Posted on 06/15/2009 9:47:12 AM PDT by Sleeping Freeper
Let me preface this with saying that I agree that Islam doesn't leave room for other religions, and that I am going to say what follows knowing there are people on this board who hate Muslims with a brainless passion, so that I'm taking a risk here.
The fact that Islam is an exclusive religion is severely problematic (obviously), but it doesn't entirely preclude the possibility of a democracy in the ME. Any government set up must be entirely secular for it to have a chance to work. Freedom of religion must be in its Constitution, or it will not work.
There will obviously still be a problem with the people in these countries and their animus toward any other religion, but that is not to say that it is insurmountable.
The Iraqi government is presently arguably more successful and productive than our own. There is movement toward freedom of religion, and there are Christians moving back into that country and worshiping.
I might also add that my son spent some "quality time" with the people of Iraq, and that I know for a fact that a large number of them deeply desire to live in a free country. President Bush was right, and his goal was just.
Actually, no.
If I understand your argument correctly you're saying that as we're all children of the one God, we all have similar aspirations. Ergo the people of Iran secretly long for our American concept of "freedom".
Utter nonsense.
Actually, this is the problem.............you don't.
Nothing I've said is "utter nonsense," but that's clearly the way you want to see it.
Thanks for the conversation, marshmallow. Pray for the people of Iran who desire to be free.
You're right.
That's not because of my inability to comprehend, however.
It's because you've offered nothing but a series of complete non sequiturs.
We're all made in the image of God, therefore the people of Iran want to be free?
There's no logical connection whatsoever between the two parts of that sentence.
Pray for the people of Iran who desire to be free.
From what I've seen on TV and the web, it's clear that a significant number of Iranians, perhaps even a majority do not want Ahmedinejad. They do not want the current regime. Much like many Iraqis didn't want Saddam. That's a reasonable conclusion.
That's not the same thing as saying they "desire to be free" in the American sense, however. The Iraq debacle should have taught you that.
You're right. You're brilliant. You understand all things. I'm wrong. I'm stupid. I'm naive and understand nothing.
There. It's over.
To those less intelligent and all-knowing than marshmallow....... Please pray for the brave people of Iran who desire freedom enough to die for it.
Yet you continue to do so.
If you don't want to argue, simply quit replying.
There are many Muslims whom I like and respect. I know people in Muslim governments who have been fighting off the Muslim brotherhood for years.
But, unless the Muslim masses are willing to leave their non-Muslim neighbors alone, you won’t have anything resembling freedom.
I hadn’t heard that Christians were moving back to Iraq. I thought just the opposite was happening, pretty much all over the Muslim world.
I must also say that, even among sophisticated, otherwise tolerant Muslims, I often see a strain of unabashed Jew-hatred that is just scary.
(I know the game, marshmallow. You've won).
Let me just give the example of Iraq. AQI is still active, though it has been decimated by our troops, and it still targets Christians (for obvious reasons), but does that mean we shouldn't have helped build a government there that works toward freedom? Is the election in January, peaceful and successful with hundreds of candidates on the ballot elected by the people of Iraq meaningless? Should we have left Iraq on its own because Muslims supposedly don't want freedom?
Should we have allowed the Taliban to continue to stone women in Afghanistan, behead and brutalize people? Should we have not been involved in rebuilding that country on democratic principles because Muslims don't want freedom?
I understand the problem with Islam, but what is the point of saying that Muslims don't want freedom? Is the point that we should let them be ruled by oppressive and dangerous governments because that's what they really want? Did the Muslims in Iraq want to be tortured and forced to walk off buildings? Did the Muslim women in Afghanistan want to be tortured and murdered in public stadiums for entertainment? Do the Muslims in Iran want to be brutalized and murdered in the streets as they protest this election?
I guess I'd like to understand your point here. Should we leave them all alone and let them be a danger to the rest of the world? Or should we help them to try to establish free countries, even if their view of freedom may be entirely different from our own?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.
Whatever military action we take should be based strictly on our own interests, not any interest in “nation building,” or in establishing “human rights” in other countries. That’s not to say that “nation building” may not sometimes be in our own interest.
But, I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because we needed to make an example of those countries so that other Muslim governments would not harbor AQ or similar terrorist organizations. Any improvement in civil rights was, to me, just a collateral benefit and a nice PR talking point. But, by themselves, they would never have justified military action. There are too many “human rights” violations in too many places in the world. We can’t cure them all.
And yes, individual Iraquis want to be “free.” But, they established an Islamic government, didn’t they? So, they weren’t willing to allow the same freedom to non-Muslim minorities.
I think it is a huge conundrum.
Absolutely agree. There should be no invasion of any country anywhere that does not support our safety and our sovereignty.
But, I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because we needed to make an example of those countries so that other Muslim governments would not harbor AQ or similar terrorist organizations. Any improvement in civil rights was, to me, just a collateral benefit and a nice PR talking point. But, by themselves, they would never have justified military action. There are too many “human rights” violations in too many places in the world. We can’t cure them all.
Absolutely agree here as well. But following the removal of the despotic regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a necessity to help them replace those governments with better ones (as we did in Germany and Japan). An invasion of Iran, should it ever occur (certainly it won't under this pansy we have in the WH now who supports dictators), must be predicated on our own national security. It's fairly obvious that Iran is a national security threat to us under its current regime, but any invasion should certainly be carefully considered, and IMO, bombing nuclear facilities is a more viable option anyway.
And yes, individual Iraquis want to be “free.” But, they established an Islamic government, didn’t they? So, they weren’t willing to allow the same freedom to non-Muslim minorities.
The government currently operating in Iraq is not the problem for the non-Muslims within the country as much as the violent groups still terrorizing anyone and everyone are. Christians are allowed to worship in Iraq (and many do), but the problem of persecution is still very real. I'm not sure, however, that that is an argument against our helping create a democracy in that country. It is a step beyond basic democracy that they, now a sovereign and free country, must take themselves. Afghanistan is even stickier, but it would be tough to argue that what they have now is not better than what they had under Taliban rule.
I think it is a huge conundrum
It certainly is. But removing the possibility of stepping in militarily to remove Muslim regimes just because "Muslims don't want freedom" (with which I continue to strongly disagree), just doesn't seem to be an option.
If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) both Afghanistan and Iraq are “Islamic republics,” meaning that there are certain restrictions against non-Muslims built into their constitutions. So, Christians may be free to worship, but they are restricted from exercising power. On paper, at least, non-Muslims were freer under Hussein, because his government was secular.
As far as “violent groups” terrorizing non-Muslims, I suspect the government doesn’t do much to reign them in.
As I have said, Muslims certainly want to be free. Everybody wants to be free. Nobody disputes that. But, sometimes they just want to be “free” to be the oppressor, rather than the oppressed.
Your presumption that all Muslims want to be oppressors is quite stunning, and it is contrary to some of the other things you have said about them.
The success of the present Iraqi government relative to the tribalism of the area, it's warring history, and the hostile influence of alQaeda and Iran is historic and profound. Your choice to minimize the significance in order to place all Muslims under the same blanket of oppressor is duly noted. I wonder how the subjegation of and brutal treatment of women fits into your scenario. I truly doubt that the women of Iraq and Afghanistan want to be oppressors, but if you're going to put all Muslims into a single category, I suppose women have to be there too....
I said “sometimes.” And I don’t think the attacks on non-Muslims all come from AQ.
No. Some of them come from JAM.
The largest assault, however, on Christians, has come from AQI (recent attacks as well).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.