Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

this is the essence of my problem with your line of argumentation. engagement with the saudis is written off as a runaway train and as "realpolitik" as you've been so cleverly dodging.  if you cannot get a movement against this going or even have the willingness to join existing movements against this by appealing to administration after democratically elected administration in your country (note: sorry about that usage bw), what chance do you have cajoling practitioners of an ideology in which you have had no say, and whose leaders you did not elect, who live in faraway places, into changing their ways?

>>>>My mission is not to change the Saudis think. I am not sure what I am dodging. American realpolitik is a reality, but it is not as though absent that, the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamic movements or Saudi Arabia will become enlightened. My responses to CD (and/or maybe you) is that the ideological problems of those cultures are independent of American involvement.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

>>Oil and American realpolitik. No one has ever argued that the US (and by extension, the West) does not have ulterior motives. The point I am trying to address here is that with or without the US involvement, there is no stopping the middle east from going to pot, due to a cultural handicap in the area of self-questioning.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

this is the essence of my problem with your line of argumentation. engagement with the saudis is written off as a runaway train and as "realpolitik" as you've been so cleverly dodging.  if you cannot get a movement against this going or even have the willingness to join existing movements against this by appealing to administration after democratically elected administration in your country (note: sorry about that usage bw), what chance do you have cajoling practitioners of an ideology in which you have had no say, and whose leaders you did not elect, who live in faraway places, into changing their ways?

>>>>My mission is not to change the Saudis think. I am not sure what I am dodging. American realpolitik is a reality, but it is not as though absent that, the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamic movements or Saudi Arabia will become enlightened. My responses to CD (and/or maybe you) is that the ideological problems of those cultures are independent of American involvement.

sure, i have no problems with that statement, but are you not interested in more practical matters such as trying to figure out how to take away their murderous tools and stop the people and the political systems that enable them?

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

this is the essence of my problem with your line of argumentation. engagement with the saudis is written off as a runaway train and as "realpolitik" as you've been so cleverly dodging.  if you cannot get a movement against this going or even have the willingness to join existing movements against this by appealing to administration after democratically elected administration in your country (note: sorry about that usage bw), what chance do you have cajoling practitioners of an ideology in which you have had no say, and whose leaders you did not elect, who live in faraway places, into changing their ways?

>>>>My mission is not to change the Saudis think. I am not sure what I am dodging. American realpolitik is a reality, but it is not as though absent that, the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamic movements or Saudi Arabia will become enlightened. My responses to CD (and/or maybe you) is that the ideological problems of those cultures are independent of American involvement.

sure, i have no problems with that statement, but are you not interested in more practical matters such as trying to figure out how to take away their murderous tools and stop the people and the political systems that enable them?

Ppl elected Obama so that there will be less american involvement in the middle east. You were a staunch supporter of Obama too. What are you doing to influence him and his govt to take away the murderous tools and stop the ppl and the political systems that enables the ones with the dangerous ideology?

truthbetold wrote:CD

"FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries."


This reminds me of the hindu fundamentalist triumphantly pointing that "Reddy christians do not marry SC christians".  


What they fail to recognize is that this is not a reflection on christian religion but a testament to how deep caste philosophy is dug in indian/hindu mind.  It may take generations to overcome such deep seated prejudices. 


Similarly, if throngs of western educated citizens of europe go to join ISIS , it is not a reflection on european soceity, it is more an indictment of deep rooted islamic malaise.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

this is the essence of my problem with your line of argumentation. engagement with the saudis is written off as a runaway train and as "realpolitik" as you've been so cleverly dodging.  if you cannot get a movement against this going or even have the willingness to join existing movements against this by appealing to administration after democratically elected administration in your country (note: sorry about that usage bw), what chance do you have cajoling practitioners of an ideology in which you have had no say, and whose leaders you did not elect, who live in faraway places, into changing their ways?

>>>>My mission is not to change the Saudis think. I am not sure what I am dodging. American realpolitik is a reality, but it is not as though absent that, the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamic movements or Saudi Arabia will become enlightened. My responses to CD (and/or maybe you) is that the ideological problems of those cultures are independent of American involvement.

sure, i have no problems with that statement, but are you not interested in more practical matters such as trying to figure out how to take away their murderous tools and stop the people and the political systems that enable them? what you (you meaning not just personally you, but people who have a similar bent of mind and who use similar language) are dodging is the hard work of convincing american political leadership and congress into distancing ourselves from saudi arabia politically, and to convince them to use the congressional mandate that they already have to prevent the executive branch from ever entering another military conflict in that region.  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kinnera wrote:Ppl elected Obama so that there will be less american involvement in the middle east. You were a staunch supporter of Obama too. What are you doing to influence him and his govt to take away the murderous tools and stop the ppl and the political systems that enables the ones with the dangerous ideology?

and we do have less involvement in the middle east, but these problems don't happen overnight and they certainly aren't going to be fixed overnight. i'd like obama to be far less engaged in the middle east, and i am much less sanguine about his foreign policy than i was in 2008, but the problems he is facing in that region certainly didn't start in 2008.  

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

What has hinduism's faults got to do with islam? 

Nothing.

truthbetold wrote:
If your defense is all religions are the same, I already answered it.  Go read it.

Okay I will take my statement about the influence of petrodollars on Hinduism back but you do see that RSS types have already ratcheted up their noise on Hindutva, Hindu etc., Imagine if they get financial support in addition to the power.

Last I checked Indian GDP is in trillions.  More than any gulf state.  RSS got all the money it can ever need. What do you think  rss can or will do with the money?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

"FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries."


This reminds me of the hindu fundamentalist triumphantly pointing that "Reddy christians do not marry SC christians".  


What they fail to recognize is that this is not a reflection on christian religion but a testament to how deep caste philosophy is dug in indian/hindu mind.  It may take generations to overcome such deep seated prejudices. 


Similarly, if throngs of western educated citizens of europe go to join ISIS , it is not a reflection on european soceity, it is more an indictment of deep rooted islamic malaise.

I think you're treading on dangerous waters wit this line of thinking and risking further alienating mainstream Muslims. The argument out forward is that many of these western born kids attracted to these terrorist groups are not religious in fact there are proofs that they bought books like Koran for dummies etc on their way

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:it's funny to read someone tut tuts at crassness of the west in wanting oil but would like to wash their hands off genocide that's killed millions of innocents. compassion of the liberals knows no bounds indeed. he would've said the same during ww2

what made the allied powers engage with hitler wasn't compassion for the jews but his territorial ambitions. he murdered and maimed millions before anyone took notice. is it possible for you to engage in any debate without resorting to your tired old liberals v conservative labels? not all the world's problems are neatly packaged into american political labels.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

"FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries."


This reminds me of the hindu fundamentalist triumphantly pointing that "Reddy christians do not marry SC christians".  


What they fail to recognize is that this is not a reflection on christian religion but a testament to how deep caste philosophy is dug in indian/hindu mind.  It may take generations to overcome such deep seated prejudices. 


Similarly, if throngs of western educated citizens of europe go to join ISIS , it is not a reflection on european soceity, it is more an indictment of deep rooted islamic malaise.

I think you're treading on dangerous waters wit this line of thinking and risking further alienating mainstream Muslims. The argument out forward is that many of these western born kids attracted to these terrorist groups are not religious in fact there are proofs that they bought books like Koran for dummies etc on their way

this is the mindset of apologistans the world over. fragile muslim psyche will be damaged if the world questions them so let us blame their problems on rest of the world instead. western kids...hahaha@obfuscation. these fighters are kids raised in muslim households that are influenced by their parents, their friends, their imams and their co-religionist propaganda. any amount of douchemunesque misdirection will not hide this fact

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

"FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries."


This reminds me of the hindu fundamentalist triumphantly pointing that "Reddy christians do not marry SC christians".  


What they fail to recognize is that this is not a reflection on christian religion but a testament to how deep caste philosophy is dug in indian/hindu mind.  It may take generations to overcome such deep seated prejudices. 


Similarly, if throngs of western educated citizens of europe go to join ISIS , it is not a reflection on european soceity, it is more an indictment of deep rooted islamic malaise.

I think you're treading on dangerous waters wit this line of thinking and risking further alienating mainstream Muslims. The argument out forward is that many of these western born kids attracted to these terrorist groups are not religious in fact there are proofs that they bought books like Koran for dummies etc on their way

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I think you're treading on dangerous waters wit this line of thinking and risking further alienating mainstream Muslims. The argument out forward is that many of these western born kids attracted to these terrorist groups are not religious in fact there are proofs that they bought books like Koran for dummies etc on their way

????  so your appeasement for the last 100 years have only led to bombs and blowing up people.

you know what... let them be alienated... let us see what they would do... Here is a little secret... They will shut their mouth and start behaving. If they do, then you just give them what they think is their sacred duty - of giving their lives to Allah.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:it's funny to read someone tut tuts at crassness of the west in wanting oil but would like to wash their hands off genocide that's killed millions of innocents. compassion of the liberals knows no bounds indeed. he would've said the same during ww2

what made the allied powers engage with hitler wasn't compassion for the jews but his territorial ambitions. he murdered and maimed millions before anyone took notice. is it possible for you to engage in any debate without resorting to your tired old liberals v conservative labels? not all the world's problems are neatly packaged into american political labels.

yeah whatever, man. there were enough people like you that said dont get involved in ww2, let the jerries kill the frogs and kikes, it's a self contained mess in europe, we in america are immune to it. same logic you're using here. it doesnt matter what reason US had to intervene, the point is it did and the world is a much better place for it.

the moment there's a shooting somewhere you'll be jumping up and down waving your political labels all over the place with your annoying hahahas but hate it when it's not convenient for you. get a mirror when bleating around your favorite word "hypocrisy".

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

2) my opposition to Islamic terrorism is  purely on the basis of how it affects America or the west

- it is a more fundamental dislike than that; otherwise, I wouldn't be "railing" against Islamic doings in India or Bali or Algeria or Mughal atrocities when America did not exist. My interactions with CD here have to do with the whitewashing of Islamic history. My comments about the West in that context pertain to the naivete of the West in buying off on a narrative that rings very hollow or duplicitous outright.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:it's funny to read someone tut tuts at crassness of the west in wanting oil but would like to wash their hands off genocide that's killed millions of innocents. compassion of the liberals knows no bounds indeed. he would've said the same during ww2

what made the allied powers engage with hitler wasn't compassion for the jews but his territorial ambitions. he murdered and maimed millions before anyone took notice. is it possible for you to engage in any debate without resorting to your tired old liberals v conservative labels? not all the world's problems are neatly packaged into american political labels.

yeah whatever, man. there were enough people like you that said dont get involved in ww2, let the jerries kill the frogs and kikes, it's a self contained mess in europe, we in america are immune to it. same logic you're using here. it doesnt matter what reason US had to intervene, the point is it did and the world is a much better place for it.

the moment there's a shooting somewhere you'll be jumping up and down waving your political labels all over the place with your annoying hahahas but hate it when it's not convenient for you. get a mirror when bleating around your favorite word "hypocrisy".

i don't know what frogs and kikes mean, but what i said is factual and i didn't mean just the US, but also the first allied powers to get engaged.  and i don't think anyone deliberately wished ill on the jews. it's just simple human nature to pay attention only when personally discomfited. empathy is rare.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I think you're treading on dangerous waters wit this line of thinking and risking further alienating mainstream Muslims. The argument out forward is that many of these western born kids attracted to these terrorist groups are not religious in fact there are proofs that they bought books like Koran for dummies etc on their way

????  so your appeasement for the last 100 years have only led to bombs and blowing up people.

you know what... let them be alienated... let us see what they would do... Here is a little secret... They will shut their mouth and start behaving. If they do, then you just give them what they think is their sacred duty - of giving their lives to Allah.

You anger is misdirected you're like an unguided missile which is firing at wrong target.