Katra > wrote in
:

>> I suppose that by adding injury to insult you'll make things a
>> lot better. Yes, that's a plan. Instead of treating them like
>> human beings, let's not.
>
> If they don't act like human beings, why should we treat them as
> such? If they acted like human beings, we'd have no need for this
> discussion!

The point is that they *are* human beings and the only person you
demean with this discourse is yourself. Just as a certain central
European nation before, you won't make any friends by threatening to
sterilize entire populations on the flimsy grounds that YOU
personally do not like how they live.

> There are some civilized ones, but they don't live in the
> mid-east.

Well, as I've read posted by another, it doesn't matter where they
live, they should be returned to the Middle East. So, darned if you
do and darned if you don't, if you're swarthy skinned, eh?. What
about non-swarthy European Muslims? What about Black Muslims?

> Even prisoners here in the US lose all of their civil rights.

And where does this fit in? Are you suggesting that Muslims outside
the Middle East are prisoners without civil rights? There are
overarching documents that are more fundamental that US civil rights,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for one, which the US
agreed to in 1948 which states in its first articles:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no
distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to
which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-
governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

[...]

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for
any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.

That cuts both ways. This means you can't use violence by others as
a justification for violence by yourself and those you elect? By the
way, the Universal Declaration was drafted by a Canadian.

http://www.johnhumphreycentre.org/

> As long as there are Arab muslims, we will never have a chance in
> hell of world peace!

And the way you're going about it, you're going to make damned sure
it doesn't happen, whether that's what you want to achieve or not.

> I don't feel good about my viewpoint, but I'm a realist.

How is elaborating a complex plan to eliminate millions of people
being a realist? If you were a realist, you would face the fact that
the problems stem from abuse by western powers and their toadies
(including the House of Saud and Saddam Husayn) and develop plans to
correct it, redressing the wrongs that have been done and restoring
Islam to dignity. It would be better, a realist would say, to have
them as friends than enemies.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements
of any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of
the morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)