One step forward, two steps back.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...495819-ap.html

Maybe Pope Benedict should just call a crusade.

I fail to understand why a missionary threatens people so much. If you don't like his faith, try to show why yours is superior (subjective, of course). It's hardly like, in a Muslim dominated nation he's going to completely change it to another Vatican or something. Doesn't doing things like this just run the risk of turning him into a martyr anyway?

I think the good ole US of A should fly in and bust him out.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">You know that does not mean he rejects Islam, he just has wider beliefs. Not sure they are civilized enough to piece that together and come to that conclusion. In the end it will most likely be the judge feeling sorry but having to do what needs to be done to apease the bloodthirsty masses.</font>

[ 03-21-2006, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Wow Balintheras, such ignorance... *shakes head*

not unexpected though, at least the family went to the authorities instead of taking matters into their own hands (as is often the case when one violates the koran's teachings on leaving islam) but wait, I thought I read somewhere that "There is no compulsion in religion" oh right, Koran 2:235 link

Except it's contradicted quite heavily in the koran as well as islamic tradition, sharia law, and local customs.


Balintheras, enjoy:

Wikipedia says mostly the same thing.

[ 03-22-2006, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

It was a joke, I dont think war is a good thing, and its worse when people claim they are fighting in His name, but I don't think any Christian in the US would attack any Muslim or Islamic convert, I know I wouldn't and I'm Catholic.

Morgeruat, you might want to put the link to the quoted text piece (though I suspect it comes from JihadWatch.)

Not jihadwatch, although it is from Rob Spencer, the site owner, it's part of a interview from his book the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades"

Well, close enogh. [img]smile.gif[/img]

added the links btw ;)

Well, I wouldn't call the Crusades "a small-scale defensive action", but fair enough. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Besides, it not the size of the actual conflict(s) that matter, it's the reprecussions that do. That many in the Middle East still bring up the Crusades shows how important it is. Either that, or they can't get over themselves. :D

[ 03-22-2006, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

I'll second that that small scale defensive actions don't try to cut a swath through a thousand miles of 'infidels'...

but it's interesting that the crusades come up in Middle Eastern discourse more than colonialism, which had a lot more lasting effect on a lot more people than a series of mostly embarassing engagements in the Middle Ages. It must get more political mileage for all parties involved.

Incidentally, I wouldn't agree that US Christians wouldn't do the same Balintheras. They have, plain and simple. It doesn't mean that we get to generalize about Christianity as a whole.

<font color = lightgreen>It seems that when a Muslim is killed in a combat situation or Westerns speak out against Muslims, the first thing asked is "why are you attacking Islam?" or some comment about the West engaging in a religious war.

*ahem*

The West is not the people demanding that someone be put to death due to a religious choice. The comment I have been hearing lately is "well, it's just our law (Sharia)". :rolleyes: Whatever. I also hear they might be "nice" to the person and only declare them "mentally incompetent" so they won't have to proceed with the death penalty. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

I love it when hypocrisy is exposed, though. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

[ 03-23-2006, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

'Small scale defensive action' is quite amusing ;) There was quite a few, and there's nothing much defensive about pillaging non-Muslim cities because you get lost en route :D

The reason, incidentally, that the crusades feature so much in Middle-East discourse is because of the illustrious Mr. Bush.

One of his first major foreign policy speeches post-9/11 spoke of how it would be a "great crusade" against terrorism.

Scholars everywhere put their heads in their hands.


Just to address the topic - it is an undesirable state of affairs where someone can be prosecuted for their religion. I'm slightly surprised that we put such a constitution in place - didn't we tone down the more extreme stuff?

[ 03-23-2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Your airforce can fly down tunnelnetworks nowadays then ?

Interesting question, but no we didn't, those who helped draft their constitution let them base it on Sharia law, I imagine you'd find the same law on the books in Iraq's new constitution as well. It's probably something Bush's advisors either didn't know about sharia or specifically excluded, thoughts along the lines of "it only happens (legally sanctioned of course) in "barbaric" countries like Iran, and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, UAE, etc not in our bright shiny new middle eastern democracies (also forgetting things like blasphemy laws in a country with islam as the state religion, ie police, tribal elders, etc come up to christians and ask "was mohammed a prophet of allah", if they answer yes, they are often forced to convert, after all if he was a prophet his words must be true and you must convert, if you say no, you're committing blasphemy against the state religion, which says he is).

meh.

[ 03-24-2006, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

After a little digging, it looks like you're ok if you are a Christian, it's simply the converting part they don't like.

Key points of the Constitution

"Guarantees protection for other faiths".

Meh indeed. Goes a little further to reinforcing my view that the architects of all this were simply monkeys who couldn't look more than a month ahead of their own short-sighted goals.

[ 03-24-2006, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Your airforce can fly down tunnelnetworks nowadays then ? </font>[/QUOTE]You know, now that you mention it we certainly need a plane that can do that. Contact Lockheed Immediately!!!!! New Project !!!!!

more persecution.

# Followers of other religions are free to perform religious ceremonies in accordance with the provisions of the law;

# No law shall be contrary to the beliefs and practices of Islam;

Those two are the keys to the situation, the second takes precedence over the first, and conversion from islam aka apostacy is "contrary to the beliefs and practices of islam"

I had mentioned blasphemy laws being used as a weapon, here's a few links of events in Pakistan last year: link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
link 5

a very in depth article on apostacy in islam: link

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Latest news is thay are going to release him. Problem is they don't know when or where and there are protest about his release and people wanting his head. Head clerics are saying that if he is released they are going to off him anyway. Poor guy his dead if the state releases him or not. I kind of knew that this would be the case. He is going to die by an angry mob stoning him.</font>

[ 03-27-2006, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Just to play Devil's Advocate a moment - what makes this any different to the opinions expressed over the drug arrest of that Australian a few months back.

People there were quick to say that if the laws and risks were known then the punishment is just.

It's not as if either the law or the attitudes of Muslim countries to this were a secret; indeed it sounds like he only recently moved back from Germany.

Is this not an Afghan matter then?

[ 03-27-2006, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

For me there is a significant difference in their choices, one chose freedom of conscience, the other chose to be a heroin mule. Was it a smart choice to return to Afganistan, obviously not, but do we know why he moved back? It was not a smart decision to smuggle drugs though Singapore either, and yet we know he was smuggling because he needed to money for his brother or some such.

Is the punishment just? Well, yes, he knew the law, and he should have known that it's common for family members to assauge their honor themselves in similar circumstances, at least he was taken before a court instead of discovered by buzzards in a ditch. Was the death sentence for the lad in Singapore just, yes as well.

Is the punishment fair by our standards, no, one of the most basic freedoms and beliefs we cling to is freedom to believe or not believe whatever we want. Such a law flies not only against that most basic and precious tenet of our beliefs, but also against the image my president has been trying to portray of Afganistan, it's not ok for them to be acting like Saudi Arabia or Iran when they're supposed to be a light unto the muslim nations of the earth showing that tolerance can exist together with an islamic democratic government. If anything it shows that their views are not compatible with western tolerance, multiculturalism and basic freedom of conscience.

(freedom to avoid or soften the legal penalties for smuggling heroin is not a universally recognized right)

[ 03-27-2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Thanks Morgie, I was lacking a little perspective but your first sentence cleared it right up. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree with the rest of your post too - a good summary I think.

lol, and of course I butchered the spelling in that post as well...

<font color=skyblue>He was freed by the judge and disappeared already! He called for Asylum, and it is thought that since he's lived in European countries in the past, that he's been picked up by somebody and rescued from his blood-thirsty homeland. </font>

Good point, although i was also strongly opposed to the Aussies' execution. It's an Afghan matter alright, but Afghans are not upholding the law in their own country, because their retarded culture doesn't allow them to, and there's too many so called warlords and village elders and whatnot running around who claim to be the holiest thing next to god. If it wasn't for coalition forces, Afghanistan would still be under the Taliban's thumb, but i don't think they're that much better off with any regime, they're all the same. If it wasn't for the search for Bin Laden, there wouldn't even be a coalition in Afghanistan, because nobody really gives a crap about them, and i can fully understand why.

And regardless of where he goes he'll be in hiding for the rest of his life.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../ltr060327.gif

[ 03-28-2006, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Just read that he's safely in Italy and under protection. Huh... wonder why he would need protection from "the religion of peace" ;)

<font color = lightgreen>Yes, it is. And yes, they should have been allowed to carry out his execution because it is an internal affair...and would point out the hypocrisy and intolerance inherent in theocracies. Yes, a democratically-elected theocracy is still a theocracy....</font>