This is agreat example of why Islamic Terrorists don't duck with China

know1

Cosmo wrote:

...
Then, they (the Chinese) should be targeted by the people they are oppressing.
And as for 'Spreading Chinese', when you start to see McWang Burgers cropping up in Tehran... that's when you'll start to see suicide car bombs in Beijing.

There's a pretty big difference between opening a business somewhere (like McDonald's) and bombing people. One is perfectly fine, the other is perfectly not.

Kann

know1 wrote:

There's a pretty big difference between opening a business somewhere (like McDonald's) and bombing people. One is perfectly fine, the other is perfectly not.

I know this will get me a lot of shit, but opening a business is not always perfectly fine.
McDonalds, for example, is like coke representative of american culture abroad, it practises economical wars. Mcdonalds opens in a city and through far superior moneypower (marketing and such) it kills off the local competition and starts feeding a large part of the younger population. And with these businesses comes a part of the american culture : the better side (search of more freedoms for example) as well as the other side.
Opening the business in itself is not necessarily a bad idea but the means used to achieve it and the actions dones by these businesses can sometimes do a lot of wrongs.
For example, nike facturies in asia do give out jobs but don't you think some people there feel resentment towards nike for the work conditions? Or the manufacturing of coca cola in india, which lets indians deal with the pollution? It may seem normal to you but to the local population this can sometimes be seen as dramatic aggressions.

know1

Kann wrote:

I know this will get me a lot of shit, but opening a business is not always perfectly fine.
McDonalds, for example, is like coke representative of american culture abroad, it practises economical wars. Mcdonalds opens in a city and through far superior moneypower (marketing and such) it kills off the local competition and starts feeding a large part of the younger population. And with these businesses comes a part of the american culture : the better side (search of more freedoms for example) as well as the other side.
Opening the business in itself is not necessarily a bad idea but the means used to achieve it and the actions dones by these businesses can sometimes do a lot of wrongs.

So you pass laws to right the supposed wrongs caused by these businesses. You don't bomb people.

Kann wrote:

For example, nike facturies in asia do give out jobs but don't you think some people there feel resentment towards nike for the work conditions? Or the manufacturing of coca cola in india, which lets indians deal with the pollution? It may seem normal to you but to the local population this can sometimes be seen as dramatic aggressions.

So why does the local population choose to work there or permit the pollution, etc.? I'm going to assume because working there is better than the alternative and the money it brings in overrides the pollution. I guess it really doesn't do much good to have no pollution if you're starving to death.

Kann

know1 wrote:

So you pass laws to right the supposed wrongs caused by these businesses. You don't bomb people.

So why does the local population choose to work there or permit the pollution, etc.? I'm going to assume because working there is better than the alternative and the money it brings in overrides the pollution. I guess it really doesn't do much good to have no pollution if you're starving to death.

I'm not sure I'll be able to express myself clearly enough. The population in middle eastern countries have corrupt dictatorial governments that they are not necessarily happy with. The laws voted are not for the best interests of the population but for the interest of government officials and the major ally of the country which (for a few countries in the region) is the us. This is typically the type of actions that religious leaders use to manipulate the public opinion and discredit the government (a good example of that is the muslim brothers in egypt for instance).
As for : dying of hunger vs modern child slavery or dying of hunger vs high level pollution, your point does not make sense. Of course these people need to eat, but does it make that ok for coke to pollute clean water? Or does nike have not enough money to employ adult workers (and pay them correctly)?
The point was that opening a business is not as innocent as you pointed out. I'm not saying bombing civilians is better, but the resentment in these regions is always fueled by something.

know1

Kann wrote:

I'm not sure I'll be able to express myself clearly enough. The population in middle eastern countries have corrupt dictatorial governments that they are not necessarily happy with. The laws voted are not for the best interests of the population but for the interest of government officials and the major ally of the country which (for a few countries in the region) is the us. This is typically the type of actions that religious leaders use to manipulate the public opinion and discredit the government (a good example of that is the muslim brothers in egypt for instance).
As for : dying of hunger vs modern child slavery or dying of hunger vs high level pollution, your point does not make sense. Of course these people need to eat, but does it make that ok for coke to pollute clean water? Or does nike have not enough money to employ adult workers (and pay them correctly)?
The point was that opening a business is not as innocent as you pointed out. I'm not saying bombing civilians is better, but the resentment in these regions is always fueled by something.

Bombing other people is indefensible.

As far as opening businesses in developing countries goes, I think it's a form of oppression to deny them the opportunity to develop by forbidding businesses to open there just because they have less stringent rules for pollution and labor laws. Let the local government decide what is acceptable.

ArmsinaV

Kann wrote:

I'm not sure I'll be able to express myself clearly enough. The population in middle eastern countries have corrupt dictatorial governments that they are not necessarily happy with. The laws voted are not for the best interests of the population but for the interest of government officials and the major ally of the country which (for a few countries in the region) is the us. This is typically the type of actions that religious leaders use to manipulate the public opinion and discredit the government (a good example of that is the muslim brothers in egypt for instance).
As for : dying of hunger vs modern child slavery or dying of hunger vs high level pollution, your point does not make sense. Of course these people need to eat, but does it make that ok for coke to pollute clean water? Or does nike have not enough money to employ adult workers (and pay them correctly)?
The point was that opening a business is not as innocent as you pointed out. I'm not saying bombing civilians is better, but the resentment in these regions is always fueled by something.

Why are you mixing "dictatorial governments" in the middle east and India? And, India is one of the most polluted countries in the world, largely because of what Indians put in the air. Auto emissions account for the vast majority of the overall pollution in the country in areas like New Dehli. The problems with Coke pale in comparison.

Kann

know1 wrote:

Bombing other people is indefensible.

As far as opening businesses in developing countries goes, I think it's a form of oppression to deny them the opportunity to develop by forbidding businesses to open there just because they have less stringent rules for pollution and labor laws. Let the local government decide what is acceptable.

I'm not willing to forbid anything, I'm just saying that the way business is done today pisses off some of the local population. The question was if opening a mcdonalds in teheran that innocent of an action : in my opinion, it's not.

ArmsinaV wrote:

Why are you mixing "dictatorial governments" in the middle east and what goes on there with India? And, India is one of the most polluted countries in the world, largely because of what Indians put in the air. Auto emissions account for the vast majority of the overall pollution in the country in areas like New Dehli. The problems with Coke pale in comparison.

India was an example of what western corporation can do outside their borders.
My point (I guess I wasn't clear enough) is that whatever the level of wrong doings of a foreign business the point is : it brings problems to the local population for foreign interests. This will not please everyone in the country and create distrust for : the country from which the business comes from, the government that allowed this and the authorities who don't care about all of this.

ArmsinaV

A side note is that Iranian TV/Media often depict major US corporations as massive villains with anti-Islamic agendas. It's all blatantly false but kind of funny.

For example, I saw one spot that emphasized how pro-Israel Pepsi is, sending money to fund Israeli troops, wanting to destroy Iran, etc. It claimed that Pepsi stands for, Put Every Penny to Support Israel, or some such acronym.

NCfan

mammasan wrote:

China will not even have to launch a single missile or shoot a single bullet to defeat us. All it will have to do is pull all the US currency it has out of our banks and our economy will fucking crumble.

And so would theirs.

NCfan

Got to say I'm pretty surprised at some of the comments here. Many of you keep talking about "flawed logic" becuase suicide bombers do not fear death. I agree, they do not fear death, but they do fear the denial or the failure of "the will of Allah" on this Earth.

Consideringi jihadist are the only ones "doing their true duty" for this purpose, it would be a realy fuck up for them if they united the world against there cause. That's all I'm trying to say, and I can't imagine how you could infer something else...

Also, there is no denying that many Muslims have protested, including burning their own towns and even murdered becuase of Rushdie, French Opera's, Eurpopean cartoons of Mohamad, flushed Korans at Guantanomo, etc. and etc...

This is a clash of religious ideology versus liberal societies. The Chinese are just as much to blame as the Americans are for globalization and multi-national firms spreading their business and influence across the globe. You are kidding yourself if you do not think there are thousands of Chinese consumer goods, everything from cars to clothing circulating through the Middle East today.

China is riding the coatails of the US. We are taking all of the heat, while China reaps the benefits in our shadow. It's the US Navy that protects the shipping lanes of the Middle East and the Malaccan straits. And so it is the US that is scorned for "spreading our influence" beyond our borders - but dozens of countries benefit from our use of power to ensure the global world order....

There is no denying that many of our ventures into the Middle East have been controversial, but that is no reason to single out the US when it is indeed most of the industrialized world who benefits from our action.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe China supported the war against Saddam in 1991 - they may have even sent troops - I'm not sure. But that was just as much a war to secure Kuwaiti oil as the current war is to do the same for Iraq.

China is surging ahead at full speed to surpass the United States as the largest economy on Earth. Who do you think they trade with? Only Western countries?

Does everybody suppose that Chia is being Mr. nice guy right now and as soon as their influence and military trumps that of the US, they will not exert their influence on trade agreements and the security of natural resources beyond their borders???

If America is the biggest Enemy of Jihadist today, surely China will be their enemy of tomorrow. They do not like the godless Chinese any more than the mostly Chistian US - it's just that right now their war is being waged and being won mostly through propaganda and manipulation of the media.

Imagine a bomb going off in Hong Kong, killing thousands of civillians as they celebrated the anniversary of the British handover recently. All of a sudden, the policies of the US don't look as bad to the Chinese. Get it???

know1

Kann wrote:

I'm not willing to forbid anything, I'm just saying that the way business is done today pisses off some of the local population. The question was if opening a mcdonalds in teheran that innocent of an action : in my opinion, it's not.

In that example, the Tehranians' beef (pun intended) should be with the local government that allowed it to open rather than with some generic Americans who have nothing to do with it.

OutOfBreath

Sure, and you are free to your opinion of future events.

However, this thread was about you asserting that because the chinese are "badasses" and execute a bureaucrat, they are not a target for islamist terrorists. If what you wanted to say was what you said in the last post, you used a very lame case to get you there.

Now, if chinese soldiers with chinese flags were occupying and meddling in the middle east tot he degree that the US/Europe does, they would also get targetted. They don't, so they aren't. And for the islamists, they have more than enough with the enemy of today to worry about the enemy tomorrow. Ths US gets a lot of grief, but the US has also involved itself heavily in the region to secure the flow of oil. It is the biggest and most blatant of enemies in the islamists' eyes, hence drawing most of the flak.

And the clash going on is much more complex and multifaceted than religious vs liberal societies. The islamists don't speak for the region, and the US does not speak for the west. There are no real front between two sides, there is a lot of different struggles going on at once between various groups and interests. The best way to progress in my view would be to scrap the notion of "clash of civilizations" as it too easily create the very conflict it describes if it weren't there before, and because it's a gross simplification, and at times an attempt to pit two enemy civilizations always at war and always have been.

Peace
Dan

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

Got to say I'm pretty surprised at some of the comments here. Many of you keep talking about "flawed logic" becuase suicide bombers do not fear death. I agree, they do not fear death, but they do fear the denial or the failure of "the will of Allah" on this Earth.

Consideringi jihadist are the only ones "doing their true duty" for this purpose, it would be a realy fuck up for them if they united the world against there cause. That's all I'm trying to say, and I can't imagine how you could infer something else...

Also, there is no denying that many Muslims have protested, including burning their own towns and even murdered becuase of Rushdie, French Opera's, Eurpopean cartoons of Mohamad, flushed Korans at Guantanomo, etc. and etc...

This is a clash of religious ideology versus liberal societies. The Chinese are just as much to blame as the Americans are for globalization and multi-national firms spreading their business and influence across the globe. You are kidding yourself if you do not think there are thousands of Chinese consumer goods, everything from cars to clothing circulating through the Middle East today.

China is riding the coatails of the US. We are taking all of the heat, while China reaps the benefits in our shadow. It's the US Navy that protects the shipping lanes of the Middle East and the Malaccan straits. And so it is the US that is scorned for "spreading our influence" beyond our borders - but dozens of countries benefit from our use of power to ensure the global world order....

There is no denying that many of our ventures into the Middle East have been controversial, but that is no reason to single out the US when it is indeed most of the industrialized world who benefits from our action.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe China supported the war against Saddam in 1991 - they may have even sent troops - I'm not sure. But that was just as much a war to secure Kuwaiti oil as the current war is to do the same for Iraq.

China is surging ahead at full speed to surpass the United States as the largest economy on Earth. Who do you think they trade with? Only Western countries?

Does everybody suppose that Chia is being Mr. nice guy right now and as soon as their influence and military trumps that of the US, they will not exert their influence on trade agreements and the security of natural resources beyond their borders???

If America is the biggest Enemy of Jihadist today, surely China will be their enemy of tomorrow. They do not like the godless Chinese any more than the mostly Chistian US - it's just that right now their war is being waged and being won mostly through propaganda and manipulation of the media.

Imagine a bomb going off in Hong Kong, killing thousands of civillians as they celebrated the anniversary of the British handover recently. All of a sudden, the policies of the US don't look as bad to the Chinese. Get it???

So, what then is the reason that Islamic Terrorists don't "duck" with China? Is it because they kill people or is it because it isn't convenient for them yet? If it's the first, are you suggesting we should act more like China?

Do Islamic Terrorists own the media somehow, considering they are capable of manipulating it? Is Osama Bin Laden being lionized by our nefarious, treasonous news?

Other than implying we should turn the entire region into a glass parking lot, what are you trying to say?

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

There's a pretty big difference between opening a business somewhere (like McDonald's) and bombing people. One is perfectly fine, the other is perfectly not.

...
Please... don't take everything I say literally... I'm more of a figuratively speaking kind of guy.
What I am saying is when the Chinese expect the Middle East to look more like China than the Middle East... when the Chinese expect the Middle Easterners to embrace the Chinese style of living... when Chinese companies line the streets of Middle Eastern cities... THEN, you will see Islamic Fundamentalists focus their crosshairs on China.
We should try setting up Middle Eastern businesses in the Middle East, rather than our poisonous junk food and decadent money/sexual culture over there. THAT'S how you WIN... you win the hearts and minds of the people... instead of making the leaders of their countries richer. Build Mosques instead of McDonalds... schools instead of Starbucks.
That's the point I'm making.

Cosmo

NCfan wrote:

Got to say I'm pretty surprised at some of the comments here. Many of you keep talking about "flawed logic" becuase suicide bombers do not fear death. I agree, they do not fear death, but they do fear the denial or the failure of "the will of Allah" on this Earth.

Consideringi jihadist are the only ones "doing their true duty" for this purpose, it would be a realy fuck up for them if they united the world against there cause. That's all I'm trying to say, and I can't imagine how you could infer something else...

Also, there is no denying that many Muslims have protested, including burning their own towns and even murdered becuase of Rushdie, French Opera's, Eurpopean cartoons of Mohamad, flushed Korans at Guantanomo, etc. and etc...

This is a clash of religious ideology versus liberal societies. The Chinese are just as much to blame as the Americans are for globalization and multi-national firms spreading their business and influence across the globe. You are kidding yourself if you do not think there are thousands of Chinese consumer goods, everything from cars to clothing circulating through the Middle East today.

China is riding the coatails of the US. We are taking all of the heat, while China reaps the benefits in our shadow. It's the US Navy that protects the shipping lanes of the Middle East and the Malaccan straits. And so it is the US that is scorned for "spreading our influence" beyond our borders - but dozens of countries benefit from our use of power to ensure the global world order....

There is no denying that many of our ventures into the Middle East have been controversial, but that is no reason to single out the US when it is indeed most of the industrialized world who benefits from our action.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe China supported the war against Saddam in 1991 - they may have even sent troops - I'm not sure. But that was just as much a war to secure Kuwaiti oil as the current war is to do the same for Iraq.

China is surging ahead at full speed to surpass the United States as the largest economy on Earth. Who do you think they trade with? Only Western countries?

Does everybody suppose that Chia is being Mr. nice guy right now and as soon as their influence and military trumps that of the US, they will not exert their influence on trade agreements and the security of natural resources beyond their borders???

If America is the biggest Enemy of Jihadist today, surely China will be their enemy of tomorrow. They do not like the godless Chinese any more than the mostly Chistian US - it's just that right now their war is being waged and being won mostly through propaganda and manipulation of the media.

Imagine a bomb going off in Hong Kong, killing thousands of civillians as they celebrated the anniversary of the British handover recently. All of a sudden, the policies of the US don't look as bad to the Chinese. Get it???

...
You completely miss the point...
RIGHT NOW... what does China do?
Answer: They buy the fucking oil and say, "Gracias". They are NOT involved with influencing Middle Eastern Culture or involved with their political-religious bullshit... they are just buying the fucking shit and taking it home.
What doe America do in the Middle East?
Answer: We spread our style of living in their homeland. If anything needs to change over there... it's the manner in which we conduct ourselves in their homeland.
Maybe we should;
A. Just buy the fucking oil and say, "Gracias". And/Or...
B. Help them build their countries the way they want to... not to expand American owned companies and brand names. Help them develop business owned and run by them... not us.
We need to let them figure this shit out and quit trying to make them like us.