Mathloom, perhaps you should seek a doctor's/psychiatrist's help? I could do some research for you and see if I can find some good ones in Germany for you. Your fanatism seems to be eating away at your psyche.
The sadness is that you truly believe what you are saying. Question for you. Have you ever lived in a Muslim majority country? If yes where? Fact. It is not just an American issue of 'the Islamists coming to get us!' it is a world wide phenomenon of stealth jihad. This is how it works, Muslims infiltrate a county and behave themselves until their numbers hit 20%. By then, there are too many of them to control, so their constant petitions to the goverment for 'equal rights' or 'religious freedoms' finally start to get results. By the time there are 30 – 40%, they will have influence on major parts of the government…until they get to 50%, when they begin the push to turn the country into an Islamic state under sharia law. Sharia4Belgium Sharia4France Sharia4England Sharia4Australia...and so on. Am I lying? This is why Australia, Europe and the USA have had an influx of 'refugees' in the past few years. As a Muslim if you had to make a decision to follow sharia law or the law of your country, which would you choose?
By the way this is what Syria and the 'lucky' nations that had their uprisings, have to look forward too.. *Downtown Express In Iran, when a woman steps outside her house, she has two choices: She can wear the chador — a long usually black cloak worn over the head and body, which, covering several layers of clothing, is kept in place by clutching it in one’s hands or holding the loose ends in one’s teeth. Or she can chose the manteau — a shoulder-padded, dark coloured, shapeless trench coat worn over long pants. Her hair must be entirely covered either with a scarf firmly tied or a maghneh, a hooded head covering, often worn by students. The Islamic dress code, imposed by the 1979 revolution, mandates that from the start of menstruation, a woman outside of her home or in the presence of an unrelated man must completely cover her hair and neck and wear long, loose-fitting clothing to hide the contours of her body, as well as her arms and legs. Any woman found to be “badly veiled” can by arrested and jailed by the morality police.Checkpoints run by the morality police have mushroomed all over Tehran and, residents say, it’s not uncommon to see women getting violently stuffed into one of their ubiquitous vans. * In summer, the morality police come out in droves to make sure the citizenry isn’t flashing too much skin or acting in other inappropriate ways. Since June, 2011, 70,000 morality police have been sent out into the streets of Tehran alone. The red line on what is deemed acceptable can seem arbitrary at times, and over the years the morality police have disproportionately targeted women since they’re required by law to cover themselves from head to toe. Chalk one up for gender equality last year when the morality police issued new guidelines for men’s haircuts. No more mullets, ponytails, or a popular hairstyle called the rooster, which swoops up in a faux-hawk in the front and flares out at the back. And there’s a new restriction for men this summer: no necklaces. The government has not only spelled out the crackdown in legal terms, but has also tried to make the case that inappropriate clothing can be directly linked to damnation. Last week, an analyst named Ali Akbar Raefipour, appeared on state television and claimed that the word “jeans” actually comes from the word “jinn,” which are supernatural beings that can fly and take the form of animals. He took it a step further by comparing women’s high heels to the hooves of demons. Still, if the spiritual warnings didn’t grab the attention of miscreants, the heavy fines just might. A list of common fines for womeninclude: wearing sunglasses above your headscarf ($15), wearing a tunic covering that’s too short ($30), wearing a tunic with bright colors ($30), wearing nail polish ($5 per finger), having tan skin ($23) and having hair that’s been lightened ($15 to $45). For ordinary Iranians, the evidence of the crackdown is in plain sight. Checkpoints run by the morality police have mushroomed all over Tehran and, residents say, it’s not uncommon to see women getting man-handled and stuffed into one of their ubiquitous vans. Soheila, a 28-year old Tehran resident, has had enough. “I was even with my husband one time when a policewoman gave me a warning about bad hijab,” she says. “I’m going to start wearing the chador [a head-to-toe cloth covering] because I’m afraid of the morality police. Egypt and North Africa are in chaos now. Peaceful Muslims are being harassed and persecuted, Christian minorities are having their church's burned and congregations executed during services. Their women raped and forced conversions, via forced marriage, to Islam, which then Dictates they are the property of their rapist husbands and if they leave Islam they're considered apostates and have the death sentence imposed...as is the law written in the Quranic literature. Woman's rights? Freedom? Where? How many church's are there in Saudi Arabia?
Which is why I said it wasn't 99% at the moment in Syria. I don't know if it's the majority or not, but I think we should support people who are against Assad. I understand that if Assad goes out and some horrible govt. that exports terrorism comes in, action may have to be taken later. I'm just saying that people shouldn't support a dictator like Assad based on 'what-ifs'
The U.S. doesn't have huge strategic interest in Syria. Obama doesn't want a conflict that is going to potentially spread to Turkey and create problems for neighboring Arab countries. Yes oil is important, in this case, jeopardizing disruption of supply through military conflict. The U.S. has little to gain from whether there is an overthrow of Assad or not. The U.S. doesn't need Syria to attack Iran, and a revolution in Syria isn't going to open it up to U.S. forces for a very long time. It's just a distraction the u.s. doesn't want, and calling for his ouster because it is common sense to do so. This isn't Libya where all you have to do is provide air cover to an organized resistance, you have a U.N. resolution, and the backing of the middle east. Trust me, if the U.S. had that much interest, we'd have long since armed the rebels at the very least. Syria is bargaining chip with Russia against Iran. The U.S. will let Assad remain in power in exchange for Russia helping persuade it to get rid of it's nuke program. And Russia will use Syria and the Missile Defense Shield as chips in return. If the Iran threat is gone, Russia knows the U.S. can't justify it's shield, so she has an interest there. But Syria is far more important to Russia than the U.S. You have a bit of conspiracy theory attitude that a lot of folks from your neck of the wood have (it's all over but especially in the middle east). If you really want to understand U.S. foreign policy, you should read historical books from past National Security Advisors, Diplomats, and other senior officials who will give a far more accurate portrayal of how each President has worked foreign policy. There's a lot of differences that go far beyond nuances.
I don't necessarily view Mathloon as an Islamic fanatic. He's more of a combination of incredible naivety in international relations and just a general anti-Western attitude in general. Honestly, if I have the time, I'd like to deal with him on self-determination bullcrap. That movement has caused so much blood and chaos ever since that leftist peacenik idiot Wilson advocated it, and yet people still act like it's a wonderful idea.
No, you aren't lying, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. You are so sorely mistaken, it's painful to watch. Muslims immigrants to nations are often at odds with each other in regards to Islam and are hardly united in any goal. The influx of immigrants has been going on for decades not just in the past few years, and the reason is because they are searching for a better life for themselves and their families. Your crazy pie in the sky fantasy based on no proof at all is tin foil hat land.
I agree that that is the reason why they immigrate, and not that there is some huge conspiracy beforehand to enter a country, behave for 20 years and then start becoming crazy. BUT - in many cases, especially if there is no real assimilation/integration effort from both sides (immigrants and country being immigrated to), religion can serve as a means of trying to find acceptance and answers. And that's when immigrants of a Muslim background (more or less so depending on where they are from, how educated they are, how successful they have been in the country they immigrated to) can be more susceptible than others to being influenced by hate preachers. That's why education, mutual efforts to understand each other, but also selection criteria as to who is allowed into the country are quite important.
Why? Because they have more restrictions and more advanced weapons, and therefore less need to resort to terrorism? or because this is my and your emperor instead of someone else's? Ask yourself objectively. Define terrorism. Ask yourself if your country or Obama or Bush don't engage in it. I am genuinely very interested to hear what you have to say. The way I see it, if the UK still owned and dominated America, and deemed all uprisings against UK emperors as terrorism, then George Bush would go on to be a terrorist. If OBL was born into a health functioning free democracy, he would be running for president of that country to impose his views through that structure without having to resort to what the largest imperialist powers deems to be "terrorism". Just like OBL knew he was killing 3,000 civilians in the WTC to pursue his goal of defeating the military protector of the illegitimate owner of Mecca, Geoge Bush knew he was going to murder 300,000 civilians in Iraq to pursue his goal of removing WMD's from Iraq, extinguishing Al Qaeda 9/11-linked terrorists from Iraq and spreading freedom. In that sense, there are no better friends that the neocons which dominate almost the full political spectrum of American politics, and the terrorists from the Middle East. Al Qaeda has clearly stated that its strategy is to avoid a head-to-head battle and prefers to draw American troops into the Middle East and fight a war of attrition. After all, as OBL said, most of Al Qaeda is native to the region and can carry on this fight for 100 years, but the US can't afford to maintain that. He learned this from the vietnamese But it seems most Americans did not learn anything from the vietnamese, which is not surprising considering they were lied to about the start, statistics and final result of that war. This is proven now, a quick look at the key 'pentagon papers' alone would suffice to show all of this. If you still think this is wishy-washy, please read the Al Qaeda charter. I don't know what else to say to convince you of something so blatantly obvious, the only retort to which is the claims of radically biased propaganda from a media industry which by now also relies on wars to keep it growing. If Al Qaeda goes down tomorrow, there will be a new face of terrorism. If Russia had gone down during the cold war, the US would still pursue imperialism. Some say this started in the 1890's, others say it started in the 1950's. Sometime around the two world wars, your country decided that it will involve itself in devastating events in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Romania, Iran, Congo, Cuba, Philipines, etc. The list goes on and on, but the propoganda is always identical. Personally I used to hope hope that since they are using the same outdated techniques since they literally copied the Nazi propoganda which Hitler used, people would catch on. Who is worse, you tell me: - Educated, powerful and democratically elected President authorizes the forceful and secret (i.e. no public consent) overthrow of a democratically elected president through bribery, subsequent to which the dictator kills tens of thousands and represses the will of 60 million people for 30 years, following which orderly handover of power was refused by the command of the US/Shah and the Islamist seized power for the next 30 years, also repressing and killing tens of thousands. or - Educated violent activist turned terrorist trained by the same overthrowers from a country where overthrow is impossible because of yourselves, authorizes flying airplanes into a country/buldings, killing thousands of innocent civilians. Did he not expect the US to respond to this attack? Did he now know he has no chance against the US if he pins his hopes on flying airplanes into a country? The truth is, the plan was to fly those buildings there so that you guys come here. There is no chance that the ENTIRE plan was "lets fly these planes and kill a few thousand, then see what happens maybe they give up". This is when and how the war on terror was established. Am I really supposed to act like GWB or Obama are morally any different than that? Do I believe they wouldn't kill innocent civilians to keep corporations happy? That they don't belong in the same paragraphs because they have better writers, propagandists, make up artists, stylists, a clean shaven face and no turban? In my opinion, they are a notch better than OBL. But not really deserving of their own category of righteousness.
I'm not anti-Western. I don't believe in differences by border, nationality, race, religion. I don't really believe there even is such a thing as "Western" which is why I usually put quotations around it. I am against China and Russia as well. I love Russian and Chinese people. I am against the Israeli government policies (lol the fact that I have to word this more carefully than other examples for you guys is a prime example of the problem). I love Israeli people. I am against the Iranian government, which is anti-Western. I love the Iranian people. I love the American people, the American culture, and American ideals. I often tell people that the US constitution is the best structured in the world, which makes its abuse all the more annoying to me. I believe that those seeking to implement Islamic Law should look to the US constitution as an example of what their Prophet was trying to achieve in drafting a constitution for Medina. These are labels you put on me for your own interest. If by anti-Western, you meant to imply that I am anti-imperialist and the US just happens to be the most powerful imperial power during my lifetime and history, then yes I am. But it only describes a temporary and small portion of my political beliefs. You have also overlooked the fact that, by your standards, I should be anti-Western because I am robbed of a lot of things in my life directly because of the "West". But I'm not. As for naive, this comment seems especially strange coming from someone who's beliefs seem identical to mainstream media. If there's anything we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is naivety-fodder, it's beliefs mimicking mainstream media. On the other hand, we could probably make an easy claim that you are anti-Western since you support these policies that are dragging the West into the ground, and being kept afloat by feeding the rich and waiting forever to trickle down to average joe Americans. If I was anti-Western, I would be on an anti-Western message board living it up with my fellow anti-Westerners. Instead I'm here taking heat, and I'm happy to do so because I would want you to do the same thing if I was in your place. We won't get anywhere negatively labeling each other though, since we both knew from the start that we think each others beliefs are far-out. It is easy for me to understand why you believe what you believe after you have explained it to me, even if I vehemently disagree with it. But looks like we've reached an impasse anyways, so it was good discussing with you.
For someone who doesn't believe in those differences, you sure don't have any problem ascribing how Bin Laden or Bush could have ended up differently if they had grown up under different political cultural systems. Fact is, humans are inexorably shaped by the cultures they grow up in, or by their nationality, or by the religion they are a part of. There is no escaping it if you want to be part of a society. As they shape our minds and our way of thinking, it follows that they exist. You may deny it, but you are shaped by your past, and your country's past, and by your family's past. There is no way to escape it. First, the whole "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you too?" should come with the inverse "If no one jumped off a bridge, would you too?" Secondly, the MSM is annoying in that you're right about the justifications that are in place in order to make the people feel better about themselves. They hide behind a shield of morality, and democracy, and human rights, and blah blah blah. If the United States intervenes somewhere, it's because we really are the moral guardians of the world and so on and so forth. Hence in the build up to the Afghan, you heard almost as much crap about the Taliban's treatment of woman as about the fact that we are going in there to kill the SOB who attacked us. I think I've made it clear to you in our past discussions that those sorts of things I find irrelevant and weakens the national will.
I have no problem with Muslims, as I said. It is the Islamic doctrine of hate that I am at odds with, and that is at odds with the cultures that Muslims immigrate to.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between going after innocent people and fighting a military or the equivalent. Despite what you claim, the U.S. as a state does not target civilians. You can blame them for not caring if civilians die - for being callous - but you can't put either us or modern day Russia in the same breath as those crazy sociopaths. You can talk about WWII Russia and WWII U.S. but not modern day. Hitler's goal was to exterminate entire races and groups of people off the face of the earth. OBL goal was to kill as many as American citizens as possible and eventually use a nuke on an American city. I don't care what the definition of terrorism is. There's a difference. OBL didn't attack a military target. It attacked a skyscraper loaded with people just trying to live out their lives. I understand that Muslims who are innocent are being killed by drone strikes. But they aren't being targeted. And often times they know that there is militant activity nearby and that puts them in harms way. But if you can not comprehend the difference, then it is your failing to acknowledge or see it. Not ours. Because it is there and that is reality - again, whether or not you choose to see it. So when you compare Bush to Hitler, you just sound totally ridiculous and off your rocker. No matter what you think, that is how you come across. So think about that.
Does that make him less of a terrorist? Ofcourse he wanted a nuke, but he was never going to get one. That's incredibly far-fetched. That Al Qaeda would be able to acquire a nuke and detonate it? Come on. OBL knew the US government inside-out, he was not ever going to do anything which leads to the anihilation of the entire Middle East and a swift end to his operations. The response from the US would be so brutal and easily justified that there would be no purpose. The goal was to bring you guys here by conducting a terrorist attack in your country. Without a doubt, even a terrorist prefers to hit military targets, and they tried and I believe a couple hundred people were murdered at the Pentagon. That's not honorable. Killing people who are taking commands is just as bad as killing civilians. What did a receptionist in the Pentagon do to deserve this? I don't think anyone in the Pentagon ever expects to be in the line of battle at least when inside the Pentagon. Hitler is obviously worst of the group, no disagreement there. However, one distinction I have to make: you are fooling yourself if you believe the US does not target civilians. Any objective review of the events that took place in South & Central America from the 50's through to the 90's completely debunks this notion that the US does not kill civilians. When you want to kill one target with a drone and you know that the 10 civilians around him will die, and you attack anyway, that IS targeting civilians. No other way to put it. Just like the people who were killed in the Pentagon are seen as civilian deaths, these must be seen as civilian deaths. The limitations of weapons is no more an excuse for US than it is for suicide bombers and terrorist attacks. You accept killing civilians when you decide to go to war against the wishes of your people, the true international community, and the people of said country. The fact that you accept the "we don't target civilians" just goes to show that Americans are willing to accept the excuses of their own politicians but not of others. How many people have been assassinated in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq without trial? How do YOU know they are not civilians? Even we now factually know that the overseas forces have intentionally lied about the identity of "collateral damage" victims. Guantanamo is full of targeted tortured innocents and we are not given the transparency and the evidence to differentiate the terrorists from the innocents. www.chomsky.info The game has changed, we can't categorize terrorism in the same way we did 50 or 100 years ago. Paying an army to kill civilians is the same as killing civilians. Paying someone to assassinate priests is the same as killing priests. Sending Roosevelt's nephew to Iran to put the Shah in place and stabilize the country via the Savak is like killing innocent Iranians. It is acknowledged today that the SAVAK was trained by the US and Israel and among the most brutal mafia-style government killing squad in recent history. Is all this not murder? If I found a psychotic American right winger willing to kill Americans in exchange for money, and I paid him to do so, and he murdered a few thousand innocent civilians in the way I prescribed, am I not a terrorist? Come on now, ofcourse that would be terrorism on my part and the part of the person who shoots. This is getting ridiculous. Moreover, this much collateral damage cannot anymore be considered incidental or coincidental.
Mathloom. I will give you an example, explain it, and then that's it. If you don't get it after that I am not going to continue with this. Al Qaeda targeted U.S. citizens. Period. You use the pentagon but fail to talk about the WTC. Are you kidding me??? There is a difference between war and genocide. I am not talking about "Terrorism". I never said the U.S. has never had a hand in "terrorism" against a population to achieve a political agenda. Nicaragua is a case in point. Hitler wanted to wipe a people off of the face of the earth. Bin Laden wanted to wipe the same people off of the earth and wanted to wipe out as many Americans along the way. It wasn't a war he was fighting, it was the destruction of civilizations. To just say they are like any other leader is complete lunacy. Obama isn't trying to wipe anyone off the face of the earth. He's trying to keep America safe. His goal is to disrupt terrorist operations to stop people like Bin Laden. It's not to kill as many Muslims as possible. If you can't acknowledge the difference then there is no further point in talking. I am not saying Obama is an angel. And Putin certain isn't either. But they are not the devils you make either.
You may have said it, but other things you say indicate differently, and it all indicates that you lack even the smallest understanding of Islam.
