ooh boy!

Where did i justify it?
Iran is not my “favoured place”, how did you come to that conclusion?

For example
The Yezidis in Iraq are muslims ?
Or the Christian Arabs ?

I very politely made a point and showed you the evidence that tells a different story about the “issue” you brought up. Your answer didn’t surprise me least bit!

No you didnt, I brought up an issue and you pointed out that it was more wide spread- it is still a feature of Islamic society even if it is also a feature of other societys.

Sealord,
Sharia or islamic law does not perscribe “punishment” of a victim specially a rape victim. In countries where you see such examples, have such problems due to very unfair traditions against women. The whole social setup that includes the administration/judiciary gangs up to do what is more of a traditional thing than islamic.

You have cited Turkey as a good example but you could find similar charges against turkish athourties taking a very lenient action against culprits who invoke traditions to justify their crimes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0,12700,1253968,00.html

“Human rights activists say perpetrators are punished leniently after invoking “extenuating circumstances.”
In a report on violence against women in Turkey, Amnesty International highlighted the case of a man who had a 24-year prison term for stabbing his partner to death reduced to two and a half years after producing photographs of the woman with another man.
“

And also you would be making a wrong assumption to attribute it to Islam/muslims only. For example a recently a christian arab family in Israel made it to news. Similarly very brutal video clips of a Yezidi Kurdish girl being stoned to death for marrying a muslim boy surfaced.

This is something that realy frustrates me about this forum, people seem to think that becouse something bad happens somewhere else, it justifies it happening in their favoured place- that is simply not the case.

With all due respect the subjugation of women seems to be a feature of Islamic society, Saudi Arabia and Iran are classic examples but it is not just at state level. For instance the UK has seen ‘honour killings’.

i’ve actually thought about this, but in the context of turkey and it’s mildly islamist government (as the economist likes to put it)… i’ve come to the conclusion that in such cases, i support democracy as long as the institutions of democracy are put above all other concerns… that means, even if the islamists come to power, as long as they don’t take away from the institutions of democracy, i can live with it… the thing is, you can get rid of a bad islamist government as long as the institutions are there… but you won’t be able to do so without the proper power… it is very easy to change those who are in power as long as the means are there… it is very difficult to get those means (elections etc) after you’ve democratically given them up…

oh and thanks…

I agree entirely (i am also a regular reader of the economist 😉 ), there is one further point I would make though and that is that one has to be careful that such democratic institutions are not used for the imposing of extreme Sharia law. For instance there was a case in Iran where a young girl was executed for being sexually abused by her father and others. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be prevented. Indeed I would say that this is why Turkey is (at least up to now) such a good example, the secular nature of the state, and to an extent society as well, ensures that what one could call western values (although I prefer to call them modern liberal values) are upheld.

which is precisely why the moderates need to step up… the u.s. should absolutely stop supporting the regimes such as the one in saudi arabia… they support extremism, they are corrupt and keep their people under their heal… but, a country like the u.s. can’t do it the way they did it in iraq, we’ve seen how large a failure that was… of course we would never attack saudi arabia, but what i am saying is, external pressure from the u.s. will not work… it will lead to a worse standing for the u.s. in the eyes of muslims and the rest of the world… we’ve done too much of that in the past and it’s never really worked out well (just look at s. america)… for democracy to be promoted there first needs to exist a desire for democracy which is visable internally… and the only way this can happen is for moderates in those country’s to stand up… or have within there ranks a person of the character and nature of attaturk…

Again very well put, however I would raise a note of caution. A democracy in Saudi Arabia (purely as an example) may well result in a near Al Qaeda government. The reason Iraq looked so promising was that it been under 30 years of enforced secularism- it was thus percieved that it was a good candidate to become a second Turkey. Unfortunately the level of pent up ethnic tension, how weak saddams rule actualy was and the ultimate involvement of Al Qaeda elements combined with spectacular post war faliures by the coalition made that impossible and created the genocidal anarchy we have today.

Whats the backround to this? I assume that it was a competitor to HARM? Could this use the triple Maverick launchers?:confused:

No you have it wrong here, its not the world its within islamic countries themselfs they want an islamic government a united block from morocco to indonesia, that is their aim to unite all muslim countries under their way of thinking. Its muslims who are more at risk with this ideology than westerners, if the west really does want to tackle such issues then they have to promote proper democrasy in these countries and stop supporting tip pot rulers in saudi arabia and other parts.

Seriously go and read a book or few then come back here. I will help you out by giving the following link,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islamist-Joined-Radical-Britain-Inside/dp/0141030437/ref=pd_bowtega_1/202-4604730-7222229?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183480674&sr=1-1

You never said you didnt either. If my facts are wrong then prove me wrong, simply saying they are wrong isnt enough. Israeli violation of Lebanese territory, shelling of villages happens along the border, as it has countless times before, Hezbollah has hit back outposts, show me a source that shows Hezbollah as you put it “bombarding” northern israel, civilian areas before the whole war was triggered.

Your arguments are flawed.

Its amusing how you cannot explain how my arguments are flawed.:rolleyes:

Sealord – Where abouts have I condoned terrorism in the U.K ? Please by all means bury your head in the sand and believe that British and U.S foreign policy has no effect on generating terrorism !
As for Chile – we supplied them with weapons at a time when they were under dictatorship. In a similar way we have supplied a great deal other countries with arms when it suited us – regardless of whether they are a democracyor not.
Regards Lebanon – Israel has F-15’s , F-16’s , Apaches and numerous other weapons at their disposal . Against a Hezbollah force lightly armed – does that condone massive airstrikes which killed large numbers of civilians completely unrelated to Hezbollah.
I think you live in a daydream where it’s alright if ‘Johnny Foreigner’ dies in any numbers as long as it’s not us!

Again, go and do some research, Hezbollah is along way from being heavily armed.:rolleyes:

As previously stated Chile has nothing to do with this.

You condoned terrorism earlier in this thread when you said that it was a perfectly viable means of changing government policy in democratic countries.:mad:

I never said that foreign policy had nothing to do with generating terrorism but the fact is that the desire of portion of the Islamic world to create a world Islamic government is a more important factor.