Why do we hate them?

[wayneL]

An interesting article on the dynamics of why we fear muslims.

Enjoy

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-we-hate-them.html

 

[Kipp]

An interesting article on the dynamics of why we fear mulims.

Enjoy

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-we-hate-them.html

Who are the mulims? Are they the bears shorting commodities? Then yes I fear them!!

 

[visual]

Wayne,
perhaps the question should be what is the most dangerous occupation in Baghdad?
Barber,why,because they shave beards,
hhhmmmmmmm looks like they don`t need us to hate them,they are doing a good job on their own turf.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne,
perhaps the question should be what is the most dangerous occupation in Baghdad?
Barber,why,because they shave beards,
hhhmmmmmmm looks like they don`t need us to hate them,they are doing a good job on their own turf.

I am not surprised by your post.

 

[Sean K]

Just a radically different culture that doesn't fit with our own, and some of the values are quite different which leads us to think they are a bit strange.

 

[visual]

I am not surprised by your post.

Oh Wayne,why the sarcasm, not everyone is wearing blindfolds,but you go ahead,looks good with that chip on your shoulder :

 

[wayneL]

Oh Wayne,why the sarcasm, not everyone is wearing blindfolds,but you go ahead,looks good with that chip on your shoulder :

Another unreasonable and unsurprising post marked by monumental hypocrisy from you visual.

 

[visual]

Wayne,hyprocrisy?
look it up,barbers are being murdered in Baghdad also the other hated people are the ones who go around and tell women to cover up,in the Iraqi journalist opinion these people will only be happy when women walk under a tent,look it up the it should`nt be that difficult to find :

Wayne did`nt think you`d look it up so I did for you,enjoy :


http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2006/s1706729.htm

 

[wayneL]

Wayne,hyprocisy?

Yes, I was refering to your comment about the chip on my shoulder. A comment so stunning in it's hypocricy as to leave me (nearly) speechless.

Did you read the full article BTW?

 

[visual]

Yes, I was refering to your comment about the chip on my shoulder. A comment so stunning in it's hypocricy as to leave me (nearly) speechless.

Did you read the full article BTW?

lol :
good,I`m glad we are still talking.

 

[wayneL]

Anyway as this thread is quickly degenerating into namecalling and side issues I'll close it.

I was hoping for some intelligent discussion (sigh)

 

[wayneL]

To allow the right of reply, as requested, this thread is re-opened.

But lets discuss the issues and not personalities

Cheers

 

[Bloveld]

Wayne,hyprocrisy?
look it up,barbers are being murdered in Baghdad also the other hated people are the ones who go around and tell women to cover up,in the Iraqi journalist opinion these people will only be happy when women walk under a tent,look it up the it should`nt be that difficult to find :

Wayne did`nt think you`d look it up so I did for you,enjoy :


http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2006/s1706729.htm

Who do you think made Iraq the way it is today?

 

[visual]

Bloveld,
what made you think Iraq,was a much better place than it is today?
Assuming here you are talking about the coalition,
Did you look at the thread that I posted?
please look at it,I think at the very least we should allow the actual people there to influence us,not make excuses that a few islamists want to feed us.
The islamists are as much hated there as they are here,except here people who think they are being politically correct are giving them the right to influence events that will inevitably affect them,
In short Iran,Syria,who do you think is providing the suicede bombers.
Having said that sure Iraq could`ve been managed much better,but look at East Timor,I always said that if the Australians had done the job in Iraq than it would`ve been much better and then a muslim trained in what they do best brought the all thing undone.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Who do you think made Iraq the way it is today?

That would be Saddam with his thick cigar moustache. Why? Because he pillaged the Shiites for years. He is a Suuni and they are now being targetd by the Iranian backed Shiites.


Some articles of relevance on the threads subject:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...to-its-failures/2006/08/17/1155407952561.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/09/nislam09.xml

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm
A video

 

[rederob]

visual makes the mistake of believing all that s/he reads, but only the bits that s/he agrees with.
Does visual know that Salam Pax is the son of Adnan al-Janabi?
Does anyone know why that is important to know?
And if it was important, would it change the "facts"?

I entered this thread to discover who it was I was now "hating". Lo and behold, it's "them", of course. Anyone who is not "me".

I have a Jewish friend that emailed me a lot of information about the recent Lebanon conflict. It was excellent reading material, and extremely astute in terms of analysis and consequence. A casual reader may never have known the material was slanted to a particular audience.

Who controls information, and how it is presented, has the power to influence people who prefer not to think for themselves: Or can see one and one, and quickly work out that the sum must be two.

The trick is to not present the opposing view but, instead, "show" that it exists and interpret it the way you want so that your view predominates. This ploy has the semblance of suggesting an "unbiased" stance.

So I come to Howard's contention that Australian history needs to be more prominenet in our schools.
Why?
To teach us what he was taught, I suggest!
Scholars will know that when Howard was at school the version of Australian history taught was ethnocentric and "light" (in the sense that it was a sanitised view of events).
The information age has given almost anyone who wants to know, access to the most incredible facts, figures and visual histoy of our past. It's now a more complex history, one that questions events more willingly than just give so-called facts.
Howard probably thinks that history will teach the kids of today what it taught him (whatever that actually was).
Howard has misunderstood the new historical paradigm. But more importantly, he has failed to realise that States control their respective educational curriculums and it will be their versions that are taught.

I just wish I could have tossed in a Used Car Salesman to complete this post.
Maybe next time.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

visual makes the mistake of believing all that s/he reads, but only the bits that s/he agrees with.
Does visual know that Salam Pax is the son of Adnan al-Janabi?
Does anyone know why that is important to know?
And if it was important, would it change the "facts"?

I entered this thread to discover who it was I was now "hating". Lo and behold, it's "them", of course. Anyone who is not "me".

I have a Jewish friend that emailed me a lot of information about the recent Lebanon conflict. It was excellent reading material, and extremely astute in terms of analysis and consequence. A casual reader may never have known the material was slanted to a particular audience.

Who controls information, and how it is presented, has the power to influence people who prefer not to think for themselves: Or can see one and one, and quickly work out that the sum must be two.

The trick is to not present the opposing view but, instead, "show" that it exists and interpret it the way you want so that your view predominates. This ploy has the semblance of suggesting an "unbiased" stance.

So I come to Howard's contention that Australian history needs to be more prominenet in our schools.
Why?
To teach us what he was taught, I suggest!
Scholars will know that when Howard was at school the version of Australian history taught was ethnocentric and "light" (in the sense that it was a sanitised view of events).
The information age has given almost anyone who wants to know, access to the most incredible facts, figures and visual histoy of our past. It's now a more complex history, one that questions events more willingly than just give so-called facts.
Howard probably thinks that history will teach the kids of today what it taught him (whatever that actually was).
Howard has misunderstood the new historical paradigm. But more importantly, he has failed to realise that States control their respective educational curriculums and it will be their versions that are taught.

I just wish I could have tossed in a Used Car Salesman to complete this post.
Maybe next time.

So you hate Australians like most immigrants is that it?

 

[Bloveld]

Bloveld,
what made you think Iraq,was a much better place than it is today?
Assuming here you are talking about the coalition,
Did you look at the thread that I posted?
please look at it,I think at the very least we should allow the actual people there to influence us,not make excuses that a few islamists want to feed us.
The islamists are as much hated there as they are here,except here people who think they are being politically correct are giving them the right to influence events that will inevitably affect them,
In short Iran,Syria,who do you think is providing the suicede bombers.
Having said that sure Iraq could`ve been managed much better,but look at East Timor,I always said that if the Australians had done the job in Iraq than it would`ve been much better and then a muslim trained in what they do best brought the all thing undone.

What makes me think Iraq was a much better place?
Well the article that you linked too for starters.
It was the stupid invasion that disrupted the local power structures.
How is that hunt for WMD's going? That was the main excuse to invade.

 

[rederob]

So you hate Australians like most immigrants is that it?

Snake
You read what I wrote, so tell what you think.

 

[visual]

What makes me think Iraq was a much better place?
Well the article that you linked too for starters.
It was the stupid invasion that disrupted the local power structures.
How is that hunt for WMD's going? That was the main excuse to invade.

What?
by the way,the mass graves of people saddam didnt like did`nt give you a clue?
The gassing of the Kurds,missed that little episode.