GameBanshee Forums

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2001 10:41 pm**

Originally posted by at99:
I think this thread is becoming better. I have said stuff before in other threads hoping for a response. People are only willing to respond to either something superficial or when angry at something.

Where's the arguments to say that life in mid-eastern countries is as free as the west.
Do these countries produce as much as west in terms of technology, scientists, sports, atrs, finance etc.

I am looking at cultures based on performance.

Just give me some deatiled facts and dont attack me personally.

Q. Who is the Co-founder of Sun Microsystems?
(The companywhich is sweeping the internet with its brainchild Java)
A. Vinod Khosla

Q. Who is the Creator of Pentium Chip? (Needs no
introduction,90% Of the today's computers run on it)
A. Vinod Dahm
Q. Who is the third richest person on the world?
A. According to the latest report on Fortune Magazine, it is Azim
Premji, CEO, Wipro. The Sultan of Brunei is at 6th position now.
Q. Who is the current president of AT & T Bell Labs? (AT & T Bell Labs is
the creator of C, C++, Unix to name a few)
A. Arun Netravalli
Q. Who is the founder and creator of Hotmail?
(Hotmail is world's No.1web based email program)
A. Sabeer Bhatia

Q. Who is the GM of Hewlett Packard?
A. Rajiv Gupta

Q. Who is the Testing Director of Windows 2000?
A. Sanjay Tejwrika

Q. Who are CEOs of the following well known companies?
Please findthe answers yourself.
AppNet
America Online (The Largest ISP in the World)
WebMethods
Lucent Technologies (Pioneer in Fiber Optics)
Proxicom
Network Solutions (The sole web domain assigner)
General Dynamics Corporation
Lazard Freres
Litton PRC
>>Columbia Capital
>>Primus Communications
>>Discovery Communications
>>Bell Atlantic
>>Cable & Wireless
>>The Motley Fool
>>Hughes Network Systems
>>Cybercash
>>MCI Worldcom
>>PSINet
>>Motorola
>>MicroStrategy
>>Equalfooting.com
>>Teligent, Inc.
>>MindBank
>>U.S. Airways
>>CIENA Corp.
>>BioNetrix
>>Net 2000 Communications
>>Computer Associates
>>SAIC
>>Startec
>>INOVA Health System
>>Cvent.com
>>Eglobe
>>Metrocall, Inc.
>>DynCorp
>>Consumer Elec. Ass'n
>>The Carlyle Group
>>Cyveillance
>>Nextel Communications
>>Fannie Mae
>>Intelsat
>>Draper Atlantic
>>Venture Fund, L.P.
>>Freddie Mac
>>Manugistics
>>Raytheon Systems Corporation
>>Spacevest
>>
>>What did you find?
>>Do you find anything common between them? Yes,
they are all Indians.

We are known as the Indian Mafia (or Internet
Mafia?). We are the wealthiest among all ethinic groups in America, even
faring better than the whites and the natives. We are the suceess story
here.

I would strongly recommend all of you to go to the web-site of:

THE INDUS ENTREPRENEURS ( <http://www.tie.org> ) [url="http://www.tie.org>"]http://www.tie.org>[/url] )>; , a
forum of old and young entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and angel
investors all from India.

There are 3.22 Million Indians in America.
38% of Doctors in America are Indians.
12% of Scientists in America are Indians.
36% of NASA employees are Indians.
34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians
28% of IBM employees are Indians
17% of INTEL employees are Indians
13% of XEROX employees are Indians
Some of these facts may be known to you.

These facts were recently published in a German Magazine which
deals with WORLD HISTORY FACTS ABOUT INDIA.

a .India never invaded any country in her last 10000 years of history.

b .India invented the Number System. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta.

c .The World's first university was established in Takshila in 700BC.
more
than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60
subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4th
century BC was one of the greatest achievements of ancient
India in the field of education.

d .Sanskrit is the mother of all the European languages.
Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software reported
in Forbes magazine, July 1987.

e .Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans.
Charaka, the father of medicine consolidated Ayurveda 2500 years
ago. Today Ayurveda is fast regaining its rightful place in our
civilization.

f .Although modern images of India often show poverty and lack of
development, India was the richest country on
earth until the time of British invasion in the early 17th Century.

g .The art of Navigation was born in the river Sindh 6000 years ago. The
very word Navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word
NAVGATIH. The word navy is also derived from Sanskrit'Nou'.

h .Bhaskaracharya calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun
hundreds of years before the astronomer
Smart.;Time taken by earth to orbit the sun: (5th century)365.258756484
days.

i .The value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana, and
he explained the concept of what is known as the
Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century long before
the European mathematicians.

j .Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India; Quadratic equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11th Century;The
largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106(10 to the power of 6)
whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 1053(10 to
the power of 53)with specific names as early as 5000 BCE during the Vedic period.
Even today, the largest used number is Tera 1012(10 to the power of 12).

k .According to the Gemological Institute of America, up until
1896, India was the only source for diamonds to the world.
i .USA based IEEE has proved what has been a
century-old suspicion in the world scientific community that the
pioneer of Wireless communication was Prof. Jagdeesh Bose and not Marconi.

m .The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra.

n .According to Saka King Rudradaman I of 150 CE a beautiful lake
called 'Sudarshana' was constructed on the hills of Raivataka during
Chandragupta Maurya's time.

o .Chess (Shataranja or AshtaPada) was invented in India.

p .Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health
scientists of his time conducted complicated surgeries like
cesareans, cataract, artificial limbs,
fractures, urinary stones and even plastic surgery and brain surgery.
Usage
of anesthesia was well known in
ancient India. Over 125 surgical equipment were used. Deep
knowledge of anatomy, physiology, etiology,embryology,digestion,
metabolism,genetics and immunity is also found in many
texts.

q .When many cultures were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000
years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu
Valley(Indus Valley Civilization)

r .The place value system, the decimal system was developed in
India in 100 BC.

QUOTES ABOUT INDIA

a . Albert Einstein said: We owe a lot to the
Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile
scientific
discovery could have been made.

b . Mark Twain said: India is the cradle of the human race,the
birthplace of human speech, the mother of history,the grandmother of
legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our valuable and most
structive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.

c . French scholar Romain Rolland said: If there
is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living
men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream
of existence,it is India.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:48 pm**

@Weasel: Impresive

Originally posted by Lazarus:
Hmmmm. If I may ... I think what this 99 dude is arguing against is the social system that many nations (around the world, I would say, not just in the middle east) have adopted. Very, very few nations have built as free and open a system as, say, the United States. Can this be viewed objectively and without regard to race or culture or ethnicity? I believe so. If a nation does not respect the rights of it's population, it is LESS GOOD than a nation that does. Take Afghanistan: it has in place a fascist dictatorship, and can objectively be said to be a worse place to live than the US. But many, many nations around the world take a half-step in the direction of Afghanistan. Pakistan, as many of us know, is currently run by a general who seized power in a coup. South Africa repressed the majority for ages, and now appears to be willing to suppress the minority instead.

Make any sense?

What rights you are talking about. Probably the American rights. You are probably analizing all cultures and the American culture from the America point of view (or concept of rights).

The Dictatorian way of govern is not bad by itself.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 4:20 am**

Err well done weazel. I was not really talking about India.
I like India it has some great religous thought.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: at99 ]

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 4:47 am**

Great i have 30 days to finish my duty as a soldier everything change.
I like read the comments but no time. So hi and goodbye.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 7:19 am**

Originally posted by at99:
And err Fable , unless you come up with some details, details, details I cant argue with you. Production is a good measure of culture output. Just ask other people as a new thread.

@at99, as I don't accept your definition of production as a value to determine the inherent "superiority" of one culture to another, why should I supply details confirming production?

And if I were you, I wouldn't appeal for support to the majority of people on this board, since they're not from the greatest "producing" nations of the world. I think they wouldn't like being regarded by you as culturally inferior to the US.

Continuing with this thread on a personal level, I might as well ask how many symphonies you've composed or novels you'rve written and what your income is, and define you as an inferior human being to Mozart, Hemingway or some horse rancher up in Idaho that's worth 5 million in US dollars. You see? It doesn't work. A value can be placed upon production--but only as a production comparative, ie, comparative GNPs. But I can't define your value but what you produce, anymore than a culture's value can be defined by its "production output."

I'd already posted examples that I think pretty well busted your "production" theory, previously. If you won't defend this theory against my examples of how such a definition is worthless, then you can either accept another definition, such as the one I suggested in my last post, or come up with a new one on your own. Your choice: defend your position with details, accept my position, or define a new one.

I guess the question is why the mid-eastern countries are 'third-world' countries. This was the term used by an Arab editor of Eqypt newspapers on BBC.

The term "third world nations" applies to nations that for a variety of reasons have not developed economic capabilities sufficient to deal with the needs of their populations. The tiny nation of the Solomon Islands, which has a miniscule GNP and virtually no exports, is not a third world nation, because its internal economy is sufficient to meet the needs of its very small population. India is a third world nation, because, despite its enormous GNP, export rate, etc, it has not been able to resolve basic issues of health care, grinding poverty, poor infrastructure, etc. As you can see from these examples, being a third world nation has nothing pejorative attached to it. It's simply a condition of current life.

Every culture has its good points and bad. And it is not my intention to put people down for the sake of it. I dont believe that you are an inferior human.I am just probing to see how other nationalities think.

Your first sentence flies in the face of what you've posted before; if you mean it, perhaps you can list some of the good points, let's say, that you believe exist in Arabic culture. I think that would go a long way to showing people that you were just being provocative, rather than a bigot. It's worth a shot.

One other thing. When you refer to a specific culture, are you meaning Arabic, MidEastern, Mesopotamian, Islamic, Afghanistanian, or Pashtun culture? I'm not being facetious. I need to know which you're denigrating, whatever thee reasons may be. Thanks.

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:23 am**

Originally posted by fable:
@Lazarus, with respect, you are judging entire nations as good or bad in one breath, then speaking of objectivity in the next. We are all members of a given culture and series of subcultures, whatever those may be, and there's no way to achieve objectivity, as a result.

I disagree. I very much believe that objectivity IS achieveable. If not, all of our discussions are quite useless, aren't they? If neither you nor I can relate our arguments to REALITY (and thus achieve objectivity), then we are indeed doomed to neverending misunderstanding and confusion. However, you make full use of historical FACTS in your arguments, and I will do the same, and as long as we do not close our eyes to the truth or falsity of these facts, we should be able to rationally and objectively discuss these matters.

Consider: you speak of the US social system as "free" and "fair." Yet until the 20th century, it was demonstrably unfree and unfair to all but white males over the age of 21. Women had no vote, and no rights. Until the 1960s, it was again unfree to blacks, who had the system rigged against them to permit no vote, and regular discrimination in housing, education, etc.

It is interesting that your arguments against the fairness of the US system are all based on the PAST. Indeed, no nation on Earth has a spotless history, but we live in the present. One must look at current circumstances, and judge accordingly. Also, I do not think that my post described the US system as "fair," as you indicate (though I believe that it is). It is an interesting Freudian slip on your part. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that you use the term "demonstrably" to describe the unfair US system. Are you saying that YOU can use facts and be objective about this issue, but that any facts and ideas that I have are simply unobjective and biased?

So was it always free and fair? Why, yes, to those who could partake freely of it: of minority until recently.

Today, there are still many who would say the US still has a very unequal social system, in which people are subject to spot strip searches, car searches, and ID checks because they visibly belong to minorities or are poor. The shutting down of national legal services for the poor all over the US during the Reagan administration was demonstrably not a gesture of fairness, either.

Oh that big, bad Reagan! You take him as an indication of unfairness (again, my post never brought up the issue of "fair"); and, you again use the term "demonstrably." So can facts be viewed objectively or not? Frankly, my memory does not reach back into the Reagan era, so I won't comment on the specific. I will say that you are missing the essentials of US government and of my post. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are, DEMONSTRABLY, the most sophisticated and enduring political documents ever written. What I am saying in my post is that we must look to the kinds of governments that people are creating, and judge those governments accordingly. China has a bad government; the Taliban is a bad government. I, unlike (maybe) this 99 guy, am NOT saying that these governments are inevitably bound up with the people that create them. The place a person is born, and the color of their skin are superficial nothings BECAUSE they cannot be altered by human volition; however, a government CAN be changed. If you want to relate people to government, this is how I would do it: to the extent a person supports a GOOD government, they are doing the right thing; to the extent that they support an EVIL government, they are doing an evil thing. (Need I bring up the tired old argument of the Nazis?)

Many would justifiably point to the US' past, built (as were the UK's, France's, the Soviet's, etc) on the back of other nations' economies, which were essentially broken for raw materials to feed American families and finished goods productions.

That is worth another discussion entirely. I am a big ol' fan of free trade.

No, I'm not arguing that the US is unfair or unfree--but I do think that it can be shown there are different ways of looking at this record. It's not one that can be viewed objectively, because there are too many aspects, and because the viewer is always subjective.

Uh, you certainly SEEM to be arguing that the US is unfree and unfair! And what are we doing but objectively arguing?

As far as Afghanistan goes, until the 1970s it was a relatively peaceful place of urban areas and desert nomads. Given the extreme aridity of much of the soil, the terrible climate, the mixture of very different societies and the absence of foreign investment, I would say that what they'd achieved amounted almost to a miracle, under the circumstances.

Again, I'm not talking about the past here, and Afghanistan's past may be very noble and worthy. I am talking about the Taliban. They are DEMONSTRABLY, OBJECTIVELY, evil.

My main point is simply this: don't let people tell you that it is racism to discuss governments and, yes, even societies (one could call Nazi Germany a society, couldn't one?). We MUST discuss these issues - rationally and obectively if we ever wish to see an improvement for all peoples around the world.

Also, fable, you missed my response to your post back on page three of this thread. I commented on your bit about governments, but you seemed more interested in tearing 99 a new one. Let me know your thoughts.

Lastly, I am trying this multiple quote break-out thing for the first time. I hope it works!

Gott go. Sorry. I'll check in tomorrow around this time for further discussion. OH! Also, I can't help but say: @Weasel: My point exactly! Look at all those PEOPLE (individuals) who said to themselves: "well, I may have been born in India, and I may think India is a great place, but I can make good money in a nice, free, capitalistic nationa like the US. I'm outta here!" The US gives people freedom and opportunity, and that is a beautiful thing.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:39 am**

@lazurss- we can't really say any one group is evil.
Bush does not call bin laden by his name, but as "the evil ones" and "we must destroy the great evil".
He's making it seem like Lord of the Rings or something.
"And the lord of Mordor came out. The great evil. One must not mention his name for it is a curse by itself. The forces of good men of Gondor and the horsemen of Rohan and the elves of the north will join to fight the forces of evil, etc. "

He's making it like some fantasy book.
They call the US evil, we call them evil. Yes i agreee what they did was evil, but calling anybody evil is incorrect.
They call the US evil for leaving them in suc a bad state.
nothing, excpet a few people are evil and good. You can't call the US good, they have racist police that arrest kill any young black males they see, here in New York City and New Jersey.
IN D&D terms you could the majority of countires are LN.

I call a person evil because they broke my tennis racket.
They call me evil because i took their money.
It goes either way.

@Weasel- Niiice. Great quote, thanks!

@at99- How can you even try to start a argument if oyu have no clue about these people.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:11 am**

Originally posted by at99:
Where's the arguments to say that life in mid-eastern countries is as free as the west.
Do these countries produce as much as west in terms of technology, scientists, sports, atrs, finance etc.

I am looking at cultures based on performance.

Production is a good measure of culture output. Just ask other people as a new thread.

I guess the question is why the mid-eastern countries are 'third-world' countries. This was the term used by an Arab editor of Eqypt newspapers on BBC.

at99, explain to me how the production factors you mention are a measure of the quality of a culture? Please also explain why you don't list other factors than production, factors like health, happiness of the people living there, criminality, justice, etc.

You have listed a set of factors that you personally think are good measures of a culture, and you seem to expect others to agree with this. You also try to fund your beliefs by saying "just ask other people", and as you well understand, this is not a valid fundation.

I don't agree at all with your factors, if I were to make a list of factors for evaluating a culture, my list would look totally different from yours. Since I don't agree with your measurement method, I don't agree with your conclusion. I think your factors are arbitratrary and subjective, and I also think your reasoning is immoral. It seems you are following a "the stronger is always the better" idealogy, and that is IMO an immoral philosophy.
May I ask you, why do you think Libanon is producing less scientists and less athletes that the US?

You mention that some of the Middle East coutries are "third world" countries. Indeed, some of them might be and some of them are definitely development countries. Please explain to me: Why is one country a development courtry and another country is very rich? Is this because the rich country has a better culture than the poor country?

Are you familiar with the term Social Darwinism. (It has nothing to do with Darwin, it's a sociologic ideology for viewing socioeconomic class differences.)

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:54 am**

Lazarus writes:
I very much believe that objectivity IS achieveable. If not, all of our discussions are quite useless, aren't they? If neither you nor I can relate our arguments to REALITY (and thus achieve objectivity), then we are indeed doomed to neverending misunderstanding and confusion. However, you make full use of historical FACTS in your arguments, and I will do the same...

Two points. First, to adequately and reasonably judge a culture requires a knowledge in detail about that culture. This means a host of facts that looks at the conditions surrounding the culture, where it is, and where it came from (metaphorically--well, sometimes, literally as well

). Then we get into selecting facts according to what each of us regard as the patterns of greatest importance--in short, selection of facts both informs and determines our opinions. In so far as "facts" alone are used, four people arguing four opposing views could all be considered "objective."

Second, ideas are signs. Each idea has a host of associations attached to it, some of which are emotionally charged. No idea is in my opinion ultimately free from some subjective bias. This doesn't eliminate the use of facts as a tool for conversation and the gathering of knowledge. It only means that facts (along with my first point, above) have their inherent limitations, and that even in the best, broadest, and most cogently argued group of facts, there are elements that are subjective and personal.

Including this series of remarks.

Them's my opinion of objectivity/subjectivity, gratis.

It is interesting that your arguments against the fairness of the US system are all based on the PAST.

Um, they aren't. In fact, you quoted me a bit further down, offering a criticism from some quarters of current US freedom and fairness.

Besides, you can't judge a culture by the actions it's taken in the last twenty-five years. We'd be revising our views of what's good, bad and ugly constantly.

Indeed, no nation on Earth has a spotless history, but we live in the present. One must look at current circumstances, and judge accordingly. Also, I do not think that my post described the US system as "fair," as you indicate (though I believe that it is). It is an interesting Freudian slip on your part.

I won't get into a defense/attack argument with you concerning the US. Had I known how much it might annoy you, I would have chosen an example from another culture, simply to promote clarity in our discussion. That example seems to get in the way of things, although I believe it is appropriate enough.

Side note: had it been Freudian, my remark would have been of a sexual nature, perhaps refering to Florida as possessing a "penile code" instead of "penal code." Had it been a slip, I would have referred to something I thought you said, but never did. No, I was simply offering an example.

Oh that big, bad Reagan! You take him as an indication of unfairness...

Say, rather, that I select an important fact about his administration for the sake of my point. This hardly constitutes Reagan-bashing. (Though I was in my thirties during his presidency, and it had some remarkable failures at times--such as the removal of federal banking regulations which led directly to the infamous Texas Bank Scandal and the federal bailout of $40 billion dollars, which was subsequently blamed on Bush Sr. But if you're saying that Reagan's presidency was a perfect one, I'll be happy to withdraw the point, and substitute a new one that meets my requirements, and is more to your liking.

I will say that you are missing the essentials of US government and of my post. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are, DEMONSTRABLY, the most sophisticated and enduring political documents ever written.

You are welcome to argue this with legal and political experts the world over who are all convinced that their nation's constitutions and frameworks on human rights are the best possible. I think all of you could have a fine time together.

What I am saying in my post is that we must look to the kinds of governments that people are creating, and judge those governments accordingly. China has a bad government; the Taliban is a bad government.

I don't think China has a bad government, myself. I find there are aspects of the current Chinese government that I personally loathe, but there are others I approve of. "Bad" is such a tiny word, IMO, to summarize such an awesome range of material that must be gathered, sifted, organized, and synthesized. I personally couldn't do it. Obviously, you have, so we must agree to disagree once more upon the fundamental nature of reality.

I honestly don't think there's going to be any agreement between us on the main issue of subjectivity/objectivity, so I think we might as well retire this conversation with our respective honors intact.

You remind me somewhat of my wife in this respect: she is so certain of the absolute truth (read: objectivity) of her opinions on many things in life. I rather wish sometimes I was as certain of any one thing in a month as she is in a day. It certainly removes all hesitation from one's actions, whatever the results, dependent upon the individual, might be.

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:55 am**

@Weasel: Great post

@Lazarus: IMO it's a naive simplification to split the world in "good" and "evil". I also think it's a dangerous view, since it easily lends itself to demonization of other people and hampers necessary understanding for learning how horrible and cruel events can be avoided in the future. If you look at the Nazi's or the Taliban's as "pure evil", whereas you and other Westerners are "good", you will never understand how we can avoid that a person like Hitler can be elected in a fully valid, free democratic election. Do you think all the Germans who voted for him were "evil"? What about the European colonial wars? 20 million Africans killed in a few years. Were all the Brits, Belgian, French, German, who supported this, "evil"? The American slave system? Were all the people who supported this also "evil"? What do you mean by "good" and "evil", please define.

posted by Lazarus:
Very, very few nations have built as free and open a system as, say, the United States.

Perhaps not as few as you believe. There are "freedom" indexes provided by international organizations. Which coutries do you list as equally free and open as the US? Is freedom only lack of limits, freedom from? What about freedom to - like freedom to get a good education regardless of your background?

posted by Lazarus:
It is interesting that your arguments against the fairness of the US system are all based on the PAST. Indeed, no nation on Earth has a spotless history, but we live in the present. One must look at current circumstances, and judge accordingly. Also, I do not think that my post described the US system as "fair," as you indicate (though I believe that it is).

Many people would argue that the US is one of the most unfair countries out of the Western democracies because of the class system and the lack of social security system. You can also check out the US violations of human rights at the Amnesty and HRW websites, and compare them to some other Western democracies.

I'm not saying this to implicate the US is bad, I'm saying it because I think Lazarus is exaggregating the degree of how good it is compared to other nations or cultures.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 5:50 pm**

@Lazarus- The reason fable would post thinfs of the past is because in the past the middle east was the land of the greqt civilazations (Ottomans, Byzantine[in Anatolia, not ME], and others).
Europe had its dark ages after the roman empire fell, yet Asia was as succesful as ever. Asia was very advanced far more than Europe back then.
But cultural diffusion allowed the Europeans to expand, for reasons such as the Muslims conquering Spain. They educated alot of Europeans there. Then Europe began to advance, because of trading with China, India(via the silk road) and the middle east. They began to prosper and took control and then conquered Asia, and Africa, and the Americas.

So the Middle East had its time of prosperity, now the europeans do(I'm not saying that places aren't prosperous anymore).

Like i've said earlier, India was one of the richest countries of the world. It had the richest man in the world in the early 1900's.
But now it isn't as rich. My great grandparent's mansions are no more. They've been destroyed and looted and who knows what by the locals and British and Indian government.
Its the cycle of change. Things can't stay the same. No one culture(s) can dominate forever. Sometimes one hemisphere is more powerful than the other.

And you say how good the US is.
The Ottomans IMO, were also a good people. They made a sanctuay for all relgions, and people. They allowed people of all backgrounds the chance to become rich(read my earlier post). So according to me they were a good people. Yet they weren't perfect.

by saying one nation, group is superior than another is racism and prejudice.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 6:25 pm**

@Ivan Cavallazzi ,ThorinOakensfield and C Elegans, I wish I could take credit for the quote, but it all came from someone else.

On another note, it took me 30 minutes to find this, just on one country. I'm willing to bet I could spend 30 minutes and find stuff like this on any country in the middle east.

Unrelated quote: "Man who sits on high horse, has longer drop to the ground"

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 6:29 pm**

@Weasel- I know you didn't write, but you took your time to find it, and thats great by itself. Thanks to the writer and you.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 6:45 pm**

Originally posted by Weasel:
@Ivan Cavallazzi ,ThorinOakensfield and C Elegans, I wish I could take credit for the quote, but it all came from someone else.

On another note, it took me 30 minutes to find this, just on one country. I'm willing to bet I could spend 30 minutes and find stuff like this on any country in the middle east.

You're right: there are plenty of resorces underscoring the contributions of many major nations whom we usually don't think about, given the cultural myopia that's common to all.

Unrelated quote: "Man who sits on high horse, has longer drop to the ground"

I recall a slightly more acerbic version when I was in Holland back in the early 70s: The person who rises on a ladder above others shows more of his backside to them.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:59 pm**

Arabs have produced a lot of good things. Some great architecture, food and have been instrumental in mathematics. My mathematics teacher in Uni was a arab. (smart guy).

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: at99 ]

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:16 pm**

@at99: First I must say that I reprove everything you say at now. Your thought are extremily ethnocentricals and poor.

Originally posted by at99:

The Goverments of Mid-eastern countries are not democracies. (not good enough)

Be or not to be Democratic have nothing conected with Good or Evil. Government system is just a "way".

Bashing women in Afghanistan (not good enough)

The way They live and the way their womans live, hve nothing to do with anyone else than themselfs. It is cultural. And as a culture thing it cannot be clasificated as Good or not good enough.

Not fixing up terrorists in your own back yard and leaving dirty work up to US (not good enough)

The USA is not cleaning their dirty. The USA is cleaning it own Dirty. USA put Taliban in control. Give weapons to Taliban. USA international policy is one of the dirty things I ever see.

You must understand that diferent is not evil or not good enough.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:45 pm**

Originally posted by at99:
Not fixing up terrorists in your own back yard and leaving dirty work up to US (not good enough)

Read history. The US and the USSR in their Cold War were largely responsible between themselves for the creation, supplying and continued support of most of the significant terrorist groups around the world, such as the various Communist-inspired ones in Germany (remember the Olympics bombing in the 80s?), Peru and Columbia. The US in turn contributed to the formation of terrorist groups in Afghanistan, and Iraq (when Iraq was a Soviet ally, back in the 60s), among others. Both nations propped up terrible dictatorships in third world countries to gain allies in the UN.

The various mujahadin in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, were established either directly with US funding, or with US funding through their local sponsors, the various Pakistani regimes. This happened in response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, under Brezhnev.

The Afghanistan Invasion was the Soviet's big mistake. Supporting the mujahadin and then letting them do what they wanted, afterwards, without any involvement from us, has been admitted by our own goverment to be the big US error.

Uniting countries under the banner of Islam and not seriously condeming poor actions by countries (not good enough).

Pardon? That's an article of faith, same as uniting countries under a common Christian faith is to Christians. Each nation still maintains autonomy. The Iraqis and the Iranians loathe one another, although they're both Islamic nations. You need to read more history.

Just answer some of these questions without refering to 'oh but 200 yrs ago in the west'

Come on. You're not meaning to say you don't realize all the problems in the West? Who do you think invented and refined chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Where do you think the two World Wars came from? Who sells all the weapons to third world nations to carry out their own mini-battles? Western "Caucasian/Judeo-Christian" civilization is no worse than any other civilization, but no better. Just different.

C'mon , I am reasonable.

No you're not. You haven't dealt with any of the points I've answered, raised, or asked about in my previous post. Conversations are two-way. If you want to actually engage in a discussion, I would appreciate it if you referred back to what I wrote, and dealt with the examples offered as proof against "Exportable production = culture," for one thing. I'd also like to know whether you're attacking MidEastern, Mesopotamian, Arabic, Islamic, Afghanistani or Pashtun culture. I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion that you really don't understand the difference between any of them. Please prove me wrong.

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:47 pm**

@at99, again provide us with an arbitrary list of your personal opinions of what is better than something else. And again, your list contains both factual errors, serious prejudice and overgeneralization as well as lack of fundation for your opinions.

You have not addressed the many questions posed to you by me, fable, Thorin and other users. If you are interested in discussion, I suggest you reread our posts, reply to the questions and present the fundations your choice of evaluation model for cultures rest on.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:03 pm**

Originally posted by fable:

Both nations propped up terrible dictatorships in third world countries to gain allies in the UN.

And the circle continues....

propped up terrible dictatorships in third world countries to gain allies in the fight against terrorism.

I hate to see this happen, but it is going to.

Don't get me wrong...I believe the terrorist need to be dealt with, but don't close your eyes to what it is going to cost.

Deals will be made to get the one's...deals I as an American will have to live with.

In a perfect world the terrorist wouldn't exist, but the world is not perfect... the truth is every country is out for their selfs and to get something...you have to give something.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:41 pm**

Originally posted by Weasel:
@Ivan Cavallazzi ,ThorinOakensfield and C Elegans, I wish I could take credit for the quote, but it all came from someone else.

On another note, it took me 30 minutes to find this, just on one country. I'm willing to bet I could spend 30 minutes and find stuff like this on any country in the middle east.

I took for granted you quoted - the good thing with your post was not only the actual text, it was also that you took the time to look for the information and applied the information in a good way

GameBanshee Forums

Attack on Afghanistan