Convert to Christianity to be executed?

[Pujo]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.

That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...ian/index.html

[BelichickFan]

As I have said over and over, the middle east is unsalvagable. We need to either :

1) Make some agreement with them to get the oil we need at a reasonable price and leave permanently.

2) Drill through the middle of the earth and have a big pipe to suck the oil to us.

3) Start a Manhattan Project style thing to eliminate the need for oil and let the middle east rot.

p.s. #2 was a joke.

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

As I have said over and over, the middle east is unsalvagable. We need to either :

1) Make some agreement with them to get the oil we need at a reasonable price and leave permanently.

2) Drill through the middle of the earth and have a big pipe to suck the oil to us.

3) Start a Manhattan Project style thing to eliminate the need for oil and let the middle east rot.

p.s. #2 was a joke.

Great post!
I vote for emphasis on 1 & 3...BIG TIME! Especially 3. It is uf the most urgent priority to our national security in the next century.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Pujo

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...ian/index.html

Yet another example that the "religion of Peace" claim is PC Bullsh!t.

[Patters]

Originally Posted by Brick

Yet another example that the "religion of Peace" claim is PC Bullsh!t.

Yeah, right, the religion of peace is busy invading Iraq and causing the deaths of close to 100,000 civilians and creating anarchy. In fact, the religion of peace has been invading Africa, the Middle East, and South America for about two centuries, and has killed vastly more people than Osama bin Laden has probably killed in his fondest dreams.

[Pujo]

Originally Posted by Brick

Yet another example that the "religion of Peace" claim is PC Bullsh!t.

I don't know, Harry Boy, I grew up in the Soviet Union which was atheist but committed these same kinds of atrocities. People were executed every day for not supporting the status quo. When people in power are hellbent on imposing their will, they'll find justification in just about any creed. That's different than Islam the religeon - that's Islam the state religeon.

Besides, this is one of our "liberated" countries, a top ally in the middle east. Something is out of whack.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Patters

Yeah, right, the religion of peace is busy invading Iraq and causing the deaths of close to 100,000 civilians and creating anarchy. In fact, the religion of peace has been invading Africa, the Middle East, and South America for about two centuries, and has killed vastly more people than Osama bin Laden has probably killed in his fondest dreams.

I never thought we should have gone into that sand pit of Irag- you'll get no argument from me there. We should pull out yesterday.

How Ironic that Hussein the Butcher was the only one who could keep those primitives from killing each other. The present anarchy however is self inflicted by the Iraqi people who are too cowardly and/or ignorant to fight for their country. We have no business trying to referee their Civil War.

Yeah you're right on about the evil Christians. I mean who hasn't seen countless images of Christians engaged in: suicide bombings, civilian beheadings, the barbaric treatment of women who dare to walk by themselves or show their ankles in public...

Yup the "peace loving Muslims" have a lot to fear from them...

[Patters]

Originally Posted by Brick

How Ironic that Hussein the Butcher was the only one who could keep those primitives from killing each other.

When government fails or is destroyed, it creates a power vacuum with all sorts of mixed results. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Milosevic Yugoslavia, are just a few examples. In Iraq, there is a power vacuum and the radical groups attempting to take over are certainly no worse than the Nazis.

Originally Posted by Brick

The present anarchy however is self inflicted by the Iraqi people who are too cowardly and/or ignorant to fight for their country. We have no business trying to referee their Civil War.

The anarchy was created by our invasion. We created the problem. It's our responsibility. We need to shift authority over to international groups, and we need to be prepared to foot a large share of the bill. Also, the Iraqi people are fighting for their country--the problem is they don't have a common view of what their country should be like. (If we were in a state of anarchy, do you really think liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, and so on would be fighting hand-in-hand?)

Originally Posted by Brick

Yeah you're right on about the evil Christians. I mean who hasn't seen countless images of Christians engaged in suicide bombings, civilian beheadings, the barbaric treatment of women who dare to walk by themselves or show their ankles in public.

In the last 150 years, western nations have committed atrocities far worse than those committed by the lunatics in Iraq. King Leopold II of Belgium killed 8,000,000 Congolese; Hitler killed 6,000,0000 jews; the French (like the Bush regime) engaged in torture and terrorist to try to quell the Algerian and Moroccon independence movements; in the 1930s, there are many examples of the National Guard and police killing striking workers; we also had lynch mobs and the murder of civil rights workers up until the 1960s. Your memory is terribly convenient.

I'm not defending the right-wing in Iraq any more than I would defend it here. Saddam and the Muslim fundamentalists both share a right-wing view of law and order. Follow their rules or the consequences are even more severe than 3 strikes you're out or our relatively civilized form of the death penalty. At any rate, war always sets a country back, and the bes hope for the Middle East is to find a way to get out and leave them alone for a generation or two.

[Patters]

The ally we put in power has the right according to its Constitution to kill people who reject Islam and Bush is saying nothing much about it? And the righties are keeping awfully quiet on this subject? Let's just face it: Bush is an incompetent idiot who allies himself with people just like himself, and many of the righties are an unprincipled lot who simply suck up to Bush. One can only wonder what the basis of there infatuation with Bush is.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Patters

When government fails or is destroyed, it creates a power vacuum with all sorts of mixed results. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Milosevic Yugoslavia, are just a few examples. In Iraq, there is a power vacuum and the radical groups attempting to take over are certainly no worse than the Nazis.

I agree with you- the Muslims nuts are like (Islamic) Nazi's.

The anarchy was created by our invasion. We created the problem. It's our responsibility. We need to shift authority over to international groups, and we need to be prepared to foot a large share of the bill. Also, the Iraqi people are fighting for their country--the problem is they don't have a common view of what their country should be like. (If we were in a state of anarchy, do you really think liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, and so on would be fighting hand-in-hand?)

I agree we created their problem that's become OUR problem. We never should have went into that sandpit in the first place. The International suggestion is a good one but that's a bit of a fantasy, I don't see the UN or any other countries lining up to establish Authority or restore order over there. Do you?

In the last 150 years, western nations have committed atrocities far worse than those committed by the lunatics in Iraq. King Leopold II of Belgium killed 8,000,000 Congolese; Hitler killed 6,000,0000 jews; the French (like the Bush regime) engaged in torture and terrorist to try to quell the Algerian and Moroccon independence movements; in the 1930s, there are many examples of the National Guard and police killing striking workers; we also had lynch mobs and the murder of civil rights workers up until the 1960s. Your memory is terribly convenient.

My memory, or should I say my attention is focused on the here and now. I do not dispute your History references but you're arguning from a History book philosophy, I'm talking about what is or is not, in the US best interest in the present day.

I'm not defending the right-wing in Iraq any more than I would defend it here. Saddam and the Muslim fundamentalists both share a right-wing view of law and order. Follow their rules or the consequences are even more severe than 3 strikes you're out or our relatively civilized form of the death penalty. At any rate, war always sets a country back, and the bes hope for the Middle East is to find a way to get out and leave them alone for a generation or two.

I agree about leaving them alone but it's a Utopian fantasy to believe they'll change from within. I highly doubt they'll ever evolve to the point where they shed the primitive, anti- female, kill the infidel mentality that is rampant over there.

As a side comment- I was against Bush 100% going into Iraq but I was 100% in favor of going after Afghanistan as there was irrefutable evidence the Taliban hosted and supported Bin Laden and the Al-Q. Unfortunately Bin Laden and his crew are still breathing as we continue to be pre occupied with our PR campaign to get the Iraqi primitives to "like us".

Surely you think the Afghanistan action was warranted after 9/11 no?