Neither did the Palestinians. One day they just woke up and 'Whoa shit, the Jews have put together an army to kick our ass!'
No, we are a distinct society.
Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread
- Thread starter kks
- Start date
Neither did the Palestinians. One day they just woke up and 'Whoa shit, the Jews have put together an army to kick our ass!'
No, we are a distinct society.
Bells
Staff member
So who is invading us?
They are putting together an army? You have proof of this, do you?
Documents? Photos? Anything at all?
And if they are currently putting together an army, why would they be invading us before their recruitment was complete?
Ah sweety. We are a distinct society as we are diverse. Are you going to walk through Chinatown and demand they change all the signs out the front of all the little shops and restaurants to english because asian language in Australia is not "assimilation"?
Who or what would they be assimilating into? What is the Australian society? How is it distinct? Should they be learning to say "mate" at the beginning and end of every sentence? Need to learn to love that vegemite? Dress like everyone else? Although half wear clothes with their bum cracks showing and tattoos across their lower back and then some dress like hippies.. others are going for the full on 70's look.. and then you have the ones who are stuck in the 80's..
So how exactly should they be assimilating, Pauline? How does one become a 'dinky di aussie'?
Oh God.. I just said dinky di.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Bells: What are we? Borg?
Hahaha! That was sweeet!
Hahaha! That was sweeet!
They aren't at that stage, yet. Let's not forget how the Jews retook Palestine, hmmm?
We are a distinct society of Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage. The fact that we tolerate the quirks of other cultures to a certain degree does not change that.
Completely different situation. You see, the British never expressed an interest in living within Aboriginal society. They just went in and built their own civilizations on the land, and killed anyone who got in the way.
The Jews in Israel initially lived amongst the Palestinians. Then they segregated into Jewish communities, who later rose up and took their Jewish State.
What? Really? Where did you read that? When did the Moslems get to North America??
Well then you haven't checked in a while. Genocide is a concerted effort to remove an entire population from existence. The Americans - as evil as they may be at times, and as stupid as these wars were - have not committed genocide. To suggest that they have is essentially to give up on rational discourse and to admit that you're interested only in satisfying yourself, not in converting others. You'll never convince someone they're wrong when you're throwing massive exaggerations their way.
When America gets to building death camps where they openly slaughter civilians by the thousand, we'll start talking genocide. When America shows a concerted effort to kill every single Iraqi, or every single Moslem, or every single Afghani of a particular tribe, then we can say it is a genocide in progress.
Until then, it's just a whole bunch of death.
Something not being a genocide doesn't make it any less terrible. Don't resort to grandiose fabrications, because you won't convince anyone.
I grew up being told "it could happen again". I still believe it most likely won't (it being the Holocaust), but I've come to think that religious and racial tensions will increase rather than decrease. Who knows, that ridiculous Clash of Civilizations shit might have held some grain of truth.
Either way, I grew up thinking that "it could never happen again" because most of the world had accepted the moral imperative to stop it whenever you see it. When I was still very young, Rwanda proved that wasn't true. Now, Sudan has cemented the fact.
Oh, and if you guys think America ruling the world has been bad... just you wait until China takes over. Remember, China is the nation currently sending planes and guns to the Sudanese government. Even America wouldn't be quite so obviously evil as to make money off of 3,000,000 people dying. Or the countless more millions that have died in DPNK thanks to the Chinese-supported Kim regime.
I'm no fan of Yankee foreign policy. But we're all going to miss them terribly once China takes hold.
No, I think it comes from any one-sided education and any country dominated by one ethnic group. Not even country necessarily. If you go to small town USA you'll hear a ton of us-versus-them rhetoric. The people have just grown up surrounded almost entirely by one viewpoint.
I'm not sure I remember the last time a cartoonist was killed by an angry Jew or Christian.
To many people, yes, they are. And to ignore that is to be as blind about the issue as the other extreme side.
If America waltzed in and (somehow) disposed of the CCP and set up an independent democracy, most Chinese would view it as a massive invasion of their sovereignty. But a good chunk would be happy, call them liberators and celebrate it as a day of freedom.
To suggest any large group would ever be so completely one-sided as you seem to like doing is bizarrely stupid. There were good Germans in Nazi Germany. There were good Russians in Stalin's Russia. There were those who liked and those who despised Hitler inside Germany.
I'm sure many Iraqi's are quite content that the country will become a democracy. Mind you, only the ones who already have food, water, electricity and such care about the political state. In fact, I've heard many interviews with Iraqis who are both proud and hopeful for their country. Both the haters and the happy exist. Some will call them liberators, some will call them tyrants.
Some called Caesar a hero.
Though, I'm not sure the same can be said at all for Afghanistan.
Bells
Staff member
So you're prepared?
Getting ready. Stock piling the canned food, vegemite and bacon? Just in case when they invade they ban all that stuff?
Hah!
Shame about those Aboriginals, eh? Do "we tolerate" their quirky cultures too? Damn savages blowing on their didgeridoos.. That's not the Australian way at all!
Look around you my pet. We are no longer a distinct society of Anglo-Saxon's. That ended when the doors opened (aka immigration). And meals are no longer meat and three veg. We are diverse and come from all sorts of places. Get with the times..
Things haven't gotten to that point. What is needed is political activism, people with the courage to call a spade a spade.
No, we don't. The British took their land and formed their own Anglo-Saxon civilization on it. You do remember that bit, right?
Damn savages blowing on their didgeridoos.. That's not the Australian way at all!
No, it's not. And trying to associate Anglo-Saxon Australian culture with Aboriginal culture is insulting, to both sides.
Wrong. Because, as I explained previously, partial assimilation is expected from immigrants. That means conforming to certain aspects of Australia's Anglo-Saxon culture.
Deal with it, or get out.
@ Tyler
It was an article on Malay and Arab trade with aboriginals pre colonial intervention.
I don't think it's a hidden history.
I believe there is some history of trade with the native Americans as well but I'd have to confirm it.
What if China invades the US? Or Canada? Will they be greeted as liberators too?
It was an article on Malay and Arab trade with aboriginals pre colonial intervention.
I don't think it's a hidden history.
I believe there is some history of trade with the native Americans as well but I'd have to confirm it.
What if China invades the US? Or Canada? Will they be greeted as liberators too?
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
People unite!
Rise and protect our bacon!
How can I forget. Neither do they.
Indeed. Damn savages.
We be civilised.
And what are they?
Can you list them?
John Howard tried to do so with disastrous results.. "mateship" and what not. He was laughed at so hard one almost felt embarrassed for him.
Right on Pauline!
/Smears vegemite on like warpaint..
/Rawr!!!
You're never to busy to lie, though.
Do you give credit for Islam keeping you in the dark ages.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Tyler: Oh, and if you guys think America ruling the world has been bad... just you wait until China takes over. Remember, China is the nation currently sending planes and guns to the Sudanese government. Even America wouldn't be quite so obviously evil as to make money off of 3,000,000 people dying. Or the countless more millions that have died in DPNK thanks to the Chinese-supported Kim regime.
And the Americans sent the same to Saddam so he could fight Iran, to Israel to they can fight the Palestinians and any one of their neighbors, let us also not forget to the Taliban and Osama so that they could fight the Russians. Remember the oh so liberal Shah of Iran the U.S propped up? That worked well didn't it? The Shah was so hated it paved the way for Ayatolla Khomeni as they begged for his return and cheered in the millions when he did (excuse me if the spelling is incorrect). Actually we are always fighting wars through proxy and in the process making things worse. Remember the support of south Vietnam so called 'free' government? The illegal bombing of Lao which drew communism and Cambodia which led to the strength of the Khmer Rouge and that crazy psycopath Lon nol the U.S supported, who created nothing but disaster for the Cambodian people and unwittingly strengthening the KR. The Chinese at least are not hypocrites, they don't pretend to care or interfere in sovereign issues anymore than they would want anyone interfering with their own, what they do is direct trade...quid pro quo. They don't give long speeches about democracy, freedom and all that jazz while propping up despotic leaders. They don't pretend to be 'innately good'.
Tyler: If America waltzed in and (somehow) disposed of the CCP and set up an independent democracy, most Chinese would view it as a massive invasion of their sovereignty. But a good chunk would be happy, call them liberators and celebrate it as a day of freedom.
How little you know of present day China! They would be just as happy to be 'liberated' by the U.S, as the Vietnamese were to be 'liberated' from their communist 'insurgents'. Remember it was the interference of the West which gave Mao the ammunition he needed to galvanize a nation in revolt. The chinese would fight an american invasion and propping up of a new regime in a way that would make the Vietnamese war look like a picnic. They are not always happy with their government and they protest and they speak out and they are jailed etc, etc, etc. but they are also a proud nation and they do no necessarily put the 'american' way as a better way. Maoism was nothing more than Neo-confusionism. It is an old way that has been intergrated into a new way. It always amazes me that no matter how terrible the consequences of U.S interference (back-door manipulation) they always seem to interpret it as fundamentally good. We have created the evils which now plague us but I think no matter how enlightened we seem to be its difficult for the West to admit its failures, so consequently we are doomed to make the same stupid mistakes over and over and over again...but oh yea. Don't forget we are the 'good' guys. How did Gore Vidal best describe it? Oh yes the United States of Amnesia.
Did I mention Cuba? Oh how could I forget the U.S support for a corrupt regime which gave rise to Castro who we now consider the bane of our existence. Ahh and then there was Musharaf, that military strongman. The pakistanis hate us now don't they? And they forced Musharaf to resign didn't they? And now no one knows which way the wind is blowing in Pakistan. No world dominating power whether Chinese or American or British has ever, ever given rise to a better world its simply a comedy of errors and a failure to comprehend the consequences of our own histrorical foreign policy. Yea Tyler, the world is so much better with the U.S at the helm
And the Americans sent the same to Saddam so he could fight Iran, to Israel to they can fight the Palestinians and any one of their neighbors, let us also not forget to the Taliban and Osama so that they could fight the Russians. Remember the oh so liberal Shah of Iran the U.S propped up? That worked well didn't it? The Shah was so hated it paved the way for Ayatolla Khomeni as they begged for his return and cheered in the millions when he did (excuse me if the spelling is incorrect). Actually we are always fighting wars through proxy and in the process making things worse. Remember the support of south Vietnam so called 'free' government? The illegal bombing of Lao which drew communism and Cambodia which led to the strength of the Khmer Rouge and that crazy psycopath Lon nol the U.S supported, who created nothing but disaster for the Cambodian people and unwittingly strengthening the KR. The Chinese at least are not hypocrites, they don't pretend to care or interfere in sovereign issues anymore than they would want anyone interfering with their own, what they do is direct trade...quid pro quo. They don't give long speeches about democracy, freedom and all that jazz while propping up despotic leaders. They don't pretend to be 'innately good'.
Tyler: If America waltzed in and (somehow) disposed of the CCP and set up an independent democracy, most Chinese would view it as a massive invasion of their sovereignty. But a good chunk would be happy, call them liberators and celebrate it as a day of freedom.
How little you know of present day China! They would be just as happy to be 'liberated' by the U.S, as the Vietnamese were to be 'liberated' from their communist 'insurgents'. Remember it was the interference of the West which gave Mao the ammunition he needed to galvanize a nation in revolt. The chinese would fight an american invasion and propping up of a new regime in a way that would make the Vietnamese war look like a picnic. They are not always happy with their government and they protest and they speak out and they are jailed etc, etc, etc. but they are also a proud nation and they do no necessarily put the 'american' way as a better way. Maoism was nothing more than Neo-confusionism. It is an old way that has been intergrated into a new way. It always amazes me that no matter how terrible the consequences of U.S interference (back-door manipulation) they always seem to interpret it as fundamentally good. We have created the evils which now plague us but I think no matter how enlightened we seem to be its difficult for the West to admit its failures, so consequently we are doomed to make the same stupid mistakes over and over and over again...but oh yea. Don't forget we are the 'good' guys. How did Gore Vidal best describe it? Oh yes the United States of Amnesia.
Did I mention Cuba? Oh how could I forget the U.S support for a corrupt regime which gave rise to Castro who we now consider the bane of our existence. Ahh and then there was Musharaf, that military strongman. The pakistanis hate us now don't they? And they forced Musharaf to resign didn't they? And now no one knows which way the wind is blowing in Pakistan. No world dominating power whether Chinese or American or British has ever, ever given rise to a better world its simply a comedy of errors and a failure to comprehend the consequences of our own histrorical foreign policy. Yea Tyler, the world is so much better with the U.S at the helm
Last edited:
Oh, I see.
This I'd be curious about. I've read a chunk of pre-Colonial Canadian history and never come across this. If you find a source, please let me know.
Well, no. Because we have a fairly satisfactory level of liberty. Presumably you mean the CCP invades us, in which case they would be reducing our liberty. And thus not be potential 'liberators'.
But if, for instance, America returned to manifest destiny ideas, invaded and took us over, and then some third country got us free and helped us restore democracy, I would consider them liberators. I can't speak for the rest of Canadians, but I would certainly think this way.
Arming Saddam and Osama can best be summed up as strategic stupidity. The government thought in the short term and was unable to think of the long term. To be fair, when they armed the Taliban they were arming it against the USSR, an equally awful power.
The Shah there is no defense for. That was horrible.
But I'm not sure it's quite the same as selling weapons to the next Hitler. They also armed the Rwandans. And the DPNK, as I said, which has most likely surpassed Hitler for deaths caused.
Are you out of your mind?
The CCP calls itself the people's government and yet does not protect or work for the people of China. Often, it does the opposite. I'm not sure what could be more hypocritical. Not to mention Maoist thought - still taught as the government's official line - to only support government's which represent the people of their nation. Clearly, Sudan and Rwanda do not quite fall into that category.
I live in China and speak Chinese.
I personally know a number of Chinese people who have openly said they would prefer to be liberated.
That is an incredibly narrow and uninformed view of Maoism. If you think "On Contradictions" is "nothing more than Neo-confusionism" you are sadly mistaken.
I'm Canadian. The last major international policy decision we affected was the Suez Canal Crisis.
For all the American examples you can cite I could cite a Chinese one equal or worse. And then there's Sudan and Rwanda and China's current colonization and buying off of murderers that tops it all off.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I have also lived in China and the liberation they speak of is a self-generated, self-initiated liberation; they have a great tradition of that you know. As for Rwanda you should look to the French and the Belgians, as a Canadian I imagine you have read Dalliar's 'Shaking Hands With The Devil'. The U.S state department decidely turned their back on the situation as well as the U.N and just as Dallaire predicted it lead to the disaster we now see in the Congo. The Chinese had no involvement in that fiasco. The Chinese don't colonize they trade, now you can call it a 'buy off' if you want but what exactly are they buying off? All they care about is the oil.
We obviously agree on some matters but Sudan is a quite different situation. First of all the idea that there is a genocide as opposed to warfare killing is in question by many on the ground. Even members of the same tribe have splintered into fractions so the killing is somewhat wholesale with no one tribe being anymore innocent than the next, but don't get me wrong I feel nothing but sympathy for the people in the ground who are locked into this crises without relief BUT I have a very very difficult time looking at the situation in Rwanda as an african version of Nazi Germany. The situation in Sudan as in Somalia is incredibly complex and as usual the West likes to create neat linear lines to understand the issues which always leads to some disaster in the future anyway. As a side note I also don't consider what happened in Cambodia as a genocide, I agree with the scholar Michael Vickery who refers to it as a failed revolution.
We obviously agree on some matters but Sudan is a quite different situation. First of all the idea that there is a genocide as opposed to warfare killing is in question by many on the ground. Even members of the same tribe have splintered into fractions so the killing is somewhat wholesale with no one tribe being anymore innocent than the next, but don't get me wrong I feel nothing but sympathy for the people in the ground who are locked into this crises without relief BUT I have a very very difficult time looking at the situation in Rwanda as an african version of Nazi Germany. The situation in Sudan as in Somalia is incredibly complex and as usual the West likes to create neat linear lines to understand the issues which always leads to some disaster in the future anyway. As a side note I also don't consider what happened in Cambodia as a genocide, I agree with the scholar Michael Vickery who refers to it as a failed revolution.
zombieflirt
Registered Member
I suppose you forgot that Islam colonized the west first.
Islamic armies, of African slaves, invaded France in the 8th century, and Islam then colonized southern Italy and Spain where it created societies where the majority ethnically indigenous Christian population was discriminated against and enslaved. Then Islam colonized eastern Europe where it enslaved Slavs, then it was on to colonize central Asia and India in the 11th century. Then it was eastern Africa and areas near the west coast of Africa where Islamic empires and `sultanates' invaded Africa in order to export slaves. By 1700 the Islamic empire in Africa and India, eastern Europe and the Middle East merely mirrored what the European empire of 1900 would look like. It was Islamic empire that first deported 11 million Africans for sexual and military slavery. When one blames American `imperialism' for Bin Laden's terrorism, one should recall that it was first Islam that colonized Europe, it was the minaret and mosque that were first symbols of oppression, not the cross and the sword.
Islamic Imperialism : A History (Hardcover)
by Efraim Karsh
(quote paraphrased from the comments section)
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
At least we aren't wiping our ass with our bare hands.
Cool. Where did you live?
I know a few people who have openly hoped for a war over the island for the sake of bringing liberation. The government's propaganda demonizing "western ideas" has a backlash whereby some over-romanticize the west and do, indeed, hope for their aid in "liberation".
Many nations acted horribly over Rwanda, and America did not do what it could have. Much as people have generally ignored Sudan for too long. But there's a difference between criminal negligence and outright murder. America also hasn't used it's military to kill a good 3,000+ of it's own citizens any time recently.
They sold Rwanda weapons. They currently sell Sudan weapons. And are the largest oil trader.
They're giving legitimization in exchange for cheap oil. In essence, China gives them defense.
I can agree with this. Though I think the west has had it's hands mostly tied on Sudan. Partially by it's own obsession with the Middle East, and partially by China and Russia's extension of protection.
There was a good article recently on China's "colonization" (though an economic form of colonization) of Africa. I'll try to find it for you.