Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (181283)	2/7/2006 1:41:31 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thank you. I misunderstood your point. "I don't believe that the standards of dictatorships should be used to argue for or against freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a right that is unique to democracies and must be defended and criticized using democratic standards." There have been times in our history when Christians were just as guilty of selective moral outrage. For example there were many apologists for Hitler in America and on the continent. French seemed quite cozy with Saddam and his murderous kin. American Black organizations decry Republicans but apologize for Democrats. ME muslims practice selective moral outrage from the perspective of Westerners / Jews / Christians. In reality, it is not. Their holy book teaches them that non-mulsims are all infidels. As such, they are less than human, and have no rights. Since non-mulsims have no rights, when they are slaughtered it is of no more consequence than if cattle or camels are slaughtered. You wouldn't expect foreign governments or religious leaders to express regret or outrage if someone killed a herd of cattle would you? It might be news, but no more. Once things fell into perspective, it became much easier to recognize muslims as no different than the worst of early American slave owners. They were upset when someone killed a slave just as they would have been upset if someone stole a gun from them. "Israeli murders, Palestinian murders, the one side deplores as does the other side." Israel does not claim that their primary goal is to wipe out Palestine, or the Arab world. The reverse cannot be said. One side that says if you kill our people, we will find your murderers and kill them where they are found. The other says all of your people should be ready to be slaughtered just because they were not protected. You see moral equivalence in that? " there are other agendas operating in the ME. Agendas which may well backfire." Mohamed made truce rather than lose a war. He rebuilt his army's strength so that at the end of the truce, he could win it. With a teacher who occupied slippery moral ground, can we expect better for the worshipers?