Remember that discussion of a religion being "wrong"? Here's an example.
- Thread starter AndrewR
- Start date
Adul
Elite Member
There's nothing wrong with the religion, it's always what people do in the name of religion that's the problem.
Also, from your (and mine) Western perspective, Bin Laden is a terrorist.... but to them he's a hero, and why should they turn over a hero to their enemies??
Also, from your (and mine) Western perspective, Bin Laden is a terrorist.... but to them he's a hero, and why should they turn over a hero to their enemies??
tagej: You must have missed my previous post about religion. I am NOT saying that Islam is wrong by any means as I have a high regard for that religion and its precepts. However, the Taliban is an extremist movement which perverts Islam to something else. A "religion" can be wrong, regardless of how contrary to liberal concepts that statement is.
Whether or not Bin Laden is regarded as a "hero" by the Taliban, his actions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents as well as numerous others. As for the US being an "enemy", those ungrateful b@stards deserve some carpet bombing after the aid we provided during their war with the Soviet Union. In retrospect, we should have let them rot.
Whether or not Bin Laden is regarded as a "hero" by the Taliban, his actions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents as well as numerous others. As for the US being an "enemy", those ungrateful b@stards deserve some carpet bombing after the aid we provided during their war with the Soviet Union. In retrospect, we should have let them rot.
Sorry AndrewR, I didn't have a chance to read through the whole religion thread, so if I misinterpret something, my mistake 
<<A "religion" can be wrong, regardless of how contrary to liberal concepts that statement is>>
I'm by no means a 'liberal', but I don't think anyone can judge anyone else's religion to be bad. There's only ONE entity that can make that judgement, and He's not telling The actions people take based on their perceptions can certainly be wrong, but I don't think anyone is in any position to determine what religion is 'wrong'.
<<his actions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents>>
I agree with you 100% that his actions are despicable, but you have to remember that you're not viewing it through their (the Taliban) eyes. The Brits probably called George Washington a terrorist too. You know the expression -- to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. They simply see the 'innocents' that are hurt as victims caught in the crossfire between what they see as good vs evil. The justification for any action is in the eye of the beholder.
<<As for the US being an "enemy", those ungrateful b@stards deserve some carpet bombing after the aid we provided>>
Oh please, you aren't that naive are you? The US didn't have any noble goal of 'helping' them. They were simply a pawn in geopolitics, the US wanted to thwart the Soviet Union. Do you think the 'coalition' had any noble goals when we 'defended' the Saudi's against Saddam? Of course not, we have our own interests in mind (oil), and if that happens to help someone else, then great.
<<A "religion" can be wrong, regardless of how contrary to liberal concepts that statement is>>
I'm by no means a 'liberal', but I don't think anyone can judge anyone else's religion to be bad. There's only ONE entity that can make that judgement, and He's not telling
The actions people take based on their perceptions can certainly be wrong, but I don't think anyone is in any position to determine what religion is 'wrong'.<<his actions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents>>
I agree with you 100% that his actions are despicable, but you have to remember that you're not viewing it through their (the Taliban) eyes. The Brits probably called George Washington a terrorist too. You know the expression -- to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. They simply see the 'innocents' that are hurt as victims caught in the crossfire between what they see as good vs evil. The justification for any action is in the eye of the beholder.
<<As for the US being an "enemy", those ungrateful b@stards deserve some carpet bombing after the aid we provided>>
Oh please, you aren't that naive are you? The US didn't have any noble goal of 'helping' them. They were simply a pawn in geopolitics, the US wanted to thwart the Soviet Union. Do you think the 'coalition' had any noble goals when we 'defended' the Saudi's against Saddam? Of course not, we have our own interests in mind (oil), and if that happens to help someone else, then great.
<< The Taliban, which has banned television and photography of people in areas under their control, ordered all shopkeepers to destroy any statues or pictures in their possession.
Since seizing power in 1996, the Taliban has also barred women from schools and work and going out without wearing the all-enveloping burqa veil and ordered men to grow long beards.>>
This is fanaticism. Ironically, this is how a country would look when it would be totally dominated by, and follow the rules of a religion to the last tiny details.
Replace the Islam in this case by another religion and you'll see about the same results.
Since seizing power in 1996, the Taliban has also barred women from schools and work and going out without wearing the all-enveloping burqa veil and ordered men to grow long beards.>>
This is fanaticism. Ironically, this is how a country would look when it would be totally dominated by, and follow the rules of a religion to the last tiny details.
Replace the Islam in this case by another religion and you'll see about the same results.
Elledan, you're probably right. The real question of course is (and this is more of a phylosophical question), how do we know that's not 'good'? IE, how do we know those 'fanatics' are not the ones that are correct, which would mean that we are living as a bunch of heathens? Wouldn't that depend on your personal point of view then?
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
who else is for just going in and conquering afghanistan. we can then give it back to the non-taliban government. or we can just give it to me.
<<The real question of course is (and this is more of a phylosophical question), how do we know that's not 'good'? IE, how do we know those 'fanatics' are not the ones that are correct, which would mean that we are living as a bunch of heathens? Wouldn't that depend on your personal point of view then?>>
Good point. I'm glad you bring it up.
Yes, it does depend on your point of view, therefore we all can not understand it.
This system is considered to be 'bad', because it slows down economical and technological development. Any discovery or development which doesn't comply with the rules of the Islam will be get rid of as soon as possible.
It's more like some kind of ignorant, isolated way of living IMHO and I don't think that anyone who lives in that country agrees with those actions.
Good point. I'm glad you bring it up.
Yes, it does depend on your point of view, therefore we all can not understand it.
This system is considered to be 'bad', because it slows down economical and technological development. Any discovery or development which doesn't comply with the rules of the Islam will be get rid of as soon as possible.
It's more like some kind of ignorant, isolated way of living IMHO and I don't think that anyone who lives in that country agrees with those actions.
<<This system is considered to be 'bad', because it slows down economical and technological development. >>
...that, and it represses individual rights to live one's life as one chooses.
/me playing devil's advocate
But now ask yourself this, is economical and technological 'advancement' the only goal to strive for? Are we truly 'happier' than those people that have not enjoyed such 'advancement'? With all the stress and worries of modern life, and the precious little time we get to spend with our families, are we really happier than 'savages' running around in the jungles of south America or Africa?
...that, and it represses individual rights to live one's life as one chooses.
/me playing devil's advocate
But now ask yourself this, is economical and technological 'advancement' the only goal to strive for? Are we truly 'happier' than those people that have not enjoyed such 'advancement'? With all the stress and worries of modern life, and the precious little time we get to spend with our families, are we really happier than 'savages' running around in the jungles of south America or Africa?
I won't reiterate everything I wrote in that other thread, but, briefly, I think a line can be drawn when the practices of a religion result in senseless violence, degradation and destruction. Would you be able to accept a religion that stated quite simply that your family had to die (either specifically or as part of a class of people)? What about one that said that every second baby that is born, including yours, had to die? I would label that, objectively speaking, as wrong.
On the "hero" question, I would argue that there is a great difference between someone like George Washington, who waged an open, military campaign against a foreign regime, and someone like Bin Laden, who wages a covert war against a foreign nation by destroying even non-military targets. I would venture a guess that Washington didn't run around killing people left and right simply because they were British subjects, nor did he attack non-military targets specifically.
One can look at the legitimacy of the IRA for another example. Had they continued to confine their attacks to police stations or military installations, they would have likely retained more support for their actions. When they decided to start bombing rail stations, shopping malls, and outdoor markets, they significantly diminished their message, at least to me. There is a fairly marked line between a revolutionary and a terrorist.
On the US support during the Afghan war, of course I realize that the reason the US helped the Afghanis was to punish the Soviets and not to help per se. Regardless, without US and British assistance, the Afghanis would NOT have done nearly as well as they did. The Stingers and Blowpipes really hampered the Soviet use of airpower -- if the same capability had been in the hands of the Vietnamese, that war would have ended far sooner. Now, there is no recognition of that fact. Does the US not acknowledge French assistance during the Revolutionary War, which was done not to help the Americans but to punish the Brits?
On the "hero" question, I would argue that there is a great difference between someone like George Washington, who waged an open, military campaign against a foreign regime, and someone like Bin Laden, who wages a covert war against a foreign nation by destroying even non-military targets. I would venture a guess that Washington didn't run around killing people left and right simply because they were British subjects, nor did he attack non-military targets specifically.
One can look at the legitimacy of the IRA for another example. Had they continued to confine their attacks to police stations or military installations, they would have likely retained more support for their actions. When they decided to start bombing rail stations, shopping malls, and outdoor markets, they significantly diminished their message, at least to me. There is a fairly marked line between a revolutionary and a terrorist.
On the US support during the Afghan war, of course I realize that the reason the US helped the Afghanis was to punish the Soviets and not to help per se. Regardless, without US and British assistance, the Afghanis would NOT have done nearly as well as they did. The Stingers and Blowpipes really hampered the Soviet use of airpower -- if the same capability had been in the hands of the Vietnamese, that war would have ended far sooner. Now, there is no recognition of that fact. Does the US not acknowledge French assistance during the Revolutionary War, which was done not to help the Americans but to punish the Brits?
<<there is a great difference between someone like George Washington, who waged an open, military campaign against a foreign regime, and someone like Bin Laden, who wages a covert war against a foreign nation by destroying even non-military targets>>
Actually, the Washington (in the eyes of the Brits) waged a savage murderous war because he refused to wage war the way the british had come to do it -- on an open battlefield. Washington and the US soldiers used ambushes and guerilla warfare, which in those days was seen just the same way as we view terrorists now. A hero is in the eye of the beholder - you fight back any way you can. I certainly don't agree with Bin Laden or his actions, but I can certainly understand how those that feel the US is an imperialist nation forcing it's will on them would see him as a hero.
Actually, the Washington (in the eyes of the Brits) waged a savage murderous war because he refused to wage war the way the british had come to do it -- on an open battlefield. Washington and the US soldiers used ambushes and guerilla warfare, which in those days was seen just the same way as we view terrorists now. A hero is in the eye of the beholder - you fight back any way you can. I certainly don't agree with Bin Laden or his actions, but I can certainly understand how those that feel the US is an imperialist nation forcing it's will on them would see him as a hero.
Bakwetu
Golden Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 1,681
- 0
- 0
I'm definitly not in favour of the current Taliban regime. Unfortunately the U.S helped getting them there by letting Pakistan distribute the weapons U.S bought for the warfare against the Soviets. The Pkistans favoured the fundamentalist, thus the current situation. The terror regime of the taliban's will hopefully not be long lived, they should realize you cannot wage war on your own people as they are doing now :|
Maetryx
Diamond Member
- Jan 18, 2001
- 4,849
- 1
- 81
Maetryx here,
Let's play a game. I'll list some actions, and you decide if they are wrong or right. Assume that the person doing the action at least *says* they think they are doing the right thing, and you shouldn't judge them.
asphyxiating a 2 year old baby by forcing it to peform oral sex
burning/cutting the clitoris off of the teenage girls in a village, against their will
blowing up a building with lots of people of all ages inside
These things aren't theoretical. They happened to the best of my knowledge. And the perpetrator was wrong. He committed evil. There is no question. And it doesn't matter if the society upon which the horror was commited wears ties or turbans. So don't give me that subjective B.S. Everything is *not* relative. Some things are absolute.
--Maetryx
Let's play a game. I'll list some actions, and you decide if they are wrong or right. Assume that the person doing the action at least *says* they think they are doing the right thing, and you shouldn't judge them.
asphyxiating a 2 year old baby by forcing it to peform oral sex
burning/cutting the clitoris off of the teenage girls in a village, against their will
blowing up a building with lots of people of all ages inside
These things aren't theoretical. They happened to the best of my knowledge. And the perpetrator was wrong. He committed evil. There is no question. And it doesn't matter if the society upon which the horror was commited wears ties or turbans. So don't give me that subjective B.S. Everything is *not* relative. Some things are absolute.
--Maetryx
Yes, Washington used some unconventional tactics against the British, but he didn't slaughter innocent people. Plus, Washington had a distinct goal, eviction of the British from American soil. Bin Laden's goal? Punishment of the US for furthering its interests abroad?
I see your point, but the correlation is not as strong, to me, as you portray it. Plus, I think most mainstream Islamic governments do not regard him as a hero, only the fringe ones.
I think part of the discussion also should reflect that the Taliban are more of a regime that happens to be Islamic (extremist) as opposed to a "religious movement", in isolation. However, in so much as the Taliban is a sect, I strongly believe they are wrong in their practices. This latest campaign is horrendous and pointless (not more so than the others mentioned, though).
I see your point, but the correlation is not as strong, to me, as you portray it. Plus, I think most mainstream Islamic governments do not regard him as a hero, only the fringe ones.
I think part of the discussion also should reflect that the Taliban are more of a regime that happens to be Islamic (extremist) as opposed to a "religious movement", in isolation. However, in so much as the Taliban is a sect, I strongly believe they are wrong in their practices. This latest campaign is horrendous and pointless (not more so than the others mentioned, though).
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,861
- 6,396
- 126
AndrewR: Yea, you are correct about Washington, but the comparison is not totally "fair". A lot has happened between Bin Laden and George Washington. WW2 is a good example of targeting innocent civilians both in the European theater and of course Japan where the most horrific attacks on civilians(Nagasaki/Hiroshima)have ever taken place. "Terrorists" have little choice in their tactics, if they want to be effective.
I certainly don't agree with Bin Laden or his tactics, but I realize that he does what he needs to do in order to achieve whatever goals he has. If the situation were switched, we'd do the same, most likely.
I certainly don't agree with Bin Laden or his tactics, but I realize that he does what he needs to do in order to achieve whatever goals he has. If the situation were switched, we'd do the same, most likely.
The destruction of ancient religious art is too bad. I could say something about idol worship, but I'll keep my mouth shut.
Back when I was taking a course on Islamic Religion and Culture, the teacher pretty much ripped into the Islamic faith as being based a great work of fiction by mohammed based partly on the jewish God and Genesis stories. He went through and pointed out contradicions in the Koran (Quran) and showed historically when the Islamic religious leaders stopped all artistic and philisophical progress in favor of rigid fanaticism. He used to drive the persian kids in the class nuts.
To be fair, the teacher was even more brutal on the Judeo/Christian faith in an Old Testament course I took. He was a good teacher, and I got A's in all his classes, but it's always a little disconcerting when someone devotes their lives to something (the study of religion), yet doesn't believe in any of it. Sort of like a great geology teacher who doesn't believe in plate techtonics, or even in sedimentary rock.
Back when I was taking a course on Islamic Religion and Culture, the teacher pretty much ripped into the Islamic faith as being based a great work of fiction by mohammed based partly on the jewish God and Genesis stories. He went through and pointed out contradicions in the Koran (Quran) and showed historically when the Islamic religious leaders stopped all artistic and philisophical progress in favor of rigid fanaticism. He used to drive the persian kids in the class nuts.
To be fair, the teacher was even more brutal on the Judeo/Christian faith in an Old Testament course I took. He was a good teacher, and I got A's in all his classes, but it's always a little disconcerting when someone devotes their lives to something (the study of religion), yet doesn't believe in any of it. Sort of like a great geology teacher who doesn't believe in plate techtonics, or even in sedimentary rock.
One perhaps could ask how the Taliban are doing in comparison to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No, mullahs in Saudi Arabia have denounced the Taliban's actions as contrary to Islamic teaching, which instructs that Muslims should respect the other religions of the world.
<< One perhaps could ask how the Taliban are doing in comparison to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights >>
As far as I know, Afghanistan isn't even part of the U.N. If they weren't part of constucting the declaration it's pointless to compare their actions to it. Not that I agree with their actions in any way.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter