The bad side of Islam

Oh man, im being dragged right back in because people are saying I got my booty kicked. I do not see it that way at all.

What my arguement is all about is that I am taking an ethical dilemma and choosing a side that is correct in some forms and incorrect in others. Yes there will be loss of innocent lives when America takes action. To try to define what I am saying I will use an economic term called "Opportunity Cost." The definition for this is "The highest valued alternative that must be given up to engage in an activity." So after 9-11 which step would be the most appropriate action to take, what would be the consequences, and what other options would they be forsaking in choosing it? America decided to create homeland security that promises to protect her citizens, however it redueces government spending on other projects. And we know that the US decided to go to war in Afganistan and Iraq at the same time predicting the progress they will make, but at the other end they have to take into account the loss of lives as well. I do not consider myself to be on "the moral high ground" as you put it because I cannot fathom of myself putting together numbers of how many people will get killed.

But lets try to get into reality for a sec and look at the bigger picture here. Many of you see that the US has just gone at the crack of a whim to go fight in the middle east b/c its either about oil or creating an empire or both. My arguement is trying to dispell that idea/fantasy at least for some of you who only see America as a tyrannical country who is controlled by "evil" neo-conservatives and big brother corporations. This war, all of these events is about keeping our people safe and saying that absolutely no one can take American lives because they hate us to the core and want to forcibly convert us to their beliefs.

Also concerning Ahmendinijad, he still has the khomeni support, and if he was doing anything that was displeasing to that black robed fella im sure Ahmendinijad would be rotting in a dark place right now.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon My arguement is trying to dispell that idea/fantasy at least for some of you who only see America as a tyrannical country who is controlled by "evil" neo-conservatives and big brother corporations.

     But at the same time you're perpetuating falsehoods about other countries, and accusing people of genocide with no proof, to try to coerce people into advocating a war. You still haven't said what benefits there are for people like you and me to advocate a strike on Iran.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon Yes there will be loss of innocent lives when America takes action. To try to define what I am saying I will use an economic term called "Opportunity Cost." The definition for this is "The highest valued alternative that must be given up to engage in an activity." So after 9-11 which step would be the most appropriate action to take, what would be the consequences, and what other options would they be forsaking in choosing it?

     Starting support of democracies and ending support of dictatorships and tyrannies. That would mean toning down favoritism towards Israel and creating a balanced approach to the problems in the Middle East (which, if solved correctly, would significantly boost America's image in the Arab and Muslim world). That would also mean cutting major support to regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Iranian separatists, etc. You might be searching for the best alternative, but don't expect someone living under Ghadaffi's shadow to believe us when we say we're doing the best thing we can by invading this country or supporting tyrants who wouldn't exist if it wasn't for our unconditional support. Ending our favoritism towards some of the world's worst despots would be in our national interests, but probably not in the interests of the elites and their checkbooks, which is probably why we are taking the current course of events.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon Also concerning Ahmendinijad, he still has the khomeni support, and if he was doing anything that was displeasing to that black robed fella im sure Ahmendinijad would be rotting in a dark place right now.

     In the end the Ayatollah does what he thinks is best for the country and the Islamic regime. I highly doubt nuking a country that has hundreds of nuclear missiles with the best delivery systems and making the entire world turn against it would be in the interests of either country or regime.

     Ahmadinejad is a crackpot, but that doesn't mean he's the next Hitler. The difference is I don't like either Bush or Ahmadinejad because I think they are both schemers. But you denounce Ahmadinejad, and support the policies of Bush. Bush is worse in my opinion. Ahmadinejad doesn't start armed conflicts every couple of years, and his decisions haven't killed a million people. But despite that, your whole basis for advocating an attack on Iran is that you think they are going to kill a million people, even though there is no evidence to indicate that. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Those countries are secular and hardly Christian and so is the USA so please do not generalize, no longer Christian.

I think people like Ponce take Stupid Pills when they wake up. There is no sense in people like this. Their logic is incomprehensible. 

^^Here is something similar in Engish.

 

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes50.htm

Seko I don't see it that way and I do not hate Muslims at all but only people who hurt others in the name of their god. As it is, if you look at mainstream news, most of this is done by the 10-15 % who represent the religion of peace. I have never heard Michael Savage say to hate all Muslims. I do not work for him but I wish I did since I go along with 85% of what he says but sometimes he is too harsh with his comments, I will agree with that. I have Muslim friends overseas and they agree that the few are hurting Islam.
Now hearing a Muslim call America or Europe Christain nations is totally in error and you know that. We have few Muslims here but when I meet them I treat them with respect but if they support the extremist I lose my respect.

saddam wasnt bad enough for his own country

Originally posted by eaglecap Seko I don't see it that way and I do not hate Muslims at all but only people who hurt others in the name of their god. As it is, if you look at mainstream news, most of this is done by the 10-15 % who represent the religion of peace. I have never heard Michael Savage say to hate all Muslims. I do not work for him but I wish I did since I go along with 85% of what he says but sometimes he is too harsh with his comments, I will agree with that. I have Muslim friends overseas and they agree that the few are hurting Islam. Now hearing a Muslim call America or Europe Christain nations is totally in error and you know that. We have few Muslims here but when I meet them I treat them with respect but if they support the extremist I lose my respect.

The problem with Savage is not that he accuses the few extremists, which would be right, but wrongly injects his hate into Islamic dogma, which is wrong. He uses cunning tricks in order to further his enterprise, his books are full of wrong analogies about Islamic dogma, which really does not support extremist notions. If he were criticizing the extremists he would not be critiqued heavily himself, however considering that he picks, and chooses many lines, and injects his own take on things in order to further his means he is not taken seriously.

Calling America a Christian nation is an erroneous statement, however, you also have to agree that there are many political factors, and civilian that do in fact think of this country as a Christian nation, a good example the attack*verbal* in the US Senate instigated  against the Hindu chaplain invited for prayer.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20718&KW=christian+extremists+exremism

PS. Most Muslims are not quiet, they criticize, and educate on the real Islam quite extensively, however, such actions are not covered by your major news outlets in the U.S. Especially any one of the local level movements.

So in your opinion a good American is a death American?

So in your opinion a good American is a death American?

Edited by Mortaza - 18-Sep-2007 at 06:23