• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taliban shoot woman 9 times in public execution as men cheer

911 wasn't really about religion. It was about US foreign policy.

Sure. A view of US foreign policy as seen through a fundamentalist and religious lens. It certainly wasn't the refrain of anti-Imperialist Arab Socialism that sent planes crashing into buildings.
 
Sure. A view of US foreign policy as seen through a fundamentalist and religious lens. It certainly wasn't the refrain of anti-Imperialist Arab Socialism that sent planes crashing into buildings.

Well, I would say more in line with Egyptian Sayyid Qutb's writings or even Deobandi..
 
Well, I would say more in line with Egyptian Sayyid Qutb's writings or even Deobandi..

Right that's precisely the point though isn't it? The particular view that Osama bin Laden and his cohorts cultivated came from a religious worldview. There are many who view US foreign policy in the region negatively for a variety of reasons. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and their affiliated groups come at it from a very particular religious standpoint that is what makes it particularly unique and dangerous.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060668268 said:

Yes, because a religion must be bad if any of its people do bad things.

Sure. A view of US foreign policy as seen through a fundamentalist and religious lens. It certainly wasn't the refrain of anti-Imperialist Arab Socialism that sent planes crashing into buildings.

No, it was "America is my enemy so I'm attacking my enemy." We rain death from the skies on innocent people in these countries. Would your response to that be any different? If someone bombed Houston, would you really care what their motivation was?
 
Last edited:
Just remember that suicide is a sin in Islam, just like in Christianity.

It may be a sin to commit suicide under Islam, but it seems that suicide bombers are given a special dispensation by the sponsoring Islamic States.
 
Right that's precisely the point though isn't it? The particular view that Osama bin Laden and his cohorts cultivated came from a religious worldview. There are many who view US foreign policy in the region negatively for a variety of reasons. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and their affiliated groups come at it from a very particular religious standpoint that is what makes it particularly unique and dangerous.

They are as unlike any Sunni or Shia Muslims I have ever known.. I know the Deobandi madrassas sort of coalesced around opposing the British years ago... and you are correct that its pretty austere.

It seems to me that at the heart of it they believe that their religion comes before loyalty to their country.
 
It may be a sin to commit suicide under Islam, but it seems that suicide bombers are given a special dispensation by the sponsoring Islamic States.

No not really.. The crazed jihadis kill mostly Muslims so there really is no "sponsoring" state or dispensation..
 
I think Still hit the nail on the head-

The Taliban never came hat in hand to the West for money or advice. They would love us to 'shun' them. The West has shunned them for centuries and that was just peachy with them. I think they welcome a good shunning.

When it comes to sitting back judging which religion creates the most virulent extremists it is foolish to do so without considering the area in which the disease springs forth. I doubt many religions could withstand the strains put on them in certain parts of the world, be they Christians in Nazi Germany, our conquest of the Old West, the genocides in Africa, China, Russia... I'd throw in South America too but by now all should get the point.

Sure we can spin the exact nature's of 'our' sins compared to shooting a woman because two warlords wanted her. But a king in Merry Old England created a religious sect so he could divorce a wife and I do believe he killed one and popular culture said Gawd was on his side!

We sit in the 21st century judging other CULTURES still living as they have always done but now with a few more TVs and cell phones...

Not really productive, nor accurate. We have our problems, but should be extremely grateful our religious extremists can barely work up the nerve to murder a few doctors and bomb a few clinics. :peace
 
This religiosity of honor killing will never cease as long as these fanatics are able to rule even within their oblique sectors of society, not just in Afghanistan, but, anywhere.

"Public executions of alleged adulterers were common when the Taliban regime was in power from 1996 until 2001, when they were ousted by a US-led invasion for harbouring Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks."
Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun
 
No not really.. The crazed jihadis kill mostly Muslims so there really is no "sponsoring" state or dispensation..

Crazed jihadis kill only muslims? well... you could have fooled me!
 
Crazed jihadis kill only muslims? well... you could have fooled me!

Yes... they mostly kill muslims.. Can you name an Arab country that is not actively battling these terrorist crackpots?
 
Can you name an Arab country that is not actively battling these terrorist crackpots?

I don't know about Mya, but I sure can't think of a single Arab country that isn't actively producing them.
 
I don't know about Mya, but I sure can't think of a single Arab country that isn't actively producing them.

I take it that you don't bother much with Arab newspapers.
 
I find it utterly disgusting how ALL LIBERALS support these barbarians.

Actually, the true liberals are opposed to Islamism.

It is only the immature, dogmatic leftists that act as their apologists.
 
No, it was "America is my enemy so I'm attacking my enemy." We rain death from the skies on innocent people in these countries. Would your response to that be any different? If someone bombed Houston, would you really care what their motivation was?

What are you referring to? In the 1990's when Bin Laden made his decision to turn against the United States, what was it for? In terms of tangible events, first and foremost was the rejection of assistance during the Gulf War and the presence of Western troops in the Arabian Gulf to repel Saddam's troops and expel his forces from Kuwait. Though US forces were invited by all the regional governments, and later left as per existing timetables and legitimate requests Osama bin Laden and his group made it incumbent upon themselves to right this perfidious wrong. But what about his Fatwas? What does he right about? In 1996 when he lists the countries that the "Zionist-Crusader" alliance has wrought massacres in he selects "Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina".

The list is ludicrous if you are trying to create a tally of US crimes.

In Tajikistan the US had almost nothing to do with the civil war, and in fact was an incredibly complex affair involving the nascent Russian federation, the Tajik central government, Islamist groups in Afghanistan, and Tajik renegade Islamist militias. In Burma the US has long opposed the leading military junta and its crackdown on all dissidents and minorities, including the small Muslim population. In the Philippines the US has provided assistance to the legitimate government in its suppression of a brutal Islamist separatist movement support which was tangential in its quasi-dictatorial days, and substantial in its days as a democracy and has assisted in dialogue approaches with regard to Moro self-determination. In Malaysia the US has no role, but Bin Laden dislikes the non-Islamist central government. In Ogaden the US supported Somalia, the Muslim combatant in its war against Christian Ethiopia. Eritrea is a horrid country that the US had very little to do with. Chechnya is self-explanatory since I suppose we all know it involved Russia not the US, and that the US has provided some vocal criticism and condemnation of Russian activities. In Bosnia US led intervention saved the country, and has earned the US eternal gratitude in Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia all Muslim countries in Europe.

What does he say of these 'events' though?

"All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."

Clearly as I showed above this is ludicrous. Hell, bin Laden sanctioned attacks against Australia, targets in Indonesia, and foreign targets in general why? Because of intervention to end the atrocities in East Timor.

Both of his 'epistles' read like a forum conspiracy theory as seen through the prism of a fundamentalist. Yes he sees the US as his enemy (past tense obviously) but he sees it and his objectives for fantastically different reasons in terms of both reasonableness, legitimacy, and morality, than most of our opponents in the region.
 
Last edited:
I think Still hit the nail on the head-

The Taliban never came hat in hand to the West for money or advice. They would love us to 'shun' them. The West has shunned them for centuries and that was just peachy with them. I think they welcome a good shunning.

When it comes to sitting back judging which religion creates the most virulent extremists it is foolish to do so without considering the area in which the disease springs forth. I doubt many religions could withstand the strains put on them in certain parts of the world, be they Christians in Nazi Germany, our conquest of the Old West, the genocides in Africa, China, Russia... I'd throw in South America too but by now all should get the point.

Sure we can spin the exact nature's of 'our' sins compared to shooting a woman because two warlords wanted her. But a king in Merry Old England created a religious sect so he could divorce a wife and I do believe he killed one and popular culture said Gawd was on his side!

We sit in the 21st century judging other CULTURES still living as they have always done but now with a few more TVs and cell phones...

Not really productive, nor accurate. We have our problems, but should be extremely grateful our religious extremists can barely work up the nerve to murder a few doctors and bomb a few clinics. :peace

So I am not allowed to judge a despicable culture that believes in the wholesale execution and enslavement of women who transgress against their fundamentalist code...because King Henry VIII decided to found the Church of England? That is psychotic.
 
I take it that you don't bother much with Arab newspapers.

So, what IS the cost of a subscription to "Islamist Apologist Times", and do they deliver it to your door?
 
I try not to judge other cultures, as they likely think I'm a barbarian for my tp penchent
 
So, what IS the cost of a subscription to "Islamist Apologist Times", and do they deliver it to your door?

first two issues are free, and if you sign up for our 5 year plan, I'll even throw in a jar of pickled clitoris and a rpg
 
So, what IS the cost of a subscription to "Islamist Apologist Times", and do they deliver it to your door?

Arabs have been actively fighting the crackpots for well over a decade and the GCC countries .. particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been huge intelligence assets to the US.

If you stereotype all Muslims as being savages (or Taliban) then that's your thing.
 
It is a peaceful religion. The actual text speaks of peace like the bible. But unfortunatly any religion can be turend on its head to justify acts like these.

parts of the quran speak of peace, other parts not so much

No compromise is permitted with those who fail to believe in God, they have either to accept islam or Fight. In several Qur'anic injunctions, the muslims are under obligation to "fight the polytheists wherever ye may find them" to "fight those who are near to you of the polytheists, and let them find in you sternness; and "when you meet those who misbelieve strike off their heads until you have massacred them...


War and peace in the Law of Islam/ Majid Khadduri

page 74

but that's kinda expected considering the historical and cultural context it developed in, and doesn't speak to the malleability of religion, and the believers ability to cast off problematic scripture
 
Last edited:
Arabs have been actively fighting the crackpots for well over a decade and the GCC countries .. particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been huge intelligence assets to the US.

If you stereotype all Muslims as being savages (or Taliban) then that's your thing.

I think everyone is aware that the attitudes of the Saudi royal family differ drastically from the general population
 
I'd say that says more about the people (both those who are doing the manipulating and those who are being manipulated) than it does about the religion itself.

and it's not like no one has never been radicalized under secular causes
 
I think everyone is aware that the attitudes of the Saudi royal family differ drastically from the general population

No.. I know them pretty well.. and that's not accurate.

The rift is between the clerics and everyone else including the Al Saud.
 
Back
Top Bottom