In a message dated 11/7/99 8:54:18 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>>What precisely do you mean by the "Western world" and who do you mean by
>the "Islamic peoples"?

>I assume the Western world include first world nations, like US, Britain,
>you know, the powerful countries.

    Would the "Western world" include not so powerful countries such as
Lichtenstein, Canada, Belgium, Norway,  Ireland; or economically powerful
countries such as Japan or Singapore?  You see the problem?

>Islamic peoples, would be, well, Islamic.

     Should the "Western world" make peace with Islamic Canadians?  How about
with Germany's sizable population of Turks (mostly Islamic) or are they now a
part of the "Western world"?  Or does "Islamic peoples" refer to nations
predominantly Muslim, or to nations ruled by an Islamic Theocracy?  As you
can see, there is confusion here.

>Isn't it obvious to people here that muslims are the new enemy of the new
>world order.  During the cold war, it was communists, now it's muslims,
>specially dark skin muslims.

   Where is the evidence for this "new enemy" status on the part of the
"powerful countries" of the Western world?   We see a coalition of these
countries killing Serbs in ostensible defense of Muslim Albanians and then
turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo of all but Albanians.
After decades of "Western world" support, we see the "Islamic peoples" of
Indonesia killing predominantly Christian East Timorese.  We see increasing
support from the "Western world" for the creation of a Palistinian state
which would be inhabited mostly by followers of Islam.  Other than targeting
terrorists, many of whom have been Islamic, who are the "Islamic peoples"
being targeted by the "Western world"?

>This transition is easy for many Americans because their culture is so
>racist to begin with.

    And this 'transition' would be difficult for racist Korea, or racist
Japan, or racist Canada, or racist Switzerland, or racist Sudan, etc, etc,
etc.
Yours,
Issodhos