Dr. No said:
Too bad I cant find other older testimonies about me.
And many other people there has a better view of me than what you & bells are trying to project here.
So do you post stuff like--
•
This?
•
How about this? ("
Doofus? Troll? Unethical intent? You wish. See how I demolish muslims..." - Dr. No, 3.29.2004)
•
And of course there's this. ("
And this thread is primarily for non-muslims. To warn them of the dangers & senselessness of the false religion called Islam.")
--in order to earn their respect?
Do you recall your entry to Sciforums? As you can see above, anyone can go look it up. Bells gave you good advice. Think about your posting history. And why are you constantly advertising that other board? I mean, from your first boasts of how you like to demolish Muslims, you've been hawking that board.
Do you remember
this topic? The one about a random, sick killing in Texas into which you couldn't resist shoving graphic, hateful propaganda? I mean, you could have chosen to actually make a point in that topic,
but you chose instead to inject false issues in order to whine at ... Bells and Tiassa ... and promote your anti-Islamic propaganda. Why did you go out of your way to be disrespectful?
Anybody can review your posting history by simply going to your profile clicking the link to see
all of your posts. And when they click the "last" button, and work from your entry to the present, it is quite easy to see that you are disrespectful, dishonest, and ignorant of (or perhaps deliberately apathetic toward) history and its implications.
Recalling Marcos, you noted, "And the rot that started with him can still be felt today." Well, as you treat the history of the US in the Muslim world, what does that mean? The rot that came with the overthrow of Mossadegh is still felt today, fifty years after the fact. It has spilled across nations and infected much of the Muslim world. The rot that came with the establishment of Pakistani madrassas to train fighters for Afghanistan is still with us today. It has spilled across nations. The rot that came with the propping up of Saddam Hussein is quite obvious today, and holds nations in its thrall. The rot of one-sided, carte blanche political endorsement of terrorism and oppression in Israel/Palestine continues to shake much of the world.
I would like you to imagine the United States under a dictatorship for a moment, please. In accord with traditional tyranny, the new dictatorship begins a purge of suspect people: leftists and then libertarians; and then artists; and then college professors and the clergy; and then the clergy and scientists. Tyrants generally reduce their population to a lesser-educated working class troubled by poverty and left largely to its own. A preacher with a rifle would be a strong candidate to lead the people against the government. The most basic and fundamental identity politics--e.g. religious superstition--would have increasing sway as knowledge declined in general and was erased specifically in order to shore up weak points in the tyrannical grip. We, the allegedly noble and wonderful Americans--an image I have much faith in--would blow things up at an astounding rate. We don't riot as quickly as the French, but as the NRA reminds, the guns will come from cold dead hands, and even those who don't carry guns tend to believe that justice can be found in proactive vengeance, and it won't be long before the situation looks like the 1920s in Ireland, with people trying to walk up and take a shot reminiscent of Irish political assassinations or, as an American example, Hinckley's shot at Reagan. Right now it's recognized that it's only insane extremism putting bombs at abortion clinics and threatening doctors' lives, but in such a tempermental environment, it's worth noting that the only thing that separated me from my peers the day I built and threw a Molotov for a project on--you guessed it--terrorism° (ca. 1990) was the fact that I went and did it. Anybody can do it, and it was easier than doing what a friend wanted to do--construct and explode a "small" diesel-fertilizer bomb. We were in high school. The point being, you'd be amazed at how quickly a good people can be reduced to inhumanity. As it is, there are places in Utah where monogamists have the support of the police insofar as the cops arrest and incarcerate and expel the "competition". Religious requirements are still on the books in South Carolina.
Why did the Iranians turn to Khomeni? Because he was all they had. How did that come about? Anybody better-suited for the job was
gone. Stop holding the people accountable for doing the best they know how under the circumstances. Problems in the Islamic world have stronger ties to economic and political machinations in the world than they do the faith itself. It's hard to invite a people to modernity when they are conditioned by the habit of being stomped and bitch-slapped by modernity.
Well maybe you guys are more superficial than the rest of us.
Just a simple question: Do you share with President Bush confusion about why "they" hate Americans?
What? I thought that only happens in the 3rd world!
Despite the chuckles, that's a good point. Compared to money, people in this country are worth no more to us than third-world ragamuffins we don't feel the obligation to care about. This, obviously, is not what I wish Americans to be a testament to.
Here in Canada banks only charge you that if you withdraw money using the ATMs of other banks. They call it ‘service charge’.
Ever pay $7.00 just to see a teller at your own bank? How about paying $3.00 for an ATM service fee for using one of your bank's machines?
We never got it so bad in the Seattle area, but it did back east.
Many common guys like me don’t really bother too much into those details of budget politics. Maybe when my daughter starts going to school then I’ll become more aware of city projects.
And yet you attempt to assert a persuasive argument to people who pay more attention than you do?
Have your opinion; that's not the question. But your historical assertions in support of that opinion right now are empty and depend on a presumptuous tone. Why, for instance, do I support affirmative actions and other controversial civil-rights issues? Because the argument against has never demonstrated that minorities--especially black Americans--have ever achieved proper equality in the first place. The argument against such ideas is that blacks are responsible for their own problems, nobody else bears any responsibility, and trying to help blacks only demonstrates the inferiority of dark skin. But even without the outrageous note alleging "inferiority of dark skin", the position has never been spelled out in any way that makes sense. The historical foundation just isn't there.
And that's what I think you'll find. You instructed me to read the whole history of Islam, and what I'd like to know from you is whether or not the lack of any major discussion of Muslim issues in the U.S.--aside from the Palestinians--prior to What Happened In New York in any way suggests there were no issues to discuss? Because nearly the whole time Muslims have been on this earth, they've been arguing internally as well as externally. The assertion that “
Most muslims put most of the blame on others” certainly seems true if we define reality according to the headlines. But it does not necessarily stand up to historical scrutiny.
I've got a 22 year-old newspaper article sitting on my desktop in poor-resolution PDF discussing the combining of Islamic principles with tyranny. You can read the summary and pick up the article at
Americans for Middle East Understanding, which publishes the newspaper
The Link.
To the careful observer of Muslim countries it is quite evident that a phenomenon hardly visible in the 1960's and the early half of the 70's appears to be gaining momentum and mass approval. A growing consensus among an increasing number of intellectuals as well as the common people suggests that "the time has come to try Islam."
There is also evidence that an increasing number of national governments feel it necessary to appeal to Islamic principles to maintain legitimacy. They do this either through the adoption of Islamic apologetics to justify their policies or through the implementation of various Islamic laws.
There are numerous examples of such efforts in press reports from the 1970's and 80's. In Pakistan, Zia Ul-Haqq, upon assuming office, aligned himself with the Jamaati Islam and attempted to implement Islamic laws. Other nations, including Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Bangladesh, the Sudan and Indonesia introduced various Islamic laws. Syria found it necessary to explain that Baath ideology is grounded in Islam, while Ja'far al-Numeiry of the Sudan has written a book justifying Islamic government, entitled The Islamic System: Why?
The Islamic revolution in Iran more than any other event in recent history has helped focus Western public opinion, through television and the press, on the troubled conditions prevailing in various Islamic countries. The revolution has generated numerous texts, articles and programs dealing with "Islamic revolutionaries," the activities of the "militants" and the ascendancy of the "fundamentalists" in various nations. The perspectives of the scholars and newsmen reporting these phenomena have varied. Despite the millions of words describing ideological developments in the area and the socio-political conditions that inspired them, many readers as well as writers continue to perceive Islamic identity, an Islamic state or an Islamic order as the radical backward-looking fringe who have rejected the enlightenment of modernization and Westernization. Some view their religion, Islam, as intrinsically evil or, at best, obscurantist. (Haddad)
I know the issues existed in October, 1982. I know they existed before that, as well.
And there are plenty of bad decisions in history rotting away various facets of Islamic society and culture; what I don't understand is why we should view that history as if Muslims are separate from the human race. The present tendency is to hold Muslims responsible for history in a fashion not applied to--and directly rejected by--others.
The US helped Taiwan, Japan & Europe too and they are doing extremely well today.
•
Taiwan - An interesting case that someday you might have some time to detail? Perhaps you might pick up the responsibility of this part of the research necessary to support your argument instead of letting other people go out, find the relevant parts for you, and show you why you're incorrect?
•
Japan - Which Muslims would you like the United States to nuke twice?
•
Europe - Given that our paradigm is a descendant of European thought, given the relatively low amount of sh@t white Europeans have historically received from the United States, I wonder if you're making a fair comparison or merely reaching for straws.
The US had been helping the Philippines since World War II and the life in those days before Marcos was most memorable to the generations of that time, my parents among them.
As O'Rourke noted on the tossing out of Marcos: it could have been worse, we could have done something to prevent that. Just like we did something about the election of a Prime Minister we didn't like in Iran.
We messed the help you gave us, tiassa
It's good to know that Marcos could have done all he did without our help. I feel better for that now that I believe it because you said so.
Tiassa, re-evaluate your views on your mother nation. Its not as bad as you think.
I actually think very highly of it. However, its problems require more urgent consideration than what ain't broke.
But its not just the arabs, but muslims of other races are also getting more trouble than usual. The Chinese muslims. The Filipino muslims. The Indian muslims. The Thailander muslims. The Indonesian Muslims. The black African muslims. Im sure all these people are not so mindless as to keep dancing on the strings of the originator of their religion, the arabs.
And? I don't see your point in context to what you responded to.
But as you mentioned “ideology” that made the west behave greedily, don’t you think there is something in the Islamic ideology that tends to lower their tolerance levels to hints & issues of mistreatment?
I always figured it was the instruction to not tolerate injustice. Now, being raised in a nation whose people like to hold up "Christian" values, I've always wondered why it is that more people would rather be Muslims.
So we might point out that the something about the Islamic ideology that rejects injustice is a well-pointed, though practically poorly-addressed, observation of the real failure of "turning the other cheek". Consider this: George W. Bush, a self-proclaimed Christian, says that God is on our side in the War on Terrorism. Did the nation follow the Christian instruction? No. Did Bush seek to follow the Christian instruction? No. He did not seek to find a way to turn the other cheek while seeking a positive solution. Rather, he struck back and intends to strike back until he perceives the cessation of aggression.
I don't fault Muslims for acknowledging the practical failure of Christian ethics, and perhaps if international socio-political and economic issues did not repeatedly squash the smart people in the Islamic world, there would be more proposals of better solutions.
Imagine that you want to test-drive a car. You and the salesman go out to start it up, but it won't start. The next day you write your review for the newspaper, and slam the manufacturer for making such a shabby car. Investigations are opened into the possibility of fraudulent advertising, the company reels and fights back, suing you for libel. At trial, your lawyer is surprised to find out that you forgot to mention the thirty-two phone messages, sixteen e-mails, and four liasons sent to beg an audience with you at your office so that the dealership could inform you that your son, in fact, was seen on security video, pouring sugar into the gas tank of several cars on the lot, including the one you attempted to test-drive, the night before. You argue that history is irrelevant, that the car should have started no matter what. The dealer, ruined, goes out of business and is forever stained as a fraud. Ten years later, your son, now a car dealer himself, lets slip in an interview that you, in fact, sent him out to put the sugar in the gas tanks. The deposed car dealer files a suit against you, and you successfully argue a statute of limitations. Two years later your son runs for political office, and when the scandal breaks that he helped you commit this fraud, it is dismissed as the rantings of a bitter fraud, and your son wins the office on a wave of voter sympathy in the face of "slander".
Now: the problem with this is that according to the American model I so detest, what you and your son have done is proper and even admirable. The deposed dealer deserves the wrath and scorn of a fraud he never perpetrated, and the perpetrators of the fraud go on to greater success and wealth.
We treat our "American Way of Life" as religiously as many fanatics treat their religions. Remember, it's not just a standard of living that we have the right to accommodate, but we also assert the right to plainly
waste what could serve others just as well. In fact, our economy depends on that right to be wasteful. (For instance, oil. As concerns about future availability heat up the petrol politics, Americans are doing everything they can to waste fuel. And that
waste is the way of life we defend when we construe shoddy pretexts to overthrow elected Prime Ministers or invade a country that's swimming in oil. (Did you catch the topic on the new pickup truck that's bigger than an H2? Or how about the massive SUV's that were designed with the specific knowledge that they would not fit in most urban parking garages?) Fuel economy in cars hasn't improved in the United States for twenty years, and it may have gotten worse in practice. So yes, dead Iraqi children are a price Americans are willing to pay in order to go screaming across the desert in a massive, air-conditioned gas guzzler just because we feel like it. We're willing to starve people in order to pay too much for a shirt at Nordstrom's.
Our economy depends on this sort of sh@t.
In the meantime, look how respectful I'm being by telling you straight up that you're dishonest.
Go use phrases like "
goon hordes" and show us how respectful they think you are when you call Allah a false God in order to praise the freaking dark ages of Western history.
Really, Dr. No, perhaps "dishonesty" equals respect in your world, and it certainly does among many Americans. As you're quite aware, I disapprove of that condition. When you have time to catch up on history, I think you might even come to be embarrassed by what you're arguing.
____________________
° Molotov for a project on ... terrorism - As a humorous side note, there might still exist, somewhere, videotape depicting me attempting to carry a fake bomb into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. That was a lesson in education right there: our content was worth a C or maybe B-, but those two stunts won us the undisputed, curve-setting A.
• Haddad, Yvonne. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15 i.4, October, 1982. See http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=120
