Question of perspective....

[unclepercy]

The Islamic religion is WAY behind the global times - they are stuck in the 5th century. I am not saying Christianity didn't go through this phase - we did - but we have outgrown it, and it is time to Islam to grow up with the times. Let the women drive, no polygamy, educate the girls, and no killing for ridiculous aspirations.

But who are we to say that the Islamic way of life must grow up? Christian based nations took their sweet time become the modern society they have today, so why can't the Islamic nations?

The question is not who. America is not the only country who is civilized. You are, Britain is, and the list goes on and on. At the bottom of the list are the laggers. The question is why.

The answer seems to be that it serves the best interest of those in power. The men. Then the reason for re-socialization is that it is the 21st century, and such barbaric treatment is not acceptable in this day and age of mass communication. When everyone was in the 5th century together, you didn't hear about the family eaten by wild boars who lived 50 miles down the road.
We do hear about it today - in living color.

If a 5th century life style is what they have so far evolved, who are we to interfer and change it. Did we not learn our lesson from the native populations in the Americas and Australia, when we tried to take these savages and tried to civilize them. That went well didn't it!

Well, it certainly did for us. No one is scalping our women, and no one is raiding our food supplies. No one is going to the medicine doctor for a bypass, and no one is doing rain dances. Although, we could use one where I am :lol: Truthfully, I am no expert on Indian Affairs, and it seems to be a bigger issue for you than for us.

We must interfere to protect ourselves, to bring about more social equality, to stamp out AIDs (there again - you ask why we interfere?), to give the oppressed more opportunity and knowledge. If only some of the oppressed KNEW that their way of life is not the norm all around the world...

Don't make the west seem to modern. When did women become persons under the law? When did the west recognize equality between races? Not that long ago, when you consider how many thousands of years of modern history we have.

I agree. But, Gertrude, it's called progress. And when someone's dragging up the rear, we have to pull them along... or would you drop them behind and let them wallow in the cesspool of ignorance and indifference?

I'm not agreeing with the Islamic way of life, but is it right that I dictate how they should live? Who am I? I'm just another human being, no better and no worse.

Well, you know how to use a computer, spell and type. That means you went to school. Some girls around this world are deliberately kept from education. So, in that sense you are better at some skills - and I say it is our responsibility to share what we have with others. Who could argue that learning to read is a bad thing? Who could argue that having medicine is a bad thing? Who could argue that having clean drinking water is a bad thing? There are some basic human rights that are being denied many people in this world/and that's the reason we are attempting re-socialization.
Uncle

 

[FiveParadox]

We should keep in mind please that the Islamic population in Canada, and I would assume the United States, does not subscribe to such "conservative" interpretations of their faith; just as most modern Christians do not interpret the Bible at face value.

 

[DasFX]

There are some basic human rights that are being denied many people in this world/and that's the reason we are attempting re-socialization.
Uncle

So if by chance, some external force from outside of Earth and came across us and saw that we were centuries behind and attempted to re-socialize us, you would embrace them or would you resist?

 

[Durgan]

When is an insurgent, really a freedom fighter?

The answer is simple: He who has the bigest fist has always defined the answer.

But now there are problems, those that feel slighted are willing to fight by blowing themselves up along with others. The Queensbury Rules no longer apply.

Conventional wars such as they were are gone. Vicious guerella warfare will be the norm now and in the future. Get used to it.

Durgan.

 

[darkbeaver]

"Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information."

 

[I think not]

"Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information."

Oh you mean this article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm

 

[unclepercy]

There are some basic human rights that are being denied many people in this world/and that's the reason we are attempting re-socialization.
Uncle

So if by chance, some external force from outside of Earth and came across us and saw that we were centuries behind and attempted to re-socialize us, you would embrace them or would you resist?

Depends on what they had in mind.

Uncle

 

[Alberta'sfinest]

RE: Question of perspecti

I think that to answer any questions on perspective you have to define right and wrong. The reality is that there is no right and wrong, only an extremely gray area where nothing is concrete. There are also no freedom fighters or insurgents, only soldiers fighting a war. Those names were only created as propaganda. If they're your enemy, they're insurgents, if they're your soldiers or army, they're freedom fighters. What do you think public opinion would be if the american armies where called insurgents, and the Iraqi forces were called patriots to Saddam? I'd imagine there wouldn't be to much support for it. In reality, both sides are both freedom fighters and insurgents, they're just fighting for a different idea of freedom. Technically, nobody is free in this world, we only have freedom of liberties. Liberties are what we are allowed to do within society, so we essentially only have the freedom to do what we are allowed to do, which isn't freedom. So technically both sides are fighting for a system of freedom.
I think the US is wrong, but only because they went to war with Iraq. Part of our democratic principles is that you respect another's opinion within our countries, and you don't kill them if their opinion differs. By marching into a country and killing a lot of people, all of our values go right out the window, and the credibility of democracy is lost on the people of Iraq. Since the US is going against it's own preaching and has become a hypocrit in more ways than one, the war was lost because the public opinion doesn't see a system of freedom and social conscience, they see a system that allows for horrible tyrrants to rule and wage war unrestricted by the citizens within the US, and by the UN which the US co-founded. I bet it never crossed too many American's minds that the only reason that Iraq wanted to build nuclear weopons was to remove the US' power to oppress them, or use them. When men realize they are too small and weak to fight a battle, they build better weopons. I gaurentee it wasn't some 240lb solid muscle soldier that designed the first gun, it was probably some guy who wasn't big enough to fight with what was currently available. This is the essential mechanism of any arms races of the past, Fear.