At least you're getting closer. Although I don't see how this argument can do your case any good. Whatever you're saying the west is entitled to do to the islamic world because of their lack of resent contributions, by the same logic, any person in your society with a greater record of contributions than yours, is entitled to do the same to you. Ethically speaking, I think it's wrong to support the bombing of a people on that basis. But hey, american conservatives aren't exactly famous for being consistent when it comes to ethics. That's true. The people of africa have been lucky so far in the sense that they've had no known oil for the US to hunt for. Times seems to change though, GWB suddenly have more concerns for the african continent than any former president. Incidentally, this concern is mainly on the western coast of the continent where corporations are drilling for oil. Who knows, in a few years you might see some black guys too who wants to revenge the blood of their people - the blood which, if history repeats itself will be on the hands of americans by order of your filthy government. I've heard this argument put forward hundreds of times before. You know by whom? Islamic extermists and muslim terrorists. Including Osama Bin Laden himself. He has been saying repeatedly in virtually every speech he's made that he is driven to fight the US because of the misdeeds the US has done to the middle east. No, not trying to teach them about democracy, he specifically said it was the killing of muslims and ruining of muslim towns and cities that really got to him. The WTC attack was inspired by watching buildings fall to the ground in Lebanon, according to him self. The problem with this argument is the fact that little girls and boys playing on the streets are not the ones who killed you or your friends or family. These victims are just as innocent as the 3000 victims of the 9-11 attacks. You can't punish me for slapping your neighbor by slapping mine, because my neighbor is just as innocent as yours. The funniest thing about you neocons is the fact that if you where reincarnated into the muslim world with your current personalities and ethics, you would become terrorists or supporters of terrorists from the first second. You share with them the exact same irrational, flawed mentality. Where did I call you a racist!? Heck, I'm probably far more racist than you. I have not written (nor even privately thought for that matter) that pointing out the lack of islamic contributions is somehow morally or ethically wrong. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a point out of this. However, I have explained to you why it is an utterly irrelevant point to make in this matter. In other words, it is not an evil point, it is an invalid point. See the difference? That would be like telling victims of lightning that it is not dangerous to go outside the house. Why would I do that? It's more relevant to say it to the hundreds of millions of people going in and out of their houses every day that probably will not get hit by lightning. Indeed it is. Although this was not the case 50 years ago and it is not the case in my country which "incidentally" have not had any interests in ruling the mid east. In other words, there's a reason for this high percentage. This reason is the same as that if the US go to war on china tomorrow, 99% of american troop casualties will be at the hands of chinamen. Simple as that. And don't give me the "but americans doesn't kill civilians on purpose, the terrorists does"-bullshit. When a field commander orders in an air strike on a town, he is perfectly aware of the great numbers of casualties he'll sustain, just as GWB was aware that he would kill thousands upon thousands of civilians by doing his little invasion.
Edison did not "invent" the light bulb. He perfected it. Electricity and Lightbulb - History Thomas Edison's greatest challenge was the development of a practical incandescent, electric light. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't "invent" the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon a 50-year-old idea. In 1879, using lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe, he was able to produce a reliable, long-lasting source of light. The idea of electric lighting was not new, and a number of people had worked on, and even developed forms of electric lighting. But up to that time, nothing had been developed that was remotely practical for home use. Edison's eventual achievement was inventing not just an incandescent electric light, but also an electric lighting system that contained all the elements necessary to make the incandescent light practical, safe, and economical. After one and a half years of work, success was achieved when an incandescent lamp with a filament of carbonized sewing thread burned for thirteen and a half hours.
Whatever you're saying the west is entitled to do to the islamic world because of their lack of resent contributions...Ethically speaking, I think it's wrong to support the bombing of a people on that basis. I've never suggested anything like that, this thread is not about bombing or retaliations, it's about the fact that Islam has not been contributing to humanity for a very long time. Of course the background of this conversation is Islamic extremism, fundamentalism, expansionalism and terrorism and that's why we're discussing Islam, not Buddism, Arabs, not South Americans. But hey, american conservatives aren't exactly famous for being consistent when it comes to ethics. Perhaps, I am not a conservative. I am not a politically correct terrorist sympathizer believing that muslim terrorism is a myth (or that it's all our own fault) either. Osama Bin Laden himself. He has been saying repeatedly in virtually every speech he's made that he is driven to fight the US because of the misdeeds the US has done to the middle east. Osama bin Laden is not happy with the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Let me clue you in, our troops are there according to legal agreements with legitimate and internationally recognized governments of those countries. Osama bin Laden can therefore stick his islamic grievances up his ass, we had not broken any international laws when he bombed our embassies in Africa, our ships in Yemen and our buildings in New York. Just because Osama bin Laden has grievances with the US does not mean that his grievances are legit and/or our grievances with him are automatically as illegitimate as his. You should really take some logic classes. Having troops in SA and Kuwait, supporting Israel and even propping up Arab dictators constitute absolutely legitimate and internationally acceptable foreign policy choices, murdering civilians and flying planes into buildings are not by any stretch of imagination. The funniest thing about you neocons I am not a neocon but not only neocons recognize the threat of violent Islam. Liberal, BBC brain-washed, america blaming Ahmadinegad supporting neo-hippies are not the only alternative to neocons. There are a lot of reasonable people in between, people who realize that while the neocons are wrong, so are those who think muslim terrorism is a myth. That would be like telling victims of lightning that it is not dangerous to go outside the house. No, lightnings are not man-made. It would be like telling the relatives of a New York murder victim that we should not even try to stop crime and catch perpetrators because the situation is much worse in Chicago... and anyway, more people get killed by a lightning so all is well. This reason is the same as that if the US go to war on china tomorrow, 99% of american troop casualties will be at the hands of chinamen. Simple as that. We did not go to war on violent Islam till 2001, as I said before our policies had been legal and legitimate even if not always popular. If the arab street had issues and concerns with the situation they should have taken it to their rulers. Instead they declared Jihad on this country and started murdering american civilians (aka infidels). If you think it does not say anything about modern day Islam - think again. And don't give me the "but americans doesn't kill civilians on purpose, the terrorists does"-bullshit. When a field commander orders in an air strike on a town, he is perfectly aware of the great numbers of casualties he'll sustain, Oh but americans don't kill civilians on purpose whether you want to hear that or not. A field commander does not order an air strike on a town, he orders an air strike on an enemy position in that town. And if the enemy don't wear uniforms, if their position is in a civilian area the blood of innocent victims is on their not our hands. International laws and Geneva conventions are absolutely clear, explicit and unambiguous on these points.
I didn't say it's all your fault. On the contrary, the muslim leaders made their own beds by letting you in in the first place. I am simply saying that you too (or rather your government) made your bed. As for you not being a convervative, I highly doubt it. You transmit those irrational creationist vibes. You might be a liberal interventionists though - a group who is always in eternal support of anything that will or even might be helpful to the state of Israel (which is kind of a religion of it's own). Either way, freedom and respect for human rights is not your highest ideals; patriotism or something religious is. And that is sad. You ought to respect the wishes of the people of whatever country you get yourself involved in; not the wishes of it's dictators. What's especially disturbing is when those deals are made with corrupt dictators instated by the US itself. Doesn't matter what international law says (or rather forgets to say) about this kind of behavior; wrong is wrong. With that being said, I want to add that the notion that america has not broken any international laws by fucking around in the middle east and supporting Israel (who also have broken a dozen international laws), is ridiculous. If THAT is all it takes for you to understand why the terrorists are mad at you - evidence of the US breaking international law - I'll be happy to provide it for you. Perhaps in america. Luckily the people in between in most western countries are informed by free media, and we live under governments that serves us rather than make us serve them. It is sad what has happened to the US these last decades. I've never said that you should not try to prevent terrorist attacks. On the contrary, I'm in support of my country being as ready for it as possible. However, the way you are fighting terrorism is as if you're the victims of world war III. And yet, you're the ones doing 99% of the killing! And while terrorist activities was at a rather low level just a few years ago, they have been sky rocketing in correlation to your own misdeeds and are unnaturally high now. The more you do what you do in the middle east, the more terrorists seems to pop up from the ground. The harder you bomb them, the higher the risk of them attacking you seems to get. Your government is absolutely 100% aware of these consequences, and yet their doing exactly that - creating more terrorists - in spite of the fact that the very goal is supposed to be ending terrorism. Can you not see how absurd that is!? The extent to which your being fucked over is so extreme, even the absolutely most stupid americans should be able to pick it up. It is absolutely incredible. Quite fascinating too I must add. They did take it to their rulers many times, but the US supported the rulers with guns and weapons for the dictators to hold the people in check. The US should not have done that, they should have respected the people rather than their filthy governments. So basically, if Bin Laden said "well, I didn't actually wish for american civilians to lose their lives, I just wanted to retaliate the american destruction of our buildings by hitting their buildings. So any people who lost their lives in this prosess is really the fault of the US terror regime", he would be more or less off the hook? Not that US field commanders ever warns the town their about to annihilate, but say Bin Laden even tried to contact the US and have them empty the WTC of people before striking, would all casualties then be put on Bush's tab? I've got another question for you. Do you pay your income taxes?
You ought to respect the wishes of the people of whatever country you get yourself involved in; not the wishes of it's dictators. You are not serious, are you, what kind of an absurd, self-righteous and naive statement is it? Are you saying that every time we want to sign a political/business/military agreement with Saudi Arabia we should run a public opinion poll in Saudi Arabia, a referendum perhaps? The arab street is supposed to have a veto power on relations between two legitimate and internationally recognized governments? Are you kidding? And what are we to do if half the country wants that agreement signed and the other does? No matter what we do half the country will have a legitimate (based on your standard) grievance with us and their terrorist campaign against our civilians will be justified in your eyes. Seriously what planet are you from? According to your criteria no relations whatsoever (political economic or cultural) between a western country and a dictatorship would ever be possible as it can't be established with either the government or the people. Oh and btw, your post implies that Osama Bin Laden does represent the views of the arab people. I don't disagree with that but what do you think it says about Islam. What's especially disturbing is when those deals are made with corrupt dictators instated by the US itself. We have not installed dictatorships in the Middle East but we certainly have every right to do business with them. Everyone else does, especially Europe. The UK being the largest arms exporter in the world sells more weapons to the arab world (to those very dictators) than we do (and there is nothing wrong with that), France, Germany, Russia, Switzerland, China, Japan are doing their best to expand their influence, political and economic interests in the Arab/Muslim world. evidence of the US breaking international law - I'll be happy to provide it for you. Please enlighten me. I am talking about the middle east before 9/11 of course. Perhaps in america. Luckily the people in between in most western countries are informed by free media Oh yeah, the good examples of free media are BBC terrified to mentioned that terrorists are muslims or the french media that wrongly accused Israel of murdering a palestinian boy (Al Dura) who had in fact been killed by arab militants and became the symbol of the second intifada. And yet, you're the ones doing 99% of the killing! I don't understand where on earth you got this absurd idea. Is that what your "free media" is tellling you? Did they forget to mention that even in Iraq 99% of the killing is not americans killing arabs but arabs killing arabs, sunni killing shia and vice versa. And while terrorist activities was at a rather low level just a few years ago, they have been sky rocketing in correlation to your own misdeeds and are unnaturally high now. If you are talking about the war in Iraq I tend to agree with you. But terrorist activities started way before that, our peace keeping troops were murdered in Beirut 25 years ago, the Lokherbie bombing, the WTC attack in 1993, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole... All these attacks had nothing to do with Iraq. Terrorism is Russia, cartoon riots, French riots, attacks in India had nothing to do with Iraq either.
It's pretty interesting how this whole conversation played out: We have troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, they are not occupiers, they are there based on the invitation of the governments of those countries. That means that we don't respect the wishes of the people of those countries and Osama Bin Laden is justified to murder our civilians. That was quite illuminating indeed!
Very illuminating to see a thread asking for a list of great Muslim/Aarb inventions or discoveries that soon downgrades to a rant about something else. Clearly, the opponents have conceded the point. The Islamic Culture has been the lead damper rods of the East. Few ideas will get by their religious intolerance. Interesting to see the defenders of such a miserable culture come forward.
What I'm saying is, if you are to do business with a stable country, like, say my own, it would be absolutely OK to deal with my government because my government actually represents my people. However, if you are to deal with some dictator who rules a very dissatisfied people, like, say Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, you really ought to be careful. Dealing with a dictator like that is not only the equivalent of taking a dump on the face of the native people in Zimbabwe, it also serves as enabling the dictator and strengthening his position as an unwanted ruler. I thought this was obvious to any citizen of a freedom loving democracy. The fact that you truly believe it is OK to make any sort of deal with any dictator as long as he is internationally recognized, is just scary. Although it kind of explains allot. It says allot about what kind of thinking got you into the mess you're in. Maybe some more concern for fellow humans would have kept you out. The "arab people" is as little a homogeneous people as "the european people". Of course allot of arabs dislikes america and of course allot of them supports striking back at the US (which is what Bin Laden is perceived to do). That doesn't mean they hate freedom or want to kill little babies. To them, it is as natural as it is for americans to support their striking back at the arabs. So, what does that tell us? That both islam and americans are evil? No, it tells us that being oppressed and attacked is no fun. (note that whether you disagree with the arabs in their claiming to be under attack by the west or not is not relevant; what is relevant in this particular issue (the evil of arabs) is what they think and what motivates them, and that is indeed self defense and to some extent revenge, just like you guys) Is it going to change anything if I do? In what way exactly? What is this obsession with BBC? I'm not some British tea-sipping sissy and I've hardly ever watched BBC. I'm not familiar with the facts in the Al Dura-story, although it's kind of irrelevant whether this one boy was killed by IDF or friendly fire considering the fact that a whole lot of other kids certainly have been killed by the IDF: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2007.html Back then the terrorist activities were still very, very low compared to that of today. Look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack And compare the dates and frequencies of attacks with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_Middle_East And obviously this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict I'm sure you will manage to see the obvious correlation. It cannot be missed. If you continue this escalation of wars and involvements in the middle east, don't you think the number of terrorists who wants to give their lives to hurt america will only rise? Can you not see how backwards this strategy is? Seriously, why do you think Bush does it? Is it possible that all his great analysts and advisers are that off track? The situation in Russia is a completely different story and cannot be compared with that in the US. The French riots had nothing to do with Islam, it was about poverty, acclaimed oppression, and those boring things. "The rioters' suburbs are also home to a large, mostly North African, immigrant population, allegedly adding religious tensions, which some right-wing commentators believed contribute further to such frustrations. However, according to Pascal Mailhos, head of the Renseignements Généraux (French intelligence agency) radical islamism had no influence over the 2005 civil unrest in France." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France The cartoon riots is also no big mystery. Some europeans had been very unfriendly towards muslims lately, due to the standard fears involved in coming in close contact with unfamiliar peoples wearing hijabs and so forth (Geert Wilders, etc.) Frustration and tensions had been building up over a very long time, and the cartoons served as the last drop that made all hell break loose. With that being said, the riots where actually not as bad as I had expected. Did anyone actually get killed over it? I know more than a hundred muslims got killed in riots due to police firing in the crowds, and I know some muslims here got beat up and even stabbed with knifes by angry anti-muslims such as yourself, but I don't think I ever heard about any european actually getting physically hurt by muslims. Sure a couple of hundred people went completely mad and another couple of thousands did overreact to some extent, but what can one expect when one pisses all over the holiest symbol of an already vulnerable crowd of more than a billion people? I was expecting much more.
Is this supposed to be a short version of what I've said? Where did I say that the only thing the US ever did in the middle east was to establish military bases on invitation of the governments of those countries? Where did I say that Osama Bin Laden is justified in doing what he's doing? Help me out here, by answering those two questions, because english is not my first language and I sincerely don't understand where you got it from. Either your reading skills are way off or my writing skills are very poor, because this is very far from what I've been saying.