A) Teribus' viewpoint (which comes over as a bit hysterical Daily Mail harpy) perfectly reflects the West's attitude toward the Muslim world and other cultures unfamiliar to us.

Sugarfoot are you telling everyone that "my view" perfectly reflects the majority opinion of the "West" towards the Muslim World and other cultures unfamiliar to us? By the way what is "The Muslim World?" when its at home??

PS: We, "the-big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" seem to get on with the vast majority of the world, and we do not seem to be too shy in coming forward when disaster strikes or when financial assistance is required for development.

B) It's typical of the colonialist viewpoint the West has had for the past 300-plus years; it's anachronistic and backward but it persists in all levels of society, from government downward.

Really?? Haven't noticed it

C) But please let us have a good look at these perceptions you accuse the majority in the West of having:

1) Everything the West does, our economic systems, systems of government and cultural diversity is superior to everyone else's.

Astonished to hear you promote that opinion Sugarfoor Jack, I say you because I do not believe I have heard anyone other than you state that, certainly not on this thread. But let's face it that is pure supposition isn't it Jack, please do not attempt to present it as fact. Although, I would venture the opinion that in many instances on examination it may well prove to be verifiably true. One question though: how can one's cultural diversity be superior to anyone else's? As Royston is printing this and framing it, maybe he could enlighten us all on that subject.

2) We're right, they're wrong (with us, or against us).

Irrelevant rubbish, what on earth are you talking about?

3) If you doubt this, then a look at mainstream Hollywood filmmaking will provide you with enough material to keep you going for a lifetime - history is altered and re-written to make the greatest democracy in the world the dominant power for good. Suggest it's a tad out of order to present history in this way and you're a 'liberal' (not in the Clegg sense), pinko, leftist etc etc. Wear a turban and suggest it, and you're an terrorist.

Ah we are back to "Wag The Dog" are we Sugarfoot? I would suggest that anybody who forms an opinion on anything based on the output from "Hollywood" needs to have their bumps read.

Just in case you haven't cottoned on Sugarfoot:

HOLLYWOOD = PURE FANTASY = PURE ENTERTAINMENT

HOLLYWOOD IS NOT RELATED TO FACT

HOLLYWOOD HAS NEVER PRESENTED HISTORY ANYONE WITH THE SIMPLEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COULD TELL YOU THAT.


4) A complete inability to understand a foreign culture, a sad and rather embarrassing inability to attempt to see beyond the paper-thin stereotypes presented by government and media.

OH I think history shows that Sugarfoot's "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" was rather good at understanding foreign culture and down through those 300 years he was wittering on about we got on rather well with foreign cultures, there again if Sugarfoot is taking Holywood as his historical reference then there would be little point in attempting to discuss this seriously. As to an inability to see beyond stereotypes, in his post Sugarfoot has shown that that very sin applies more to him than to me.

5) This manifests itself in the fear of a people that openly express their faith; they pray five times a day, eschew alcohol and pork, dress in a certain way etc.

Have I a fear of people who openly express their faith?? I cannot remember saying that or ever experiencing that in all of my travels and I have been working round the world since leaving school. Taking into account that I have spent more of my life outside the UK than living in it, I would back my experience of the world and understanding of foreign cultures against most writing here (particulary judging by what they write).

6) The media loves Muslims who dress western style, young Muslims who drink and go to parties (they've become 'civilised' as they buy into a vapid consumerist culture). Moderate Muslims don't outwardly express their religion, but keep it hidden, just like us. Extremist Muslims wear turbans, hijabs, burkhas, beards etc

Ah Sugarfoot the media, almost as reliable as Hollywood, more myth and entertainment. Do you actually believe what the media tells you Sugarfoot? If you do then all I can say is that I truly pity you, you should learn to be a bit more enquiring and question a bit more. I know that that is what you think you are doing but you are not.

This I found hilarious:

It's not difficult to find examples that illustrate this colonialist viewpoint, as this thread has proved. As T said, if we torture people it's a legitimate way of extracting valuable information, if they torture people it's because they are heartless and cruel and want to use it for propaganda or exacting bloodthirsty revenge.

Excuse me but when did I say that it is legitimate to torture people?

What was originally said and what I reacted to was the patently false statement:

That torture does not work

I merely pointed out the plain fact is that it does and has worked as a successful way of gaining vital information that has saved lives many times.

I have no idea how many of those contributing here have actually seen the decapitation videos sent out by the terrorists who proclaim themselves to be devout muslims fighting for their religion. The content of those videos can only be described as heartless and cruel, their only function was for propaganda purposes and their stated purpose was for exacting bloodthirsty revenge. The people killed in this cack-handed and particularly gruesome fashion had no information to give. So perhaps some of the apologists could offer up some other reason why those people WERE tortured.

A terrorist once caught can chose exactly how easy he wants to make it on himself, or herself, a choice he or she most certainly never gave their victims.

Our book, The New Testament is a fine example of how to live through the teachings of Jesus, meaning as a society "on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life." whilst the Quoran is apparently the source of universal Islamic hatred towards the west and it's people, a motivator for the conquering hordes to continue jihad "until I am politically subservient to Muslims".

Now if Sugarfoot Jack takes his foot out of his mouth or extracts his head from his fundament and goes back and checks the comment :

"on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life."

He would note that the comparison there was to general Christian beliefs in Europe which are more based on New Testament teachings as opposed to the Christian Sects in the USA who cling more to the Old Testament. Resulting from Royston and CarolC who rushed to list a load of bollocks from US translations of the Bible, all quotions bar one coming from the Old Testament. In short Jack you have quoted me out of context, there was no comparison to the Quran as you infer in your comment quoted above.

T's view "All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims" is so ignorant it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact people are dying because of it.

Really?? Well then Jack give me figures and statistics that prove that quotation ( Yes Jack it is a quotation it is not my view) to be incorrect.

Since 1970 Jack round the world there have been some 2016 Terrorist Incidents, Muslims have been responsible for between 60 to 70% of them. Not a bad proportion considering what else was going on in the world in those forty years, but the figures serve to support the claim in the quotation not counter it.

T's statement ". . . over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own" illustrates the colonialist viewpoint that the savages, blinded by faith even turn on their own, a view that seems to ignore the tens of thousands of Muslims that killed because of belligerent western foreign policy.

Please Sugarfoot Jack by all means prove the observation, and it is just that a simple straightforward observation based on fact, wrong. In both Iraq and in Afghanistan the percentages of innocent civilians killed (majority of them being Muslims) by fellow Muslims (Iraq - Foreign Jihadists; Ba'athist Insurgents; Sectarian Militias; Criminal Gangs) 80% and (Afghanistan - Taleban and Al-Qaeda) 79% Again tends to support that which you refer to as "the colonialist viewpoint" Of course it has got nothing to do with colonialism at all, but it gives Sugarfoot something to grab hold off that his "right-on-lefty-socialist-anti-capitalist" pals can mindlessly and unquestionably accept, chant about and support in order to promote a feeling of solidarity.

Iran, which has the temerity to attempt to defend itself when hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed and hostile regimes becomes a legitimate target for force when it doesn't do what we want it to (but then Iran is an evil state, as evidenced by the state-organised rallies that call for the demise of the US and UK, and apparently "In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years" . . . which may be true but certainly doesn't represent the views of the majority of this well-educated and modern country. Clue: it's meaningless state-run propaganda).

Oh the heartfelt indignation!! The temerity to attempt to defend itself - From what FFS!!

Hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed hostile regimes!!! - Complete and utter bollocks Have a look at the states bordering Iran.

Turkey - No threat, never has been
Iraq - Definitely a threat under Saddam Hussein but that threat has now been removed by the "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west". Iran's Revolutionary Guards engages with subversive groups intent on destabilisation of the Iraqi Government.
Kuwait - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Saudi Arabia - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Bahrain - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Qatar - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Doha - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Dubai - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Oman - No threat, never has been
Pakistan - No threat although anti-Government groups in Iran are supported from groups inside Baluchistan.
Afghanistan - Threat greatly reduced since UN intervened in 2001. The number of casualties and fatalities in cross border incidents centred mainly around smuggling of drugs and weapons is staggering.
Turkmenistan - No threat, never has been
Azebaijan - No threat, never has been
Armenia - No threat, never has been

Iran has for the last thirty years been the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the region. With the exception of Iraq it has done more to destabilise the region than any other power and of course we all know who was responsible for removing Iraq from the top of the list. Iran has signed treaties and agreed to abide by international agreements and played fast and loose with them. At last, now that "apologist-in-chief" Mohammed El-Baradei has retired, we now have someone at the Head of the IAEA who is prepared to call a spade a spade - It is now the considered opinion of the IAEA that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon.

As long as Muslims are painted as some sort of inferior beings, unable to recognise what's good for themselves as we Westerners can then conflict will persist.

OK then Sugarfoot let us take a couple of examples shall we:

Child A: Carried to full term in pregnancy, with mother attended all the way through by a state funded free medical service. The child then grows up and enters first nursery school and then full-time education, where the child is taught to read, to write and to count. Further free education is available to that child who is computer literate and has at his/her command everything the internet can provide up to the age of eighteen. The child as he/she grows up is fully backed by the state and theoretically has every opportunity to do whatever he/she wishes.

Child B: Born premature to a child bride, with the most rudimentary attendance through pregnancy if indeed any, prohibited from receiving any medical help whatsoever. Child grows up and enters whatever education system is available, this normally is a Madrassa. If the child is female education stops at the age of seven (in a few years time she too will be a child bride and become pregnant) if a boy the education consists of learning to recite the Quran, this is a mindless chant in a language the boy will not understand, he is told what these ramblings mean by the Mullah or Imam in charge of his education. The child has no idea at all if what he has been told is the truth, he has no means or background to question or reason, he gets used to accepting what his religious leaders tell him believing it absolutely. The child as he/she grows is backed up solely by their own shadow on the floor and is to all intent and purpose a gullible fool to be manipulated as their religious betters see fit.

Extremes, yes certainly, but those conditions exist and have been documented. OK Sugarfoot which childhood would you opt for and recommend? Which childhood would any sane person opt for as being the more beneficial, not only for the child in question for mankind in general. Are you more likely to find Child A in the west?

You then have the unmitigated gall, nay the temerity to come out with this crap:

In truth, it's time we got our house in order and dragged our attitudes into the 21st Century, and then we might understand as a society how counterproductive it is to force our values on others who have contributed enormously to philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species.

Oh by the bye Sugarfoot - you know all these supposed contributions to:

"philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species"

It would pay you check up on how many of the ones claimed by Muslims that actually were the contributions of those the Moors conquered or pre-date the founding of their religion.

A colonialist view, anachronistic and backward?? Well Sugarfoot that sure as hell would explain the advances made over the last 300 years wouldn't it. Advances and benefits that you most certainly have taken full advantage of as evidenced in your ability to write and say what you do without fear of consequence. In comparing my life to that my ancestors of 300 years ago, have things improved? Most certainly they have, I can see that as plain as a pikestaff looking back only as far as my grand-fathers generation compared to that of my children and Sugarfoot, if you cannot do that then, basically old son, you're living in the wrong place, evolution is about improvement.

To you someone who has what you call a colonialist view and who is anachronistic and backward, is someone who, unlike you, does not believe that everything that is wrong in the world is automatically our fault.