# The clash of civilizations - hatred, and other aspects of it



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> That's one of the reasons why I frankly believe you're not moderator material, buddy. You don't seem to know what 'Hate Speech" is.:lol:


For me hate speech is lengthy and not a sentence which can be interpreted either way.
So perhaps I don't know what it is, but hey I CAN LEARN!

:lol::tiphat::trp::lol:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

*What qualifies as hate speech?*



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> For me hate speech is lengthy and not a sentence which can be interpreted either way.
> So perhaps I don't know what it is, but hey I CAN LEARN!


You can learn? Prove it, buddy.

If you need help, here is a little paragraph of that famous syllabus, "Almaviva's Course on What Constitutes Hate Speech 101": 
"When someone advocates for 13 million people to be bombed (among them, likely, 99.999% having no ties with terrorism whatsoever) in order to rid the world of their "evil cult" [verbatim, as per a recent example provided by infamous TC member Saul], it's hate speech.":lol:

If you can learn this much, you'll be making steady progress in your quest to become a moderator.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> You can learn? Prove it, buddy.
> 
> If you need help, here is a little paragraph of that famous syllabus, "Almaviva's Course on What Constitutes Hate Speech 101":
> "When someone advocates for 13 million people to be bombed (among them, likely, 99.999% having no ties with terrorism whatsoever) in order to rid the world of their "evil cult" [verbatim, as per a recent example provided by infamous TC member Saul], it's hate speech.":lol:
> ...


Please don't _Gandalf _me with quests and stuff LOL! :lol:

But Alma, you know that I have never used the word 'Nuke'.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Please don't _Gandalf _me with quests and stuff LOL! :lol:
> 
> But Alma, you know that I have never used the word 'Nuke'.


Some conventional bombs kill just as easily. To advocate for bombing a religious location where 13 million people are peacefully worshiping for what you call 'evil cult' which happens to be one of the three main monotheistic religions is hate speech, period. I'm in a talkative mood today, Saul, otherwise I'd have stopped stating the obvious already. It's that sometimes you *can* be funny so I continued. :lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Some conventional bombs kill just as easily. To advocate for bombing a religious location where 13 million people are peacefully worshiping for what you call 'evil cult' which happens to be one of the three main monotheistic religions is hate speech, period. I'm in a talkative mood today, Saul, otherwise I'd have stopped stating the obvious already. It's that sometimes you *can* be funny so I continued. :lol:


So you're saying that what America did to the Japanese was erroneous?

How about what the British did to Dresden when they bombed and killed over 250.000 Germans civilians in ww2?

What makes war moral, where should be the red lines, and how can you confront an enemy who who doesn't want to play with the same rules, you know of 'innocent civilians'?

I'm really interested to hear your points of view here.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> So you're saying that what America did to the Japanese was erroneous?
> 
> How about what the British did to Dresden when they bombed and killed over 250.000 Germans civilians in ww2?
> 
> ...


I'm a pacifist, Saul. I regret all loss of life, and even more that of innocent civilians. Often, though, countries at war need to resort to the lesser of two evils in order to put an end to a war. As I'm sure that you are aware, Americans had tried other avenues to bring the war in the Pacific to an end before dropping the bomb.
Your idea of bombing Mecca, though, hardly belongs to the same scenario. You'd be wiping out 13 million people in order to catch a few hundred (if that many) with links to terrorism. It doesn't seem to me like the lesser of two evils. But I see your attempts to ask me these questions as efforts to keep the argument going, and to tell you the truth, I'm growing less interested in continuing.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> I'm a pacifist, Saul. I regret all loss of life, and even more that of innocent civilians. Often, though, countries at war need to resort to the lesser of two evils in order to put an end to a war. As I'm sure that you are aware, Americans had tried other avenues to bring the war in the Pacific to an end before dropping the bomb.
> Your idea of bombing Mecca, though, hardly belongs to the same scenario. You'd be wiping out 13 million people in order to catch a few hundred (if that many) with links to terrorism. It doesn't seem to me like the lesser of two evils. But I see your attempts to ask me these questions as efforts to keep the argument going, and to tell you the truth, I'm growing less interested in continuing.


Amazing, you forgot about 911, I mean if that was not a reason to do so as America has done to Japan because of pearl harbor then what is a reason?

Are we only allowed to take action after millions of Americans die because we don't have the stomach to do what is right before hand?

Are you willing to trust your life and the life of your family in the hands of those who want to see America die?

Or the intelligent thing to do is to stop with these liberal and progressive ******* mentality, and get up and finally point the finger at the problem as the allies have done in ww2, and really fight it in order to save ourselves?

All these terrorists are not operating from hot air balloons, but are supported and funded and encouraged and inspired by Muslim dictatorships, such as, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, Libya, and a number of other Muslim countries.

They declare with the support of these Arab and Muslim governments and the people that they want to destroy us.

Have you forgot the candy parties in the Palestinian territories on 9/11?

They danced while our brothers and sisters here were drowning in their own blood.

Are these the people that you consider as Innocent Civilians?

These celebrations where all across the Muslim and Arab world, with the exception of perhaps Turkey. But I remember vividly all these vicious things on CNN






This is what they want to do to us, from Arab TV. Yes, civilians are chanting, the 'CIVILIANS'!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Being a pacifist, Saul, doesn't mean being spineless and toothless. It means, though, that I'd reserve massive military option as last resort, without denying to America the right to defend ourselves and to strike at our enemies when warranted.

And just to clarify the issue, America didn't drop the two bombs as "revenge" for Pearl Harbour. America declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbour attacks. The bombs were dropped to put an end to the war, under calculations that given the Japanese refusal to surrender, other means would result in even more loss of life.

But when you say this - "Are we only allowed to take action after millions of Americans die because we don’t have the stomach to do what is right before hand?" - what exactly do you propose, Saul? Do you think that "the right thing to do" after 9/11 would have been the bombing of Mecca? Sorry, but I disagree.

And you're quoting all these countries and these celebrations - which still, on a TV screen, doesn't mean that many other Muslims did not regret what Al Qaeda did on 9/11 - what do you propose, Saul? That we wage war on all of them because we're disgusted at their celebrations? Is this what you think would solve the issue?

We don't even have the military capability to do as you say, but if we did, I sincerely doubt that this would be a wise course of action.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Being a pacifist, Saul, doesn't mean being spineless and toothless. It means, though, that I'd reserve massive military option as last resort, without denying to America the right to defend ourselves and to strike at our enemies when warranted.
> 
> And just to clarify the issue, America didn't drop the two bombs as "revenge" for Pearl Harbour. America declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbour attacks. The bombs were dropped to put an end to the war, under calculations that given the Japanese refusal to surrender, other means would result in even more loss of life.
> 
> ...


There is no way for you to change your mind.

Therefore I'll just leave it at that.

I categorically reject in the strongest possible terms, your point of you on this matter, though I respect your right to speak it out.

Cheers,


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Content removed by moderator.

This paragraph was in violation of forum rules - My policy lately has been one public warning like this one, followed by an infraction if the behavior persists. Usually we'd do it by PM but in order to rein in the frequent violations of rules and TOS in the Community Forum area, I'm opting for a public warning.

Please remember, from the Forum Rules and Terms of Service:

"Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive)."


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Andre said:


> Content removed by moderator


I wonder how would anyone feel if an entire article be written about him full of accusations, hate and insults?

I will not respond to any of your accusations, but I have confidence in the mods that they'll take the right steps against you.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I have confidence in the mods that they'll take the right steps


Content removed by moderator.

This paragraph was in violation of forum rules - My policy lately has been one public warning like this one, followed by an infraction if the behavior persists. Usually we'd do it by PM but in order to rein in the frequent violations of rules and TOS in the Community Forum area, I'm opting for a public warning.

Please remember, from the Forum Rules and Terms of Service:

"Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive)."


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

*What qualifies as hate speech? *

*Toucan* : Content removed by moderator

*Andre* : Content removed by moderator

I'd say these two are perfect examples.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Alma, 

Thank You.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Alma,
> 
> Thank You.


You're welcome, Saul, but do remember that I'm watching you like a hawk. Don't stray. Like I said, while the above users haven't used up their two strikes yet (thus a warning and an edit-out with no other action), you have.:devil:


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

> "Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive)."


As my old mum used to say, "if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all".

EDIT: (Actually she wasn't that old when she said that, more my age now)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I have heard that the first video, supposedly of Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attack, is fraudulent. It was already several months old at the time of the attack.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> You're welcome, Saul, but do remember that I'm watching you like a hawk. Don't stray. Like I said, while the above users haven't used up their two strikes yet (thus a warning and an edit-out with no other action), you have.:devil:


Ok Henry! LOL


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

science said:


> I have heard that the first video, supposedly of Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attack, is fraudulent. It was already several months old at the time of the attack.


Yes, and the earth is flat.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mamascarlatti said:


> As my old mum used to say, "if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all" ...


I'll have to take that advice in future Apologies to Saul for my now erased post, I didn't think it was being that personal, but it obviously was. I mostly try to relate things to my own experience rather than judgements or prejudices, but if I was doing that, I'm sorry...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Andre said:


> I'll have to take that advice in future Apologies to Saul for my now erased post, I didn't think it was being that personal, but it obviously was. I mostly try to relate things to my own experience rather than judgements or prejudices, but if I was doing that, I'm sorry...


I forgive you completely, and I appreciate your Apology.

Cheers,


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Ok Henry! LOL


:lol:

Hm... lets see... is this a violation of rules and TOS?

[Alma browses frantically his book Moderation for Dummies]

Darn, it seems like it isn't. You live to fight another day, Saul.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, and the earth is flat.


Tread lightly, Saul. Wouldn't you rather refute the user's claim if you disagree and have evidence to the contrary, rather than being sarcastic?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Tread lightly, Saul. Wouldn't you rather refute the user's claim if you disagree and have evidence to the contrary, rather than being sarcastic?


Lets put the Palestinians celebrating on 911 aside, because its only one example of many.

This is Hamas in their own voices about what they want to do to America and the Jews.
( Hamas elected by the vast majority of the Palestinian population)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, and the earth is flat.





Almaviva said:


> Tread lightly, Saul. Wouldn't you rather refute the user's claim if you disagree and have evidence to the contrary, rather than being sarcastic?


I second Almaviva's comment. I hope most of us come to this board to discuss interesting issues (mostly about music but other issues as well). To see all the off topic posts as well as posts that are not intended to further intellectual discussion is disappointing to say the least.

I am a scientist and well acquainted with intense arguments (including people yelling vehemently). Those arguments (almost always) focus on the issues not on the speaker. I don't care if someone tells me my idea is crap as long as they explain why. Frankly sometimes my ideas are crap, and I want to know that. But it's just a waste of time to hear that I'm wrong, or an idiot, or braindead if there's no explanation.

I am still new to this forum, but I greatly enjoy learning and sharing with the others here. I may be a bit naive (I am not young), but the moderators seem to be working pretty hard lately. I can image how difficult and frustrating being a moderator can be. Thanks for your and the other moderators' efforts, Almaviva.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Lets put the Palestinians celebrating on 911 aside, because its only one example of many.
> 
> This is Hamas in their own voices about what they want to do to America and the Jews.
> ( Hamas elected by the vast majority of the Palestinian population)


Hey, it does look like you *can* recognize hate speech after all, as long as it's the other side's!:lol:
Saul, I don't think anybody doubts that there are extremists among the Muslims.
You have posted some examples. Yep, they do exist. It still doesn't justify, in my opinion, the systematic elimination of Muslims from the face of the planet. Last time someone tried to pull off something of the same order, it was a certain Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I second Almaviva's comment. I hope most of us come to this board to discuss interesting issues (mostly about music but other issues as well). To see all the off topic posts as well as posts that are not intended to further intellectual discussion is disappointing to say the least.
> 
> I am a scientist and well acquainted with intense arguments (including people yelling vehemently). Those arguments (almost always) focus on the issues not on the speaker. I don't care if someone tells me my idea is crap as long as they explain why. Frankly sometimes my ideas are crap, and I want to know that. But it's just a waste of time to hear that I'm wrong, or an idiot, or braindead if there's no explanation.
> 
> I am still new to this forum, but I greatly enjoy learning and sharing with the others here. I may be a bit naive (I am not young), but the moderators seem to be working pretty hard lately. I can image how difficult and frustrating being a moderator can be. Thanks for your and the other moderators' efforts, Almaviva.


Yep. Not too far ago, this Community Forum area had threads like "what books have you been reading?" or "post a picture of your pet." Lately, this area is giving us Mods lots of headaches.

Thanks for your kind comments.:tiphat:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Hey, it does look like you *can* recognize hate speech after all, as long as it's the other side's!:lol:
> Saul, I don't think anybody doubts that there are extremists among the Muslims.
> You have posted some examples. Yep, they do exist. It still doesn't justify, in my opinion, the systematic elimination of Muslims from the face of the planet. Last time someone tried to pull something of the same order, it was a certain Adolf Hitler.


Not the extermination of all Muslims, who in the world ever suggested that?

When the allies went to war against Germany did they plan to kill all Germans in the world?

Of course not, but they were willing to recognize that Nazism was the cause of poisoning the minds of so many millions of people. The same is Islam, in my opinion, and the fight should be concentrated to that end, in away that it would impress upon the Muslim people all around the world that they must change course and alter their hateful and bellicose activities against western civilization.

That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Not the extermination of all Muslims, who in the world ever suggested that?
> 
> When the allies went to war against Germany did they plan to kill all Germans in the world?
> 
> ...


Who did? You did. You said that we should rid the world of this "evil cult," remember? The thread was removed, but we moderators still have access to it.

I personally don't think that the solution is to directly fight the religion of Islam, but rather, to foster the modernization and democratization of the nations where Muslims are the majority. If this could be achieved, some of the more medieval talk about crusades and jihad would naturally die out... you don't see the same virulence in Turkey, a more modern and secular Muslim country.

But I'm not very optimistic. It seems to me that the world is marching towards more radicalism rather than less.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Who did? You did. You said that we should rid the world of this "evil cult," remember? The thread was removed, but we moderators still have access to it.
> 
> I personally don't think that the solution is to directly fight the religion of Islam, but rather, to foster the modernization and democratization of the nations where Muslims are the majority. If this could be achieved, some of the more medieval talk about crusades and jihad would naturally die out... you don't see the same virulence in Turkey, a more modern and secular Muslim country.
> 
> But I'm not very optimistic. It seems to me that the world is marching towards more radicalism rather than less.


Yes just like the evil cult of Nazism, no difference, whatsoever.

I'm talking about the Idea not the people.

Now I don't know how saying that the west had to nuke Mecca after 911 is the same as saying that all Muslims around the world should be killed.

There is a huge difference. Even after pearl harbor the American objective was never to kill every Japanese in the world, but to create a reality where it would impress upon the Japanese people to cease and desist their evil activities in ww2, and it worked, Japan surrendered.

The same is with Mecca,, there has to be some kind of a drastic overwhelming and powerful out of the ordinary response that will cause the Muslim people to reject the ways of their extremist religious 'leaders' and leave non Muslims alone to live in peace and security.

But that's a far FAR call from saying that all Muslims should be killed, ands I'll be the first one to tell you that this would be wrong and criminal on every single level.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> But I'm not very optimistic. It seems to me that the world is marching towards more radicalism rather than less.


There's a lot to worry about, and a lot to be optimistic about.

Imagine a democratic Arab world. It is thinkable now; it wasn't three months ago. That is a lot of progress! Let us pray....

Another thing casting a few rays of hope through my darkened window is the advances in alternative energy, which if they accumulate enough to be cheaper than fossil fuels (more and more likely as the price of the latter rise) would change the geopolitics of the world much for the better.

And in China - I think we're ten years away from seeing either a democratic revolution in China, or a very scary nationalist militarism.

Radicalism in the US doesn't worry me too much. The Tea Party discredits itself too often, and is a movement of old rather than young people. I think in reality a genuinely populist movement is likely to appear soon; the analogies to the Gilded Age are becoming too obvious.

We are in rough waters, but things might, may, perhaps, be getting better.

The one spot in the world that I have no optimisim about is Israel/Palestine. I just don't see any solution to that until both sides turn against the radicals within their own ranks, and I can't imagine that happening until a lot more blood has been spilled. (But if alternative energy renders the Middle East less important to the American military... things could move quickly.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, and the earth is flat.


I looked it up, and the video is real. My bad.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> I personally don't think that the solution is to directly fight the religion of Islam, but rather, to foster the modernization and democratization of the nations where Muslims are the majority. If this could be achieved, some of the more medieval talk about crusades and jihad would naturally die out... you don't see the same virulence in Turkey, a more modern and secular Muslim country.
> 
> But I'm not very optimistic. It seems to me that the world is marching towards more radicalism rather than less.


Actually I am optimistic especially based on the recent profound unrest in Arab countries. No one would have predicted the revolts against the old leadership in so many nations. Just as "Christian" nations changed from a more fundamentalist view (crusades, Spanish Inquisition) to a strong separation between church and state, I believe the same can happen to Arab countries. Young Arabs seem to have a much stronger affinity for democracy than older ones. I don't think things will change overnight, but I think exposure to the rest of the world (through the internet and TV) has begun to change Arab sentiment. We'll see how things play out.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Actually I am optimistic especially based on the recent profound unrest in Arab countries. No one would have predicted the revolts against the old leadership in so many nations. Just as "Christian" nations changed from a more fundamentalist view (crusades, Spanish Inquisition) to a strong separation between church and state, I believe the same can happen to Arab countries. Young Arabs seem to have a much stronger affinity for democracy than older ones. I don't think things will change overnight, but I think exposure to the rest of the world (through the internet and TV) has begun to change Arab sentiment. We'll see how things play out.


I personally believe that Real Democracy will never work in the Arab World.

*"In recent centuries, ordinary people in Western countries have gradually been persuaded to adopt the political ideals and culture of liberal democracy, making them easy targets for elite manipulation using liberal democratic institutions and processes. The problem for the West is that the masses in Muslim countries have not accepted these political ideals and culture because they have a very strong and powerful indigenous alternative, the political ideals and culture of Islam. When Muslims talk of wanting democracy in their countries, they do not mean, a few westernised exceptions apart, that they want to import western-style secular liberalism, as the West likes to assume; they mean that they want freedom from oppression and repression so that they can establish political institutions reflecting their Islamic political culture and ideals, through which they can achieve independence from foreign hegemony, and popular participation, empowerment and accountability, on their own terms." *

Full article written by an Arab: (I knew this fact even without him, but for those who want an 'objective opinion' here it is)

http://europe.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/21558


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Are we only allowed to take action after millions of Americans die because we don't have the stomach to do what is right before hand?


I've been reading quite a bit of American history, domestic and foreign affairs and I'd say our government has not done what is right most of the time. I could site numerous examples, but better that you do some reading if you want to find out the facts.

I don't condone the acts of Muslim terrorists, and I don't like religious fanatics, but one must ask oneself why Britain and the US are major targets of terrorist acts?

I also find it quite amazing that people such as the Vietnamese don't hate our guts.

You speak of dictatorships sponsoring terrorist groups, but how many dictatorships have been sponsored by the U.S.? How many democratic regimes have been overthrown by the US, and or Britain?

You think the U.S. really needed to drop those atom bombs on Japanese cities and kill all of those people? Try reading James Carroll's House Of War and you might have a different point of view?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

(In response to Mr Dzorlashvili.'s quote): That may be right, but it is an argument that their democracies will not be secular, and it is not an argument that they won't have democracies. 

I've never seen the term "Real Democracy." What does it refer to?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

science said:


> (In response to Mr Dzorlashvili.'s quote): That may be right, but it is an argument that their democracies will not be secular, and it is not an argument that they won't have democracies.
> 
> I've never seen the term "Real Democracy." What does it refer to?


Democracy is a civilization , not a one time act of 'voting rights' and then 'business as usual'.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Democracy is a civilization , not a one time act of 'voting rights' and then 'business as usual'.


I don't understand.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

science said:


> I don't understand.


Its late, I'll explain further later on...

meanwhile cheers!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Its late, I'll explain further later on...
> 
> meanwhile cheers!


Ok, good night.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes just like the evil cult of Nazism, no difference, whatsoever.
> 
> I'm talking about the Idea not the people.
> 
> ...


But Saul, then please further clarify your point. How does one "rid the world of this evil cult" withouth eliminating those who are adherents of what you call the evil cult and I call a religion? Because as long as Muslims exist, Islam will exist - therefore, even if your method got them to cease and desist of any idea of killing the infidels and imposing their religion on the rest of the world, the "evil cult" (in your words) would still exist, and would be just lurking for another opportunity.

And you really don't see *any* difference between a major monotheistic religion - Islam - and Nazism? Really???


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Actually I am optimistic especially based on the recent profound unrest in Arab countries. No one would have predicted the revolts against the old leadership in so many nations. Just as "Christian" nations changed from a more fundamentalist view (crusades, Spanish Inquisition) to a strong separation between church and state, I believe the same can happen to Arab countries. Young Arabs seem to have a much stronger affinity for democracy than older ones. I don't think things will change overnight, but I think exposure to the rest of the world (through the internet and TV) has begun to change Arab sentiment. *We'll see how things play out*.


This last phrase of yours is the key. While I see what is going on with moderate optimism, what kind of leadership emerges from these popular movements remains to be seen. Remember Khomeini and the Iranian revolution? It was heralded in Europe as great progress, and great things were supposed to happen to Iran. Instead, it turned into unification between religion and state and more extremism.

So, if the unrest in the Middle East leads to modern, secular states, fine. But if it leads to the opposite (in Algeria, for instance, there is a large radical Muslim movement just waiting for the opportunity to take over), then, beware.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I personally believe that Real Democracy will never work in the Arab World.
> 
> *"In recent centuries, ordinary people in Western countries have gradually been persuaded to adopt the political ideals and culture of liberal democracy, making them easy targets for elite manipulation using liberal democratic institutions and processes. The problem for the West is that the masses in Muslim countries have not accepted these political ideals and culture because they have a very strong and powerful indigenous alternative, the political ideals and culture of Islam. When Muslims talk of wanting democracy in their countries, they do not mean, a few westernised exceptions apart, that they want to import western-style secular liberalism, as the West likes to assume; they mean that they want freedom from oppression and repression so that they can establish political institutions reflecting their Islamic political culture and ideals, through which they can achieve independence from foreign hegemony, and popular participation, empowerment and accountability, on their own terms." *
> 
> ...


I'd say that Turkey has had real democracy and has espoused many Western values, in spite of being a populous, overwhelmingly Muslim country. So, it's not impossible. Granted that you have said Arab World and Turkey is not part of it - neither is Iran - but I'm focusing more on the fact that Islam is the predominant religion in Turkey rather than on ethnic origin - and this seems to be the focus of your quote in bold font as well.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Remember Khomeini and the Iranian revolution? It was heralded in Europe as great progress, and great things were supposed to happen to Iran. Instead, it turned into unification between religion and state and more extremism.
> .


Remember when the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953? The west has been instrumental in sowing the seeds of mid east terrorism that they are now a target of.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Remember when the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953? The west has been instrumental in sowing the seeds of mid east terrorism that they are now a target of.


Other than apologizing, what would you suggest we do about it now?

It's worth noting that Iran and Iranian terrorists really aren't targeting the US. They say a lot of crap about Israel, and of course if they get nuclear weapons it'll be bad news for the region because Saudi Arabia will want them too, and then probably Turkey and Egypt, and the world would be a much scarier place - for the West and Israel, at least. But still, the terrorism the US worries about now seems to have roots primarily in Saudi Arabia, Europe (among the guest workers), Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than in Iran.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Remember when the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953? The west has been instrumental in sowing the seeds of mid east terrorism that they are now a target of.


I agree with you on this. I'm just saying that we don't know what will come out of these seemingly encouraging current developments in the Middle East. It may be a push to enlightenment and progress, or it could be a plunge into the Middle Age.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't really think a lot is going to change in this world unless all governments are serious about meeting the basic needs of all people. As long as the manipulation and exploitation continues, this world will continue down a treacherous path. The U.S. should lead the way, but unfortunately Washington is still playing the old game.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

science said:


> Other than apologizing, what would you suggest we do about it now?
> 
> It's worth noting that Iran and Iranian terrorists really aren't targeting the US. They say a lot of crap about Israel, and of course if they get nuclear weapons it'll be bad news for the region because Saudi Arabia will want them too, and then probably Turkey and Egypt, and the world would be a much scarier place - for the West and Israel, at least. But still, the terrorism the US worries about now seems to have roots primarily in Saudi Arabia, Europe (among the guest workers), Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than in Iran.


The Iranians seem very interested in regime survival and probably won't do anything harsh. But they are also interested in increasing their influence in the region, and that's where the problem is. You have also, in my opinion, correctly identified the risk of a race to arm all countries in the region with nuclear weapons.

I believe that Israel's survival depends largely on the technological gap between it and the other regional countries. Once this gap is gone - and it will eventually be gone - their survival will be hanging by a thread.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not very optimistic about the future of the world.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I don't really think a lot is going to change in this world unless all governments are serious about meeting the basic needs of all people. As long as the manipulation and exploitation continues, this world will continue down a treacherous path.* The U.S. should lead the way*, but unfortunately Washington is still playing the old game.


I don't think we'll be this relevant for much longer. We are in frank decline. I mean, we'll still be relevant during the remainder of my lifetime, but in historical terms, our empire is going down, like all empires do. What will happen to the world in the future will be largely determined by the doings of the new emerging superpower, China.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Given the larger scope that this thread is acquiring, I have edited its title to "The clash of civilizations - hatred, and other aspects of it."


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> But Saul, then please further clarify your point. How does one "rid the world of this evil cult" withouth eliminating those who are adherents of what you call the evil cult and I call a religion? Because as long as Muslims exist, Islam will exist - therefore, even if your method got them to cease and desist of any idea of killing the infidels and imposing their religion on the rest of the world, the "evil cult" (in your words) would still exist, and would be just lurking for another opportunity.
> 
> And you really don't see *any* difference between a major monotheistic religion - Islam - and Nazism? Really???


Again the same thing happened with Nazi Germany in ww2. The allies were fighting this evil cult called Nazism by destroying its main foundations and power points and leaders, and once you cut of the head of the snake it can solve the problem. Nazi Germany was destroyed, and it grew a different head, that looked towards democracy.

Islam at its current status is a 'wicked cult', not the people, but the idea, the Islamic ideology has brainwashed millions of people to do unimaginable things, and the fact that it has some kind of a religious undertones, makes it even worse.

When you murder in the name of the God that commanded 'thou shall not murder' its even worse then coming out with your own personal ideas about murder and devastation, because you are misrepresenting God's will in this world, and are manipulating it to your own dark ends.

Therefore the fact that its also a religion doesn't make its crimes less serious, but on the contrary, more serious and more sinful.

In conclusion - The West must wake up and identify the nature of the threat and undertake the necessary steps to combat it and defeat it in order to save the lives of our peoples. If that includes some drastic steps that include pinpointed nuclear attacks at strategic points in the Islamic world, then that could be an option, just like it was an option in ww2 against Japan. We should be ready to use any weapon at out disposal in order to save our civilization before its too late and before they will get the upper hand and use those weapons against us as they are threatening to do.

After that, its entirely possible that intelligent Muslims will want to edit and alter their Religious texts towards tolerance and self respect to the other. But as long as they are believing that they have the upper hand in this battle that would encourage them to be even more radical.

But said all this, no one and especially not me for that matter suggests to kill every single Muslim in the world, that would be criminal and wrong and unacceptable on every level.

Hope this is clear now.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sorry man, I don't think that's an accurate let alone a charitable representation of Islam.

Here is Islam:



> It's waves of love that make the heavens turn
> Without that love the universe would freeze:
> no mineral absorbed by vegetable
> no growing thing consumed by animal
> ...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

science said:


> I'm sorry man, I don't think that's an accurate let alone a charitable representation of Islam.
> 
> Here is Islam:


Its like taking a cute paragraph from mein kampf that doesn't talk about murdering Jews and others and saying :'Here's Nazism".

Koran:

*Sura 47:4 "Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them… He lets you fight in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost." Another English translation says, "When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters."*

*Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."*

There are much more like these here:

http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

This is to announce that if the moderators of this site are here to do the bidding of the most consistently abusive poster on this site since Mirror Image and Myaskovski were banned then I can certainly no longer bother to post here.

I will also say this: I am jewish. My uncle Marcel M. died at Birkenau because he was Jewish. But I am outraged that this site will show such tolerance of anti-Arab hate as the OP has displyed. It is not by allowing calls for mass-murder that peace in the middle East will be instaured - and it is not by allowing expression of hate that this site will be a decent one.

(Moderator overkill in the past few days has been as outrageous as their biases, as they have tended to penalize those wo respond to abuse instead of penalizing the abuse.



Andre said:


> Content removed by moderator.
> 
> This paragraph was in violation of forum rules - My policy lately has been one public warning like this one, followed by an infraction if the behavior persists. Usually we'd do it by PM but in order to rein in the frequent violations of rules and TOS in the Community Forum area, I'm opting for a public warning.
> 
> ...





toucan said:


> Content removed by moderator.
> 
> This paragraph was in violation of forum rules - My policy lately has been one public warning like this one, followed by an infraction if the behavior persists. Usually we'd do it by PM but in order to rein in the frequent violations of rules and TOS in the Community Forum area, I'm opting for a public warning.
> 
> ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sure you're aware I can find equivalent quotes from the Hebrew Bible. 

You've lost perspective in a big way if you can make the comparison between Islam and Nazism with a straight face.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

science said:


> I'm sure you're aware I can find equivalent quotes from the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> You've lost perspective in a big way if you can make the comparison between Islam and Nazism with a straight face.


Show me where you saw the same thing in the Hebrew Bible and I will deal with it.
But until you wont do that, the similarities between Nazism and Islam are rock solid, not only in written form but practice form.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

The only entity reminiscent of the Nazis right here and now is the person who has advocated the bombing of peaceful arab religious and civil centers. Advocating mass murder is never something decent folk will accept and it may even be unlawful - ie incitation to murders, assault by threat and even apology of crimes against humanity.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I should convert to Islam so that I can respond to this more powerfully. 

As it is, let it be this way: I have several Muslim friends, including one of my very best friends, a former 7th Day Adventist who converted while we were in college. We became tight as he and I both left an Evangelical Christian fellowship because of our religious conversions (mine to Eastern Orthodox Christianity) and we shared a lot of great conversations. 

It is unjust in the extreme to compare him and something like a billion other peaceful Muslims to 

Nevermind. It is another lost cause. 

My god.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Show me where you saw the same thing in the Hebrew Bible and I will deal with it.
> But until you wont do that, the similarities between Nazism and Islam are rock solid, not only in written form but practice form.


Actually, Judaism is precisely equivalent to Nazism.

Give you any perspective?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Deuteronomy 20:17-18:



> You shall annihilate them: the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites--just as Yahweh your god has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against Yahweh your god.


1 Samuel 15:2-3:



> Thus says Yahweh of hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for wha tthey did in opposing the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."


But of course they didn't always kill the women; Numbers 31:17-18:



> Now therefore, kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.


It's lovely, Judaism.

Is that a fair comment?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Just to say that smacking someone across the face in public or in private are both rude, insensitive and bad...and therefore unacceptable.


In original context "smacking" meant insulting.

But calling them Nazis....


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

O.K.: time to press the "pause" button.

The hatefulness of Nazism is something close to universally understood.

When we start comparing broad religious traditions to it, we've crossed the line
(or crossed the line _again_).

O.K.: we've tried not to be "quick with the lock," and now, here's the price.

*There will be individual consequences.*


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Just one word of clarification for members who may consult this locked thread, especially Toucan: the moderation was done like this in the spirit of giving members all the possible chances to correct behavior before penalties were issued. I warned member Toucan but didn't issue an infraction. I warned member Saul as well and said he'd be watched like a hawk and the next deviation would result in penalties, and this is what ended up happening. Rules, however, need to be respected by both sides. If a member provokes others and someone reacts harshly and thus violates the rules and TOS as well, the person who reacts will also be warned. The more appropriate action for the offended part is to PM the moderator or click on the red triangle, to complain of a post you consider to be abusive. It is not appropriate to react by *also* violating the TOS. Regards, Alma.


----------

