For the record Rock, I didn't mean to suggest that NO ONE dislikes you. I do think that MANY don't like you based solely on your political views and that this explains why you face a double standard amongst within the Strutter community.
I don't know if there's ANYONE on Strut that flat out no one likes.
But I'm sure Strutters will volunteer a few names right now.
For the record Rock, I didn't mean to suggest that NO ONE dislikes you. I do think that MANY don't like you based solely on your political views and that this explains why you face a double standard amongst within the Strutter community.
I figured this was true since I don't even have my own Graemlin!!!
I think you'll need a more graemlin friendly name first. Like Sabadababa.
Or The Mack.
For the record Rock, I didn't mean to suggest that NO ONE dislikes you. I do think that MANY don't like you based solely on your political views and that this explains why you face a double standard amongst within the Strutter community.
I figured this was true since I don't even have my own Graemlin!!!
But if it is correct, my statement is simply how can we respect a religion that uses/promotes torture, yet disrespect me for suggesting the same thing??
Good question. I have read the Torah, and the Gospels and Revalations, plus some other Old Testament books. I can assure you that stonings and capitol punishment are part of Old Testament law. For Jews Old Testament law was reinterpreted between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago in the Talmud. Some Christians OK capitol punishment and war by using the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament there are bloody images of taking an ax to the root of the tree and killing all non-belivers. Many Americans would not shed a tear if we started killing rapists. Adulterers, never. They are basic to our way of life and country music. The Old Testament does call for their death though.
None of that answers your question. I have obtained a copy of the Quaran, and I plan to read it. I may have some more answers after that.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
Do you want to create a series of categories that can lay this out? I'm not being facetious, I'd actually be interested to see what your spectrum from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" would include when it comes to actions that normally violate basic human rights laws.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
I think you're wasting your breath, dude. Most of these folks here will only feel realized when somebody kills them and then they can exorcise their white/middle class liberal guilt.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
I think you're wasting your breath, dude. Most of these folks here will only feel realized when somebody kills them and then they can exorcise their white/middle class liberal guilt.
Another strawman argument.
I would take a wild guess and say that there are probably more Christian countries in the world that use torture than Muslim ones. Am I going to condemn Christianity?
Countries that rule by Islamic law, and there actually aren't many of them, have pretty oppressive governments in terms of human rights, torture, etc. There are many countries that have Muslim majorities and do not rule by Islamic law. The majority of Arab countries do not rule by Islamic law, and most of them have pretty bad human rights records. Maybe it's because they're Arabs? Or maybe it's because most are dictatorships/authoriatian - Egypt, Syria, or monarchies - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morocco. Either way, they do not have governments that value their citizens and that is probably the number one reason they have shitty records of taking care of those people. Lebanon has a democracy, is Arab with a Muslim majority and their human rights record isn't that bad.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
When our goverment kills and tortures in many ways it is worse. I have very little control over the tribal laws in rural Afganastan or Pakistan. But we are our goverment, so when our goverment tortures, it is the same if we tortured. Don't you agree?
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
Do you want to create a series of categories that can lay this out? I'm not being facetious, I'd actually be interested to see what your spectrum from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" would include when it comes to actions that normally violate basic human rights laws.
I guess one end of the spectrum would be Death, and I support the Death Penalty and feel that people forfeit their "basic human rights" when they take someone else's life.
Another acceptable level would be in times of war against a certified enemy. The torture techniques that I've read the U.S. uses like using lights and sounds, seem to be a somewhat more humane form of torture than any country we have ever fought against has used.
I would NOT support this or any other type [/b] of "torture" being used on innocent citizen/non-combatants for any reason whatsoever. If you have to draw a line you can draw it here.
I am against stoning Adulterers to death
I can't see trying to defend a country or religions practice of heinous torture against their INNOCENT citizens by pointing out that the U.S. also uses a much different kind of torture on convicted terrorists.
If there was ever a need for a "apples/oranges" graemlin it's now.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
I think you're wasting your breath, dude. Most of these folks here will only feel realized when somebody kills them and then they can exorcise their white/middle class liberal guilt.
Another strawman argument.
I would take a wild guess and say that there are probably more Christian countries in the world that use torture than Muslim ones. Am I going to condemn Christianity?
Countries that rule by Islamic law, and there actually aren't many of them, have pretty oppressive governments in terms of human rights, torture, etc. There are many countries that have Muslim majorities and do not rule by Islamic law. The majority of Arab countries do not rule by Islamic law, and most of them have pretty bad human rights records. Maybe it's because they're Arabs? Or maybe it's because most are dictatorships/authoriatian - Egypt, Syria, or monarchies - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morocco. Either way, they do not have governments that value their citizens and that is probably the number one reason they have shitty records of taking care of those people. Lebanon has a democracy, is Arab with a Muslim majority and their human rights record isn't that bad.
If you consider the Death Penalty torture than I can't disagree with you.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
I think you're wasting your breath, dude. Most of these folks here will only feel realized when somebody kills them and then they can exorcise their white/middle class liberal guilt.
This is how I excercise ....I'm too old to hoop every night, the Thrift Stores close at 6:00 and I suck at Crossword Puzzles.
I'm not trying to convert anyone's ideals, just have a decent and hopefully entertaining exchange.
I can't see trying to defend a country or religions practice of heinous torture against their INNOCENT citizens by pointing out that the U.S. also uses a much different kind of torture on convicted terrorists.
I don't think the US has succesful convicted any terrorists yet. I do not support the torture of convicted terrorists, anymore than I would support torture of convicted child molester. I think we are better than that.
I guess you missed the pictures from Abu Garib, which was just one of many prisions in Afganastan and Iraq where many prisioners were tortured some to death. I guess you also missed the articles about the US sending prisioners to Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudia Arabia so that they could be tortured there. I think it is most important to oppose torture by your own goverment. Personally I hold my country to a higher standard than I do other countries. I would never make excuses for my country based on the argument that other countries are worse.
I can't see trying to defend a country or religions practice of heinous torture against their INNOCENT citizens by pointing out that the U.S. also uses a much different kind of torture on convicted terrorists.
I don't think the US has succesful convicted any terrorists yet. I do not support the torture of convicted terrorists, anymore than I would support torture of convicted child molester. I think we are better than that.
I guess you missed the pictures from Abu Garib, which was just one of many prisions in Afganastan and Iraq where many prisioners were tortured some to death. I guess you also missed the articles about the US sending prisioners to Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudia Arabia so that they could be tortured there. I think it is most important to oppose torture by your own goverment. Personally I hold my country to a higher standard than I do other countries. I would never make excuses for my country based on the argument that other countries are worse.
I do not support the torture of convicted terrorists, anymore than I would support torture of convicted child molester. I think we are better than that.
If we were better than that we wouldn't have convicted child molesters.
hmmm...."Colbert at the White House Correspondents dinner!" became another "torture - hot or not?" and "child molesters: your neighbor is probably one!" thread.
ROCKADELIC: the US death penalty HAS executed and DOES execute INNOCENT civilians. if you disagree you are wrong.
Our country HAS tortured and probably DOES torture innocent civilians of other countries and perhaps this one.
HOW EXACTLY IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE JUSTIFIED?!???????
As a system it's not set up to execute innocent people or adulterers.
Has it been "the perfect system"....nope.
None is.
The government killed more people with Flu Shots than they did the Death Penalty.
They are both horrible, terrible things[/b] ....and are both unfortunately the price of living in someplace besides Utopia, where life is "fair" and everyone/thing is perfect.
America is NOT PERFECT....but we understandably try to hold it to that standard.
I have no problem starting to execute just those on Death Row who ADMITTED committing their crimes...that alone will increase the execution rate 20 fold.
I'd say its because the Enlightenment passed them by.
This argument has been made before, and I see some merit in it, but I don???t completely buy it. You???d also be surprised to know that there have actually been a lot of Islamic scholars talking about Enlightenment ideas for quite awhile and a few Islamists even who have talked about assimilating Enlightenment concepts into the interpretation of Islam.
I would say that most countries in the Middle East have repressive governments because those were the types supported by the West, and also by Russia, but to a lesser extent during the Cold War. These governments still exist today.
Actually, right after WWII and independence quite a few Arab countries and Iran experimented with democracy. Iran???s government got overthrown by the CIA and British, while other governments got toppled in coups, most of which were supported by the West.
Islamism actually grew as a response to these repressive governments. With the failure of socialism, communism, and Arab nationalism, a lot of Muslims began looking towards religion as a source of identity and political expression. Capitalism was also associated with the West that had propped up all these bad governments so that wasn???t really in the picture for many. Anyway, with authoritarian governments, the Mosque and religion also offered one of the few opportunities for people to express themselves.
Some Islamist groups tried to take the democratic route like in Algeria and Tunisia. They actually won the elections, but the military stepped in and had a coup, leading to a very bloody civil war in Algeria. Others like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt got repressed over and over, but they still participate in national elections, just not under their name as I think they???re still outlawed. Here???s a big irony, Hezbollah in Lebanon also participates in democratic elections and has seemed to be able to coexist with other groups and work within Lebanon???s system so far.
These are the exceptions however. Since most Middle Eastern governments are repressive they???ve clamped down on their Islamist groups and they have in turn become violent. Because of the violence they have taken an us against them attitude and take a much more strict and exclusionary vision of Islam. Most of these groups were just focused on overthrowing their own governments. Along came Bin Laden who revolutionized the movement after he witnessed Afghanistan in person. He saw the U.S. as the real source of Muslims??? problems because it props up most Muslim governments. His plan is to attack the U.S. and make them stop supporting repressive Muslim governments, and then they can be overthrown by Islamists.
In terms of Islamism and democracy and human rights, its all over the place. One major thing is that Islamic law ??? sharia is open to twenty million interpretations. Not only that but Islam has been going through its own form of Protestant Reformation, where everyday Muslims have been interpreting the Quran rather than just following their priests, Islamic scholars, and Mosques.
Some Islamists have talked about Islam and democracy, and even attempted to co-op Western Enlightenment ideas. These Islamists have talked about Islam???s concepts of shura ??? consultation, ijma ??? consensus, and baya ??? rule by consent through political contract as ideas that would allow Islam to adopt democratic ideals. Like I said though, because most governments are repressive, they haven???t really been able to work these ideas out other than in theory.
Even in the repressive Muslim governments that exist there is some variety. You want to talk about public stoning and beheadings, for example, you can see someone???s head chopped off in Saudi Arabia, they don???t have stonings though. I think they had a few stonings under the Taliban in Afghanistan however. I don???t think you have either one in Iran.
The torture techniques that I've read the U.S. uses like using lights and sounds, seem to be a somewhat more humane form of torture than any country we have ever fought against has used.
Those are the ones that get the most press. You could also add in stress positions. All of those were OK'd by Donald Rumsfeld. He also OK'd water boarding where they tie a person down to a board and dunk them in water until they feel like their drowning and then pull them out. This has been used. They had lawyers OK all of these forms as not being a violation of U.S. or international treaties the U.S. signed against torture. For the real stuff, the U.S. simply sends detainees to other countries where they can get down to the real thing.
I'd say its because the Enlightenment passed them by.
And in a little tangent, as if this whole thread isn't already ridiculously off topic.
The whole "they missed the Enlightenment" line was used not that long ago when trying to analyze the string of dictatorships and oppressive regimes in Latin America. With decades of such governments, death squads, etc. there was a group of American political scientists who tried to say that Latin America could never form democratic governments because of two factors. 1) They missed the Enlightenment. The argument being that the Enlightenment was really a northern European experience and thus the Spanish missed out on it, and weren't able to transfer those ideas to their American colonies. 2) Because the countries were Catholic they were conservative and sometimes reactionary because the Catholic church stresses tradition, hierarchy, and authority. Basically all of Latin America was being written off as banana republics, never to really progress politically. Today, most of Latin America has democratic governments.
I always took much of this analysis to be Western cultural superiority. I take the same view about a lot of what's said about Islam these days.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'?
Not to beat a dead horse, but how is mocking Bush for twenty minutes to his face not ballsy? Any minute this guys going to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, I can feel it, so far his complete lack of any sign of logical reasoning is inspiring a new found respect in me for the coherent conservatives around here like Vitamin, even if I still think they are apologists for what will be viewed as one of the worst presidents and most destructive foreign policies of all time. Getting at liberals about Darfur, now that takes balls.
And btw, i was in florida for 2 weeks registering voters in august '04, whats your contribution Dolo_yeung????
For an act to be considered courageous there must be a risk involved in performing it. What did colbert risk by doing what he did? Nothing. This was the routine that colbert HAD to do. If colbert was percieved to waste an opportunity to skewer bush or even worse, pander to to him, there would be a large percentage of colbert's audience that would never forgive him.
If you enjoyed colbert's showing then fair enough(I personally thought he was mediocre. He had a few good lines but seemed more intent on aggression rather than humour. If I agreed with the sentiment I might have been punching the air but as someone who was assessing it on a purely comedic level I was disapointed). What I cant stand however is the hyperbole. This was not ballsy, it was not important and no-one will care about it this time next week.
dollar_binI heartily endorse this product and/or event 2,326 Posts
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'?
Not to beat a dead horse, but how is mocking Bush for twenty minutes to his face not ballsy? Any minute this guys going to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, I can feel it, so far his complete lack of any sign of logical reasoning is inspiring a new found respect in me for the coherent conservatives around here like Vitamin, even if I still think they are apologists for what will be viewed as one of the worst presidents and most destructive foreign policies of all time. Getting at liberals about Darfur, now that takes balls.
And btw, i was in florida for 2 weeks registering voters in august '04, whats your contribution Dolo_yeung????
For an act to be considered courageous there must be a risk involved in performing it. What did colbert risk by doing what he did? Nothing. This was the routine that colbert HAD to do. If colbert was percieved to waste an opportunity to skewer bush or even worse, pander to to him, there would be a large percentage of colbert's audience that would never forgive him.
If you enjoyed colbert's showing then fair enough(I personally thought he was mediocre. He had a few good lines but seemed more intent on aggression rather than humour. If I agreed with the sentiment I might have been punching the air but as someone who was assessing it on a purely comedic level I was disapointed). What I cant stand however is the hyperbole. This was not ballsy, it was not important and no-one will care about it this time next week.
actually, it was pretty FUNNY. Anyone really pissed about this clearly has issues. What the hell were you expecting him to do? It was somebody's dumb mistake that he kept getting invited.
By the way, you are either a shitty alias, or a wholly uninteresting and stupid person. go away.
and the rest of this thread? Rockadelic talking about beheading rapists or something? I cant follow.
I'd say its because the Enlightenment passed them by.
And in a little tangent, as if this whole thread isn't already ridiculously off topic.
The whole "they missed the Enlightenment" line was used not that long ago when trying to analyze the string of dictatorships and oppressive regimes in Latin America. With decades of such governments, death squads, etc. there was a group of American political scientists who tried to say that Latin America could never form democratic governments because of two factors. 1) They missed the Enlightenment. The argument being that the Enlightenment was really a northern European experience and thus the Spanish missed out on it, and weren't able to transfer those ideas to their American colonies. 2) Because the countries were Catholic they were conservative and sometimes reactionary because the Catholic church stresses tradition, hierarchy, and authority. Basically all of Latin America was being written off as banana republics, never to really progress politically. Today, most of Latin America has democratic governments.
I always took much of this analysis to be Western cultural superiority. I take the same view about a lot of what's said about Islam these days.
I think the greatest accomplishement of the enlightenment was helping cultivate a healthy scepticism of leaders/religious movements. There was no muslim Hume, Voltaire or J.J.R. Imagine dudes like that writing about Islam. They would be hiding out like Rushdie. The enlightenment got people talking about things. Divine right or Natural law. Natural rights & church and state. I see you writing alot about democracy, but nowhere in your posts do you mention rationalism, liberalism, the relation of church & state. You're writing from the point of view that democracy was the most significant outcome of the enlightenment. I'd purport that a greater effect would be that people it allowed people to dicuss things they held sacrosant for hundreds of years. Long live profanity.
I'd say its because the Enlightenment passed them by.
And in a little tangent, as if this whole thread isn't already ridiculously off topic.
The whole "they missed the Enlightenment" line was used not that long ago when trying to analyze the string of dictatorships and oppressive regimes in Latin America. With decades of such governments, death squads, etc. there was a group of American political scientists who tried to say that Latin America could never form democratic governments because of two factors. 1) They missed the Enlightenment. The argument being that the Enlightenment was really a northern European experience and thus the Spanish missed out on it, and weren't able to transfer those ideas to their American colonies. 2) Because the countries were Catholic they were conservative and sometimes reactionary because the Catholic church stresses tradition, hierarchy, and authority. Basically all of Latin America was being written off as banana republics, never to really progress politically. Today, most of Latin America has democratic governments.
I always took much of this analysis to be Western cultural superiority. I take the same view about a lot of what's said about Islam these days.
I think the greatest accomplishement of the enlightenment was helping cultivate a healthy scepticism of leaders/religious movements. There was no muslim Hume, Voltaire or J.J.R. Imagine dudes like that writing about Islam. They would be hiding out like Rushdie. The enlightenment got people talking about things. Divine right or Natural law. Natural rights & church and state. I see you writing alot about democracy, but nowhere in your posts do you mention rationalism, liberalism, the relation of church & state. You're writing from the point of view that democracy was the most significant outcome of the enlightenment. I'd purport that a greater effect would be that people it allowed people to dicuss things they held sacrosant for hundreds of years. Long live profanity.
Actually there have been a lot of Islamic scholars and even Islamimsts that have talked about rationalism, self-reflection, etc. etc. all Enlightenment ideas. I can think of one Egyptian Islamist from the late 1800s and Sayed Qutb who is known as the godfather of modern Islamism who both tried to incorporate Enlightenment ideals into their interpretation of Islam.
Comments
I don't know if there's ANYONE on Strut that flat out no one likes.
But I'm sure Strutters will volunteer a few names right now.
I figured this was true since I don't even have my own Graemlin!!!
Yet
I think you'll need a more graemlin friendly name first. Like Sabadababa.
Or The Mack.
Good question. I have read the Torah, and the Gospels and Revalations, plus some other Old Testament books. I can assure you that stonings and capitol punishment are part of Old Testament law. For Jews Old Testament law was reinterpreted between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago in the Talmud. Some Christians OK capitol punishment and war by using the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament there are bloody images of taking an ax to the root of the tree and killing all non-belivers. Many Americans would not shed a tear if we started killing rapists. Adulterers, never. They are basic to our way of life and country music. The Old Testament does call for their death though.
None of that answers your question. I have obtained a copy of the Quaran, and I plan to read it. I may have some more answers after that.
I think one reason why torture is promoted in those countries that are ruled by Islamic law is because all those countries are ruled by ruthless extremists.
Dan
I was going to say the same thing. How many countries that are Christian have torture? How many countries that are capitalist have torture? The U.S. government has been shipping terror suspects to third countries in Europe, Asia and Africa so that they can be tortured. The U.S. has tortured some captured terrorists on its own.
Torturing captured terrorists is a little different than stoning a 11 year old girl to death......no??
Do you want to create a series of categories that can lay this out? I'm not being facetious, I'd actually be interested to see what your spectrum from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" would include when it comes to actions that normally violate basic human rights laws.
I think you're wasting your breath, dude. Most of these folks here will only feel realized when somebody kills them and then they can exorcise their white/middle class liberal guilt.
Another strawman argument.
I would take a wild guess and say that there are probably more Christian countries in the world that use torture than Muslim ones. Am I going to condemn Christianity?
Countries that rule by Islamic law, and there actually aren't many of them, have pretty oppressive governments in terms of human rights, torture, etc. There are many countries that have Muslim majorities and do not rule by Islamic law. The majority of Arab countries do not rule by Islamic law, and most of them have pretty bad human rights records. Maybe it's because they're Arabs? Or maybe it's because most are dictatorships/authoriatian - Egypt, Syria, or monarchies - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morocco. Either way, they do not have governments that value their citizens and that is probably the number one reason they have shitty records of taking care of those people. Lebanon has a democracy, is Arab with a Muslim majority and their human rights record isn't that bad.
When our goverment kills and tortures in many ways it is worse. I have very little control over the tribal laws in rural Afganastan or Pakistan. But we are our goverment, so when our goverment tortures, it is the same if we tortured. Don't you agree?
Dan
I'd say its because the Enlightenment passed them by.
I guess one end of the spectrum would be Death, and I support the Death Penalty and feel that people forfeit their "basic human rights" when they take someone else's life.
Another acceptable level would be in times of war against a certified enemy. The torture techniques that I've read the U.S. uses like using lights and sounds, seem to be a somewhat more humane form of torture than any country we have ever fought against has used.
I would NOT support this or any other type [/b] of "torture" being used on innocent citizen/non-combatants for any reason whatsoever. If you have to draw a line you can draw it here.
I am against stoning Adulterers to death
I can't see trying to defend a country or religions practice of heinous torture against their INNOCENT citizens by pointing out that the U.S. also uses a much different kind of torture on convicted terrorists.
If there was ever a need for a "apples/oranges" graemlin it's now.
If you consider the Death Penalty torture than I can't disagree with you.
I consider it Justice.
This is how I excercise ....I'm too old to hoop every night, the Thrift Stores close at 6:00 and I suck at Crossword Puzzles.
I'm not trying to convert anyone's ideals, just have a decent and hopefully entertaining exchange.
I don't think the US has succesful convicted any terrorists yet. I do not support the torture of convicted terrorists, anymore than I would support torture of convicted child molester. I think we are better than that.
I guess you missed the pictures from Abu Garib, which was just one of many prisions in Afganastan and Iraq where many prisioners were tortured some to death. I guess you also missed the articles about the US sending prisioners to Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudia Arabia so that they could be tortured there. I think it is most important to oppose torture by your own goverment.
Personally I hold my country to a higher standard than I do other countries. I would never make excuses for my country based on the argument that other countries are worse.
Dan
Sorry..."captured" terrorists
But that is EXACTLY what is going on here for Muslim countries in this equation!!
Except we're not worse.
If we were better than that we wouldn't have convicted child molesters.
Our country HAS tortured and probably DOES torture innocent civilians of other countries and perhaps this one.
HOW EXACTLY IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE JUSTIFIED?!???????
became another "torture - hot or not?" and "child molesters:
your neighbor is probably one!" thread.
shocking.
As a system it's not set up to execute innocent people or adulterers.
Has it been "the perfect system"....nope.
None is.
The government killed more people with Flu Shots than they did the Death Penalty.
They are both horrible, terrible things[/b] ....and are both unfortunately the price of living in someplace besides Utopia, where life is "fair" and everyone/thing is perfect.
America is NOT PERFECT....but we understandably try to hold it to that standard.
I have no problem starting to execute just those on Death Row who ADMITTED committing their crimes...that alone will increase the execution rate 20 fold.
This argument has been made before, and I see some merit in it, but I don???t completely buy it. You???d also be surprised to know that there have actually been a lot of Islamic scholars talking about Enlightenment ideas for quite awhile and a few Islamists even who have talked about assimilating Enlightenment concepts into the interpretation of Islam.
I would say that most countries in the Middle East have repressive governments because those were the types supported by the West, and also by Russia, but to a lesser extent during the Cold War. These governments still exist today.
Actually, right after WWII and independence quite a few Arab countries and Iran experimented with democracy. Iran???s government got overthrown by the CIA and British, while other governments got toppled in coups, most of which were supported by the West.
Islamism actually grew as a response to these repressive governments. With the failure of socialism, communism, and Arab nationalism, a lot of Muslims began looking towards religion as a source of identity and political expression. Capitalism was also associated with the West that had propped up all these bad governments so that wasn???t really in the picture for many. Anyway, with authoritarian governments, the Mosque and religion also offered one of the few opportunities for people to express themselves.
Some Islamist groups tried to take the democratic route like in Algeria and Tunisia. They actually won the elections, but the military stepped in and had a coup, leading to a very bloody civil war in Algeria. Others like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt got repressed over and over, but they still participate in national elections, just not under their name as I think they???re still outlawed. Here???s a big irony, Hezbollah in Lebanon also participates in democratic elections and has seemed to be able to coexist with other groups and work within Lebanon???s system so far.
These are the exceptions however. Since most Middle Eastern governments are repressive they???ve clamped down on their Islamist groups and they have in turn become violent. Because of the violence they have taken an us against them attitude and take a much more strict and exclusionary vision of Islam. Most of these groups were just focused on overthrowing their own governments. Along came Bin Laden who revolutionized the movement after he witnessed Afghanistan in person. He saw the U.S. as the real source of Muslims??? problems because it props up most Muslim governments. His plan is to attack the U.S. and make them stop supporting repressive Muslim governments, and then they can be overthrown by Islamists.
In terms of Islamism and democracy and human rights, its all over the place. One major thing is that Islamic law ??? sharia is open to twenty million interpretations. Not only that but Islam has been going through its own form of Protestant Reformation, where everyday Muslims have been interpreting the Quran rather than just following their priests, Islamic scholars, and Mosques.
Some Islamists have talked about Islam and democracy, and even attempted to co-op Western Enlightenment ideas. These Islamists have talked about Islam???s concepts of shura ??? consultation, ijma ??? consensus, and baya ??? rule by consent through political contract as ideas that would allow Islam to adopt democratic ideals. Like I said though, because most governments are repressive, they haven???t really been able to work these ideas out other than in theory.
Even in the repressive Muslim governments that exist there is some variety. You want to talk about public stoning and beheadings, for example, you can see someone???s head chopped off in Saudi Arabia, they don???t have stonings though. I think they had a few stonings under the Taliban in Afghanistan however. I don???t think you have either one in Iran.
I'm rambling now and will stop.
Those are the ones that get the most press. You could also add in stress positions. All of those were OK'd by Donald Rumsfeld. He also OK'd water boarding where they tie a person down to a board and dunk them in water until they feel like their drowning and then pull them out. This has been used. They had lawyers OK all of these forms as not being a violation of U.S. or international treaties the U.S. signed against torture. For the real stuff, the U.S. simply sends detainees to other countries where they can get down to the real thing.
Motown for President
And in a little tangent, as if this whole thread isn't already ridiculously off topic.
The whole "they missed the Enlightenment" line was used not that long ago when trying to analyze the string of dictatorships and oppressive regimes in Latin America. With decades of such governments, death squads, etc. there was a group of American political scientists who tried to say that Latin America could never form democratic governments because of two factors. 1) They missed the Enlightenment. The argument being that the Enlightenment was really a northern European experience and thus the Spanish missed out on it, and weren't able to transfer those ideas to their American colonies. 2) Because the countries were Catholic they were conservative and sometimes reactionary because the Catholic church stresses tradition, hierarchy, and authority. Basically all of Latin America was being written off as banana republics, never to really progress politically. Today, most of Latin America has democratic governments.
I always took much of this analysis to be Western cultural superiority. I take the same view about a lot of what's said about Islam these days.
For an act to be considered courageous there must be a risk involved in performing it. What did colbert risk by doing what he did? Nothing. This was the routine that colbert HAD to do. If colbert was percieved to waste an opportunity to skewer bush or even worse, pander to to him, there would be a large percentage of colbert's audience that would never forgive him.
If you enjoyed colbert's showing then fair enough(I personally thought he was mediocre. He had a few good lines but seemed more intent on aggression rather than humour. If I agreed with the sentiment I might have been punching the air but as someone who was assessing it on a purely comedic level I was disapointed). What I cant stand however is the hyperbole. This was not ballsy, it was not important and no-one will care about it this time next week.
goodbye...
actually, it was pretty FUNNY. Anyone really pissed about this clearly has issues. What the hell were you expecting him to do? It was somebody's dumb mistake that he kept getting invited.
By the way, you are either a shitty alias, or a wholly uninteresting and stupid person. go away.
and the rest of this thread? Rockadelic talking about beheading rapists or something? I cant follow.
peace.
I think the greatest accomplishement of the enlightenment was helping cultivate a healthy scepticism of leaders/religious movements. There was no muslim Hume, Voltaire or J.J.R. Imagine dudes like that writing about Islam. They would be hiding out like Rushdie. The enlightenment got people talking about things. Divine right or Natural law. Natural rights & church and state. I see you writing alot about democracy, but nowhere in your posts do you mention rationalism, liberalism, the relation of church & state. You're writing from the point of view that democracy was the most significant outcome of the enlightenment. I'd purport that a greater effect would be that people it allowed people to dicuss things they held sacrosant for hundreds of years. Long live profanity.
Actually there have been a lot of Islamic scholars and even Islamimsts that have talked about rationalism, self-reflection, etc. etc. all Enlightenment ideas. I can think of one Egyptian Islamist from the late 1800s and Sayed Qutb who is known as the godfather of modern Islamism who both tried to incorporate Enlightenment ideals into their interpretation of Islam.