Everytime I read the answers to a question like this, I wonder if the real point isn't being missed.
They go on and on at times about why the Muslims hate us - why we are such greedy, oil thirsty aholes, how we have so mistreated the Arabs, and on and on and on. There may even be a smidgen of validity to some of their points, and, no, we are not completely without some blame.
But when we look at the big picture:
The US has never stolen any oil from the Mideast - nor have we ever threatened to invade or conquer them to seize the oil for ourselves - we have always paid for it.
If the riches never made better living conditions for the lower and middle classes, it is the fault of their governments, not ours. Maybe we have offended them with our tolerence and acceptance of the Jewish state, but that didn't interfere with their own greed when it came to supplying our oil needs.
So, please, don't try and lay that guilt trip on me.
And the real point I alluded to in the first sentence:
Can anyone, especially those with all the answers, give me a valid reason or grievance which would justify the indescriminant murder of
thousands of innocent men, women and children in the name of an ideology which preaches peace, love and tolerence?
And while you're pondering that, can you also tell me why this peaceful and tolerent religion results so so much murder and mayhem among their own people - even without any external influence from any other country?
There are just too many parallels between a Nazi regeim that sought world domination, a pure race and the systematic elimination of all those who who were "inferior" - And an Islamic fundalmentalist movement that seeks world domination under Islamic Law and the elimination of the infidels.
Appeasement, diplomacy, negotiation - these attempts have only emboldened them and led them to believe their tactics of terror and murder are somehow successful - do you really think we should try and employ these policies in the future?
Remember, when the French waivered and waited for more evidence and proof of the inevitable dangers that the Nazis presented to the world - the proof came marching into Paris under a swastiker flag!
Can we learn something from this?
2006-09-16 05:01:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Without some vague basis for this argument I couldn't even begin to guess at an answer. I think Islam is more likely the new Pink. Reguardless we should appease the Islamic Nations. We've kinda been d!cks to them lately.
2006-09-16 04:05:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by W0LF 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
You appears to be a Jew. Nazi movement was totally different from Islam. Nazi movement was caused by the then Christians of Germany. Islam is message of peace and constitution how to lead your life.
No, do not appease Islam or Muslims, but do not cause harm to them, like Afghan & Iraq, Palastene & Lebenon Invasion, killed
millions of innocent people.
Let them leave their own life.
U.S. & U.K., have too much love and sympathy with Jews better they should get settle them in U.S., & U.K., and there is no requirement of a separate territory for Jews, namely Israel.
This territory belongs to Palasten, jews are strangers to this territory.
2006-09-16 03:55:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by mushtaqehind 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes!
A lot of Arabic's use the Swastika as an emblem for supremacy.
The Abrahamic religions
The swastika was not widely utilized by followers of the Abrahamic religions. Where it does exist, it is not portrayed as an explicitly religious symbol and is often purely decorative or, at most, a symbol of good luck. One example of scattered use is the floor of the synagogue at Ein Gedi, built during the Roman occupation of Judea, which was decorated with a swastika.[11]
In Christianity, the swastika is a symbol representing the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the swastika is seen as a hooked crucifix, symbolizing Christ's victory over death.) Some Christian churches built in the Romanesque and Gothic eras are decorated with swastikas, carrying over earlier Roman designs. Swastikas are prominently displayed in a mosaic in the St. Sophia church of Kiev, Ukraine dating to the 12th century. They also appear as a repeating ornamental motif on a tomb in the Basilica of St. Ambrose in Milan. However, a proposed direct link between it and a swastika floor mosaic in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Amiens, which was built on top of a pagan site at Amiens, France in the 1200s, is considered unlikely.
The Muslim "Friday" mosque of Isfahan, Iran and the Taynal Mosque in Tripoli, Libya both have swastika motifs.
Tajikistan
In 2005 authorities in Tajikistan called for the swastika widespread adoption as a national symbol. President Imomali Rakhmonov declared the swastika an "Aryan" symbol and 2006 to be "the year of Aryan culture" a time to: “study and popularize Aryan contributions to the history of the world civilization; to raise a new generation (of Tajiks) with the spirit of national self-determination; and to develop deeper ties with other ethnicities and cultures.
2006-09-16 06:47:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by DEVIL 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Islam is exactly like the Borg. You either assimilate or get be-headed. So I guess you could compare it to the Nazi's Because they to claimed to want to create a superior race.
2006-09-16 04:21:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Radical Islam resembles Nazism in many ways. They goose step like the Nazis, they have the single arm upraised in salute like Nazis, they brainwash their followers like Nazis. There are many more instances of similarity.
Appeasement does not work. Ask Chamberlian and the British. They tried it in the 1930's with Hitler, didn't work out too well.
2006-09-16 04:15:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Michael 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of our problems with the Muslim world stem from our own greed. In 1953 Iran wanted to nationalize the oil industry but the Brits had a company there called the Anglo Iranian oil co. that had interests in the oil. They were offered money for their interests but turned it down. Truman did not interfere but when Eisenhower got in they were able to convince him that I ran was in danger of allying with the Russians so with the aid of British and American intelligence they brought the shah to full power. The shah eventually became a brutal dictator but the people revolted and replaced him. This also led to the invasion by students of our embassy there. My point in telling you this is that in many ways we are responsible for the hate against us.
Reagan did nothing to try to sooth relations and in fact encouraged Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. So you can blame who you wish, but to me it seems we got ourselves into this quandary and the best course of action would be to admit past mistakes and try for better relations. I really don't buy the fact that most Muslim nations really don't want peace with us. They know they would be annihilated if they were to seriously damage this country say with a nuclear or biological attack.
2006-09-16 04:01:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think its more like, Bush and his government is the new Nazi movement, by invading all this countries for no real reason
2006-09-16 04:06:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? ? 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, it is and No, appeasement does not work..
One would think that this was a lesson well learned from Adolph Hitler but it appears that it is something that the liberals of the world will never remember...
2006-09-16 03:49:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
You sound like Neville Chamberlain.
2006-09-16 03:50:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bawney 6
·
0⤊
1⤋