Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple Solution to Afganistan...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IanS_Liv
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Also, the Middle Ages were not so backwards as everyone thinks.
    In what sense? Sounds like an interesting thesis.
    Daisy, you should visit Britain more often. We've had a few documentaries lately explaining to us that things weren't quite so primitive as we've been led to believe. One of the Pythons did a series about how Barbarians such as the Celts and Goths were probably more civilised than the Romans! Despite the Romans' superior technology.

    Although I think proof might be hinting at the issue of the Western Renaissance and the rebirth of Western Science being led by information from the Ottoman Empire and the Muslim philosophers, scientists, etc who lived during the European 'Middle Ages' who preserved and developed the scientific knowledge that usually got you burnt at the stake by the Catholic Church.

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    Puddin' -- Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Also, the Middle Ages were not so backwards as everyone thinks.
    In what sense? Sounds like an interesting thesis.
    I would also be interested in knowing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Also, the Middle Ages were not so backwards as everyone thinks.
    In what sense? Sounds like an interesting thesis.

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by richxx87
    Easy solution: Convert them all to Buddhism or most anything else...
    Problem solved.
    If you convert them from fundamentalist Islam to fundamentalist anything else, you still haven't solved the problem. Here's how Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir put it in a 2003 speech before Muslims:
    At the time the Europeans of the Middle Ages were still superstitious and backward, the enlightened Muslims had already built a great Muslim civilisation, respected and powerful, more than able to compete with the rest of the world and able to protect the ummah from foreign aggression. The Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage. But halfway through the building of the great Islamic civilisation came new interpreters of Islam who taught that acquisition of knowledge by Muslims meant only the study of Islamic theology. The study of science, medicine etc. was discouraged. Intellectually the Muslims began to regress. They became more and more preoccupied with minor issues such as whether tight trousers and peak caps were Islamic, whether printing machines should be allowed or electricity used to light mosques. The Industrial Revolution was totally missed by the Muslims. . . . . This is what comes from the superficial interpretation of the Quran.
    I see fundamentalism as the enemy, not Islam.
    Are you a fundamentalist anti-fundamentalist? :wink: It's ideas that have the undesired consequences not just the degree of ones commitment to those ideas.

    Then you still have to define 'undesired consequences.' So in otherwords you do not believe in anything strong enough to stand up for it nor anyone else. Everything is relative in your eyes is it not - then let the muslims justify thier killings and let the best stategist win the game of power and be silent on fundamentalism. Bottom line is everyone acts as if there are absolutes when they do not like the others ideas. You fundamentally disagree with fundamentalism - you fundamentalist.

    And by the way it was not Islam that made a great 'Muslim civilisation' but only when Islam invaded Europe and was coupled with European ideas. Also, the Middle Ages were not so backwards as everyone thinks.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Do you think it's feasible in our lifetimes?
    Your lifetime, yes. My lifetime, ....uh, probably not.
    The only problem is that Presidents have to deal with the reality of elections, and I don't see the American people as willing to make such a long term commitment in blood and treasure in order to set up a western-styled democracy halfway around the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by gm
    Do you think it's feasible in our lifetimes?
    Your lifetime, yes. My lifetime, ....uh, probably not.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by gm
    It has to be built at some point, and there are plenty of Western interests just chomping at the bit to do it.
    How long do you think it will take for the U.S.Army to create a political climate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in which we can build this pipeline without worrying about saboteurs blowing it up on a weekly basis? Do you think it's feasible in our lifetimes?

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    It has to be built at some point, and there are plenty of Western interests just chomping at the bit to do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by gm
    Ever hear of the pipeline from the oil-rich republics?
    At this point, the pipeline from the Caspian Sea is just a fantasy and not reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    Ever hear of the pipeline from the oil-rich republics?

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    The U.S. doesn't want to leave this region of the world, they are there protecting their interest in the oil. Many lives have been lost for that cause, let's not kid ourselves.
    What oil interests do we have in Afghanistan?
    Not Afghanistan, that region of the world. Oh they''re fighting the Taliban, that smoke screen.
    After 9/11, W told the Taliban that if they handed over Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates, we'll have no quarrel with them, but they refused. Did we have any choice at that point? Congress did vote 534 to 1 to authorize an invasion. You know that you've screwed up when Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich vote to wage war against you.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    The U.S. doesn't want to leave this region of the world, they are there protecting their interest in the oil. Many lives have been lost for that cause, let's not kid ourselves.
    What oil interests do we have in Afghanistan?
    Not Afghanistan, that region of the world. Oh they''re fighting the Taliban, that smoke screen.
    I didnt know smoke screens could murder people. :?

    Leave a comment:


  • Speedfirst
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    The U.S. doesn't want to leave this region of the world, they are there protecting their interest in the oil. Many lives have been lost for that cause, let's not kid ourselves.
    What oil interests do we have in Afghanistan?
    Not Afghanistan, that region of the world. Oh they''re fighting the Taliban, that smoke screen.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    The U.S. doesn't want to leave this region of the world, they are there protecting their interest in the oil. Many lives have been lost for that cause, let's not kid ourselves.
    What oil interests do we have in Afghanistan? :?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X