Iraqi Gays Tortured

[al-rawandi]

This is precisely the irrational violence that can be expected from Islam. I am eager to hear the usual chorus of people who expect us to negotiate with people like this. Do we expect the Israelis to negotiate with people like this in their conflict? Do we expect our withdrawal from Iraq to usher in a period of peace and justice for Iraq? There is no compromise with such religiots. This is precisely what Islam prescribes for homosexuals.... torture and death.

No, you cannot negotiate with people of such a theocratic, medieval, unenlightened, anti-humanist mindset. They are stuck in the same morass that christianity was a few hundred years ago.

Al-Rawandi, I'd like to hear your opinion about why the vast majority of christians have jettisoned murderous crusades, witch hunts and the systematic terror of the inquisition and managed to embrace more civilised, humanitarian and generally enlightened stances instead, while so many muslims have failed to do so to this day. Also, what specifically do you think should be done about this tragedy?

Why have Christians made such a leap? Well Christian societies existed in countries that allowed for a great deal of free thought. Easily cultivatable land, etc... leisure time. But more importantly, the vicious OT was overruled by a fairly benign NT. Namely Jesus was a pacifist. His message was one issued from a position of political weakness. Even Muhammad's message was fairly benign when he was weak, once he gained power, it was a ruthless call for violence, conquer, and intimidation. Also the NT was not direct revelation from God, it was a recounting of the life of Jesus, containing Gospels that didn't always agree and didn't always provide the whole story. The Qur'an is the perfected and final revelation from God to humanity via his infallible prophet Muhammad. Doctrinally this leads to a completely different set of societal possibilities.

What should be done? That question is often asked from a position that assumes we can do something. I will weigh in later, but there are a number of theories out there as to this answer. One is that Muslims will have an enlightenment and will come around on their own (change from within). Another is that they will see how successful the west is and follow suit. Lastly the neo-conservatives posited that people are fundamentally the same and if given democracy by the west, the Muslim world would rapidly modernize. All of these are false hopes. They have rejected our democracy, they chose not to learn from our history to built their own. They view the west as corrupt, and also view any failure of the Muslim world as lack of piety and success of the west as Allah encouraging our arrogance. And an enlightenment is still impossible with such strict controls on thought in that portion of the world. Individuals don't cry out for change, they have supported theocrat after theocrat.

Now I will weigh in. I feel that there will be a protracted struggle. We cannot win it using our current methods. Our notions of humanitarian war are a tactical disadvantage against a group unconcerned with innocent life... on either side. Our lack of group solidarity is a disadvantage. They shout Allahu Akbar as they run into battle... what do we shout??? Bicammaral legislation? Long live the Queen? We have enlightened self interest... they have the nobility of martyrdom. I think our technical advantage will keep us above water for my lifetime. I think that they coming demographic dominance will give them the advantage long term. I am not sure we can win the struggle without abandoning some of our most cherished liberties and notions of human decency. So I don't think there is a happy ending. But everyday I hope I am wrong.

[al-rawandi]

Whether the method of torture is genuine or merely hearsay, this is still fucking sickening. I wonder how many of the torturers are repressed, closet queens themselves - they are usually the most homophobic in any society - especially one where the practice is outlawed and taboo.

I think repressed homosexuality is irrelevent here. These are full on delusional religiously sanctioned self righteous attacks on humanity. I agree with al_rawandi, it's not something we can hope to effectively deal with other than by overruling their ludicrous theocracy and forcing them into line with humanitarian standards.


pawiz, I hoped it wasn't true, too.

The universe doesn't care what we wish were true. We can wish for a reasonable solution all we want.... here is my answer... Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full first.

[charlou]

Yeah, no naivete here on that score, al, thanks all the same.

This is precisely the irrational violence that can be expected from Islam. I am eager to hear the usual chorus of people who expect us to negotiate with people like this. Do we expect the Israelis to negotiate with people like this in their conflict? Do we expect our withdrawal from Iraq to usher in a period of peace and justice for Iraq? There is no compromise with such religiots. This is precisely what Islam prescribes for homosexuals.... torture and death.

No, you cannot negotiate with people of such a theocratic, medieval, unenlightened, anti-humanist mindset. They are stuck in the same morass that christianity was a few hundred years ago.

Al-Rawandi, I'd like to hear your opinion about why the vast majority of christians have jettisoned murderous crusades, witch hunts and the systematic terror of the inquisition and managed to embrace more civilised, humanitarian and generally enlightened stances instead, while so many muslims have failed to do so to this day. Also, what specifically do you think should be done about this tragedy?

Why have Christians made such a leap? Well Christian societies existed in countries that allowed for a great deal of free thought. Easily cultivatable land, etc... leisure time. But more importantly, the vicious OT was overruled by a fairly benign NT. Namely Jesus was a pacifist. His message was one issued from a position of political weakness. Even Muhammad's message was fairly benign when he was weak, once he gained power, it was a ruthless call for violence, conquer, and intimidation. Also the NT was not direct revelation from God, it was a recounting of the life of Jesus, containing Gospels that didn't always agree and didn't always provide the whole story. The Qur'an is the perfected and final revelation from God to humanity via his infallible prophet Muhammad. Doctrinally this leads to a completely different set of societal possibilities.

What should be done? That question is often asked from a position that assumes we can do something. I will weigh in later, but there are a number of theories out there as to this answer. One is that Muslims will have an enlightenment and will come around on their own (change from within). Another is that they will see how successful the west is and follow suit. Lastly the neo-conservatives posited that people are fundamentally the same and if given democracy by the west, the Muslim world would rapidly modernize. All of these are false hopes. They have rejected our democracy, they chose not to learn from our history to built their own. They view the west as corrupt, and also view any failure of the Muslim world as lack of piety and success of the west as Allah encouraging our arrogance. And an enlightenment is still impossible with such strict controls on thought in that portion of the world. Individuals don't cry out for change, they have supported theocrat after theocrat.

Now I will weigh in. I feel that there will be a protracted struggle. We cannot win it using our current methods. Our notions of humanitarian war are a tactical disadvantage against a group unconcerned with innocent life... on either side. Our lack of group solidarity is a disadvantage. They shout Allahu Akbar as they run into battle... what do we shout??? Bicammaral legislation? Long live the Queen? We have enlightened self interest... they have the nobility of martyrdom. I think our technical advantage will keep us above water for my lifetime. I think that they coming demographic dominance will give them the advantage long term. I am not sure we can win the struggle without abandoning some of our most cherished liberties and notions of human decency. So I don't think there is a happy ending. But everyday I hope I am wrong.

Very well put ... respect.

[Trolldor]

Let me guess, it's their 'religious right'? Fucking useless UN.
That's who we should have invaded.

[Hermit]

Why have Christians made such a leap? Well Christian societies existed in countries that allowed for a great deal of free thought. Easily cultivatable land, etc... leisure time. But more importantly, the vicious OT was overruled by a fairly benign NT.

Good point. However, the stress on the Old Testament lasted for well over 1600 hundred years since the New Testament was written. The christian cherry pickers did not turn to the New Testament until fairly recently. Why, do you think, this was so?

I am not sure we can win the struggle without abandoning some of our most cherished liberties and notions of human decency.

Meaning what, specifically?

[al-rawandi]

Why have Christians made such a leap? Well Christian societies existed in countries that allowed for a great deal of free thought. Easily cultivatable land, etc... leisure time. But more importantly, the vicious OT was overruled by a fairly benign NT.

Good point. However, the stress on the Old Testament lasted for well over 1600 hundred years since the New Testament was written. The christian cherry pickers did not turn to the New Testament until fairly recently. Why, do you think, this was so?

I am not sure we can win the struggle without abandoning some of our most cherished liberties and notions of human decency.

Meaning what, specifically?

As for turning to the NT. I don't that what you say is true. But let's assume it is, and I can only theorize as to why they turned to it. And my theory is is that they looked for an enlightenment that could tolerate religion and vice versa. The NT is a part of the canon that could tolerate and enlightenment, so then the xtians emphasized this more. Merely a guess. But I would say that no such tolerant canon exists in Islam. There is no switching tracks in this way.

As for what we must abandon. I am not sure, what I am saying is that fanatical tribalism may prove overwhelming. I think more specifically that we would be in enormous trouble if a fanatical group of Muslims ever gained parity with regards to military technology that we would be in deep shit. We would certainly have to abandon our aversion to civilian casualties. I think also we might have to give up our notions of multiculturalism and tolerance. Meaning we cannot tolerate the intolerant who have no intention of extending tolerance to us. For instance if Brits cave and allow Shariah in certain places it isn't like the Iranians will say "We appreciate the gesture so we will lighten up on gays." It is a one way street this tolerance, we tolerate them they tolerate us less. Every inch we give anywhere is a mile they will take.