Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Turkey Condemns Russia for Fighting Islam in Syria, Calls on West to Accept ISIS watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The taliban were changing among themselves organically, becoming more 'afghan' and less islamist - as their fusion of islam with indigenous pashtunwaali showed. Given time, afghanistan would have rebalanced. Instead a swamp of hate has been filled. I have a -lot- of close friends in afghanistan who can vouch for me on this.
    So you're honestly telling us that by now, girls would be representing a significant proportion of school children in Afghanistan if the Taliban were left to their own devices? You're saying this with a straight face?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The taliban were changing among themselves organically, becoming more 'afghan' and less islamist - as their fusion of islam with indigenous pashtunwaali showed. Given time, afghanistan would have rebalanced. Instead a swamp of hate has been filled. I have a -lot- of close friends in afghanistan who can vouch for me on this.
    Are these friends members of the Taliban by any chance?! What exactly did the Taliban do that would lead anyone to surmise that they were going to stop being radical Islamist douchebags?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It could. The EU could admit Turkey to membership, and Merkel has been making positive noises about that recently in trying to deal with the mess she caused by opening Germany's doors to the Syrians and other migrants in an uncontrolled way.

    Can you imagine the damage that having Turkey in the EU could do to Europe, with its citizens given rights to live and work?
    I think a lot of people in the countries bordering and around turkey might actually migrate -to- turkey for work rather than coming here or other countries with immigrant population stress.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    So you're honestly telling us that by now, girls would be representing a significant proportion of school children in Afghanistan if the Taliban were left to their own devices? You're saying this with a straight face?
    No, I'm saying that the taliban would have changed - not that they would be ideal. Over time, people would get 'used' to the taliban and then organically change their own regime with little issue because the people comprising it would also see that their experimental political system doesn't work too well. The reason the taliban wasn't allowing girls education was not their islam, but their afghan culture. Pashtunwaali, which is much older than islam in afghanistan, does not allow girls to have higher education.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ...Did you guys not know about the taliban's pashtunwaali influences?

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Are these friends members of the Taliban by any chance?! What exactly did the Taliban do that would lead anyone to surmise that they were going to stop being radical Islamist douchebags?
    No, lmao. Most of my friends absolutely hate the taliban, especially my friends in Kunduz and near the border of the Pakistani pattan (pashto) region.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The basis of islamism might be superstitious/religious from an outside perspective. However, a lot of islamic political principles are pretty much only 'supported' by theological principles, such as zakaat and khums (islamic redistribution of wealth) being supported by the islamics principle of charity and social mobility, which are not necessary dependent solely upon religion.
    The reliance on sixth century superstition and law speaks very badly for the ability of the Arabs and other Moslems to develop their societies, and indeed, their own morality. There are no developed countries that rely on such old sources. That speaks for itself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The reliance on sixth century superstition and law speaks very badly for the ability of the Arabs and other Moslems to develop their societies, and indeed, their own morality. There are no developed countries that rely on such old sources. That speaks for itself.
    I don't know - Iranian domestic law is pretty barbaric in some cases, but I'd hardly call them an undeveloped country. Shia islam, unlike sunni islam readily accepts the idea of change and legal innovation so long as the original islamic principles are not negated. A lot of the legal statements of the 12 imams were different to those of the Prophet, but they always explained why these changes were made.
    The problem with Iran is its heritage as an ideological descendant of the Safavid dynasty, which grew to strength by using despotic measures taken from the sunni ideology in order to justify its actions, watering down its shi'ism in order to do so. The safavids and their scholars' works are the reason that Iran maintains certain backwards domestic policies.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I think a lot of people in the countries bordering and around turkey might actually migrate -to- turkey for work rather than coming here or other countries with immigrant population stress.
    If you mean that EU citizens will migrate to Turkey you must be mad. I cannot see mass migration of Europeans to such a backward, alien country and culture. And its economy is not well enough developed to grow faster that the EU ones anyway.

    If you mean that people from non-EU countries would use Turkey's accession to the EU as a gateway to migration into Europe, then I agree, that is a great danger - and to be guarded against.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Shia islam, unlike sunni islam readily accepts the idea of change and legal innovation so long as the original islamic principles are not negated.
    Which proves my point: total dependence on sixth century superstition.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Which proves my point: total dependence on sixth century superstition.
    Except that shia Islamic social and political principles aren't 'superstition'. Examples - the idea of rights for all people and rights for animals - the idea of redistribution of wealth from the excess profits of the rich to help the poor - the idea of giving the poor the means of social mobility - the idea of giving women the means to raise themselves to equality with men - the prohibition of forced marriage - these ideas might have been 'backed up' with religion, but are they 'religious values'? I don't think so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    If you mean that EU citizens will migrate to Turkey you must be mad. I cannot see mass migration of Europeans to such a backward, alien country and culture. And its economy is not well enough developed to grow faster that the EU ones anyway.

    If you mean that people from non-EU countries would use Turkey's accession to the EU as a gateway to migration into Europe, then I agree, that is a great danger - and to be guarded against.
    Your last statement is one concern of mine, actually. Turkey doesn't control its non-european borders well enough, which is a huge danger for eu countries with the prospect of turkish membership.

    Calling Turkey a 'backwards, alien country and culture' is complete rubbish. Have you been to turkey? Have you spoken to turks in turkey? It's a progressive country in terms of their values, despite that the government is more traditional than usual at the moment - but even then, the governments cultural conservatism does include progressive elements, too.

    Turkish culture is extremely similar to the european countries nearby to it. Greek and turkish cultures are very close together, and so are the balkan regions' cultures to turkey's.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Many of those high up in modern day Russia were high up in the Soviet Union. As they say, same **** different toilet. Russia still has military bases in all of those satellite states and has a large influence over many of their governments.
    Not really the same **** though, in the slightest at all really. Russia has a shadow of the influence and reach of the Soviet Union and the conflicts and issues of today don't hold a candle to the stuff the world faced during the actual Cold War.
    Russia doesn't have a military base in one single former Eastern bloc nation, and they're all in the EU and NATO. The only country it exerts the same level of influence over as the USSR did is Belarus. Sounds like a super win for the West to me.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Part of it was military and part of it was economic inefficiency. The Soviet Union collapsed on its own accord. It tried to reform and the reform opened it up to attack
    Again, the need for reform was brought about by the United States massively upping the ante. Cuba and North Korea are what happens when the USA takes passive measures against you. Total collapse is what happens when the USA goes for the jugular.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I don't think we can really congratulate the west for modern day Korea. We helped to demolish South Korea during the war, separated many families, helped to install a military dictatorship and turned a blind eye to the authoritarian governments abuse of human rights. Now South Korea share a border that is the most militarised zone in the world and live in constant threat of an impending war. The Korean people stood up bravely and challenged their Western backed dictatorship and after many struggles, persevered.
    We can congratulate the West for South Korean independence, which is all I ever said. Again this is another use of your bizarre logic- that South Korea should have been conquered by North Korea so that it wouldn't have to live in 'fear' of North Korea.


    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Islamism does have a lot of support sadly. Whilst many might not wholly support ISIS, as we can see from Egypt, people of the Middle East are more than happy to elect an Islamist group like the Muslim Brotherhood. Communism also used to have a lot of support once upon a time. The genocides we support in Indonesia didn't stop communism. Rather communisms own collapse caused its own failure.

    And I can't quite emphasise that we keep repeating the same mistakes. We overthrow ISIS, prop up a new abusive military dictatorship, who will get overthrown and ISIS 2.0 will arise, and with each incarnation they seem to be getting worse.
    What does support have to do with anything? Do you like and advocate solely because other people like them? Communism would not have collapsed the way it did if the West simply sat back and did nothing. To suggest otherwise is delusional. The same goes for radical Islamist ideology.

    What same mistakes? As far as I'm aware the cycle of 'overthrowing a dictator and allowing ISIS to breed' stands at 1.
    One thing that definitely wasn't a mistake is saving tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    As opposed to legitimising their existence by continuing to lead military campaigns in the Middle East?

    Ah, so which Middle East military conflict has had a successful end? As I said, our current stance is clearly not working as such groups keep continuing to rise up.
    Okay first of all, you can't argue that legitimising a groups existence is bad and offer an alternative of legitimising their existence.
    Secondly, how is it legitimising their existence? What country has come out in support of ISIS since the Western bombing campaign? Who exactly now supports them specifically because of it that wouldn't or didn't before? Who has decided that the thousands of innocents saved and zero civilian casualties caused by the British bombing campaign is a reason to support ISIS?
    Public opinion pretty much the world over is firmly against ISIS. Even the Saudis are apparently starting to regret having funded them.
    Sanctioning the destruction of something is quite literally the opposite of legitimising it.
    In the Middle East? Kuwait.
    Pretty much the only major military intervention before Iraq in 2003. You try and imply this is a centuries old cycle of failed interventions, but literally the post-invasion occupation of Iraq is the one and only 'mistake'. Worldwide I've provided numerous examples of successful military interventions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Calling Turkey a 'backwards, alien country and culture' is complete rubbish. Have you been to turkey? Have you spoken to turks in turkey? It's a progressive country in terms of their values, despite that the government is more traditional than usual at the moment - but even then, the governments cultural conservatism does include progressive elements, too.

    Turkish culture is extremely similar to the european countries nearby to it. Greek and turkish cultures are very close together, and so are the balkan regions' cultures to turkey's.
    I have been to Turkey, and I stand by my claim that it is a backward country. Despite its supposed secular nature, it seems to be increasingly going the Islamic way, as demonstrated by this election - and that is alien.

    Its neighbours aren't much better and should never have been allowed to join the EU. Look what the Greek cultural accomplishment of ignoring good sense and perfectly valid rules did to the euro and almost did to the EU economy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    ...Did you guys not know about the taliban's pashtunwaali influences?



    No, lmao. Most of my friends absolutely hate the taliban, especially my friends in Kunduz and near the border of the Pakistani pattan (pashto) region.
    I do know about their rampant human rights abuses and hostile attitude to the half of the country (now majority) that isn't Pashtun.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I have been to Turkey, and I stand by my claim that it is a backward country. Despite its supposed secular nature, it seems to be increasingly going the Islamic way, as demonstrated by this election - and that is alien.

    Its neighbours aren't much better and should never have been allowed to join the EU. Look what the Greek cultural accomplishment of ignoring good sense and perfectly valid rules did to the euro and almost did to the EU economy.
    These are actually good points, although as far as the EU goes I'm a pan-europeanist, although with no interest in federalism or confederalism.

    Islam is hardly alien to Europe, in any case.
    Although only Albania and Kosovo have muslim majorities, there are a lot of european countries with large proportions of muslims, as well as countries with regions of majority indigenous muslims, as is the case in bulgaria. As I'm sure you know, Spain was a, or contained one muslim state for about 900 years, and the French Republic once included Algeria, from which now roughly a fifth of French citizens are ethnically linked to.

    Of course it's not as pervasive as atheism or christianity, or as culturally ingrained as judaism. But it's present, and it has been for a long time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I do know about their rampant human rights abuses and hostile attitude to the half of the country (now majority) that isn't Pashtun.
    That's part of my point. They're a pashtun nationalist group with islamist tendencies, which were mainly used to win support from other sunni self-described islamist countries like saudi arabia in the war against the USSR. I do not like or promote the taliban. They murdered over 10000 of my fellow shia adherents in afghanistan, wiping out entire villages.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    As I'm sure you know, Spain was a, or contained one muslim state for about 900 years
    Yes. That was the result of an Islamic defensive war, no doubt, with no aggressive conquest involved.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes. That was the result of an Islamic defensive war, no doubt, with no aggressive conquest involved.
    No, it was 100% aggressive conquest, I'm not going to defend muslim actions in history for the simple fact that there are hardly any I agree with. Besides, the people who did it were the Ummayids, who as a shia, you might know that I'm gonna despise by default because of their treatment of Muhammad's family.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    No, it was 100% aggressive conquest
    It's refreshing to see a Moslem accept that there have been instances of Islamic aggression. Most refuse to countenance it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes. That was the result of an Islamic defensive war, no doubt, with no aggressive conquest involved.
    Regardless, in the last few centuries of muslim rule in spain, most of the ethnic iberian population had converted to Islam - the inquisition was far more oppressive than any muslim dynasty in Spain's actions towards non muslims. Even the Almohads and Almoravids weren't as bad.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.