I'm basically saying that as long as the theocracy is only meant to be for the muslim country in question, then the west does not aggressively seek its demise. Iran is the prime example. The theocracy there has been doing the sharia for more than twenty years, with no attacks by the west. It took a president, who besides actively seeking to obtain nukes and having previously displayed his diplomatic ways by participating in the "hostage crisis", never misses an opportunity to demand that western leaders turn to Islam, to really raise the western tempers (or so it seems).
Hence, you don't have to have a secular society in order to be free of western aggression.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Over slavery.

True. I should have been a little more specific.
I didn't mean to connect those two that way but I see why you would have
I just meant to say that civil war isn't unknown in flegling democracies...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Stupid automated url tags ...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic There's one huge difference between the west and the islamic countries, which makes the analogy false: The west is not forcing the islamic countries to follow *one* ideology (what the west thinks is right) - as long as a system is not openly hostile to the west it can be anything.

Well, using the same logic isn't the USA openly hostile towards the middle east? Of course they are only hostile to the countries that are being hostile back, but so is Iran (which reminds me I have a half finnished reply to you on that thread a while back about what to do about Iran - I should finnish that one).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Well, using the same logic isn't the USA openly hostile towards the middle east? Of course they are only hostile to the countries that are being hostile back, but so is Iran (which reminds me I have a half finnished reply to you on that thread a while back about what to do about Iran - I should finnish that one).

Not true. The US stirs shit up almost all the time, which backfires occasionally (not that the powers that be care).

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Well, using the same logic isn't the USA openly hostile towards the middle east? Of course they are only hostile to the countries that are being hostile back, but so is Iran (which reminds me I have a half finnished reply to you on that thread a while back about what to do about Iran - I should finnish that one).

Iran is only hostile to countries that are hostile to it??? What about Israel - what did they do? Germany? France? Denmark? Norway? The US prior to the Iran hostage crisis?

EDIT: Anyway, that niggle aside, my main problem with your post is that it distorts the argument I was making. I'm talking about differences between the ideologies of the west and that of Islamism. Your post talks about specific policies of one country (the US) rather than the general policies of the west.
At its core Islamism is a totalitarian fascist ideology and as such cannot allow for dissidents to exist. At least two countries in the Muslim world is openly practicing Islamism, and quite a few others have large groups of their population obeying the whims of islamist clerics.

Last edited by trancaholic on Mar-21-2006 at 07:01

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Over slavery.

Removing slavery was a part of installing true democracy, so I think Civil War was a part of bringing democracy to USA.

___________________
___________________

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Iran is only hostile to countries that are hostile to it??? What about Israel - what did they do? Germany? France? Denmark? Norway? The US prior to the Iran hostage crisis?

Israel: Occupies palastinian areas, so an enemy of their ally is an enemy of them, kind of like the USA (and their allies) had the "right" to threaten and send troops to Iraq after their ally Kuwait was invaded in the first gulf war.

Denmark: As far as i know the Iranian goverment hasn't threatened you more over the cartoons (i suppose thats what you mean), than denmark has threatened china over human rights issues. Ie only a heavy critique and no actual threat of war or whatever.

And as for Germany amd France, when did Iran threaten them with violence?

quote:

EDIT: Anyway, that niggle aside, my main problem with your post is that it distorts the argument I was making. I'm talking about differences between the ideologies of the west and that of Islamism. Your post talks about specific policies of one country (the US) rather than the general policies of the west.

Well what triggered that comment was your comment that "The west is not forcing the islamic countries to follow *one* ideology (what the west thinks is right) - as long as a system is not openly hostile to the west it can be anything.". My point is that as long as the west is not messing around in the middle east the middle east will not mess around in the west. And if it does, it has the same right to do so as the west has to decide what countries in the middle east is a threat and take actions against that.

quote:

At its core Islamism is a totalitarian fascist ideology and as such cannot allow for dissidents to exist. At least two countries in the Muslim world is openly practicing Islamism, and quite a few others have large groups of their population obeying the whims of islamist clerics.

Well thats an idology of their country, but hardly anything we shold do anything about (except of course diplomatic pressure and support of dmoestic democratic movements)

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Israel: Occupies palastinian areas, so an enemy of their ally is an enemy of them,

I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that Iran had no sympathy with Palestinians prior to the creation of Israel? Further, Iranians are Shias whereas I think (can't find a source right now) that Palestinians are Sunnis. Of course, Iran sympathises much more with Palestinians than Israelis, but I don't think one can call them allies, in the tradional sense.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew kind of like the USA (and their allies) had the "right" to threaten and send troops to Iraq after their ally Kuwait was invaded in the first gulf war.

I believe that was a UN sanctioned war, no? With support (and participation?) by several Arab countries.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Denmark: As far as i know the Iranian goverment hasn't threatened you more over the cartoons (i suppose thats what you mean), than denmark has threatened china over human rights issues. Ie only a heavy critique and no actual threat of war or whatever.

Well I fail to remember any Danes being brought to Copenhagen by the government in order to have them trash the Chinese embassy and shout "Death to China". Maybe I'm wrong though. After all, us Danes live in the most aggressively racist nation, so how am I supposed to remember all the countries and minorities that we threaten and harass?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew And as for Germany amd France, when did Iran threaten them with violence?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...ld/14112100.htm

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew My point is that as long as the west is not messing around in the middle east the middle east will not mess around in the west. ... Well thats an idology of their country, but hardly anything we shold do anything about (except of course diplomatic pressure and support of dmoestic democratic movements)

http://www.jnewswire.com/library/ar...p?articleid=988
Also, you might want to look into Hizbu Tahrir and their stated objectives, check Saudi Arabia's investments in promoting Islam abroad, and of course, consider the cartoon affair and the numerous demands for anti-blasphemy laws in Europe by Islamic rulers. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Islamists are not satisfied by a local Sharia. Just as they are not satisfied by living according to Muslim teaching individually, but require their entire society to be living in the same manner. In general, their imperialism tendencies are comparable to Europes some 500 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew And if it does, it has the same right to do so as the west has to decide what countries in the middle east is a threat and take actions against that.

I'm unsure of what "does" refers to, but I take it to be "mess around in the west"? If so, then I would clearly say that, no, they do not have the same right to mess around in the west as the west has to decide what is a threat. Apart from Iraq, which is an involvement I (and a lot of other westerners) did not support, the Islamic countries pointed out as threats by the west in the last decade, has not been pointed out just on a whim or because of internal activities that conflict with the values we hold dear in the west (such as repression of women, discrimination against non-Muslims, etc.). Each of these were quite a clear threat: Afghanistan harbored and trained terrorists; Palestinians elected Hamas, which is openly radical and has a history of carrying out terror attacks; and Iran is seeking nukes while at the same time threatening Israel with destruction. You might also want to consider the reverse case of Serbia, which was deemed a threat - despite the fact that it mainly targeted Muslims in its aggressions.
Islamists, as we have seen, will happily threaten foreign countries just because of activities that are internal to those countries.