So glad we defeated the Taliban!
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...095003,00.html

But apparently it didn't change things a hell of alot.

This shows the fatal flaw in the George Bush/Tony Blair philosophy of bringing democracy to the middle east. You can "liberate" these people from their various dictatorial regimes, but you can't liberate them from their own religion. This is why the Iraq experiment will fail, as will all attempts to bring democrary, a western concept, to a people with a 7th century mindset.

Greece is a hell of a lot closer to the Middle East than it is to America, buddy.

Perhaps we could try getting democracy working here before we try spreading it all over the place.

Now I'm not the biggest supporter of Christianity or any organised religion for that matter. But this takes the cake. It does indeed show that it's not the governments in themselves that are the problem.

Rather the harsh Sharia laws they follow are the main issue. I honestly think the muslim fate as it is today with these laws are indeed a threath to both outsiders and people in the religion itself...

Disclaimer: I have nothing against people of the muslim fate and have read some of the koran and think it does raise some good points. But rather I think the Sharia law based on the muslim fate are to strict to work in a changing world...

I'm not condoning this killing, but this is not the first or the last time someone has been killed for their religious beliefs or race or any other superfluous cause. The U.S. army is doing the same thing. See a BBC news report on it here.

Ummm..Greece was known as the "Cradle of Western Civilization"...we're not talking geography here bozo, as Japan..in the far east, is considered a western style democracy. And democracy, or a representative from of government works pretty well here, in case you haven't noticed.

That really depends on your definition of "pretty well". heh heh.

Ugh.

Emphasis on the "was." Nowadays, Western Civilization has more roots in France than Greece or Rome.

To begin with,it would be too naive to think that Bush/Blair are attacking countries to introduce democracy.
Their steps were fundamentlay flawed and evident,if you didnt noticed it earlier and now this petty piece of article opening your eyes,thn all i can say is
"Bravo kid".

All I have to say is, bully for the Afghanis. We came in there to give them a choice, and they chose to adhere to Islamic Law, though not being an actual theocracy.

This fella was well aware of what would happen to him when he converted. Becoming a martyr for Christendom is just as good as the 101 virgins, right?

If they adhere to Islamic Law, then I'm pretty sure that make's them a theocracy. Their faith is playing a dominant role in their government.

But their faith is not their government.

For Afghanistan to technically be a theocracy, the Mullahs or the Ayatohllas, or whatever the Hell the local clergy calls themselves would hold effective political power. Simply because a nation adheres to a law put forth by a religion does not necessarily make it theocratic.

None of our laws contradict Christian ones, do they?

Differing ideas on the definition of theocracy then.

A theocracy in my mind is a government that is "divinely" inspired and follows the ideals of a religon. Not necessarily needing a religous figurehead or icon to be head of state. If they follow Islamic laws down the the letter, which seems to be the case that fits under my notion of a theocracy.

Plus, government has always co-opted religous figureheads.

No, but not all of them agree with Christian ideals. Laws are suppose to be blind in a religous/race/sex sense. In this case, the ideals of the extremist Muslims are being followed. Enough in my mind to qualify them as a theocracy.

While Afghanistan may not be a theocracy, they lean very heavily upon Sharia law.

Suppose the U.S. Constitution were formed tightly around Presbyterianism. Any variation from that doctrine would be considered an "attack on Presbyterianism". Suddenly the U.S isn't so welcoming to Jews or Catholics, or even Methodists for that matter because they're not as Calvinistic as the Presbyterians.

Attempting to form free western style democracies with people who cling to Islamic law is doomed to fail. Islamic law and western freedoms are in complete opposition.

This assumes that freedom is required for democracy in the first place.

Umm wtf. Our military will investigate it, if anyone actually did what is claimed they will be spending time in a military prison. How does this have anything to do with the topic at hand?

As for Afganistan's stupid laws. I don't agree with what these people are doing but these are the laws they have enacted on themselves. Stupid as it sounds it us, this is what the majority of the people want. They are not the US where there are many different kinds of people. They do things differently and while I find it very offensive that they will kill a man rather than just deport him for being a christian, it is not my place to say they can not do that to themselves.

Religious Equality seems to be something to complicated for them :/

Deport him? How can you just deport people whom you don't want in your country? Where would all the undesired people go?

I think what most people misunderstand is that we cannot change the middle-east.

You guys remember this little period in European history called the dark ages? Yeah, after the fall of the Roman empire until the Renaissance/Enlightenment age? That's what the Middle-East is going through right now. They're in the stranglehold of religious fundamentalism, the government/clergy control all the media. If you control access to information, you control their awareness and ultimately their thoughts.

I just think it's hilarious that the Afghanistan people, as a united whole, chose to be choked by a different group of god-fanboys than the previous group they used to have.

"Yes! I like warlords!"

The difference this time is that it's a group they chose. (plus they all want this guy dead)

The problem seems to rest in the current Islamist movement taking over Islam as a whole. Moderate Muslims can look to the following verses to see that this kind of harsh treatment goes against the teachings of their holy books:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).

Yet there is such a strong pull in Islam to go back to 7th century brutality. While all religions have their entrenched nutcases, Islam seems to be the only one where the nutcases are, for the most part, running the show.

Perhaps the very nature of Islam lends itself to a government with a strong central, and more secular, leader. Maybe a Saddam, or Khadaffi, or Musharef for that matter, is what is needed to keep things from turning into a Sharia based theocratic mess.

It was just a suggestion other than killing the man.

Wesker: Just because the text is in their holy book doesn't mean they actually take it to heart, I'm sure they pick out only the parts that benefit them. From the illogical reaction to a few cartoons I'm not to sure these people are entirely sane, so don't expect sane reactions from them.

The fact of the matter is, its the Afghanistani's people choice what they wish their laws to be. If they want to be a religious theocracy, so let it be.

It isn't that Western-style government and Islam aren't compatible, its that people want to rule in a way that makes them incompatible. And as long as we decide that the people have the power to choose, we have no choice but to accept the decision of the Afghani people.

Besides, what kind of idiot decides to convert from Christianity to Islam in Afghanistan anyways. The guy should be smarter than that, period.

No don't fault the man for believing in something other than what 99.99999% of his crazy country men believe. I personally think that the stupid thing was that he decided to stay in a place where he knew he would be killed for his believes...

Because, you know, he obviously had the necessary resources to pack-up everything and leave everything and everyone he knows behind. I mean, duh, what idiot can't see the logic in leaving behind everyone you know and love?

Is it just me or does the guy in the picture look excited?

Well he is smiling when they plan on killing him soon...

Duo Maxwell: There comes a point when standing on hot coals for too long will only cause harm. He danced for 20+ (14?) years in a country that hates Christians and hates their own kind who convert even more. While it is sad that they plan on killing this man, he did choose to stay there knowing full well what would happen to him if he ever got caught.

I'm guessing you meant what kind of guy converts TO Christianity in Afghanistan. A case could be made that a courageous man who stands on his convictions and has true faith in Jesus Christ would convert. He converted 14 years ago...during Taliban reign. Perhaps he flet that things would change with a new constitution and all. You can't call him stupid. You'd then have to call all of the apostes stupid, because they were killed, you'd have to call Mohammad stupid, because he faced violent opposition too. Martin Luther and the Pilgims were idiots too by your logic.

What does the pilgrims have to do with a lone convert in bumfuck, Afghanistan? Funny hats?

The Pilgrims chose to oppose the church of England, they took a stand and took great risks for their religion

No, I'd call him stupid because he is an apostate in a country that will not accept him, a country where a religious freedom movement has no need since it would not even come close to affecting less than half a percent of the population.

I'd call him stupid as well because hes attempting to drive a cause that is best not martyred for. The only way to achieve that kind of religious freedom in Afghanistan is to allow the society to open up to the world and acclimate itself to such ideas, simply dumping it on a society of that kind will just not work.

His religion is a personal thing. He was turned in by Muslim family members. Jesus was apostate in Israel...Paul refused to bow down and call Ceasar god...and how do you know religious freedom would have no effect if it hasn't been tried. Maybe many Afghanis would think Christianity to be superior to Islam and convert..perhaps thats what the cleric are afraid of, perhaps thats why they so desperatly want to forbid any other religious thought, becuase in the light of free religious choice, Islam may lose its power and control over the people.

And now one point rises above all. You just don't understand the Afghani people. It's by far the most conservative society in the world, deeply rooted in tribal ideas and Islam. There wouldn't be a mass conversion, it's not a society very open to change.

And you don't seem to understand the concept of faith and religion either.

It's not like the guy openly displayed his religion in a defying way. His own family betrayed him.

Anyway, he's out now. Officially released for "mental" issues.

Wesker made this topic just to bash Islam,he is just looking for chance to bash even more ,where as Adamgian is trying to defend needlessly.

The issue is trivial,who gives a DAMN fuck to a afghani.

And this issue has ended so i dont see any point of continuing this debate.

How am I bashing? I even quoted Isalmic scripture to show that not all Muslims believe this way.

The issue is not trivial. If American lives are being sacrificed to bring "democracy" to these Muslim nations, I'd prefer to see them act in a more civilzied fashion. Since this isn't going to happen, my opinion now is the hell with them, we shouldn't waste another American life trying to mediate peace between these people since in the long run it won't matter anyway.

Still, it's not the fault of the people who have been living with this law for centuries, but of the people "bringing" democracy to them without actually enforcing their understanding of it.

Agreed...it seems the American people were sold a false premise in in that the defeat of the taliban would bring a new openeness to the region. This obviously didn't happen. Most Americans would not have wanted our troops to die establishing a new government that executes people for their religious beliefs. Bomb the taliban, take out the military capabilities and terrorist capabilities of threatening nations, but don't commit American lives to a clearly failed westernization program.

To be honest, it's not a secret that the recent nation building sponsored by the US and their allies is failing left and right. I wonder what went wrong after WWII.

After WWII we were, in Europe, building nations that already had a Judeo/Christian ethic and had, in the past, experienced western style freedoms. In Japan, MacArthur governed, almost as a dictator, and the Japanese, having been so soundly defeated, were eager at a chance at a better life. While not having a Judeo?Chritian background, they at least weren't burdened by an overly strict theocratic law, and were thus better able to adapt to a free market, libertarian type of society. Allowing the Emperor to remain as a figure head leader helped also, by allowing them a tie with their past and their religion.

That is what got us into this mess in the first place. THe CIA funnelled a ton of money, arms, and support to the Mujuhadden when they were fighting the Soviets, and once they won, the Americans packed up went home. The Soviets devastated the populaiton - I can longer remember the precise firgure - but the percentage of the Afghan population killed in the war is shocking. Into the resulting power vacuum came the Taliban, who ideological roots and black turbans can be traced to a precise Pakistani madreseh on the road between Peshawar and Islamabad. Even today, it is hard to find anyone in Pakistan or Afghanistan who holds a grudge against Russia - they still feel that the real betrayal was by the Americans abandoning them at the end of the Soviet occupation. So you can bomb the Taliban out of existence in Afghanistan, but it is alive in well in NWFP, Baluchistan, the tribal agancies and many remote valleys in the Northern Areas, and it will be back. Taliban philosophy can only gain creedence in areas of low education, poor security, even poorer economic prospects. Virulent anti-Americanism in Pakistan, the assassination of General Massoud, and the presence Osama Bin Laden are inextricably linked and point to something bigger and more troubling. THe only way to fix that region is to help them rebuild their civilization. I can't help but feel had we done that in the 80s, we would have saved ourselves a lot of heartache in the 00s.

If Americans are going to stick their noses into someone else's mattersand issues etc,the people will get agrravated instead of being civilised specially the way US adopts that is, killing and destorying nation in the shroud of DEMOCRACY REVIVAL.

I ask you,if your father and mother would prefer solving problems of their "family" by themslef or they would rather suggest some stranger to come to your house and intervene in your matters(beating you if necessary).
How will you react?

Afghanistan is Fucked since long ,a guliible nation,with fucked up citizens and US is responsible for that.
Now don't even expect them to act in civilised way.

Who said civility was even a requirement for democratic government?

The Iraqi shopowners aren't emptying magazines out of seventh-century social sets but political expressions of the desire for national autonomy.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, Wesker, but people who don't live on your continent generally severely disagree with Full Spectrum Dominance.

My take is that people like wesker are not in any mood of accepting this even if they are AWARE.

My poiny is that I think it is a mistake to try and bring democracy and western ideas to apeople who, by the nature of their religious beliefs, are not willing to accept them. I say that the threats should be removed, but the efforts at nation building should not be taken. Isalmist governments will always be at odds with western governments, this conflict is at the heart of the beliefs of the Islamist Jihadists. Bush thought "If these people just get a taste of good old American style freedom, than they'll just run to it and adopt it"..he was dead wrong.

This strategy is just asking for trouble down the road. Perceptions of unfairness and hypocrisy is what mainstreamed radical Islam. Acting like a bully just makes it harder for moderates in friendly countries like Egypt and Jordon. Pressing for reforms in our oppressive allies like Saudi Arabia would go much further in making us safe than bombing uranium enrichment plants in Iran.

This is a complicated issue because on the one hand, even an occupying force needs to respect foreign cultures, law and lifestyle. On the other hand, if you're going into a country with military force planning to establish a western style democracy, you better do it right and not be half-assed about it.

Islam presents a problem when it comes to respecting other cultures. Islam seems to have a victim complex. Muslims can inflict all kinds of horrible violence upon each other and theres nary a peep of protest. Release a rumor of Koran abuse or draw a cartoon of Mohammad and theres hell to pay. It seesm that only the "infidel" can be guilty of offenses against Muslims. This presents the occupying forces with the dilemma of trying to protect a people from themselves. Any actions taken against the offending party, if the offending party is Muslim, and the occupying force is the guilty one. It's a no win situation.Knowing this, "insurgents" and terrorists often hole up in mosques, knowing that for the infidel Americans to go after them would be some sort of horrific offense against islam and cause a public outcry.

It could just as easily be said, excuse the pun, that Christians have a God complex. The only reason Islam seems to have a "victim complex" is that western media only reports on a small minority of Muslim extremists. Yes, they're at the forefront, but that doesn't mean they're the majority.

This is exactly the type of attitude that makes your policy fail in Muslim countries. If you don't like Islam, you better stay the fuck out of the Middle East.

The fact of the matter though is, Middle Eastern countries don't want to be "Westernized." Hell, just read some of the Saudi press, and it'll openly say - Modernize, yes, Westernize, never.

Democracy and a rule of law open to the public is not something that is given, its something the people of the country who want it must earn. It takes strong institutions and a people willing to work themselves to get their right to vote and determine their own laws. Democracy will never work as an imposed idea, and its very sad that the US and its people of all nations, can't seem to realize that.

Islam is compatible with Democracy so long as you realize the type of Democracy it calls for. In particular, what do you consider as central tenents of a free society? Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, what? European countries don't grant full freedom of speech, and some have state religions, yet we consider them democracies. Adapting this to a conservative Islamic society is the way to bring about an open rule of law.

I bring this up for a few reasons. First off, blasphemy will never be tolerated in an Islamic society. You cannot expect even a democratic muslim country to permit people to openly caricature Muhammed, as with the Danish cartoons. As well, apostacy will be a touchy and difficult issue to address, and likely will be illegal as well. However, does banning those two practices inherently mean that a state cannot be a democracy?

Wesker, most of this is directed at you, although it applies to anyone else who wants to address it. I've been looking at the issue, its a very, very complicated one to address, and thats the main reason I strongly oppose any intervention to prop up "Democractic governments." It's just too difficult for a foreign power to juggle and understand the complexities of the situation on the ground.

I'm not disagreeing worth you on everything Adamgain, but what I'm saying is that I don't think its the right thing to do to try to bring in western style democracy to these countries, and I think thats what Bush is trying to do. The idea that the Iraqis adopted a constitution was cited in America as some kind of big step towards all kinds of freedoms, but I think that was a false premise.

About the Muslim attitudes, face it, there is tons of Muslim outrage towards any actions, real or imagined, conducted by the west, but beheadings, bombings etc. are all reasonably tolerated by most Muslims.

The death penalty is also tolerated by most Americans.

eh, we don't do it by beheading, but rather lethal injection with a sterile needle. and we usually have a legitimate trial and a lengthy appeals process. it's a wee bit more civilized than the mid-east.

It's still murder, though. And I still think countries should be allowed to make their own laws; however uncivilized they might seem to us - it's none of our business.

Beheadings tend to be tolerated because, just like lethal injections, people believe that they are a painless and yet effective method of getting the job done. The method they are executed in means that the reciever is dead virtually instantly. It seems gruesome, but in reality, its better than other forms of execution such as hanging.

Secondly, I will take severe difference with your opinion on suicide bombings. They are utterly deplored in most countries with stable governments. Just look at the hotel bombings in Amman or multiple attacks in Saudi Arabia. As always, they are applauded by the minority that sponsors them, but the populations always have revolted against them. In both countries though, its a harder thing to notice from the outside than the inside, but after living in Saudi Arabia through some of the deadliest attacks, I can safely say that its not something the countries people condone.

Yet a Judicial System exists in the Middle East based on Sharia law, the people are tried according to it, and punished accordingly as well. Whether you agree that Sharia law is a justifiable method for determining a persons guilt is an entirely different issue.

Muslims protesting against terrorist attacks just don't excite people too much to be shown on TV. An angry, AK-47-wielding mob of Muslims with oversized photographs of martyrs suicide bombers, however, is pure entertainment.

As in every society, the radical/fundamentalist groups tend to be the loudest. No different in Europe or America.

Actually, there are many Muslims where I live who have expressed outrage at these actions. Islam, when practiced by the book, is a pacifist religion, just like Christianity.

I don't think he's talking about capital punishment, but rather militant beheadings, like in Iraq, which are done to shock and outrage. As a side note, it is thought that the disembodied head remains "alive" for as much as 15 seconds following the extraction. Gruesome thought.

I agree with you that Islamic countries are not the least bit interested in westernizing - partly this is because westernization is synonymous with the throw away parts of our culture, and not our more cherished values. But modernization is a must. If we are ever going to reach a detente, let alone common ground in our ever widening global theology/culture war, muslims must take a few steps towards our millenium. In this way, it is a shame about Saddam Huessien. Sure, he was a bellicose psychopath, but before the Iran-Iraq war he was the most progressive leader in the middle east and did a lot of good for Iraq overall.

THe history of western involvement the middle east/ west asia over the last 70 years or so, reads like a Three Stooges script. We never missed an opportunity to fuck ourselves. So much of what we do now is simply trying to fix the mis-steps made with an earlier policy.

Scary thought indeed. Just to add a bit more though, in Saudi executions, the victim has already had blood extracted from them to ensure that they are in a somewhat delirious state to ensure that they don't feel it much if at all.

Frankly, I'd rather get executed in a beheading like that then via a hanging. After all, hangings have a higher rate of failure.


I completely agree with you on that, and thats why I can't stop saying how much of a blessing high oil prices are. Just one look at the Middle East press and you'll find a flurry of massive new development projects. It seems like theres a new university launching almost daily, Saudi Arabia is pretty much building a entire city capable of holding, with its surrounding urban enviroment, over 3 million people, and Dubai is doing something similar to its waterfront. The examples extend across the Gulf.

The Middle East really is trying not to Westernize, and so far has done a decent job. Petrodollars are also helping greatly in ensuring though that they can modernize, and frankly, I'm extremely impressed with how well the boom is being managed this time compared to the last where it was almost entirely squandered.

I chucked when I read that. Probably the best analogy I've heard in a while.

Have yet to hear of any American facing capital punishment for switching religions. Quite a difference between executing a man who rapes and murders children and executing a man who dares to deny Islam.

Adamgain..i gather that you are a Muslim, and I'm glad you're free to practice and defend your religion, but saying that beheading is a more humane form of execution....me thinks your defense strays into the whacko zone here. The videos I've seen of the beheadings, done in Allahs name by the way, seemed very gruesome to me.

Disclaimer: The above post wasn't meant to include and or offend ALL Muslims. I've found that mentioning ANY negative about Muslims soon gets one branded as an anti Islamic hate monger.

So you are just confirming that the punishment isn't the issue, it's that they hold different values than you do.

It's unfortunate that 'freedom' 'democracy' and 'morals' have all been lumped into the same thing. They have the freedom to chose, by democratic means what laws they wish to uphold and live by. That they do not reflect the laws that you or I would like to chose does not have any bearing on their having freedom and democracy.

The appeal to relativism is so weak. So we're just going to accept hundreds of thousands of Darfurians dead or displaced because it's acceptable in their culture, and we shouldn't intervene in other cultures because that's bad (unless, of course, we're dolling out hundreds of millions of dollars in aid with no strings attached). Puh-leeze. Human rights are universal and don't apply to just one part of the planet. Human dignity transcends borders, and Westerners should be enforcing those values wherever we can, particularly in countries where we are nation building and where we expect those countries to live up to international human rights standards.

They may have democracy, but that does not ensure freedom. Thats the problem. Their democracy consists of electing hard line Islamists, like the palestinians did with hamas, so their version of democracy denies freedom. A democracy can pass a law that says all minorities are to be imprisoned. Where then is the freedom for all the people. What I'm saying, that at least to Americans, these new elections were touted as a great thing, freeing an oppressed people, when this isn't even close to being true. Military force and a change in government, and a written constitution can't change people's hearts, and the hearts of most Middle East Muslims is bogged down with Sharia law.

In Pakistan I have noticed, people sometime are not able to clearly distinguish between religion and nationality. There is a perception among muslims that Pakistani christians are free to travel to and live in "christian lands" such as the US, and they get preferential treatment at embassies etc. At times of particular tension between the US and Pak, militants will go out and throw a bomb at a church in Lahore in the belief that they are striking at the West. In Afghanistan I imagine there is a similar outlook. So against a background of religious animosity, what is simple apostasy for us, may be seen more as traitorous to them. Many countries including the US, consider treason a capital offense. Not saying this to condone the actions in Afghanistan, as i certainly don't. Merely pointing out that there can be a cultural context that makes it slightly more comprehensible.

As for outrageous, I still scratch my head thinking about the capital crime in Pakistan of "insulting the prophet".

They may seem gruesome when done by terrorist orginizations and whatnot, but when its a state execution, they're known for being particularily clean and effective.

This entire argument is based on the false assumption that Islam doesn't contain certain human rights embedded within it. The fact of the matter is stable Muslim countries have among the lowest crime rates in the world, lowest murder rates, and highest levels of philanthropy among other countries.

Almost all if not all (I'd need to read the document, im going from memory) the mentions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are embodied by Islam, its merely an issue of interpretation. The problem with interpretation is that radicals tend to scream louder, and theirs has taken over. Wait a little though, it's slowly changing as the ME comes to terms with its own terrorist threat.

What are these human rights that you are talking about? Please show me where their laws differ with Internation Human Rights Standards. I'd love to better understand the conflict between these two.

Double Post:
Then the issue is that their religous/moral ideals differ from ours? What can be done about this other than taking out Islam? I mean, your argument is that they chose to live by laws, which they have had great opportunity to change, that are in conflict with those that we would want to live by.

"Freeing an oppressed people", is exactly what happened. They are no longer being forced to live by Sharia law (or one interpretation thereof), instead they are chosing to live by the values they hold dear. Just as most western countries chose to live by Judeo/Christian values.

Wesker:I guraantee you that there no. of gays are more in Chriastians/Westerners than extremists in Muslims.
Going by above rule, i am not stupid to declare all chriastians=Gays.

Change your fucking attitude towards Muslims ,you are reeking of hatred even if you dont say so.

Where did this come from?

Also, last I heard, being homosexual is genetic, and the odds are relatively even across the board. The only reason it seems that Christian societies have a higher number is because it is regarded as an abomination in conservative Islamic societies. It's one area in which I wish the region would lighten up on, they act about it in the same way Pat Robertson does.

Oh for God's sake....stop with the ultra sensitivity "hatred" bullshit. There are lots of great Muslim people and I've never said all Muslims are bad/evil/terrorists or whatever. I'm talking about an attitude in the Middle east that seems prevelant. It's more cultural in some ways than religious, in that I don't notice the same attitude in Singapore or in Bosnia.

That being said, maybe it depends on how one defines an "extremist". Executing a man for changing religions seems very extreme to most Americans, and I'm sure its extreme to alot of Muslims, but to those in power in Afghanistan, and to other very fundamental Muslims its no big deal.

I'll say my main point again. Americans were, in my opinion, sold a false bill of goods by the administration, as to the sweeping changes brought about by new constitutions and governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. These changes weren't as big as we were led to believe and the old ways still prevail. Most Americans are not willing to spend the lives of American troops to bring about governments that are arguably just as oppresive as the ones replaced. I'm all for hunting down UBL and Al Quida, and for removing the threat of WMD but I feel that sending mostly Christian American troops to die in order to set up a government that then wants to execute a man for becoming a Christian is very wrong.

Where did I even mention that Islam contradicts human rights norms? The fact of the matter is that Western European countries have a better record of enforcing human rights at home and abroad than any other part of the world, and most people seem to think we have an obligation to ensure that those human rights are respected outside of our borders wherever possible.

And low crime rates have absoloutely fuck all to do with respecting human rights.

Do you not know what human rights are?

Executing someone on the basis of his religious affiliation doesn't strike me as respect for one's human rights.

No, it just means Western governments are better at enforcing what they believe are proper human values and rights. The issue is relative depending on which rights you discuss.

Also, the US and the economically powerful nations have an obligation to prevent human rights abuses globally regarded as vile and reprehensible, but not one to interfere when the issue is the result of a different interpretation of the values of a nation. In particular, I reference the difference between genocide and execution for adultery, or in this case, apostacy.

The fact of the matter is, a nation has the right to chose its own laws, and the US has no right to tell them whether or not they are justified. If a majority of Afghanistan believes that he should be executed and the system of laws in Afghanistan leans towards that, then I'm afraid hes a victim of that. Curse and damn their laws all you want, I won't be hesitating, but at the same time, its simply not our decision.

No, what they display is the manner in which a nation regards respect to others. Low crime is representative of the values a nation holds dear, and if it is one of less execution and robery, that will translate into a system of laws and a judiciary that supports some of the rights the West espouses.

Look at things in the broader context and not their direct relation, or you'll be blinded by the sheer depth and complexity of these issues.

Marked for emphasis. Again, what you're saying is entirely relative, and the fact of the matter is, we turned Afghanistan into a Democracy, and it is no longer our decision as to what their laws are. If American lives were lost to bring a system you disagree with, great, just make sure the US doesn't start anymore invasions of soverign countries if the results will be less than satisfactory.

This is utter bullshit. So you're saying that there are no objective moral standards of judging the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide or Darfurian genocides as wrong? Mass destruction of human life is OK depending on your relative moral stance? Get the fuck out of here with that.

I don't even know if your statistics are correct or not, and frankly, it has no bearing on your point whatsoever. Low crime is indicative of a system where the Gen. Pop is obedient, and the causes of that obedience can be numerous. You're oversimplifying an argument that requires a lot more proof and a lot less rhetoric to substantiate.

It's not. Human rights are universal and regimes can't just pick and choose the ones that they like and omit the rest (from a moral p.o.v.).

You can't just reference something and not explain its connection to whatever you're saying. And how the fuck do you misinterpret one's right to exercise religious freedom to justify killing someone on the basis of his religious affiliation? It's a direct contradiction of a fundamental human right that transcends all borders and encompasses all human beings regardless of ethnicity or nationality.

I could just justify slavery by saying that this is a culturally norm and therefore acceptable. I could say that our culture kills everyone with a mark on their left cheek and that statement in itself would justify those killings. Your standard fails because there is an objective moral standard to judge these things, and no bullshit relativism will ever discount that.

You frustrate me to no end because you have such a narrow frame of mind. The U.S. or any other country has every right to criticize the human rights practices of other countries if they are, in fact, wrong. And the fact that a law exists in a country (that has been under tyrannical rule for the last decade) that states that he should die because he subscribes to a religion outside of Islam doesn't make it right, and since Western powers are lifting this country out of its post-war ruins, we have all the leverage to enforce those human rights in Afghanistan and therefore we ultimately do have the right to make that decision.

Relativism fails by its own justification. The view that everything is relative is a relative p.o.v. and therefore cannot be regarded as truth.

Ok lol

Fuck it ,man i know Islam and i know that no where its written in Islamic Principles that behead those who change thier way from Islam,infact God will takecare of those people in life hereafter.

I hate to see nations like Afghanistan having no concept of what real Islam is, yet claim their validation.Such stupid nations spoil the whole image,futher giving , guys like Wesker an "Excuse" to bash and pluck out problems in the religion even more.

When i heard the news of this man, i knew and still believe that its a conspiracy,the issue is "made" to be "heated" up.

Really, there are more Human rights issue to deal with in US herself(child pornos at large,no?) than infiltrating policies of other nations.

Double Post:
US has right ,and what if US is wrong and other nation wants to criticize US?
Can they ,ofcourse they can't.
US is disliked by many countries aroud the wrold 'cause of its inhumane policies not "just" by Muslim countries and its a well known fact not a "relative" concept and you know that.

So "first" a nation herself should be wise and clean,before pointing fingers at others.

Dont fuck others if you like to fuck yourself.

It doesn't strike me as a respectful thing to do either. What I wanted was that you might back up your stance with documents which in some way indicated that every country, or at least Afghanistan had to abide by the morals which you and I consider common sense, or human rights.

Instead I get a smart-ass remark.

I like how you're telling a Muslim that you know more about his religion than he does.

Under Islam, apostasy is considered treason, which is punishable by death. Whether or not you agree with that is a completely different issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't what is said. I for example strongly disagree with that principle, however, I won't deny that it's there, and I sure as hell won't support actions to carry it out.

And the fact of the matter on this issue is simply that, whether or not we approve of the conduct of Afghani officials and their people, we just don't have a choice. It's simply not our country, and by building a democracy, we turned over our right to make their laws to the people of the country.

I have read and researched everything about Islam ,and what i know (Adamgian will also agree),is that Islam i NOT like other religions.

Accept it or leave it,the commands have to be followed in their entirety,and if not thn even if you will "call" yourself Muslim,which evry muslim does,in reality you are hypocryte not Muslim.

Its just like "you can call yourself Jew but you can only be REAL jew, if you will be born from jewish mother".Reform jews dont believe this but Orthodox ,yes.

The problem lies wihtin the religion itself and defiant parties against Islam using that for their own goals,some are even bent to wipe out Islamic beliefs,we all know that.

What Muslim normally think he does is right in the light of his religion, is actually a sin and totally wrong.

I very well accept Adamgian when he uses word complex,its indeed complex for punkass non-muslims to understand this Religion.

Double Post:
Punishable by death ,you can PM me where its written,why PM?
Because i know it will require research.
If its in Holy book,Hadis etc tell me,i am willing to accept but don't say i am not agreeing and on what grounds you are bouncing.

"I wont deny its there"

where exactly?

And do tell me, what Sect. you belong too.
Sunni,Shia,Ismaili
or sub sects of Sunnis and Shias???

The entire principle is based on a contentious hadith that is translated as "Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him." It's contentious though because to issue such a penalty blindly also doesn't take into consideration the circumstances in which the hadith originally was issued - when the religion was young and fighting for survival in Medina.

Thus, the phrase exists, but at the same time, the punishment is still in a way open to interpretation depending on how you look at it. It's clearly there, it just depends on how much weight you want to apply on the circumstances.

In my opinion, I feel the circumstances were dire and in a time of war, were used to prevent what was basically treason. Now however, circumstances have changed, and part of the religion is about such freedom, and instead results in a punishment upon death. Thus, I'd say the punishment is unjustifiabale today.

As for my personal religious ideas, I'm Muslim, but I'll leave it at that. I'd rather not discuss personal religious beliefs.

Yeah!..those punk ass non-Muslims are a bunch of morons! Only butch tough assed Muslims can understand anything.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Muslims understand what it means to be a Muslim better than a non-Muslim would, much the same way you understand what it means to be a reactionary spastic better than the rest of us. Well, with the possible exception of Billy Coen. Come to think of it, has anyone seen Coen and Wesker in the same place?

Where its written
I know there are Chapters and verses
So what chapter no. and verse no.?
I dont believe in heresay,you have to be authentic when claiming such thing.

Why i asked sect. 'cause,Sunnis and Shias have different Hadis:).

Double Post:
Yeah rite,so try to become the later ones.

Wesker's quite a bit more logical and moderate than Billy Coen. His post quality is just plain better.

That would involve me looking harder, which frankly, is a waste of time. The idea is being accepted by both sides, so you can assume that its written that way for both sides. The struggles of Muhammed are detailed by both Shia and Sunni.

Yeah don't "look harder" ,and advice others to "assume" that its written that way(thats where most muslims falter).

Islam isn't about assumption.

Why have I been branded as a hater? I've not said anything hateful towards muslims in general. Adamgain for example seems like a cool guy, easy to talk with. The term "punk ass non Muslims" just seemed funny to me. Seems like we need to be able to discuss things in the PP without being branded as hateful just because people disagree with us. The only Billy Coen I know is the protagonist in Resident Evil 0. As you can gather by my moniker, I'm a big RE fan. So believe what you want, I really don't care.