"They don't like our way of life"

[dolgoruky]

I'm sorry, but could someone explain exactly what these morons mean when they chant this mantra?

[Sannum]

1. I don't think they even know...

It tested well in the focus groups though:eyes:

[YDogg]

2. Hell, neither do I.

Who would want to be like *? Really. Certainly he doesn't speak for me.

[OrlandoGator]

3. I think they don't like us blowing up their children.

But I'm no analyst.

[Burma Jones]

4. They don't

and neither do Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Jews and Fundamentalist Hindus and Fundamentalist Corporatists and Fundamentalist Whatever the fuck you can come up with. In this case, it's only Islamic fundies that are evil, but Christian fundies are not far behind. I also think there's a big problem with Hindu fundies in India. So long as people have more regard for an imaganary life than the real one we have right here, this sort of shit is goping to happen.

Basically, if you have an adversary, you need to make them the "other"

[harlinchi]

5. Our way of life involves allowing and encouraging our businesses...

...to exploit the people of other countries for their profit. We establish a relationship with potential leaders willing to sell out their people, establish contracts and deals which rape and pillage their countries legally and then are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to find that the population doesn't care much for us.

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. No I'm not shocked that they don't care much for us

for the West's short sighted and callous negligence to the plight of the Middle East and Persia, for a dubious gain of temporary regional stability.

But does that excuse mass murder in your mind?

[harlinchi]

15. Of course not! Note to self: get a sarcasm smilie!

I posted this elsewhere...
...how do Iraqi's feel about that anti-terror option? I cannot believe that the small Iraqi boy feels good about it, while cowering in his living room listening to his bloodied mother cry and watching while his injured and blood-covered father is spread-eagled on the floor, with helmeted and visored troops directing their weapons at him.

Of course this is NOT a good idea for the US. How many more people must have negative, perhaps violently negative feelings created for the US by the US?

We're in a hole, folks. Let's stop digging!

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. I agree war is an awful thing.

Brute force is a lousy way to solve mankind's problems. Unfortunately our Government was mistaken in many assumptions about Iraq, and Iraqis and Americans are paying for it.

But the facts of the issue are not as simple as you claim. Iraqi's are not a homogeneous people, and under Saddam the majority of Iraqis had no hope for a better life of their children. Only those loyal to Saddam prospered.

The deposed Iraqis are quite happy to massacre fellow Iraqis to regain power, and Islamic fundamentalists believe they are fighting a Jihad against Infidel and "Zionist" crusaders.

[Wetzelbill]

37. it depends, Saddam mainly quelled fundamentalism

because it was a threat to him. When Saddam was VP to Colonel Bakr and before he negotiated to give Iran control of the Shatt Al Arab, we armed the Kurds, who were a threat to him as well.

But, he was always an anti-cleric socialist. Before the U.S. got involved in Iraq after the Iranian Revolution, Iraq had some of the best schools and health care in the region. Their citizens lived pretty decently. He repressed fundamentalims, but they were a national security threat. Same as the fundamentalists in Britain, in a way. I'm not saying I agree with him, however. But, Iraq was a pretty stable, well educated and healthy society. That all changed after the Shah was deposed in Iran in 1979. Because automatically Iraq switched allegiance from the Soviets to the U.S. A cold allegiance but an allegiance nonetheless. He made two big mistakes in his career. Invading Iran and invading Kuwait. He essentially did both with U.S. complicity. We kicked his ass for Kuwait, though. Not sure why that all played out like that. Saddam was told he had Jim Baker's assurance that the U.S. wasn't interested in a border issue.

That's getting off a bit. What I'm saying is, at one time, Iraq was a pretty good place to live. It became a shithole after decades of war and the brutal quelling of uprisings. So you are right, it was a place of no hope for most of the population. But, at one time, it wasn't nearly as bad. We -the U.S.- supported him through the worst of that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Roughly translated:

"These bloody wogs think they know better than us what's good for them. They are wrong, and our Glorious Crusade to civilise the heathen nations of the Middle East and bring them round to our way of thinking will continue as planned." (You caught that bit about resolve and determination, I'm sure.)

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Democracy is a wonderful thing.

Equality is also a wonderful thing. But I don't think you can just force them on people (particularly people of vastly different socio-cultural and religious traditions) and expect things to turn out wonderfully (or, for that matter, expect any thanks for the "gift").

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. No you can't "force" democracy on a people

But that assumes the average Iraqi does not want the freedom to choose their government. Because all democracy is is a government that gains it's legitimacy from the will of it's people.

You imply that Saddam's dictatorship was legitimate because it existed by the will of the people rather than despite it.

Remember 50,000 to 150,000 Iraqis were killed in a failed attempt to depose that regime in 1991.

Countless more died from Saddam's abuse of the corrupted oil-for-food program.

The only people democracy is being imposed on are the Iraqis who prospered under Saddam's rule, which were a minority. For the others democracy is the worst possible system of government...except for all the alternatives.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Actually, I didn't "imply" anything.

And I certainly didn't say that Saddam's government was supported by "the will of the people". (Of course, one can argue whether the current Iraqi government is, either, considering the rather dismal voter turnout.) I'm sure the average Iraqi wants the freedom to choose his government, but he also probably remembers that a sizable number of Iraqi deaths are down to US and allied military action and economic sanctions in the 1991-2003 period. There's bound to be hostile sentiment.

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. If you claim that democracy has to be forced upon Iraqis

then it can be implied that form of government it replaced was somehow legitimate, therefor supported by the "will of the people".

Voter turnout was thought to be quite high considering the circumstances. How many current citizens of democracies would turn out under like conditions. How many stay home on a cold, rainy November day?

Yes there is bound to be hostile sentiment. And sadness and despair among Iraqis who have been killed in error due to coalition excesses. Tragic, but far more Iraqis are being killed in attacks perpetrated by other Iraqis and Foreign terrorists. The common Iraqi is thankful for the removal of Saddam, but now resents the Western presence but also realizes what would happen if they suddenly up and left.

Economic sanctions? Remember Oil-For-Food? It was the UN's program to prevent innocent Iraqi's from suffering. Under Saddam it was corrupted and only the privileged few benefited.

[Brian_Expat]

7. Gay marriage. Women in government. Secular society. Need I go on? n/t

[dolgoruky]

9. Why didn't they bomb Sweden, then?

Seems a whole lot more liberal than the UK in terms of lifestyle. Have you never seen their porno films- shocking!

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Because Sweden

Is far less involved in the Middle East, and not actively backing Israel.

They hate our Western way of life when it impacts on their ideal way of life.

[Brian_Expat]

41. Sweden doesn't have a large Muslim extremist population -- UK&US do. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

45. London to be more precise

has a large Muslim extremist population. As does France, Holland, and Spain.

The US's is small by comparison to Europe. North America's Muslim population tends to be rather less extreme.

[Wetzelbill]

8. they believe that Arabic countries because they are poor

and repressed are jealous of all that we have. They can't speak out, yet we can, so they hate it. They also believe that because of our culture -movies, literature, MTV etc - that Islamic fundamentalists go crazy with hatred over our lifestyle. The lifestyle in which we have the freedom to eat, drink, be merry, watch tv, play sports and so on. The mindset is that if the United States is so good, what with all of our freedoms and everything, the only reason someone can hate us is out of pure jealousy. Because the Arabic people live in God's toilet, essentially, and have been shit on forever, they have to lash out at us because we have it good and are a shining light for the whole world to emulate.

But it is a knee jerk and ridiculous concept. One that is dangerous and presumptive. It isn't as if Osama bin Laden was sitting around in a cave one day, bored shitless, so he decided to read the Bill of Rights and it made him go berserk. He has perfectly rational views for being pissed at the U.S. and Europe. (Russia too) He believes he - and other jihadists - are fighting a defensive jihad. That the U.S. blindly supports Israel's occupation of Palestine, that we support oil-rich apostate regimes that repress their people for our own financial gain. He has a whole list of rational and perfectly reasonable reasons. Where he goes off mark is when he kills innocent people. Nothing justifies 9-11, Madrid or what happened today. Unfortunately, the U.S. and other Western powers keep walking right into these tragedies. So we'll see what happens from here.

[vincent_vega_lives]

10. Islamic fascism

Islamic Fundamentalists think the West in General is godless. They misinterpret our freedoms as decadence and weakness.

They belive the only true religion is Islam, all others are false. They belive Islam is the only correct way of life and Sharia law is the system that lays down the rules of that way of life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,777972,00.html#article_continue


Islamic law is the only way of life acceptable to the Taliban and folowers of Usama Bin Ladin.

[julianer]

18. But we are not attacking Bin Laden

or 'Islamofascists' (a word which, in my mind, pins the user as more of a fascist than the subject).

We are attacking ordinary Iraqis and Afghanis.

[vincent_vega_lives]

22. Actually no

We are not attacking "ordinary" Iraqis and Afghanis. If that were the case we could just use VX gas on the major population centers. Why bother with this street-to-street thing. :rolleyes:

No we are attacking those who fight back. Those fighing back consist of several groups.

1. Iraqis who were deposed from power when Saddam's regime fell. These people were loyal to Saddam and prospered under Saddam's rule at the expense of the majority of the population.

2. Foreigners who have come to Iraq/Afghanistan to fight the Jihad against the Infidel Crusader. These people are pure Muslim fundamentalists educated in the best Anti-Western masadras oil money can buy.

3. The Tali-ban. The pre-historic perpetrators of Sharia law and proponents of exporting their Jihad once the Soviet Infidels were defeated (along with the pro-democracy movement in Afghanistan under Massood.)

(a word which, in my mind, pins the user as more of a fascist than the subject)

This strikes me as a rather asinine statement. Care to explain it?

[julianer]

27. Well pardon me

but I take the view that in an illegal war every victim of the criminals is ordinary and innocent.

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. Illegal War

The Congress and even the UN sanctioned the use of force against the Iraqi Regime. Technically it was the continuation of hostilities due to violation of 1991 cease fire agreements on the part of the Iraqi regime.

The US Government did the same thing in 1998, just not to the extent as in 2003.

So beyond individual group's opinions, I am not sure what the basis for that claim is.

[julianer]

34. That is crap

There is only justification under previous UN resolutions if Saddam hadn't made full disclosure of his CBN weapons systems and if he impeded UN weapons inspectors.

He DID make full disclosure but it was rubbished before it had been properly received. He also allowed the inspectors in. They were called out under pressure from Bush and Blair in order to let the invasion happen. All this must have fallen down your memory hole.

Have you not been paying attention to the whole DSM issue?

You might also bear in mind that Kofi Annan called the war 'illegal' and if he says it's illegal it is illegal as far as I'm concerned.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Valid Points

But none result in the invasion being illegal. Ill advised, based on faulty intelligence yes. But without a UN sanction against the Coalition invasion, Kofi Annan's opinion is worth as much as yours or mine.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. You seem to MISS the point.

Not "Based on 'faulty' intelligence", based on fabricated intelligence (there's a rather large difference). And clearly illegal (Bush administration members have said as much, in fact; quote from Richard Perle, important DoD hawk - "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing"). Now, if one of the people who planned and actively lobbied for the invasion admits it was, in fact, illegal, I'm inclined to take his opinion over yours.

[vincent_vega_lives]

47. Yes there is a rather large difference.

And there is no evidence of deliberate fabrication Unless very administration since 1991 has participated, along with the UK, French and Russian intelligence agencies.

The current administration is guilty of WMD group think and a healthy dose of self delusion as to the ferocity of the resulting insurgency.

So what else do you agree with Perle on?

[julianer]

52. More crap

The DSM are evidence that the UK intelligence services did not think there was evidence for WMD in Iraq. The US/UK intelligence services did indeed manufacture evidence via sources like the convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi for one. The 'evidence' presented against George Galloway was manufactured.

'Group think', 'ill advised', 'faulty intelligence' - where do you get all this from, I wonder?

Inform yourself. Ignorance is easily curable. You are evidently a prime candidate for treatment.

[julianer]

51. Don't be glib now

They are valid points and they cover the issues you raised in your post. You don't refute them by side-stepping.

You sound like a typical pro-warrier to me. Unsubstantiated arguments followed by evasion and issue switching.

Your final point about the UN is about as worthless and stupid as all the others - laws don't need confirmation that they've been broken, they just get broken, idiot. SWDYFU?

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. Ah no

Kofi Annan thought there should have been another resolution for the use of force against Iraq, as it didn't conform with the charter. That was his opinion. Idiot.

[julianer]

54. For heaven's sake

you are talking to me as if I'm as ignorant of this whole episode as you are.

Kofin Annan didn't think there should have been another resolution. It had nothing whatsoever to do with his opinion. That remark just shows you have no idea of Annan's role and is another indication that you get your information from right wing propaganda.

1441 did not allow the use of force unless there was 'material breach' of its conditions. These were that Saddam should give full disclosure of his weapons capability and the other that he should give full access to inspectors.

So go ahead, genius, and tell me how those conditions were breached and if you can't then admit you are wrong.

[Wetzelbill]

39. the proper term is Afghans

Just a friendly correction. Afghanis are a specific ethnic orientation. The context you want is nationalistic, so use Afghan. I hope that doesn't sound elitist.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. OK

Got the distinction, thanks.

Not elitist, just correct. One of my pet peves is when people misspell Israel as Isreal.

[harlinchi]

24. Do Baptists believe their faith is the only true religion? How 'bout ...

...Catholics? Do Baptists feel that the Bible is the "system that lays down the rules of way of life"? How do our Fundamentalists differ from your description of those of the Islamic faith?

[Igel]

29. Jihad is not encouraged in the case that da'wah is

suppressed.

That's for starters.

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists

Their tactics differ. Most Baptist and Catholic fundamentalists try to convert or "save" non-believers.

The Muslim fanatics that are perpetrating the violence in the latest Jihad are not trying to convert or save infidels.

[GiovanniC]

31. As Opposed to Our Christian Religious Leaders

Who do not think that Islamic nations are godless. Who do not believe the only true religion is Christianity, all others are false. Who do not believe Christianity is the only correct way of life and "The Word of God" or the "Ten Commandments" are the system that lays down the rules of our way of life. Who do not believe Christianity is the oly way of life acceptable to fundies in our own country.

The fundamentalist religious leaders in our country are no better than the fundamentalist religious leaders in their countries.

[vincent_vega_lives]

35. I agree in this statement

"The fundamentalist religious leaders in our country are no better than the fundamentalist religious leaders in their countries."

However you would see a vast difference if this country was governed the same way Afghanistan was under the Tali-ban, and equating the two is ridiculous.

[GiovanniC]

36. I Suggest You Strap Yourself In and Enjoy the Show

The only reason this country isn't governed like the Taliban governed Afghanistan is because the whack-job theocrats have not yet been able to adequately dismantle the Establishment clause in the Constitution... but that time draws near.

So tell me, sinner... are you saved, or will you exist merely to serve God's Favored Ones?

[vincent_vega_lives]

38. Who me?

I'm a "lapsed Catholic" agnostic if you must know.

And this country was far closer to a Tali-ban like state in the past than it ever was today. It is far more secular today than it was at the turn of the century or 80 years ago. We just have the MSM today, that thrives on conflict and heightens every contrast.

The forcast demise of the Constitution is premature.

[GiovanniC]

43. That's an Interesting View From Boston, Mass

I wish this country looked the same to me from Kentucky or Michigan that it looks to you from Massachussetts. There's a MEGA-CHURCH about twenty miles away from where I live. Dobson and Frist used it as a base of operations in their assault on Senate rules to remake the judiciary to their liking. These people aren't doing these things for their health. Dobson and Falwell and Robertson and other Christian fundamentalists are actively using political means to advance Christianity... to install sympathetic judges, ban abortion, ban gay marriage, restrict access to birth control, have Creation taught in public school science classes, erect the Ten Commandments in courthouses and statehouses, et cetera ad infinitum.

[tommcintyre]

14. Hmm... possibly the "way of life" that exploits others by threat of force?

I'm not thinking so much of the terrorists, as the widespread support they get throughout much of the "third world". If this support dried up, the terrorists would be quickly marginalized, and thus rendered ineffective.

Basically, our unsustainable "way of life" has been built on the backs of others.

This is NOT a new idea. In the past, it was done through colonization - now it is done via globalization - same idea, it just has a new name. In the long-run the oppressor/exploiter is always damaged by this (ask Gandhi, he helped to free India from Great Britain's exploitation. ;) )

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." Gandhi

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you want this to stop? First thing we have to do is get back control of our votes - make sure they are counted correctly.

Go vote here to help this happen:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4017670

[welshTerrier2]

17. meet the "Erialism" brothers: Mat and Imp ... they're inseparable ...

funny how "our way of life", materialism, leads to an attack on their lifestyle and their country, imperialism ...

of course, those who peddle the "they hate our way of life" nonsense are probably talking about our now dead great American democracy that we've allowed to be poisoned by big money and powerful, trans-national corporate interests ...

[Totally Committed]

25. Our "Way of life" is getting more and more like "theirs" every day!

We are losing freedoms at an alarming rate. The religious extremists are dominating and making national policy. The election was dirty. Reflecting the views of the Far Right of his Party, Santorum is single-handedly trying to relegate women "only" to the home...

It's getting more and more like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan here every day.

TC

[amazona]

26. they want all the women folk in veils

I am sorry to say that I believe, for many of these extremists, that is actually the truth. I have no choice about what side to take. The terrorists do not want me to be free and if I insist on being free, they do not want me alive.

We need not swallow the Kool Aid and put a secular gov't in Iraq that provided opportunity to women, on a par with a hate gov't in Afghanistan that put them in chains, but we do need to be realistic that these folks do indeed hate some of us for our perceived freedom.

There are "good" white Christian folk who also hate us for our freedom, see under the abortion clinic bombers, but it doesn't make the threat from extremist anti-women forces in some minority Islam cults any less real. There can be more than one threat at a time. All hate groups that use terrorism to promote their aims need to be hunted down and put on trial for their crimes. All. Even Osama bin Laden himself, and I don't care how much the Bush family may have personally profited financially from their association with the Bin Ladens.

[GeekMonkey]

30. and the christians want all women barefoot and pregnant

fundie christians are just as bad as fundie islamists

religion is evil

when there is no more religion, there will be much less war and suffering

religion causes suffering

religion is both foolish and immoral

doesnt matter what 'brand' of religion it is

religion, even when not used for violence, keeps up the myths that perpetuate the violence

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Religion is not evil

People perpetrate evil acts in the name of religion.

The Soviet Union was an Atheist state, as is North Korea, and the PRC.

No suffering in those places. :eyes:

[rman]

28. It means we have to give up some of our way of life,

by giving up some essential liberty in exchange for some temporary safety. Hence the Patriot Act et all.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Dr Rice was just on BBCAMERICA....

Talking about how the terrorists hate our way of life.

In fact, they are defending their own "way of life" from imperialism. Or the way of life they would like to impose upon their own countries. Not that I agree with their methods at all.

Who has done more damage to the American way of life? To our civil liberties, honest elections, the economy, education & health care? Not terrorists--although their crimes have proven quite useful to our real enemies.

[TXlib]

48. We allow people to do as they wish, worship as they wish

be entertained as they wish. And that is offensive to a culture that has a very narrow view of morality and their One True Religion.

Granted, our foreign policy has an awful lot to do with it, too, but even if we just pulled out of the ME entirely, they'd still find excuses to hate us.

[Kraklen]

50. "Let's kill the sandniggers."

Can we please stop pretending it means something else?

[UnitedStatesMarine]

55. OUR EVIL WAY OF LIFE

Lets look at the facts.
-Karl Rove is in trouble, he is obviously responsible for the leaks of the CIA agent and this was going to come out into the media during the next week or so. Therefore resignations of many high up Republicans and a meltdown of the Bush administration would take place.
-Porter Goss was just placed incharge of the CIA, who is a Bush lackey and would definetly play to his toon.
-The only plausable explanation was that Bush caused this attack, it makes too much sense. He owns the CIA, thousands of munitions, and his brain was in serious trouble. In an effort to take the media off his back, he simply ordered an attack on London, and it needed little communication. Possibly only 2 or 3 CIA people had to know about the plot.
-Bush and Blair appear like heroes to the media with all of their, 'We must have resolve' and 'War is for Freedom against the Terrorist' routines. Its just like when Hitler burned the Reichstag. This is worse than the leak, this is worse than Watergate, and Bush needs to be sent to prison for murder because of it!!!