limerickman said:I'll repeat what I said earlier - anyone coming to live in a society ought to respect that society.
I've made that point already but it needs to be repeated because I do not agree that Muslims can somehow seek to impose their views in a modern democratic European country.
But it is interesting that you point out that the number of Mosques outnumber churches in your locality.
I have long admired British society for it's tolerance of other ethnic groups (Irish included).
The average British person is the most tolerant person in the world, I think,
given the mix of people who have landed in your country throughout time.
We have a growing Muslim population here : and we also have a growing Chinese population too.
We welcome this.
(Incidentally, I have noticed that we have a lot of English neighbours moving in to our locality too).
This is a good thing, I think.
My point throughout is that Muslims, tend to assimilate in to a culture.
The Jews never assimilated in to society.
They always tended to socialise, work, marry within their own community.
Here are some number from the Sunday Times :
the number of Jewish births fell from 1990-1999 from 3,300 to 2,500.
In 1955, there were 450,000 Jews in Britain.
Today there are 300,000.
By 2020, figure will be 240k, by 2050 figure will be 180,000 and by 2080 the figure will be 140,000 (all figures supplied by the Jewish Board of Deputies).
Rabbi Shaul Rosenblatt says "it;s a crisis, for every one Jew that comes back to Judasim, 50 are leaving".
This is true. I would like to point out that I was one of the original poster's equating Rome to the U.S. but I did it to point out the similarities in the amount of decadence (overindulgence) practiced by both societies. FredC pointed out my fallacy in that America is not an empire but that was not my aim, it was only to elucidate the similarities inre: "indulgence". I contend that national borders will become less & less relevant as commerce gravitates towards the digital realm. Carrera, you are correct in the belief that the U.s.'s primary concern is free trade & the societies best suited for that are, at this time, free societies (w/ the exception of red china). I believe president Wilson said-"the business of America is business". Many believe that commerce & consequent exchange of ideas induce freedom. I'm still waiting on the final decision on that maxim.Carrera said:As for the U.S., the U.S. is also adopting an imperialistic line but this doesn't involve colonisation as was the case with the Brits and Romans. U.S. citizens have no intention of living in Iraq and most of the U.S.'s imperialistic experience had been down to pure economic expansion and the spread of the dollar. This is why many academics believe the U.S. won't inevitably suffer the same degree of decline as Britain although it's thought the U.S. citizens of tomorrow will probably speak Spanish as el idioma principal.
davidmc said:This is true. I would like to point out that I was one of the original poster's equating Rome to the U.S. but I did it to point out the similarities in the amount of decadence (overindulgence) practiced by both societies. FredC pointed out my fallacy in that America is not an empire but that was not my aim, it was only to elucidate the similarities inre: "indulgence". I contend that national borders will become less & less relevant as commerce gravitates towards the digital realm. Carrera, you are correct in the belief that the U.s.'s primary concern is free trade & the societies best suited for that are, at this time, free societies (w/ the exception of red china). I believe president Wilson said-"the business of America is business". Many believe that commerce & consequent exchange of ideas induce freedom. I'm still waiting on the final decision on that maxim.
I think you may be making a somewhat of a broad generalization by describing what may be termed as a show of some liberalizing in beijing & going a step further & ascribing those liberalizations as applying to the entire country of china. The old guard is doing all in their power to subjugate the people to their communist party line will. Their pres. is cited as one of the worst 10 dictators/leaders in the world. As far as the us goes, i agree that we will only lose currency, not territories as did rome & britain.Carrera said:I've been comparing the U.S. with Rome for some years now but, to be honest, Athens of around 400 B.C. is closer to the U.S. than Rome. The fact is Athens shared the same ideal of expansion of democracy as the U.S. does.
What's really interesting is the comparison between Athens and Sparta as two super power states in the Aegean sea and how Athens came to be the role model for the U.S. while Sparta became a model for the USSR (Sparta being a neo-communist, secretive state that outlawed soft-living and luxury).
Both Athens and Sparta fought an imperialistic war and both set up representative governments in other Greek states, i.e. democracies or socialist oligarchies.
I think the comparison between Rome and Britain would be far more accurate than a comparison between Rome and the U.S. Rome was essentially the same kind of Empire as the British Empire, formed colonies in foreign territories and exported Latin across the globe, romanizing France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and even Romania. However, the decline of Rome is a carbon copy of the decline of Britain and for essentially the same reasons.
But there is a good book written on U.S. economic imperialism you might find interesting (I forget the author) and he concludes the U.S. shouldn't experience the same level of decline in the future as the Romans or British did.
Careful with China. The truth is China is changing a great deal and doesn't fit the description of a red country any more. If you take a trip to Bejing you'll find your fair share of Chinese punk rockers dancing in neon-light discos, getting high and letting their hair down. Some of the Chinese women are pretty gorgeous as well.
You would be making a great career move to learn Chinese as opportunities for foreigners in China will blossom and they even have cycling tours there now (cycling is catching on).
Carrera said:I'm sure the film may have been inflammatory but I notice Michael Howard hasn't tried to assassinate the Labour Party spin merchants who played on the anti-semitism theme (by casting Howard in the roll of Fagin) - in their publicity posters against the Conservatives.
Michael Howard (who happens to be of Jewish descent) recently plucked up the courage to tackle the issue of immigration; thus, the Labour Party figured they'd suck up to Moslem voters by having a dig at Howard's ethnicity. This is after the Labour Party had attempted to brainwash people into taking the view anyone who disagrees with their ideas on mass immigration is a racist.
I find that quite staggering to be honest. I mean, after preaching to the rest of us about "chalkboards" and the like, the Labour Party go ahead with an anti-semitic election campaign that would have seen ordinary people brought to the courts had they made condescending remarks about Islam.
That was precisely Kilroy Silk's beef. It's O.K. for radical mullahs to preach hatred of the West in London mosques but when Kilroy dares to take a poke at Arab repression in a speech, he's sacked by the BBC.
However the case may be, there was no hand-wringing from Howard in this case. And I guess I take the view that if Moslems in Holland don't like free speech and criticism they should either leave, or learn to put up with the values we have in free societies - freedom of speech.
I take the point about the Jews having caused problems for themselves throughout history but I think all groups who remain separate experience such problems. For example, the Romans persecuted Christians since it was believed they were guilty of "odio generis humanis". Philosophers and alchemists were likewise persecuted as well as gays at different points of time.
The difficulty here is that, although you correctly point out the Jews have suffered pogroms in countries such as Russia or Germany, you skipped over the fact that these days Europe is experiencing worse problems with Islamic immigrants who oppose western, democratic values. Again, if you take a look at the situation in France it was chiefly the Moslems who protested over the prohibition of veils and skull-caps in secular schools. In Spain, extremist groups of Islamic fanatics carried out the train bombing atrocity, not Jewish radicals. In Holland, there have been far worse problems than in France and Belgian police had to control an Arab riot in the streets over the staging of a beauty contest for women. In Russia a small group of cowardly so-called Islamic warriors took a school full of children hostage, hid behind them as human shields and then shot them in the back while Russian security forces attempted to get the hostages out. As I recall the Russian troops were ordered to sacrifice their own lives if it meant sparing one of the children.
Now, sure, I agree with you that the Israelis shouldn't have degraded the Palestinian settlers in the way they have done and I agree the Israeli army is far too heavy handed. However, there have been no cases of Israeli soldiers hiding behind women and children as human shields or sheltering in their religious temples during conflict. And I'm not saying all Moslems behave in such a way, of course. But I do think your conclusion that the Jews are the cause behind the present unrest seems to totally ignore the reality that certain branches of Islamic fanaticism lies at the heart of many woes.
The greatest Moslem of all Muhammad Ali condemned all these terrorist groups as do many other Moslems.
Finally you concluded that history doesn't favour Judaism but here there is a kind of irony. I basically lived in countries such as Russia where there is a good deal of anti-Jewish sentiment. However, I always found it strange that Russian people would queue up for hours to take a look at Lenin's body in Red Square and they still revere him as a great political figure. Yet, Lenin was part Armenian, part Jewish. Later there was a big joke about all of this when the biggest anti-semitic in Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, found out he was of Jewish bloodline (after having proclaimed anti-semitism throughout his campaign).
Jupiler said:I agree that there is a serious problem with Arabic immigrants in Europe, but I have a different take on it... First let me say that most of them are not middle-eastern but north-african, that's a significant difference, and most of them didn't flee their oppresive societies but were invited here by our governments in the 60's and 70's to do the dirty work nobody else wanted to do.
But i think the biggest problems we're facing have to do with criminality, exclusion, ghetto's...etc. Not so much with radical moslims or them wanting to take over Europe. We didn't have that much problems with the first generation immigrants who were a lot more religious than the younger ones, just because they stuck to their religion and didn't drink, fight, steel,... The young ones do adapt western culture (rap, hiphop, baseballcaps,...), they do drink and do drugs and go out....and they're the one we have problems with, although it's only a minority giving them a bad name. Also alot of them or unemployed and not very educated.
To be honest here, alot of Belgians are fed up with immigrants (25% voted for the far-right Vlaams Blok) and they are facing a lot of racism, I think thats the same in the surrounding countries. I can understand alot of that, since all of our big cities are having problems with gangs of young Arabs, but I don't know if that's the right answer... A few weeks ago a Dutch woman ran over a 16 year old Morrocon with her car after he stole her purse. Alot of Dutch expressed sympathy for her...while the Morrocons were shocked and called it a racist murder - this shows the division there...
As for the Jews...alot of them are nice people, though I despise the Israeli policies. Let's not forget that they also committed alot of terrorism before they were provided with an outstanding army (mostly against British targets). I think they're oversensitive though. Anytime any of them gets a punch in the face it has to be all over the news, shouting 'racism' and the return of the nazis.... while alot of other people also face voilent attacks daily without anyone talking about it....
Also you mentionned riots in Belgium over a Miss World contest, i think you got that wrong. Those riots were in Nigeria were dozens of people died when they wanted to stage the Miss World contest there. They then moved the contest to London. The then Miss Belgium Ann Van Elsen boycotted the election because of the death sentence a Nigerian girl got by a Islamic court because of adultery. She was one of the most vocal opponents of the contest. Pretty girl too http://www.ann-van-elsen.be/
davidmc said:Bush impeachable YES !!!
‘The Torture Papers may well be the most important and damning set of documents exposing U.S. government lawlessness ever published. Each page tells the story of U.S. leaders consciously willing to ignore the fundamental protections that guarantee all of us our humanity. I fear for our future. Read these pages and weep for our country, the rule of law and victims of torture everywhere.’ Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights
‘With this superb collection of documents, we can begin to see the contours of our new post 9-11 world: from the reinterpretation of laws and treaties that once seemed immutable, to the pressure on soldiers and CIA officers in the field to set aside old rules in the hunt for useable intelligence. The papers speak for themselves and readers can decide whether the trade offs are worth it or not.’ Dana Priest, National Security Reporter, The Washington Post
‘Not since the Pentagon Papers have we seen such an important set of classified documents as the memoranda, reports and orders on detention and interrogation that began emerging into public view in the United States. Cambridge University press is serving an important need in providing these papers in one authoritative and well-organised collection.’ Mary Ellen O'Connell, William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law and Fellow of the Mershon Center for International Security, The Ohio State University
‘This is a commendable, timely, and useful collection of key documents. the material goes far in helping us to understand the logic and advice that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. From awful advice spring awful events.’ Phillippe Sands QC is a practising barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521853249
limerickman said:I am not surprised at the USA contracting out the torture of suspects.
The torture being dispensed doesn't seem to be reaping any rewards.
After all Al Qaeda are still operating, Bin Laden is still at large and Mullah Omar and Co are operating with impunity in Afghanistan.
So apart from the moral question concerning torture and it's use by proxies of the USA - what intelligence has been gained from using torture ?
It seems that whatever information has been gleaned is either wrong, inaccurate, or out of date.
Which brings me on to my next thought - for all the apparent sophistication of the USA, they're still at sea.
If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practicesCarrera said:Yes, all of this is very worrying. The thing that horrifies me is that people suspected of Islamic terror connections are being picked up in foreign countries (such as Egypt) and tortured on behalf of the U.S. security services. By recruiting Egyptian and Syrian interrogaters, the U.S. Government believes it can't be held to account for abuses that take place outside of America. Just ship them overseas and pretend this absolves you from guilt.
Apparently, other governments are wrapped up in the same kind of conduct and Jack Straw recently made a stupid statement, stating that evidence obtained via torture shouldn't be ignored.
This whole idea that a democratic government should condone human rights abuses (similar to Saddam's Iraq) is a shocking revelation. Even the Gestapo and SS murderers were afforded a trial and treated appropriately as prisoners of war.
davidmc said:If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices
davidmc said:If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices
The U.S. is still delinquent on our U.N. due's although I beleive there are extinuating circumstances such as our disagreement w/ some unresolved issue on which we differ (not Iraq though). Concerning the WC, there is the disproportionate votes given out, no? e.g.-Small nations have the same power as big nations in the WC which would be giving up our sovereignty. Our courts are just & based on your's anyway so, what's the issuelimerickman said:But moving the discussion along - you now know why the USA will not join the World Court because actions like Iraq would be indictable under the World Court conventions.
Bush would end up like General Ariel Sharon - who can only visit certain countries because of his war crimes.
davidmc said:If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices
I think this is an interesting couple of sentences. You honestly think a hood and shackles are not acceptable? I would MUCH prefer to see American POWs in hoods and shackles than with a blade at their neck which has been the norm of late. There are very legit reasons to use a hood and shackles. Don't get me wrong, you will never find me defending any of the prison atrocities committed by certain Brits and Americans over there, but hoods and shackles? Come on... The vast majority of American troops captured were either killed, cared for by good-willed Iraqi civilians, or later rescued from perilous situations by coalition forces. To have instead seen them with a hood and shackles in a place where they received reasonable treatment would have been a god-send.Carrera said:Myself I also find it unacceptable that POW's were hooded. I mean, seriously. Could you imagine the uproar there would have been if American troops had been broadcast on T.V. hooded and shackled?
.
roadhog said:I think this is an interesting couple of sentences. You honestly think a hood and shackles are not acceptable? I would MUCH prefer to see American POWs in hoods and shackles than with a blade at their neck which has been the norm of late. There are very legit reasons to use a hood and shackles. Don't get me wrong, you will never find me defending any of the prison atrocities committed by certain Brits and Americans over there, but hoods and shackles? Come on... The vast majority of American troops captured were either killed, cared for by good-willed Iraqi civilians, or later rescued from perilous situations by coalition forces. To have instead seen them with a hood and shackles in a place where they received reasonable treatment would have been a god-send.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.