Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on February 02, 2008, 06:49:52 pm
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared-to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html
A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.
Looks like we did a great job bringing "freedom" and "liberty" to Afghanistan. Maybe we shouldn't have tried to take it away from the commies in the 80's after all........
-
Like "freedom" and "liberty" had anything to do with it.
A lol to you sir.
-
400+ American troops dead, no idea how many Brits, other nationalities and civilians and the only change we've brought about is that they can now fly kites and race pigeons without being executed.
Well done! :yes:
-
Update:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/lifeline-for-pervez-afghan-senate-withdraws-demand-for-death-sentence-777188.html
-
Only because it got international traction.
This is business as usual when the rest of the world doesn't care, which is the other 364 days a year.
-
see media isn't always a bad thing
-
Only because it got international traction.
This is progress, if you consider the Taliban wasted those stone Buddhas despite international outcry.
Not much, but it is progress.
-
I still think we can do better
-
We can always do better.
-
The Taliban, or even Al Quida are not the problems, they are symptoms of the radical Islam sects that run that part of the world.
-
We can always do better.
Considering how little effort has been made especially in recent years I think we can certainly try.
-
We can always do better.
Considering how little effort has been made especially in recent years I think we can certainly try.
Lack of effort?
Its hard to rebuild a country when they are shooting at you
-
Only because it got international traction.
This is progress, if you consider the Taliban wasted those stone Buddhas despite international outcry.
Not much, but it is progress.
Actually, in that particular case I think it might have been because of the international outcry. I've read an interview with Mullah Omar where he basically summarized it as "There are people starving in the streets and all you people care about is some stone statues? Fine then, we'll blow them up and see how you like it."
Not that I support that position, of course. But what people don't seem to want to understand is that the Afghan population, including women, is culturally far closer to the Taliban than they are to the West. A few educated, Westernized activists do not alter the fact that it's a conservative Muslim country that has been highly paternalistic and socially rigid for milllenia.
-
This is where I start to loose my ability to be understanding but the honest truth is that if the Afgani's want to bring their country out of decades of civil war and oppressive governments they have to take several very difficult steps forward towards becoming a modernized country. This doesn't meant they should have a McDonalds at every corner but they really do need to help themselves get out of this turmoil. Sentencing a student to death for reading an article about womens rights is not in the right direction and I don't see any two ways about that one.
They have the support and the help of the international community right now and we've got countries with soldiers and humanitarian workers on the ground trying to make this happen but the solution will either come from within or it won't. Its up to them collectively as a nation. Short sightedness like this will not get them anywhere.
-
We are projecting - believing that what we would want is what they want. I think that what most of them want is decent jobs and for the trash to be picked up every once in a while. Prosperity and human rights/individual liberty are not related in the minds of your average Ahmad Q. Khan. At some point, the fact must be confronted that liberal democracy is not a very high priority on anyone's list over there, whether it's the people or the government. At best, they don't care, and at worst they want Shariah with a nice smiley face to keep the donors happy.
-
We are projecting - believing that what we would want is what they want. I think that what most of them want is decent jobs and for the trash to be picked up every once in a while. Prosperity and human rights/individual liberty are not related in the minds of your average Ahmad Q. Khan. At some point, the fact must be confronted that liberal democracy is not a very high priority on anyone's list over there, whether it's the people or the government. At best, they don't care, and at worst they want Shariah with a nice smiley face to keep the donors happy.
So you somehow think this is ok? That's basically saying "they're muslims, so they don't want modernity".
Not that I support that position, of course. But what people don't seem to want to understand is that the Afghan population, including women, is culturally far closer to the Taliban than they are to the West. A few educated, Westernized activists do not alter the fact that it's a conservative Muslim country that has been highly paternalistic and socially rigid for milllenia.
And look at the result. Now they are poor and weak. Icefire is right, they should try to make their country better, but too many can't be bothered. Blindly following dogma or lining their pockets is too important to them.
-
So you somehow think this is ok? That's basically saying "they're muslims, so they don't want modernity".
More like "they're Muslim, paternalistic and socially conservative so they don't want liberalism". There are many other aspects of modernity which I'm sure are awesome to your average Afghan, but it's no use pretending that they have the social mores of Holland. And being Muslim is only a part of it; many other societies are just as rigid while adhering to different faiths (rural India, parts of Africa etc).
Historically, it's taken a secular dictator, like Ataturk or Reza Shah, to push through modernization against the wishes of the people. How many people would be comfortable with doing that?
-
Look at Turkey, there's a Muslim country embracing modernity!
-
Look at Turkey, there's a Muslim country embracing modernity!
A country that was created by a secular dictator.
Self-goal!
-
Look at Turkey, there's a Muslim country embracing modernity!
Embracing at the point of a gun for 50+ years. And as recent events (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7230075.stm) have shown, it's not at all certain how firm that embrace actually is. Despite all that, Turkey is still a very socially conservative, nationalistic country, even if the religious manifestation of that conservativism is usually kept at bay.
-
Turkey, if anything, is a country with a split identity. It wants, to some extent, to become Westernized and European through NATO and the EU. On the other hand, there are traditionalists, social conservatives, and Islamic movements that want a Turkey under Islamic law and further away from the West.
Most Middle-Eastern countries actually seek modernity, but not Westernization. They want technology, varied economies outside of oil, and to have a strong presence in world politics, but don't want to adapt American or European cultures or values. The UAE (especially Dubai) is a perfect example of this. As I've heard from friends who've travelled, Lebanon is almost a splitting image of any Western European country.
What most Islamic countries are doing is trying to establish cultural unity and find a common identity among each other. They do this by turning back to Islam as a source of values, laws, and their way of life.
When the US and Europe comes marching into Afghanistan and Iraq and bringing Western ideals with them, this adds fuel to the Islamic parties and nationalists. While the US is inherently good-intentioned in wanting to rid the world of dictators such as Saddam or the Taliban, it's doing nothing to end the fact that most Muslim Arabs want Islamic rule, Islamic culture, and Islamic identity.
-
Most Middle-Eastern countries actually seek modernity, but not Westernization. They want technology, varied economies outside of oil, and to have a strong presence in world politics, but don't want to adapt American or European cultures or values.
Unfortunately their desperation to cling to their "traditional values" maybe end up working against them. The UAE has done a much better job of this then other muslim countries but they did so by making themselves a minority in their own country. Influence is slowly creeping in since with so many evil amoral foreignersin their country, it's almost impossible to keep out.
However I think it is safe to say that over the last 30 years, Islam in general has become more and more radicalized and fundemantalist. I did read in an article written by a physics professor in Pakistan that this kindof islam that we so often see has a detrimental effect on their scientific progress. He said as an example that at "islamic science conferences", people fly there to talk about how they have used laws of thermodynamics to estimate the tempurature of hell, or to find the chemical composition of the heavenly djinnis spirits. The reason for this "islamic science"? Because they thought "western science" is "amoral". You reap what you sow.
-
Unfortunately their desperation to cling to their "traditional values" maybe end up working against them. The UAE has done a much better job of this then other muslim countries but they did so by making themselves a minority in their own country. Influence is slowly creeping in since with so many evil amoral foreignersin their country, it's almost impossible to keep out.
However I think it is safe to say that over the last 30 years, Islam in general has become more and more radicalized and fundemantalist. I did read in an article written by a physics professor in Pakistan that this kindof islam that we so often see has a detrimental effect on their scientific progress. He said as an example that at "islamic science conferences", people fly there to talk about how they have used laws of thermodynamics to estimate the tempurature of hell, or to find the chemical composition of the heavenly djinnis spirits. The reason for this "islamic science"? Because they thought "western science" is "amoral". You reap what you sow.
Actually, I think that the influence of Islam in political life has held more-or-less steady over the past 100~ years., and it's our expectations that have shifted. Again, we're looking at them through the filter of our own experience, expecting religion to naturally decline. When it doesn't, we see that as an increase. Until very recently, the forces pushing for secularism in Muslim countries were almost exclusively Socialist, not Western. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc. When the socialists didn't deliver the goods (make people's lives a paradise), the disgruntled masses who have to endure poverty and a police-state turn naturally to Islam.
I agree with nuclear1 that what most people in the Muslim world want modernity in a practical sense, not Western culture or values. Even in countries where the population are not hard-liners (Turkey, most of Iran, Syria) they are still very socially conservative and nationalistic by our standards. Again, this is not entirely due to Islam but also due to lower per capita GDP, less education, a more rural population and all the other factors which go into making a society traditionalist. The same could be said of most of Russia.
As for UAE, they're an anomaly. Their vast wealth, gained in a short time, has given them a penchant for mimicking the luxury and extravagance of the West. It's essentially an entire country by and for the Arab nouveau riche. I'm sure there are many people who would love to rip the whiskey-guzzling, yacht-owning, womanizing Kuwaiti/Saudi/Emirati/Qatari sheikhs a new a**hole, if given the chance. Once their economy goes belly-up, all that Westernism will evaporate.
-
Actually, UAE's economy is most likely to last the longest out of all the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait are too dependent on oil, which is becoming more and more finite with each trip to the pump.
When the rest of the Gulf States' economies collapse, of course they'll be pissed off at UAE that still has a functioning economy.
-
The whole thing seems like a giant pyramid scheme to me. Las Vegas as a nation-state. Aside from oil, nothing valuable is produced there. The people don't have any particular skills or knowledge. The only reason that rich people come is that they have cool extravagances and the only reason they can afford cool extravagances is that rich people come there. At best it's a tax-haven and resort. the Switzerland of the Middle-East. At worst, all the foreign workers living in slave-like conditions will rise up at some point, and since they outnumber the locals (who are too good to slug it out in the streets with the rabble) we'll see some interesting social upheavals. In any case, there are enough cities competing for the role of financial/media/tourist capital of the ME that Dubai can't reign unchallenged for much longer.
-
Actually, I think that the influence of Islam in political life has held more-or-less steady over the past 100~ years., and it's our expectations that have shifted.
100 years ago we didn't have muslim suicide bombers.
Actually, UAE's economy is most likely to last the longest out of all the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait are too dependent on oil, which is becoming more and more finite with each trip to the pump.
Actually Saudia Arabia is already starting to feel the pinch. Their average income has declined significantly and there is a very high percentage of unemployed men.
The whole thing seems like a giant pyramid scheme to me. Las Vegas as a nation-state. Aside from oil, nothing valuable is produced there.
It's hard to produce solid goods when you have no land for factories. Most of their economy is services based simply because they don't have a choice.
The people don't have any particular skills or knowledge.
Some of them do, but then again they are a minority in their own country. It isn't necessarily the rich that go there, but it is anyone who has any real skills.
-
True, but even 50 years ago we had Palestinians shooting up buses full of Jews. Muslim terrorism really came about when the oil wells in Saudi Arabia started to run out and Western workers started taking over Saudi jobs.
When oil pumps shut down, unemployed Saudis turn to Islamic relief organizations in the cities to help them get back on their feet. When a particular organization gets a visit from an al-Qaeda recruiter, dozens of dedicated Muslims seeking a purpose in life go off to a training camp in the Sahara.
Several months later, a formerly-unemployed Saudi obliterates an Iraqi market in hopes of 77 virgins in the afterlife.
As economies in the Arab world decline and people move toward the urban areas, the more radical Islam (or just Islam in general) takes hold in a country's population. Arabs turn to it as a source of security, stability, and comfort in their tribulations, much in the way of the Dark Ages and Christianity.
In the same way, there's also those corrupt demogogues that convince the downtrodden to wage war against a common enemy.
-
I love how you guys mention Islam prominently, as if it has anything to do with what goes on anywhere, ever.
-
Que? Doesn't it, though?
-
No, because "this isn't even happening on planet Earth, it takes place in the mythical land of Flongiddle...."
:D
-
the fact we have suicide bomber muslims now and not 100 years ago, and we don't have suicide bomber christian fundies has more to do with economics than religion.
anything resembling a stable and healthy economy without extreme wealth disparity makes it difficult for extremist groups to recruit (not impossible, simply difficult).
I'll remind you that we DO have christian terrorism - it's called abortion clinic bombing (google) (http://www.google.com/search?q=abortion+clinic+bombing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
-
Islam's always been a bit more charitable to their martyrdom then Christianity, unfortunately...
-
Islam's always been a bit more charitable to their martyrdom then Christianity, unfortunately...
But at the same it was one of the most tolerant beliefs for many centuries. In the last hundred years or so it has become increasingly intolerant and militant. This trend is continuing and eventually it will reach a boiling point.
True, but even 50 years ago we had Palestinians shooting up buses full of Jews. Muslim terrorism really came about when the oil wells in Saudi Arabia started to run out and Western workers started taking over Saudi jobs.
Those two issues are quite a bit more complicated. The first one was in responce to a percieved invasion. Secondly Saudi Arabia has spend a lot of time and effort in the last 30 years exporting not just Saudi suicide bombers but also an extreme form of islam. Combining this effort with all the weapons and training we gave them in the 80's, it's no wonder why they are dominant.
-
Islam's always been a bit more charitable to their martyrdom then Christianity, unfortunately...
the Crusades called, they'd like to have a word with you
-
Islam's always been a bit more charitable to their martyrdom then Christianity, unfortunately...
the Crusades called, they'd like to have a word with you
Ah, but the Crusaders were there to conquer, not to die. You were assured your place in heaven if you fell, certainly, but you were equally assured your place in heaven if you lived. And that was all; you were granted your place in heaven. Islam makes special dispensation for its martyrs. They get something extra for dying. Not so the Crusaders.
-
Yea, they got something extra for just killing the other people :p
-
Ah, but the Crusaders were there to conquer, not to die. You were assured your place in heaven if you fell, certainly, but you were equally assured your place in heaven if you lived. And that was all; you were granted your place in heaven. Islam makes special dispensation for its martyrs. They get something extra for dying. Not so the Crusaders.
You say that like there's some kind of massive distinction between those two philosophies. Fundamentally, they are the same.
-
Islam's always been a bit more charitable to their martyrdom then Christianity, unfortunately...
the Crusades called, they'd like to have a word with you
Ah, but the Crusaders were there to conquer, not to die. You were assured your place in heaven if you fell, certainly, but you were equally assured your place in heaven if you lived. And that was all; you were granted your place in heaven. Islam makes special dispensation for its martyrs. They get something extra for dying. Not so the Crusaders.
Yeah, because if Christianity offered a bonus for dying, then everyone would just start suiciding themselves. Hahahaha.