Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Keeps Up His Unpopular Ministry

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't know of any Europeans I know who think they're wonderful...

The regular citizens don't want them, it's the parties who import these people. 

I didn't follow it at all but I wonder how much of the Scottish vote to succeed was a reaction to the major parties in the UK flooding the country with these undesirables.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

The regular citizens don't want them, it's the parties who import these people. 

I didn't follow it at all but I wonder how much of the Scottish vote to succeed was a reaction to the major parties in the UK flooding the country with these undesirables.

If you'd followed it, you would know that their desire to "succeed" was inspired by the teachings of Saul Alinsky.

[Yorkshire pud]

The regular citizens don't want them, it's the parties who import these people. 

I didn't follow it at all but I wonder how much of the Scottish vote to succeed was a reaction to the major parties in the UK flooding the country with these undesirables.

Considering a sizable amount of Glasgow (where most of the yes vote came from) are of Italian, Indian and Irish extraction, it sort of suggests the opposite of what you're suggesting.

[b_dubb]

\
Phil the beard isn't defending the belief in god; he's advocating paedophilia, astonishing misogyny and sexism, and to top it all the qualification that if she carries a bible, she'll somehow be wonder woman; oh, as long as she serves her husband of course. And after his last proclamation that all Muslims should be made to be Christian, he's exactly the same as the very misogynist, backward thugs that he rants against...Oh the irony.

From this day forth I will only refer to Robertson as Paedophilia Advocate Phil the Beard.  Thank you.

[PB the Deplorable]

Considering a sizable amount of Glasgow (where most of the yes vote came from) are of Italian, Indian and Irish extraction, it sort of suggests the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Perhaps, as mentioned I didn't follow it.

Often though, immigrants are the ones who least want more immigrants to come.  The new immigrants competing for their jobs and all that.  I'm also surprised to learn the Irish, the Italians, and especially the Indians are more welcoming to Moslems than are others.

[Yorkshire pud]

Perhaps, as mentioned I didn't follow it.

Often though, immigrants are the ones who least want more immigrants to come.  The new immigrants competing for their jobs and all that.  I'm also surprised to learn the Irish, the Italians, and especially the Indians are more welcoming to Moslems than are others.

I said they're extracted. I know a Glaswegian whose grandparents were from India and his Glaswegian accent is incomprehensible. He can make a damn fine curry though. Glasgow like NY is something of a melting pot...it's the same in any old port city. Bristol, London, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Manchester,

[albrecht]

I said they're extracted. I know a Glaswegian whose grandparents were from India and his Glaswegian accent is incomprehensible. He can make a damn fine curry though. Glasgow like NY is something of a melting pot...it's the same in any old port city. Bristol, London, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Manchester,

One will note, of course, that said "melting pots" tend to have more crime than more homogeneous areas and cities. And, using Glasgowas a prime example cities with lots of immigrants and traditions of mass immigration- don't have loyalty to the political union they emigrated too- even all these years ago after the famine (to wit: last week's vote and the prevalence of Irish flags in bars, shirts, etc in certain parts of town.)

ps: the "fine Muslims" you mention are, sadly, usually not vocal enough. Where were they during the various marches? Why not attend the Finsbury-esque Mosque and outreach what true Islam, supposedly, is? Why not return home or provide capital to help out those Muslim lands with moderate or secular schools? Also, even if only the "good people" simply fled Muslim lands means the "good people" leave and the country sinks more into Muslim radicalism or corruption. Like what happens in Mexico etc. If the "good people" leave (talented, honest, hardworking, moderate, educated, etc) what happens to that country? And once they leave, and their capital flee, then the dregs and criminals also quickly follow them here and those countries sink more into influence of radicals and corrupt officials.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The Muslim family across the road from me, rant against the IS more than I do! They resent that 'Islam' is used in the name of these monsters...

Your neighbors may want to look around the world and reevaluate.  Heck, look around the UK and reevaluate.  They may be the ones misinterpreting the dozens - if not hundreds - of verses in the Koran telling the Moslems to do exactly what ISIS and a lot of other Moslems are doing.  And being cheered on by an apparently endless crowd of supporters.

By the way, not long ago, wasn't Bashir Assad an optometrist in London, before being called back to Syria to succeed his father as dictator?  While he was in the UK I don't imagine he had conversations with his friends and neighbors about all the people he was going to kill when he went back home to take charge.  I'd guess they'd mostly all tell you what a nice guy he was.

[Yorkshire pud]

Your neighbors may want to look around the world and reevaluate.  Heck, look around the UK and reevaluate.  They may be the ones misinterpreting the dozens - if not hundreds - of verses in the Koran telling the Moslems to do exactly what ISIS and a lot of other Moslems are doing.  And being cheered on by an apparently endless crowd of supporters.

You're right. I'll tell em to sympathise with what the murderous bastards in Syria are doing; because otherwise they can't be stereotyped by you and that is just wrong. It isn't fair to you. I can't be sure his reply will satisfy you though.

By the way, not long ago, wasn't Bashir Assad an optometrist in London, before being called back to Syria to succeed his father as dictator?  While he was in the UK I don't imagine he had conversations with his friends and neighbors about all the people he was going to kill when he went back home to take charge.  I'd guess they'd mostly all tell you what a nice guy he was.

Wow! Dictator in western education shock. That will be the same Syria that was part of the coilition in  GW1 then? Human rights? What about SA, China, Qatar, and several others that the west ( yep even the USA) do a lot of business with AND educate the rich offspring of their leaders.

Then there's retrospective pandering. Nazi scientists? Von Braun helped flatten London and the Midlands of England, you know; America's ally. Welcomed with open arms post war by the USA.

[PB the Deplorable]

You're right. I'll tell em to sympathise with what the murderous bastards in Syria are doing; because otherwise they can't be stereotyped by you and that is just wrong. It isn't fair to you. I can't be sure his reply will satisfy you though...

I'm suggesting if they are truly good people that they find something else to do.  Islam is for losers, criminals, and terrorists.

Islam somehow survived to the modern day as originally created in the 7th Century.  It's a misogynistic death cult started by a pedophile.  Stonings, beheadings, amputations, 'honor' killings, female genitalia mutilations, 'suicide' bombings, all their stupid little fatwas.  Yeah, that's some great thing they've got going on.

Try this:  on a map, draw a circle around the Muslim world.  It should encompass all of North Africa with tentacles down into some of the sub-Sahara like North East Nigeria.  Be sure to include Kosova, Albania, Bosnia, the former Soviet States in the Caucasus and eastward.  All of Arabia, thru Iran and Afghanistan and over to Pakistan.  China's Xinjiang Provence, Malysia, Indonesia, southern Thailand and southern Philippines, and so on.

Now put an X on all the areas where there is insurrection, war, rebellion, and hostile bellicose borders that happen to be at peace right now - like India and Pakistan. 

Looking at that, I think you will find these people can't get along with each other or with their neighbors.

Any Moslem or anyone else out there that thinks ISIS and the rest are the minority, and that Islam is really a positive force, is in deep denial.

Places like France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and now the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US are fools to have let as many into their countries as they have, and people like that lady in Oklahoma are the one paying the price.  I wouldn't live in a neighborhood or work in an office with these rats.


Here's a story from Denmark.  This is what is happening anywhere these animals gather in any kind of numbers

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/denmark-christians-flee-muslim-dominated-areas-they-tell-me-i-ought-to-be-stoned-to-death

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm suggesting if they are truly good people that they find something else to do.  Islam is for losers, criminals, and terrorists.

Islam somehow survived to the modern day as originally created in the 7th Century.  It's a misogynistic death cult started by a pedophile.  Stonings, beheadings, amputations, 'honor' killings, female genitalia mutilations, 'suicide' bombings, all their stupid little fatwas.  Yeah, that's some great thing they've got going on.

Try this:  on a map, draw a circle around the Muslim world.  It should encompass all of North Africa with tentacles down into some of the sub-Sahara like North East Nigeria.  Be sure to include Kosova, Albania, Bosnia, the former Soviet States in the Caucasus and eastward.  All of Arabia, thru Iran and Afghanistan and over to Pakistan.  China's Xinjiang Provence, Malysia, Indonesia, southern Thailand and southern Philippines, and so on.

Now put an X on all the areas where there is insurrection, war, rebellion, and hostile bellicose borders that happen to be at peace right now - like India and Pakistan. 

Looking at that, I think you will find these people can't get along with each other or with their neighbors.

Any Moslem or anyone else out there that thinks ISIS and the rest are the minority, and that Islam is really a positive force, is in deep denial.

Places like France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and now the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US are fools to have let as many into their countries as they have, and people like that lady in Oklahoma are the one paying the price.  I wouldn't live in a neighborhood or work in an office with these rats.


Here's a story from Denmark.  This is what is happening anywhere these animals gather in any kind of numbers

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/denmark-christians-flee-muslim-dominated-areas-they-tell-me-i-ought-to-be-stoned-to-death

Yeah okay.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Extend your map back 2000 years and I think you'll see X's everywhere, even though Islam didn't exist yet as a major religion.  Over centuries the west has developed a level of wealth and a system of governance where people are comfortable and not so eager for revolution or war.  Those other areas don't share those luxuries and I don't think you can blame that all on Islam.  The Christian bible contains some pretty horrific things but that doesn't mean all Christians pattern their lives on it.

I'm not saying I'm a supporter of Islam, but there are 1.6 billion Muslims and they're not all terrorists.  I feel privileged to live in a foolish country that still values words like "all men are created equal" and has a judicial system based on the personal actions of individuals rather than a nation that has turned itself into an exclusive armed camp.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yeah okay.

That should have read deep deep denial. 

[Quick Karl]

I'm suggesting if they are truly good people that they find something else to do.  Islam is for losers, criminals, and terrorists.

Islam somehow survived to the modern day as originally created in the 7th Century.  It's a misogynistic death cult started by a pedophile.  Stonings, beheadings, amputations, 'honor' killings, female genitalia mutilations, 'suicide' bombings, all their stupid little fatwas.  Yeah, that's some great thing they've got going on.

Try this:  on a map, draw a circle around the Muslim world.  It should encompass all of North Africa with tentacles down into some of the sub-Sahara like North East Nigeria.  Be sure to include Kosova, Albania, Bosnia, the former Soviet States in the Caucasus and eastward.  All of Arabia, thru Iran and Afghanistan and over to Pakistan.  China's Xinjiang Provence, Malysia, Indonesia, southern Thailand and southern Philippines, and so on.

Now put an X on all the areas where there is insurrection, war, rebellion, and hostile bellicose borders that happen to be at peace right now - like India and Pakistan. 

Looking at that, I think you will find these people can't get along with each other or with their neighbors.

Any Moslem or anyone else out there that thinks ISIS and the rest are the minority, and that Islam is really a positive force, is in deep denial.

Places like France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and now the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US are fools to have let as many into their countries as they have, and people like that lady in Oklahoma are the one paying the price.  I wouldn't live in a neighborhood or work in an office with these rats.


Here's a story from Denmark.  This is what is happening anywhere these animals gather in any kind of numbers

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/denmark-christians-flee-muslim-dominated-areas-they-tell-me-i-ought-to-be-stoned-to-death

Way to tell it, PB!

[Yorkshire pud]

That should have read deep deep denial.

No, it should have read; "Someone had over wound your spring and let you go on something your prejudice and hatred of anything that isn't what you like or want have it's head. Too much to correct you on, so better just to let you believe the shit you believe. It's easier that way."

But it would have killed to many pixels unnecessarily.

[PB the Deplorable]

Extend your map back 2000 years and I think you'll see X's everywhere, even though Islam didn't exist yet as a major religion.  Over centuries the west has developed a level of wealth and a system of governance where people are comfortable and not so eager for revolution or war.  Those other areas don't share those luxuries and I don't think you can blame that all on Islam.  The Christian bible contains some pretty horrific things but that doesn't mean all Christians pattern their lives on it.

I'm not saying I'm a supporter of Islam, but there are 1.6 billion Muslims and they're not all terrorists.  I feel privileged to live in a foolish country that still values words like "all men are created equal" and has a judicial system based on the personal actions of individuals rather than a nation that has turned itself into an exclusive armed camp.

That was part of the point, the civilized world doesn't act like it did 2000 years ago but these people do.  2000 years ago people actually had to take the time and effort to build impenetrable castles, or even walls around their cities, so armed marauders couldn't get in, kill them all, steal everything, and kidnap the women.  Yet here we are in 2014 with the Moslems still doing exactly that.

Why on earth would we want these people in our country?  And tell them to walk around with the men still wearing their pajamas and the women still covered from head to toe, and to not assimilate?  I see this every single day.  They mostly don't even support themselves, the rest of us do. 


As far as this ''1.6 billion Moslems and they aren't all terrorists'' shit:  On the day of 9/11 the various TV news outlets showed video of the reactions from various Arab capitals - including Damascus, Cairo, Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Gaza, etc - on the main streets everywhere traffic had stopped, people were getting out of trucks, cars, taxis, and whooping it up in celebration.

You know who rides in taxis in the third world?  The middle class.  The poor can't afford it, the rich have their own cars.  So it wasn't even just the poor.  It wasn't just a few 'terrorists'.  I won't say it was everyone, but it was everyone the cameras were pointed at. 

I'll admit there are some, who knows what percentage, that are not like that.  But I can't tell which hate us and which don't, and I don't think anyone really can.  So until we know which is which, why the fuck would we let any of these people come here?  For what?  What is it about them that just adds so much to our country that we should ignore the potential for harm and let them come here in droves?  I'd really like to know.

[Yorkshire pud]

That was part of the point, the civilized world doesn't act like it did 2000 years ago but these people do.

Really?

http://www.webpronews.com/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-keeps-up-his-unpopular-ministry-2014-08

The very subject of this thread.

2000 years ago people actually had to take the time and effort to build impenetrable castles, or even walls around their cities, so armed marauders couldn't get in, kill them all, steal everything, and kidnap the women.  Yet here we are in 2014 with the Moslems still doing exactly that.

Well actually, the Islamic faith has pretty much universally condemned the murderous thugs in Syria and Iraq, but you knew that. In the same way not all Christians subscribe to the primitive values that certain other alleged Christians subscribe to. Such as subjugating women, raping kids, seeing others 'not like them' as lesser beings. In keeping with the thread, not all Christians believe girls of 15 should be married and only fit for breeding and cooking, in the way 'gentleman' Phil Roberson believes.

Why on earth would we want these people in our country?  And tell them to walk around with the men still wearing their pajamas and the women still covered from head to toe, and to not assimilate?  I see this every single day.  They mostly don't even support themselves, the rest of us do. 

It's a worry isn't it? Maybe make them shave their beards off? Would Phil object to that?

As far as this ''1.6 billion Moslems and they aren't all terrorists'' shit:  On the day of 9/11 the various TV news outlets showed video of the reactions from various Arab capitals - including Damascus, Cairo, Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Gaza, etc - on the main streets everywhere traffic had stopped, people were getting out of trucks, cars, taxis, and whooping it up in celebration.

You know who rides in taxis in the third world?  The middle class.  The poor can't afford it, the rich have their own cars.  So it wasn't even just the poor.  It wasn't just a few 'terrorists'.  I won't say it was everyone, but it was everyone the cameras were pointed at. 

I'll admit there are some, who knows what percentage, that are not like that.  But I can't tell which hate us and which don't, and I don't think anyone really can.  So until we know which is which, why the fuck would we let any of these people come here?  For what?  What is it about them that just adds so much to our country that we should ignore the potential for harm and let them come here in droves?  I'd really like to know.

Ahhh got it. All the murders in the USA are caused by Muslims? Oh boy you're in that twilight zone where reality hasn't a chance.

[albrecht]

Ahhh got it. All the murders in the USA are caused by Muslims? Oh boy you're in that twilight zone where reality hasn't a chance.

And so the logical solution to the already existing problems with crimes, shootings, unemployment, corruption, etc (often, caused by the generations of former failed immigration and political decisions) is to import MORE undesirables? That sounds like a fine idea!

One wonders; why this policy is not demanded of other countries? Why do only Western countries need to be "politically correct" and accept anyone, no matter their worth, as immigrants? No diversity is demanded in Asian countries, for example. Hell, even some African countries demand you show financial means just to get a VISA to travel there. Oh, I forgot "colonialism" and revenge. But, I'll let you in a little secret. USA was a colony once! So why don't we get to use that excuse? (And, some countries even today that use that excuse for their position might have been better off if they still were a colony of the evil Europeans considering their current economies, ethnic violence, diseases, etc.)

[Yorkshire pud]

And so the logical solution to the already existing problems with crimes, shootings, unemployment, corruption, etc (often, caused by the generations of former failed immigration and political decisions) is to import MORE undesirables? That sounds like a fine idea!

Isn't it fortunate that the indigineous people of America didn't have to be concerned about importing criminals? What is your evidence that your prisons are full of immigrant criminals? Or are you simply relying on bigotry?

One wonders; why this policy is not demanded of other countries? Why do only Western countries need to be "politically correct" and accept anyone, no matter their worth, as immigrants? No diversity is demanded in Asian countries, for example. Hell, even some African countries demand you show financial means just to get a VISA to travel there. Oh, I forgot "colonialism" and revenge. But, I'll let you in a little secret. USA was a colony once! So why don't we get to use that excuse? (And, some countries even today that use that excuse for their position might have been better off if they still were a colony of the evil Europeans considering their current economies, ethnic violence, diseases, etc.)

Uk, Australia, Canada, NZ don't accept anyone without question. I doubt the USA does. If it were that easy I'd have taken the opportunity to live and work there several years ago.(I was offered a job). The hoops I had to jump through weren't worth it. Somehow I think it would be far more difficult now.

[albrecht]

Isn't it fortunate that the indigineous people of America didn't have to be concerned about importing criminals? What is your evidence that your prisons are full of immigrant criminals? Or are you simply relying on bigotry?


Uk, Australia, Canada, NZ don't accept anyone without question. I doubt the USA does. If it were that easy I'd have taken the opportunity to live and work there several years ago.(I was offered a job). The hoops I had to jump through weren't worth it. Somehow I think it would be far more difficult now.

If a border is open it is a non-issue. Only legitimate immigrants need worry about regulations and rules. Here in the USA one can just wade across a river (no need to even swim in many cases due to drought.) Yes, technically, it is illegal to so (hence the term "illegal") but anyone can. I recall the "hoops" I had to do to work in Europe (and then the UK.) Wasn't too hard though but I did have to provide more documentation than, say, Obama ever did. But easily done. And, actually, Europe, especially Holland was very tax-friendly for business and in other places bent over almost backwards if you built something to provide jobs.

as for costs of illegals in prison. Numbers vary (and as one might suspect the governments are VERY hesitant to give numbers.) Estimated around 20% in prison are illegal (in a country that shamefully has the largest, or close, number of people in prison this adds up quickly.) Of course, this doesn't account for the actual costs of illegals (free healthcare, education for their brood, and damages to families via rape, murders, DUI accidents, sex trafficking, drugs, etc.)
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/15/5249540/texas-spending-millions-to-jail.html
http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

[b_dubb]

The real reason the border is porous is because it is good for business.  Immigrants are a steady stream of motivated people who will happily do whatever is needed for whatever someone is willing to pay.  If it weren't good for business the border would be slammed shut and that would be that.

[onan]

Here is the simple truth. As long as a higher standard of living and a safer society exist here... others will come here regardless of walled off boarders.

What is so offensive is that so many that are accustomed to a richer and safer society, and had little or nothing to do with the building of that society, demonize basic human desire for a better life.

Yes there are criminals that are doing all sorts of evil. God knows all of us living here have no responsibility to those on the other side. I mean, I got mine, you get yours.

If anyone cares to look honestly at the exploitation of resources in Central and South America some culpability would be on easily found on even ol' duck Phil's hands.

[albrecht]

Here is the simple truth. As long as a higher standard of living and a safer society exist here... others will come here regardless of walled off boarders.

What is so offensive is that so many that are accustomed to a richer and safer society, and had little or nothing to do with the building of that society, demonize basic human desire for a better life.

Yes there are criminals that are doing all sorts of evil. God knows all of us living here have no responsibility to those on the other side. I mean, I got mine, you get yours.

If anyone cares to look honestly at the exploitation of resources in Central and South America some culpability would be on easily found on even ol' duck Phil's hands.

So, we should eliminate our higher standard of living and basically safer society? That makes sense. So being all democratic and stuff, why not have a vote on it? Vote "Yes" to eliminate the border and take all comers (that is help level the world since the LCD is the rightful, moral goal) or "No" secure the border and have rules and regulations about immigration? Surely, importing more poor, diseased, uneducated or even criminal people will help solve our problems with health care, education, and unemployment. But even if it doesn't it is our lot due to the evil nature and history of the country.

And, people seem to forget, the USA was colonies and even in some regions corporately run areas (by those darn evil whites! Will they never stop exploiting the world!?!) With indentured servitude. With dumping of criminals. With weird religious freaks and poor people. With raping the environment. With, shock here, even slavery. (Not to mention various wars throughout history, even a civil war and a even a genocide, or close to it, of some peoples) So, I guess, we have the right to blame others for all our problems? Sure we have some bad policies in the past and currently. I'm all for cutting off foreign aid and wars. But other countries have had wars, exploitation, colonization, etc also in the past. So why don't they succeed? Why don't they have to accept unfettered immigration? Why aren't they criticized for not being politically correct? Why the focus on Western Nations for revenge or retribution or "melting pots?"

[onan]

So, we should eliminate our higher standard of living and basically safer society? That makes sense. So being all democratic and stuff, why not have a vote on it? Vote "Yes" to eliminate the border and take all comers (that is help level the world since the LCD is the rightful, moral goal) or "No" secure the border and have rules and regulations about immigration? Surely, importing more poor, diseased, uneducated or even criminal people will help solve our problems with health care, education, and unemployment. But even if it doesn't it is our lot due to the evil nature and history of the country.

And, people seem to forget, the USA was colonies and even in some regions corporately run areas (by those darn evil whites! Will they never stop exploiting the world!?!) With indentured servitude. With dumping of criminals. With weird religious freaks and poor people. With raping the environment. With, shock here, even slavery. (Not to mention various wars throughout history, even a civil war and a even a genocide, or close to it, of some peoples) So, I guess, we have the right to blame others for all our problems? Sure we have some bad policies in the past and currently. I'm all for cutting off foreign aid and wars. But other countries have had wars, exploitation, colonization, etc also in the past. So why don't they succeed? Why don't they have to accept unfettered immigration? Why aren't they criticized for not being politically correct? Why the focus on Western Nations for revenge or retribution or "melting pots?"

None of your frothing at the mouth negates what I stated. I don't have time to answer every spit ball you toss out.

If your creature comforts are more important than considering others want comfort too, then yeah you should lose your comfort.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

[attachimg=1]

Now if I were a man who looked at trends, I would think that the Obama administration was trying to get a handle on illegal immigration.  I guess that's why I don't get paid the big bucks as a program director at Fox.

[PB the Deplorable]

Now if I were a man who looked at trends, I would think that the Obama administration was trying to get a handle on illegal immigration...

That, or his economy has been so horrible some have self deported while others that may have come haven't.

As far as the US using resources and it's residents living comfortable lives, who is stopping other nations from using resources and building societies worth living in?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

That, or his economy has been so horrible some have self deported while others that may have come haven't.

Perhaps.  The leveling off effect happened too quickly for Obama to be entirely responsible.  I think the graph, if it can be relied upon, still puts into question the claim that he is the illegal immigrant loving president.

As far as the US using resources and it's residents living comfortable lives, who is stopping other nations from using resources and building societies worth living in?

That was really my point earlier.  It took Western civilizations centuries of infighting to get to where we are today.  Those developing nations are behind the curve for I think a number of reasons.  Such things as their cultures haven't developed democracies and capitalization -- some of which you may be able to attribute to Islam -- but some of which you may be able to attribute to old cultural values such as wanting to emulate their ancestors rather than driving forward with new development.  Or a historical hesitance to exploit the land as much as we have.  Or a historic lack of worthwhile resource before the advent of oil, making them slaves to survival and culturally devoted to tradition rather than feeling free to develop their society.  Or a lack of lesser nations to exploit which is what we have always depended on.  Or a history of being subjugated to the West.  Or living in a place of extreme heat and limited fresh water which has made it difficult to do the work necessary to build a modern civilization.  Sure they have the means to westernize now and they have somewhat, but those centuries of cultural beliefs must be difficult to break away from.   

I don't think that means that they are all culturally predisposed to violence, or that we in the West should throw away our most fundamental values of equal rights or judging people based on their individual actions.  Perhaps the reason we don't have all the bloodshed over here is that we do respect individual rights regardless of cultural background, and that we don't discriminate on the type of person we allow to immigrate and enjoy the freedoms of Western culture.  I don't think those are values we should compromise for the little sense of false security it might give us.