India - Pakistan Crisis

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
You come out with your true colors. Shun me and bar me! All talk no action! Sharia law is the best law system. Period. I don't want to argue with you people why; that's my belief and it will not change so keep your comments to yourself.

OK, under your interpretation of Sharia Law...

1. Do you support the death penalty for adultery or sodomy?

2. Do you believe that females should have ALL of the same rights as males?

3. Do you support stoning and beheading as legal forms of execution?

4. Do you support the amputation of limbs as punishments for crimes?

5. Do you believe that any man should be allowed to marry any woman, regardless of the tribe, sect, social status, or religion of either person?

6. At what age to you believe women should be allowed to get married?

7. What evidence is required to convict a man of rape? what is his punishment? Will the victim of the rape also be punished?

8. Is the light physical beating of one's wife permissible? If so, can women also lightly beat their husbands?

9. Would Jews, Christians, and non-religious persons have ALL of the exact same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as their Muslim neighbors under Sharia Law?

We'll start with those questions... trust me, I'm VERY interested in your modern interpretations of Sharia Law -- I really am! So please take the time to answer these questions.

Thanks ahead of time!

Mine is not a modern interpretion. In fact; the original interpretation.

1. Yes. Again it depends on a number of factors. It would probably come down to adultery in public that would get you stoned to death. As far as what goes inside a house; the state won't say anything because peeping inside people's houses is a crime in itself.
2. Both have different rights.
3. Yes
4. Limbs are not amputated. It's fingers. (For stealing for eg). I was in SA and did not see 1 amputated person.
5. Yes. Any women can marry any man she wants too. Except in the case of religion. When there are muslim women there is no need to marry others. If you believe in love you can go though the Islamic philosophy of love and I'm sure you will be surprised by what you find.
6. Depends. Generally after puberty.
7. Proof Which might be in the form of witnesses or otherwise. His punishment is lashes or stoning to death. No fault of the victim. She is free.
8. Depends. On paper it is but under exceptional circumstances. The can always take asylum with the judge and prove her case.
9. No. They don't. They have the exact same freedoms and opportunities. Rights differ; but they can do whatever they want within their communities. The rights that are limited often have to do with marriage with muslims.

If you think those are backward then to each his own. We look through different glasses. You can claim that I'm an uneducated, backward, illiterate idiot. I don't care. This is my last post on the subject.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I think people here are not getting the seriousness of the situation, that country is providing safe haven to din laden and other trigger-happy killjoys for over 10 years according to CIA reports, now their govt has allied with them. So eventually, nukes will fall in the hands of these illiterate morons and then every other country will say it's time to panic.

Oh I 'get it' And don't let lull and Bush apologists fool me. I have been predicting a 5 nuke simultaneous blast in 5 of our biggest cities for awhile now. They are just biding their time.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I think people here are not getting the seriousness of the situation, that country is providing safe haven to din laden and other trigger-happy killjoys for over 10 years according to CIA reports, now their govt has allied with them. So eventually, nukes will fall in the hands of these illiterate morons and then every other country will say it's time to panic.

You are 100% wrong. The Pakistani government is going to keep its nukes under extremely tight control. They don't have many atm and they represent their only significant defense agaisnt Indian aggression. They will not jeopardize world support by leaking out one of their precious nukes which will be traced back to them due to a simple analysis on the radiative debri.

Stop being a coward, realize there are threats in this world, but don't be a baby and dream up danger scenarios. It's pathetic and it jeopardizes real world diplomacy and elimination of extremists. Keep fantasy land as something to scare yourself at night.

 

[The Green Bean]

repost

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I think people here are not getting the seriousness of the situation, that country is providing safe haven to din laden and other trigger-happy killjoys for over 10 years according to CIA reports, now their govt has allied with them. So eventually, nukes will fall in the hands of these illiterate morons and then every other country will say it's time to panic.

You are 100% wrong. The Pakistani government is going to keep its nukes under extremely tight control. They don't have many atm and they represent their only significant defense agaisnt Indian aggression. They will not jeopardize world support by leaking out one of their precious nukes which will be traced back to them due to a simple analysis on the radiative debri.

Stop being a coward, realize there are threats in this world, but don't be a baby and dream up danger scenarios. It's pathetic and it jeopardizes real world diplomacy and elimination of extremists. Keep fantasy land as something to scare yourself at night.

:thumbsup: i agree. But I still think my government is too soft on the taliban.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
You come out with your true colors. Shun me and bar me! All talk no action! Sharia law is the best law system. Period. I don't want to argue with you people why; that's my belief and it will not change so keep your comments to yourself.

OK, under your interpretation of Sharia Law...

1. Do you support the death penalty for adultery or sodomy?

2. Do you believe that females should have ALL of the same rights as males?

3. Do you support stoning and beheading as legal forms of execution?

4. Do you support the amputation of limbs as punishments for crimes?

5. Do you believe that any man should be allowed to marry any woman, regardless of the tribe, sect, social status, or religion of either person?

6. At what age to you believe women should be allowed to get married?

7. What evidence is required to convict a man of rape? what is his punishment? Will the victim of the rape also be punished?

8. Is the light physical beating of one's wife permissible? If so, can women also lightly beat their husbands?

9. Would Jews, Christians, and non-religious persons have ALL of the exact same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as their Muslim neighbors under Sharia Law?

We'll start with those questions... trust me, I'm VERY interested in your modern interpretations of Sharia Law -- I really am! So please take the time to answer these questions.

Thanks ahead of time!

Mine is not a modern interpretion. In fact; the original interpretation.

1. Yes. Again it depends on a number of factors. It would probably come down to adultery in public that would get you stoned to death. As far as what goes inside a house; the state won't say anything because peeping inside people's houses is a crime in itself.
2. Both have different rights.
3. Yes
4. Limbs are not amputated. It's fingers. (For stealing for eg). I was in SA and did not see 1 amputated person.
5. Yes. Any women can marry any man she wants too. Except in the case of religion. When there are muslim women there is no need to marry others. If you believe in love you can go though the Islamic philosophy of love and I'm sure you will be surprised by what you find.
6. Depends. Generally after puberty.
7. Proof Which might be in the form of witnesses or otherwise. His punishment is lashes or stoning to death. No fault of the victim. She is free.
8. Depends. On paper it is but under exceptional circumstances. The can always take asylum with the judge and prove her case.
9. No. They don't. They have the exact same freedoms and opportunities. Rights differ; but they can do whatever they want within their communities. The rights that are limited often have to do with marriage with muslims.

If you think those are backward then to each his own. We look through different glasses. You can claim that I'm an uneducated, backward, illiterate idiot. I don't care.

You're just a bigot and barbaric. Such systems of oppression would need to be addressed at an international level against countries that practice these beliefs.

Any nation based off such a barbaric system will never become advanced in any way. It will continue to be mediocre.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I think people here are not getting the seriousness of the situation, that country is providing safe haven to din laden and other trigger-happy killjoys for over 10 years according to CIA reports, now their govt has allied with them. So eventually, nukes will fall in the hands of these illiterate morons and then every other country will say it's time to panic.

You are 100% wrong. The Pakistani government is going to keep its nukes under extremely tight control. They don't have many atm and they represent their only significant defense agaisnt Indian aggression. They will not jeopardize world support by leaking out one of their precious nukes which will be traced back to them due to a simple analysis on the radiative debri.

Stop being a coward, realize there are threats in this world, but don't be a baby and dream up danger scenarios. It's pathetic and it jeopardizes real world diplomacy and elimination of extremists. Keep fantasy land as something to scare yourself at night.

When The Pakistani government become Taliban through and through we'll talk again - until then I agree fear is unfounded, until then. 10 years tops.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I think people here are not getting the seriousness of the situation, that country is providing safe haven to din laden and other trigger-happy killjoys for over 10 years according to CIA reports, now their govt has allied with them. So eventually, nukes will fall in the hands of these illiterate morons and then every other country will say it's time to panic.

You are 100% wrong. The Pakistani government is going to keep its nukes under extremely tight control.

I doubt it, I read somewhere that pak army isn't in control of the govt, there are several disagreements.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: CLite
I believe it's a dual edged sword situation and it really need to be solved by Pakistan stepping up to the plate and taking internal responsibility for the area w/out US involvement.

So what other options are there, for the U.S. and NATO, when Pakistan fails to do so? Should we allow the Taliban and AQ to continue to exist and operate unmolested? Should we just give up and leave?

When the very things needed for progress -- education, technology, infrastructure, etc -- are the very things that are banished under strict Taliban rule, and the Pakistani government fails to do anything about said Taliban rule, what are our remaining options?

Sorry my above post didn't really address your question.

I think the steps needed:
1) Fortify afghan border
2) Distance self from Pakistan politics so the current government is percieved as less of a U.S. puppet by its own people
3) Initiate proganda in the region with ground-based word of mouth. The people truly are sick of the Taliban
4) Covertly assist in training Pakistani forces with special forces, any large training mission would be perceived as collaboration and undermine the current government.

What if I told you that all/most of the above were already being done?

1. The "border," as it was drawn by the Brits, is impossible to fortify completely. It lies on some of the planet's roughest terrain. Even with drones and 500k troops, we probably couldn't lock it down...

2. As an ally of the U.S. they will always be perceived as a puppet by their own citizens. The only possible solution would be a total disconnect -- which is too costly for the U.S. and NATO, in terms of access, supply routes, information, coordinated ops, etc.

3. Word-of-mouth propaganda is slow and ultimately ineffective when the Taliban threaten and/or slaughter any who might object to their presence or practices. That said, there are certainly other types of perception management that can be effective. Heck, many Pakistani Lashkars have already formed up and attempted to kick the Taliban out of certain tribal areas. The problem is that nobody -- NATO, U.S., or Pakistan -- has taken advantage of these Lashkars. If handled properly, they could be leveraged in the region, similar to the way the Sons of the Awakening were leveraged in Iraq, to great effect. I'm still waiting to see this happen...

4. Open source reporting indicates that we are already training the Pakistani Special Services Group and others; and that said training has been going on for quite some time. It does not appear that the training has trickled down to the normal Pakistani military forces on the front lines who have consistently failed to be effective against the Taliban in Swat or the NWFP. They're practically useless...

You just said a mouthful.


1. The "border," as it was drawn by the Brits, is impossible to fortify completely. It lies on some of the planet's roughest terrain. Even with drones and 500k troops, we probably couldn't lock it down...

2. The problem in the middle east . Again the britts. 1947. But the deal was made years earlier with Ge Rothschild.

3) Africa, Again the britts. Stealing natural resources and Farmland while the true land owners starv.

4) China. Britts tried turning awhole nation into addicts.

5) Britts Ausraila penial colony .

6) North america. 1776 America wins independence from britts . But Britts still have many suppoerters . Which quickly shows up in the Fed bank . As the britts system and bankers are used . Rothschild Morgan Rochefeller. WARBERG.

Its easy to see who has been stealing from the cookie jar . As they left a trail of crimbs a blind man could follow. The Britts. Are the ones we should be causious of . Read there history 100% untrustworthy. The royals are a joke . Royal what? Murders thieves and liers. Because your a leader or a royal your not immune to justice. There justice is coming shiftly now.

Clearly the Britts as you can see are the center of all world trouble spots. Just because we share a common language with the britts. Doesn't mean we have same idealalogy. The britts set the borders for all these hot spots. Thats what happens when a rapist is allowed to rome the worlds seas. They will be brought to justice soon enough. Hay they can allready feel there silly island sinking into the ocean .Nobody through these guys a life raft. Examine there history. Talk about a shit whole country. They have more blood on their hands . Than all the world tyrants combined . Check history. Than you shall no the dragon. Morgan won. There fabled camalot will never more be.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
You come out with your true colors. Shun me and bar me! All talk no action! Sharia law is the best law system. Period. I don't want to argue with you people why; that's my belief and it will not change so keep your comments to yourself.

OK, under your interpretation of Sharia Law...

1. Do you support the death penalty for adultery or sodomy?

2. Do you believe that females should have ALL of the same rights as males?

3. Do you support stoning and beheading as legal forms of execution?

4. Do you support the amputation of limbs as punishments for crimes?

5. Do you believe that any man should be allowed to marry any woman, regardless of the tribe, sect, social status, or religion of either person?

6. At what age to you believe women should be allowed to get married?

7. What evidence is required to convict a man of rape? what is his punishment? Will the victim of the rape also be punished?

8. Is the light physical beating of one's wife permissible? If so, can women also lightly beat their husbands?

9. Would Jews, Christians, and non-religious persons have ALL of the exact same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as their Muslim neighbors under Sharia Law?

We'll start with those questions... trust me, I'm VERY interested in your modern interpretations of Sharia Law -- I really am! So please take the time to answer these questions.

Thanks ahead of time!

Mine is not a modern interpretion. In fact; the original interpretation.

1. Yes. Again it depends on a number of factors. It would probably come down to adultery in public that would get you stoned to death. As far as what goes inside a house; the state won't say anything because peeping inside people's houses is a crime in itself.
2. Both have different rights.
3. Yes
4. Limbs are not amputated. It's fingers. (For stealing for eg). I was in SA and did not see 1 amputated person.
5. Yes. Any women can marry any man she wants too. Except in the case of religion. When there are muslim women there is no need to marry others. If you believe in love you can go though the Islamic philosophy of love and I'm sure you will be surprised by what you find.
6. Depends. Generally after puberty.
7. Proof Which might be in the form of witnesses or otherwise. His punishment is lashes or stoning to death. No fault of the victim. She is free.
8. Depends. On paper it is but under exceptional circumstances. The can always take asylum with the judge and prove her case.
9. No. They don't. They have the exact same freedoms and opportunities. Rights differ; but they can do whatever they want within their communities. The rights that are limited often have to do with marriage with muslims.

If you think those are backward then to each his own. We look through different glasses. You can claim that I'm an uneducated, backward, illiterate idiot. I don't care. This is my last post on the subject.

It appears that you condone most of the inhumane facets of Sharia Law. The practice of those beliefs is simply unacceptable in the humane and modern (read: civilized) world.

I figured as much.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You just said a mouthful.

1. The "border," as it was drawn by the Brits, is impossible to fortify completely. It lies on some of the planet's roughest terrain. Even with drones and 500k troops, we probably couldn't lock it down...

2. The problem in the middle east . Again the britts. 1947. But the deal was made years earlier with Ge Rothschild.

3) Africa, Again the britts. Stealing natural resources and Farmland while the true land owners starv.

4) China. Britts tried turning awhole nation into addicts.

5) Britts Ausraila penial colony .

6) North america. 1776 America wins independence from britts . But Britts still have many suppoerters . Which quickly shows up in the Fed bank . As the britts system and bankers are used . Rothschild Morgan Rochefeller. WARBERG.

Its easy to see who has been stealing from the cookie jar . As they left a trail of crimbs a blind man could follow. The Britts. Are the ones we should be causious of . Read there history 100% untrustworthy. The royals are a joke . Royal what? Murders thieves and liers. Because your a leader or a royal your not immune to justice. There justice is coming shiftly now.

Clearly the Britts as you can see are the center of all world trouble spots. Just because we share a common language with the britts. Doesn't mean we have same idealalogy. The britts set the borders for all these hot spots. Thats what happens when a rapist is allowed to rome the worlds seas. They will be brought to justice soon enough. Hay they can allready feel there silly island sinking into the ocean .Nobody through these guys a life raft. Examine there history. Talk about a shit whole country. They have more blood on their hands . Than all the world tyrants combined . Check history. Than you shall no the dragon. Morgan won. There fabled camalot will never more be.

The beginning of this post is funny in a conspiracy haha sort of way. The end of this post begs the question, how many strips of acid have you done today?

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The word coward. I wonder who benefits from that word usage. The Poor - Nope.

The middle class- Nope. THe Rich = Yep . They use the word on the other 2 classes if we don't fight for their benefit. In todays world . I would gladly be labaled a coward than a hero in todays word. I hero stands up to injustice and says NO. We aren't your puppets anymore. You want to war with someone go for it. But were all cowards now . You have lost your power over us . We refuse to do what our minds tell us is wrong. You have lost your power over me . For I rather die than submit to your will. Call me a coward . Your words mean little as your less than nothing.

Thats my kind of Hero, A true thinking Coward. I will take 6 billion of them please.

Thank you for your input but I think you posted in the wrong thread. Your normal trolling is usually more enjoyable to read and more so to read the reactions to it, this seems very disconnected.

-edit- Seems "last" wasn't the last page.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You just said a mouthful.

1. The "border," as it was drawn by the Brits, is impossible to fortify completely. It lies on some of the planet's roughest terrain. Even with drones and 500k troops, we probably couldn't lock it down...

2. The problem in the middle east . Again the britts. 1947. But the deal was made years earlier with Ge Rothschild.

3) Africa, Again the britts. Stealing natural resources and Farmland while the true land owners starv.

4) China. Britts tried turning awhole nation into addicts.

5) Britts Ausraila penial colony .

6) North america. 1776 America wins independence from britts . But Britts still have many suppoerters . Which quickly shows up in the Fed bank . As the britts system and bankers are used . Rothschild Morgan Rochefeller. WARBERG.

Its easy to see who has been stealing from the cookie jar . As they left a trail of crimbs a blind man could follow. The Britts. Are the ones we should be causious of . Read there history 100% untrustworthy. The royals are a joke . Royal what? Murders thieves and liers. Because your a leader or a royal your not immune to justice. There justice is coming shiftly now.

Clearly the Britts as you can see are the center of all world trouble spots. Just because we share a common language with the britts. Doesn't mean we have same idealalogy. The britts set the borders for all these hot spots. Thats what happens when a rapist is allowed to rome the worlds seas. They will be brought to justice soon enough. Hay they can allready feel there silly island sinking into the ocean .Nobody through these guys a life raft. Examine there history. Talk about a shit whole country. They have more blood on their hands . Than all the world tyrants combined . Check history. Than you shall no the dragon. Morgan won. There fabled camalot will never more be.

The beginning of this post is funny in a conspiracy haha sort of way. The end of this post begs the question, how many strips of acid have you done today?

He's at least right that the British have more blood on their hands than probably any other group of barbaric and bloodthirsty thugs that have ever existed on this planet.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: palehorse

It appears that you condone most of the inhumane facets of Sharia Law. The practice of those beliefs is simply unacceptable in the humane and modern (read: civilized) world.

I figured as much.

So in your "civilized" world I'm thinking they condone killing anybody who practices these beliefs. You laws are inhumane according to me. Homosexuality is a vice, unacceptable, inhumane. It's a matter of perception. Oh God you people are so close-minded single tracked. You believe in democracy and yet feel the need to interfere in places that you think are "barbaric and uncivilized" even if they pose no threat. May that bring your downfall soon.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: palehorse

It appears that you condone most of the inhumane facets of Sharia Law. The practice of those beliefs is simply unacceptable in the humane and modern (read: civilized) world.

I figured as much.

So in your "civilized" world I'm thinking they condone killing anybody who practices these beliefs. You laws are inhumane according to me. Homosexuality is a vice, unacceptable, inhumane. It's a matter of perception. Oh God you people are so close-minded single tracked. You believe in democracy and yet feel the need to interfere in places that you think are "barbaric and uncivilized" even if they pose no threat. May that bring your downfall soon.

No, it's wrong in terms of customary international norms.

Your beliefs are disgusting and would probably warrant international intervention under international law if your barbaric ideology was fully enforced. People should interfere, as would be justified, for your barbaric oppression of others.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose


No, it's wrong in terms of customary international norms.

Your beliefs are disgusting and would probably warrant international intervention under international law if your barbaric ideology was fully enforced. People should interfere, as would be justified, for your barbaric oppression of others.

The problem is your bigotry claim that your laws (or "international" ones) are better than this. Saudi Arabia, Iran and now Swat. They are all doing it. No power to interfere. Heh!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: palehorse

It appears that you condone most of the inhumane facets of Sharia Law. The practice of those beliefs is simply unacceptable in the humane and modern (read: civilized) world.

I figured as much.

So in your "civilized" world I'm thinking they condone killing anybody who practices these beliefs.

No, I didn't say that at all, and never would. We'd much rather simply guide them along and speed up their journeys through the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries -- until they catch up to, or even pass, the rest of us. As you can see, they (you) have a long way to go...

I only desire to harm those who would take up arms against me, or against those who cannot defend themselves -- ie. the Taliban, AQ, LET, AQIM, JAM, Hamas, Hezbollah, JI, etc etc.

Stay far away from any/all of those groups, and do not intentionally harm innocent people with your barbaric beliefs, and you're safe from me.

You laws are inhumane according to me. Homosexuality is a vice, unacceptable, inhumane.

Homosexuality is not a law or a "vice" -- it's a sexual preference. Whether it's a personal choice vs. innate is still up for debate; but, it's a completely harmless practice, nonetheless.

What's wonderful about the West is that we are getting better and better, every year, at bringing about true equality for all men and women; regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, handicap, religion, or any other trait or characteristic of their person. True equality means freedom from persecution, and true freedom means equality for all.

We're not perfect, by any means, and we still have a long way to go toward total equality; but, at least we're not stoning homosexuals and rape victims to death, throwing acid on little girls who seek an education, beheading those who switch religions, or running over a child's arm with a car because he stole a piece of bread.

Those would be acts of barbaric heathens.

I pity you with those inhumane Sharia beliefs, but I don't want to kill you for them. Just let me know when you want to join the rest of us in the 21st century...

EDIT: Also, just for the record, I've never seen as much homosexuality as I saw in your region of the world. Nearly every single village had boys that the local men would rape for pleasure. Homosexuality was also very prevalent in the police forces (ANP) and military (ANA). In fact, it almost seemed as if the entire region would go man-on-man every Thursday evening... We called it "Man-love Thursday." So, if you guys actually cracked down on homosexuality, without prejudice, you might not have any males left in the end... you're all in denial man!! Your use of the word "vice" to describe it might be the biggest clue yet...

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose


No, it's wrong in terms of customary international norms.

Your beliefs are disgusting and would probably warrant international intervention under international law if your barbaric ideology was fully enforced. People should interfere, as would be justified, for your barbaric oppression of others.

The problem is your bigotry claim that your laws (or "international" ones) are better than this. Saudi Arabia, Iran and now Swat. They are all doing it. No power to interfere. Heh!

Better is such a vague term.

The proper term would be more equal application of rights and laws for all peoples and religions. In your view that is not better, in our view it is better.

Another term could be less barbaric.

In your view stoning to death rape victims (oh wait they didn't have male witnesses so they are adulterers), and choping theif's hands off are good practice. Therefore you support barbaric laws and we do not.

In the end we believe less barbarism and more equality are better, clearly you don't believe this. Just different views, no biggy.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose


No, it's wrong in terms of customary international norms.

Your beliefs are disgusting and would probably warrant international intervention under international law if your barbaric ideology was fully enforced. People should interfere, as would be justified, for your barbaric oppression of others.

The problem is your bigotry claim that your laws (or "international" ones) are better than this. Saudi Arabia, Iran and now Swat. They are all doing it. No power to interfere. Heh!

Better is such a vague term.

The proper term would be more equal application of rights and laws for all peoples and religions. In your view that is not better, in our view it is better.

Another term could be less barbaric.

In your view stoning to death rape victims (oh wait they didn't have male witnesses so they are adulterers), and choping theif's hands off are good practice. Therefore you support barbaric laws and we do not.

In the end we believe less barbarism and more equality are better, clearly you don't believe this. Just different views, no biggy.

Clearly; we have different definitions of barbaric.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose


No, it's wrong in terms of customary international norms.

Your beliefs are disgusting and would probably warrant international intervention under international law if your barbaric ideology was fully enforced. People should interfere, as would be justified, for your barbaric oppression of others.

The problem is your bigotry claim that your laws (or "international" ones) are better than this. Saudi Arabia, Iran and now Swat. They are all doing it. No power to interfere. Heh!

Better is such a vague term.

The proper term would be more equal application of rights and laws for all peoples and religions. In your view that is not better, in our view it is better.

Another term could be less barbaric.

In your view stoning to death rape victims (oh wait they didn't have male witnesses so they are adulterers), and choping theif's hands off are good practice. Therefore you support barbaric laws and we do not.

In the end we believe less barbarism and more equality are better, clearly you don't believe this. Just different views, no biggy.

Clearly; we have different definitions of barbaric.

Yep. When you execute someone via a method that causes a long drawn out pain (stoning) this would be considered barbaric by most of the world. I'm certain most moderate Pakistani's would agree. In addition to that when you permanently punish someone w/out giving them a chance to reform (i.e. cut hands off), you are performing a barbaric act according to most of the world.