[Groop]OT-Very very OT.
Groosagi16@cs.com
Groosagi16@cs.com
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:21:32 EST
--part1_9d.328990ef.2b28ce1c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Again, sorry for any who are not interested in this type of discussion. As
Azamin says, please delete, unread if you so desire. Also as time crunched
on me I realized that I was not going to have enough to make this response as
complete as it should be.
Azamin sez:
and for muslims this is an insult thus the riot started as they felt
that they had been insulted by christians...
This is an example where religious issues is a very sensitive one and
thus we need an understanding and respect among religions so that such
riot won't occur..
----------->We agree in principle, and that is a strong start. I certainly
think a duty is owed to others to treat them with consideration. Going out
and saying words with the sole and specific intention of starting a fight is
generally wrong. I think doing so negligently is also a bad pass, but much
less a foul than the former. Conversely, I think going out and hearing
fighting words in everything that is said is on par with actually saying the
words. Acting on such interpretation is worse yet.
I am sorry, but an insult is never a reason to go to blows. Add further,
that one does not attempt to discern the meaning and actual intent of what is
taken as an insult, and blows are less valid. Finally add that the violence
ends up not being directed at the speaker, but rather random people who
appear to share some characteristic with the speaker, and the violence is as
unjustified as violence can get.
I am sorry but here, I can only put the blame on the rioters. You are
looking at a tantrum. I agree that consideration and respect is necessary.
However, for those things to be possible, one has to know that the other,
will do the same. One can speak with respect and consideration only if the
speaker knows that the listener will do so with the same.
Its the old basic saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names
will never hurt me." If someone says something you find offensive, don't
punch them in the nose. Instead, say "hey, that hurt. Please don't say
that, and here is the reason why...". If displeasure results in violence
then respect can not be given.
Now, please don't get me wrong, I think a great many westerners need a lesson
in common consideration. They will never see that fact, however, if violence
is the reaction to any and all problems.
Azamin continues:
A few years ago, the same people organized the pagent in India.. which
recieved a strong protest from women's right and hindu/muslim
organizations. As a result, the swim suit part was shifted to
Maldives.... This pagent is really manipulating womens as sex object..
but why did those who want equal rights for womens did nothing...?
(except those in India)... They're erred.... they're grooed...
------------->You realize, of course, that the host nation is chosen based on
the previous year's winner. This is respect. Thus, India won the pagent the
year prior to your example. Last year the Nigerian representative won the
pagent. Both of these countries allowed participation, by law, and further
accpeted the host status, by law. I will not tell any one they have to like,
or even watch, the pagent. I will not tell anyone that they can not protest
against the pagent if they so chose. That's freedom. As you said, in India,
certain groups did not like the pagent as run, and they made their opinions
known. Were there riots? Was there murder? Not as far as I know. And you
know what, the pagent people made some concessions. Huh, respect, imagine
that.
I am a strong supporter of a person's right to live his or her life free from
infringement of any sort, other than the basic, don't hurt anyone else with
what you like to do. (You like whiskey? Hey, drink up. Just don't start no
fights or drive. And don't expect me to foot your medical bills, but other
than that, do as you feel right.) Thus, if a woman wants to enter a beauty
pagent, for whatever reason (the money, the exposure, the appreciation,
whatever) then that is a choice for her to make. However, if someone says I
believe it is bad and therefore you can not do it, I take exception.
Azamin:
I said that somehow some american
government action will gives some illfeeling to muslim.. and this was proved
by the
report that the Bali bombing happen because the person was so angered by the
american government action towards muslim especially Afghans, Iraqis,
Palestinians.. etc... and its bias towards Israel... and these illfeeling
will
incite more terrorist attack as they don't have other way to express it......
------------>Let me see if I understand this. If your policy against an
actor who has without question attacked you is resented by me I have a right
to attack you myself. This just does not compute. I think the real crux is
the last item you mention, the relationship with Israel. The Afghans, the
Iragis, the Palestinians find themselves on the short end of the American
policy stick because they engage in terrorism in order to acheive their ends.
If they want war, how can they justifiably cry when they get it.
You say they have no other alternative, but, for example, The Palestinians
were as closest to sovereignity when they were using their words, not their
fists. Its a simple formula, if you engage in terror you do not get respect.
If you engage in honest and good faith discussion you gain respect.
Larry gets a word in:
The
latest reports say the rioting claimed over 200 lives.
200 human lives, gone, all because of gross
intolerance on both sides!
-------------------------->I don't know. The pagent was not to be held in
one of the muslim provinces (which are a minority as compared to the country
as a whole). The newspaper was not even a Nigerian newspaper. The people
brutaly and savagely killed were not the ones who made the statement, nor
were they even supporters of the pageant itself. The rioters are an eaxmple
of the type of intolerance which makes tolerance impossible. You will note
that the newspaper that made the inciting statement apologized, took it back,
admitted wrong. I have yet to hear of any such conduct by any rioter. In
fact so far, the most I have heard was it was wrong to kill 200 random
people, but you have to understand that such things will happen when the west
says things offensive. This qualified admittion is nothing but a
rationalization and a promise of continued unprovoked violence.
and of course, Garry:
I'm sure it was money, Larry. It's almost always money. The pageant
committee didn't just wake up one day and decide to hold the thing in
Nigeria. Some business person or group in Nigeria bid for or paid for or in
some other way enticed the pageant to come to Nigeria.
-------->Yes. It was a fully sanctioned event. The decision was made as
described above.
Garry concludes:
So while the combination of stupidity and intolerance that lead to 200
deaths in Nigeria was horrible and should be condemned, Americans need to
spend more energy doing everything they can to keep their own house in order
and not let our own intolerance, misunderstanding, and fear lead us to doing
things as a nation that our children and grand children will be ashamed of.
-------------->Isolationism? I agree we have a lot of work to do in our own
country, but I disagree that means we should close our eyes to the rest of
the world. We have a lot of bad going on in our country, no doubt, but we
ain't got nothing like this.
Azamin:
I think
the competition is an insult to women as it potraye women as sex objects to be
displayed for commercials purposes... and mostly all muslims think the
same... that
why when miss world pagent was conducted in India.. women groups are
protesting
the pagent and they are muslims, hindus, christian and other women...
----------->You are certainly within your God given rights in holding that
opinion, just as it is my God given right to disagree. What neither of us
holds is a God given right is to come to blows over our differing opinion.
We talk, we think, we consider, and then we learn and grow. That's why the
protest in India had effect.
Azamin:
respected for her submission to God but when a muslim woman do the same, she
was
branded as being oppressed...?
2. Why when a western woman stay at home to look after the children, she
was regarded as sacrificed for her family but when a muslim woman do the same
thing, she need to be libertised....?
------------->Simply put, because they have a choice as to which they would
like for themselves.
Azamin forwards:
I apologize for going off-topic on this one, but I feel it is
necessary that I address this topic:
Don't believe what you read in the "news" media about Iraq.
----------------->Or this e-mail
continues:
At the moment,they are doing everything in their power to whip up support
for an unjustified and entirely unprovoked attack against this small,
(now) poor and crippled middle eastern nation; a nation that has been
already devastated by more than 10 years of murderous sanctions,
resutling in a estimated million-plus deathes of its population, most
of them women and childen.
------------------------->Is the US's war against terror unjust? If the
answer is no then the next question is: Does Iraq engage in terrorist
activity, in any form? If the answer is yes, then the looming war is
justified. I do believe fighting against the terrorist is a just cause. I
further believe that Iraq is involved in terrorsit activity from top to
bottom. From my ability to analyze action against Iraq has thus far been
justified. Loading a sentence with emotionally charged words may sound good,
but it certainly does not make truth. Who has made the estimates above? How
were the connection between sanction and death arived at? Iraq is not a poor
nation. The vast throngs of its underpriviledged are poor, but not the
country itself. And certainly not its leader and his agents.
continues:
The goal is to portray the Iraqi people as
perpetual victims of a tyrannical regime "in need" of our help. It is
a ploy both to whip up support for war amongst the average westerner,
and to soften the resolve of those opposed to the idea of another
military invasion against this defenseless nation.
-------->Umm, the people of Iraq's welfare is not the impetus of this current
beef at all. Hopefully, they will be able to get out of the way when
(hopefully, if) things go down. This is about going after the next biggest
link in the terrorist chain. Saddam has been doing his thing for years, and
now, the terrorists, have found that the US has chosen to act in response to
being attacked. Of course Saddam doesn't like it.
And by the way, a great great great many Iraqis have been killed by Saddam,
and his agents. Iraq is not defenseless. Nor is it offenseless. The thing
is that compared to the US anybody is basically defenseless, or offenseless.
Is the US supposed to allow attacks on her person go unanswered simply
because she has the power to take all comers. I think not. You realize, of
course, that Iraq routinely fires missles on American airplanes patroling on
the UN's behalf. If defenseless, why such conduct?
continues:
If the west gets
its way, there will merely substitute one dictatorial government for
another. The Iraqi people will be no better off in a post-Saddam
world. This is about oil and geo-politics not about the rights of a
people, or about ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction.
Bush, blair and company are the weapon of mass destruction, not
Saddam. A war will only result in more misery and hardship being
inflicted on the average Iraqi.
----------------->Speculation and short sighted vision. This is exclusively
about fighting terrorism. The average Iraqi must either rid themselves of
their terrorist leader or expect to have him removed. If he were just a
dictator, say like King Hussein, there would be no need to remove him. Its
his extracurricular activities which got him in trouble. I truly hope that
Iraqis don't have to suffer. Sadly, the situation looks like they may have
to.
Ari
--part1_9d.328990ef.2b28ce1c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Again, sorry for any who are not interested in this type of discussion. As Azamin says, please delete, unread if you so desire. Also as time crunched on me I realized that I was not going to have enough to make this response as complete as it should be.
<BR>
<BR>Azamin sez:
<BR>
<BR>and for muslims this is an insult thus the riot started as they felt
<BR>that they had been insulted by christians...
<BR>
<BR>This is an example where religious issues is a very sensitive one and
<BR>thus we need an understanding and respect among religions so that such
<BR>riot won't occur..
<BR>
<BR>----------->We agree in principle, and that is a strong start. I certainly think a duty is owed to others to treat them with consideration. Going out and saying words with the sole and specific intention of starting a fight is generally wrong. I think doing so negligently is also a bad pass, but much less a foul than the former. Conversely, I think going out and hearing fighting words in everything that is said is on par with actually saying the words. Acting on such interpretation is worse yet.
<BR>
<BR>I am sorry, but an insult is never a reason to go to blows. Add further, that one does not attempt to discern the meaning and actual intent of what is taken as an insult, and blows are less valid. Finally add that the violence ends up not being directed at the speaker, but rather random people who appear to share some characteristic with the speaker, and the violence is as unjustified as violence can get.
<BR>
<BR>I am sorry but here, I can only put the blame on the rioters. You are looking at a tantrum. I agree that consideration and respect is necessary. However, for those things to be possible, one has to know that the other, will do the same. One can speak with respect and consideration only if the speaker knows that the listener will do so with the same.
<BR>
<BR>Its the old basic saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." If someone says something you find offensive, don't punch them in the nose. Instead, say "hey, that hurt. Please don't say that, and here is the reason why...". If displeasure results in violence then respect can not be given.
<BR>
<BR>Now, please don't get me wrong, I think a great many westerners need a lesson in common consideration. They will never see that fact, however, if violence is the reaction to any and all problems.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Azamin continues:
<BR>
<BR>A few years ago, the same people organized the pagent in India.. which
<BR>recieved a strong protest from women's right and hindu/muslim
<BR>organizations. As a result, the swim suit part was shifted to
<BR>Maldives.... This pagent is really manipulating womens as sex object..
<BR>but why did those who want equal rights for womens did nothing...?
<BR>(except those in India)... They're erred.... they're grooed...
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>------------->You realize, of course, that the host nation is chosen based on the previous year's winner. This is respect. Thus, India won the pagent the year prior to your example. Last year the Nigerian representative won the pagent. Both of these countries allowed participation, by law, and further accpeted the host status, by law. I will not tell any one they have to like, or even watch, the pagent. I will not tell anyone that they can not protest against the pagent if they so chose. That's freedom. As you said, in India, certain groups did not like the pagent as run, and they made their opinions known. Were there riots? Was there murder? Not as far as I know. And you know what, the pagent people made some concessions. Huh, respect, imagine that.
<BR>I am a strong supporter of a person's right to live his or her life free from infringement of any sort, other than the basic, don't hurt anyone else with what you like to do. (You like whiskey? Hey, drink up. Just don't start no fights or drive. And don't expect me to foot your medical bills, but other than that, do as you feel right.) Thus, if a woman wants to enter a beauty pagent, for whatever reason (the money, the exposure, the appreciation, whatever) then that is a choice for her to make. However, if someone says I believe it is bad and therefore you can not do it, I take exception.
<BR>
<BR>Azamin:
<BR>
<BR>I said that somehow some american
<BR>government action will gives some illfeeling to muslim.. and this was proved by the
<BR>report that the Bali bombing happen because the person was so angered by the
<BR>american government action towards muslim especially Afghans, Iraqis,
<BR>Palestinians.. etc... and its bias towards Israel... and these illfeeling will
<BR>incite more terrorist attack as they don't have other way to express it......
<BR>
<BR>------------>Let me see if I understand this. If your policy against an actor who has without question attacked you is resented by me I have a right to attack you myself. This just does not compute. I think the real crux is the last item you mention, the relationship with Israel. The Afghans, the Iragis, the Palestinians find themselves on the short end of the American policy stick because they engage in terrorism in order to acheive their ends. If they want war, how can they justifiably cry when they get it.
<BR>You say they have no other alternative, but, for example, The Palestinians were as closest to sovereignity when they were using their words, not their fists. Its a simple formula, if you engage in terror you do not get respect. If you engage in honest and good faith discussion you gain respect.
<BR>
<BR>Larry gets a word in:
<BR>
<BR>The
<BR>latest reports say the rioting claimed over 200 lives.
<BR>200 human lives, gone, all because of gross
<BR>intolerance on both sides!
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>-------------------------->I don't know. The pagent was not to be held in one of the muslim provinces (which are a minority as compared to the country as a whole). The newspaper was not even a Nigerian newspaper. The people brutaly and savagely killed were not the ones who made the statement, nor were they even supporters of the pageant itself. The rioters are an eaxmple of the type of intolerance which makes tolerance impossible. You will note that the newspaper that made the inciting statement apologized, took it back, admitted wrong. I have yet to hear of any such conduct by any rioter. In fact so far, the most I have heard was it was wrong to kill 200 random people, but you have to understand that such things will happen when the west says things offensive. This qualified admittion is nothing but a rationalization and a promise of continued unprovoked violence.
<BR>
<BR>and of course, Garry:
<BR>
<BR>I'm sure it was money, Larry. It's almost always money. The pageant
<BR>committee didn't just wake up one day and decide to hold the thing in
<BR>Nigeria. Some business person or group in Nigeria bid for or paid for or in
<BR>some other way enticed the pageant to come to Nigeria.
<BR>
<BR>-------->Yes. It was a fully sanctioned event. The decision was made as described above.
<BR>
<BR>Garry concludes:
<BR>
<BR>So while the combination of stupidity and intolerance that lead to 200
<BR>deaths in Nigeria was horrible and should be condemned, Americans need to
<BR>spend more energy doing everything they can to keep their own house in order
<BR>and not let our own intolerance, misunderstanding, and fear lead us to doing
<BR>things as a nation that our children and grand children will be ashamed of.
<BR>
<BR>-------------->Isolationism? I agree we have a lot of work to do in our own country, but I disagree that means we should close our eyes to the rest of the world. We have a lot of bad going on in our country, no doubt, but we ain't got nothing like this.
<BR>
<BR>Azamin:
<BR>
<BR>I think
<BR>the competition is an insult to women as it potraye women as sex objects to be
<BR>displayed for commercials purposes... and mostly all muslims think the same... that
<BR>why when miss world pagent was conducted in India.. women groups are protesting
<BR>the pagent and they are muslims, hindus, christian and other women...
<BR>
<BR>----------->You are certainly within your God given rights in holding that opinion, just as it is my God given right to disagree. What neither of us holds is a God given right is to come to blows over our differing opinion. We talk, we think, we consider, and then we learn and grow. That's why the protest in India had effect.
<BR>
<BR>Azamin:
<BR>
<BR>respected for her submission to God but when a muslim woman do the same, she was
<BR>branded as being oppressed...?
<BR>2. Why when a western woman stay at home to look after the children, she
<BR>was regarded as sacrificed for her family but when a muslim woman do the same
<BR>thing, she need to be libertised....?
<BR>
<BR>------------->Simply put, because they have a choice as to which they would like for themselves.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Azamin forwards:
<BR>
<BR>I apologize for going off-topic on this one, but I feel it is
<BR>necessary that I address this topic:
<BR>
<BR> Don't believe what you read in the "news" media about Iraq.
<BR>
<BR>----------------->Or this e-mail
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>continues:
<BR>
<BR>At the moment,they are doing everything in their power to whip up support
<BR>for an unjustified and entirely unprovoked attack against this small,
<BR>(now) poor and crippled middle eastern nation; a nation that has been
<BR>already devastated by more than 10 years of murderous sanctions,
<BR>resutling in a estimated million-plus deathes of its population, most
<BR>of them women and childen.
<BR>
<BR>------------------------->Is the US's war against terror unjust? If the answer is no then the next question is: Does Iraq engage in terrorist activity, in any form? If the answer is yes, then the looming war is justified. I do believe fighting against the terrorist is a just cause. I further believe that Iraq is involved in terrorsit activity from top to bottom. From my ability to analyze action against Iraq has thus far been justified. Loading a sentence with emotionally charged words may sound good, but it certainly does not make truth. Who has made the estimates above? How were the connection between sanction and death arived at? Iraq is not a poor nation. The vast throngs of its underpriviledged are poor, but not the country itself. And certainly not its leader and his agents.
<BR>
<BR>continues:
<BR>
<BR>The goal is to portray the Iraqi people as
<BR>perpetual victims of a tyrannical regime "in need" of our help. It is
<BR>a ploy both to whip up support for war amongst the average westerner,
<BR>and to soften the resolve of those opposed to the idea of another
<BR>military invasion against this defenseless nation.
<BR>
<BR>-------->Umm, the people of Iraq's welfare is not the impetus of this current beef at all. Hopefully, they will be able to get out of the way when (hopefully, if) things go down. This is about going after the next biggest link in the terrorist chain. Saddam has been doing his thing for years, and now, the terrorists, have found that the US has chosen to act in response to being attacked. Of course Saddam doesn't like it.
<BR>And by the way, a great great great many Iraqis have been killed by Saddam, and his agents. Iraq is not defenseless. Nor is it offenseless. The thing is that compared to the US anybody is basically defenseless, or offenseless. Is the US supposed to allow attacks on her person go unanswered simply because she has the power to take all comers. I think not. You realize, of course, that Iraq routinely fires missles on American airplanes patroling on the UN's behalf. If defenseless, why such conduct?
<BR>
<BR>continues:
<BR>
<BR>If the west gets
<BR>its way, there will merely substitute one dictatorial government for
<BR>another. The Iraqi people will be no better off in a post-Saddam
<BR>world. This is about oil and geo-politics not about the rights of a
<BR>people, or about ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction.
<BR>Bush, blair and company are the weapon of mass destruction, not
<BR>Saddam. A war will only result in more misery and hardship being
<BR>inflicted on the average Iraqi.
<BR>
<BR>----------------->Speculation and short sighted vision. This is exclusively about fighting terrorism. The average Iraqi must either rid themselves of their terrorist leader or expect to have him removed. If he were just a dictator, say like King Hussein, there would be no need to remove him. Its his extracurricular activities which got him in trouble. I truly hope that Iraqis don't have to suffer. Sadly, the situation looks like they may have to.
<BR>
<BR>Ari</FONT></HTML>
--part1_9d.328990ef.2b28ce1c_boundary--