What is  your take? 

Views: 312

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree.

Meanwhile extremists would not mind at all if they could instantly destroy civilization, even if it destroys themselves.

One of your better posts, Fred. Nice comparison and appeal to balanced scrutiny.
I'm sorry, but i really don't see how the israeli-palestinian conflict, whoever may be right or wrong in it, can even begin to be compared to the rising influence of islam on the western world.

the conflict in palestine deals with an increadibly small piece of land, smaller than most western cities, affecting not that many people. a local, territorial conflict that has been seriously been blown way out of proprotion by media and propaganda, with hate levels rising above any concievable logic.

lucifer, it seems like you brought the zionist issue up as a way of saying, "look, the jews are evil too", which in my eyes seems like a strange diversion of the topic.

when i think of the threat of islamification, i think of europe- opening its gates to foreign workors and thus dooming itself demographically. it's scary, a whole continent that will look very very differnet in 50 years - but they brought it on themselves.
You know what? You're the atheist version of Michael.
I can't believe that we are this far through the discussion and it's the first time someone asked.
Thank you, JM.

Islamafication of....what?

Ok. Let me restate this.

In the conceivable future, do you think that your life will change (for the better or for the worse) due to the religion of Islam's influence?
Do you believe that you will gain or lose rights based on Muslim morality?

Huh? All our lives have ALREADY changed for the worse AND we've already lost rights based on Muslim morality (if you consider Islam's role in Jihad and terrorism).
And what do you see in the immediate future?
Hi Misty,

Our privacy rights have been compromised in the interest of homeland security. The hassle of airport security is worse than it was before Muslim extremists burned 9/11 into our collective consciousness. The U.N. and several other countries have passed laws and measures to curtail freedom of speech where religion is concerned.

Is that enough?
Just as one example, a few years ago a mosque was built on a regular street in Montreal. Montreal is a very liberal city, and many cultures have always existed peacefully (excluding the fleeing of english speakers after the reaffirmation of Quebecois culture).

So one day a neighbor on a second floor was exiting her shower and happened to pass in front of her window undressed.

The Mosque complained of indecency, and they won, the lady, who'd lived there before the Mosque, in a liberal culture where nudity is not an indecency, lost. We lost as a culture.

But this is typical of our Canadian tolerance. We've also allowed sikhs to not comply with police uniform by wearing a turban instead of regular mandated head dress, on the basis that religion can supersede civil code.

Secularism is losing ground in countries where we took it for granted. I realise it's a totally different situation where secularism if viewed as an oddity by many, but in Canada, public life had been secular for a few years at least. But we are losing it.
That's your opinion, doone. Everything about Islam (the Quran, hadiths, traditions) give license to Muslim extremists (i.e. Jihadis and terrorists). Islam is a rabid dogma that provides cover for those who hate. Until moderate Muslims reform Islam, the fundamentalists will continue to wreak havoc.

Don't take my word for it: just turn on CNN, any day. Over-reaction? Yeah, right.
The Iraq war was not handled properly. If you'll recall, we didn't need any excuse for paying Saddam another visit. He had flaunted U.N. weapons inspectors more times than I can recount. As a rogue leader who had already invaded Kuwait, with his sights set on Saudi Arabia, his continued control of Iraq was not tenable in terms of our national interests. And let's be honest: our national interest is the free flow of Mid East oil. We weren't trying to steal the oil: even when the price of that oil drove up inflation or caused us other economic problems. No. We weren't trying to steal or control the oil . . . we were only trying to ensure the oil from the entire region kept flowing. We can't allow some rogue dictator to destabilize the region and cripple us by disrupting the flow of oil. We should have toppled him in the first war.

And another thing: Iraq and Iran are every bit as interventionist as we are in the region. They all have their own national interests and they often conflict. National interests for the U.S. means no destabilization of the region. We're not trying to steal the oil as past superpowers would have done, just protect the free flow of that oil. That means no rogue dictators and no nuclear Iran. Iran simply CAN'T be allowed to gain nuclear weapon capabilities. Period. Jesus . . . talk about destabilizing! If it takes war, again, as ugly as that prospect is . . . that would be better than a nuclear Iran.

And the Iraq of today is better than an Iraq under Saddam. With in-fighting and feuding, Iraq may fall back into chaos, but that wouldn't mean we should never have deposed Saddam . . . it only means we didn't do a good enough job.
No problem, Adriana. I already knew we held opposing views on this one.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service