If a vastly more powerful invading force occupies your country for years and kills of thousands of your people and then stamps down on your right to free speech for example, how far would you go to get your right to free speech back? or would you simply do nothing and take it?

every culture holds something important that might not neccesarily be important to other cultures, but it must be respected just the same, especially if you are occupying the country of said culture

Comparing the bible to the koran is not quite accurate. The koran is more important to a muslim than a bible is to a christian.

most afgans are illiterate and lack education, this is not to excuse their violence but it does explain their reactions, at least in part.

What i want to know is what was going through te heads of those who burned the korans in the first place? what did they think would happen? after 10 years occupying the country the western forces should have a better idea on how to act...

I didn't know abortions for gender reasons were actually illegal? What are the arguments against it? Why should the woman be denied the right to control over her body for some issues but not for others?

(Tho maybe I'm missing something here)

speaking as a true american as portrayed by the Islamic extremists ... looks like you and the terrorists both agree on something afterall

Though you understand simply knocking off Assad with no plan for the aftermath would just lead to chaos, Iraq all over again. THAT is what al qauda want and thrive in. There has to be an orderly and controlled transfer of power. Problem is that right now there is no clear alternative to hand the power to

I may be wrong here but I had heard that Russia and Syria are allies and have close ties. Russia is simply standing up for their ally. Russia also claims that direct military intervention would cause more harm as no one has a clear idea on who the rebels are and what they stand for, aside from over throwing Assad. Russia had said that they can talk Assad out of the ongoing violence though so far they have clearly been unsuccessful.
I have no doubt there are behind-the-curtain deals taking place but is this not the case for any international crisis?

As for why China vetoed, I don't know. Because they can?

The violence in Syria is terrible, sure, but it is a different case compared to Libya.

For one, Syria is more militarily powerful than Libya and would cause some damage on whoever attacked.

Also, Syria has many religious and other minorities which was protected by the secular Asad regime. The fear being that once the opposing side gain power they could usher in an Islmasist government who would not look too kindly on their non-muslim minorities, many of whom work for Assad and are throwing in their lot with him and oppose the uprising.

Something has to be done to stop the violence of course, and america and the west have the most capable military if action is called for. The arab league will need to have a mjor presence in this case tho and have their troops on the ground so as it wont look like another 'western regime change'
As spiderman says, 'with power comes responsibility'

Could America and western Europe actually afford to go to war with Iran? Obviously if Iran got nuclear weapons that would be bad and more than likely Israel would strike first and drag its allies into the fight but would the conflict not cripple the west economically?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16163087

"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has raised the Palestinian flag above a UN agency for the first time.

Mr Abbas said he hoped Unesco's admission of Palestine was the beginning of international recognition.

The Palestinians were admitted into the UN's cultural, education and science organisation in October, despite strong opposition from the US and Israel."

Well, its certainly a step. Whether its a step foreward or backwards remains to be seen.

Yup. And on this thread the attacks aren't just against muslims but the entire arab people. The hypcrisy is incredible but sadly predictable. There are violent people with violent views on every side. Its a sad old world we live in

Jew hate = bad

Muslim hate = good?

the arabs hate the Jews?? seriously?? you have no problem with racial generalisations and slurs?

if anyone had swaped 'Jew' for 'arab' in your statement you would be accusing them of anti-semitism, rightly so, yet racial slurs against arabs are acceptable?

should i be surprised?

And anyone care to defend's Israel's illegal settlement building on palestininan land? Illegal enough for other nations to speak out against it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/21/israeli-settlements-obama-un-resolution

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801

So the palestinians are only fighting because of Islam? (there have been posts in this thread ealier criticising Jew-bashing and intolerance, and rightly so, and yet there is no problem with 'muslim-bashing' and intolerance ... can no one see the utter hypocrisy here?)

Anyway, i would have thought the palestinians would have been rather more upset about the ilegal settlements on their lands. Ilegal enough for other countries to condemn it.
Hamas have a lot to answer for, thats true, suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks are unjustifiable but so is the illegal settlements built on palestinian land by the Israeli government.

I do not think Israel should cease to exsist but both sides involved have a lot more they could do if they want peace

I assume you were opposed to the palestinian's bid for nationhood earlier in the year?

so you disagree with Spiderman and his 'with power comes responsiblity'?

(just to state my personal stance, I believe both Hamas and Israel have done much wrong to each other and both are to blame for the violence. the more violence there is the more the other side retaliates and the more the other side counter-retaliates and on and on and on)



so do you believe that Islam and ONLY Islam and NOTHING else is to blame for the palestinian's attacks against Israel? Do they have NO other reason to fight?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16151424

More than 5,000 people are now believed to have been killed in the uprising in Syria, the UN's top human rights official has said.

Navi Pillay told a closed session of the Security Council that 14,000 people are believed to have been arrested and 12,400 fled to neighbouring countries.




so the situation in the syria is getting worse. I want your thoughts and oppinions on the matter; what should the rest of the world do? Intervene like Libya? Or leave them to it and see what happens once the dust settles?

Yeah, the Muslim Brotherhood has a violent past but violence is not all they are about http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12313405

I am in no way trying to justify their violence, very few acts of violence is truly justifiable, I just believe that those without sin should cast the first stone. I can't think of any government or counrty that has caused violence and harm against another, the MB are no different.

Now, if the MB had grabed power through violence without the backing of the people then I would have a problem with that and would support intervention (i fully supported the Libyan intervention) However, the MB came to power through democratic process. Other countries may have a problem with the decision of the Egyption people but does any other country have a right to oppose it? (a democratic decision was opposed in Iran once and that didn't turn out too well)

The egyption people fought and died for democracy, they deserve the right to vote into power whoever they want. No country has to like their decision but all countries must respect it

Isn't the Muslim Brotherhood the more moderate islamic party in Egypt?

I am looking for a good collection of short stories to read and was wondering if there are any anthologies or collections out there that people recommend? Genre doesn't really matter, I'm just looking for some good stories.

So, any suggestions? I'm all ears ... well, eyes

Thanks

... the libya intervention went well and sarkozy had a main role, just sayin'