BF2S Forums Fox News, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and the NYC Mosque

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's not our job to police the world and fix all the injustices that abound. If Saudi's want to remove the theocracy then they should rebel, topple their government, and install a new one. Until then? Not my problem.

I think Ticia is mostly just pointing out how our interventionism has nothing to do with spreading democracy and everything to do with economics.

Duh. You can't make people free over the barrel of a gun.

I would agree, but it seems that our leaders love to phrase our interventions as "spreading democracy", despite how little that has to do with our motivations.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think Ticia is mostly just pointing out how our interventionism has nothing to do with spreading democracy and everything to do with economics.

Duh. You can't make people free over the barrel of a gun.

I would agree, but it seems that our leaders love to phrase our interventions as "spreading democracy", despite how little that has to do with our motivations.

It's a easy way to sell sending teens off to fight and die. It does sound a lot better than ''protecting American economic and military interest in the area".

You should know that, it's practically a platitude.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.

Thanks for trying to tell me how I should think though.

When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.
No one is asking the US to leave Afghanistan and attack the Saudis but this chummy behaviour only cripples your image worldwide.

It's not our job to police the world and fix all the injustices that abound. If Saudi's want to remove the theocracy then they should rebel, topple their government, and install a new one. Until then? Not my problem.

Tell that to your boys being killed in Afghanistan 'cause they never got that memo.
Plus the only way to justify the trillions of dollars a year spent on military is if the US still see themselves as the world police and choosing wisely who to set free can be a long term investment and everything.

Last edited by Ticia (2010-09-02 15:43:51)

Uzique wrote:

of course there is a huge rhetorical and agitprop machine at work to cover the public-face of the military-industrial complex.

its basic politics. you'd be stupid to not see through it. perhaps even stupider than a US grunt on the ground in iraq thinking he's 'a protector of democracy and all things great and good in the free world'. they're just there because their situations at home sucks or because their opportunities sucked even harder. nobody dies for political principles anymore. life is too comfortable and self-interested for that.

Pretty much...  Although you could say that insurgents die for political/religious reasons -- granted, they're usually insane in their reasoning.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

the Fox news Editorials are the only people riding herd on this, The Libs want the Y.M.M.A. to get built. What the point. Rupert just wanted to stir the pot ?

High ratings ---> ability to justify high ad cost.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

the Fox news Editorials are the only people riding herd on this, The Libs want the Y.M.M.A. to get built. What the point. Rupert just wanted to stir the pot ?

High ratings ---> ability to justify high ad cost.

Did people want to know ? or not ?

Would people have known if it wasn't for Fox blowing it up? Nope, most people would have never known.

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i love how people get worked up over something they dont have to watch, read, or listen to.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to the community center at Ground Zero?

yes it would.  and you are in the same boat.  well done lad.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i love how people get worked up over something they dont have to watch, read, or listen to.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to the community center at Ground Zero?

yes it would.  and you are in the same boat.  well done lad.

How about this...  I'll stop harping on Fox News if you'll admit that the community center at Ground Zero is nothing to get upset about?

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

yes it would.  and you are in the same boat.  well done lad.

How about this...  I'll stop harping on Fox News if you'll admit that the community center at Ground Zero is nothing to get upset about?

im not upset about either...

You posted some things earlier in the NYC mosque thread that would imply otherwise.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

im not upset about either...

You posted some things earlier in the NYC mosque thread that would imply otherwise.

no.  idc about the mosque.  the reasons people are giving as an arguement for it are what get my blood going.

like what?  freedom of religion and property rights?

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

no.  idc about the mosque.  the reasons people are giving as an arguement for it are what get my blood going.

like what?  freedom of religion and property rights?

if its not a mosque then there is no freedom of religion.  and i stand by my NY example of them cleaning up times square of all the boobie joints.  my main point is if i opened a anti islam center people would flip out also.

If it's a community center based around Islam, it is a freedom of religion issue.  If I'm not mistaken, there are prayer rooms involved.

While I somewhat agree with you that a specifically anti-Islamic center would cause people to flip out and would likely result in being forced off of the property, the difference is that an Islamic community center isn't specifically preaching hateful things.  An anti-Islamic center most likely would be.

Now, if you could tie the community center to fanatical messages being promoted there, then people would have a stronger argument against it.  However, doing that would require letting the building operate for a short time before evidence could be compiled.

I don't see how you can compare a community center to a strip club.  While I'm no fan of people pushing out strip clubs due to their own moral busybodying, the two institutions aren't really comparable here.

11 Bravo wrote:

anti islam would not be about hate.  it would be against the hate caused by islam or insert whatever religion you would like.

If it could be shown that the anti-Islamic center would not be for hate but against it, then I think people (mostly Muslims) would freak out over it, and it might even get forced off of its property.

However, I would still defend its existence.

So, I would agree that you could apply the same irrationality to people against the community center as people that would be against an anti-Islamic center under those criteria, but I don't think that irrationality should be defended in either case.

We should strive for logical behavior whenever possible.