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: one_less who wrote (181335)	2/7/2006 2:38:59 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 281500

world wide armaggedon is always a stupid option that is available. I'm less confident that calm rational minds will prevail than I once was, but that is still what I hope for. No , this is what you possibly get when you choose not to accept the responsibility and taking on the task early in the game to stem any tide towards nuclear proliferation among immature nationalistic irrational rogue states . And these have had no part originally with the creation of such technology and experience with its regulation and deployment .And the inflamed oratory which directs itself towards the complete destruction of other recognized legitimate nation states , which makes any attempt to describe such arming as "defensive" completely and utterly moot. There is the option of such countries consuming themselves from within , playing the dangerous game leading them to burning down their own houses by pursuing inward conspiracies and outward childish rages ....but "world wide armageddon" is a romantic notion embedded in an ultimate hypocrisy of a totalitarian form of theocracy and twisted religious conception , which is ultimately impotent and negates the ideals it claims to promote and is now being exposed . The state of Iranian economics , unemployment , and internal dishevel speaks already so loudly for itself , and will even speak louder when as you say , calmer "transparent" times do prevail, and the actual facts of creation of WMD's in Iran is revealed . But it would be unfair to any rational mind to think that Iran is not at this point or nearing it already. It is the supreme responsibility of all legitimate nations, that are truely interested in some future world stability and cooperation to condemn and prevent by all exercised options to maintain the strictest vigilant guard against any arming of nuclear capability by such immature theologically monopolized , and proven violent rogue regimes.

To: one_less who wrote (181335)	2/7/2006 3:00:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hopefully we will get to a calmer more rational discourse in a few days,... or world wide armaggedon is always a stupid option that is available. Let us hope it the former.. But I fear that without a major paradigm shift in power favoring moderate Islam, it will be the latter.. Which is why I perceive the west must walk carefully so that we don't play right into the hands of the radicals. Hawk

To: one_less who wrote (181335)	2/7/2006 7:43:11 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

2) The only authentic issue for Muslims is the visual portrayal of Mohammad. In the movies produced by Muslims about about the life of Mohammad you never see Mohammad. In scenes where he is present, he is portrayed as being not in view because he is somewhere behind the camera. The reason for this is that Muslims do not want pictures or statues that would encourage idol worship. Explain this: Message 22135663 3) The Media is arguing that Islam is two faced, by demanding that no negatives be portrayed about Muslims in the media without a violent uprising by Muslims; while, Muslims regularly publish ugly portrayals about Westerners especially Jews. The media's argument is wrong. There are tons of negatives about Islam every day in the media. Books, magazines, websites, television, speeches, etc. There is nothing wrong with objecting to unfair portrayals and everyone does that. I'd say the objection is to burning embassies (which the host country has a duty under international law to protect), rioting against westerners, calls for economic boycotts, and killing westerners. Read this and the post it responds to: Message 22142288 The radical Muslims are exploiting the event, and they are successfully rallying moderates. However, westerners are also mis-interpreting the mainstream position of Muslims as being a general objection to freedom of speech MY objection is an apparent assumption by Muslims that they have a right to dictate the contents of the Western press. As far as I am concerned, we go to war before that happens. You yourself have extolled freedom, so how can you object to this? The radical Muslims are exploiting the event Absolutely. But it is the duty of the moderate Muslims to call them on it. We cannot. We are "the enemy" and our words are automatically discounted. Hopefully we will get to a calmer more rational discourse in a few days I certainly hope so. We had best do so. But western religions- -all of them- -are commonly the butt of jokes and far worse. Nazi skinheads burn synagogues. Most Christians don't cheer them on. They consider them pariahs and convict them if they are caught and tried. They KKKers who burned black churches in the American South and were caught were not considered heroes. They are filth, were treated as such, and richly deserve their punishment.