United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

And this is just asinine. Nepal has just about succeeded in bringing democracy to that country through demonstrations. While not always peacful, they did it. To suggest that terrorism is a legitimate, or one's ONLY recourse that the poor can fight with is the ultimate in moral-equivelancy and is pathetic.

I wouldn't be too hasty to trumpet Nepal as a triumph of democracy. Don't forget that for much of the last fifteen years, Nepal was a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected parliment. The organization largely responsible for creating unrest were Maoist rebels, dedicated to replacing the constitutional monarchy with a socialist state. The monarchy suspended the parliment about a year ago to combat the maoist party, and were doing so with support from foreign governments, until the Maoists, suddenly on the run, were able to make an alliance with other political parties.
So while it's nice now that yes, an autocracy is being removed from power, it does return some political power in Nepal to the rebel Maoists, themselves accused of killings and rapes. They've also apparently used childen as soldiers, and oh yeah, they're on the US's terrorist organization watch-list. The removal of the monarchy is the best thing that could happen for them, as they're now no longer considered a terrorist organization by the new government.

But sure, yay for democracy, if you want to spin it that way. Is it still a triumph of democracy if the Maoists win the upcoming election and set up a totalitarian regime?

[White Doors]

Bad example? Ok, Ukraine? Fiji? India?
numerous others.

Point being terrorism isn't the only weapon of the poor people.
THAT is BS and an excuse for apologists to use.

Also, muslim terrorists is never targeted against an oppressive givernment, it is directed at Western ideals of freedom and individuality.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Bad example? Ok, Ukraine? Fiji? India?
numerous others.

Point being terrorism isn't the only weapon of the poor people.
THAT is BS and an excuse for apologists to use.

Fair enough, I have no argument with that point.

Nepal's a mess right now, probably more-so now than any other time during their civil war, and I don't think whatever peace they have now will last long; militaristic communist rebels tend to lose interest in democratic government as soon as they realize it's not going to get them into power.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Also, muslim terrorists is never targeted against an oppressive givernment, it is directed at Western ideals of freedom and individuality.

Yes, "they hate us for our freedom".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, "they hate us for our freedom".

What the hell do you think it is?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, "they hate us for our freedom".

Personally, I think he is half right.

When things like allowing a woman to show her face are verboten for fear of corrupting men, I think there is a point to the argument that one of the reasons the western world is feared by such extremists is the freedoms we offer. Particularaly, freedom of thought, expression, individuality.

The level of control that relgion has over people in the western world is at an all time low, and is still dropping, IMO for these reasons. People who think for themselves are able to reject antiquated religious teachings in favor of modern thinking. Religious extremists are obviously going to fear such things.

I don't think it is our freedom they hate, it is the certanty that they will lose control if it is exported that they hate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Also, muslim terrorists is never targeted against an oppressive givernment, it is directed at Western ideals of freedom and individuality.

Do you mean western ideals of freedom and individuality such as the Saudi monarchy?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

What the hell do you think it is?

Wow, get a grip. Freedom is subjective, if you didn't know. It is a construct that we as a society define. What is freedom to one society is not freedom to another. The average guy in the middle east could give a rats ass that we can speak out against our government, because that is not socially acceptable in his society. Freedom to him could very well be the structure of his society and knowing where he stands with his God, but to us that seems opressive and too binding. Freedom to a bushman in Africa is being able to roam where he likes and living off the land, not having the ability to buy a big home and own a big car. Our ideals of freedoms are dramatically different. An important freedom to me is a healthcare system that insures if I get sick I do not lose everything I spent my whole life working towards. I do not have that freedom in the United States, but do in Canada. Some look at my situation and say how free I am, because I don't pay exhorbident taxes (on the superficial level anyways), but the fact of the matter is that you get what you pay for and the freedoms in Canada are much greater than they are in the United States (IMO) because you have the social safety net should you stumble. But to people not raised in our system, or not familiar with it at all, they think our systems alien and binding.

The reason people in the rest of the world hate the United States is because of the arrogance they display. I had this discussion with a co-worker who spent 20+ years in the military and was posted all over the world, and he readily agreed that the distain displayed for Americans is because of the arrogance they display abroad. Americans love to rub it in the faces of others that they have "the best of everything" (in their opinion anyways), and that rubs people the wrong way. People from other countires hate it when the Americans go into their nations and tell them how bad they have it or how backwards they are. People just want to live as they see fit and live under the freedoms they prescribe to. How do you like it when your parents tell you how to live your life? Well that's the way the rest of the world feels towards America. People hate America because America is always telling them how to live their lives, telling them what is really right, and that they just aren't good enough. It ain't freedom that people want from America, its silence they want from Americans.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

What I don't get about this movies is what is so heroic about these people? they all knew they were going to die and as Lanny said earlier it's instinct to fight for your life. The only thing they did was unsuccesfully try to save themselves and crash into the ground.

That is one of the most moronic questions I have ever heard. I've always noticed your posts were at least a little short sighted, but this one is at a whole other level.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you mean western ideals of freedom and individuality such as the Saudi monarchy?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Saudia Arabia a 'western country' no. Do you have a point?

Edit - Oh I get it - you had that picture and we're dying to find a way to use it.

thanks for coming out.

[White Doors]

And Freedom isn't 'subjective'. It's very measureable in any sense of the word.

'Socially acceptable' is a restriction as well. Of course, I'm sure Lanny will try and explain this one away too.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, "they hate us for our freedom".

Whatever you do don't tell him that the terrorists didn't like Mr. Hussien in Iraq, as well.

"After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait he (Osama) lobbied the Saudi royal family to organize civil defense in the kingdom and to raise a force from among the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001 Sunday, Two Star Edition, pg. A-12, "How a Holy War against the Soviets turned on US" by Ahmed Rashid)

That would blow his mind, man

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by White Doors

And Freedom isn't 'subjective'. It's very measureable in any sense of the word.

I would disagree. Using J-walking as an example; in that regards our freedom to walk where ever we want is being oppressed. (Obvious over exageration there.)

But in another society they may have the right to J-walk. One could argue that they are more free than we are.

[White Doors]

n/m

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would disagree. Using J-walking as an example; in that regards our freedom to walk where ever we want is being oppressed. (Obvious over exageration there.)

But in another society they may have the right to J-walk. One could argue that they are more free than we are.

And you would be right. ergo, freedom isn't subjective. It's very easily measured.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by White Doors

And you would be right. ergo, freedom isn't subjective. It's very easily measured.

No it's not. Freedom (and perception) is culturally defined.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

No it's not. Freedom (and perception) is culturally defined.

You are right there Ramen boy....burka for every women!　They are free to roam their homes. It rhymes too!

多分、国際連合の憲章は読むことありません。

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, "they hate us for our freedom".

The President of Iran, whom anyone subjective would consider a radical in the Muslim world, in his letter the other day, basically urged Bush, as a Christian man, to give up and recognize that democracy was a failed concept, that the only true form of government and the one that would eventually prevail throughout the world, including America, was religious based, where everyone would be focussed into a narrow band of beliefs.

The last words from his text:

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed.

Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is : Do you not want to join them?

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

His comments were consistent with others among the more radical fringes of Muslim culture.

So, yes, it would be fair to say the more radical elements within that cultural group "hate us for our freedom," or certainly consider its export a threat.

That's from his own words.

Its not the only thing going on, obviously, but its interesting that he would end his letter with that as his main point.

The irony is, of course, that he's basically admitting that his own election was a complete sham and largely irrelevant given more Liberal candidates were barred from running against him. Was he afraid of them?

As for ordinary Muslims, which I would separate from the President of Iran, we can clearly see in Afghanistan and Iraq that Muslims not only understand the concept of democracy, but actively embraced it in spite of threats to their lives.

Where democracy is struggling in those regions is not on the concept of democracy but rather on a more basic premise - culturally immature people used to settling differences with a gun or some other threat are instead more than a little flummoxed by having to sit in a room and negotiate compromises and concensus. What we would consider ordinary is new to them.

Everybody has to grow up sometime.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Saudia Arabia a 'western country' no. Do you have a point?

Edit - Oh I get it - you had that picture and we're dying to find a way to use it.

thanks for coming out.

Sheesh. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out

1. You said "Also, muslim terrorists is never targeted against an oppressive givernment, it is directed at Western ideals of freedom and individuality."
2. That's not true.
3. They've targeted Saudi Arabia (and Egypt and Iraq under Saddam and I'm sure others)

Now was it really all that hard?

[White Doors]

They target them not to lift the oppression but because they don't think it's oppressive enough.

Now, was that so hard?