A new view of Islam?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As to the first bolded: I don't think he meant that Arabs are to stupid...

I think he meant that arab and western cultures are so far apart that we can't expect each other to act in predictable ways.

Let's face it, the tribe and the religion has a MUCH larger impact on the everyday arabs life, than a white person.

Where did you get that they would be inferior?

This is honestly just your brainwashed PC German post-nazi comprehension of the issue...

They are DIFFERENT - yes.
They are hard to integrate into a western society - sure.
They are inherently inferior - at what?

They might be inherently inferior when it comes to being fully functional in a western society... It does NOT however make them inferior as persons, no?

But with your glasses on, anything that isn't bending over and absolutely spreading - towards immigration and integration is racism, aight?

Kad - you need to bookmark this, so next time you're arguing with Husar and groping for an articulate way to express your views on immigration whilst drunk you can link to it.

Also - hey - Kad and I said basically the same thing in two separate threads.

Given that we grew up in different countries it MUST be our shared Swedish ancestry - it's that gene that makes all swedes inherently racist, the one they usually suppress with decades of liberal schooling.

[Papewaio]

Two points.

Iranians are on the main Persians not Arabs. It's like confusing an Englishman with an Italian.

Second point is read up how the Iranian revolutions were instigated. Read up the backstory on how democratically elected officials were removed from office by UK and USA in favour of ones who were pro their oil companies. These are well documented facts of a puppet state, not conspiracy theories.

[Pannonian]

Two points.

Iranians are on the main Persians not Arabs. It's like confusing an Englishman with an Italian.

Second point is read up how the Iranian revolutions were instigated. Read up the backstory on how democratically elected officials were removed from office by UK and USA in favour of ones who were pro their oil companies. These are well documented facts of a puppet state, not conspiracy theories.

Rather than beat ourselves over what we did decades and generations ago, why not accept that the world now is what it is now, and work with that? If we hadn't got ourselves het up over how the middle east wasn't a liberal democracy, we'd have never have implemented the neocons' fantasies, and Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad would still be securely in power, spitting defiance at the west, but keeping an effective lid on the far nastier undercurrents of the societies under their thumb. I don't want Iran or any other middle eastern country to become any more of a democracy, certainly if it involves our effort, than they currently are, if it means (and every instance points that way) that Islamism will take hold. I don't want us to install dictators any more. But neither do I want us to depose any dictators who are already around. They can have whatever they currently have, and if they want to change it, it'll have to be on their own effort alone, without anything from (and thus any fault assigned to) us. Every single instance of our trying to do good in that region has rebounded on us, and I want us to stop.

[Husar]

Rather than beat ourselves over what we did decades and generations ago, why not accept that the world now is what it is now, and work with that? If we hadn't got ourselves het up over how the middle east wasn't a liberal democracy, we'd have never have implemented the neocons' fantasies, and Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad would still be securely in power, spitting defiance at the west, but keeping an effective lid on the far nastier undercurrents of the societies under their thumb. I don't want Iran or any other middle eastern country to become any more of a democracy, certainly if it involves our effort, than they currently are, if it means (and every instance points that way) that Islamism will take hold. I don't want us to install dictators any more. But neither do I want us to depose any dictators who are already around. They can have whatever they currently have, and if they want to change it, it'll have to be on their own effort alone, without anything from (and thus any fault assigned to) us. Every single instance of our trying to do good in that region has rebounded on us, and I want us to stop.

I think that is certainly a better approach than trying to fix it but breaking it even more.
On the other hand ignoring the fact that we share a part of the responsibility of their ecurrent broken state might be easy to ignore for you, but not for everyone else. And that is a reality you will also have to deal with just like the people there have to deal with the broken world they were born into partially thanks to us.

If you want to leave the past behind, I'd say all the contracts governments and companies have with these countries should be renegotiated from scratch. Otherwise you may leave behind your sins while they still suffer from contracts that were forced upon them when they were in a much weaker position to negotiate from. Which would mean you just eradicated the past wrongs in thought but not in practice.

[Pannonian]

I think that is certainly a better approach than trying to fix it but breaking it even more.
On the other hand ignoring the fact that we share a part of the responsibility of their ecurrent broken state might be easy to ignore for you, but not for everyone else. And that is a reality you will also have to deal with just like the people there have to deal with the broken world they were born into partially thanks to us.

If you want to leave the past behind, I'd say all the contracts governments and companies have with these countries should be renegotiated from scratch. Otherwise you may leave behind your sins while they still suffer from contracts that were forced upon them when they were in a much weaker position to negotiate from. Which would mean you just eradicated the past wrongs in thought but not in practice.

You want to go into the world of gauging everything from wrongs and righting wrongs? We've already tried our best to do this according to our values. Take responsibility, give, nurture. It's gone spectacularly wrong, and we've been blamed, even on our home soil. If you want us to have another go at righting our past wrongs, what value system would you like us to plan things by, to get better results this time round? Or do you want us to repeat what we've already done, and hope for better results this time?

It's easy to assign blame for past wrongs. Less easy to find a way of righting them, that works.

[Husar]

You want to go into the world of gauging everything from wrongs and righting wrongs? We've already tried our best to do this according to our values. Take responsibility, give, nurture. It's gone spectacularly wrong, and we've been blamed, even on our home soil. If you want us to have another go at righting our past wrongs, what value system would you like us to plan things by, to get better results this time round? Or do you want us to repeat what we've already done, and hope for better results this time?

It's easy to assign blame for past wrongs. Less easy to find a way of righting them, that works.

Would you say contracts such as this one should stay around while we blissfully declare that our responsibility for the situation in Africa has officially ended?

http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/

I am saying it is not as easy as we may both wish it were. I was not aware that such contracts were renegotiated on a more equal footing before. Most of them seem to originate from times where the african country pretty much had to accept everything it was given and could not really demand much in return. If we keep these contracts active, how can we claim that their decrepit situation is entirely their fault?

In the Middle East the situation is a bit more complicated even, especially if we have sold their dictators all the weapons they use to stay in power and then blame the people for not starting their own revolution and maybe even claim it is not our fault that they still suffer under a regime that kills all dissenters with our weapons and operates a secret police based on our intelligence and information equipment.

I do not quite disagree with the idea to leave them alone, but we have to realize that we would still leave a legacy behind even if we cut all ties now.

[Papewaio]

I'd say no more installing or supporting or selling to dictatorships.

Also any of our contracts made when they were a colony, client or puppet state need to be renegotiated on equal terms or the contract stopped.

[Pannonian]

Would you say contracts such as this one should stay around while we blissfully declare that our responsibility for the situation in Africa has officially ended?

http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/

I am saying it is not as easy as we may both wish it were. I was not aware that such contracts were renegotiated on a more equal footing before. Most of them seem to originate from times where the african country pretty much had to accept everything it was given and could not really demand much in return. If we keep these contracts active, how can we claim that their decrepit situation is entirely their fault?

In the Middle East the situation is a bit more complicated even, especially if we have sold their dictators all the weapons they use to stay in power and then blame the people for not starting their own revolution and maybe even claim it is not our fault that they still suffer under a regime that kills all dissenters with our weapons and operates a secret police based on our intelligence and information equipment.

I do not quite disagree with the idea to leave them alone, but we have to realize that we would still leave a legacy behind even if we cut all ties now.

The French can do whatever they like. As long it doesn't impinge on us, I don't care one way or another.

[rajpoot]

Two wrongs won't make a right any way. Whoever did whatever in the past, whosoever was exploited in whatever terrible way, clinging on to it and trying to fix it when clearly it's not working is pointless.
There'll always be people who'll want more 'compensation' for past wrongs. There'll always be people who'll just rile up others for their own personal gain. There'll always be people who'll just want to live peacefully and make the best of what they have.
Maybe just turning away and letting them kill each other is not the solution. But then trying to atone for 'sins' of past generations by forcing a happy and liberal life on a people whose current generation has probably grown up seeing nothing but war and strife is just silly.

[Slyspy]

I think that is certainly a better approach than trying to fix it but breaking it even more.
On the other hand ignoring the fact that we share a part of the responsibility of their ecurrent broken state might be easy to ignore for you, but not for everyone else. And that is a reality you will also have to deal with just like the people there have to deal with the broken world they were born into partially thanks to us.

If you want to leave the past behind, I'd say all the contracts governments and companies have with these countries should be renegotiated from scratch. Otherwise you may leave behind your sins while they still suffer from contracts that were forced upon them when they were in a much weaker position to negotiate from. Which would mean you just eradicated the past wrongs in thought but not in practice.

Here is an interesting thing which I learnt recently - many major organisations, including the UK government, owe Iran millions in compensation for reneging on contracts made with the Shah's government when the mullahs took over. The money is there, sitting in the vaults of the international banks, but cannot be handed over due to sanctions. The sins of the past are surprisingly resilient.

Edit:

Also the comments under the article linked in the OP are hilarious.

[Fragony]

Here is an interesting thing which I learnt recently - many major organisations, including the UK government, owe Iran millions in compensation for reneging on contracts made with the Shah's government when the mullahs took over. The money is there, sitting in the vaults of the international banks, but cannot be handed over due to sanctions. The sins of the past are surprisingly resilient.



Also the comments under the article linked in the OP are hilarious.

Do you have any more on that, that seems very likely. Never heard of such a thing.

edit: blogs are no problem they are usually right

[Slyspy]

Do you have any more on that, that seems very likely. Never heard of such a thing.

blogs are no problem they are usually right

I have it direct from someone who works with such matters on a daily basis. Basically the issue is that the deals were made with the Iranian state, a state which still exists even though it is no longer the same bunch in charge. When things went bad for the Shah and his Western puppet-masters allies those organisations involved withdrew, leaving them in breach of contract. And so, legally, money was and still is due. The debts are acknowledged and the funds available but payment impossible. The Challenger I MBT project is one example. An embarrassment for all concerned.

[Papewaio]

MUST be our shared Swedish ancestry - it's that gene that makes all swedes inherently racist, the one they usually suppress with decades of liberal schooling.

I have a Swedish surname.
A shaven head.