I think there are many Schools of thought,i must say though that the Penguin School of thought sounds the coolest,a School of thought that cordons itself off from the rest of everything has a big problem IMO
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Iran restricts "Western" social sciences
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
I think there are many Schools of thought,i must say though that the Penguin School of thought sounds the coolest,a School of thought that cordons itself off from the rest of everything has a big problem IMO
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
As is normal with many Abrahamics, you are confusing morals, which are socially generated and sourced, with religious laws.
Foring women to wear burkas, for example, is not a question of "morality", but of relgiious law. It is in fact IMMORAL to force women to be as property in such a manner.
gnostic
The Lost One
abibi said:
Actually, the empowerment to women that you have mentioned were from the direct results of the works and reforms of former presidents, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, mostly Khatami.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done nothing but erode the previous reforms which had empowered women. With other senior clerics as advisory to Ahmadinejad, they have far more hardliner approaches and attitudes towards women that along the lines of the Talibans. Iran have been going backward since Ahmadinejad had came into power, and the country is still going backward, so women are becoming more oppressed than liberated.
But the truth is that Iran is not to blame in its entirety for Iran going backward. Part of the blame goes to the foreign policy of the previous US president - George Bush. It is his bl@#dy "axis of evil" speech that encouraged the hardliner clerics to dismantle Khatami's presidency, who policies was moderate and beneficial towards women, and only to be replace by a deranged madman. The US should have worked with Khatami, but NOOOOO...The US had to elect an equally derange cowboy, who made a complete mess for everyone else.
Starsoul
Truth
And why would Us NOT present ANY substantial evidence for any of its war justified accusations is a big question mark!
Does the Us present any other country its citizens or prisoners if Saudia has 'compelling un-disclosable evidence' that Us actually is involved in nine eleven? (for an example)
Taliban never wanted a war with Us, nobody does, for obvious reasons, but war was imposed. Afganistan is their country, not Us's and its they who get to choose what to give or not, if Us chose not to provide the 'compelling evidence' to the whole world about nineeleven, its not afganistan's fault.
Nobody can even actually claim that a Super developed and advanced power like US is vulnerable to the ignorant, poorest of the poor people of the mountains who live in broken houses, walk in torn clothes and shoes, wait for the tiniest scrap of food for days in anticipation and have few hand made arms. I'm from Afganistan , you cant shove those propaganda lies on my face.
I see things from my eyes which you only have access to in the comfort of your couch, delivered to you conveniently 'shaped and tweeked' by the media. If you stop seeing my posts one day, you should know what happened to me.
Starsoul
Truth
Do you really expect me to quote sources for that kind of a thing from the propagandist controlled information flow and media?
This is COMMON knowledge in ALL muslim countries, just like people inside of america know that a Us president has to have a black dog, for no good reason.(excuse the example) And well, Im rather surprised that you did not know, Even Riz khan, the ex CNN reporter now working on Al-jazeera news, confirmed that piece of information and it wasn't even a breaking news because everybody already knew , whats sad is nobody can or would do anything, we know and yet we suffer.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think that's an excellent point and I tend to agree with you. But, if you will forgive me for "playing devil's advocate" for a moment, perhaps there wasn't absolute proof that Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks. There was just strong circumstantial evidence which made Bin Laden the #1 suspect. In order to obtain proof you generally have to arrest suspects and do an investigation, but Bin Laden's Taliban friends were not allowing that. And every moment that goes by without access to the suspect, a search of his house, etc. is another lost opportunity to collect evidence or even capture him. And, every moment that he was not arrested was another risk of another massacre, since Bin Laden was at that moment continuing to call for more attacks.
I'm not saying what the U.S. did was right. All I'm saying is you can't totally dismiss the U.S. perspective at the time. EVERYONE knew Bin Laden orchestrated and funded international crimes which killed U.S. (and other) soldiers and civilians on many occasions. Western governments, Islamic governments, Sudan, Saudi Arabia -- everyone knew this. The Taliban were the only ones who would take him as anything other than a suspect who should be put in jail and put on trial, and while UBL was living as the Taliban's respected guest he was behind several attacks against the U.S.
It looked like what happened was the Taliban were continuing the policy they had for decades of protecting UBL and asking for "proof" which of course they knew the U.S. didn't have, this was just a stalling tactic.
If a person living in the U.S. has called for and is suspected of orchestrating attacks against Saudi Arabia for years, including killing civilians, yes he should be arrested and investigated and then handed over to Saudi Arabia.Starsoul said:
No, war was imposed on the U.S. by Bin Laden and this came to a climax when his Jihadis hijacked and crashed four planes while shouting "God is great!" The U.S. would not have become involved in the war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, if the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden. You could argue the U.S. actions were unreasonable and wrong. But, wasn't it also unreasonable and wrong of the Taliban to hope the U.S. was bluffing and risk war, instead of simply handing over a well-known criminal?
It sounds like a convenient game, to protect a prime suspect and demand "proof" beyond circumstantial evidence, but forbid actions that would be necessary to gather proof. Imagine trying to prove a murderer is guilty without being able to arrest and interrogate him, his friends, or search and seize his possessions, tap his telephone, etc. and in the meantime the murderer calls for more murders and boasts about past murders. It sounds like you're saying Bin Laden should have been safe for another decade to carry out another dozen attacks, like the previous decade, and there would never be any direct proof linking him to the crimes since the Taliban won't arrest the #1 suspect, perform a search and seizure of his possessions as evidence, spy on him to gather evidence, etc. So you think the U.S. should have just accepted that there would be more massacres, we should have just waited for the World Trade Center to get bombed for a third time, and let the Taliban protect their billionaire friend who is calling for these attacks and boasting about them? Come on.Starsoul said:
I'm very interested to hear about and learn from your experiences as someone from Afghanistan, Starsoul. I want to learn from you. I tend to agree with you the U.S. actions were wrong, I'm just pointing out that you can't dismiss the U.S. perspective entirely and if the U.S. actions were unreasonable, the Taliban actions were absolutely insane.Starsoul said:
I hope I haven't shoved propaganda in your face. In my defense, no one ever claimed Afghans were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers were from other countries and Bin Laden was not Afghan, either. However, he was living under the protection of the Taliban for years, during which time there was a lot of circumstantial evidence linking him to many international crimes. Many countries recognized this, not just the U.S. Only the Taliban protected him from arrest and investigation.
I admit that you are right. My limited and biased knowledge of Afghanistan comes to me filtered by the media and while I'm on the comfort of my couch. I do my best to learn from alternative sources (like this website) and from people like you, I hope you'll share your experiences with me and educate me.Starsoul said:
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I'm not saying you have to quote mainstream U.S. media. But surely if you believe something there must be some evidence for it somewhere, whether from Al-Jazeera or some other place. I'm not saying you are wrong about this I just asked for sources/evidence so I can learn.
I read the Wiki page CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You've mentioned suffering twice now, you spoke of tattered clothes and scraps of food. Could you tell me more about this? What is the nature of the suffering in Afghanistan you have seen, and what should the U.S. do, or stop doing, to alleviate it? Were conditions better under the Taliban, the same, worse ... ? What do Afghans want Western countries to do?
