So glad we defeated the Taliban!

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.

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

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

it's a wee bit more civilized than the mid-east.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

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 Wesker

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.

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".

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by lordjames

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 internationalal human rights standards.

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:

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Quote:

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 decalre 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.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by adamgian

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

What the fuck? No where did I even mention that Islam contradicts human rights norms. But 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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.).

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

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

Quote:

wrong

Quote:

wrong

Quote:

wrong

Ok lol

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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:

Originally Posted by lordjames

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by lordjames

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.

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.

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