China to start Ant-terror operations

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

......err... anti-muslim operations... I bet our anti-hindu, iSlamic apologists will condemn this witch hunt against their brethren.iSlamic

Oh...wait... it is being carried out by Chinese... Then it should be fair and fine.

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

......err... anti-muslim operations... I bet our anti-hindu, iSlamic apologists will condemn this witch hunt against their brethren.iSlamic

Oh...wait... it is being carried out by Chinese... Then it should be fair and fine.

>>> I thought they would have had one for many years now, given their Uyghur issues.

rawemotions wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

......err... anti-muslim operations... I bet our anti-hindu, iSlamic apologists will condemn this witch hunt against their brethren.iSlamic

Oh...wait... it is being carried out by Chinese... Then it should be fair and fine.

>>> I thought they would have had one for many years now, given their Uyghur issues.

You are correct. Knowing the political Islamist doctrine masquerading as religion in mosques, China has an active strategy to combat Political Islam at a fundamental level, knowing that Political Islam threatens every Chinese citizen's well being and breeds terror in the long term.  Every sermon in a mosque is controlled / monitored by the state. They also control educational materials being dished out to young minds. So they have a two pronged strategy, with one combating it ideologically and another that goes militarily after the trouble makers who cannot be reformed.

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

indophile wrote:France monitors its mosques and keeps tabs on Imam's sermons.
I believe Germany does too.

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

>>>In reality, the Singapore model is not that far off the mark, considering the local ground realities. Total freedom is an idea whose viability is directly proportional to the long term wealth of a nation. There are also other dimensions to it such as the cultural baggage between the co-existing demographics, the religions or philosophies involved of the groups etc. Of course, even in that scenario, it cannot still be a free-for-all. Much as I am not a big fan of governments getting involved in day to day matters, if the people are ready to tear each other part over everything, there does need to be a law and order setup that anticipates it.

indophile wrote:Does India do it? I don't think it does. There are too many of them.

Idéfix wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

>>>In reality, the Singapore model is not that far off the mark, considering the local ground realities. Total freedom is an idea whose viability is directly proportional to the long term wealth of a nation. There are also other dimensions to it such as the cultural baggage between the co-existing demographics, the religions or philosophies involved of the groups etc. Of course, even in that scenario, it cannot still be a free-for-all. Much as I am not a big fan of governments getting involved in day to day matters, if the people are ready to tear each other part over everything, there does need to be a law and order setup that anticipates it.

I don't think Singapore had much of a "people tearing each other apart" scenario going when it became an authoritarian regime.

swapna wrote:Are these colonies of ants armed and trained to infiltrate china's muslim groups, or small, reddish-brown chinese people trained to infiltrate and spy on muslim ants living in ant colonies?

indophile wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

France, ok?

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:Are these colonies of ants armed and trained to infiltrate china's muslim groups, or small, reddish-brown chinese people trained to infiltrate and spy on muslim ants living in ant colonies?

Ammachi made a funny. Ha ha!

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:Are these colonies of ants armed and trained to infiltrate china's muslim groups, or small, reddish-brown chinese people trained to infiltrate and spy on muslim ants living in ant colonies?

Ammachi made a funny. Ha ha!

Noooooo! We're dead serious, and are trying to protect china, france, singapore, tibet, and hyderabad from tiny, energetic, disciplined terrorists who are hauling provisions to their hill all day long. Please keep your frivolous comments to yourself.

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

>>>In reality, the Singapore model is not that far off the mark, considering the local ground realities. Total freedom is an idea whose viability is directly proportional to the long term wealth of a nation. There are also other dimensions to it such as the cultural baggage between the co-existing demographics, the religions or philosophies involved of the groups etc. Of course, even in that scenario, it cannot still be a free-for-all. Much as I am not a big fan of governments getting involved in day to day matters, if the people are ready to tear each other part over everything, there does need to be a law and order setup that anticipates it.

I don't think Singapore had much of a "people tearing each other apart" scenario going when it became an authoritarian regime.

>>Probably not, but LKY probably knew to scale this city state up to first world standards in short order, he could not take chances with potential conflicts. Of course, given the size of Singapore, it could be managed more like a company than a country and he had fewer people that had to buy in.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Singapore... Another authoritarian one-party state from which there is much to learn about freedom of religion.

>>>In reality, the Singapore model is not that far off the mark, considering the local ground realities. Total freedom is an idea whose viability is directly proportional to the long term wealth of a nation. There are also other dimensions to it such as the cultural baggage between the co-existing demographics, the religions or philosophies involved of the groups etc. Of course, even in that scenario, it cannot still be a free-for-all. Much as I am not a big fan of governments getting involved in day to day matters, if the people are ready to tear each other part over everything, there does need to be a law and order setup that anticipates it.

I don't think Singapore had much of a "people tearing each other apart" scenario going when it became an authoritarian regime.

>>Probably not, but LKY probably knew to scale this city state up to first world standards in short order, he could not take chances with potential conflicts. Of course, given the size of Singapore, it could be managed more like a company than a country and he had fewer people that had to buy in.

you mean he didnt have a 20-20 visioned rearview mirror in his office?

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>In reality, the Singapore model is not that far off the mark, considering the local ground realities. Total freedom is an idea whose viability is directly proportional to the long term wealth of a nation. There are also other dimensions to it such as the cultural baggage between the co-existing demographics, the religions or philosophies involved of the groups etc. Of course, even in that scenario, it cannot still be a free-for-all. Much as I am not a big fan of governments getting involved in day to day matters, if the people are ready to tear each other part over everything, there does need to be a law and order setup that anticipates it.

I don't think Singapore had much of a "people tearing each other apart" scenario going when it became an authoritarian regime.

>>Probably not, but LKY probably knew to scale this city state up to first world standards in short order, he could not take chances with potential conflicts. Of course, given the size of Singapore, it could be managed more like a company than a country and he had fewer people that had to buy in.

you mean he didnt have a 20-20 visioned rearview mirror in his office?

It is interesting how those who rail against big government in the US can be counted on to support authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are not leftist.

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>In reality, the Singapore model is not that far off the mark, considering the local ground realities. Total freedom is an idea whose viability is directly proportional to the long term wealth of a nation. There are also other dimensions to it such as the cultural baggage between the co-existing demographics, the religions or philosophies involved of the groups etc. Of course, even in that scenario, it cannot still be a free-for-all. Much as I am not a big fan of governments getting involved in day to day matters, if the people are ready to tear each other part over everything, there does need to be a law and order setup that anticipates it.

I don't think Singapore had much of a "people tearing each other apart" scenario going when it became an authoritarian regime.

>>Probably not, but LKY probably knew to scale this city state up to first world standards in short order, he could not take chances with potential conflicts. Of course, given the size of Singapore, it could be managed more like a company than a country and he had fewer people that had to buy in.

you mean he didnt have a 20-20 visioned rearview mirror in his office?

It is interesting how those who rail against big government in the US can be counted on to support authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are not leftist.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
I don't think Singapore had much of a "people tearing each other apart" scenario going when it became an authoritarian regime.

>>Probably not, but LKY probably knew to scale this city state up to first world standards in short order, he could not take chances with potential conflicts. Of course, given the size of Singapore, it could be managed more like a company than a country and he had fewer people that had to buy in.

you mean he didnt have a 20-20 visioned rearview mirror in his office?

It is interesting how those who rail against big government in the US can be counted on to support authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are not leftist.

isn't it a liberal refrain that everything that works in america does not necessarily work everywhere in the world and people should be free to select their own form of govt? or are you of the camp that likes to export big govt, strident secularism & marxist economic policy to all parts of the world?

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>Probably not, but LKY probably knew to scale this city state up to first world standards in short order, he could not take chances with potential conflicts. Of course, given the size of Singapore, it could be managed more like a company than a country and he had fewer people that had to buy in.

you mean he didnt have a 20-20 visioned rearview mirror in his office?

It is interesting how those who rail against big government in the US can be counted on to support authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are not leftist.

isn't it a liberal refrain that everything that works in america does not necessarily work everywhere in the world and people should be free to select their own form of govt? or are you of the camp that likes to export big govt, strident secularism & marxist economic policy to all parts of the world?

I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights. I don't think there is anything Marxist about that. I don't even think that is particularly left-of-center. I do believe that progressive, left-of-center economic policies are appropriate in all societies. Some societies are to the right of what I think is appropriate (e.g. the US) and some to the left (e.g. Cuba).

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

you mean he didnt have a 20-20 visioned rearview mirror in his office?

It is interesting how those who rail against big government in the US can be counted on to support authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are not leftist.

isn't it a liberal refrain that everything that works in america does not necessarily work everywhere in the world and people should be free to select their own form of govt? or are you of the camp that likes to export big govt, strident secularism & marxist economic policy to all parts of the world?

I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights. I don't think there is anything Marxist about that. I don't even think that is particularly left-of-center. I do believe that progressive, left-of-center economic policies are appropriate in all societies. Some societies are to the right of what I think is appropriate (e.g. the US) and some to the left (e.g. Cuba).

good you use the example of US and cuba. tell me which one needs your help in form of economic prescriptions more, cuba or US and therein lies the crux of my issue with left wingers

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
It is interesting how those who rail against big government in the US can be counted on to support authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are not leftist.

isn't it a liberal refrain that everything that works in america does not necessarily work everywhere in the world and people should be free to select their own form of govt? or are you of the camp that likes to export big govt, strident secularism & marxist economic policy to all parts of the world?

I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights. I don't think there is anything Marxist about that. I don't even think that is particularly left-of-center. I do believe that progressive, left-of-center economic policies are appropriate in all societies. Some societies are to the right of what I think is appropriate (e.g. the US) and some to the left (e.g. Cuba).

good you use the example of US and cuba. tell me which one needs your help in form of economic prescriptions more, cuba or US and therein lies the crux of my issue with left wingers

If I thought the US needed more help than Cuba, I would have tried to live in Cuba, not the US. I chose to live here because I like this system. But unlike CONservatives, I am not blind to the problems with this system.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

isn't it a liberal refrain that everything that works in america does not necessarily work everywhere in the world and people should be free to select their own form of govt? or are you of the camp that likes to export big govt, strident secularism & marxist economic policy to all parts of the world?

I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights. I don't think there is anything Marxist about that. I don't even think that is particularly left-of-center. I do believe that progressive, left-of-center economic policies are appropriate in all societies. Some societies are to the right of what I think is appropriate (e.g. the US) and some to the left (e.g. Cuba).

good you use the example of US and cuba. tell me which one needs your help in form of economic prescriptions more, cuba or US and therein lies the crux of my issue with left wingers

If I thought the US needed more help than Cuba, I would have tried to live in Cuba, not the US. I chose to live here because I like this system. But unlike CONservatives, I am not blind to the problems with this system.

so you are trying to cure a system of the characteristics that allowed it to prosper and drew you to it. got it

Idéfix wrote:I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights.

SomeProfile wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights.

If a religion preaches and practices cannibalism, it should be allowed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, cuz those are universal rights. Got it.

SomeProfile wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights.

If a religion preaches and practices cannibalism, it should be allowed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, cuz those are universal rights. Got it.

Hellsangel wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights.

If a religion preaches and practices cannibalism, it should be allowed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, cuz those are universal rights. Got it.

For Libbies, it is freedom of religion except when it offends their beliefs.

Idéfix wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights.

If a religion preaches and practices cannibalism, it should be allowed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, cuz those are universal rights. Got it.

If a religion preaches cannibalism, it should be free to speak about that religion, and to believe in that religion. But that does not mean believers of that religion can kill other people and eat them. Freedom of speech and religion are not the only universal rights. The right to life and liberty are universal too.

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
I believe that free speech and freedom of religion are not optional goodies that only the rich or western countries should provide to their citizens. I think they are universal rights. I don't think there is anything Marxist about that. I don't even think that is particularly left-of-center. I do believe that progressive, left-of-center economic policies are appropriate in all societies. Some societies are to the right of what I think is appropriate (e.g. the US) and some to the left (e.g. Cuba).

good you use the example of US and cuba. tell me which one needs your help in form of economic prescriptions more, cuba or US and therein lies the crux of my issue with left wingers

If I thought the US needed more help than Cuba, I would have tried to live in Cuba, not the US. I chose to live here because I like this system. But unlike CONservatives, I am not blind to the problems with this system.

so you are trying to cure a system of the characteristics that allowed it to prosper and drew you to it. got it

That's your (incorrect) reading of it. What allowed the US to prosper is the strong middle class, high social mobility, good balance between labor and capital, low income inequality, excellent publicly-funded infrastructure, and the strong public education system that it built up after WWII. I would like the US to return to those practices, rather than the ones that have produced anemic growth and increasing inequality since the '80s.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
That's your (incorrect) reading of it. What allowed the US to prosper is the strong middle class, high social mobility, good balance between labor and capital, low income inequality, excellent publicly-funded infrastructure, and the strong public education system that it built up after WWII. I would like the US to return to those practices, rather than the ones that have produced anemic growth and increasing inequality since the '80s.

did this social mobility, income equality etc exist before 1950s? or was it only between 1950s-1980 which you state as the golden period? and since you said in the past you want US to return to 1969-1982 period of high stagflation I have some context there.