Politics Thread

[mcdenife]

I'd like to add that I'm not generalizing each in every person belonging to Islam because I know not each and every person is the same but I do equalize all Islamic countries/societies. They have different approach but same goal and not a bit compassion for anyone killed by terrorists.

If that is not generalizing, what is? Plus imply terrorism and islam are the same thing.

[manchild]

You're right. I am generalizing all Islamic countries/systems (not people/individuals). If you consider that equalizing Islam with terrorism is wrong than following same principle you'd have to consider that equalizing Islam with political system and laws is also a bad thing and that is exactly what each Islamic country is doing.

I've never heard any Islamic priest saying that what for example Saudi Arabia or Iran are doing is wrong. Applying Islam in politics and law is as much an abuse of Islam as what terrorists do when they misinterpret/abuse Islam for their actions.

Just as I've never heard any Islamic priest saying that what for example Saudi Arabia or Iran are doing is wrong, I've also never heard that any of them ever directly and clearly condemned terrorists. If anyone is abusing Islam against the will of Islam clergy than it would be normal that Islam clergy is the first one to raise its voice against terrorists. But no, they are at best silent and in most applauding to each terrorist action. I see it as a closed circle - an backward male ideology (not religion) that manged to survive in modern age thanks to its brutality towards its own people who think different.

If priest from Saudi Arabia can advise people in UK via video link not to have mercy to "kuffar" and doesn't says a word against terrorists than where's the Islam pure but in theory?

Communism is also very nice and worth of respect in books but in real life it is hell and calling upon theory to give alibi to something that saws nothing but evil in real life is just unimportant and as such can't be considered as something worth of analysis and consideration.

People are dying as we speak. So let theologists, sociologists, philosophers analyze what caused that Islam becomes terroristic and take some action to prevent further killing and suffering of those who suffer under Islamic terrorism.

In theory, in books, Islam isn't the same thing as terrorism but in real life Islamic terrorists are what Waffen SS was for Hitler's National Socialist party - a force getting rid of those who are different.

The news article I've quoted is an excellent example why Islam should be condemned/dismantled as a system where it is applied as system because brutality it shows in that particular case has nothing to do with terrorism. Even more, it shows what I've mentioned once before saying that at least one half of population living under Islam suffers. Of course I had in mind woman, woman to be and children in general since they have no choice but to obey or to be punished or killed.

[mcdenife]

I did not want to get get involved in this discussion but...

You're right. I am generalizing all Islamic countries/systems (not people/individuals). If you consider that equalizing Islam with terrorism is wrong than following same principle you'd have to consider that equalizing Islam with political system and laws is also a bad thing and that is exactly what each Islamic country is doing.

The only places you can equate islam with a political system is in an islamic state. How many do you think there are (islamic states I mean)? At the moment I can think of 1 or 2. There are probably a couple more but my brain is slow at the moment. However I am disappointed MC, NO, I am offended. No, I am deeply offended that you can equate islam with terrorism....and I am not even a moslem. Note I said a Moslem. Note also a moslem's religion is islam and that you therefore imply all moslems are terrorists (or potential).

I've never heard any Islamic priest saying that what for example Saudi Arabia or Iran are doing is wrong. Applying Islam in politics and law is as much an abuse of Islam as what terrorists do when they misinterpret/abuse Islam for their actions.

and because he does not, he must be a terrorist or support terrorism, no? The world has gone to hell in a basket! I think it was dubya who said (and please this is not a quote but in essence said) if you are not for us, you MUST be against us or you have to choose sides. Where do you stand MC, do you know?? You ask why 'these people' do not protest against terrorism to show they do not support it. Do you understand the meaning of terrorism at all? Infact terrorism is just some kind of spin.The correct word for them is "criminal". and guess what, Dubya issues a challenge...IIRC "bring it on" he said.....and this from the president of the usa, a world leader?. as if this were some kind of gangland turf war.
9/11 was not an attack against the US...hell no. it was an attack against every human being on this planet because, there but for the love of god go you. But I dont hear you say ANYBODY WHO DOES NOT DENOUNCE IT MUST SUPPORT IT AND IS THEREFORE A TERRORIST!!! Can you not understand that it is not even about any kind of religion but purely political? Hundreds are dying almost on a daily basis....bombed to hell and back hideously. Probably 99% of them moslems (and devout at that) and you still think this is about islam? Then to add insult to injury all they hear/see/feel, including in discussions like this, is "they are moslems and therefore they are either terrorists or support it". Think about that for a second. Given the location I believe you are from, I think you should know better because I do not understand how you can equate any kind of political/religious/ideological beliefs with terrorism which in effect is what u have done.

I for one have never commented (at least not publicly and perhaps I should) on any of issues, including iraq, 9/11, 7/7, madrid etc, and despite the near miss, I certainly aint with Dubya. So please tell me what does that make me.

On this very forum 'someone' asked 'someone-else' to justify the war in iraq and the response was first a listing or timeline of terrorists attrocities dating back to the 'ice age', which bore no relationship whatsoever to the question and as proof/source/backup, cited wikipedia, googlepedia, yahoopedia, congresspedia, plus all other pedia's known to man, woman and child. This struck me as no different to what has been and is still happening in universities across the globe, where these so called islamists congregate to recruit young impressionable children (for thats what they are) to their cause. They brainwash these children citing untruths/rubbish and using these "pedia'.....or whatever" as their proofs. These are Children away from home the first times in their lives. children mostly respectful, intelligent, well brought up and from decent, devout, god fearing, backgrounds. Their parents have sacrifised everything and worked their fingers to the bone to give their children a good education so they can achieve both theirs and their parents dreams. Do you know what a terrorist or terrorism is? Because I cannot understand what you mean by people should protest against terrorism. How, while their children are being blown to bits? Protest to who, the terrorists? I ask again, do you really know what a terrorist is?

My apologies if I offended anyone but I could not resist responding. Howerver I think this should stop here. I love this site and think it is too good for this thread.

[manchild]

Because I cannot understand what you mean by people should protest against terrorism. How, while their children are being blown to bits? Protest to who, the terrorists? I ask again, do you really know what a terrorist is?

I thought it was clear but I'll rephrase. If you agree that terrorists are abusing Islam by interpreting it as they please than THAT should by default offend good Mulsims more than a cartoon of in Danish newspapers. Can we agree on this one?

How, while their children are being blown to bits? Protest to who, the terrorists? I ask again, do you really know what a terrorist is?

You don't protest to someone, you protest to show everyone, the whole world that you don't agree with that. It is done in the free world frequently but not in Islamic countries.

Terrorist are equalizing their actions with will of all Muslims so if majority of Muslims was against that they'd HAVE to feel anger against someone who dares to speak and act in their name in completely wrong way. To whom did they protest GLOBALY when cartoons appeared in Danish newspapers? To everyone, to whole world as I've said. They wanted the whole world to know that they're pissed because of the cartoons. Demonstrations were held from Middle East across Africa, Europe, Asia... Whenever there's a Islamic community in the world there were protest.

So they do protest when they want, they don't protest when they won't and they apparently don't want to protest against what terrorists are doing to reputation of their religion. If they can protest because of a cartoon and they don't want to protest because of thousands of people killed by terrorists in the name of their religion than that is undoubtedly a silent support to terrorists. Not by each and every person of course but by majority for sure.

I really can't accept that a cartoon in newspapers is a greater insult to Islam than what Al Quaida did on 9/11 for example publicly announcing that they've did it for the sake of Islam. There were no protest in the Islamic countries against that or against any other terrorist action but as you can remember there were celebrations on the streets and those who were celebrating are those who protested against cartoon. That is pure and absolute hypocrisy of moral not having anything to do with politics.

If it is a political thing as you're suggested please explain why a 19 yo girl will be whipped and why was she beaten and why weren't kidnappers and rapists punished for raping her? US and oil and terrorist have nothing to do with it.

When I speak against Islamic countries I'm sure that at least of the population half (woman) share my opinion but can't express it since they live in constant fear from men. So, if you find my viewpoint insulting let me say that I find it insulting when someone gives alibi and justifies suffering of woman in Islamic countries through the logic "leave them alone, it is THEIR religion and part of tradition". Such "THEIR" stands only for minority of adult male fanatics who abuse woman and turn children into whatever they like.

Another thing to clear out, there's much more than 1 or 2 Islamic countries in the world (list from an Islamic site, not wikipedia) http://www.islamic-world.net/countries/index.htm

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Benin
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Mozambique
Niger
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Western Sahara
Yemen

[miqi23]

[ketanpaul]

I find it terrible that some forum members are actually equating moslems to terrorists. I am an Indian, so this might be awkward for some people but whenever our paths cross with a Pakistani, we actually treat him like a guest and talk like friends. When some Indians went to Pakistan to see an India-Pakistan cricket match they were treated the same way and even given free taxi rides to the stadium. As far as moslems go, India has a lot of moslems and even some of my best friends are moslems ( I am a Hindu) and I just feel aweful that some people equate moslems to terrorists. How can the world progress as one if we dont consider ourselves as one?

[nae]

I find it terrible that some forum members are actually equating moslems to terrorists. I am an Indian, so this might be awkward for some people but whenever our paths cross with a Pakistani, we actually treat him like a guest and talk like friends. When some Indians went to Pakistan to see an India-Pakistan cricket match they were treated the same way and even given free taxi rides to the stadium. As far as moslems go, India has a lot of moslems and even some of my best friends are moslems ( I am a Hindu) and I just feel aweful that some people equate moslems to terrorists. How can the world progress as one if we dont consider ourselves as one?

you would have to assume that that sort of simplistic view (of terrorists equating to Muslims) only serves to bolster the rhetoric and solves nothing, at best. and at worst is the problem in the first place.

The governments of the UK, USA, Poland, wherever perhaps dislike the governments of whatever government they choose often for economic reasons. doesn't mean they are bad people just means we are told not to like them.

the overwhelming majority of the world just has to get on with its life as it is presented to them, the daily grind under whatever regime that was in place at their birth and are bizzarly peaceful.

its only a few who seek to be aggressive towards others and they use whatever rhetoric they need to get the support for there actions

think for yourself, personally i don't have enough energy to hate individuals (for long) far less whole religious sects

[mcdenife]

MC wrote:

I thought it was clear but I'll rephrase. If you agree that terrorists are abusing Islam by interpreting it as they please than THAT should by default offend good Mulsims more than a cartoon of in Danish newspapers. Can we agree on this one?

You don't protest to someone, you protest to show everyone, the whole world that you don't agree with that. It is done in the free world frequently but not in Islamic countries.

You imply there are no Good(?) muslims (which is like saying there are no good people), they are not offended or they are all terrorists. What is the to agree on?
They neither speak for Islam nor are they representative of muslims, not even locally let alone globally. But you appear to think they do and therein lies the problem. Shout louder drown other voices so they are not heard......works well in politics and these chaps certainly have everyone attention. They are the ones you choose to hear.

All good PEOPLE have denounced (not protest mind you) terrorism or these attacks but since muslims as a group have not done this, they must support it, right? But all this is irrelevant. How many times (if any) have you, manchild, gone out to protest against, I know I haven't and I dont have to. So tell me, if this does not imply I support terrorism, why should it imply a muslim(s) does? Almost every country (if not all) has denounced these attacks/terrorists etc. but you choose to single out, not only what you call "Islamic Countries", but moslems as whole. Did you hear or were you even listening?

The Danish/French cartoons depicted Mohammed as a terrorist. The 'mulahs' (some the mad kind) denounced this depiction of Mohammed and the implication that muslims are terrorist, as an insult to muslims and Islam. Muslims took to the streets across the globe in protest. Admittedly most did not see the cartoon or even know what they were protesting about, just that their 'mulahs' said someone (or somethin) had insulted them. Regardless, they came out in numbers to tell you they are not terrorists. Did you hear them?

If it is a political thing as you're suggested please explain why a 19 yo girl will be whipped and why was she beaten and why weren't kidnappers and rapists punished for raping her? US and oil and terrorist have nothing to do with it.

I think you are confusing the issue.

Another thing to clear out, there's much more than 1 or 2 Islamic countries in the world (list from an Islamic site, not wikipedia) http://www.islamic-world.net/countries/index.htm

Without even looking at that site, even my ignorant self, knows that, with the exception of Iran and possibly libya, None of those countries you listed
are Islamic countries. Most are not even muslim countries let alone Islamic countries. Do you know the difference?

The point about my previous "pedia's" comment was that it is not enough to quote these sources as proof something is right or wrong.[/code]

[manchild]

You imply there are no Good(?) muslims (which is like saying there are no good people), they are not offended or they are all terrorists. What is the to agree on?

Please read carefully what I've written. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists but completely saying opposite - most of the population in Islamic countries are not supporting terrorists but they can't raise their voice because those societies are dominated minority of adult males (not all men). Most of the Muslims are victims of their own society, especially woman. If we agree that 50% of each population are woman and that at least 30% are children than it is clear that I'm not generalizing people as I've already mentioned.

But those who can hit the streets, those who go out to burn US and Israel flags, those who celebrated on 9/11 are who dominate/run/rule in such societies are the ones I blame for going out on the street because of the cartoon, not going out on the street to condemn terrorists and for making celebrations on events like 9/11. I'm not blaming woman, children and minority of men with different opinion but those who they suffer under.

All good PEOPLE have denounced (not protest mind you) terrorism or these attacks but since muslims as a group have not done this, they must support it, right?

All good people certainly have denounced I agree. Yes, since not a single protest was made by any Muslim group or country/society those societies and religious leader are clearly supporting terrorists. Not all people, not majority but those who dominate and govern such societies/countries/religious communities. If they can protest globally against cartoon and not protest at all against terrorists who are as some claim "abusing Islam" than they are indisputably supporting terrorists.

But all this is irrelevant. How many times (if any) have you, manchild, gone out to protest against, I know I haven't and I dont have to.

Many, many times, risking my life and future but that's another story not belonging to this topic.

So tell me, if this does not imply I support terrorism, why should it imply a muslim(s) does? Almost every country (if not all) has denounced these attacks/terrorists etc. but you choose to single out, not only what you call "Islamic Countries", but moslems as whole. Did you hear or were you even listening?

Oh c'mon. That's like saying that Lebanon government has nothing to do with Hammas. If a government isn't capable to control what goes on its territory than it should declare state of emergency, ask UN for help, whatever.

Saddam called his regime as democratic. There were ellections, he won always. How relevant is form relative to essence. It is absolutely not important what some says but what that someone does. When I say Islamic countries I have in mind those who dominate and govern such societies/countries. Most of their citizens are victims of such regimes and minority that supports them.

The Danish/French cartoons depicted Mohammed as a terrorist. The 'mulahs' (some the mad kind) denounced this depiction of Mohammed and the implication that muslims are terrorist, as an insult to muslims and Islam. Muslims took to the streets across the globe in protest. Admittedly most did not see the cartoon or even know what they were protesting about, just that their 'mulahs' said someone (or somethin) had insulted them. Regardless, they came out in numbers to tell you they are not terrorists. Did you hear them?

Those protest were orchestrated by Islamic clergy worldwide. Did you ever read a Danish newspaper? How on earth could Danish newspaper get in the hands of Muslims worldwide and upset them? All of those who protested against Danish newspaper have seen with their own eyes how jets hit WTC, why didn't they protest? Terrorists said they're doing it in the name of Islam. Why didn't they protest against such "insult" which is officially considered to be much greater insult than cartoon?

Without even looking at that site, even my ignorant self, knows that, with the exception of Iran and possibly libya, None of those countries you listed
are Islamic countries. Most are not even muslim countries let alone Islamic countries. Do you know the difference?

I think you've mixed the difference you're mentioning. You consider that Islamic countries are only those in with Shariat law. It is not so. All countries from the list are Islamic but only Saudi Arabia and Iran have Shariat law (perhaps some other country too).

In general, I've raised my voice against organized religion incorporated in society and system aimed against great majority of its own population and against whole free world. I've clearly stated several times that I'm not generalizing each and every person and abusive systems and societies are not representing each and every citizen.

Those who equalize whole nations, ethnicities or religions with current country system/society are at first tyrants and dictators who always hide behind nation to justify their politics. I'm trying to say that it is bad if we do the same and consider attack on such system/society as an attack on people living in such system.

It is completely opposite - people living in such system are the first victims of such system/society and attacking such system/society is for their good as much as it is for the good of foreigners endangered by such system/society.

So, if we agree that most of the population in Islamic countries suffers than tolerating the system/society in which they suffer is not the way to show how you're not equalizing them with the system/society.

Please allow the possibility that there's more than one way to be objective/tolerant/humane instead of considering that regimes in Islamic countries reflect the true will of the majority and that since it is so raising voice against such system/society is offending all Muslims because it isn't. It is offending only aggressive adult male minority that supports such system/society and they should be offended.

[mcdenife]

Manchild, your response makes absolutely no sense, is confusing and either evades or do not answer anything. Instead you talk about majority/minorityor what percentages are women etc etc etc. You then say something (I dont know what) is like saying that Lebanon government has nothing to do with Hammas or a government incapable of controlling its teritory. Then you say:

If they can protest globally against cartoon and not protest at all against terrorists who are as some claim "abusing Islam" than they are indisputably supporting terrorists.

But then you finish with this extract:

Please allow the possibility that there's more than one way to be objective/tolerant/humane instead of considering that regimes in Islamic countries reflect the true will of the majority and that since it is so raising voice against such system/society is offending all Muslims because it isn't.

I am lost.

I think you've mixed the difference you're mentioning. You consider that Islamic countries are only those in with Shariat law. It is not so. All countries from the list are Islamic but only Saudi Arabia and Iran have Shariat law (perhaps some other country too).

You say not only countries that practice sharia law are islamic countries I wont comment but tell me what makes the countries you mentioned Islamic countries and how many of them practice sharia law? In fact lets just take a few of them like:

Benin
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Comoros
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Maldives
Mozambique
Nigeria
Palestine
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Suriname
Uganda

[manchild]

My point is this: When I or someone else speaks against Islamic countries, their system and society that isn't attack on all Muslims. Muslims are individuals, each person has its own opinion and viewpoints.

Not even the most democratic societies represent will and opinion of all citizens so why equalize Islamic undemocratic governments and official organized Islam with all people living in such countries? I'm pointing out that I'm strongly against that.

Why am I pointing that out? Because I've understood that some of the posters here consider criticism of official, organized Islam and Islamic countries where such Islam is incorporated in law and society as attack on all Muslims. That is also a very bad generalizing and if you'd like it an insult to all those Muslims who don't agree with their government or clergy. Also, I'm absolutely sure that majority of Muslims in the world has different opinion than official organized Islam that acts as net whose center is in Saudi Arabia.

It is all about question of majority and minority. I claim that majority of Muslims suffers under and disagrees with those who represent official organized Islam, governments/rulers of Islamic countries and their voters/fanatical supporters who are mainly coming from adult male population.

So I say that minority of Muslims (part of the adult male fanatics) and their opinion doesn't represent all Muslims and attacks and criticism on that part of the adult male fanatics isn't attack on all Muslims. It is the part of the adult male fanatics that originally say it, so why would you support that? They come from societies with no freedom of speech so they don't have legitimate right to say that they speak in the name of all Muslims just as the terrorists don't have legitimate right to claim same thing.

Hope this clears up what I wanted to say.

Regarding list of Islamic countries:

The Organization of Islamic Conference Member States
Currently, the OIC has 57 member and 3 observer states

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization grouping fifty seven states which have decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts, and speak with one voice to safeguard the interests and secure the progress and well-being of their peoples and of all Muslims in the world.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/oicstates1.html

In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful

welcome to the Home Page of the
Permanent Delegation of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference

State - Year of accession

Afghanistan 1969
Albania, Republic of 1992
Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of 1969
Azerbaijan, Republic of 1991
Bahrain, State of 1970
Bangladesh, People's Republic of 1974
Benin, Republic of 1982
Brunei Dar-us-Salaam, Sultanate of 1984
Burkina Faso 1975
Cameroon, Republic of 1975
Chad, Republic of 1969
Comoros, Federal Islamic Republic of the 1976
Cote d'Ivoire, Republic of 2001
Djibouti, Republic of 1978
Egypt, Arab Republic of 1969
Gabon, Republic of 1974
Gambia, Republic of the 1974
Guinea, Republic of 1969
Guinea-Bissau, Republic of 1974
Guyana, Republic of 1998
Indonesia, Republic of 1969
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1969
Iraq, Republic of 1976
Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of 1969
Kazakhstan, Republic of 1995
Kuwait, State of 1969
Kyrghyzistan, Republic of 1992
Lebanon, Republic of 1969
Libya, Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1969
Malaysia 1969
Maldives, Republic of 1976
Mali, Republic of 1969
Mauritania, Islamic Republic of 1969
Morocco, Kingdom of 1969
Mozambique, Republic of 1994
Niger, Republic of 1969
Nigeria, Federal Republic of 1986
Oman, Sultanate of 1970
Pakistan, Islamic Republic of 1969
Palestine, State of 1969
Qatar, State of 1970
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 1969
Senegal, Republic of 1969
Sierra Leone, Republic of 1972
Somalia, Democratic Republic of 1969
Sudan, Republic of the 1969
Surinam, Republic of the 1996
Syrian Arab Republic 1970
Tajikistan, Republic of 1992
Togo, Republic of 1997
Tunisia, Republic of 1969
Turkey, Republic of 1969
Turkmenistan, Republic of 1992
Uganda, Republic of 1974
United Arab Emirates, State of 1970
Uzbekistan, Republic of 1995
Yemen, Republic of 1969

The OIC Observer States

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of
Central African Republic
Thailand, Kingdom of

http://www.oic-un.org/about/members.htm

[mcdenife]

Cant argue with much of that.

With regards to the list of islamic countries. Member states of the OIC are not necessarilly Islamic countries themselves. Indeed some of them have muslim populations that are a fraction of their total populations. The benefits are mainly economic to the member states in terms of aid and gives them alternatives to the IMF (and its conditions) , for example.