[prog2djent]

(Original post by Democracy)

No, because this is Britain and we turn away and demonise political refugees and hard-working immigrants looking for a better life, whilst letting religious fanatics into the country with open arms.

Haha, exactly the opposite of what we were told in general studies.

I trusting you with this opinion as it is from a position of authority and you probably know a lot more than I, but is it a structural mistake in the system that we are turning economic migrants around at the door and letting in fundamentalist space muffins? Or is there an agenda? A secret agenda (you should be glad I don't believe in cultural marxism hahaha)?

Or are the latter more nifty with human rights and persecution claims than the former?

[math1234]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Nearly 100 lashes is still barbaric.

I agree but in any case death sentence for such things is totally nonsense


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[MxSK]

Relevant to the thread title:

Health Officials: 26% of tehran drivers are drunk:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18504268

(In london its 9%)

Also on a personal note:
My uncle (who lives in a provincial city in iran) carries a carton of Heineken smuggled in from turkey in the trunk of his car where the spare tire should be. You know... for emergencies.

[AverageExcellence]

Thats justified in a so called righteous islamic republic. Ill drink alcohol (a sin) so we'll kill you for it (an even greater sin) ?? theres a terrible irony there

(get in line muslim neggers) - im not criticising you!

[prog2djent]

(Original post by MxSK)
Relevant to the thread title:

Health Officials: 26% of tehran drivers are drunk:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18504268

(In london its 9%)

Also on a personal note:
My uncle (who lives in a provincial city in iran) carries a carton of Heineken smuggled in from turkey in the trunk of his car where the spare tire should be. You know... for emergencies.

In countries where you find there is a lot of wealth and to an extent some aspects of society are westernised, when things are oppressed, they thrive.

Like the alcohol smuggling Iran, and homosexuality in Saud

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...e-closet/5774/

This is a really good read and interviews real people. There is also statistic flying around from the authorities that 46% of students in Riyadh are gay, more than half of males have had a homosexual expirience http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_y0-LAIPJk

there are a bunch of secret cameras in saudi gay clubs etc etc

Because this is a country where two unmarried men and women can't be seen in public together yet arab men walking and holding hands is part of the culture 0_o



Now look, this is Condell, we have to remember he is slightly tounge in cheek, but the first 2:20 of this video (especially 1:50) are completely hilarious but a aura of truth rings through.

3:40 onwards

"of course you Saudi's wouldn't be in this ludicrous and embarassing situation in the first place if you had the basic decency to treat women as human beings, and not as possessions. And when you Saudi's say to me 'we treat are women well, and women are looked after and protected, not like yours, don't tell us how to treat our women look after your own' .... that's the whole point, geniuses, they're not your women, you have no ownership"

From that passage responding to hate mail he received from Saudi's, and from 3:40 onwards, how can anybody, any fair minded so-called "liberal" call Condell a bigot, HOW?

[Chindits]

The left wing are more concerned when an Israeli sneezes, than homosexuals/alcohol consumers publicly hanged from cranes in Iran, while children walk past the dangling bodies on the way to school.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And tbh, less homosexuals die in Muslim countries than they do in the west (from suicide).

Do you have statistics for that?

[RyanT]

(Original post by prog2djent)
How can these cultures still believe in things like "sorcery" when we abandoned that BS half a millenium ago?

I wouldn't be so quick to claim that the west abandoned ideas of sorcery and witchcraft that long ago.

They believe in it because their special book says it does and they've not only placed said book beyond reproach but also interpreted it in an extremely literal manner.

Of course it's disgusting, but rather then people in the west wringing their hands about immoral actions in the heart of the muslim world, perhaps the real issue is all these "holy" and "good" muslims who sit by silently whilst such atrocities are committed.

The truth is these practices have the consent of the governed, people who are willing to endorse islam do not deserve any assistance from the outside world.

Barbaric? Yes.

Let barbarians be barbaric to each other.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Do you really think Iranian gays are going to be bringing it into public? Really?

Sex is illegal regardless of orientation in public in secular societies anyway.

If it was two gay people it would be frowned upon more beacuse thats just the way we grow up beacuse some parents are still bigots. But there wouldn't be any corporal punishment, I don't even think there have been instances of physical reprisal, even throughout the mass propoganda against gays in the 20th century. (does medical testing count as punishment?)

Are you serious? You can get in trouble just for taking your shirt off (women can), imagine if two gays or straights having sex on the street in public. You can get 2 years in imprisonment in the UK for it.

That's how it works in an Islamic state, it's public disruption, with the difference being a harsher punishment in one.

The point is, no one does it, even in secular societies. SO the punishment in theory would never be exercised (4 witnesses has never been achieved). The laws' there as a deterrent and to keep public morality.

[Rhadamanthus]

Well stone me (literally, because I've drank a lot of wine today), the Islamic Republic of Iran have restricted the freedom of their citizens yet again.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by RyanT)
The truth is these practices have the consent of the governed, people who are willing to endorse islam do not deserve any assistance from the outside world.

No, they don't. Iranians don't support the Mullah's for the most part. Have you got proof for these assertions? If it was true, why the need for dictatorships? Why not place a democracy?

[RyanT]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No, they don't. Iranians don't support the Mullah's for the most part. Have you got proof for these assertions? If it was true, why the need for dictatorships? Why not place a democracy?

Hamas wins in Palestine, the Muslim brotherhood wins in Egypt, in Turkey the islamists march under Erdogans banner.

The simple fact is, even when elections are free and fair - muslims vote for islamism. You will note that even Ahmadinejad won an election.

My point is simple, when muslims walk around denouncing alcohol and homosexuality as sinful whilst proclaiming a religious system with a highly tyrannical rule set as gods will - why should we in the west care if they have to live under what they claim to believe in anyway?

These people love it. My only regret is that all the keyboard muslims in the west are unable to 'experience' the joy of living under an islamic regime.

[Democracy]

(Original post by RyanT)
Hamas wins in Palestine, the Muslim brotherhood wins in Egypt, in Turkey the islamists march under Erdogans banner.

Irrelevant to Iran.

The simple fact is, even when elections are free and fair - muslims vote for islamism. You will note that even Ahmadinejad won an election.

"Elections" where everyone who isn't approved by the Mullahs is disqualified. "Free and fair"?

You don't know much about Iran, do you?

[RyanT]

(Original post by Democracy)
Irrelevant to Iran.



"Elections" where everyone who isn't approved by the Mullahs is disqualified. "Free and fair"?

You don't know much about Iran, do you?

I never claimed that the Iranian elections were free and fair, I saw the tv footage of those militia riding around on scooters during the last election.

I simply questioned whether it would change the election result, given that muslims in countries with reasonably fair elections seem to vote for islamists anyway.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by RyanT)
Hamas wins in Palestine, the Muslim brotherhood wins in Egypt, in Turkey the islamists march under Erdogans banner.

The simple fact is, even when elections are free and fair - muslims vote for islamism. You will note that even Ahmadinejad won an election.

My point is simple, when muslims walk around denouncing alcohol and homosexuality as sinful whilst proclaiming a religious system with a highly tyrannical rule set as gods will - why should we in the west care if they have to live under what they claim to believe in anyway?

These people love it. My only regret is that all the keyboard muslims in the west are unable to 'experience' the joy of living under an islamic regime.

Why did Hamas win in Palestine? When you see within the context of the Palestinian conflict, no surprise they'd vote for him.

Please list some negative things these "Islamist" have done other than labeling as "Islamist". Germany could be said to be run by "Christainist", meaningless term. Is Germany a theocracy now? No.

Muslims aren't collective, their individuals, different Muslims hold different principles. Brushing them under as the same isn't very useful.

[Democracy]

(Original post by RyanT)
I never claimed that the Iranian elections were free and fair, I saw the tv footage of those militia riding around on scooters during the last election.

So, erm, how exactly is it relevant that Ahmadinejad "won", given that it's not a reflection of the will of the people?

If you saw what happened in the last "election", including the protests attended by millions, then that ought to tell you that people clearly don't support the regime.

I simply questioned whether it would change the election result, given that muslims in countries with reasonably fair elections seem to vote for islamists anyway.

Hence my point that "you don't know much about Iran, do you?".

Iranian culture is not defined by Islam. What goes on in other countries is irrelevant as we are not Arabs or Turks. The rich history of pro-secular, pro-democracy and pro-liberty activism in Iran should tell you that treating entire regions (and their peoples) as homogenous masses is idiotic. So stop comparing Iran to other countries.

Iran was a secular country until 1979. Its secularism was removed in a revolution hijacked by reactionary religious elements. This was neither the intent nor the desire of the people. End of.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Why did Hamas win in Palestine? When you see within the context of the Palestinian conflict, no surprise they'd vote for him.

So what is Egypt's, Indonesia's and Turkey's excuse?

You can claim exceptionalism for exceptional circumstances. But when we see all muslim countries acting in the same fashion, it's pretty clear that it is not exceptional but rather intrinsic to islam.

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Please list some negative things these "Islamist" have done other than labeling as "Islamist". Germany could be said to be run by "Christainist", meaningless term. Is Germany a theocracy now? No.

Well, if you read the thread you'd of noticed hanging homosexuals and consumers of alcohol.

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Muslims aren't collective, their individuals, different Muslims hold different principles. Brushing them under as the same isn't very useful.

Except they do subscribe to a collective mode of thinking, as outlined in the Koran. In particular the punishments for deviants from the proscribed norms of thought are very harshly dealt with, with the death penalty applying to those who leave the collective thought group (religion).

Claiming individuality for people who are engaged not only in collective thought control but also adhere to a largely static morality that has not evolved since its formation is absurd. The reason they are not individuals is because they have made Mohammed their god (the true god of islam, not allah) and are all bound to revere him and his particular (questionable) morality.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by RyanT)
So what is Egypt's, Indonesia's and Turkey's excuse?

You can claim exceptionalism for exceptional circumstances. But when we see all muslim countries acting in the same fashion, it's pretty clear that it is not exceptional but rather intrinsic to islam.

Well, if you read the thread you'd of noticed hanging homosexuals and consumers of alcohol.

Except they do subscribe to a collective mode of thinking, as outlined in the Koran. In particular the punishments for deviants from the proscribed norms of thought are very harshly dealt with, with the death penalty applying to those who leave the collective thought group (religion).

Claiming individuality for people who are engaged not only in collective thought control but also adhere to a largely static morality that has not evolved since its formation is absurd. The reason they are not individuals is because they have made Mohammed their god (the true god of islam, not allah) and are all bound to revere him and his particular (questionable) morality.

I was referring to Egypt and Turkey who you labelled as Islamist as that's somehow supposed to mean they're on the same level as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Polls have proven you wrong. It's irrelevant whether you believe Muslims should support Sharia law. In the west, most Muslims don't in fact support it. In Syria, most don't and like Turkey's model of governance. There are few countries who have a Islamist state, others merely have a symbolic gesture of Islam as the state religion akin to Church of England being our state religion.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Democracy)
So, erm, how exactly is it relevant that Ahmadinejad "won", given that it's not a reflection of the will of the people?

If you saw what happened in the last "election", including the protests attended by millions, then that ought to tell you that people clearly don't support the regime.

Hence my point that "you don't know much about Iran, do you?".

Iranian culture is not defined by Islam. What goes on in other countries is irrelevant as we are not Arabs or Turks. The rich history of pro-secular, pro-democracy and pro-liberty activism in Iran should tell you that treating entire regions (and their peoples) as homogenous masses is idiotic. So stop comparing Iran to other countries.

Iran was a secular country until 1979. Its secularism was removed in a revolution hijacked by reactionary religious elements. This was neither the intent nor the desire of the people. End of.

So despite having a government that is in all its behaviors, remarkable similar to other muslim states you're claiming Iranian exceptionalism. Iranians might have a muslim government that was brought to power by the arms of Iranian revolutionaries and has been staffed by Iranians with no serious armed revolt since its formation, yet according to you this is entirely against the will of the people.

I just find it highly suspect that you claim that Iranians are so different to these other peoples when their society functions in exactly the same manner, they worship the same god and even march to war against the Israelis together.

Pro-democracy and pro-liberty? not exactly words that described the Shah, but perhaps like you imply, I'm an ignoramus.

I can see why you have constructed this fantasy representation of the general population of Iran, because it serves both as a mirror to your own personal views and provides a (victim) narrative of why your homeland and culture have failed. However the simple reality is these people are muslims and muslims have certain beliefs and part of those beliefs are a rulebook which stipulates these punishments for certain crimes.

No amount of claiming Iran is different from every civilization within 500 miles of it is going to change the fact that these people are muslims and are acting like muslims. Perhaps you think that Iranians are secretly not muslims at all, but then we can create a thought experiment. If a muslim theocracy was established in the UK, how long would it last for?

I can assure you, a lot shorter then the present Iranian regime. It does have support among the population and you should be honest enough to admit that.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
SO the punishment in theory would never be exercised (4 witnesses has never been achieved). The laws' there as a deterrent and to keep public morality.

You point has quite an obvious contradiction.

You say the punishment would "never" be exercised, yet you say it is there as a "deterrent". For something to be an effective deterrent, there has to be risk of possible repercussion. But you have ruled out any risk, by saying any punishment would "never" be exercised. So there is something very flawed in your argument here.