Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Here's your happy al Maududi tidbit for the day:

This is the beginning of the introduction to Ma'alim f'il Tariq ("Milestones"), your happy al Qutb quote of the day.

Thank you for scaring the **** out of me.

You're welcome.

Here's another Ma'alim f'il Tariq tidbit for you, on the subject of Jihad:

In spite of this, these defeatist-type people try to mix the two aspects and want to confine Jihad to what today is called 'defensive war'. The Islamic Jihad has no relationship to modern warfare, either in its causes or in the way in which it is conducted. The causes of Islamic Jihad should be sought in the very nature of Islam and its role in the world, in its high principles, which have been given to it by God and for the implementation of which God appointed the Prophet-peace be on him-as His Messenger and declared him to be the last of all prophets and messengers.

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth.

Asalaam aleikum.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That was the most mindless analysis I've ever seen.



Two different wars waged in two diferent parts of the world for two different reasons in two completely different manners, and you've managed to decide that if you supported one you should support the other.

I was pointing out from that the right is very guilty of "hypocrisy." The implication is that the left is similarly guilty -- which actually is self event to everyone.

[Az]

Like what? A tendency to get shot at by Israelis?

Yep, we sure shoot those Iraqis a lot.

[Lord Merciless]

Ned, would you shut up with your partisan ramblings? Even though I support your argument lots of the times, saying Clinton/Dems are **** and Bush/Reps are great is not helping our position at all.

I honestly don't care who is sitting on power. I only care whether they make the right decision or not, and I hope they make the right one.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Azazel
Poor Saddam.

I miss him so... so.... much

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Ned, would you shut up with your partisan ramblings? Even though I support your argument lots of the times, saying Clinton/Dems are **** and Bush/Reps are great is not helping our position at all.

I honestly don't care who is sitting on power. I only care whether they make the right decision or not, and I hope they make the right one.

Yes, I agree. But my point is that I supported Clinton during Kosovo and I believe that Kissinger and many Republicans who opposed Kosovo were wrong. The arguments they used to oppose Kosovo were the same arguments they used in the main for not taking out Saddam in 1991. The nut of the argument is that it would involve us in a quagmire (thinking back to Vietnam).

I think they were wrong in '91. They were wrong in '99 with Kosovo. And to the extent that anyone is making the same argument today, they are wrong today.

Dictators who cross the line, who make aggressive war on their neighbors, who use WMD on the enemy and their own people, who grossly abuse the human rights of minorities, have wholly forfeited their right to rule.

Such was Hitler.

Such was Milosovic.

Such was Saddam.

The free nations of the world have a duty to end their regimes, IMO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

But if they're our boys, we can kind of relax the standards a bit...

[KrazyHorse]

Don't interrupt him while he's raving.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
But if they're our boys, we can kind of relax the standards a bit...

Do you really believe that we backed off Saddam in '91 because he was "our boy?"

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Boy you sure enjoy misquoting people don't you? Please provide a quote where I said "all Arabs were/are/will be Fundimentalists, because it's their culture". Does lying and mischaracterizing what other people say make you feel better?

Originally posted by Oerdin

My point is these people were already ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic before and they will continue to be so no matter what we do. It is a characterizing trait of their culture.

Originally posted by Oerdin

Please tell me how you would change the culture of 500 million people who don't want their culture changed.

And those are no quotes out of context, the first one was about Middle East in general, the second quote lumps the whole (and though all in all problematic very diverse) Arab world together in one sentence and suppose that all 500 million are repulsive and closed towards the rest of the world. It's really hard to believe you approach the Arab world "sine ira et studio".
I was just arguing from what you posted yourself, doing nothing else than putting it in my words.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Do you really believe that we backed off Saddam in '91 because he was "our boy?"

I believe (actually, it's so well documented it's like commenting on the sun rising in the east) that we have had all sorts of cozy relationships with all sorts of murderous bastards if ever and whenever it was convenient to our geopolitical and economic interests to do so.

Even when we get rid of the odd nasty bastard, it is after their usefulness to us has passed.

[Ned]

MtG, I'm sorry, but my post was not directed to the average "dirty bastard" dictator. I listed a host of criteria and name only three dictators who met the criteria. I am not aware of any others that meet the criteria to whom we may have given a pass other than Saddam himself.

[KrazyHorse]

Milosevic and Hitler used WMDs on their own people (or anyone, for that matter)?

[KrazyHorse]

You can make case for Hitler, though when he used gas on his victims they were already in captivity, indoors, so there is in my mind more similarity to a firing squad than to, say, Saddam's use of chem weapons against the Kurds.

[Ned]

No, they just rounded them up and slaughtered them, scores or thousands at time, using bullets or gas, depending.

The point is that anyone who uses mass slaughter of civilians, particularly their own, fits this criteria.