|
Allawi: "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is" (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Hey.. what the woudl you do if the islamic world gathered their forces and attacked america becuase a terrorist (BUSH) was the leader of your country.. then they FORCED you guys with their weapons to follow what they thought was right? |
^^ And ofcourse no one is going to respond to this. People generally don't like confesing to fascist behaviour. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Hey.. what the woudl you do if the islamic world gathered their forces and attacked america becuase a terrorist (BUSH) was the leader of your country.. then they FORCED you guys with their weapons to follow what they thought was right? |
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. Look at Iraq, the current PM is hardly the candidate that would have been installed if the US wanted to enforce its way of life everywhere, yet its authority is not challenged. Another example could be Libya, which after having stopped actively seeking the destruction of the west, has been accepted. Islamic fundies, including religious leaders all over the Islamic world and several heads of state, on the other hand, have openly stated their intentions of establishing a global "caliphate" under sharia law. Only one possible system. No matter how lenient your country is towards Islamic countries to follow their own path, if its not submitting it would be made to.
It's like the difference between Fascism and Liberalism. They cannot co-exist, but the one cannot coexist with any other system, whereas the other can. And that makes all the difference to me. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| 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. Look at Iraq, the current PM is hardly the candidate that would have been installed if the US wanted to enforce its way of life everywhere, yet its authority is not challenged. Another example could be Libya, which after having stopped actively seeking the destruction of the west, has been accepted. Islamic fundies, including religious leaders all over the Islamic world and several heads of state, on the other hand, have openly stated their intentions of establishing a global "caliphate" under sharia law. Only one possible system. No matter how lenient your country is towards Islamic countries to follow their own path, if its not submitting it would be made to.
It's like the difference between Fascism and Liberalism. They cannot co-exist, but the one cannot coexist with any other system, whereas the other can. And that makes all the difference to me. |
Well said.
Iraq is an interesting case when it came to the vote.
Even though it's not what the West was hoping for, they let the democratic process speak for itself.
There was no 'puppet government' or coup after the vote, they let it stand.
Is everyone happy with it, obviously not, they're talking civil war.
That's the big difference between a flegling democracy and an experienced one.
Here we don't go to war when the party elected isn't the one we want whereas there, they figure that's the solution to everything because that's what they're used to (unfortunately).
At some point, diplomacy has to win... |
|
|
| Purple |
| I am not sure about this, but I think it took more than 100 years to bring democracy to USA. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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) |
Yes it is, if you look at it from their perspective. A secular system, regardless of what it is, is based on secularism. End of story. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
I am not sure about this, but I think it took more than 100 years to bring democracy to USA. |
They also had a civil war...should this path be surprising to anyone? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
They also had a civil war...should this path be surprising to anyone? |
Over slavery. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Yes it is, if you look at it from their perspective. A secular system, regardless of what it is, is based on secularism. End of story. |
No-one is saying that they should be secular and cannot have their theocracy. They just can't have a theocracy which implies that the west should follow the same religious dogma or be subject to threats and terror. I repeat: The opposition of ideas is not symmetric. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| ^^ Might wanna fix that post occ. :p |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
^^ Might wanna fix that post occ. :p |
Stupid automated url tags ... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
No-one is saying that they should be secular and cannot have their theocracy. They just can't have a theocracy which implies that the west should follow the same religious dogma or be subject to threats and terror. I repeat: The opposition of ideas is not symmetric. |
Didn't quite understand that last line. Please elaborate (not being sacrastic or anything, I just need clarification). |
|
|
|
|
