It's not Islam, is it?

Sure. Robert Fisk (British journalist, interviewed Bin Laden) commented that almost all of the Taliban's social rules had more in common with how they lived in Pakistani refugee camps crossed with a particularly regressive Pashtun culture than any sort of Islamic law or customs.

civver_764 said:

Islam needs to go away, but there are deeper issues here than just Islam making people more violent. The US plays a highly antagonistic role towards the people of the Middle East, there is a ton of anger because of that, and that is what needs to be addressed.

Click to expand...

What? Why aren't we acknowledging these people as the Islamophobes?

my knowledge about Pasthoon culture are very limited, I only seen two pasthoon in my whole life and they not carrying this tradition, and from what I heard by the former Taliban captive and prisoner Yvonne Riddley her experiences about Taliban and Pasthoon are contradict with what media say about them. But I do know some honor killing in east Turkey, which is nothing have to do with Islam and there dispute between group of them who holding tradition and another group who want to apply Islam regarding to these issue. And I agree with you, it is not something good at all but Islam is innocence from this matter.

And I agree with you, it is not something good at all but Islam is innocence from this matter.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. Saudi sponsored Wahabism did provide a strong ideological framework for the Taliban to hang their cultural biases and traditions on to.
At the very least, the Saudi sponsorship did nothing to dissuade the Taliban from doing that.

Ajidica said:

I wouldn't go that far. Saudi sponsored Wahabism did provide a strong ideological framework for the Taliban to hang their cultural biases and traditions on to.
At the very least, the Saudi sponsorship did nothing to dissuade the Taliban from doing that.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that, could you give me example?

Islam is a little nutty like all the other Abrahamic religion, they all seems to go through this phases where they cause problems with their neighbours. USA has killed alot of foreigners other than Muslims. Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese. Any of those easily outnumber Muslims killed in the last 50 years by USA, Don't really see the hate like its with the Muslims. Even the moderate muslims are kind of pissed off with the USA right now.

Neomega said:

Most of you haven't the slightest clue how shattering a war can be to one's life.

Click to expand...

Maimonides said:

Please tell us how shattering war has been to your life in Seattle.

Click to expand...

Neomega said:

See, there is this called empathy, and "putting yourself in someone elses shoes"
Something, obviously, most Americans never practice when thinking about the middle East.

I knew some smart-alek would post that. Thanks for adding to the conversation Maimonides!

Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question. You criticized "most" posters in the thread for not having "the slightest clue how shattering a war can be to one's life." Using your own analogy, aren't you in the same shoes as the posters who don't have "a clue" about that? If so, why are you criticizing them?

Name calling doesn't do much for a conversation. That raises another question. Why do you feel that being smart is a negative attribute?

haroon said:

I don't know about that, could you give me example?

Click to expand...

Examples of Saudi-sponsorship of Wahabism or that Wahabism provided a good framework for the Taliban to claim as justification for the enforcement of their Pashtun culture?

Ajidica said:

Examples of Saudi-sponsorship of Wahabism or that Wahabism provided a good framework for the Taliban to claim as justification for the enforcement of their Pashtun culture?

Click to expand...

The culture one especially the one who justify the culture of honor killing and multilation which is the topic that we talk about right now. And I believe you will not find it because I know for sure its not there as you claim.

Shaihulud said:

USA has killed alot of foreigners other than Muslims. Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese.

Click to expand...

And none of them are free from the demonizing of US media, I read Chomsky how US media demonize the Japanese and call them monkey until the state they able to convince the public that this race deserve to be kill WW2. After German, Japanese, Sovyet, Vietnam, now it is our turn, Islam and muslim.

Maimonides said:

That doesn't answer the question. You criticized "most" posters in the thread for not having "the slightest clue how shattering a war can be to one's life." Using your own analogy, aren't you in the same shoes as the posters who don't have "a clue" about that? If so, why are you criticizing them?

Click to expand...

1. It wasn't an analogy.
2. I am not criticizing them for never having experienced war, I am criticizing them for never even trying to imagine what it would feel like if their country and homes and hospitals were the ones being bombed.

Name calling doesn't do much for a conversation. That raises another question. Why do you feel that being smart is a negative attribute?

Click to expand...

Smart isn't a negative attribute. I had to use "alek", although there are many smart Alek's I am sure, because I can't use the word I really wanted to do, which would have insinuated a smart donkey, aka ass.

While a smart donkey might be cool for a donkey, for a person to be nothing more than a smart donkey is certainly a negative attribute. You may disagree, but that's my opinion on the subject.

haroon said:

The culture one especially the one who justify the culture of honor killing and multilation which is the topic that we talk about right now. And I believe you will not find it because I know for sure its not there as you claim.

Click to expand...

Not to be rude, but I think your assertion that Pashtun culture and Islam are completely separate and don't provide a framework for each other to exist needs some examples.

As far as examples go, I'll have to go hunting through Fisk's The Great War for Civilization a bit. However, considering he interviewed bin Laden three times and has spent quite a bit of time in Afghanistan (including pre, during, and after the Taliban rule) I would say he knows his stuff about Afghanistan pretty well.

Shaihulud said:

Islam is a little nutty like all the other Abrahamic religion, they all seems to go through this phases where they cause problems with their neighbours. USA has killed alot of foreigners other than Muslims. Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese. Any of those easily outnumber Muslims killed in the last 50 years by USA, Don't really see the hate like its with the Muslims. Even the moderate muslims are kind of pissed off with the USA right now.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting question.

Perhaps with the Vietnamese and Koreans, the wars were more about, or at least sold, as ideological wars. So when a war is about ideology, you can easily have people who agree with the capitalist americans and people who hate the american pig-dogs.

However, the wars and dictators in the muslim countries seem to have murkier and murkier reasoning, and looks more and more like pure colonialism and occupation.

Also, why is Israel coddled and given everything by America, but the Muslims are bombed and driven from their land?

So, during Vietnam and Korea, it may have looked like America was only picking on Asians, and during this time it must be noted that the third world, with the Bandung conference (brown nations invited only, no Soviets or Americans) started to assert itself, in a somewhat angry pose, but that anger was focused at both Europe and the USSR, and I dont think there was ever a phenomenon of riots across Asia against either the USA or USSR, though I could be wrong.

So I guess, in one way, this could lead to the answer, in 1967, you could hate the Russians or the Americans, and this would split the hatred, and make it ideological, focused on each other, civil war style. Communist Vietnamese would hate Capitalist Vietnamese, instead of all Vietnamese hating the Americans. I'd guess when the French were Occupying Vietnam you could find many instances of Vietnam wide french rioting, not sure, but I doubt that There were riots in say, Thailand because the French were still Occupying Vietnam.

in 1991, there was no more USSR to be the other side of the hate.

Or to put it another way, muslims hate the US right now, and are very angry about it, because the US is the only one to hate. If the USSR were interfering in middle eastern politics as heavily as NATO is, then perhaps the hatred would be split along econo-ideological lines, and focused on each other?

It's a good question.

Ajidica said:

Not to be rude, but I think your assertion that Pashtun culture and Islam are completely separate and don't provide a framework for each other to exist needs some examples.

As far as examples go, I'll have to go hunting through Fisk's The Great War for Civilization a bit. However, considering he interviewed bin Laden three times and has spent quite a bit of time in Afghanistan (including pre, during, and after the Taliban rule) I would say he knows his stuff about Afghanistan pretty well.

Click to expand...

No Ajidica, there might be Pasthuun culture that related with Islam, but as I learn this religion and living in various muslim culture, I found this particular tradition which are honor killing and multilation are not related in Islam. As I study Quran and Hadith myself and having debate with peoples here and there about many contradiction between Muslim culture and Islamic teaching. And I'm more than sure about that.

As for Wahhabi, you must distinguish the Wahhabi ulama which come from Saudi Royal ulama, with someone like Sayyid Quthb. The Saudi Ulama by fatwa are against Taliban, against Muslim brotherhood even they are against Al Qaeda. There are fatwa on them defaming Taliban, Muslim brotherhood even surprisingly even Hamas, and Al Qaeda and Saudi are a cat and mice, which Al Qaeda form in the first place not to fight the US but to against Saudi governor. They turn back to US because the US always protecting their Saudi allies, and if you search more you will find some the Saudi Ulama even declare disbelieves on Al Qaeda while many of them ban it and mark them as khawarij. If you say a muslim khawarij is like another words you declare them disbelieves. So their aim are difference.

warpus said:

1. People in groups can do stupid things

2. People who live in a desert are going to eventually snap

3. People who don't get any bacon or alcohol in their diet are just asking for mental health issues

4. There's the whole "religion is evil" part

And that about covers it.

Click to expand...

Deserts are awesome. I heard it as "people from snow-raped tundra always snap."

If people want to bring up enlightenment or even rationalize that it is related to Christianity, I would like to first get the perspective out there that the US is not attacking any one since the last World War on a Christian basis. Not sure why people would even call the USA a Christian nation. Unless the name Christian does not mean anything any more. One more point, politicizing "christianity" and using christianity as a scape goat for WAR, LEFT the point of what Christianity is back in the 60's.

If the US is using Christianity in such away, they have just revived the Crusades all over again!!

The concept of humanitarian should have been the point, not christianity.

The biggest issue is that in the 80's it was oil and big business, that got the US into the middle east, it had little to do with christianity and if one uses the excuse that the US is a christian nation, they have very little grounds to do so. IN Fact those who attempt to do so, are just crusaders.

Unless people forget that Christian missionaries were of the intention to do humanitarian work, if there were any other intentions, they were not christian, but were decoys of inteligence gathering entites to figure out how to control the people, and christianity was left as the scapegoat. Any one can use a "holy book" to teach whatever control they want to have over people.

HOWever Christianity was never meant to control people and neither was the Quran, UNLESS there were corrupt individuals who arrise to do so. People have the freedom to control themselves. I think that humanitarians though, go overboard as do large groups of Islamic peoples in trying to keep others from telling them how to live their lives. Humanitaries where not put on this earth to FORCE peope to do anything. If people do not want to change, there is very little a humaniterian can do other than educate. The missionaries of the 19th century could not change people, neither can the humanitarians of the 21st!!

timtofly said:

If people want to bring up enlightenment or even rationalize that it is related to Christianity, I would like to first get the perspective out there that the US is not attacking any one since the last World War on a Christian basis. Not sure why people would even call the USA a Christian nation. Unless the name Christian does not mean anything any more. One more point, politicizing "christianity" and using christianity as a scape goat for WAR, LEFT the point of what Christianity is back in the 60's.

If the US is using Christianity in such away, they have just revived the Crusades all over again!!

The concept of humanitarian should have been the point, not christianity.

The biggest issue is that in the 80's it was oil and big business, that got the US into the middle east, it had little to do with christianity and if one uses the excuse that the US is a christian nation, they have very little grounds to do so. IN Fact those who attempt to do so, are just crusaders.

Unless people forget that Christian missionaries were of the intention to do humanitarian work, if there were any other intentions, they were not christian, but were decoys of inteligence gathering entites to figure out how to control the people, and christianity was left as the scapegoat. Any one can use a "holy book" to teach whatever control they want to have over people.

HOWever Christianity was never meant to control people and neither was the Quran, UNLESS there were corrupt individuals who arrise to do so. People have the freedom to control themselves. I think that humanitarians though, go overboard as do large groups of Islamic peoples in trying to keep others from telling them how to live their lives. Humanitaries where not put on this earth to FORCE peope to do anything. If people do not want to change, there is very little a humaniterian can do other than educate. The missionaries of the 19th century could not change people, neither can the humanitarians of the 21st!!

Click to expand...

Quoted for the truthies.

Religion exists for two reasons: 1) to give people a sense of continuity and meaning to their lives, and 2) to control people by giving them rules to live by.

wilycoyote said:

Religion exists for two reasons: 1) to give people a sense of continuity and meaning to their lives, and 2) to control people by giving them rules to live by.

Click to expand...

It is self control, not forced control. There is a difference in a religion that one embraces and one that forces you to be controlled. A religion should not make you feel like you cannot leave it.

Most people feel the same way about relationships. There are good ones and bad ones. A bad relationship is not the default position. Neither is a religion bad by default. It is how a religion is used that determines it's qualities.

Rules are not bad, if one willingly chooses them. One should be free to leave a religion, if their mental state is causing them to choose between happiness and religion.

If rules were bad, then we should all be anarchist. Only a few people can pull of anarchy without destroying civilization.

Mistreated peoples can have their own reactionaries and thugs as well. The only demand these rioters seem to be making is that the US government punish the filmmaker or something.