Why they hate us
- Thread starter Fraggle Rocker
- Start date
Very glad to learn that at least someone else can see beyond next month. It is interesting to speculate as to what will be the straw that breaks the back of the US economy. There are may possibilities. In past, I put Taiwan at top of list (China has the cash to break the dollar if US were to prevent re-annexation), but now I have moved the overturn of the house of Saudi into first place. That family click has never been popular with the masses. If they continue to support US/Israel in spite of the rapidly growing hate then they may fall and gas in the US go above $15/gal. That would be sustainable in Europe, but not in the US with its "suburban infrastructure." China* can buy all the oil the Mid East can pump, if it also creates a strategic oil reserve, equal to that of the US, so in some sense, the "twin deficits" GWB's wars have made is still at the top of my "lists of straws."hypewaders said:
---------------------------------
*China has reserves of $941 billion, and excellent credit, due to its trade surpluses. July06 China added $14.6 billion more in trade with US (Exports to US = 80.3 and imports from US = 65.7 billions) I have made many post about how the US is loading the gun China can fire when it likes to destroy the US.
I agree. What happens then is too complex to predict, but lets assume that US Navy / Marines / Army try to take control, at least of Riyadh and the oil ports.samcdkey said:
How long do you think there will be functional pipelines to the ports? (or functional ports for that matter?) I.e. the oil flow from Gulf will drop much more than it has from Iraq. - I would guess to about 50% or less, initially. Gas in US will either:
(1) Be rationed (only available to police and fire and army for sure.) - If any is left, some goes to food trucks (in convoys to stop hungry gun-toting looters. - The average food item transport distance exceeds 500 miles.) and doctors.
OR
(2) If GWB is still in power, only the rich will get any as a free market price of at least $30/gal would be required to bring supply and demand in to balance.
In either case, US is in such a deep depression that it makes the one started in 1929 look like a “mild recession.”
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Point 1:I have never reinterpretated anything in my life and never shall.radicand said:
Point 2:My response was not knee-jerk, since I took some time to consider the background to the original points, the broad global situation, the nature of Islam to day, the broaf perception of Islam today in the West, and the potential reaction to my own planned comments.
Point 2:It was not reactionary, since I was indulging in a dogmatic, pre-established position.
Point 3:It was not narrow minded, since I was offering an alternative and additional interpretation of Sam's quoted poem. Expanding the range and number of perspectives on an issue can scarcely be considered narrow-minded.
Point 4:In what way was it bigoted. I attacked no one. I expressed no negative views of anyone. I did not criticse anyone. Tough to be bigoted if you don't indulge in those actions.
Point 4:This is getting tedious. Prejudiced. Yes, you have me to rights there. Prejudiced against sloppy thinking and poorly expressed thoughts that lead to the condemnation of others simply because they have a different point of view, and worse prejudice against those who stereotype.
Point 5:Thoughtless. I have already explained I gave my reply a lot of thought.
Point 6Ignorant. Well I am ignorant of many things, but I have some knowledge of the topics we are debating here. I would be happy to learn what specifically in my reply was ignorant.
Point 6:Insensitive. Gosh, I hope I didn't offend anyone by saying what I thought, in careful, precise terms. It seems to me the only insensitive aspect of my post was suggesting, through failure to exclude it as a possibility, that Buffalo could have reached any other conclusion than the same one I had reached.
In short. Stop talking crap. It doesn't read well.
well, i wont put my religious views up here for all to view.samcdkey said:
ill explain another time, if you remind me.
The Devil Inside said:
I understand. This is not a good place for a religious discussion.
Just curious, most Jews I've known are not very familiar with conservative Judaism (much like Muslims and the 70,000 virgins).
But I think you've probably studied it well.
Some other time, then.
Fraggle Rocker poses a very interesting answer to the general question: "Why can't we just talk to each other?"
Well, the problem is that we can't. We - this 'society' and that - see things too fundamentally (to use the word hovering in everyone's subconscious) differently to amass change. A simple reflection:
Islamic societies and democratic ones (or republics, or 'Western' ones, or whatever you might choose to refer to them as, post-secular-JudeoChristian-ethical-industriohumanitarian complexes or what have you) are based, at their philosophical cores, in different worlds altogether. The islamic state is constructed and exists for the reason of furthering and continuing islam, by way of which it invokes sharia and so forth. The latter type (I avoid naming it for the above reasons) is based (where that right is not impeded, or not not impeded, or vaguely cited, by bad chads, or good ones, or indifferent ones, or electronic people that may or may not exist in some time and place) in the furthering and continuance of democracy.
Now the more politically introspective among you might be thinking: “well, duuhh", but the contrast is I think so direct as to be habitually ignored.
One never proposes (in public discourse, anyway, unless one cares to be verbally tarred and feathered by upstanding Minutemen, political muskets loaded and charged with Constitutional cannonballs) a reduction in democracy as a panacea to the ills of democratic society. (And please, no comments about red-staters versus blue-staters; I’ve heard, too, plenty of well-educated leftists demanding more oligarchy and less freedom.) Democracy is often taken as a de facto solution or optimal state-of-being, these democratic rights being "self-evident".
In the same way, but with apparently more exacting standards, no one who does not care for public beatings, fines, jail, forced divorce and eventual beheading never offer less islam as a solution to the problems of islamic society. Contrarily, it is in fact often the reverse: “Women are oppressed! What can we do?” “More islam!” “Human rights are in danger! How can we stop this?” “More islam!” “Apostates are being killed! What is the solution?” “More islam!” and so on and so on, ad nauseam. There are exceptions to this – human rights organizations do exist in islamic countries, the adherents of which are often referred to by where they are buried. In any event, it is contrary to the nature of islamic society to ease off the valves on religion – for if one’s Head of State is purported not to be a mere mortal choking on a pretzel, but rather God, then it probably strikes the waybearers of officialdom as well as the laity to err on the side of torches and pitchforks, so as not to offend governmental practice and a being that supposedly dictates the future of individual existence. And so “more islam” is inevitably preached as a solution, without ever recognizing (or at least not obviously) that more islam (translating into more conservative islam) itself is the problem, and so there is less talking - or at least not that outside the ‘will’ of this presumed ‘prophet’, forcing discussion into those comfortable patterns of “submission” and rote, and resulting in more dismay and decry of the “evils” of Western (or whatever) decadence, where people are “free to insult Allah, but not free to question the Holocaust” and so forth, and so there is more inward hatred directed at those presumed to be fifth columnists inside the ummah – the Christians, the Jews, the Animists, the Hindus, the secularists – without ever needing to identify precisely what is so wrong about them, or so right about more islam in the first place.
Now all that might seem an unnecessarily harsh condemnation of the society of islamic nations, or of islam. I don’t doubt that there are truly moderate muslims in the world (although apparently not a majority of British muslims anyway, which is quite disturbing), but consider: in which national societies is the questioning of societal dogma (religious, political or otherwise) tolerated? In which is it not?
Why is that, and is it likely to change?
Well, the problem is that we can't. We - this 'society' and that - see things too fundamentally (to use the word hovering in everyone's subconscious) differently to amass change. A simple reflection:
Islamic societies and democratic ones (or republics, or 'Western' ones, or whatever you might choose to refer to them as, post-secular-JudeoChristian-ethical-industriohumanitarian complexes or what have you) are based, at their philosophical cores, in different worlds altogether. The islamic state is constructed and exists for the reason of furthering and continuing islam, by way of which it invokes sharia and so forth. The latter type (I avoid naming it for the above reasons) is based (where that right is not impeded, or not not impeded, or vaguely cited, by bad chads, or good ones, or indifferent ones, or electronic people that may or may not exist in some time and place) in the furthering and continuance of democracy.
Now the more politically introspective among you might be thinking: “well, duuhh", but the contrast is I think so direct as to be habitually ignored.
One never proposes (in public discourse, anyway, unless one cares to be verbally tarred and feathered by upstanding Minutemen, political muskets loaded and charged with Constitutional cannonballs) a reduction in democracy as a panacea to the ills of democratic society. (And please, no comments about red-staters versus blue-staters; I’ve heard, too, plenty of well-educated leftists demanding more oligarchy and less freedom.) Democracy is often taken as a de facto solution or optimal state-of-being, these democratic rights being "self-evident".
In the same way, but with apparently more exacting standards, no one who does not care for public beatings, fines, jail, forced divorce and eventual beheading never offer less islam as a solution to the problems of islamic society. Contrarily, it is in fact often the reverse: “Women are oppressed! What can we do?” “More islam!” “Human rights are in danger! How can we stop this?” “More islam!” “Apostates are being killed! What is the solution?” “More islam!” and so on and so on, ad nauseam. There are exceptions to this – human rights organizations do exist in islamic countries, the adherents of which are often referred to by where they are buried. In any event, it is contrary to the nature of islamic society to ease off the valves on religion – for if one’s Head of State is purported not to be a mere mortal choking on a pretzel, but rather God, then it probably strikes the waybearers of officialdom as well as the laity to err on the side of torches and pitchforks, so as not to offend governmental practice and a being that supposedly dictates the future of individual existence. And so “more islam” is inevitably preached as a solution, without ever recognizing (or at least not obviously) that more islam (translating into more conservative islam) itself is the problem, and so there is less talking - or at least not that outside the ‘will’ of this presumed ‘prophet’, forcing discussion into those comfortable patterns of “submission” and rote, and resulting in more dismay and decry of the “evils” of Western (or whatever) decadence, where people are “free to insult Allah, but not free to question the Holocaust” and so forth, and so there is more inward hatred directed at those presumed to be fifth columnists inside the ummah – the Christians, the Jews, the Animists, the Hindus, the secularists – without ever needing to identify precisely what is so wrong about them, or so right about more islam in the first place.
Now all that might seem an unnecessarily harsh condemnation of the society of islamic nations, or of islam. I don’t doubt that there are truly moderate muslims in the world (although apparently not a majority of British muslims anyway, which is quite disturbing), but consider: in which national societies is the questioning of societal dogma (religious, political or otherwise) tolerated? In which is it not?
Why is that, and is it likely to change?
It is ironic then how many so-called progressive Islamic countries are driven even further back into the millenia due to well-intentioned Western politics, who only seem to feel their significance when the results of their tampering come too close to home. And yet the circle goes on and on.
Fraggle Rocker said:
Canadas in afghanistan and Im sure much more. Plus its not the obvious iraq,israel stuff fundamentalists go on about, its much deeper.
Your characterization of Islamic states is not far from wrong, in general, but this goal for democratic ones is only taught in civic classes, not practiced.GeoffP said:
Almost all, if not all, states act in what they perceive to be their self interest, but usually only the consequences during the current rulers term of office are considered important. (This may be some Darwinian selection process and perhaps explains under investment in education etc. as well as long-term, counter-productive foreign policy.)
If you really believe US invaded Iraq to further democracy or that US opposed Musharraf over throwing the elected government, his closing of congress, banning opposition press, staging sham election (with the two only serious opponents banded from participation) etc., then stop reading now as facts will change your POV.
If you want to look just* at the CIA’s role in "furthering democracy" I reproduce part of my post at 45 past the hour yesterday in thread "Israel/Lebanon = convenient distraction..." below (the two footnotes give facts and references - go to original to read.):
Billy T said:
You are not as naive as your claim that democracies only seek to spread democracy indicates (I think). In the current US case, the government does not even act in the short term interest of the people, but for the wealthy and powerful. - For examples read my post that asks "How stupid can US voters be?" (Pay higher taxes to pay more for food and energy and transfer billions to a few well connected groups, like the Cargill family and Iowa’s industrial scale corn growers.)
--------------------------
*I will not detail the role of government-backed private companies like United Fruit Co. in South America, etc. that also overthrew elected governments, craved off Panama from Columbia etc.
Well, I'm referring to the presumed core principles, of course.
How well any such state is held to such presumptions depends on the populace, the leaders they elect, big business, and domestic and international developments. I would argue still that any practical failing of its qualities is just that: a failure of practice, rather than the intent of its founding principles.
How well any such state is held to such presumptions depends on the populace, the leaders they elect, big business, and domestic and international developments. I would argue still that any practical failing of its qualities is just that: a failure of practice, rather than the intent of its founding principles.
GeoffP said:
Afghanistan pre-Taliban, where urban women did not wear the veil and worked for a living.
Iran- pre-1953 coup and economic sanctions imposed by UK and US on Mossadegh who wanted to nationalise the oil, followed by the Iran-Iraq war and reversion to fundamentalism.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm
OK, but that is quite academic. I follow the rule that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck etc. it is a duck.GeoffP said:
Fact is that US is (and has been for a long time) exploiting the weaker states that happen to have assets it wants, not “spreading democracy.” Often via local puppets who get rich or states like Israel and Saudi Arabia* who can do things (torture, war crimes, mass kidnappings, effective human intelligence collection, bombing raids, wide spread civil destruction, etc.) the US wants done.
It is pure hypocrisy to claim this is all in the interest of “spreading democracy!”
--------------------------------------
*The royal Saudi family can not conduct bombing raids, but provides the Bases for the US to do so, however, their most important service is to help enforce selling oil only for dollars. This makes many nations willing to hold their reserves mainly in dollars, and is the only reason why dollar has not already collapsed, given fact US can never pay back what it already owes and went $14.6 billion deeper in debt to China in July alone. (China is holding 941 billion dollars in reserves now, but would hold much more in Euros if oil were sold in Euros also. etc.) In exchange for these services, the US helps keep them on the throne, despite their many anti-democratic policies and lack of popular support.
Last edited by a moderator: