Who do you hate more?

[Ben Kenobi]

How is that a troll?

Seems entirely factual to me.

[Traianvs]

I fail to see how the west is 'battling' Islam. In fact I would be very saddened if that was our actual intention. Are you one of Huntington's aficionados perhaps?

It's not because at some point western rulers were at war with islamic peoples that it was all about fighting islam. Far from correct actually.
Would you argue that the western powers are fighting islam right now?

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you argue that the western powers are fighting islam right now?

I would argue Islam has declared war on the west. What does it take to get people to realise that fact?

The West basically has two choices, appeasement, or confrontation.

They have declared an intent to impose Sharia on the west, they reject the individual freedoms which we all share that have been carefully cultivated.

They say it all the time that we are decadent, immoral and that the world would be better off if we were wiped away.

How do you respond to statements like that? Do you tell them "you don't really mean that", and then move on? They do mean it. Radical Islam has tried many times and so far they have failed, but their history with the West has been pretty much unending conflict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would argue Islam has declared war on the west.

As you can tell when the Saudis send their tanks into Florida and the Egyptians bomb Washington D.C.!

[Ben Kenobi]

As you can tell when the Saudis send their tanks into Florida and the Egyptians bomb Washington D.C.!

Or planes into the Trade Center?

Oh wait, I forgot, that was a Jewish conspiracy. It never happened.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I would argue Islam has declared war on the west. What does it take to get people to realise that fact?

The West basically has two choices, appeasement, or confrontation.

They have declared an intent to impose Sharia on the west, they reject the individual freedoms which we all share that have been carefully cultivated.

They say it all the time that we are decadent, immoral and that the world would be better off if we were wiped away.

How do you respond to statements like that? Do you tell them "you don't really mean that", and then move on? They do mean it. Radical Islam has tried many times and so far they have failed, but their history with the West has been pretty much unending conflict.

There you said it: radical islam. Obviously they want to wipe out the west if they are to find a common enemy that enables their community to cling together.

Now what does it take to make you realise that there's no sense in amalgamating islam into a religion consisting of people who want to wipe us out? If you want, we could easily go and ask a good number of people in the Bible belt who will want to wipe out all of islam. Or just as easily we might go to the Westbank to hear how the colonists there want to remove all Palestinians and islam from Israel (meaning Palestine in reality ).

My answer is no appeasement and no controntation either, but a constructive dialogue with the sensible majority that doesn't take to extremes. If you have any perspective on Middle Eastern history, you'll find that very often western powers supported radicalists for their own purposes (OBL and Iraqi shiite islamists by the US, Hamas by Israel to oppose Arafat's Fatah) to name a few). My answer would be not to give in to opportunistic power games , i.e. arming and empowering extremists. I would also refrain from giving radicalists a casus belli. In other terms: be reasonable, empathize with other cultures and groups, realize that sometimes yielding on certain points will gain you the goodwill of your opponent, causing the end result to be a net positive.

You may call me naive, but what have we achieved by antagonizing islam (cf. Bush Jr. doctrine, the referrals to crusades etc)? I suggest you read a few books on conflict management and peace research. You'll find a sensible way of resolving conflicts never consists of either appeasement or confrontation. Then again, perhaps you don't want it resolved, you want a victory .

Finally, I strongly disagree with your claim that their history with the West has been pretty much unending conflict. How do you explain the current good relations with Saudi Arabia, renowned for their repressive rule, or Turkey, even more renowned for their genocide on 1,5 million Armenians in 1915 and on top of that even having the audacity to deny it ever happened!!

If we truly are at war with islam, we should be supporting the Christian Armenians. So far the US doesn't really care about it much... All the more proof that they are merely seeking geostrategic dominance. They're not fighting 'Islam'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Or planes into the Trade Center?

That was done on the behalf of all Islam? Must have missed that memo. Maybe my parents forgot to tell me.

[Ben Kenobi]

There you said it: radical islam. Obviously they want to wipe out the west if they are to find a common enemy that enables their community to cling together.

They've been trying to for a long time now. It's nothing new. Maybe I should show you the flag of Sardinia sometime. Muslim pirates used to sail by and kidnap folks into slavery.

If Radical Islam is a new part of Islam, why did it spread through the sword? Why does Islam call us infidels and say that we have a choice of submission or death?

I'm not convinced that Radical Islam is just a small part of Islam, not when there are honour killings in the news here. My old landlady, who was a very nice woman was in tears because her husband abandoned here in Canada with 3 boys and she had nowhere else to go. She said he wanted a younger woman so he left and she's stuck in Canada now.

Now what does it take to make you realise that there's no sense in amalgamating islam into a religion consisting of people who want to wipe us out?

When there are people who are killed right here in Canada, then it's the duty of the Muslims to condemn honour killings of their own and of the 'infidels' who choose to leave Islam. I'm really tired of them saying they should have separate legal codes, since they do not wish to abide by Canadian law.

If you want, we could easily go and ask a good number of people in the Bible belt who will want to wipe out all of islam.

Good luck.

Or just as easily we might go to the Westbank to hear how the colonists there want to remove all Palestinians and islam from Israel (meaning Palestine in reality ).

Bad example. That land was Christian before the Muslims came. Why do the Palestinians have a claim on the land, when it was stolen in the first place? They have a claim, only insofar as the west was willing to grant them land. They didn't like the deal and wanted to erase Israel off the face of the map. They lost, and now they are in the 'occupied territories'. I'm sorry, but when you declare war on somebody and get your ass kicked, that's the consequence.

My answer is no appeasement and no controntation either, but a constructive dialogue with the sensible majority that doesn't take to extremes.

That's fine. I do believe they are good people who are Muslims, but I fear that so long as they demand separate legal privileges, and they insists that western laws do not apply to them, then conflict is inevitable. I'm tired of having to make excuses for people who should basically be told to leave Canada since they do not wish to abide by the laws here.

If you have any perspective on Middle Eastern history, you'll find that very often western powers supported radicalists for their own purposes (OBL and Iraqi shiite islamists by the US, Hamas by Israel to oppose Arafat's Fatah) to name a few).

If you are aware of the history of the Middle East, you should also know that much of the area was Christian. Why should Christians accommodate those who slaughtered Christians in order to conquer the middle east.

My answer would be not to give in to opportunistic power games , i.e. arming and empowering extremists. I would also refrain from giving radicalists a casus belli.

It doesn't matter to them Trainus. Their casus belli is our existance. Wake up.

In other terms: be reasonable, empathize with other cultures and groups, realize that sometimes yielding on certain points will gain you the goodwill of your opponent, causing the end result to be a net positive.

Yield on what and where and how? I'm tired of yielding, Trianus. Muslims should obey the laws of the countries they choose to live in rather then insisting on their own laws and bringing them over. Period. If we yield on that, then rest assured we will yield on our freedoms which are essential. Already you can see it happening. Good men and women are being brought to trial here in Canada for the crime of expressing the truth on radical Islam.

You may call me naive, but what have we achieved by antagonizing islam (cf. Bush Jr. doctrine, the referrals to crusades etc)? I suggest you read a few books on conflict management and peace research.

Conflict management assumes that you are dealing with rational individuals. Radical islam doesn't abide by reason, it abides by force.

Finally, I strongly disagree with your claim that their history with the West has been pretty much unending conflict. How do you explain the current good relations with Saudi Arabia, renowned for their repressive rule, or Turkey, even more renowned for their genocide on 1,5 million Armenians in 1915 and on top of that even having the audacity to deny it ever happened!!

Armenia, the first Christian nation, wiped out by muslims, and the west doesn't blink an eye.

And you argue that the history is not unending conflict?! The history is either conflict or appeasement, by the choice of the west. The difference is they remember their history, the period of now is washed away in a few moments.

If we truly are at war with islam, we should be supporting the Christian Armenians. So far the US doesn't really care about it much... All the more proof that they are merely seeking geostrategic dominance. They're not fighting 'Islam'.

I am arguing we should. It is an atrocity that the West has not stood up for the Armenians, and that they collaborate with those who intend to destroy them.

[Ben Kenobi]

That was done on the behalf of all Islam? Must have missed that memo. Maybe my parents forgot to tell me.

It wasn't Jews who flew them into the towers. Maybe the US should have given them good piloting jobs and then their hardon for Jihad would subside.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Man, my parents aren't forwarding me the kill all Americans mail? Damn.

[Traianvs]

I haven't got the time to answer all of that now Ben, but I sense we're not discussing the same thing. I was actually meaning a wider international stance towards islam. I notice you refer to things cultural differences inside Canada. I know what you mean and you're right about that.

For me it's a given fact that many regular people of islamic origin living still abide by the old laws and customs, whereas we have adapted our culture in a positive way in the sense that we put more stress on human rights, gender equality etc. It's easy to say from our point of view, but I somewhat agree islam should change for the better in that respect. But not everyone is so old-fashioned you know. You are overestimating it, but that's a very personal opinion.

Things can change you know, I know that 50-100 years ago, many people in Belgium lived pretty much like those islamists you are referring to, without the specific islam details of course. The catholic church was almost just as restraining...

Off to bed now

[Theben]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Man, my parents aren't forwarding me the kill all Americans mail? Damn.

They just want you to send half of us to jail and bill the rest of us out of everything we own.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well at least the tactics are evolving.

[David Floyd]

Were they racist before communism? If anything, the PRC is less racist than the previous regimes.

Erm, you should check out the history of the PRC's occupation of Tibet. I lot of the reasoning was very similar to "White Man's Burden" - the poor backwards Tibetans were unable to govern themselves and needed the Chinese to do it for them.

As pointed out, a good deal of deaths in the USSR and PRC were a result of negligence and dumb policies, not as a result of extermination. 30 million people did not go to the gulags in the Soviet Union.

First of all, check your stats. I'd rather suspect that 30 million individuals DID do time in the gulags, especially given that the gulag population ranged between .5 million and 1.5 million for any given year between 1934 and 1951. True, 30 million may not have died in the gulags, but that isn't what you said.

Moving along, I readily admit that the policies of the communists were responsible for the deaths of millions (The Black Book of Communism, BTW, gives an estimate of 100 million as the number of non-war deaths directly caused by communist policies, far exceeded those caused by the Nazis even if you include wartime deaths in the Nazi total and exclude them from the communist total). I also admit that the policies of the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions. But what's your point? At the end of the day I'm not going to care if I starved to death in the Ukraine or was gassed in an extermination camp. I'll be just as dead either way, and that's what I'm getting at.

Furthermore, take away Stalin and what are the death rates under Soviet rule? I imagine they are quite, quite low. You don't hear about millions killed under Krushchev or Breznev.

Well, Lenin killed his fair share, but yes, you are largely right. Stalin was by far the worst of the bunch. But then again, there was also Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Song Il/Kim Il Jung. Stalin wasn't exactly the only brutal dictator in the history of communism. In fact, compared to Mao and Pol Pot, he might not even have been the most brutal.

Of course, if we are going to count starvation deaths in the Commie death toll (and we should), then I'd postulate that all deaths in the European theater of WW2 should be placed squarly on the Nazis shoulders.

Well, hold the phone. As I pointed out in another thread, the Soviet Union bears a lot of the responsibility for enabling Germany to conduct aggressive war. After all, who supplied Germany with extremely vital oil, food, and other raw material supplies, in spite of the Allied blockade, from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact up through June 22nd, 1941? The Soviets, of course. One could postulate that without the ability to stockpile those millions of tons of supplies, Germany might not have gotten as far as they did nearly as quickly. That's counterfactual, of course, but it just serves to show that the Soviet Union was very complicit in German aggression. The Soviets refused to partner with the British and French in declaring war on Germany in 1939, and indeed, went the other direction by joining the war WITH Germany AGAINST Poland. In fact, the Soviets almost found themselves at war with the Western Allies when they launched their unprovoked invasion of Finland later that same year.

Bull****. Intent is always important. That's why in the US legal system we have a difference between murder and manslaughter. Just because a man has died doesn't necessarily mean you should put to death (ie, intent is important).

But we aren't debating the US legal system. We are debating legal systems that allowed one country to pack Jews into extermination camps just because they were Jews, and systems that allowed another country to allow millions of Ukrainians to starve just because the Ukrainians didn't want to collectivize. In this situation, who cares about intent? Not the Jew killed at Auschwitz, and not the Ukrainian who starved to death in the 1930s.

It is showing how utterly silly the idea is that communism always leads to poverty. And imperialism is much worse than communism and even radical Islam (as of yet), as it completely destroyed a great deal of the world. Former Communist countries seem to doing not that horribly, but victims of imperialism, such as Africa and the Mid East and Central America have a great tendancy to be basketcases.

Hold on, though. Imperialism didn't exactly take productive, advanced countries and turn them into ****holes. Imperialism, by and large, took ****holes, and in those ****holes built railroads, factories, roads, hospitals, and various other infrastructure, some of which is still in use today. I'm not saying that was the intent of Imperialism, and I'm not even saying that Imperialism was the morally right course of action, but I am saying that it did have some positive effects.

For that matter, Stalin's forced industrialization of the Soviet Union had some positive effects that are seen today. I'm not blind to that. I'm also not blind to the fact that the Nazis had some positive effects on Germany. I just strongly dispute the notion that Africa is in the state it is in today because of imperialism. There are a number of reasons, but I don't think imperialism ranks very high on the list.

And the Nazis, of course, started the bloodiest war in human history.

Well, if we are talking percentage and ratio here, you might want to check out the death toll in the 30 Years War, which was caused basically by religion, or for that matter, the Cambodian Civil War, which was basically caused by the Communists.

Of course we do. One used work camps and extermination for their killing, the other was mostly inept. There is a vast difference over which was more 'murderous'.

Yet both had death tolls in the tens of millions. Actually, communism's death toll, estimated at 100 million, is really an order of magnitude higher than the Nazi death toll.

The Soviets had to gear up war production mostly to defend themselves from an invasion in their East by a combination of forces (including US) in the 20s and then for the forthcoming assault by the Germans (Stalin, rightly, never trusted Hitler to keep his word).

Except for the minor fact that before the Nazis ever invaded, the Soviets used their military machine to invade Poland in the 1920s, followed by Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland in 1939, as well as the threat of the military machine to gain control of Bessarabia and Bucovina from Romania in 1940.

When the Soviets were gearing up for war, it wasn't because they thought the US was coming to get them, it was because they had territorial ambitions of their own.

Finally, if Stalin "never trusted Hitler", then why did Barbarossa come as such a complete and utter shock to Stalin that he was unable to even give orders in the days immediately following the attack?

No, its always the intent that counts. To only focus on results, as in an ends justifies the means type of way, is morally bankrupt. Its like saying a guy who killed someone with an axe in a premeditated way is just as bad as the guy who ran over a pedestrian because it was raining so hard he couldn't see... after all, the result is the same.

We are talking about two things. In your oft-repeated example, you are talking about the clear difference between murder and manslaughter. What I am talking about is the difference between murder, and a combination of murder and negligent homicide. Either way, though, when looking at two political systems, both of which caused tens of millions of deaths through their DIRECT and AVOIDABLE actions, such nuance is, to me, irrelevent.

GePap,

Concetration camps began from the start. Extermination camps were simply the best method found for mass scale quick genocide.

Yes, but concentration camps were distinct from extermination camps. Sure, people died in concentration camps, just like people died in concentration camps started by the British during the Boer War. I'm not justifying either, I'm just pointing out the difference.

Nazi history lasted only 12 years - the ideology was so radical it burned itself out. If the Soviet Union lasted for 70 years it is because that ideology was far more stable, so your test would hardly work.

First of all, the difference between 12 and 70 years is approximately the same as the size of a pimple on a flea's ass when it comes to measuring history.

Secondly, Nazism was faced with a war that pit itself against the rest of the world. It didn't die out on it's own, and it certainly wouldn't have died out in 1945 if WW2 hadn't happened, or if Germany had won WW2. In fact, it could easily have outlasted communism, in that Germany had the capability to outperform the Soviet Union economically, and absent a wartime economy with vast influxes of free foreign goods for the Soviet Union, industrially.

chegitz,

I think I answered most of your post in various ways above. If not, feel free to point out which part I didn't answer and I'll do so.

Of course, arguing about who was worse is about arguing whether Beelzebub or Mammon is the worse devil. In any event, Floyd's assumption he'd be better off under Hitler than Stalin isn't necessarily true. Given Floyd's strong opinions, both dictators would probably be equally likely to send him to the camps.

Haha, that's very possibly the case, but I still think I'd have a better chance in Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union.

[Heraclitus]

I don't care if I'm hacked to death or hit by a truck, that doesn't mean the guy who ran me over is as much bastard as the guy hacked me to death

So your argument is void.


In any case, the intent of Nazis was to wipe out nations. Genocide. Communists did not have that intent.


Quite simply I consider killing 20 million jews to be more evil than killing 20 million Chinese. One nearly eliminates a culture , the other doesn't even weaken it.