Politics 2017

[BruceVC]

 

Im agnostic, I see no issue with ensuring better security. The reality is the Middle East and the AU need to take some responsibity for this mess....you cant always expect the West to solve these types of problems 

 

We have been bombing basically every country between Egypt, Turkey and Iran for the better part of 15 years now, along with much of the north coast of Africa.. and then we get surprised when people want to escape the lawless hellholes we helped create.

 

It's sobering to see just how irresponsible the West really is, the 20th century should have been lesson enough. I don't support or particularly like Russia's approach, but at least they seem to be working towards an end, rather than just 'bombing for the lulz' which most of the American led coalition (us included) have done for decades.

 

If you create a mess, you're damn well responsible for cleaning it up... At least in the house I grew up in. 

 

Ros I appreciate your view, lets continue this debate because you raise a common view yet its not accurate or fair

 

I have been involved in the ME since 2001, I have studied and researched the various movements and ideologies  and the rise of ISIS  and AQ

 

I am not saying this means you must believe me, it just means I am very comfortable with the facts around this debate

 

Please read this link as its a summary of  why we have the real instability in the ME. Libya and Syria were caused by this 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

 

How is the West responsible for this, its not helpful to keep making excuses for valid economic changes that many Muslims wanted 

[BruceVC]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

 

All these countries have ISIS groups, so its a valid preventative measure, are you worried this making the USA look bad ?

Iran does not have any "ISIS groups".

 

I support the USA in basically everything because it represents the foundation of Western ideology,

Right, like slavery for instance...

 

Yes I understand Iran is incongruous

 

But lets be fair, until the actual Nuclear negotiations were done you had extreme hostility from the Conservative Iranians ..,..burning US flags and being very belligerent. And of course Iran did happily send soldiers into Iraq and they did kill many US soldiers during that conflict. Remember http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582898/QandA-Who-is-Moqtada-al-Sadr.html

 

And also what was the first country Iran aligned to after the sanctions were dropped ?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/19/What-Russias-new-closeness-with-Iran-means/5491471617181/

 

But I understand you also have moderate people in Iran who are glad the agreement was reached, I have been to Iran. We have investments like 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTN_Irancell

 

Also I know the history of your culture and the Persian ancestry 

[Elerond]

 

 

And also what was the first country Iran aligned to after the sanctions were dropped ?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/19/What-Russias-new-closeness-with-Iran-means/5491471617181/

 

You mean same country that Trump chose to be his first country to align towards? It is OK for USA to reach agreements with Russia but not for Iran?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

And also what was the first country Iran aligned to after the sanctions were dropped ?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/19/What-Russias-new-closeness-with-Iran-means/5491471617181/

 

You mean same country that Trump chose to be his first country to align towards? It is OK for USA to reach agreements with Russia but not for Iran?

 

Well that is not what happened, the sanctions against Russia havent been dropped so what agreements do you mean? 

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

And also what was the first country Iran aligned to after the sanctions were dropped ?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/19/What-Russias-new-closeness-with-Iran-means/5491471617181/

 

You mean same country that Trump chose to be his first country to align towards? It is OK for USA to reach agreements with Russia but not for Iran?

 

Well that is not what happened, the sanctions against Russia havent been dropped so what agreements do you mean? 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/trump-calls-putin-world-leaders/

 

Trump and Putin discuss stabilizing ties, Kremlin says

 

CNN's Matthew Chance in Moscow said a Kremlin summary of the phone call talked about stabilizing the relationship between the two nations and several other subjects. Some of the other issues included restoring trade ties, international terrorism, the situations in Ukraine and the Korean Peninsula, and the coordination of military action against ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria.

[HoonDing]

Bannon looks like Jabba the Hutt.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Was the United States a nation based on fear until 1965?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

We were just incredibly racist back then. It got a bit better in 1965. 

 

the civil rights act of 1964 were kinda the sea change moment, but change didn't happen instantaneous.  has been a slow and painful process and more than a few patriotic and earnest americans wish we could turn back the clock to 1964, or 1954, or even 1861.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I wasn't talking about civil rights as that was about the people already living there, i was talking about immigration policy. Which according to the arguments at hand, was based around fear until 1965.

 

P.S. I see what you mean about the other years, care to clairfy about what was significant about 1954? 

[Hurlshort]

The immigration policies before 1965 restricting certain countries had more to do with racism than fearmongering. Although there is certainly a measure of fear in racism itself.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

Was the United States a nation based on fear until 1965?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

We were just incredibly racist back then. It got a bit better in 1965. 

 

the civil rights act of 1964 were kinda the sea change moment, but change didn't happen instantaneous.  has been a slow and painful process and more than a few patriotic and earnest americans wish we could turn back the clock to 1964, or 1954, or even 1861.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I wasn't talking about civil rights as that was about the people already living there, i was talking about immigration policy. Which according to the arguments at hand, was based around fear until 1965.

 

P.S. I see what you mean about the other years, care to clairfy about what was significant about 1954? 

 

civil rights act represented a sea change in the way the country, through their democratic elected representatives, made a choice 'bout how we were no longer gonna tolerate discrimination based 'pon race, creed, or national origin.

 

1954

 

one reason we is one o' the few folks willing to call brown v. board of education a failure o' law and policy is 'cause it actual resulted in increased racial tensions, particular in the south.  Court did the moral right thing, but they did the wrong way, and they compounded by using fuzzy kinda legal reasoning.  states such as mississippi and tennessee actual saw dramatic increases in the number o' segregated schools after brown.  keep in mind that, even today, many southerners see the civil war as having mostly been 'bout the north trying to impose its will 'pon the south.  when the Court dictated desegregation w/o any kinda democratic process, there were reflexive resistance.  is hard to believe, but even in the south, previous to brown, most folks in the US were increasing in favor o' desegregation. representatives were a bit slow in changing the culture o' each state, but the change were taking place and the rate o' change were ever accelerating.  perhaps irrationally, brown actual gave the south an excuse to increase racial animosity and resurrect old hatreds.

 

anyways, 1954 were significant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 29, 2017 by Gromnir

[Meshugger]

 

It's a philosophical question between nominalism and realism.

 

In nominalistic world of ideology, there is only power to enforce the ideals but they have no intrinsic value in themselves; as in there is no objective measurement on one is better than the other. When taken to it's logical end, there is no love, truth or beauty as they are just accidents based on random chemical reactions in a world of chaos. Realism however recognizes that there are universals, like archetypes found in civilizations who have had no contact with each other in the world. Like god(s), family, solidarity, adultery, father-figures and mother-figures. These in turn are manifested as virtues like bravery, valor, good, evil, loyalty and so on, which are slightly different in different communities and ethnical groups, but still universal values in themselves. Law and justice is a direct consequence of such.

You haven't explained how your "higher principles" aren't just another ideological framework.

 

 

When i speak of pure ideology, i speak of ideology based on pure intellect instead virtues to transcend to. Hence it harking back to different philosophies already mentioned. If you cannot see the difference then there's little i can help with. Of course with nominalist thinking, virtues are just another imaginary construct, trolol000l.

[Meshugger]

The immigration policies before 1965 restricting certain countries had more to do with racism than fearmongering. Although there is certainly a measure of fear in racism itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was the United States a nation based on fear until 1965?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

We were just incredibly racist back then. It got a bit better in 1965. 

 

the civil rights act of 1964 were kinda the sea change moment, but change didn't happen instantaneous.  has been a slow and painful process and more than a few patriotic and earnest americans wish we could turn back the clock to 1964, or 1954, or even 1861.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I wasn't talking about civil rights as that was about the people already living there, i was talking about immigration policy. Which according to the arguments at hand, was based around fear until 1965.

 

P.S. I see what you mean about the other years, care to clairfy about what was significant about 1954? 

 

civil rights act represented a sea change in the way the country, through their democratic elected representatives, made a choice 'bout how we were no longer gonna tolerate discrimination based 'pon race, creed, or national origin.

 

1954

 

one reason we is one o' the few folks willing to call brown v. board of education a failure o' law and policy is 'cause it actual resulted in increased racial tensions, particular in the south.  Court did the moral right thing, but they did the wrong way, and they compounded by using fuzzy kinda legal reasoning.  states such as mississippi and tennessee actual saw dramatic increases in the number o' segregated schools after brown.  keep in mind that, even today, many southerners see the civil war as having mostly been 'bout the north trying to impose its will 'pon the south.  when the Court dictated desegregation w/o any kinda democratic process, there were reflexive resistance.  is hard to believe, but even in the south, previous to brown, most folks in the US were actual in favor o' desegregation. representatives were a bit slow in changing the culture o' each state, but the change were taking place and the rate o' change were ever increasing.  perhaps irrationally, brown actual gave the south an excuse to increase racial animosity and resurrect old hatreds.

 

anyways, 1954 were significant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Alright, i get that but doesn't this all mean that the US was racist and based on fear until recent history? What i am getting at is that will racism dissappear once the identity of a people is no longer tied to a nation/ethnic group but rather to their individual hobbies or self-actuation?

[Elerond]

 

P.S. I see what you mean about the other years, care to clairfy about what was significant about 1954? 

 

 

Here somethings of some significance that happened in 1954

 

 

 

Elizabeth II becomes the first reigning monarch to visit Australia.

 

1954 transfer of Crimea: The Soviet Politburo of the Soviet Union orders the transfer the Crimean Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.

 

The first mass vaccination of children against polio begins in Pittsburgh, United States.

 

U.S. officials announce that a hydrogen bomb test (Castle Bravo) has been conducted on Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.

 

U.S. Capitol shooting incident: Four Puerto Rican nationalists open fire in the United States House of Representatives chamber and wound five; they are apprehended by security guards.

 

Finland and Germany officially end their state of war.

 

French troops begin the battle against the Viet Minh in Dien Bien Phu.

 

In Vietnam, the Viet Minh capture the main airstrip of Dien Bien Phu. The remaining French Army units there are partially isolated.

 

The Soviet Union recognises the sovereignty of East Germany. Soviet troops remain in the country.

 

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower presented his "domino theory":

Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences

 

Vice President Richard Nixon announces that the United States may be “putting our own boys in Indochina regardless of Allied support”

 

Senator Joseph McCarthy begins hearings investigating the United States Army for being "soft" on Communism.

 

Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is released in Japan.

 

The Battle of Dien Bien Phu ends in a French defeat

 

A CIA-engineered military coup occurs in Guatemala.

 

Sarah Mae Flemming is expelled from a bus in South Carolina for sitting in a white-only section.

 

Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz steps down in a CIA-sponsored military coup, triggering a bloody civil war that continues for more than 35 years.

 

The world's first atomic power station opens at Obninsk, near Moscow.

 

The Common Nordic Labor Market Act comes into effect.

 

Release of Elvis Presley's first single, "That's All Right", by Sun Records (recorded July 5 in Memphis, Tennessee).

 

Food rationing in Great Britain ends with the lifting of restrictions on sale and purchase of meat, 14 years after it began early in World War II and nearly a decade after the war's end.

 

First Indochina War: The Geneva Conference sends French forces to the south, and Vietnamese forces to the north, of a ceasefire line, and calls for elections to decide the government for all of Vietnam by July 1956. Failure to abide by the terms of the agreement leads to the establishment de facto of regimes of North Vietnam and South Vietnam, and the Vietnam War.

 

Italian mountaineers Lino Lacedelli and Achille Compagnoni become the first successfully to reach the summit of the Himalayan peak K2.

 

The First Indochina War ends with the Vietnam People's Army in North Vietnam, the Vietnamese National Army in South Vietnam, the Kingdom of Cambodia in Cambodia, and the Kingdom of Laos in Laos, emerging victorious against the French Army.

 

Brazilian president Getúlio Vargas commits suicide after being accused of involvement in a conspiracy to murder his chief political opponent, Carlos Lacerda.

 

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) is established in Bangkok, Thailand.

 

The Miss America Pageant is broadcast on television for the first time.

 

William Golding's novel Lord of the Flies is published in London.

 

Pre-Vietnam War: The Viet Minh takes control of North Vietnam.

 

Texas Instruments announces the development of the first commercial transistor radio. The Regency TR-1 goes on sale the following month.

 

Algerian War of Independence: The Algerian National Liberation Front begins a revolt against French rule.

 

Japan and Burma sign a peace treaty in Rangoon, to end their long-extinct state of war.

 

The Korean Cold War between the communist North and the capitalist South begins over a year after the conclusion of the Korean War.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court decides the landmark case Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 26), upholding the federal slum clearance and urban renewal programs.

 

In Sylacauga, Alabama, a four-kilogram piece of the Hodges Meteorite crashes through the roof of a house and badly bruises a napping woman, in the first documented case of an object from outer space hitting a person.

 

Red Scare: The United States Senate votes 67–22 to condemn Joseph McCarthy for "conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute."

 

J. Hartwell Harrison, and Joseph Murray perform the world's first successful kidney transplant in Boston, Massachusetts.

 

Laos gains full independence from France.

 

New Zealand engineer Sir William Hamilton develops the first pump-jet engine (the "Hamilton Jet") capable of propelling a jetboat

 

The first electric drip brew coffeemaker is patented in Germany and named the Wigomat after its inventor Gottlob Widmann.

 

The Boy Scouts of America desegregates on the basis of race.

 

In South Vietnam the Viet Minh is reorganised into the Viet Cong.

 

After the death of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union starts releasing political prisoners and deportees from its Gulag prison camps.

 

 

[Agiel]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241

 

 

 

So Steve Bannon is on the NSC, for some reason.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/lobbying-ban-trump-executive-order-isis-strategy

Trump also said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence, two of the most senior defense chiefs, will attend meetings only when discussions are related to their “responsibilities and expertise”

 

 

"What?"

 

Should be the collective and simultaneous refrain of the American people. 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Agiel

[Gromnir]

 

The immigration policies before 1965 restricting certain countries had more to do with racism than fearmongering. Although there is certainly a measure of fear in racism itself.

 

Alright, i get that but doesn't this all mean that the US was racist and based on fear until recent history? What i am getting at is that will racism dissappear once the identity of a people is no longer tied to a nation/ethnic group but rather to their individual hobbies or self-actuation?

 

 

 

gonna disagree. people in the US is as nationalistic today as they were before ww1, but racism and general bigotry towards foreigners is much different today.  our grandparents woulda' been mighty perplexed by micro-aggression and triggers.  we still got a long way to go before we can say racial bigotry is a thing o' the past, and cultural bigotry will, we suspect, last much longer.  ain't gonna get rid o' various kinds o' bigotry by diminishing the identity o' self people already gots.  

 

best way to overcome bigotry is simply to foster greater peaceful interactions.  is one reason Gromnir is kinda saddened by the trend towards on-line universities.  go to a major university and chances are you is gonna have considerable interaction with people who got diverse backgrounds.  even if you is from the most homogenous town in rural _______, go to university and have classes and study groups and labs with folks different from self goes a long way towards dispelling basic misunderstandings and fears.  

 

is our pov that we need not try and diminish nationalism. get rid o' national identity is gonna be a Long time remote from us, much more remote than the +50 years since we passed the civil rights.  have made much progress already w/o diminished nationalism, so...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 29, 2017 by Gromnir

[Meshugger]

 

 

The immigration policies before 1965 restricting certain countries had more to do with racism than fearmongering. Although there is certainly a measure of fear in racism itself.

 

Alright, i get that but doesn't this all mean that the US was racist and based on fear until recent history? What i am getting at is that will racism dissappear once the identity of a people is no longer tied to a nation/ethnic group but rather to their individual hobbies or self-actuation?

 

 

 

gonna disagree. people in the US is as nationalistic today as they were before ww1, but racism and general bigotry towards foreigners is much different today.  our grandparents woulda' been mighty perplexed by micro-aggression and triggers.  we still got a long way to go before we can say racial bigotry is a thing o' the past, and cultural bigotry will, we suspect, last much longer.  ain't gonna get rid o' various kinds o' bigotry by diminishing the identity o' self people already gots.  

 

best way to overcome bigotry is simply to foster greater peaceful interactions.  is one reason Gromnir is kinda saddened by the trend towards on-line universities.  go to a major university and chances are you is gonna have considerable interaction with people who got diverse backgrounds.  even if you is from the most homogenous town in rural _______, go to university and have classes and study groups and labs with folks different from self goes a long way towards dispelling basic misunderstandings and fears.  

 

is our pov that we need not try and diminish nationalism. get rid o' national identity is gonna be a Long time remote from us, much more remote than the +50 years since we passed the civil rights.  have made much progress already w/o diminished nationalism, so...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

^This is why i find United States so interesting. It's one big experiment of which no one is really sure on where it goes.

[Ben No.3]

I don't have the time to carefully read everything said about the middle east, I could only skimm through, so I'm sorry if anyone already meant jones this, but we ("the west") kinda messed up the Middle East ourselves.

 

During colonialism, the borders in the Middle East were drawn with almost complete disregard for cultural and ethical borders. A big problem in itself already.

 

In the 50s, the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected secular head of state, because of oil. They replaced him with a military dictatorship. When in the 70s a rebellion rose, it combined the struggle for freedom with religious dogma, thereby not creating but definitely strengthening the tight combination of religious and political endeavour that we have today.

 

And that's just one country. The entire Middle East is a prime example of failed intervention. That it creates such an anti-American backlash is not very surprising. Islam in itself is not a problem, but the tie between political revolution against a US backed dictatorship and Islam, just as one example, obviously is problematic from a secular perspective.

 

Oh my oh my, I wonder where all that hate towards the west comes from. I have no idea.

 

The Middle East terrorism is an enemy we created. We should admit that, we should pay reparations, and we should gladly accept the refugees. It is our moral obligation.

 

 

Anyway, the reason I'm here is this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/african-man-drowns-venice-grand-canal-video-onlookers-italy-racism-he-is-stupid-migrant-a7546806.html

 

I find that disgusting and obscene. An act that once again reminds us if the ugliness of humans.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Agiel]

Put by John Schindler:

 

 

 

WH is being run by a revenge-obsessed general fired for incompetence & an Alt-Right media mogul who says he's a Leninist.  Can't make this up.

 

and...

 

 

 

Only reason not to have top mil+intel in National SECURITY Council meetings is because they'll say stuff you don't wanna hear. You know, sane stuff.

[BruceVC]

I don't have the time to carefully read everything said about the middle east, I could only skimm through, so I'm sorry if anyone already meant jones this, but we ("the west") kinda messed up the Middle East ourselves.

 

During colonialism, the borders in the Middle East were drawn with almost complete disregard for cultural and ethical borders. A big problem in itself already.

 

In the 50s, the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected secular head of state, because of oil. They replaced him with a military dictatorship. When in the 70s a rebellion rose, it combined the struggle for freedom with religious dogma, thereby not creating but definitely strengthening the tight combination of religious and political endeavour that we have today.

 

And that's just one country. The entire Middle East is a prime example of failed intervention. That it creates such an anti-American backlash is not very surprising. Islam in itself is not a problem, but the tie between political revolution against a US backed dictatorship and Islam, just as one example, obviously is problematic from a secular perspective.

 

Oh my oh my, I wonder where all that hate towards the west comes from. I have no idea.

 

The Middle East terrorism is an enemy we created. We should admit that, we should pay reparations, and we should gladly accept the refugees. It is our moral obligation.

 

 

Anyway, the reason I'm here is this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/african-man-drowns-venice-grand-canal-video-onlookers-italy-racism-he-is-stupid-migrant-a7546806.html

 

I find that disgusting and obscene. An act that once again reminds us if the ugliness of humans.

No Bennie, you have made an attempt to understand the ME and as usual I respect that but this time I am going to correct you because I dont want you thinking that Islam isnt the problem

 

Of course it is, that is exactly the problem because the Islamic world is basically going through  a crisis of identity ...they need to recognize and address extremism within there communities. There is no other solution

 

Also the Arab Spring was caused exactly because of the lack of allocation of resources due to this view that families and dictators had  been ruling most of the countries in a form of divine right  and they refused to be inclusive

 

The entire ME  is one cauldron of historical resentment and outdated ideologies. They have no respect for human rights and in most countries its the death penalty for homosexuality

 

Its much easier for you  to tell me what exactly is positive at the moment in the ME? 

[Ben No.3]

@Meshugger:

"It's a philosophical question between nominalism and realism.

 

In nominalistic world of ideology, there is only power to enforce the ideals but they have no intrinsic value in themselves; as in there is no objective measurement on one is better than the other. When taken to it's logical end, there is no love, truth or beauty as they are just accidents based on random chemical reactions in a world of chaos. Realism however recognizes that there are universals, like archetypes found in civilizations who have had no contact with each other in the world. Like god(s), family, solidarity, adultery, father-figures and mother-figures. These in turn are manifested as virtues like bravery, valor, good, evil, loyalty and so on, which are slightly different in different communities and ethnical groups, but still universal values in themselves. Law and justice is a direct consequence of such."

 

You are assuming an idealistic world view here, so the notion that the ideas of humans shape the society they live in. However, if we assume a materialistic work view, so the circumstances of society dictate which ideas are commonly held to be true, it suddenly is a very different problem.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Ben No.3

[HoonDing]

Rhetoric aside, many of the Syrian "refugees" actually are murderers & rapists.

Syrian rebel groups released all the scum from prisons to fight for them. Those that did not want to fight left the country.

 

 

Of course it's always easy to blow hard with an ocean in between.

Edited January 29, 2017 by HoonDing

[Ben No.3]

Rhetoric aside, many of the Syrian "refugees" actually are murderers & rapists.

 

Syrian rebel groups released all the scum from prisons to fight for them. Those that did not want to fight left the country.

 

So what are they? Cowards or murderers and rapists?

 

Besides, you completely ignore that also large parts of the refugees are ordinary citizens fed up with the state of their country. What about them?

[Katphood]

But lets be fair, until the actual Nuclear negotiations were done you had extreme hostility from the Conservative Iranians ..,..burning US flags and being very belligerent. And of course Iran did happily send soldiers into Iraq and they did kill many US soldiers during that conflict. Remember http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582898/QandA-Who-is-Moqtada-al-Sadr.html

How many civilian Iraqis did the Americans kill during their useless and unnecessary occupation of Iraq in search of "weapons of mass destruction"?!

 

And also what was the first country Iran aligned to after the sanctions were dropped ?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/19/What-Russias-new-closeness-with-Iran-means/5491471617181/

Because Russia is so pro-ISIS.

[HoonDing]

Besides, you completely ignore that also large parts of the refugees are ordinary citizens fed up with the state of their country. What about them?

Some, I assume, are good people.

 

But why walk all the way to Germany and not stop at the first safe country like Turkey? Turkey has no welfare system?

[Ben No.3]

 

I don't have the time to carefully read everything said about the middle east, I could only skimm through, so I'm sorry if anyone already meant jones this, but we ("the west") kinda messed up the Middle East ourselves.

 

During colonialism, the borders in the Middle East were drawn with almost complete disregard for cultural and ethical borders. A big problem in itself already.

 

In the 50s, the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected secular head of state, because of oil. They replaced him with a military dictatorship. When in the 70s a rebellion rose, it combined the struggle for freedom with religious dogma, thereby not creating but definitely strengthening the tight combination of religious and political endeavour that we have today.

 

And that's just one country. The entire Middle East is a prime example of failed intervention. That it creates such an anti-American backlash is not very surprising. Islam in itself is not a problem, but the tie between political revolution against a US backed dictatorship and Islam, just as one example, obviously is problematic from a secular perspective.

 

Oh my oh my, I wonder where all that hate towards the west comes from. I have no idea.

 

The Middle East terrorism is an enemy we created. We should admit that, we should pay reparations, and we should gladly accept the refugees. It is our moral obligation.

 

 

Anyway, the reason I'm here is this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/african-man-drowns-venice-grand-canal-video-onlookers-italy-racism-he-is-stupid-migrant-a7546806.html

 

I find that disgusting and obscene. An act that once again reminds us if the ugliness of humans.

No Bennie, you have made an attempt to understand the ME and as usual I respect that but this time I am going to correct you because I dont want you thinking that Islam isnt the problem

 

Of course it is, that is exactly the problem because the Islamic world is basically going through a crisis of identity ...they need to recognize and address extremism within there communities. There is no other solution

 

Also the Arab Spring was caused exactly because of the lack of allocation of resources due to this view that families and dictators had been ruling most of the countries in a form of divine right and they refused to be inclusive

 

The entire ME is one cauldron of historical resentment and outdated ideologies. They have no respect for human rights and in most countries its the death penalty for homosexuality

 

Its much easier for you to tell me what exactly is positive at the moment in the ME?

In 2013, Saudi Arabia introduced laws against the abuse of wives. Pretty progressive considering the circumstances.

 

Bruce, I have the disagree with you. As I said, the Iran had an secular head of state. So the question is raised why there has been this return to religious fundamentalism. If we want to answer that question, looking at the decades of disaterous western involvement is necessary, and not doing it is simply either intellectual laziness or patriotic blindness.

 

"Islam" isn't a problem. An ideology in its own is not a problem. It would be wrong to say that Islamic societies are inherently less moral than ours, that is a ridiculous sentiment. Every religion is awful.

 

Developed nation naturally become more agnostic, and they're governments are backed by law and reason, rather than charisma or tradition. If a society fails in some way, there's often a fallback to these other forms of government. I'm the US, we see this with Trump, who clearly represents the fallback from reason to charismatic leadership (though this is no surprise as the US lacks a traditional government other than law and reason). In the Middle East, we see a fallback to tradition. The question is what caused this, how do we fix it and how can we prevent it from happening again? If those problems are solved, Islam will become just another's religion where we cherry pick the good parts. The bible also tells us to stone the gays, you know? Religion is in itself a problem, because it carries centuries old values. And that is true for every religion, not just Islam. The problem is the failed society, not the "evil islam"

[Ben No.3]

 

Besides, you completely ignore that also large parts of the refugees are ordinary citizens fed up with the state of their country. What about them?

Some, I assume, are good people.

 

But why walk all the way to Germany and not stop at the first safe country like Turkey? Turkey has no welfare system?

Turkey does keep a lot of refugees. There are just so many that no single country can handle it own their own. The situation requires international cooperation.