militant leaders, while the Palestinian militant groups seem to delight in targeting for slaughter the most innocent, helpless members of society. Another reason the two groups are not in the same category is that the Mossad is a hell of a lot smarter. I think most of the Palestinian terrorists are somewhat stupid and irrational beings, while I think the Mossad is very, very smart.

Regarding the IRA: it should have been SWAT-teamed out a long time ago. Targeting innocents for mayhem and murder in order to make political points is pretty much my definition of terrorism...and I think terrorists are lower than animals, in a spiritual sense. Being human, they have the human capacity to reason and to empathize with others, and yet instead of targeting those they have a problem with, they choose to target the most innocent and helpless members of society. That's not my definition of human in a spiritual sense--that's more like the work of depraved animals or demons or something. Even animals couldn't be that bad.

Anyway if this is your last contribution to this thread, I'll just say it was a pleasure discussing things with you, really. Thanks and 'til later;-)

[MMMMMM]

Some things are relative, and other things are backwards;-) Good point though, IrishHand, although I don't think it applies uniformly in every situation.

[SammyB]

Animal sacrifices were only acceptable as atonement if made on the altar of the Temple. The Temple was destroyed twice and will never be rebuilt and therefore animal sacrifices are no longer part of Judaism.

[SammyB]

Translating the Qu'ran into any other language distorts the message or so I have learned from this link.
http://www.hissyfit.com/hissyfits/2001_10_02.shtml

Enjoy