ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile in Pakistan

Stairwayto7

Stairwayto7

Senior
Nov 12, 2008
3,106
5
38
Certainly not Indiana
I really have a hard time having a shred if sympathy for the people who were "victims" of enhanced interrogation after their peers carried out yet another cowardly barbaric act against humanity. Yep, civilized human beings. Angers me that we sat idle in Afghanistan while we knew these dirtbags were freely roaming the land around our bases. The joy of politics. Sending us to the other side of the planet but not letting us destroy the enemy of a decent civilized world.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
and you still don't understand

that how we treat others has little to do with their morality and everything to do with ours.
 
Meanwhile in Nigeria


Kano, Nigeria (CNN) -- Boko Haram insurgents kidnapped at least 185 women and children, and killed 32 people in a raid in northeastern Nigeria this week, local officials and residents said.



Gunmen in pickup trucks attacked the village of Gumsuri, just north of Chibok, on Sunday, shooting down men before herding women and children together.

"They gathered the women and children and took them away in trucks after burning most of the village with petrol bombs," a local government official said on condition anonymity for fear of reprisal.

News of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication. Telecommunications towers in the region had been disabled in previous attacks.

The good news is that none of the attacks in Australia, Pakistan, or Nigeria have anything to do with Islam.

Must be those damned "socioeconomic factors"
 
Re: and you still don't understand


Originally posted by qazplm:
that how we treat others has little to do with their morality and everything to do with ours.
Click to expand...
No I totally do, but my issue has been from the beginning has been how can we be ok with killing them but not with torture? That has been my point from the beginning.

I was giving perspective from a grunt's view of the situation, an observation of many people I know who have been in worse situations over across the globe. You are free to take this any direction you want. But my original question still stands, how is torturing any worse than killing? One is ending the existence of a life, one is altering it, but has an end. So that is the ethical dilemma I find in the situation.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

GMM, do not mistake my disdain for radicals and insurgent as being the same for Islam. I have worked with many outstanding Muslim people during my lifetime. Do I think that the religion is a crucial point in its existence right now? Of course, the only way radical Islam will truly end is when the 99.9% of Muslims across the planet stand up in a unified movement against the radicalization of their religion. Removing religious control over government in the Middle East in many nations will also help the situation.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Well said.

I have to point out in response to your last comment, not with a political agenda at all, that a good example of a middle east government that was not under religious control was Iraq's under Saddam Hussein. It may be that the Assad regime also qualifies. Egypt keeps flipping back and forth. The common denominator? Use of a heavy-handed style to suppress those who want a government under religious control. Is this needed? Maybe.

I know less of how Lebanon and Jordan maintain the peace to the extent that they do.

I think your point might also be a reference to Israel, but am not sure.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

I have worked with many outstanding Muslim people during my lifetime.

I'm sure you have. Doesn't change the truth of the behavior of Muslims worldwide and throughout history or the truth of Islam itself.

Of course, the only way radical Islam will truly end is when the 99.9% of Muslims across the planet stand up in a unified movement against the radicalization of their religion.

Why hasn't that happened?

Removing religious control over government in the Middle East in many nations will also help the situation.

That's the opposite of Islam.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Originally posted by GMM:

Removing religious control over government in the Middle East in many nations will also help the situation.

That's the opposite of Islam.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.
 
it's about unnecessary pain and suffering

if it doesn't matter, why don't we develop a knock out gas, take up groups of terrorist then open roast them over a pit slowly without killing them? I mean let's get creative here, all sorts of things we can do. Of course, almost no one, I'm sure even you, agree with that idea. Why is that? Because it would completely demean us as human beings.

Killing isn't good, we are supposed to do it rarely, and under certain circumstances. One could argue that there are times we do it unethically. But just because we aren't perfect in one area, and we aren't, doesn't mean we stop trying in another.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Originally posted by db:
Well said.

I have to point out in response to your last comment, not with a political agenda at all, that a good example of a middle east government that was not under religious control was Iraq's under Saddam Hussein. It may be that the Assad regime also qualifies. Egypt keeps flipping back and forth. The common denominator? Use of a heavy-handed style to suppress those who want a government under religious control. Is this needed? Maybe.

I know less of how Lebanon and Jordan maintain the peace to the extent that they do.

I think your point might also be a reference to Israel, but am not sure.
Click to expand...
Turkey might be a better example.

Oddly enough, the country best situated for a renaissance in the ME might be Iran. What a fantastic event that would be if (when) it were to take place.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Turkey is an interesting example. I am far from an expert but my take is that Erdogan is embracing more Islamocentric policies and positions over time rather than trying to keep Turkey's late 20th century secular government practices intact. Sort of an "if you can't beat them, join them" approach.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Originally posted by Purdue97:
Care to expand on that?
Click to expand...
How far do I have to expand it? Not every predominantly Muslim country is ruled by "Islam." In fact, the vast majority are not.
 
Re: and you still don't understand

The issue is that with torture, we are inflicting pain and suffering with that intent, alone. We aren't eliminating a threat. Further, that many in the midst of being tortured wish for death should be indicative of why it is worse.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Turkey is secular, Syria is secular, Egypt was secular, it's mixed now, Jordan is secular, Pakistan is secular, Iraq is secular, there are others but those are just off the top of my head.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

For most of the history of these places, ever since Islam has dominated the culture, they have not been secular. Throughout history, everywhere Islam has been a major force its adherents have called for Islam to rule society. All based on commandments from the Koran and the example of Mohammed. The resurgence of Islam as a ruling force in this areas is not an aberration but a return to a historical norm.

If these countries are so secular then why, whenever Westerners go there (including our military personnel who are there to liberate Muslims) are we lectured to give way to their Muslim sensibilities?

When people from these countries come here why are Westerners lectured to give way to their Muslim sensibilities? How come Muslim immigrants have such difficulty blending into secular, Western societies? How come non-Muslim immigrants from these countries have less difficulty blending into secular, Western societies? How come non-Muslim immigrants from these countries are much less likely to support or engage in terrorism?
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria


Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE...

In fact, the only country I can think of off the top of my head that is actually run by "Islam" is Iran. "Islam" tried running Egypt, but that didn't go well and it's back to being mostly secular.

Just silly that this even needs to be explained.
 
HFS

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:


Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE...

In fact, the only country I can think of off the top of my head that is actually run by "Islam" is Iran. "Islam" tried running Egypt, but that didn't go well and it's back to being mostly secular.

Just silly that this even needs to be explained.
Click to expand...
The fact that you think that Saudi Arabia is "secular" destroys your credibility. If that's what counts as a "secular" Muslim country then you'd made my argument for me.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Originally posted by GMM:

If these countries are so secular then why, whenever Westerners go there (including our military personnel who are there to liberate Muslims) are we lectured to give way to their Muslim sensibilities?

When people from these countries come here why are Westerners lectured to give way to their Muslim sensibilities? How come Muslim immigrants have such difficulty blending into secular, Western societies? How come non-Muslim immigrants from these countries have less difficulty blending into secular, Western societies? How come non-Muslim immigrants from these countries are much less likely to support or engage in terrorism?
Click to expand...
What in the holy hell are you talking about? I've lived in and visited Muslim countries extensively and not once has anyone proselytized to me about Islam. The wanton ignorance here is just alarming.
 
Re: HFS

Originally posted by GMM:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:



Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE...

In fact, the only country I can think of off the top of my head that is actually run by "Islam" is Iran. "Islam" tried running Egypt, but that didn't go well and it's back to being mostly secular.

Just silly that this even needs to be explained.
Click to expand...
The fact that you think that Saudi Arabia is "secular" destroys your credibility. If that's what counts as a "secular" Muslim country then you'd made my argument for me.
Click to expand...
How so? Because the ruling family is of a single religion does not mean that the religion runs the government. The Saudi Royal family does not answer to a Mullah, nor does the Bahraini Royal family. In fact, the Saudi Royal family alienates the hardline Sunnis in that country, which, if you knew the first f---ing thing about anything you're talking about you wouldn't make this assertion, led directly to the radicalization of Osama Bin Laden and the creation of Al Qae'da. Explicitly because the Saudi royals wouldn't run the country in accordance with Sharia Law. Just because women can't drive doesn't mean it's "run by Islam."
 
Re: HFS

What are the actual policies like in Saudi Arabia? Are you seriously suggesting they're just like any other secular country. Have you never heard of the Mutaween, aka the religious police?

So the fact that professing any other religion besides Islam in Saudi Arabia is forbidden (with harsh punishment) is a testament to how secular that country really is. Makes sense.

Osama Bin Laden? Yeah, because he and others condemned the Saudis for not being Islamic enough means that its a secular country. What a joke. There are ISIS members who think Al Qaeda isn't doing it right. Guess that means you think AQ is "secular".
 
Re: HFS


You said: "(Religious control over the government) is the opposite of Islam."

While religion is a major factor in the CULTURE of Saudi Arabia, and that certainly impacts their way of governing, the "ruling party" is not strictly "Islamic" in the sense that they rule strictly by the Koran as they do in Iran.

Saudi Arabia is far from a great example of a secular society, in fact it is quite the opposite of that, but their ruling body (the Royal family) is not run by the religion. There are plenty of Saudis who think they should be, but they are not, hence Al Qaeda.

Why would the Saudis oppose ISIS if they were "run by Islam?" Wouldn't they be aligned with ISIS? No, instead the royal family FEARS ISIS because their version of rule by Islam threatens their authority. Pretty simple distinction.
 
You are a bit off on this

Just because the Saudi ruling family does not share the same tenants of Sunni Islam as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and ISIS and Al-Qaeda do not share the same tenants does not mean that they are secularists. That is absurd. I mean Shiite and Sunni are not the same either, that does not mean that 1) They are not Islamic 2) Are not Secular

"Saudi Arabia is far from a great example of a secular society, in fact
it is quite the opposite of that, but their ruling body (the
Royal family) is not run by the religion. There are plenty of Saudis who
think they should be, but they are not, hence Al Qaeda."

"Why would the Saudis oppose ISIS if they were "run by Islam?" Wouldn't
they be aligned with ISIS? No, instead the royal family FEARS ISIS
because their version of rule by Islam threatens their authority. Pretty
simple distinction."

Saudi Arabia has a ulama that the King meets with on a weekly basis. Now, there is some question about how much say they have with the King. Some say the Royal Family does what it intends to do (for the most part) anyway, while others state the Royal Family acts only under advisement from the Ulama. But the fact that the Ulama is present and advises legislation in and of itself shows that SA is not secular.

Also, the Saudi strategy of keeping oil supply high and therefore the cost of oil down is seen as an attack on their political adversaries, which as I am sure you know are mainly Shiite. Not a secular move.

Why is Saudi Arabia afraid or concerned with ISIL? Because that group deals with an area that wants to control Iraq, southern Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian areas, as well as Jordan. Saudi Arabia would still have Iran to the east. Essentially SA would be surrounded by enemy, largely based on religous beliefs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/18/isis-or-isil-the-debate-over-what-to-call-iraqs-terror-group/

If you need a ground map navy boy and do not believe me-

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/google_map_saudi_arabia.htm

I can give you that in some ways SA is more progressive than many Arab countries(which is in link), some of our mandatory pre deployment reading definitely supported that. I would best describe Saudi Arabia as a Sunni dominated monarchy. But again, just because all of these Sunni/Shiite factions do not agree with each other doe not mean that they are secular.

This post was edited on 12/19 7:54 PM by Purdue97

Secular?
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

I can agree that for now Syria is as well as Jordan. Pakistan has been a complete struggle as it is known that much of their military and intelligence communities sympathize with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, among other issues they have had there..

Turkey-They teach Sunni Islam in schools and the state aids Sunni mosques. Also, reportedly ISIS(Sunni) was allowed to attack Kobani from the north(Turkey.) While they are more tolerant of other religions, and the Constitution was drawn up as a secular society, that is hardly secularism.

Iraq-Turn on the news. ISIS controls much of it. Lot of fighting among government officials mainly based on Shiite/Sunni differences.

I guess to a point they can be considered to be as long as secular is really kept in context.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

I am having a really hard time believing that military personnel do not know or understand the importance the role of Islam plays not only in the culture but in the governance of Muslim countries.

Can you sit here and say they are secular because of the way their constitution is written and they might have had some progressive movements? I guess one can make an argument for it. Anybody that has been over there knows the middle east is anything but secular. Damn, Islam, and the way it is interpreted, different sects, is the cause of many of their issues.
 
Re: and you still don't understand

Ok. I buy that. However, is torture wrong if it saves innocent lives and/or is used to apprehend people that aspire to terrorize?

Which except for the Democrat Senate report, many say it did do just this.
 
Re: You are a bit off on this

Originally posted by Purdue97:

If you need a ground map navy boy ...

I would best describe Saudi Arabia as a Sunni dominated monarchy.
Click to expand...
My entire point is summed up by the second sentence. I agree. And that said, a Sunni-dominated monarchy, while not secular, is not the same as an Islamic government, which is what GMM is arguing. We are a Christian-dominated democracy, but we are not a Christian government.

Seriously? "Navy boy?" I hit fifteen years of service tomorrow. Kiss my ass.

This discussion's done for me if you can't even be cordial to a fellow service member. In fact, I think it's done anyway since you're a prick and GMM's too ignorant on the subject to discuss it in any meaningful way.
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

Is Turkey run by an Islamic government? No. Is Iraq? No. Draw a distinction between "Islamic government" and "government run by Muslims."
 
Re: Meanwhile in Nigeria

What you're having a hard time with is that there are military folks out there that don't agree with your perverse views on Islam and that can actually draw a line between Muslims and Islamofascists. In your mind, apparently, we should shoot on sight.
 
Re: You are a bit off on this

You have got to be kidding me. Talked a lot of trash to Navy personnel on ground,(SEALS, medics, SWCC to a lesser degree, and EOD) both enlisted and officers, and not once did they take offense. They would laugh and try to fire something back.

Great guys, but their lack of being able to read ground maps to the level of an infantry guy out of basic training, and not being able to respond to ambushes grunt style on the ground, gets a lot of smack thrown around. Hence the map. They know it-and it did not bother them.

We can sit here and argue context and language all day. Sure I would call SA a Sunni dominated Monarchy. However, under the ulama weekly advisement, that clearly makes them not secular. Are they as religous as Iran? No.

I think what many westerners forget is that in the west, people are concerned with their self first, then family, then job, usually some hobbies in there, and religion is mixed in here and there. A generalization but basically true outside of the religous far right. In the middle east under Islam, Islam is the center of their life, their life revolves around their religion. Our most religous far right pale in comparison to the majority over there. That alone makes them unable to be secular IMO.

Congrats on your 15 years.
 
many who?

Other than the folks responsible for the program in the first place?
 
I'll quibble on SA

I know it's technically a Monarchy but IMO it's definitely a Sharia country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back