muslims PART 2

[Nurvingiel]

Spock, have you ever been to Sweden? It's not exactly Eurabia.

Also, try the meatballs, lingonberry jam, and pitepalt, if you get the chance.

[Grey_Wolf]

As I told u im my PM. In the future the Muslims will have taken over Sweden thru the mere fact of them being in the Parlament and of course, the former socialist gov. not giving a toss for Christianity by removing the subject of Religion from the Schools, and finally their groupings spreading out from the isolated neighbourhoods in the main cities.

[hectorberlioz]

I can certainly believe that. After all, it's undeniable that the Arab race, like the Jews, have a great ability to go into everything.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There seems to be a game mindset, I have noticed it (not that thats very hard).

However, if you noticed; countries with whacks had SOME kind of nuclear or other mass weapons program BEFORE Bush. It has been going on for quite awhile, and that is why blaming it on Bush just doesn't cut the mustard. Clinton sold stuff to China, and I don't think it's that hard of a leap to figure out that N.Korea and China have something goin' on. No one person can be blamed.

Indeed certainly not. And the ultimate hypocrisy of course is the nuclear powered countries suddenly deciding one day that ok no one else is allowed to develop these dangerous weapons because everyone else is more irresponsible then us. The audacity really. Of course it was just a matter of time before other nations developed their own weapons in defiance of this unfair policy. We would have if we were in their place. Especially when we look the other way for “civilized” countries like Israel and South Africa to develop their own programs and even grudgingly gave in on India.

But that being said having George Bush in a position of power certainly did have a serious effect on the escalation of nukes in countries like Iran and North Korea. Sure the North Korean leaders have always wanted a nuke of their own so they can feel big and tough but in the past its always been part of leverage (spoken or unspoken) in negotiations with South Korea and the west. Now its sudden reality. And you really think its simply a coincidence that all this happens right after the Iraq invasion and the mention of those two very same countries (Iran and South Korea) in Bush’s “axis of evil” speech? If you were a little pissant of a country with a starving population and 0 respect from the rest of the world the vast majority of whom simply want to see you fall and the militant leader of the most powerful country in the world says watch out North Korea you are next on the list after what he saw us do in Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t you scramble to rattle any saber you had available? Bush wasn’t as willing to negotiate directly with them as leaders before him had. You cant always get everything accomplished by force as nice a thought as that is…

[hectorberlioz]

Not "right after" Iraq invasion. After we've been in Iraq for three years, after seeing that we weren't as efficient as they first thought us to be...

I agree with a lot fo your points.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

As I told u im my PM. In the future the Muslims will have taken over Sweden thru the mere fact of them being in the Parlament and of course, the former socialist gov. not giving a toss for Christianity by removing the subject of Religion from the Schools, and finally their groupings spreading out from the isolated neighbourhoods in the main cities.

I PMd you this, but I'll post it in the thread too.

From the CIA World Factbook, on Sweden:

Ethnic groups:
indigenous population: Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities; foreign-born or first-generation immigrants: Finns, Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Turks

Turkey is the only predominantly Muslim nation listed here.

Religions:
Lutheran 87%, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist

It seems that over 87% of Sweden do "give a toss" about Christianity. Also, only the three smallest religions are non-Christian.


Also, why should providing religious instruction be part of the role of government?

[Spock]

Lutherans are big in Norway also; I visited the country this summer and every time I turned around there was another church.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But that being said having George Bush in a position of power certainly did have a serious effect on the escalation of nukes in countries like Iran and North Korea. [...]

I wonder if all that talk about ditching the SALT treaties a while back had any influence on the current situation. I don't think it went through ultimatedly...

But if even the USA is reconsidering its limits on nuclear weapons, I can understand why other countries see no reason why they shouldn't start looking into developing and owning nukes themselves.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I PMd you this, but I'll post it in the thread too.

From the CIA World Factbook, on Sweden:


Turkey is the only predominantly Muslim nation listed here.


It seems that over 87% of Sweden do "give a toss" about Christianity. Also, only the three smallest religions are non-Christian.


Also, why should providing religious instruction be part of the role of government?

BUT: the fact that a country may have a christian cultural heritage does not mean that they practice. Statistics don't always speak.

The Orthodox and Muslims are probably the only ones who practice their faith...(sorry Gwai )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oh, yeah, because the Orthodox are famous for their devotion. Why, you practically have to pry them out of the churches to get them to work only 20 minutes late. And they totally never show up for Liturgy late.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

BUT: the fact that a country may have a christian cultural heritage does not mean that they practice. Statistics don't always speak.

The Orthodox and Muslims are probably the only ones who practice their faith...(sorry Gwai )

You are correct that statistics don't always tell the whole story. However, the point of those stats was not to say who is more devout, but simply to point out that Muslims are obviously not taking over Sweden, as they form a very small portion of the population.

Nothing suggests that they will take over Sweden in the future either.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But that being said having George Bush in a position of power certainly did have a serious effect on the escalation of nukes in countries like Iran and North Korea. Sure the North Korean leaders have always wanted a nuke of their own so they can feel big and tough but in the past its always been part of leverage (spoken or unspoken) in negotiations with South Korea and the west. Now its sudden reality. And you really think its simply a coincidence that all this happens right after the Iraq invasion and the mention of those two very same countries (Iran and South Korea) in Bush’s “axis of evil” speech? If you were a little pissant of a country with a starving population and 0 respect from the rest of the world the vast majority of whom simply want to see you fall and the militant leader of the most powerful country in the world says watch out North Korea you are next on the list after what he saw us do in Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t you scramble to rattle any saber you had available? Bush wasn’t as willing to negotiate directly with them as leaders before him had. You cant always get everything accomplished by force as nice a thought as that is…

You're not looking at the facts, Insidious. Both Iran and North Korea have been developing nuclear programs secretly for decades. For a long time, there have been suspicions and has been accumulating evidence that North Korea has had nuclear weapons ambitions. None of this is anything new.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Indeed certainly not. And the ultimate hypocrisy of course is the nuclear powered countries suddenly deciding one day that ok no one else is allowed to develop these dangerous weapons because everyone else is more irresponsible then us. The audacity really. Of course it was just a matter of time before other nations developed their own weapons in defiance of this unfair policy. We would have if we were in their place. Especially when we look the other way for “civilized” countries like Israel and South Africa to develop their own programs and even grudgingly gave in on India.

If you think that no rogue nations will use these nuclear weapons, and that none of them will get into the hands of terrorists if rogue nations are allowed them, you're crazy. If you did away with Non-Proliferation Treaties (hypocritical though they may be), you'd be leaving the world exposed to horrific new dangers due to terrorism.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're not looking at the facts, Insidious. Both Iran and North Korea have been developing nuclear programs secretly for decades. For a long time, there have been suspicions and has been accumulating evidence that North Korea has had nuclear weapons ambitions. None of this is anything new.

Lief read what I said. I didn’t say it was anything new or that they suddenly started a nuclear program because Bush threatened them, I simply said that the presence and actions and reputation of George Bush has contributed to an elevation of the assumption in the eyes of both Iran and North Korea that more then ever before nuclear weapons are necessary at least as a point of bargaining if not for much more nefarious reasons. When you put a country on the same list as countries you have invaded this is only LOGICAL. Furthermore, Bush’s actions and his reelection contributed to a backlash of support for extremists in Iran that was just enough to get our little friend there into power who will be LESS likely to negotiate about the nukes… ok? Understand? Say what you want about Khatami but I think if it had been him dealing with Kerry things wouldn’t be exactly the same.

If you think that no rogue nations will use these nuclear weapons, and that none of them will get into the hands of terrorists if rogue nations are allowed them, you're crazy.

When did I say that? whats with your interpretation of my statements lately? I think the opposite in fact. That it is mathematically inevitable that nations we don’t like will develop nukes. And that at some point another nuclear device will be detonated in hostility somewhere in the world.

If you did away with Non-Proliferation Treaties (hypocritical though they may be), you'd be leaving the world exposed to horrific new dangers due to terrorism.

Again did I SAY lets do away with non proliferation treaties and support nukes for North Korea? Geez… I simply pointed out the outright hypocrisy of saying YOU cant have this but WE can and the inevitability of the failure of that kind of approach.

Are you ok with Pakistan having nukes?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief read what I said. I didn’t say it was anything new or that they suddenly started a nuclear program because Bush threatened them, I simply said that the presence and actions and reputation of George Bush has contributed to an elevation of the assumption in the eyes of both Iran and North Korea that more then ever before nuclear weapons are necessary at least as a point of bargaining if not for much more nefarious reasons. When you put a country on the same list as countries you have invaded this is only LOGICAL.

I don't think it matters, as there's no reason to believe they were ever planning to give up their nuclear programs anyway.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Furthermore, Bush’s actions and his reelection contributed to a backlash of support for extremists in Iran that was just enough to get our little friend there into power who will be LESS likely to negotiate about the nukes… ok? Understand? Say what you want about Khatami but I think if it had been him dealing with Kerry things wouldn’t be exactly the same.

Well, you're entitled to your own views. Khatami certainly never revealed or negotiated Iran's secret nuclear program while he was in charge, though, so I can't agree. They were planning to set it up and stick with it from the beginning, and what we're seeing now with their nuclear program is just more of the same policy they've always had. That's my position on the matter .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

When did I say that? whats with your interpretation of my statements lately? I think the opposite in fact. That it is mathematically inevitable that nations we don’t like will develop nukes. And that at some point another nuclear device will be detonated in hostility somewhere in the world.

I agree, then.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again did I SAY lets do away with non proliferation treaties and support nukes for North Korea? Geez… I simply pointed out the outright hypocrisy of saying YOU cant have this but WE can and the inevitability of the failure of that kind of approach.

Well yeah. In that case I agree, and it's important to keep that in mind so as to remember the perspective of nations that don't have nuclear weapons but are in some jeopardy, like you're saying.

I was taking your words the next step and assuming that since you were saying non-Proliferation was hypocrisy, you thought we shouldn't engage in non-Proliferation. I didn't assume you were advocating hypocrisy . But I guess I advocate hypocrisy in this case. For if this is hypocritical, it also is important as it keeps the world safer for a longer period of time.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are you ok with Pakistan having nukes?

Not at all. But we need their help against Islamic extremists- now's not the time to be badgering them about their nuclear weapons. Not that they'd ever consider giving them up for a second, anyway .

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, though I side with the conservatives here on many things, I just want to take a moment to commend the liberals on this thread for really trying to look from all the perspectives and see all the sides of the situation. I was running up in debate today in a class against some highly narrow minded conservative views of Islamic extremism, and that just got me to really appreciate a lot more the greater sense of perspective you all have .

I believe that there are big weaknesses in both sides, but also strengths on both sides. And running more head-on into the weaknesses of some on the conservative side is making me more strongly appreciate the strengths of the liberal side.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

By the way, though I side with the conservatives here on many things, I just want to take a moment to commend the liberals on this thread for really trying to look from all the perspectives and see all the sides of the situation. I was running up in debate today in a class against some highly narrow minded conservative views of Islamic extremism, and that just got me to really appreciate a lot more the greater sense of perspective you all have .

Narrow-mindedness is not cool in anyone. Thanks Lief!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe that there are big weaknesses in both sides, but also strengths on both sides. And running more head-on into the weaknesses of some on the conservative side is making me more strongly appreciate the strengths of the liberal side.

I agree.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Narrow-mindedness is not cool in anyone. Thanks Lief!

This is true.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, you're entitled to your own views. Khatami certainly never revealed or negotiated Iran's secret nuclear program while he was in charge, though, so I can't agree.

In 2004 (under Khatami…), Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary suspension of its uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union. Is that not some kind of negotiation then? They called this a “confidence-building measure”.

On August 8 2005, only FIVE DAYS after the election of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian government resumed its conversion of uranium. Coincidence? Now you can certainly say the more liberal Khatami lead government was just lying to us and really wanted to have nukes to kill Israel with but why wouldn’t a more conservative Ahmadinejad lie as well since he is clearly lying about other things? Why would Khatami seemingly bend to European pressure if as you insist theres NO chance of negotiating anything no matter who is in power?

Again, I just don’t see it as much of a reach to assume that negotiations between a more “liberal” Iranian government and a democratic president (or even McCain or some other republicans) would have at least a glimmer more of a hope then nonexistent ones between the extremist Ahmadinejad and Bush. Not saying they would have been perfectly successful or even close to it but geez it seems fairly clear to me ANYTHING is better then the chances of a Bush vs. Ahmadinejad detente. Maybe only Nixon can go to China but Bush cant do squat anywhere in the middle east it seems.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

In 2004 (under Khatami…), Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary suspension of its uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union. Is that not some kind of negotiation then? They called this a “confidence-building measure”.

Yep, I suspect that that's why they did suspend it. I believe them on that. They wanted to appear reasonable.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

On August 8 2005, only FIVE DAYS after the election of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian government resumed its conversion of uranium. Coincidence?

When Ahmadinejad first came into power, I don't believe he was all that mature a leader. I don't think he was very experienced, so he felt free to take direct and often not-so-intelligent actions in those early stages. It was shortly after he first came into office that he made his radical remarks about wiping Israel off the face of the map. His diplomats desperately tried to cover for him, so Ahmadinejad went back on the air to say that he'd really meant what he'd said. Hence he got universally condemned.

He's become more careful since those early days. In my view, he's become less rash. Ceasing the suspension of nuclear activities probably was one more of his rash moves.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now you can certainly say the more liberal Khatami lead government was just lying to us and really wanted to have nukes to kill Israel with

Well, he was secretly developing that nuclear technology all along, so it's plain he wasn't being up front and honest. I rather doubt he would have tried to destroy Israel with them after building them, myself, but it's tough to be sure.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

but why wouldn’t a more conservative Ahmadinejad lie as well since he is clearly lying about other things? Why would Khatami seemingly bend to European pressure if as you insist theres NO chance of negotiating anything no matter who is in power?

The same reason that Ahmadinejad keeps the discussion tables active. To buy time until he has a nuclear weapon.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again, I just don’t see it as much of a reach to assume that negotiations between a more “liberal” Iranian government and a democratic president (or even McCain or some other republicans) would have at least a glimmer more of a hope then nonexistent ones between the extremist Ahmadinejad and Bush. Not saying they would have been perfectly successful or even close to it but geez it seems fairly clear to me ANYTHING is better then the chances of a Bush vs. Ahmadinejad detente. Maybe only Nixon can go to China but Bush cant do squat anywhere in the middle east it seems.

Well, I agree that his policies are having some strongly negative reprecussions. But I don't think Kerry or anyone else could do any better. From my perspective, it's been an impossible situation all along. If we hadn't gone into Afghanistan, bin Laden would still be attacking us from there. If we hadn't gone into Iraq and Saddam had possessed WMD (as all the evidence at that time was indicating), we'd have been busted. Remember that a Democratic president would in all likelihood have been just as quick to get us into that war as a Republican one. The vast majority of the Democrats in Congress all voted for the war. So considering the evidence and options we had before us, we took the best possible courses of action available to us both times.

President Bush is working with many Middle East leaders against terrorism, which is critically important to success. But I agree that his policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could do with some major changes.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You are correct that statistics don't always tell the whole story. However, the point of those stats was not to say who is more devout, but simply to point out that Muslims are obviously not taking over Sweden, as they form a very small portion of the population.

Nothing suggests that they will take over Sweden in the future either.

It DOES mean something when they have the majority of devout. You'll find that "small" does not mean powerless, looking at it from a cultural POV. In this case the strength if their culture means everything.