Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2008-02-05 18:53:50
Havok
Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist
+302|7103|Florida, United States

Stingray24 wrote:

Havok wrote:

Also, you might tell me that Iran is not as poor as other Muslim nations and that there is little protesting there.  Quite simply put, Iran is a democratic dictatorship whose ruler supports the radicals.  The last thing I'd be caught doing is protesting my leader's faith when I know very well what will happen to me for doing so.  So I suppose fear is another element explaining the lack of anti-radical activism among peaceful Muslims.
So do we have a realistic hope that the peaceful Muslims will overcome their brothers given your assessment?
Unfortunately, I don't think we can look to the peaceful majority for help unless we can incite them to do so, but then they wouldn't be too peaceful would they.

usmarine wrote:

Havok wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Too poor to find time?  What?
When you're as poor as many of the peaceful Muslims, you don't waste time on futile protesting.  You spend your time working, praying, or sleeping, with a few exceptions of course.  Protesting takes free time, and many Muslims can't sacrifice the potential working hours to do so.
hmmmm.... find time to pray 5 times a day.  Find time to smoke shisha.  Find time to dance in the streets after 9/11.  Find time to protest and burn flags because some prisoners had panties on their heads.

So, hundreds and hundreds of women get killed every year due to honor killings......no time to protest.

Some prisoners get panties put on their heads and they have time to protest.


Ok.  If you say so.
Praying: Required by Muslim faith, radical or not.  Most Muslims in these regions base their life on their faith, and would easily sacrifice the 5 minutes to pray 5 times a day.  The time spent praying (probably 25 minutes daily, as 5 minute prayers 5 times a day would equal 25 minutes) would not amount to much of used in protest.

Smoking: Can't say I know much about smoking, but I'm assuming that's something they can do on the job.

Dancing in streets: Radicals, not peaceful Muslims.

Burning Flags: Radicals, not peaceful Muslims.

Where do most of these women get killed?  Iran, right?  And we know what happens when you protest in Iran.  That's right, a one way ticket to jail.  Do not pass go.  Do not collect $200.

And I don't know where you're going with the prisoners thing.  If there are prisoners who are protesting, could it be because they probably have the inability to possess a job while in custody?  This reinforces my point that economic factors are more motivating to peaceful Muslims than the world's view of their religion.  I'm sure that if the prisoners you speak of were allowed to hold a job and earn a wage while still under custody, they would do so to support their families.
2008-02-05 18:56:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7080|USA

Havok wrote:

Here's one thing I'm not getting.  I've seen both Lowing and USM post about how they don't like nor understand why normal, peaceful Muslims aren't protesting the radicals.  There are lots of reasons behind this as far as I can see.

The main reason is this.  I think we can all agree that Islam permeates in some of the poorest nations in the world (see Iraq, Indonesia, Afghanistan, etc.).  I think we can also agree that the people in those countries are very poor and probably struggling to make ends meet.  So why do you expect to see them protesting in the streets when they could be earning money to survive?  Google search some Indonesia villages and tell me they don't look like they've just been hit by a few Katrina's.  That's because they're piss poor.  The people there don't have the time nor the resources to waste by protesting the radicals.  Are you going to blame the peaceful Muslim majority now for being too poor to find time to protest their extremist brothers?

Also, you might tell me that Iran is not as poor as other Muslim nations and that there is little protesting there.  Quite simply put, Iran is a democratic dictatorship whose ruler supports the radicals.  The last thing I'd be caught doing is protesting my leader's faith when I know very well what will happen to me for doing so.  So I suppose fear is another element explaining the lack of anti-radical activism among peaceful Muslims.
Fear?? Fear of what??!!, It has been vastly stated on this thread and many others, that moderate muslims are the over whelming majority. What is there to fear. what are the odds of something terrible happening to them?  remember there are sooooooo few bad Muslims out there right??
2008-02-05 18:57:39
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7190

Havok wrote:

Praying: Required by Muslim faith, radical or not.  Most Muslims in these regions base their life on their faith, and would easily sacrifice the 5 minutes to pray 5 times a day.  The time spent praying (probably 25 minutes daily, as 5 minute prayers 5 times a day would equal 25 minutes) would not amount to much of used in protest.

Smoking: Can't say I know much about smoking, but I'm assuming that's something they can do on the job.

Dancing in streets: Radicals, not peaceful Muslims.

Burning Flags: Radicals, not peaceful Muslims.

Where do most of these women get killed?  Iran, right?  And we know what happens when you protest in Iran.  That's right, a one way ticket to jail.  Do not pass go.  Do not collect $200.

And I don't know where you're going with the prisoners thing.  If there are prisoners who are protesting, could it be because they probably have the inability to possess a job while in custody?  This reinforces my point that economic factors are more motivating to peaceful Muslims than the world's view of their religion.  I'm sure that if the prisoners you speak of were allowed to hold a job and earn a wage while still under custody, they would do so to support their families.
Sigh.

The dancing in the streets were women and children also.....not radicals.

And no, Iran is not where most get killed in the name of islam. 

I give up.
2008-02-05 19:16:44
Havok
Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist
+302|7103|Florida, United States

lowing wrote:

Havok wrote:

Here's one thing I'm not getting.  I've seen both Lowing and USM post about how they don't like nor understand why normal, peaceful Muslims aren't protesting the radicals.  There are lots of reasons behind this as far as I can see.

The main reason is this.  I think we can all agree that Islam permeates in some of the poorest nations in the world (see Iraq, Indonesia, Afghanistan, etc.).  I think we can also agree that the people in those countries are very poor and probably struggling to make ends meet.  So why do you expect to see them protesting in the streets when they could be earning money to survive?  Google search some Indonesia villages and tell me they don't look like they've just been hit by a few Katrina's.  That's because they're piss poor.  The people there don't have the time nor the resources to waste by protesting the radicals.  Are you going to blame the peaceful Muslim majority now for being too poor to find time to protest their extremist brothers?

Also, you might tell me that Iran is not as poor as other Muslim nations and that there is little protesting there.  Quite simply put, Iran is a democratic dictatorship whose ruler supports the radicals.  The last thing I'd be caught doing is protesting my leader's faith when I know very well what will happen to me for doing so.  So I suppose fear is another element explaining the lack of anti-radical activism among peaceful Muslims.
Fear?? Fear of what??!!, It has been vastly stated on this thread and many others, that moderate muslims are the over whelming majority. What is there to fear. what are the odds of something terrible happening to them?  remember there are sooooooo few bad Muslims out there right??
I was saying that Muslims in Iran, not all Muslim regions, have a reason to fear because their leader is a nut who would persecute the protesters.  I did not imply that the radicals would attack the moderates.
2008-02-05 19:20:24
David.P
Banned
+649|6703

usmarine wrote:

Sigh.

I give up.
Then can i have a go?
2008-02-05 19:21:27
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7190

David.P wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Sigh.

I give up.
Then can i have a go?
lock and load
2008-02-05 19:28:51
David.P
Banned
+649|6703

usmarine wrote:

David.P wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Sigh.

I give up.
Then can i have a go?
lock and load
Actually i was thinking more along the lines of this.
2008-02-05 19:51:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7080|USA

Havok wrote:

lowing wrote:

Havok wrote:

Here's one thing I'm not getting.  I've seen both Lowing and USM post about how they don't like nor understand why normal, peaceful Muslims aren't protesting the radicals.  There are lots of reasons behind this as far as I can see.

The main reason is this.  I think we can all agree that Islam permeates in some of the poorest nations in the world (see Iraq, Indonesia, Afghanistan, etc.).  I think we can also agree that the people in those countries are very poor and probably struggling to make ends meet.  So why do you expect to see them protesting in the streets when they could be earning money to survive?  Google search some Indonesia villages and tell me they don't look like they've just been hit by a few Katrina's.  That's because they're piss poor.  The people there don't have the time nor the resources to waste by protesting the radicals.  Are you going to blame the peaceful Muslim majority now for being too poor to find time to protest their extremist brothers?

Also, you might tell me that Iran is not as poor as other Muslim nations and that there is little protesting there.  Quite simply put, Iran is a democratic dictatorship whose ruler supports the radicals.  The last thing I'd be caught doing is protesting my leader's faith when I know very well what will happen to me for doing so.  So I suppose fear is another element explaining the lack of anti-radical activism among peaceful Muslims.
Fear?? Fear of what??!!, It has been vastly stated on this thread and many others, that moderate muslims are the over whelming majority. What is there to fear. what are the odds of something terrible happening to them?  remember there are sooooooo few bad Muslims out there right??
I was saying that Muslims in Iran, not all Muslim regions, have a reason to fear because their leader is a nut who would persecute the protesters.  I did not imply that the radicals would attack the moderates.
Ahhh, so you see no reason why the rest of the moderates, world wide, do not protest shit like this with the same zeal they did over cartoons??
2008-02-05 19:55:51
.:ronin:.|Patton
Respekct dad i love u always
+946|7238|Marathon, Florida Keys

lowing wrote:

Bunch of fuckin' animals
You got that right.
https://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/patton1337/stats.jpg
2008-02-05 20:25:26
Tetrino
International OMGWTFBBQ
+200|7159|Uhh... erm...
I will say this much.

I admit that Sharia law is somewhat outdated and requires revising.

I agree that those women do not deserve their punishments.

Most Islamic religious boards (like those in Malaysia) are governed by idiots who care more about what Gwen Stefani wears in her concerts than Osama bin Laden.

Thank you.
2008-02-05 20:48:37
David.P
Banned
+649|6703

.:ronin:.|Patton wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bunch of fuckin' animals
You got that right.
2008-02-06 02:19:58
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7200|PNW

djphetal wrote:

If you can blame this on Islam, then you can blame the Holocaust on Christianity.
That's a bit of a longer leap, in my opinion

Confessing Church at Whitsundie, '36 wrote:

"When blood, race, nationality and honor are regarded as eternal values, then the first commandment obliges the Christian to refuse this valuation.  When the Aryan is glorified, the Word of God teaches that all men are sinful.  If the Christian is forced by the Anti-semitism (sic) of the Nazi Weltanschauung to hate the Jew, he is, on the contrary, bidden by the Christian commandment to love his neighbor."

former Nazi Herman Rauschning, '36 wrote:

"From an ethical standpoint there is no Jewish problem.  No believing Christian and no humane-minded person can be an anti-Semite.  Rosenberg and Ludendorff are right, if in nothing else, in their claim that the New Testament is inseparably connected with the Old, and we Christians with our Jewish heritage."
Of course, there are Muslims who don't support Islamic extremism, but there are many more 'non-participants' who do, in the spirit of supporting their Muslim brothers. While you can't entirely blame Islam for the sins of one nation, linking it to a supposed buddy-buddy connection between Christianity and Nazism is ludicrous.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-06 02:23:20)

2008-02-06 04:46:27
daddyofdeath
A REAL Combat Engineer in the house
+187|6682|UK Bradford W,Yorks. Age 27

topal63 wrote:

daddyofdeath wrote:

topal63 wrote:


Please explain to me how you were being sarcastic? Because there is nothing sarcastic about your post. You do know what sarcasm is - no?
Wow, here we go. Derail of the highest order. It is a tongue -in-cheek oultook opposite to the facts. Kinda like what my sister does when I say to her. ''Want a cup of coffee?'' she replies '' No....I'll stand heres and die of thirst instead'' Thats sarcasm my friend.
Yeah that is... but your other post wasn't.

Obvious: I don't see the peace and love being spread to 2 sisters.
Obvious: All I see is 2 sisters face stoning to death for an alleged crime of which the only evidence seems to point to a video of them both in the company of 2 men.

And in my professional view, it’s a load of bollocks. <--- (Is this supposed to be sarcasm? It isn’t).

This is just an opinion: Islam, and Sharia Law is fucked up, and someone needs to man up and do something about it. Islam is on a par with a Nazi ideaologies. (And this is you merely parroting lowing’s typical opines, do you think this is sarcasm? It isn't).

In my personal view of which I force on no others. <--- (Is this supposed to be sarcasm? This is isn’t either).

______

There is no sarcasm in your other post, the following is an example of being sarcastic on the thread topic (OK):

You people just  don't understand! I mean honestly those bitches have it coming. I’ve been wanting to stone my wife for awhile now. Thank you lowing for posting this. You’ve opened my eyes to justice and injustice in the world, and I thank you for that. I hereby am declaring my self a Muslim and moving to a country were I have the God given right to stone her to death.
Oh I  lolz at the fact you sat at your computer dissecting my post looking for a crack! **And in my professional view, it’s a load of bollocks. <--- (Is this supposed to be sarcasm? It isn’t).**  <------- It actually is. Am I a professional in Sharia Law??? No I am not. kthxbai.
2008-02-06 06:43:40
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7270|Cologne, Germany

of course this is deplorable, and wrong, etc.

But as Cam said, Iranians have the political and legal system of their own chosing. We can speak out against it, or protest against it in the streets, or write diplomatic notes to the Iranian president. We can discuss it on forums such as this.

What we cannot do, however, is make that choice for them. If they want to reclaim their religion, and change the direction their country is headed in, they will have to do it themselves.
2008-02-06 07:14:15
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7200|PNW

B.Schuss wrote:

of course this is deplorable, and wrong, etc.

But as Cam said, Iranians have the political and legal system of their own chosing. We can speak out against it, or protest against it in the streets, or write diplomatic notes to the Iranian president. We can discuss it on forums such as this.

What we cannot do, however, is make that choice for them. If they want to reclaim their religion, and change the direction their country is headed in, they will have to do it themselves.
Choices have been made for countries by foreign powers since the dawn of war.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-06 17:16:42)

2008-02-06 07:27:27
topal63
. . .
+533|7147

daddyofdeath wrote:

Oh I  lolz at the fact you sat at your computer dissecting my post looking for a crack! **And in my professional view, it’s a load of bollocks. <--- (Is this supposed to be sarcasm? It isn’t).**  <------- It actually is. Am I a professional in Sharia Law??? No I am not. kthxbai.
Whatever, I will continue with the dissection...
These are your original statements: And in my professional view, it’s a load of bollocks.
These are different/modified statements: It actually is. Am I a professional in Sharia Law? No I am not.

FYI: Deceit or common bullshitting isn't sarcasm either.
_________

PS: Another FYI, typed words on an Internet forum, seem more serious, colder, less friendly (and so on), than they actually are. If you and I were sitting at a table and talking over coffee, lunch, a beer or whatever and I told you; explained to you; that what you said didn't seem like sarcasm to me, it would take only ten or twenty seconds before we would both chuckle (maybe agree) and move on to something else.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-02-06 08:34:48)

2008-02-06 07:44:49
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6984

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Choices have been made for countries by foreign powers since the dawn of war.
Choices have been unjustly made for countries by foreign powers since the dawn of war.

USSR in Eastern Europe & Afghanistan.
Germany in Europe.
Italy in North Africa.
France in Africa and Indo-China.
Netherlands in Indo-China.
Belgium in Africa.
China in Tibet.
Britain in Ireland and pretty much everywhere.
USA in Cuba, Phillipines, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
Iraq in Kuwait.
Iraq in Iran.
etc.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-06 07:48:02)

2008-02-06 10:30:20
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7190

Tetrino wrote:

I will say this much.

I admit that Sharia law is somewhat outdated and requires revising.

I agree that those women do not deserve their punishments.

Most Islamic religious boards (like those in Malaysia) are governed by idiots who care more about what Gwen Stefani wears in her concerts than Osama bin Laden.

Thank you.
^^^^^^^ well said sir.
2008-02-06 16:47:44
PureFodder
Member
+225|6714
If only the west hadn't gone out of our way to repress social change in Iran through invasions, overthrowing governments, supporting brutal dictators that crushed moderates and political dissidents, supporting wars of aggression against them and continuous threats frightening the populace through fear under the umbrella of the government then the social changes we all want might have happened. Or they may not have. But nobody can serious deny the fact that the US and UK have been MAJOR obstacles in social reform in Iran. Traditional Islamic law certainly wasn't anything to do with the west, but the continuation of them is certainly something we've played a vital role it.
2008-02-06 17:03:48
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7145

PureFodder wrote:

If only the west hadn't gone out of our way to repress social change in Iran through invasions, overthrowing governments, supporting brutal dictators that crushed moderates and political dissidents, supporting wars of aggression against them and continuous threats frightening the populace through fear under the umbrella of the government then the social changes we all want might have happened. Or they may not have. But nobody can serious deny the fact that the US and UK have been MAJOR obstacles in social reform in Iran. Traditional Islamic law certainly wasn't anything to do with the west, but the continuation of them is certainly something we've played a vital role it.
I started reading this and thought you were being serious...  The US has gone out of their way to repress iran... thats a good one...  Do you really believe the things you type?

When did the US or the UK invade Iran... i missed that...  and Irans repression has nothing to do with their own leaders... haha

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-02-06 17:06:37)

Love is the answer
2008-02-06 17:15:17
daddyofdeath
A REAL Combat Engineer in the house
+187|6682|UK Bradford W,Yorks. Age 27

topal63 wrote:

daddyofdeath wrote:

Oh I  lolz at the fact you sat at your computer dissecting my post looking for a crack! **And in my professional view, it’s a load of bollocks. <--- (Is this supposed to be sarcasm? It isn’t).**  <------- It actually is. Am I a professional in Sharia Law??? No I am not. kthxbai.
Whatever, I will continue with the dissection...
These are your original statements: And in my professional view, it’s a load of bollocks.
These are different/modified statements: It actually is. Am I a professional in Sharia Law? No I am not.

FYI: Deceit or common bullshitting isn't sarcasm either.
_________

PS: Another FYI, typed words on an Internet forum, seem more serious, colder, less friendly (and so on), than they actually are. If you and I were sitting at a table and talking over coffee, lunch, a beer or whatever and I told you; explained to you; that what you said didn't seem like sarcasm to me, it would take only ten or twenty seconds before we would both chuckle (maybe agree) and move on to something else.
Quite possible. Lets shake E-hands and agree to disagree. +1 to you sir.
2008-02-06 17:16:51
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7200|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Choices have been made for countries by foreign powers since the dawn of war.
Choices have been unjustly made for countries by foreign powers since the dawn of war.

USSR in Eastern Europe & Afghanistan.
Germany in Europe.
Italy in North Africa.
France in Africa and Indo-China.
Netherlands in Indo-China.
Belgium in Africa.
China in Tibet.
Britain in Ireland and pretty much everywhere.
USA in Cuba, Phillipines, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
Iraq in Kuwait.
Iraq in Iran.
etc.

B.Schuss wrote:

What we cannot do, however, is make that choice for them.
Whether or not they've been just or unjust wasn't the issue. Saying that choices 'cannot' be made isn't the same as saying they 'should not' be made.
2008-02-06 17:20:18
PureFodder
Member
+225|6714

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

If only the west hadn't gone out of our way to repress social change in Iran through invasions, overthrowing governments, supporting brutal dictators that crushed moderates and political dissidents, supporting wars of aggression against them and continuous threats frightening the populace through fear under the umbrella of the government then the social changes we all want might have happened. Or they may not have. But nobody can serious deny the fact that the US and UK have been MAJOR obstacles in social reform in Iran. Traditional Islamic law certainly wasn't anything to do with the west, but the continuation of them is certainly something we've played a vital role it.
I started reading this and thought you were being serious...  The US has gone out of their way to repress iran... thats a good one...  Do you really believe the things you type?

When did the US or the UK invade Iran... i missed that...  and Irans repression has nothing to do with their own leaders... haha
In the 2nd world war, UK and USSR invaded Iran.

The US and UK overthrew a democratic government and installed a brutal dictator, then supported him as he destroyed all political opposition.
"SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the help of American and Israeli advisers who devised the agency to closely model after the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The mission of SAVAK was to place opponents of the Shah's regime under surveillance and to repress dissident movements through intimidation, exile, imprisonment, assassination, and torture. Though estimates vary widely, SAVAK was likely responsible for thousands of deaths."

Eventually the populace overthrew the regieme and so the US and UK along with other countries supported that nice man Saddam as he waged a 6 year war of aggression against Iran including the use of chemical weapons killing between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians.

How did that not repress social reform in Iran?

Last edited by PureFodder (2008-02-06 17:20:48)

2008-02-06 17:31:57
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|7096

PureFodder wrote:

In the 2nd world war, UK and USSR invaded Iran.

The US and UK overthrew a democratic government and installed a brutal dictator, then supported him as he destroyed all political opposition.
"SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the help of American and Israeli advisers who devised the agency to closely model after the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The mission of SAVAK was to place opponents of the Shah's regime under surveillance and to repress dissident movements through intimidation, exile, imprisonment, assassination, and torture. Though estimates vary widely, SAVAK was likely responsible for thousands of deaths."

Eventually the populace overthrew the regieme and so the US and UK along with other countries supported that nice man Saddam as he waged a 6 year war of aggression against Iran including the use of chemical weapons killing between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians.

How did that not repress social reform in Iran?
Not contradicting any of the above, but I know of a few Persians living here in SoCal who where quite happy living in Iran during the Shah's reign.  Persian women achieved significant independence, power, education, and even the right to vote.  All of that disappeared when Islamic Law took over and began purging women from positions of authority.
2008-02-07 01:37:38
PureFodder
Member
+225|6714

Ilocano wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

In the 2nd world war, UK and USSR invaded Iran.

The US and UK overthrew a democratic government and installed a brutal dictator, then supported him as he destroyed all political opposition.
"SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the help of American and Israeli advisers who devised the agency to closely model after the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The mission of SAVAK was to place opponents of the Shah's regime under surveillance and to repress dissident movements through intimidation, exile, imprisonment, assassination, and torture. Though estimates vary widely, SAVAK was likely responsible for thousands of deaths."

Eventually the populace overthrew the regieme and so the US and UK along with other countries supported that nice man Saddam as he waged a 6 year war of aggression against Iran including the use of chemical weapons killing between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians.

How did that not repress social reform in Iran?
Not contradicting any of the above, but I know of a few Persians living here in SoCal who where quite happy living in Iran during the Shah's reign.  Persian women achieved significant independence, power, education, and even the right to vote.  All of that disappeared when Islamic Law took over and began purging women from positions of authority.
They overthrew one kind of opression for another. It looks like something similar may happen in Iraq, the brutal dictator with a reasonably decent record on womens rights gets ditched in favour of a democracy with worse rights for women. Im certainly not saying the west is soley to blame for the state if Iranian society, but you can't look at the last hundred years of Iranian societies history without seeing that the west, mainly the UK and US have been major influences shaping it's current state today.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard