[Matius]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's called irony. Iraq is in meltdown, and these guys are holding their ears and saying 'NOT LISTENING! EVERYTHING IS FINE!'

Which guys think everything is fine?

[peeb]

Some of the ones posting above.

[Matius]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You are casting doubts on the methodology of the study without knowing how the survey was performed. I don't have a problem with that type of argument if you know that the sample of the study does not meet certain criteria. The article contains links which give details on how the study was performed and analyzes the results in detail.

You are correct, I don't know how the survey was performed. My intent is not to cast doubt on the methodology because I don't care about the methodology. I'm calling bs on the 79% anti-American result.

[Matius]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Some of the ones posting above.

Gonna tell us the names of people you have a problem with or just pussyfoot around it? Maybe you should address them instead of hiding behind vague posts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Matius 

I'm calling bs on the 79% anti-American result.

Based on what? A gut feeling?
Sorry, I'd rather stick to scientific facts. And you were trying to cast doubts on the study, apparently because you don't like the outcome.

[Matius]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Based on what? A gut feeling?
Sorry, I'd rather stick to scientific facts. And you were trying to cast doubts on the study, apparently because you don't like the outcome.

As I said, I call bs on that 79% figure. I'll use my own observations, conversations, and experiences to make that call.

[Super Mario]

I don't know who these 1500 people are and neither do you. A random survey in a country like that where there are divided loyalties is not like taking a survey about how good marshmallows are from people in the stable secular culture of Soho, Mahattan. Same science doesn't apply everywhere, just as gravity on earth is not the same as on the moon.

Could they be Islamist? As a randon sample they can be anything. Even if the situation gets better all the time these random people could have been coincidentally anti-western no matter what and don't represent majority opinion. What if they have gunmen watching them? Can they be honest or toe the terrorist's line? The majority surveyed were Shia. It is very possible Iranian backed gunmen could be watching over the survey.

With that in mind a survey of Iraq of faceless people by some fringe organization means nothing. The BBC went around with cameras asking Iraqis how they feel. Mentioned it already. People with faces said they prefer it without Saddam. People with faces helped Marines topple statues of Saddam. People with faces helped arrest Saddam. People with faces went to vote. All on camera.

Until then keep spitting on the dead if that is what you get kicks out of. History will write that secular Americans and British men and women went to Iraq and gave them a new future and it was the Muslim Iranians, al Qaeda and Wahabs who tried to take the future away from fellow Muslims.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Matius 

I'm gonna guess you don't care for my ideas. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked the other poster?

It wasn't your idea, if you would take notice, I spaced out that monsterous blurb of text.

[red rocket]

‘Islamic’ Extremism, or rather, militant resistance to militant Western Imperialism* by people of (for now) largely Muslim background, will not disappear unless *its cause is removed.

Mind you, I do not like the fact that religious extremists on both sides are using an essentially political and economic struggle for their own perverted ends, but the fight against Western Imperialism itself is a valid and noble cause, whether Western Imperialists like to hear it, or not.

[Taliesin]

I think islamic extremism will always continue to exist, just like any other religious extremism will always continue to exist, be it jewish, christian, hinduistic ones or whatever.

Extremism or radicalism is a sort of ideology or interpretation of a specific religion, which is in their eyes the pure truth and everything else are merely lies, that threaten salvation.

In times when that worldview or interpretation is shared by the majority of people and is in power and has its monopoly in the area of ideas, it is mainstream and can even be moderate and relaxed, but it turns into radicalism and even extremism, when the majority of people don't share that worldview or interpretation anymore, and espescially when ideas, interpretations and worldviews are coming from the outside through external pressure, invasions, colonialisation, imperialism...

The radicalism and extremism is therefore a reaction trying to deter the outside influence and trying to coerce people back to their traditions, with any means possible as according to radicalism and extremism, the ends justify any means, espescially since in their view the end is to prevent the loss of salvation for a lot of people, up to a billion and more in some cases.

Taliesin

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Matius 

Gonna tell us the names of people you have a problem with or just pussyfoot around it? Maybe you should address them instead of hiding behind vague posts.

Well, for one, SuperMario.

Until then keep spitting on the dead if that is what you get kicks out of. History will write that secular Americans and British men and women went to Iraq and gave them a new future.

Of course, pointing out what is really going on is "spitting on the dead".

[Tiresias]

All religions are stupid, but religious extremism a kind of ferocious stupidity which is totally incompatible with multicultural societies, and intelligence. Therefore, Islamic Extremism will resolve itself as the Middle East's (and other Muslim countries') intellectual frontiers expand through globalisation.

Ultimately, the intellectual and cultural evolution of the human race will bring an end to all religions, which will dissolve into a panoply of multiple cultural and ontological perspectives.

Of course, fundamentalism exists in the developed world today, but there are no witch hunts, human or animal sacrifices, inquisitions, etc.—in other words, no extremism. This is the swan song of religion because it is a concession, an intimation of the first symptoms of doubt.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, for one, SuperMario. Of course, pointing out what is really going on is "spitting on the dead".

No one knows what's really going on.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

All religions are stupid, but religious extremism a kind of ferocious stupidity which is totally incompatible with multicultural societies, and intelligence. Therefore, Islamic Extremism will resolve itself as the Middle East's (and other Muslim countries') intellectual frontiers expand through globalisation.

Globalisation leads to a globalised economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments. It also kills cultural diversity, promoting a uni-polar culture serving the needs of transnational corporations.

Expanding people's intellectual horizons is not part of the programme.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Globalisation leads to a globalised economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments. It also kills cultural diversity, promoting a uni-polar culture serving the needs of transnational corporations.

Expanding people's intellectual horizons is not part of the programme.

That will be a factor, but I think you're being a little pessimistic.

[monkeybrain]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I cannot concur.

But your definition of "right wing" is probably the one which has been force fed to the masses by the left (i.e. "Hitler was right wing, as was Mussolini", etc., etc..), and not the correct one.

Any control which seeks to limit freedom of speech and action is, by definition, not right wing. True right-wingers simply don't believe in the mechanisms which enable the restriction of freedom. Both Adolf and Benito were lefties. But the left (which includes the vast majority of people in charge of history) doesn't want them to be associated with their side of the fence. Simple as that.

This view and definition is so American-centric it's ridiculous. Honestly, I do wish American's would try and understand these things in broader contexts. In America someone who is right wing would support freedom of speech, just as someone who is left wing would, because this is part of the constitution. Right wing means conservative, they want to keep things the same. In a European context right wing has traditionally also been associated with preserving the established order, which would be a king. So Hitler can certainly be seen as right wing, since the left wing is associated with democracy (and further past that socialism). You cannot say that by definition right wing means you support freedom of speech, because there is not a single definition.

Really these terms are grossly inaccurate and misleading and should be avoided. At least realise the context of where the term is placed.

Sorry to drag this point back, but I often let it lie and just couldn't this time.

Concerning Islamic extremism; sure it'll die away (practically) one day, probably within 50 years. It's certainly not an issue comparable to capitalism vs. communism. After all, extremists are really only interested in killing people. Living in Asia for a while makes you realise that for a huge percentage of the world's population the issues of terrorism and Iraq are basically non-existent.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Globalisation leads to a globalised economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments. It also kills cultural diversity, promoting a uni-polar culture serving the needs of transnational corporations.

Expanding people's intellectual horizons is not part of the programme.

Globalism is why you are using a British invented internet, on an British designed computer, from an American company headed by a man of Syrian-German descent, manufactured in Taiwan, shipped to your location (keeping local people employed), taken to your home, where you can post your messages in the language of your choice on MacNN which is owned by an East Indian-American.

If none of these products of globalisation is doing any good for you I suggest giving it all away and return to your isolated culture where you can experience "expanded intellectual horizons" and "diversity"

This message was composed in Western Latin type - an alphabet and numerical system deriving from the Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Arabs and Hindus and polished up in modern times by Italians, French and English.

[peeb]

I'm worried about the globalization of violence in films. Particularly, the imperialism of Japanese and other Asian martial arts. 20 Years ago, each culture had it's own cultural types of violence. Now, you never see an action film without some kind of Kung Fu. We need to go back to boxing, wrestling etc and resist globalization.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm worried about the globalization of violence in films. Particularly, the imperialism of Japanese and other Asian martial arts. 20 Years ago, each culture had it's own cultural types of violence. Now, you never see an action film without some kind of Kung Fu. We need to go back to boxing, wrestling etc and resist globalization.

You can blame an American-German-Chinese man for that. His name was Bruce Lee.