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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3254)	12/13/2006 12:30:15 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

Not supporting a "department of peace" is hardly the same as being afraid of or not supporting peace. LOL! I bet you actually weren't laughing when you wrote that. Tom

To: TimF who wrote (3254)	12/13/2006 12:54:13 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

Some times we need a fresh face to listen to even if they are telling us the same things the guy we no longer listen to was trying to say. I don't know if that justifies a new government department or not but we definitely need to be rethinking some things and really listening more to each other. Some violent conflicts including wars are unavoidable, simply due to an inability for the participants to compromise over competing interests. At other times violence occurs as a result of the blood lust of participants who choose bloody conflict as a means of dealing with life’s inevitable frustrations. Violence, including global violence, often results from the lack of willingness or ability of the participants to communicate effectively. This can be fueled by a combination of one or both of the scenarios above. Terrorism, Islamic radicalism, insurgent power groups, and the general temperament of the time have brought about an unstructured form of hostility that lacks political or military symmetry. Lacking conflict that can be declared according to nationalistic boundaries we find our self with what … violent instability and ill defined political purpose? In principle we hear both sides of the current world conflict declaring an interest in the same things (truth, justice, and morally decent living). This is what Westerners mean when they use the terms freedom through democracy. This is what Islamisists are thinking when they use the word Jihad. When Westerners hear the word ‘Jihad’ they hear a terrorist style of massive death threats. When radical Islam hears the word Democracy they hear a colonialistic threat to their autonomy. Until (unless) we can open communication up in a way in which Muslims are not defined as a separate cultural group with incompatible goals, we wont be able to bridge the gap. As long as we have a large segment of our society choosing to ostracize Muslims as a separate and unacceptable subculture of society, deserving of internet attacks for their heritage and current life style, we will not be able to integrate ourselves as one society that has diversity of life style. As long as we support ostracism, attacks and other dangers, based on religious choice we will find our selves choosing an incompatible multicultural quagmire. Being a Muslim is not incompatible with democracy, justice, decent treatment of dissimilar others and is quite amenable to western life style. There will always be extremists, both the Western fundamentally bigoted kind and the Middle Eastern fundamentally radical kind. These are two sides of the same coin. If we are to see the light of day that enjoys a relatively peaceful coexistence among the diverse peoples of the world, it is incumbent upon the decent and conscientious of us to reach across …Unless we choose not to.