> > I don't think I mentioned brown people.
>
> You may as well have. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Arabs (the largest group of people in "that part of the world") are not white.
I may as well have? What are you doing? Giving me permission? No thanks. Coincidence? Yes.
>
> > I have relatives who are as brown as they are.
>
> Ah, the classic "I have friends/relatives who are X" defense. Nothing proves you're not being racist like bringing out that chestnut.
So I'm not supposed to mention that my nieces and grandchildren are only one generation from Peru and Mexico? I'm rather proud of them for who they are.

>
> > If you think I am racist, you don't know me very well. Yes, I know you didn't exactly say that.
>
> If I didn't say it exactly, I meant to.

Well, while you are jumping to conclusions, why not?


You made a claim about an entire group of people based solely on their heritage.

Wrong again.
What else should we call it?
Observation maybe? Read the papers. Read the history.
>
> I said I was surprised and expected better from you precisely because it goes against what I've come to expect from a man who generally seems in favor of tolerance. Apparently you don't extend that tolerance to people in the Middle East.
I don't tolerate murder. Do you?

>
> > I was not expressing an opinion as much as reporting what I have observed. If they want to stop killing each other, why don't they stop?
>
> What "they" do you mean?
You have to ask?
Do you really believe a majority of people in Iraq or the Middle East are taking arms against one another?
Majority is your word. I never said that. If .01% of them are out killing each other, that is too many. As in all such conflicts, the innocent pay the highest price.

If so, you are not reporting observations that have any basis in fact.
>
> > It worries me that we are organizing police and military organizations over there, and we are giving them weapons, and teaching them to fight.
> > Can you understand why? Please, no claptrap.
>
> It seems that you don't believe Arabs are capable of being anything other than savages.
I never said that either.
Yes, that is racist.
>
I agree. That would be racist if it were true.

> I think you absolutely need to understand what you're saying. You are arguing that Arabs in general and/or Iraqis in particular are incapable of handling democracy because they are descended from "poor, nothing-to-lose, desert tribes."

Another conclusion jumped. Arabs in general and/or Iraqis in particular will have a tough time establishing a democracy as long as they have gangs of extremist running around blowing up stuff and killing people. We have people like that in this country, but the percentage is low enough for us to keep it under control
>
> Can you understand why this is similar to many arguments advanced in favor of genocide, slavery, imperialism and other evils?
Hmmm. Are you talking about me, or you?
>
> If you want to make a complex argument about Arabic/Iraqi/Islamic culture I'd be interested in hearing it. But I don't think you have one that's much more advanced than "they're savages."

Did I say "savages?" Well, I guess they do have a few of those. Still too many. I also don't think I mentioned their religion, but I think it is horrible when people kill for what they call religious reasons. Not long ago, there was a lot of that in Ireland. It even spilled over into other parts of the British Isles. No, I guess that can't be true. Those people are white.
>
> Stephen
>
> P.S. I'm interested in seeing how your argument about how "that part of the world" is incapable of handling democracy deals with Turkey.

I will have to admit that I really don't know much about Turkey. They seem to get along with each other very well, but don't they have a reputation as fierce fighters? As long as they are good to each other, I suppose being known as fierce is a good defense.

And now for something completely different:
I enjoy sparing with you, Stephen. No hard feelings. Free speech is great, isn't it.
Howard