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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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 thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Sexninja

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Rock

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Sexninja

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 thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate 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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Rock

The death penalty is also tolerated by most Americans.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Sexninja

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Sexninja

punkass non-muslims

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

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?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.