Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on October 29, 2007, 09:33:37 pm
-
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/
:rolleyes:
-
It's like the Princess Diana thing in the UK, it just will not go away...
-
(http://i21.tinypic.com/2h86dma.jpg)
-
*Snip*
At least it's more humane than the electric chair. :rolleyes:
Honestly, do these people even know what 'Islamo-fascism' means!?
-
*Snip*
At least it's more humane than the electric chair. :rolleyes:
Honestly, do these people even know what 'Islamo-fascism' means!?
I assume it means Islamic people who believe that they are the best religion out there and have a right to take over the world... let me check.
EDIT:
1) Mefustae, please do something for me: Knowing that I don't consider execution by a gunshot to the head to be inhumane or inappropriate in certain circumstances, can you guess why I find that picture disturbing? I know you can do it.
2) This article is about the term "Islamofascism"; See the broader treatment of possible relations between religion and fascism in Clerical fascism and Neofascism and religion.
Islamofascism is a controversial neologism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism) suggesting an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist) movements with European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) movements of the early 20th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century), neofascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascist) movements, or totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism).
The word is included in the New Oxford American Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Oxford_American_Dictionary), defining it as "a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century". Critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) with fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) is offensive and inaccurate.
Origins and usage
Although Islamofascism is usually a reference to Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) rather than Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) in general, comparisons have been made between fascism and Islam, as far back as 1937, when the German Catholic emigré Edgar Alexander compared Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) with "Mohammedanism", and again, in 1939, when psychologist Carl Jung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung) said about Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), "he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic, warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god."[1]
According to Roger Scruton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton) of the Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal), the term was introduced by the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) historian Maxime Rodinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Rodinson) to describe the Iranian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution) of 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978). Scruton claims that Rodinson "was a Marxist, who described as 'fascist' any movement of which he disapproved", but credits him with inventing a "convenient way of announcing that you are not against Islam but only against its perversion by the terrorists."[2]
In 1990 Malise Ruthven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malise_Ruthven) wrote, in The Independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent):
"Nevertheless there is what might be called a political problem affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say Islamo-fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan." [3]
Albert Scardino of the The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Duran) in the Washington Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times), where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry".[4]
The related term, Islamic fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fascism), was adopted by journalists including Stephen Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schwartz_%28journalist%29)[5] and Christopher Hitchens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens),[6] who intended it to refer to Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) extremists, including terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) groups such as al Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda), although he more often tends to use the phrases "theocratic fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)" or "fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) with an Islamic face" (a play on Susan Sontag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag)'s phrase "fascism with a human face", referring to the declaration of martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_%281945%E2%80%931989%29#The_end_of_Communist_rule_.281980.E2.80.931990.29) in Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981)). [7]
Some commentators including Paul Berman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berman), an American author and professor of journalism at New York University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_University), and Christopher Hitchens, believe there are similarities between historical fascism and Islamofacism:[8][page # needed]
* rage against historical humiliation; [9]
* inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)[10][11];
* a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age -- or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations"[12] -- with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system;[13]
* belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamofascists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces; [11]
* exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.[11]
* offensive military, (or armed) campaign to reestablish the power and rightful international domination of the nation/community.[14][15]
-
On closer inspection, the stuff on there isn't that crazy or racist. In fact, he actually has a few good points splattered around. Unfortunately, the rabid anti-left sentiments that essentially form the backbone of the entire site undermine practically everything they've attempted to say.
-
See EDIT: above
-
1) Mefustae, please do something for me: Knowing that I don't consider execution by a gunshot to the head to be inhumane or inappropriate in certain circumstances, can you guess why I find that picture disturbing? I know you can do it.
Thanks for the clarification, but I honestly don't know what else is wrong with that picture? The fact that they're wearing robes? That it's such an open spot? Factoring in the cultural differences, I don't really see how it can be indicative of big, bad islamofascism.
-
1) Mefustae, please do something for me: Knowing that I don't consider execution by a gunshot to the head to be inhumane or inappropriate in certain circumstances, can you guess why I find that picture disturbing? I know you can do it.
Thanks for the clarification, but I honestly don't know what else is wrong with that picture? The fact that they're wearing robes? That it's such an open spot? Factoring in the cultural differences, I don't really see how it can be indicative of big, bad islamofascism.
Not our fault their society couldn't evolve past the seventh century. :p
-
Ah, Mefustae... now, as you can see, the method of execution makes no difference to me... hmm:
Execution of a teenage girl
A television documentary team has pieced together details surrounding the case of a 16-year-old girl, executed two years ago in Iran.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41935000/jpg/_41935868_atefah_paper203.jpg)
Newspaper article in Farsi about Atefah's execution
Atefah Sahaaleh: wrongly described as being 22 years old
On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka.
Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity".
The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery and described her as 22 years old.
But she was not married - and she was just 16.
Sharia Law
In terms of the number of people executed by the state in 2004, Iran is estimated to be second only to China.
In the year of Atefah's death, at least 159 people were executed in accordance with the Islamic law of the country, based on the Sharia code.
Since the revolution, Sharia law has been Iran's highest legal authority.
Alongside murder and drug smuggling, sex outside marriage is also a capital crime.
As a signatory of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has promised not to execute anyone under the age of 18.
But the clerical courts do not answer to parliament. They abide by their religious supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, making it virtually impossible for human rights campaigners to call them to account.
Code of behaviour
At the time of Atefah's execution in Neka, journalist Asieh Amini heard rumours the girl was just 16 years old and so began to ask questions.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41936000/jpg/_41936178_crane_203.jpg)
Crane for hanging in silhouette
To teach others a lesson, Atefah's execution was held in public
"When I met with the family," says Asieh, "they showed me a copy of her birth certificate, and a copy of her death certificate. Both of them show she was born in 1988. This gave me legitimate grounds to investigate the case."
So why was such a young girl executed? And how could she have been accused of adultery when she was not even married?
Disturbed by the death of her mother when she was only four or five years old, and her distraught father's subsequent drug addiction, Atefah had a difficult childhood.
She was also left to care for her elderly grandparents, but they are said to have shown her no affection.
In a town like Neka, heavily under the control of religious authorities, Atefah - often seen wandering around on her own - was conspicuous.
It was just a matter of time before she came to the attention of the "moral police", a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whose job it is to enforce the Islamic code of behaviour on Iran's streets.
Secret relationship
Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.
Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.
Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.
When she returned to her home town, she told those close to her that lashes were not the only things she had to endure in prison. She described abuse by the moral police guards.
Soon after her release, Atefah became involved in an abusive relationship with a man three times her age.
Former revolutionary guard, 51-year-old Ali Darabi - a married man with children - raped her several times.
She kept the relationship a secret from both her family and the authorities.
Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse.
Local petition
Circumstances surrounding Atefah's fourth and final arrest were unusual.
The moral police said the locals had submitted a petition, describing her as a "source of immorality" and a "terrible influence on local schoolgirls".
But there were no signatures on the petition - only those of the arresting guards.
Three days after her arrest, Atefah was in a court and tried under Sharia law.
The judge was the powerful Haji Rezai, head of the judiciary in Neka.
No court transcript is available from Atefah's trial, but it is known that for the first time, Atefah confessed to the secret of her sexual abuse by Ali Darabi.
However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law - within the confines of marriage - is nine, and furthermore, rape is very hard to prove in an Iranian court.
"Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women," according to Iranian lawyer and exile Mohammad Hoshi.
"They can say: 'You know she encouraged me' or 'She didn't wear proper dress'."
Court of appeal
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41936000/jpg/_41936180_father_beads203.jpg)
She was my love, my heart... I did everything for her, everything I could
Atefah's father
When Atefah realised her case was hopeless, she shouted back at the judge and threw off her veil in protest.
It was a fatal outburst.
She was sentenced to execution by hanging, while Darabi got just 95 lashes.
Shortly before the execution, but unbeknown to her family, documents that went to the Supreme Court of Appeal described Atefah as 22.
"Neither the judge nor even Atefah's court appointed lawyer did anything to find out her true age," says her father.
And a witness claims: "The judge just looked at her body, because of the developed physique... and declared her as 22."
Judge Haji Rezai took Atefah's documents to the Supreme Court himself.
And at six o'clock on the morning of her execution he put the noose around her neck, before she was hoisted on a crane to her death.
Pain and death
During the making of the documentary about Atefah's death the production team telephoned Judge Haji Rezai to ask him about the case, but he refused to comment.
The human rights organisation Amnesty International says it is concerned that executions are becoming more common again under President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who advocates a return to the pure values of the revolution.
The judiciary have never admitted there was any mishandling of Atefah's case.
For Atefah's father the pain of her death remains raw. "She was my love, my heart... I did everything for her, everything I could," he says.
He did not get the chance to say goodbye.
-
So, interestingly this is also alcohol awareness week. I bet that pisses them right off.
"Not only do you insult Allah, you get bevvied at the same time!"
I jest, this is serious though.
-
The problem for me is the whole Islamo- thing, executions have been taking place for a while, even on US military bases, as in the case of Ciara Durkin, killed on an American Base in a 'non-combat incident' involving a gunshot wound to the head. She was gay.
It's easy to paint a picture of 'Islamofacism' if you pretend that only Islam does it, but Islam is far from the only culture that, at its extremes, engages or supports this kind of thing. No, it's not right, but it's not Islam either.
Maybe calling it 'Fighting back against Intolerance Week' might have been a better name, this rings too much of 'hate the towel-heads week'.
-
It's worth pointing out that only four countries use the death sentence for under 18s and the USA is one of them.
Further more only 4 countries have signed but not yet ratified the treaty mentioned by jr2. And wouldn't you know it, USA is one of them too.
Yes the stuff in Iran is barbaric and inhumane but a phrase about glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind.
-
And yet you forget Roper v. Simmons, which, in 2005 found execution of minors unconstitutional, therefore allowing the United States to fix its own problems without the absolutely flawless and wonderful UN intervening.
-
No-one is claiming the UN is flawless, though I suspect it is a lot less corrupt than many are led to believe. It isn't perfect, it never pretended to be, do you consider the American system flawless? Of course not, so why is the fact that the UN isn't either such a huge matter for Americans? 'Our government sucks, but we think yours is worse' isn't really a good launch point for either side of the argument.
Also, are you saying that the US only stopped executing children 2 years ago, long after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq on Human Rights abuses? I never knew that.
-
No-one is claiming the UN is flawless, though I suspect it is a lot less corrupt than many are led to believe. It isn't perfect, it never pretended to be, do you consider the American system flawless? Of course not, so why is the fact that the UN isn't either such a huge matter for Americans? 'Our government sucks, but we think yours is worse' isn't really a good launch point for either side of the argument.
Also, are you saying that the US only stopped executing children 2 years ago, long after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq on Human Rights abuses? I never knew that.
I never considered the American system flawless either, but I still prefer it to the UN. Most Americans that hate the UN don't see the flaws in the US government as well. I don't like the UN because I think that while the concept of a world government is a good idea in terms of ending war and generating better cooperation, the UN doesn't have the strength to be that world government. It's far too decentralized and its nations retain too much sovereignty to truly be an effective government along the lines of the proposed European Constitution or the current US Federal government.
As for Iraq/Afghanistan, I think that ethnic genocide + subjugation of women + a lack of basic human freedoms were a little more obvious and black-and-white than capital punishment for murderers who just happen to be 17 at the time they commit their crimes.
-
Indeed, but is that really to do with Islam, or is it more to do with abuse and ignorance? I'm all for the idea that this sort of thing should be stopped, but why put 'Islam' in the name, already it's directing everyones' attention to the Middle East and making out that it only happens there. It doesn't.
As for the UN, I'll agree they don't have the weight to live up to their grand plan, but they are better than what we had before, and there will probably be other iterations that work better in the future, no endeavour has ever really succeeded the first time, and frequently not the second time, as you say, there's too much self-interest from each member, but it's the best we've done so far.
-
And yet you forget Roper v. Simmons, which, in 2005 found execution of minors unconstitutional, therefore allowing the United States to fix its own problems without the absolutely flawless and wonderful UN intervening.
Actually I was unaware that the USA had actually stopped doing it (I remember vaguely hearing something about it).
However doesn't it seem a little hypocritical to be condemning Muslim countries for execution of minors is when the USA only ended that practice 2 years ago? And if as you claim countries should be fixing their barbaric execution practices themselves *cough*Electric chair*cough*then isn't it also hypocritical to single out Muslim countries and say that they should be following UN rules?
-
I love how everytime a debate like this is brought up, rather than examining the facts that Iran and other Islamo-whatever countries practice these acts, somehow the US shouldn't say that's bad because we do "the exact same thing". Let me know the last time where we publicly hanged a girl for "crimes against chastity" or whatever, under the protection of the US law.
The problem for me is the whole Islamo- thing, executions have been taking place for a while, even on US military bases, as in the case of Ciara Durkin, killed on an American Base in a 'non-combat incident' involving a gunshot wound to the head. She was gay.
Yea, and I'm sure that was mandated by US law that she should be shot. Except it's not. But in Iran, I'm pretty sure something similar is, I remember hearing something just recently about it. Iran doesn't have any gays according to it's leader, remember?
People, stop comparing the U.S.'s laws to countries like Iran. Sure, we have the death penalty, but we are not enough alike to warrant a comparison.
Oh, and why is the US the only country who has a finger waved at them for the death penalty? There's always these folks:
* Afghanistan
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belarus
* Belize
* Botswana
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Chad
* China (People's Republic)
* Comoros
* Congo (Democratic Republic)
* Cuba
* Dominica
* Egypt
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Gabon
* Ghana
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guyana
* India
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Japan
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Korea, North
* Korea, South
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Libya
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Mongolia
* Nigeria
* Oman
* Pakistan
* Palestinian Authority
* Qatar
* Rwanda
* St. Kitts and Nevis
* St. Lucia
* St. Vincent and the Grenadines
* Saudi Arabia
* Sierra Leone
* Singapore
* Somalia
* Sudan
* Swaziland
* Syria
* Taiwan
* Tajikistan
* Tanzania
* Thailand
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Uganda
* United Arab Emirates
* United States
* Uzbekistan
* Vietnam
* Yemen
* Zambia
* Zimbabwe
I do realize that the statement was specifically for under 18 year olds, but still. Take a chill people on the anti-US sentiments. Kara, it's not hypocritical because look how often the death penalty is invoked in the US for under 18 year olds - it's hardly ever used - according to the website linked to below, only about 22 minors have ever been executed since 1973, and only one of them was below 17 years old (he was 16). On top of that, 38 out of 50 US states outlaw it - only three states allow 16 and above, 9 allow 17 and above, and the rest are all the previously mentioned 18 and above. Statistics are here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=203&scid=
Once again, just because the US says something is wrong doesn't mean that the US is wrong for saying it. Stop with the anti-US sentiments for the sake of having anti-US sentiments. Why don't we have a discussion on what this topic is actually about - this Islamo-facism thing and whether or not it really exists?
-
And yet you forget Roper v. Simmons, which, in 2005 found execution of minors unconstitutional, therefore allowing the United States to fix its own problems without the absolutely flawless and wonderful UN intervening.
Actually I was unaware that the USA had actually stopped doing it (I remember vaguely hearing something about it).
However doesn't it seem a little hypocritical to be condemning Muslim countries for execution of minors is when the USA only ended that practice 2 years ago? And if as you claim countries should be fixing their barbaric execution practices themselves *cough*Electric chair*cough*then isn't it also hypocritical to single out Muslim countries and say that they should be following UN rules?
A grand total of seven states still hold the electric chair as an option (with the exception of Nebraska, where it is indeed the sole form of execution; even though it's only killed a grand total of 3 people in the last 30 years). Any state that still uses capital punishment chiefly uses lethal injection.
For all of the negative press that the US gets for capital punishment, nobody seems to notice that 67% of capital punishment convictions are either knocked down to a lesser sentence or acquitted altogether. As for putting the US on the same level as Iran and other Muslim countries with regards to the death penalty, the comparison is only true to the extent that they all execute prisoners. Muslim countries use far more inhumane methods of execution than the US, including hanging, disembowelment, and shooting in the back of the head. In nearly 1,100 executions since 1976, the US has only hung or shot five and electrocuted 154. The nearly 930 other executions have been by lethal injection.
And by the way, not a single one of those 1,097 executed were 16 year old girls for bull**** charges of adultery. So really, criticize the US system all you want, as many do, but we've got much bigger problems in the world than convicted criminals being executed in humane manners in the US.
EDIT: Everything UT said too. Really, the execution of minors had been outlawed unofficially long before 2005 through evolution of community standards; nobody thinks it's right to execute someone younger than 18 for any crime, so it doesn't happen. Roper only officially outlawed it.
-
half a century ago we invented a solution to this problem
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/LBFM/images/LittleBoy.jpg)
religion got you down, blind em with science, literally!
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21535447/
On the other hand a teenager in Georgia recently went to jail for having oral sex with another teenager of similair age.
There is no question the middle east is hopelessly backwards, and their blind faith in Islam (or instert your highjacked religion here) has something to do with it. But we should look at the future: in terms of percentages, the population in the middle east is exploding, which will put a greater strain on already strained water resources. They are breeding themselves into extinction, we should let them pass.
-
I had to giggle at the Lawyers name, however...
B.J.Bernstein.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21535447/
[off-topic]
The girl must be a real *****.
[/off-topic]
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21535447/
On the other hand a teenager in Georgia recently went to jail for having oral sex with another teenager of similair age.
But was she ruthlessly hanged, or was the man sentenced to death? No. Oh we are so much like Iran. :doubt:
-
Jeez. The whole point wasn't the death penalty. If you're going to execute someone, do it humanely, yeah... shot to the back of the head might hurt for .001 seconds. More humane than the electric chair. However.... Trumping up adultery charges is quite another. You see, she wasn't even married. Did you read the article? She was raped!!!
In a town like Neka, heavily under the control of religious authorities, Atefah - often seen wandering around on her own - was conspicuous. It was just a matter of time before she came to the attention of the "moral police", a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whose job it is to enforce the Islamic code of behaviour on Iran's streets.
Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers. Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.
Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes. When she returned to her home town, she told those close to her that lashes were not the only things she had to endure in prison. She described abuse by the moral police guards.
Soon after her release, Atefah became involved in an abusive relationship with a man three times her age. Former revolutionary guard, 51-year-old Ali Darabi - a married man with children - raped her several times. She kept the relationship a secret from both her family and the authorities. Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse.
Circumstances surrounding Atefah's fourth and final arrest were unusual. The moral police said the locals had submitted a petition, describing her as a "source of immorality" and a "terrible influence on local schoolgirls". But there were no signatures on the petition - only those of the arresting guards.
eliminate the witness
Three days after her arrest, Atefah was in a court and tried under Sharia law. The judge was the powerful Haji Rezai, head of the judiciary in Neka. No court transcript is available from Atefah's trial, but it is known that for the first time, Atefah confessed to the secret of her sexual abuse by Ali Darabi.
However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law - within the confines of marriage - is nine, and furthermore, rape is very hard to prove in an Iranian court. "Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women," according to Iranian lawyer and exile Mohammad Hoshi. "They can say: 'You know she encouraged me' or 'She didn't wear proper dress'."
When Atefah realised her case was hopeless, she shouted back at the judge and threw off her veil in protest. It was a fatal outburst. She was sentenced to execution by hanging, while Darabi got just 95 lashes.
Now, don't forget... we're just as bad as that or worse here in the US. :rolleyes:
Pass that bucket of ice water, will you? Someone needs waking up. ;7
-
Now, don't forget... we're just as bad as that or worse here in the US. :rolleyes:
Pass that bucket of ice water, will you? Someone needs waking up. ;7
Yeah, but constantly pointing your finger and shouting "You! You're wrong! You shouldn't do that!" doesn't really help. What the people that run this site should be doing is everything they bloody well can to erase the death penalty and soforth to make the US a better place. Then, they'll have a much better leg to stand on when they decry these assholes.
Otherwise, they're just spitting into the wind.
-
Being perfect matters not to tyrants... they'll laugh in your face no matter how good you are. We can argue about pro / vs the death penalty, but we can't argue about situations like in Iran... it's just plain wrong. But, instead of having unity in taking care of things we know are wrong, we are divided amongst ourselves arguing over who is the nation the closest to perfection, or just plain trying to find fault with other nations. (I'm speaking of the UN here.)
-
Not once was I ever trying to imply the US was any better or worse.
-
Being perfect matters not to tyrants...
Point out where I said anyone needed to be 'perfect'? All i'm saying is that it'd be a lot easier to gain support and make a difference against this sort of thing if Iran (or whatever) couldn't instantly turn around and say "well you still execute people by the electric chair!" etc. This isn't about one single issue, it's about cleaning up the **** in your own backyard before *****ing to the neighbor about how crappy his place looks.
All religions should be wiped off the face of the earth. The word of god has been a convenient excuse for mistreating your fellow man for far too long.
Amen to that, brother. :nod:
-
The reason for the anti-US sentiment is because it's pretty obvious what this is REALLY all about.
How come no one is having a go at other countries in the world which are equally brutal. For that matter, how come no one is mentioning Saudi Arabia?
This is the exact same **** that happened before the invasion of Iraq and I can't believe anyone would be gullible enough to fall for it a second time. :rolleyes:
-
Like I said, they are breeding themselves into extinction. We'll just have to wait 20 years for their wells to dry up, and then they will start warming up the nukes. Problem solves itself.
-
How come no one is having a go at other countries in the world which are equally brutal. For that matter, how come no one is mentioning Saudi Arabia?
Actually, the site linked at the start of the thread does include Saudi Arabia under the banner of Islamo-fascism. Like I said before, they actually make some pretty good points, and I would actually agree with them in a few places if it weren't for their fervent and downright weird anti-left sentiments every other sentence.
Heh... don't worry, you get your chance... all 7 years of it. But it will be one religion, not none. And you will like it. Or die. Of course, you could always become a Christian, even during that time, then at least you'd go to Heaven when you died. But I digress. EDIT: I'm speaking of the rule of the Anti-Christ here, just in case you aren't well-read.
Excuse me!? What the heck are you talking about? I was clarifying my point that people in the US should focus on their own shortcomings before lecturing others on theirs, and you go on a little tirade threatening me with tales of the coming of the antichrist?! What the hell, man!
BTW... have you ever considered the fact that you have now officially spouted hate speech? Chew on that for a little. :lol: Or did you mean doing that non-violently? Because that would be impossible. And, even with violence, it would still be impossible. :rolleyes:
And, don't deceive yourself. If there was no religion, people would kill each other just because. Using religion is man's way of trying to excuse his heinous crime of hating his brother. Take away one excuse, they'll just use another.
them.
Yes, but religion makes it so much easier to find support for hate, to separate people. There's no denying that hardliners will always find a way to hate people, and it will always be in humanity's nature to destroy itself. However, by taking away such a provocative reason as religion as a way of dividing humanity, it'd be much harder to drum up popular support among the dim-witted and ignorant: The first people to march to war. Effectively, you'd be taking the megaphones off the crazies, which I believe will make the world a much calmer, more rational place to live our lives.
-
i feel i have to step in as a person who actually lives in the middle east, unlike i assume the rest of you.
islam has its beautiful sides, but when you read the actual quran you see surras speak of beating your wife, the prophet muhammad having sex with a 9 year old, and fighting non- believers wherever you find them using "deception and every strategem of war".
this of course does not mean the vast majority of muslims follow these laws, but it does mean the extremists easily dupe believers into focusing on those verses.
i have seen first hand what people do in the name of islam, i have seen things i dont wish upon anyone, all in the name of god.
the entire issue isnt executions, its the fact that women arent allowed to eat ice cream because it arouses the men, its because women arent allowed to speak to anyone aside of their husband, as to not seduce them, its the fact that children are taught death should be their ultimate goal, and that they must take as many ape/pig kuffar nonebelievers with them in the process. regardless of age or sex. (just a few examples)
im not right wing or left wing, im human, and i have seen what islamo- fascism is. we need more then to be aware of it.
-
i feel i have to step in as a person who actually lives in the middle east, unlike i assume the rest of you.
Israel?
-
I don't know, but I'd really like to see those countries have a chance to feel a US (and/or other allied nations) boot in their butt.. they need it. I guess because the citizens of most countries (including ours) are too lazy and indifferent to care about the suffering of their fellow man if it doesn't threaten them.
And what about a boot up the US's butt over rendition? Gitmo? and a variety of other things that they have also done wrong?
I would love nothing more than to see those countries end those practices but a country involved in torture of so called "illegal combatants" is no position to be lecturing anyone else on how to be civilised.
-
i feel i have to step in as a person who actually lives in the middle east, unlike i assume the rest of you.
Israel?
yes.
-
there are a few people here from there, including one of the highest ranking admins
-
I agree, Sharia Law is a terrible thing, though that's not really the Quoran's fault, it's true that the Bible has similar passages, people handing over their own daughters for gang rape etc.
I'll freely admit that I don't live in the Middle East, I do however, live near Hackney, and therefore see just about every type of Islamic and Judaism representation, from Modern Islamics to hard-core old-liners, from Messianic Jews to Orthodox, who obey the commandments to the point where they actually obey the commandment that Bobboau has in his signature. I've heard opinions from both sides on how 'the other guys' should be treated, and believe me, in some of them, as far as executions are concerned, there's certainly a will, there's just no way.
Anti-Execution week, I can deal with, Anti-Mysogony week, I can certainly vote for, even Asian Women's Rights week, I can perfectly accept, but to bundle it up as Islamofacism not only insults the religion of the men who do the beating, but of the women who recieve them, it's not targetting the crime, it's targetting the religion of both the criminal and the victim.
-
I think you are totally misunderstanding what the word means, the 'islamo' part is a descriptor, the main point is the 'fascist' part. you could talk about christofascists or germanofascist, you are just talking about a particular group of people who want to force other people to do as they want. the prefix just differentiates them from the other fascists who would want them dead. it isn't saying a whole group of people are fascist, its saying a particular group of fascists are of a particular flavor.
-
For ****s sake trashman, stop double posting!
I think you are totally misunderstanding what the word means, the 'islamo' part is a descriptor, the main point is the 'fascist' part. you could talk about christofascists or germanofascist, you are just talking about a particular group of people who want to force other people to do as they want. the prefix just differentiates them from the other fascists who would want them dead. it isn't saying a whole group of people are fascist, its saying a particular group of fascists are of a particular flavor.
Yes but the problem is that it's a rather crappy term. Kazan had a similar problem using christofascist for exactly the same reason.
However my problem isn't the term or even the fact that people think we should try to stop the crap that goes on in Iran (cause we should). My problem is that this is only bubbling to the surface as a result of attempts to make Iran look like the bad guy so that the US can justify it's foreign policy towards the country.
-
I was simply refuting what I perceived as someone dismissing the term as racist. if you want to call it a propaganda tool, well the best lies are half truths.
-
I agree it's not racist. But quite frankly what is the point of having a term that drags every single debate it is used in off topic?
-
well if it is an issue then it should be addressed, just because every time someone wants to teach evolution a swarm of people bring up a ton of unrelated **** from communism to the big bang, does not mean evolution should not be taught.
-
Agreed. But the term itself is basically Godwining any discussion it is used in. So why use it? Fundamentalist gets the point across just as well.
-
How come no one is having a go at other countries in the world which are equally brutal. For that matter, how come no one is mentioning Saudi Arabia?
As soon as the US isn't dependent on Saudi Arabia's oil, then I'm almost certain that our policy towards them would change.
And what about a boot up the US's butt over rendition? Gitmo? and a variety of other things that they have also done wrong?
That's why we have a Supreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld) Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld), elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_us_presidential_elections), and the right to assemble and protest. Wow, it's almost as if the US can correct itself, but nobody else in the world cares to actually notice these changes but would rather throw the same old tired **** around all day. But hey, whatever works. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but constantly pointing your finger and shouting "You! You're wrong! You shouldn't do that!" doesn't really help. What the people that run this site should be doing is everything they bloody well can to erase the death penalty and soforth to make the US a better place. Then, they'll have a much better leg to stand on when they decry these assholes.
Their whole point isn't to abolish the death penalty; most conservatives don't have a problem with it. It's the brutality and blatant miscarriages of justice under Sharia law in the Middle East that shocks most conservative Christian Americans and drives them to hate Islam like they do.
When DNA evidence screws up and leads to a wrongful execution, most people in the US just accept it and label it under "it's new technology, **** happens" rather than getting genuinely furious about it. It's not as if the Iranian police force or judicial system made a small, subtle error that had massive ramifications on that girl's life, but they entirely made up the charges and executed a minor brutally for religious charges. That makes all the difference in the heads of most Americans.
-
How come no one is having a go at other countries in the world which are equally brutal. For that matter, how come no one is mentioning Saudi Arabia?
As soon as the US isn't dependent on Saudi Arabia's oil, then I'm almost certain that our policy towards them would change.
Not going to happen. The Saudis haven't been using that oil money to wipe their bums. When the oil runs out your president will go from sucking the Saudis off for oil to sucking them off like every other big corporation.
And what about a boot up the US's butt over rendition? Gitmo? and a variety of other things that they have also done wrong?
That's why we have a Supreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld) Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld), elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_us_presidential_elections), and the right to assemble and protest. Wow, it's almost as if the US can correct itself, but nobody else in the world cares to actually notice these changes but would rather throw the same old tired **** around all day. But hey, whatever works. :rolleyes:
You managed to simultaneously both get and miss my point. :p
If you think (as jr2 seems to think) that other countries should butt out and leave the US to solve its internal problems why are the US so keen to butt in when it comes to everyone else's? It's bad enough some people want the US to act like the worlds policeman but they aren't acting that way. At best they're the worlds corrupt policeman. Quite happy to butt in when it's good for them but with no problems turning a blind eye to what some others are doing as long as there's money in it for them.
-
Removing religion would remove a reason to hate someone. It would remove one of the idealogical differences between us all.
A world without any of the current organized religions, while eliminating some of the good sides of the doctrines in them, would eliminate the massive downsides.
Removing religion would remove a reason to love someone. It would remove one of the idealogical similarities between a lot us (single-diety religions).
good sides >>> downsides
ON TOPIC:
So we actually agree ere that the term ins't racists?
Since you can pretty much have any group with facists in them.
As far as I'm concerned with the US foreign policy, the best thing it could do is focus inward. Leave the rest of the world be for a while without their "help".
-
funny thing I just thought of, a lot of people in this thread are a lot more aware of "Islamo-fascism" then they were a week ago. :)
-
funny thing I just thought of, a lot of people in this thread are a lot more aware of "Islamo-fascism" then they were a week ago. :)
Haha, true. Bring up something that sounds important to a current issue and people pounce on it.
I'm going to split the removing religion part of the thread cause it's worth a separate discussion on its own.
Admin Authority for the win.
-
I figured that the whole islamo-fascism thing was important enough to deserve it's own topic without being swamped by a load of other stuff.
-
You don't think that both topics are linked at the hip?
-
Not when the discussion was better suited to another currently active thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,50012.0.html).
It would even have been on topic there.
-
I would love nothing more than to see those countries end those practices but a country involved in torture of so called "illegal combatants" is no position to be lecturing anyone else on how to be civilised.
That way you just stop all discussion. Not exactly what you want to do imho.
---------------
That said: I yesterday read an interview with someone who traveled through the Islamic world and met all kinds of people, christians, moderates, leaders of the GIA, regular ahmeds, politicians, etc etc. The destination of his voyage was Mecca (obviously he didn't get in because he wasn't muslim. How's that for inherent discrimination. Imagine catholics prohibiting non-catholics to enter Rome, the world would be too small).
His conclusion more or less came to this: The West and Islamic world run on totally different sets of cultural software, sets that are basically incompatible. And he made a simple but very poignant comparison to prove it:
The Western mindset runs on (self-)doubt and (self-)criticism. It challenges authority, wether religious, political or scientific.
The islamic world runs on certainty. Certainty that god regulates everything, certainty that everything worth knowing is somehow in the Coran. Insh'Allah (sp?), if god wills it, in other words.
-
That way you just stop all discussion. Not exactly what you want to do imho.
If you are someone who fiercely campaigns against those injustices in your own country then it's okay. Just because you haven't succeeded in overturning the stupidity of your own government doesn't mean you can't point out the stupidity of others.
But the country as a whole, the government of the country, have no right to get on a soapbox and preach about the horrors of torture in other countries until they've done something about it in their own country. And the people who support that government similarly have no right until they've said that their own country should stop doing it.
So yes American can and should raise awareness of islamo-fascism, but at the same time they should raise awareness of Christofacism too. Cause that's the one that they can deal with simply by voting the wankers out of power.
-
You know, if we really had a bout of what you call "Christofacism", it would be something else... the Crusades on steroids. If it weren't inherently wrong and if it weren't for that fact that millions (billions?) would die in such a hijacking of the Christian religion, I'd want to see it just for the simple fact that it would give all the finger-pointers something to point at.. at which point, they would most likely wipe the self-righteous smug looks off of their faces and cease pointing, because it might not be too healthy. No pun intended. :sigh:
EDIT: kara, do you lurk offline waiting for me to post? This is starting to get creepy. Or are you always online at ~8:30 AM GMT? :lol:
-
{Kosh] I have always been here[/Kosh]
Islamofascism is just as much a hijack of Islam.
-
But the country as a whole, the government of the country, have no right to get on a soapbox and preach about the horrors of torture in other countries until they've done something about it in their own country. And the people who support that government similarly have no right until they've said that their own country should stop doing it.
Informal logical fallacy. Because someone tells you something they do is wrong, they have no standing to do so. This is not true. Even leaving aside the issues of scale and severity on the subject others have raised, if a theif tells you not to steal things, he's still correct.
-
Yes. But he's going to have trouble claiming the moral high ground. There's nothing much he do if you simply say "I'll stop when you stop" and ignore him. :p
And that's basically what happens. The USA constantly refuses to sign up to global treaties on such things or to ratify them when it does sign up. So when they say to Iran to obey the treaty Iran simply turns around and says "Why should we, you don't."
-
Yes. But he's going to have trouble claiming the moral high ground. There's nothing much he do if you simply say "I'll stop when you stop" and ignore him. :p
And that's basically what happens. The USA constantly refuses to sign up to global treaties on such things or to ratify them when it does sign up. So when they say to Iran to obey the treaty Iran simply turns around and says "Why should we, you don't."
So in this case we're more looking at someone who makes off with some gum or a candy bar every time they go to the grocery store telling a car jacker to knock it off.
Plus, as far as I know, nobody (outside of this forum, at least) is telling Iran to live up to any treaty. They're telling Iran to knock it off because it's not just against a treaty, it's sickening and repulsive. Most of the people outside of this forum saying that are the ones pressuring Bush to end the torture at Gitmo and the ones backing the Roper case.
-
So in this case we're more looking at someone who makes off with some gum or a candy bar every time they go to the grocery store telling a car jacker to knock it off.
Add in that this someone has a very good friend who is also a carjacker but who never gets told to knock it off and then you might be closer to the truth.
-
Plus, as far as I know, nobody (outside of this forum, at least) is telling Iran to live up to any treaty. They're telling Iran to knock it off because it's not just against a treaty, it's sickening and repulsive. Most of the people outside of this forum saying that are the ones pressuring Bush to end the torture at Gitmo and the ones backing the Roper case.
What part of Iran is sickening and repulsive? It's a completely different culture and you end up making the assumption that our society is better than theirs. This is only a perspective.
Then again, what right is there to say such a thing? Iran is a country as much as we are and they can make their own decisions, if you believe in what America is for.
-
Then again, what right is there to say such a thing? Iran is a country as much as we are and they can make their own decisions, if you believe in what America is for.
Iran has the right to make its own decisions, but I have the right to not agree with them. Since the majority of Iranians would agree with me that the Iranian government isn't the best government the country could have, then I'd say Iran is spot-on to make some new decisions.
While Iran does have the right to make its own decisions, does that make what it does in violation of any sort of natural or human right correct? Doesn't unjustly convicting and hanging a 16-year-old girl on bogus charges purely inspired by religious fanaticism somehow violate what government is about?
I'm not intolerant of other cultures, as you seem to think I am; I'm intolerant of governments oppressing their constituents and citizens and then attempting to place some big bad other country as the scapegoat for all the country's internal and external problems when, in reality, it's the country's own government attempting to abuse religion in order to have its citizens blindly obey or be ostracized.
And yes, I'm referring to both the US and Iran, since there's a lot of problems with both. However, the US is in a position to actually fix itself--elections, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the First Amendment. Iran, on the other hand, is ruled by an ultra-conservative wacko who constantly tempts the West into bombing his country back to the Stone Age just to prove a point about "The Great Satan." Religion, not the the rule of law, dominates; human rights are dictated by the Qu'ran, in some cases inaccurately... As JFK said, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. The way Iran's going, I'm afraid we're going to see violent revolution inevitably...
-
Thank goodness. I thought I was going to get heated into another flame war.
What was that part about human rights being dictated in the Qu'ran inaccurately?
-
I might be wrong, but I remember there being some passages in the Qu'ran saying something to the effect of what every Abrahamic holy text had said; you know, the whole "love thy neighbor" concept. What I'm saying is that ultra-conservative Islamic governments pick-and-choose what passages they want their constituents to believe in.
Which is why there, worldwide, needs to be one of those big, fat walls of separation between church and state.
-
I don't think there is anything which directly translates to the same concept but if you take the good passages as a whole it certain has the same effect.
-
So, there is a general agreement that parts of the Qu'ran were taken out of context and used to convey extremism, whether in Iran or otherwise. That's about it.
-
I don't think there is any doubt about that.
-
yeah the Abrahamic religions all have there "and take them to the city gates and ****ing beat them to death with rocks, for God does not condone those who double dip" verses.