If Arab countries are such a great place to be, how come the migrations flow is to the evil west? The number of evil westerners moving to eastern paradise is not huge to my knowledge. Of course there are people who are well-off in Arab countries, why shouldn´t there be? I´m sure if you compare the number of western migrants in the east to the number of Arab migrants in the west, the numbers will show where people would rather live...

I didn´t intend to depreciate Arabic countries, it was an illegal sarcastic jab at Tami who is the biggest hypocrite on this site and a very angry young man- he hates west, its policies, doesn´t know the basics of our culture or history and thus jumps to conclusions and operates on simplifications and yet he chose to live in the states and benefit from the hatered country.

Tami, what do you mean "we" know it wasn´t Arabs behind WTC? I think you mean "you" know it because I don´t. I do believe that it actually was Arabs but I don´t think it was for religious reasons that they did it. I agree that the evil west is the biggest aggressor in contemporary world and is the greediest invader and self-proclaimed guardian of democracy that nobody needs. But what I can´t agree is that the reason of it is religion. Unless, of course, we consider money to be religion .

 People rather live where money and job is. I am sure most of those eastern do not die to live in your beautiful  countries as most polish in UK or US.

 This is very true actually, like you say people just go where the money is. I don´t know anyone who has moved to Poland, but I know many that have taken jobs and moved to Saudi

Moral of this thread!!

 Someone else here saved you from doing that job already!

There is nothing to defend in Tami´s attitude about these matters and you may be right about his being a young angry man with an unsatiable hatred for the West. Nevertheless, you take him way more seriously than you think. Your answer proves that. You should remember that when you communicate ideas of the sort advocated by the likes of Tami you are indeed contradicting with the way you are positioning yourself. You are bashing Tami for the stereotypes in his mind and respond to him by opening up the doors of your own gallery of stereotypes.

In the below paragraph, you intended to depreciate Arabic countries. It would be a hype to claim otherwise. The following sentences do not only describe Tami but also you in this context. 

We should start by accepting the presence of cultures, religions, thoughts and a huge array of human values other than our own. 

Even if you could climb Mt Everest, you could see just a portion of the world that we are living in. There are worlds within worlds of Sherpas, Indians, Tamils, the Chinese and a myriad of lives full of different sets of realities within them. Anyone living in this world must respect the cultures formed with the consent of the people who made them. This is the essence of peace and understanding. No one has a right to scorn any nation, any race and/or ethnicity. We are all humans, it is just that some of us are more fortunate than the others at this stage in human history.

Interesting line of reasoning. So are you suggesting that as people we should respect those practices in cultures that are abhorrent as well? For example stoning women for being raped? What if a culture has a practice of sacrificing a virgin on the first Monday of every month to some other version of imaginary god? What if a child is being made to walk to dead carcasses of animals to prove she´s an incarnation of some Indian god (true story)? Should we respect that too? Are we to say, oh it´s just their culture, it´s done with their consent, so that´s ok?

I´m sorry Vineyards but I cannot agree with you here. Yes, we should respect other cultures and people´s choices to live a certain way. But to a point. When those choices violate human right and its dignity, as human beings we should speak out against it. People are not objects in an ethnographic museum for us to marvel at how "they do it", they are human beings who suffer. Or is suffering ok as long as it´s "them"? I think we have a moral obligation to speak out against abuse, no matter how culturally sanctioned it is.

 Vineyards has a good point - all your points above prove is that there is cruelty and inhumanity in life.  I can think of some stomach churning examples of child abuse, neglect, torture, murder, cruelty in the west which are a direct result of our "culture".  I presume you also have a moral obligation to speak out about this abuse too?  Like it or not, the break down of the traditional "family" in western society is producing feral, psychopathic children.

I would like you to focus on the word "consent" and also the way society is described as common work of people. This is the basis of all modern-day nations. Laws are made around the principle of people´s consent to coercion by government for the benefit and welfare of society.  There are also regimes not fitting into this definition e.g. dictatorships, olligarchies and other oppressive regimes where people´s choices are ignored. In other words, we must respect the freedom of choice.

Hitler considered his race superior to others. He scorned the Jews and wanted to eradicate them from Europe. He considered them as subhuman creatures contaminating the noble German race and sucking their blood through their collective organizations. His view represents the epitome of the xenophobic European conservatism which is itself based on the Greek notion that viewed other races as barbarians. In between there were episodes of slavery, colonism, cultural imperialism, sectarian wars, crusades, religious bigotry and the cold war era. If you draw a line through them, you will find those were the products of the same standpoint: us and them.

On the Eastern front too, there are nationalist movements, their leaders, grey wolves, pan-Turanists and jihad fighters to name just a few.

The driving force behind them are the stereotypes I mentioned.

Of course there´s examples of crualty and inhumanity in life everywhere (and yes we should speak against those abuses too), the difference lies in whether they are culturally sanctioned. As an example I don´t know of anybody who thinks that domestic violence is ok in the States, even though it does happen all too often. A woman has resources to turn to if that doesn´t happen (police, shelters, domestic violence hotlines, etc). The law is on her side. Anybody who hears about it will condemn the abuser - it is the abuser that is seen as one having a problem. Not the case in many countries where it´s the husbands "right" to hit the wife (or even kill her) and even the wife´s family ´wouldn´t intervene, not to mention the law. In the States the law steps in when the "culture" becomes abusive - recent case of the family who refused medical treatment for the child with cancer is a good example - the parents don´t have the right to have their beliefs respected when those beliefs are harmful, no matter how well intentioned they are. (Disclaimer: I´m not saying US should be the model for other countries to follow, I´m just using as a familiar example it to illustrate the point).

And of course Vineyards has a good point, all I´m saying is that his good point is not absolute, and there´s a point where respect for some cultural practices should end.

Do you have any statistics or studies to back up your claim about feral, psychopatic children?

Sorry, all too often the consent means only the consent of the male part of the populatin or the consent of majority (ethnic, religious, etc.) All to many times people don´t have a choice as to which culture they were born into and have to live in and don´t have the power to change their situation.