Swiss ban minarets

[lord of flies]

I think religious freedom and democracy are quite good things [...]

I think no civilized country should supply the arms which the government points at their oppressed population. That is not exactly making the world a freer and better place to live in.

I'd like to know if you think this is always true, though, and why. Hate and oppression are older than weapons deals. Interahamwe mobs were armed simply with machetes, and they were scary effective.

 

A freer world may be a better place to live in, but it's little good if you are, in fact, dead. For example, with Saddam Hussein, oppression prevented Iraq from spiralling down into civil war. Mexico could use some old fashioned military repression around some places. Colombia, where druglords and pseudo-marxist guerrillas "coexist" with democracy, is another good example. In Pakistan, chances are they are starting to regret they pressured uncle Pervez into resigning. Primo de Rivera's military dictatorship brought good things to Spain, if only for a short time. Examples abound, really, where more freedom isn't such a good idea.

 

It's a complex issue, so I'm always looking for more opinions. The relation between fear, repression and peace and order isn't fixed and depends on who, where and when you're looking at.

This is quite possibly the most disgusting opinion I have read on these forums in a long time, if forever. Good job.

 

Saddam Hussein - brutal dictator, or misremembered leader? Could military dictatorships do good for Latin America? Find out this and more, on tonight's episode of Atrocious Opinions No One Should Unironically Hold - But Do.

[Walsingham]

Numbers: I'm reminded of something I once heard about how it doesn't so much matter where you're standing as which way you are facing. I guess it matters less whether you are being slightly oppressed than if you are going to get less oppressed or more oppressed as time goes by.

 

Not sure I agree about Mexico needing a military junta. Juntas get coorupted as well, you know. Look at Burma.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Don't forget under Sharia law it is punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion.

 

True. Which is why i would regard sharia law as incompatible with liberal democracy. BUt being a muslim does not necessarily mean you expect shria law to be applied any more than being a christian means you expect all that guff in Deuteronomy about stoning people to be carried out.

 

Muslims living in western countries practise their cultures according to the cultural traditions of their individual countries and in some cases according to different ethnic traditions within these national cultural traditions. Assimilation is seen as a racist model that expressed the supremacy of the host society in cultural rather than racial terms. The replacement of assimilation is multiculturalism as the dominant theme in immigration and settlement policy. Muslim integration or lack thereof, has a lot to do with the levels of racism and discrimination that still exist in that society [i.e. the blame goes to the host country's residents racism and not the muslims lack of integration]*.

 

This is taken from the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship website.

 

* My interpretation in brackets of this statement.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I'm against religious discrimination, but as has been said you can't build a church in Muslim countries at all. Muslims should look at themselves first before complaining.

 

Talking about religious discrimination, how about Muslims having seperate toilets from non-muslims at an Australian University? I know the website itself is bias but the article itself is a bit of a worry. Reminds me of the Black and White toilets that happened in America. I've been trying to find another source to this to substantiate this story but all the mainstream media seem to not be reporting this.

[213374U]

This is quite possibly the most disgusting opinion I have read on these forums in a long time, if forever. Good job.

 

Saddam Hussein - brutal dictator, or misremembered leader? Could military dictatorships do good for Latin America? Find out this and more, on tonight's episode of Atrocious Opinions No One Should Unironically Hold - But Do.

I'm thinking... if you were a TV producer, you'd be out of a job faster than you can say "Lenin".

 

And, as usual, you are cherrypicking. Saddam was unequivocally a mass murderer, but that was the point. Is Iraq better off now? If so, it's time you gave American imperialism the credit it's due. At any rate, I wasn't specifically advocating military juntas - Soviet leaders weren't military men, but they knew a thing or two about repression and keeping order. So why don't you explain in detail how democracy and more "freedom" are under all circumstances, always, better? I was asking for opinions.

[lord of flies]

And, as usual, you are cherrypicking. Saddam was unequivocally a mass murderer, but that was the point. Is Iraq better off now? If so, it's time you gave American imperialism the credit it's due.

Iraq never devolved into civil war, unless you consider violence against an obvious American puppet regime to be "civil war." It is also not "better off," since the American empire has proven it shares that dictatorial quality of brutality and murder.

At any rate, I wasn't specifically advocating military juntas - Soviet leaders weren't military men, but they knew a thing or two about repression and keeping order.

The Soviet leaders suppressed reactionaries who were making running the Soviet state impossible or very difficult. Occasionally, things got out of hand and non-reactionary scum was killed. That is regrettable, but understandable. There is a very big difference between what the Soviet Union did (persecute class traitors, crypto-fascists and other reactionaries) and what right-wing authoritarian regimes did (kill any citizen preoccupied with civil rights).

[Pidesco]

And, as usual, you are cherrypicking. Saddam was unequivocally a mass murderer, but that was the point. Is Iraq better off now? If so, it's time you gave American imperialism the credit it's due.

Iraq never devolved into civil war, unless you consider violence against an obvious American puppet regime to be "civil war." It is also not "better off," since the American empire has proven it shares that dictatorial quality of brutality and murder.

At any rate, I wasn't specifically advocating military juntas - Soviet leaders weren't military men, but they knew a thing or two about repression and keeping order.

The Soviet leaders suppressed reactionaries who were making running the Soviet state impossible or very difficult. Occasionally, things got out of hand and non-reactionary scum was killed. That is regrettable, but understandable. There is a very big difference between what the Soviet Union did (persecute class traitors, crypto-fascists and other reactionaries) and what right-wing authoritarian regimes did (kill any citizen preoccupied with civil rights).

 

 

Huh, Stalin was a paranoid nutcase who sent people to the gulags for breathing the wrong way. Also, it was Soviet policy during WWII to kill off any Soviet citizens who survived German occupation on account of "treason". In any case, the Soviet Union was responsible for the "disappearance" of many millions of people.

[Walsingham]

This is quite possibly the most disgusting opinion I have read on these forums in a long time, if forever. Good job.

 

Saddam Hussein - brutal dictator, or misremembered leader? Could military dictatorships do good for Latin America? Find out this and more, on tonight's episode of Atrocious Opinions No One Should Unironically Hold - But Do.

I'm thinking... if you were a TV producer, you'd be out of a job faster than you can say "Lenin".

 

And, as usual, you are cherrypicking. Saddam was unequivocally a mass murderer, but that was the point. Is Iraq better off now? If so, it's time you gave American imperialism the credit it's due. At any rate, I wasn't specifically advocating military juntas - Soviet leaders weren't military men, but they knew a thing or two about repression and keeping order. So why don't you explain in detail how democracy and more "freedom" are under all circumstances, always, better? I was asking for opinions.

 

Numbers has another point which pleases me greatly. France and Russia also backed Saddam during the 1980s but unlike the US and UK tried everything they could to block the decision to remove him with military force, in an effort to protect the billions still owed to them by his government in cash and corporate deals.

 

As Numbers says you can't have it both ways.

[michaelleung]

Oh great, now them terrorists are going to begin jihad in Switzerland. Talk about neutral.

[213374U]

All power to the soviets!

You're not even trying.

 

It's cute how you justify as "understandable", the mass deportations, purges, summary executions, show trials, russification etc, that constitute as a whole the largest centrally organized genocide effort in history, but dismiss out of hand other authoritarian regimes on grounds that they are "right wing". I already gave you Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship as an example of a practically bloodless regime that worked well. Your rhetoric (for a lack of tangible arguments) is destroyed with a simple counterexample.

 

Can you put down the hammer and sickle for a second and look at things from a factual perspective? The whole "no war but class war" schtick may be cool, but you can only do so much with it.

Edited December 1, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

All power to the soviets!

You're not even trying.

 

Can you put down the hammer and sickle for a second and look at things from a factual perspective? The whole "no war but class war" schtick may be cool, but you can only do so much with it.

 

It's his schtick. I'd put a twenty on him being around 22-23 years old, recently left college. He's looking for an extension of the revolutionary kudos he enjoyed there by coming online. Hopefully he'll get more dimensions as time goes by.

[urielrose]

I really hate muslims in general, but I think this time they are right, it is just not right to discriminate a religious group from stupid reason.

I wonder, if swiss will ban huge orthodox cathedrals ,what the christian world would say.

I believe in a complete religious freedom in any country (excluding human sacrifice and ****) if they want to build a huge monumant in honor of their deity- let them do it.

[lord of flies]

All power to the soviets!

You're not even trying.

 

It's cute how you justify as "understandable", the mass deportations, purges, summary executions, show trials, russification etc, that constitute as a whole the largest centrally organized genocide effort in history, but dismiss out of hand other authoritarian regimes on grounds that they are "right wing". I already gave you Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship as an example of a practically bloodless regime that worked well. Your rhetoric (for a lack of tangible arguments) is destroyed with a simple counterexample.

 

Can you put down the hammer and sickle for a second and look at things from a factual perspective? The whole "no war but class war" schtick may be cool, but you can only do so much with it.

It's cool how you pretend like the Soviet Union ever engaged in genocide. Newsflash: aside for war crimes during WW2 (for reasons which should be very obvious), the USSR never engaged in anything like a genocide. Ever.

 

Counter-revolutionaries isn't a race or ethnicity.

[Walsingham]

I really hate muslims in general,

 

WTF?

[Gorgon]

I think people who feel strongly about it are more likely to vote, it seems the people who feel the strongest about this are those who believe in the 'muslim conspiracy'. With election participation 50-something percent, was it ?, it can't help but be problematic.

[Gorgon]

That's what living in a war zone does, can't surprise anyone. One can draw a direct connection between Coventry, which was almost completely destroyed in the blitz and The Ruhr.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A lot of those are long existing churches, and its true not every Muslim country disallows building of churches. I know Saudi Arabia doesn't allow it.

 

Saudi Arabia is quite the tyrannical exception among countries in the Middle East. Is that why they get so much military aid from the US? Or was it the other way around?

Saudi Arabia is no exception, and it's not the worst of them, not by a long shot.

 

This is quite possibly the most disgusting opinion I have read on these forums in a long time, if forever. Good job.

Oh, the irony!

Edited December 1, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Lare Kikkeli]

As usual Dagon gives us his opinions as facts. Please, show some evidence that the majority of muslim countries don't allow Christian churches built.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't say that, I'm saying Saudi Arabia isn't the worst tyranny in the Middle East by a long shot, learn to read.

[HoonDing]

Being slightly dyslexic, I keep reading this topic as "Swiss ban minerals". Highly annoying.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Oh? I apologise, you just seem to change your arguments and opinions so fast when other people point how wrong you are it's hard to keep track...

 

As far as the worst tyrannys go I guess that depends on how you look at it... I guess Israel could be considered a tyranny. Iran is pretty bad, but so are most muslim countries. I think Saudi-Arabia is one of the worst once, they've just subdued their people well.

[Hurlshort]

I really hate muslims in general,

 

WTF?

 

What? You don't hate a billion people on general principal?

[Walsingham]

All power to the soviets!

You're not even trying.

 

It's cute how you justify as "understandable", the mass deportations, purges, summary executions, show trials, russification etc, that constitute as a whole the largest centrally organized genocide effort in history, but dismiss out of hand other authoritarian regimes on grounds that they are "right wing". I already gave you Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship as an example of a practically bloodless regime that worked well. Your rhetoric (for a lack of tangible arguments) is destroyed with a simple counterexample.

 

Can you put down the hammer and sickle for a second and look at things from a factual perspective? The whole "no war but class war" schtick may be cool, but you can only do so much with it.

It's cool how you pretend like the Soviet Union ever engaged in genocide. Newsflash: aside for war crimes during WW2 (for reasons which should be very obvious), the USSR never engaged in anything like a genocide. Ever.

 

Counter-revolutionaries isn't a race or ethnicity.

 

Cossacks.

[213374U]

Newsflash: aside for war crimes during WW2 (for reasons which should be very obvious), the USSR never engaged in anything like a genocide. Ever.

 

Counter-revolutionaries isn't a race or ethnicity.

No? I thought you took pride in your knowledge of the Soviet Union. Look up Operation Lentil, or any other of the many forced mass relocations, expulsions or deportations implemented by the USSR.

 

Labeling a group of people "counter-revolutionaries" or whatever doesn't change the fact that it's genocide or excuses responsibility from it, and neither does the circumstance that many of the genocides perpetrated by the Soviet Union took place during wartime.

 

edit: In fact, your defense of Soviet oppression has been proving my point. Sorry for not noticing before, blame my lack of sleep.

Edited December 1, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I think it's cute that labelling people counter-revolutionaries makes mass murder ok. I've actually seen a mass grave (unknown perpetrators, Mozambique), not a huge one, but big enough. It was grotesquely ordinary. Just bits of bone sticking up out of the sand into the jolly tropical sun. As seemingly irrelevant and embarassing as a grandparent at a university dance.

 

But that's fine. If you think the smell of progress is the smell of the putrifying corpses after the systematic extermination of millions then good luck to you.