@diplomat61

"before you start calling me a bigot or small minded read what I posted. I said in the NAME of religion."

Now wait I didn't call you small minded or a biggot. I merely asked if you were such a small minded biggot that you blamed all religion for such atrocities. Since you did not qualify which religions or which type of religions you held responsible, nor did you state which members of these religions were most likely given to this sort of thing; it was a legitimate question. It certainly seemed as if you were laying the blame for this instance on religion rather than Shi'a Islam or radicals within the Shite Muslims.

Crazy -- you know that anytime religion comes up that atheists paint with a broad brush, incapable of distinguishing between one demented individual that misinterprets doctrine for their personal power/benefit and the vast, overwhelming majority who are decent people trying to get through this life...As I have said before when such people rail against religion, perhaps the atheists should all turn to God, because there are some rotten atheists, too. I used to work with one who prided herself on getting into fights for the slightest of offenses, had no problems lying, cheating and stealing for her personal benefit...thus, all atheists are corrupt (by the standards of these forums...)

@krellin, you said/: 'I say send in the troops and overthrow the government of the brutal regime that would allow such disgusting behavior...but then I'd be accused of trying to put the US's bootprint on the world and told we need to keep our damned noses out of other people's business.' - well considering in 1979 the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah (a monarch who ruled the state with the help of a one party political system) they actually - this movement which lead to a theocracy was actually moving against the system which the US proped up.

Where the US provide weapons to undemocratic governments these governments use them to supress their population. Their population eventually rebels. In this case the harm done by US influence.

Successful regime change can only come from people choosing to change their own system.

US boots on the ground will just lead to deaths and de-stabilising one of the worlds biggest oil producers (which i suppose i wouldn't mind)

'People talk about cultural diversity and countries being "arrogant" because they think their culture is better than another countries...apart from overthrowing the regime, there is nothing that can be done.'

There is something you can do.

Have you heard of 'propoganda', or perhaps the corporation-based cousin 'advertising'. Something which has become a major force in today's world - the idea of controlling people not by force but by manipulation of information.

Ok, it mostly applies to 'western' nations which has 'freedom'...

'Who the hell is anyone here to say that a wife having an affair isn't a death-penalty offense?' - That really depends on your take on the idea of moral relativism. While it means that all moral system are equally valid (ie human created, flawed) That does not imply that they are equivalent.

We are allowed disagree with what someone else considers moral, and in fact it is our duty as citizens to do our best (within the laws of our society) to do our best to prevent injustice when we see it.

Freedom of expression is important just because it is a tool we can use to change things (without violence)

So this is a) not pointsless.
b) not wrong OR arrogant OR hypocritical
c) not immoral (in our value system)

'It certainly seemed as if you were laying the blame for this instance on religion rather than Shi'a Islam or radicals within the Shite Muslims.' I think that was Miro, Diplomat was, let's say more diplomatic...

@Crazy: wriggle, wriggle little worm.

"Now wait I didn't call you small minded or a biggot. I merely asked if you were such a small minded biggot that you blamed all religion for such atrocities." It was pretty obvious that I was not blaming ANY religion so there was absolutely no reason to include my quote in your post.

"Since you did not qualify which religions or which type of religions you held responsible, nor did you state which members of these religions were most likely given to this sort of thing; it was a legitimate question." Orathaic had explained the context of this story, specifying which religion was superfluous.

"It certainly seemed as if you were laying the blame for this instance on religion rather than Shi'a Islam or radicals within the Shite Muslims." You cannot get that from my post, you assumed it.

Let me spell out my position to you in case you misunderstand again.
- I believe that it is wrong for any one to impose their beliefs on another
- I believe that the death penalty is wrong
- I believe that the treatment of this woman is unfair
- I believe that her treatment is based upon the "religious" beliefs of those judging her
- I believe that those beliefs are not a reflection of the true nature of Islam
- I believe that those punishing believe they are acting in accordance with their religion, although I do not know why they think this
- I believe all religions have been used to justify evil acts which are not actually in accordance with their teachings
- I believe you should read someone's post before accusing them of bigotry.

@orthaic -- Yeah, I've heard of "propoganda"....and if the US *dares* use propoganda to prop up it's version of morality, people like you will slam us for being arrogant know-it-alls. So, once again, we are back to square one. There is no solution that you *really* like. Individuals posting bullshit on websites will do nothing/has done nothing to promote change. Only government action will influence the Iranian government...but you won't have that. You are stuck by your own morality.

As far as the problems in Iran are ALLLLLLLL the fault of the US....OMG! Does it never stop with you blithering idiots? You know, when the US props up this regime or that, it is usually *with the knowledge and acceptance* of our allies...which would be your country. this notion that the US goes around setting up and destroying countries all by it's self is such bullshit --- and you KNOW it. It's really pathetic.

By the way, whenver people in this country speak out -- use propoganda -- against Islam, we get ridiculed (by people like you) for being insensitive, racist, whatever.

Boots on the ground - the only way. And, by the way, look at Iraq where women now serve in the government, go to school, and are becoming a greater part of society. Your argument that we can not be a force to positively influence nations is complete and utter bullshit. As is typical of your ilk, your memory of US history *only* includes things you deem bad, and you forget any thing we have ever done sacrificially for the good of others. It really is sad and pathetic. I wonder what *your* great nation is doing to help others....and by "doing" I mean actually *having an effect*, not just flapping their jaws about things.

@diplomat -- Your list of "I believe's..." is really nice....FOR YOU. But since you judge everybody by your set of beliefs and only your set of beliefs, that makes you a closed-minded bigot by definition, since you apparently have no sensitivity to different cultures and history.

@Krellin: You are the one wielding a broad brush. There are people of all faiths, and none, who behave badly. I doubt that you are so stupid as to believe the opposite.

"you know that anytime religion comes up that atheists paint with a broad brush, incapable of distinguishing between one demented individual that misinterprets doctrine for their personal power/benefit and the vast, overwhelming majority who are decent people trying to get through this life."
I am an atheist but I have not blamed religion, only people's practice of it.

"I used to work with one who prided herself on getting into fights ... thus, all atheists are corrupt"
It is absolutely ridiculous to conclude that because one person behaves badly all those who have one belief in common they are the same in all others. I am an atheist but unlike your ex-colleague I respect property rights. Am I corrupt? Does respecting property rights override the corruption of atheism? What about being truthful? Is that enough to overcome corruption?

@Krellin
Yes, those are my beliefs. Have I tried to impose them on you? no! Have I tried to impose them on anyone? no!

Having lived in countries with three different cultures: Christian, Confucian and Islamic I am extremely aware and respectful of them.

@Diplomat -- Maybe you should READ what I wrote. First of all "people's practice of religion is the problem...not religion." <rolls his eyes....>

My statement - my broad brush stroke - was mocking the atheists on here, using their own argument. Duhhh! Over and over and over again the local atheists bash religion, pointing out an incident of bad behavior and use it to condemn religion. You try to pretend you are rational by making asinine statements like you did ... it's about the same as the racist saying I not a racist, I have a black friend...I just hate their culture. It's a desparately ignorant and tired argument. OF COURSE my atheists friend does not represent all atheists - the statement IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING my anology was that all athheists should be condemned for her behavior *USING THE ATHEIST'S STANDARD as seen in these collective forums: i.e. one bad apple spoils all religion"

I'm very happy for your vasy, diverse experience. One would think - based upon those experiences - that you wouldn't be so narrow minded. You DO try to enforce your ideology on others when you come on here and criticize other's behavior, suggesting people should change to *your* morality and yours alone. If you were not a closed-minded bigot, you would openly accept and embrace other's culture.

NO WOMAN need die in an Islamic nation. All they have to do is follow the WELL-KNOWN laws of the land. but bigots like you come along and say you are intellectually and morally superior (based upon what, I don't know...) and claim their way is wrong. You cliam to be respectful of other cultures....while bashing them. How ironic...

@krellin

"NO WOMAN need die in an Islamic nation. All they have to do is follow the WELL-KNOWN laws of the land. but bigots like you come along and say you are intellectually and morally superior (based upon what, I don't know..."

Sexual equality, superior...
Freedom of speech, superior...
Human rights, superior..
Krellin i don´t know where you come from, but you sound like an islamic sexist with a small penis who has to supress his women cause she is more clever than you :-)
If you are not that kinda guy, your just a moron saying those medieval and childish things about woman.
Western culture is not perfect at all, but is superior to all when it comes do freedom, equality and peace :-)

@diplomat

I certainly did misunderstand you. I also apologize if you think that I intimated that you were a bigot. That was not the intent, I did earnestly want for you to clarify or defend your position. You clarified it once with what I thought was dubious post in which you said "read what I said" and went on to add details that I could not have know from your initial post & I countered with an equally dubious reaction. You clarified again very well and succinctly, thank you. There is little that I actually disagree with you on. I would merely ask that you not assume that we all completely understand that intent behind a seven word sentence fragment.

Fair enough?

'Yeah, I've heard of "propoganda"....and if the US *dares* use propoganda to prop up it's version of morality, people like you will slam us for being arrogant know-it-alls. So, once again, we are back to square one.' - State propoganda is used ALL the time, and the US is slammed for it (because of their state policy which they are trying to push on other countries) I mean literally ALL the time. They have an office for it in the White House.

Now some Americans may say it doesn't represent what they personally believe. HOW and EVER it is the weapon of choice in the modern world. (when not fighting) and it is entirely right for non-governmental agencies to use it just as much as anyone else.

'it is usually *with the knowledge and acceptance* of our allies...which would be your country.' - 1, my country is not a US ally. Trading partner yes, ally no. we're neutral and have had government progpaganda, eh i mean spokesperson, complain about little things like Iraq and US policy in the middle east (re: Israel) but I (or anyone else) doesn't have to agree with my government, even if they do support the US that doesn't mean we have to agree with what you're doing. (and not all Americans agree with US foreign policy) does that somehow make all objection unimportant?

'this notion that the US goes around setting up and destroying countries all by it's self is such bullshit --- and you KNOW it. It's really pathetic.' - that's not what this is about and you fucking well know it. This is about you pathetically suggesting sending troops in as the only solution.

Well i'm glad you don't value anything other than pointing guns at people, but in civilised circles we have other tools at our disposal for getting what we want (whether that is world peace, global justice, or economic prosperity - of course there are those who oppose these movements...)

'You DO try to enforce your ideology on others when you come on here and criticize other's behavior' - as i've been saying, to not do so, to not try and stop injustice is itself wrong.

And Letting Hitler's Nazis take away Jewish, Gay, and handicapped neighbours was wrong. (though doing so because you feared for your life was understandable)

If you disagree with this then perhaps you have a point.

@Miro - OF COURSE western culture is superior. If you haven't read all my posts, I am mixing two ideas: 1. the idiots on here that constantly criticize western culture for claiming to be superior and trying to impose their morality on the rest of the world, and 2. Using their idea - that our culture is not superior - and therefore we have no right to criticize a culture where women are murdered, even though they can avoid their murder by obeying the laws.

OF COURSE sexual superiority is wrong, suppressing free speech is wrong, etc. But, only by stating the things I stated can I get people to comprehend that fact that you can't say "Stop acting morally superior" and then say "Start being morally superior and stop this wrong"

@orthaic "in civilised circles we have other tools at our disposal". You are a moron, through and through. How long have women been oppressed in Islamic culture? Apparently all you feel-good bullshit solutions don't work, idiot! I love when you liberal fools start flapping your self-righteous jaws pretending that your expression of your ideas will cause, for example, the Islamic leaders of Iran to change your mind. Get your Utopian head out of your ass, fool. If talking could solve the world's problems, there would be no problems because people talk about peace and love and all that crap all the time...then they turn on their TV's to see some woman getting stoned to death in Iran and say "Oh...if we could just get a few more people to talk about this, it would allll go away." Grow up. Maybe read a history book or two and then tell me how much good your feel-good talking goes to solving the problems of dictators and oppressive regimes. fool...

@krellin

I do not always agree with orathaic, but the terms "fool, idiot, and moron" could not be farther from the truth. I've found him to be someone who thinks through his statements very well.

@Krellin: 'Apparently all you feel-good bullshit solutions don't work, idiot!' it was only in the 60s that the feminist movement really became a force for social change in America. Before that there was no movement of people (and no country) who would push for the rights of women. They worked on their own cultures first, and since the 60s America and much of Western Europe has changed a huge amount.

ok the movement for more equality in Western Europe didn't just happen over night, (UK, 1918, All males over the age of 21 were granted the right to vote and women over 30, with some property restrictions. US, 1920 The 19th Amendment extended to women the right to vote.) - this was a long process which took many decades of change, and the feminist movement in the 60s was a new social upheaval.

Islamic culture did not embrace these values, but as they weren't even deciding thigns for themselves until (in most cases) post-World War 2 it is not surprising.

Are you telling me that just because these countries are Islamic they persecute women?

It is because of the history, religion and politics of these countries.

The fact that i'm a Utopian doesn't mean i'm not also a realist, and it doesn't mean i have my head up my ass.

I sometimes question whether these means are effective, but i do not question that somethign has to be done, nor that this is moral.

You're doubting the effectiveness of advocating change, well NOT advocating change isn't going to do any better. Also threatening to invade someone isn't going to bend them towards your point of view either.

Invasions have in the past successfully subverted one culture to another in the past, but that was when people would colonise, trade and fully conquer a people (opressing any resistance for decades when neccesary)

and it was back in a time when it was much harder to kill someone (no IEDs or hellfire missles fired from drones) An occupying nation could afford to show much more restraint.

I'd like to see you provide an example of a succeffuly 'boots on the ground' mission from the past 100 years.

"If talking could solve the world's problems, there would be no problems"

If 'boots on the ground' could solve the world's problems, there would be no problems.

Now find me an effective tactic and i'll consider it.

Find me a moral one and i'll rejoice.

Successful boots on the ground missions of the past 100 years? You could argue various parts of WW2 and the occupations of Japan and Germany afterwards. The liberation of Kuwait in 1991 was pretty successful, as was the western intervention in Korea in the 50's, and the liberation of the Falklands from Argentina in the 80s. I dare say the Chinese would argue that the occupation of Tibet has gone rather well, with only very light and predominantly non violent resistance. Boots on the ground can work well if done properly.

ok, the Chinese occupation of Tibet i will give you, if only because they've spent the required decades occupying the place (along with enough migration that only about 50% of the population of tibet is still ethnically tibetan) - the lack of resistance would mainly be due to the huge buddhist influence in Tibet.

I the 80s the UK prevented Argentina from taking over the Falklans, that coutns as keeping something which was already British, so i'm not even considering giving you that one.

The liberation of Kuwait fall close to that category, it was a case of US troops removing Iraqi troops from NOT Iraq - so local resistance was - i imagine - minimal.

WW2 was again a defensive war (on the part of the allies) the Germans in france faced some resistance, if they had taken over Britian they would have faced resistance. In Poland - just as the Red army approached Warsaw - the Poles rose up, (and were left to die at German hands)

Post war the victorious powers (who hadn't invaded and were just leaving the agressor countries in relative peace) mostly withdrew, with the US leaving troops in militrary bases in Germany (among other places) for decades. But Western Europe was mostly not occupied by external powers - nor was in integrated into an externally based Empire. (ok except by American propaganda, and soft influence - but that is what i'm saying HAS happened)

Eastern Europe on the other hand DID have 'boots on the ground' from the Soviet Union The really went all out to dominate several states, have them run themselves as communist soviets, and integrate into a super power empire. So like China in Tibet, i will give you this, the Soviet Union were willing to commit the manpower and time to really change Eastern Europe into a communist 'paradise'.

Korea i don't actually know what to say about. Though the fact that there were foreign troops on the ground from (China/Russia) on one side and US+ allies on the other makes it much easier to justify putting troops on the grond (from the local population's point of view)

So, ok 'Boots on the ground can work well if done properly.'
Tibet yes, when combined with massive migration, decades of militrary investment, trade and against a Buddhist nation. Very successful.

Take away any one of those four things and the result doesn't match up.
so don't invade Islamic nations for one thing...

Sooo....most of the recent major military incursions in modern history have been successful...but it's a bad idea and won't work. <rolls eyes at ignorance...> But hey, who am I to tell you to let facts get in the way of your demented opinion.

You are right...don't invade Islamic nations. I'm sure all the women who suffered in the RAPE ROOMS under Hussien wish that he were back in power. I'm sure all the ghost of the Kurds that Hussein attempted genocide on would rather he have been left in power to finish off the deed. Simply amazing....

Hmm...rape rooms....we saved women from rape and murder under Hussein....but that was a bad war...But here we are debating on a forum started because women are being oppressed in an Islamic regiem and crying about how bad that is. We have a solid example of a military take-over that has changed the situation, but this doesn't count. Yet in Iran there is a desire for an overthrow of the regime....one that was sadly ignored by B Hussein Obama during the recent Green Revolution...

sadly ignored by Obama, perhaps because you're already busy fighting two wars in neighbouring countries. Maybe he's being careful and trying to finish at least one before he starts another. ...

i know when i play in three dip games at the same time i sometimes forget to play aswell in one of them!

and 'most of the recent major military incursions in modern history have been successful' No, please define 'most' and then from the ones on Octavious's list show where 'most' were successful.

Falklans doesn't come close to counting because we weren't argueing about using your own troops in your own territory. (and about 99% of the inhabitants of the Falklans consider it to be part of the British Empire) Did you even read my reply to octavious or are you not capable of assimulating the information? Seriously!

Orthaic....he didn't even use the All-Powerful Podium of Progoganda to tear down the brutal Iranian regime with his words....After all, accoring to you, rhetoric is all you need to change the world.....lol

Beside which, once again, if there were a few countries out there *besides* the US that had the balls to step up and do the right thing, maybe Iran wouldn't be so belligerent. Basically, as long as the US is tied up in two wars, the rest of the world has free hand to do whatever it wants because the rest of the world is full of pussies -- is that what you are saying???

@Orthaic -- I'll turn it on you....give me a list of all US and allied military incursions of the last hundred years and then tell me which ones were failures...and why they were failures. then let's look at the percentages. You (as is typical of your ilk) make these broad-based "the US sucks and all it's wars"...then you get pinned into a corner and have to admit some were good....but insist on your stupid generalizations without ever presenting facts to support your insults.

The Falkans IS valid...Ask the people in the Falkans! Oh...wait....it goes against your argument so it doesn't count...<sigh....>

Rape rooms? WTF? And once again, who was one of Saddam's main benefactors? Why, it was the United States. Who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons? Oh, the United States. You guys (your government) has a problem of creating problems, ignoring them, and then wasting massive amounts of time, money and people cleaning them up. But it feeds your military-industrial complex (don't call this some liberal hogwash, Eisenhower warned you about this), so it must be good, right?

'After all, accoring to you, rhetoric is all you need to change the world' - no, i never even said it was effective, i said it was right.

Also you are the one who claimed 'Boots on the ground - the only way' - it is up to you to prove your position.

Also Britian DIDN'T invade and colonise the Falklans in the past 100 years.

It doesn't go against my arguement because it started as a British territory and colony 100 years ago and it still is. (with varying degrees of autonomy...)

ALSO note i never said 'the US sucks and all it's wars" i'm talking about ALL militrary incursions.

YES i admit CHINA did it, I fully accept that Tibet is a counter example which disproves my point, but i went one to outline the four major issues where Tibet is different from most other invasions in the past centrury.

@Largeham....Yeah, the United States all by itself it responsible for every bad guy in the world. You guys are so fucking boring with your tired, trite anti-America tirades...

How about you answer the question quesstion: List all US and allied military involvements and what their outcome was and what the success or failure was. Until your justify your ranns against the US with more than one recent war then you just prove yourselves to be morons. And don't try Viet Nam...because we were there to bail out the French after they spent a couple centuries raping the land and people...

@Largeham -- Oh yeah....by the way, the rape room in Hussiens regime....the US taught him how to do that and even set 'em up! that was our idea! Of course...since the rape rooms go against your argument, you deny their existence. typical...