4 ms·

> I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs Apparently the main pa

by graycat 13y ago

> I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs Apparently the main part of Pakistan relevant to Afghanistan is the 'tribal regions' mostly not governed by the rest of Pakistan. There your claims of a "mix" seem to be not correct. Further, much of the problem the US has had with Pakistan is from the strong role of Islam there and in Afghanistan. For reasons of religion, culture, domestic politics, and foreign policy, Pakistan has been mostly on the side of the Taliban, that is, wants to dominate Afghanistan. My comments about Islam were focused on Afghanistan. The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq. For Pakistan, sure, it used to be part of India which is wildly mixed from Muslim, Hindu, what it got from the British, and the old cultures from before the British. India is a forbiddingly complicated place, and Pakistan has been influenced by that. But the main reason for the formation of Pakistan was just Islam -- they wanted an Islamic country. Net, the main culture in Pakistan is just Islam. Italy is heavily a Roman Catholic country, but the church does not run everything. Turkey is an Islamic country, but the clerics don't run everything. An Islamic country can have a culture more varied than just Islam. No doubt the culture of Pakistan is more varied than that of Afghanistan. The main interest in this tread is what the heck is the US going to do about Afghanistan and why? The main content of why is just the role of Islam. The US brought to Afghanistan constitutional government, free elections, roads, schools, hospitals, training and equipment for police and a military, but Afghanistan is about to throw away all of that and return to an 'Islamic state' run by the Taliban. Thus, I and much of the US are losing patience with both Afghanistan and Islam.

lobster_johnson 13y ago
Turkey is a secular state. While the population is muslim, the state has historically resisted attempts at islamification. That resistance is being eroded, however. Off-topic: You seem to be using the word "net" a lot in a way that seems odd to me. Net as in "the net effect of which is"?
- graycat 13y ago
  "Net" is partly from accounting where we calculate, say, earnings, and have already subtracted off expenses, etc. More generally "net" means a summary or a very simple statement of the core point. In writing to be understood, often it is good be clear, and even too simple, about the main 'points'. Otherwise it is too easy that no 'points' at all get across. Your comment and at least two 'siblings' are far more thoughtful than mine was so that my oversimplifying with "net" is not appropriate. Back here in the US, after 9/11 and now 12 years in Afghanistan, we need to make some difficult decisions: We tried, hard but in total ('net'!) not hard enough, to make Afghanistan a "shining city on a hill" but apparently have failed and maybe even 'net' have done more harm than good. Bin laden is gone. The Taliban government that let Bin Laden use their country as a base to attack the US is not gone but is out of power. There are stories that some even in the Taliban now understand that it was a big mistake to let Bin Laden use Afghanistan as a base to attack the US. The US has tried 'nation building' in several countries of the world. We were largely successful in Germany and Japan. With US military protection, Taiwan and South Korea have done well. The US has tried hard to have peace with both Russia and China and not have them become another 'Axis' like Germany and Japan in the 1940s. Still, in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the results of US efforts been from frustrating and/or poor (Iraq) down to worse. Viet Nam is the grand tragedy: I have a nice 600 dot per inch black and white printer from Brother, made in Viet Nam. Terrific for Viet Nam. The US couldn't be happier. The Brother printer is much better than the HP printer I bought in 1994. That Brother and Viet Nam are at least in part beating HP in the printer business is mostly fine in the US (except for HP stockholders!). As far as I can tell, what Viet Nam is now is just fine with the US. The big, huge point for the US is that Viet Nam is not part of some Axis of Moscow, Peking, and Hanoi that seemed to be a threat starting just after WWII where the US had just defeated the Axis and didn't like things that looked like an Axis. The WWII Axis also hurt Viet Nam -- Japan occupied Viet Nam. But, the way Viet Nam is today, it is clearly no threat to its neighbors or the US, and that's really all the US wanted. The US didn't want a colony, and for the rubber or lumber, wanted to pay fair prices for it. The tragedy is that Viet Nam and US relations as they are today could have been just the same in the early 1970s, the 1960s, ..., back to just after WWII (to heck with the French) just by both sides just deciding to and shaking hands on it. In summary ('net'), the US has tried, sometimes at great expense in US blood and treasure, often with much more expense in blood in the other country, sometimes been successful, and sometimes not. When we have failed, we didn't really know why. For why the US was successful in Germany and Japan, both countries had very strong, highly disciplined cultures, suffered just devastating, horrible, defeats, with homeless people wandering cold and hungry in the streets with rotting bodies under piles of rubble, and then used their discipline to say "never again", mean it, implement it, do a lot of really hard work, and rebuild themselves. So, 'culture' played a part. So, why not success in Afghanistan? My view: Culture. The culture was different; either the US didn't understand it or it was insufficient. What was that culture? In a word, Islam; it runs nearly everything. The US tried to build a 'secular' (independent of religion) democracy, and the Taliban have Islam on their side. The US has B-52 bombers from 40,000 feet, GPS location, A-10 airplanes that reduce tanks to piles of scrap iron in seconds, supersonic F-16 airplanes that can reduce a tank to scattered scrap iron in even less time, schools, hospitals, etc. and lose, and the Taliban have sticks, stones, some RPGs, and rusty AK-47s and win. To me, the main difference is that the Taliban have the 'culture', in this case, Islam, on their side. Whatever, likely the US will be leaving Afghanistan, fairly soon. For the US, it's much more difficult to attack us now. In particular, it's difficult even to have nail clippers on a US commercial airplane. And I can believe that in many Islamic countries, anyone shouting "Jihad! Death to ..." will quickly get a 'corrective lesson' they won't forget, maybe even can't forget. For Turkey, if they become more fundamentally Islamic, then they will find that the US, NATO, the EU, and maybe even Russia will become much less friendly.
neebz 13y ago
> Apparently the main part of Pakistan relevant to Afghanistan is the 'tribal regions' mostly not governed by the rest of Pakistan. There your claims of a "mix" seem to be not correct. They do. The 'tribal regions' are known 'tribal' for a reason. They are dominated by tribes, who have there own traditions & rivalry. They have affiliations with Taliban because of Pashtun traditions. This affiliation goes back even before the Pakistan came into being. Islam is a cultural part of this region but not the sole driving force. They used poppy/heroine for ages but Islam strictly prohibits using drugs. So yet another sample where your nice little narrative doesn't fit. > Further, much of the problem the US has had with Pakistan is from the strong role of Islam there and in Afghanistan erm ..US played an important role during the Afghan-Russia war. They actually pumped up the Jihadist sentiment at that time. Religion in the grand scheme has just been a tool to achieve interest. > For reasons of religion, culture, domestic politics, and foreign policy, Pakistan has been mostly on the side of the Taliban, that is, wants to dominate Afghanistan. Only foreign policy. Pakistan cannot afford to fight with neighbors on both sides of border. That's the sole reason Pakistan wants to friend whoever comes into power in Afghanistan (apparently the notorious double-game Pak army has been playing with US is because once US goes back they would have to deal with Taliban ..and they want to be in there good books). Pakistan has also been super-friendly with China but no religion, culture, domestic politics play any role in that. It's only foreign policy. > My comments about Islam were focused on Afghanistan. The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq You do know Iraq fought war with Saudia Arabia ..the be and end all of all things Islam ? You do know how things were in Iran before the revolution ? If you start looking things from an economics-perspective then everything fits in place. There are some nut-jobs who leave everything to go and fight for the sake of religion but the majority of the population doesn't do that. They just want good food and good living style regardless of whose in power. Iranian revolution can be traced back to that as well. > But the main reason for the formation of Pakistan was just Islam -- they wanted an Islamic country. Net, the main culture in Pakistan is just Islam. then how come there hasn't been any Islamic governing system in Pakistan since the creation? There are gazillion open things in this country which are against the very premise of Islam yet no one talks about that. Pakistan wasn't created by an imam or cleric. The most ironic thing (and I would suggest you should go and study that) is that creation of Pakistan was opposed by virtually every single cleric at that time. Founder of Pakistan (Jinnah) lead a very secular life & wasn't a fan-favourite of Islamic imams at that time. Pakistan was created because Muslims were living a second-class life in all of India. Again economic reasons. > The main interest in this tread is what the heck is the US going to do about Afghanistan and why? The main content of why is just the role of Islam. That I agree. But that is not something which you can use as a reason to justify how things work in every Muslim country out there. US invaded Afghanistan at a time when they had right-wing extremists in power. So obviously they'll have to deal with problems in the same domain. You don't need to create grand conclusions out of it.
pooriaazimi 13y ago
> The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq. No, it doesn't. I don't disagree with you on the whole (and certainly appreciate that you are even attempting to understand the issue, which is more than almost anyone does), but like neebz I think your narrative is very simplistic and out of touch with reality. Islam is not as powerful in the "Islamic world" as you portrayed. Taliban is the exception, not the rule. I currently live in Tehran, and TBH I personally know less than 8 people (less, because it's been a while since I've talked to a few of them) who are supportive of the government, or in general of Islamic rule. And the number of "religious" (as in, religion is more than something theoretical for them - you believe in Quran, and even though you don't follow it's instructions, the mere belief gets you a place in paradise) people I personally know is probably no more than 20 (most of them friends at college). The reason for Islamic rule (at least in Iran), is not because they have the support of the people, but simply because they have the money and power. You don't sell hundreds of billions of dollars of crude oil every quarter and get rich and powerful, only to allow to be overthrown! You do everything you can to prevent that. I hate typing on iPad, so, please read the rest of what I wanted to say in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820604
- graycat 13y ago
  > Islam is not as powerful in the "Islamic world" as you portrayed. Taliban is the exception, not the rule. Sure. But I was talking mostly about Afghanistan. And the US got 'impatient' with the Shiite/Sunni fighting in Iraq. And the Shiite yelling and screaming, "Death to America" from Iran is difficult to respect. For the connection between the clerics and the economy in Iran, there was an article in, maybe, 'Forbes' long ago explaining that basically the clerics get a 'cut' of nearly everything in the economy, control who gets to do what, etc. But, why? That is, why are the Islamic clerics in Iran running the economy with a short leash and running an aggressive military and foreign policy at great cost to their domestic standard of living? Is this just religion? No. But Islam is not just religion and, instead, is often also economic, legal, military, foreign policy, etc. That's not new: The Roman Catholic church was doing that in Europe for hundreds of years. They owned a major fraction of all the farm land in France which has a major fraction of all the good farm land in Western Europe. They built little things like the cathedrals, while the people were living in, what, mud huts? They built the Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg, awash in some of the fanciest art and architecture in all of civilization -- not cheap, and built by citizens in, what, mud huts? The Roman Catholic church was running everything. E.g., to be a king, had to have the Pope tap you on the head or some such. And they were corrupt. So, they had the Protestant Reformation, religious wars, etc. Lots of blood. Finally they learned their lessons about religion. In the US, we borrowed those lessons -- the state will establish no religion; there will be separation of church and state; there will be freedom of religion. Done. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan still have to learn these old lessons. Sorry about the Shah; he was a pawn in the Cold War. The US had just finished WWII and, thus, took the Cold War seriously. We spent a LOT of money, and blood, winning the Cold War. Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the other Arab oil states, should all do the same thing: Cool down. Relax. Embrace peace. Get the clerics into religion only. No more clerics measuring the lengths of women's skirts or censoring the Internet. Pump oil. Enjoy life. Then work on culture, good government, education, technology, and a strong economy for when the oil runs out. And stop shouting "Death to America". Want nuclear power for electric power, taking the salt out of water and growing vegetables? Fine. Just accept the usual international rules, safeguards, and inspections, and light up your cities and have fountains and big swimming pools of pure water. All this fighting is over nothing, wasteful, and absurd.
ucee054 13y ago
The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq If you think Salafist Afghanistan, Kohmeinist Iran and Baathist Iraq had anything in common then you know jack shit. That's like comparing Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and the US colonies in Cotton Mather's time, sticking them all into one big pot because they are all "Christian". Idiocy.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- graycat 13y ago
  You miss the point: It's not that all the versions of Islam and Islamic governments are alike. Instead, it's that in the more backward Islamic countries, Islam is essentially all the culture there is. And Islam is not just a religion but is also into law, government, education, etc. So, in such a country, Islam is about all the culture there is and can block, actively or just passively by default, essentially all progress. As you point out, there are still some differences. But what is in common is that Islam, in whatever flavors, is so strong, and not just a religion, and essentially all the culture there is, is able to block progress. Look, to be more clear, the problem is not just Islam. Instead, the Roman Catholics ran everything in Western Europe for hundreds of years, were corrupt, blocked progress, and finally Europe got out of it, after religious wars, etc. The point is not that Islam is a bad religion, even if it is. Instead the point is that to run a good society, need a good culture, and that culture needs to come from much more than just some religious clerics. A religious state, Roman Catholic, Islamic, or anything else, just will not be a successful state. In the countries where Islam is the only culture, Islam needs to shrink back to being just a religion, hopefully one of several, and let the culture have other inputs besides just religion. Got it now?
  - ucee054 13y ago
    Got it now? Don't patronize me. You wrote a screed justifying bombing the hell out of civilians because you didn't like their speech. Somewhere in your moral bankruptcy, you wrote So, in an Islamic country, take away Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just chaos This was your characterization of Iran and Iraq, which showed that you don't know jack. It also won't work for Turkey or Malaysia. By the way, "nation building" failed in Germany as well, largely because Americans are hypocrites who SAY "nation building" and DO war profiteering, corruption and vindictiveness. The result was Adolf Hitler. So the US had to fight another World War with Germany, and after getting their asses kicked so badly by the Axis, and coming close to losing in several ways, the US decided in 1945 to do actual nation building in half good faith, hence the Marshall Plan. This time round, it succeeded in Germany and Japan. Unfortunately, the US forgot this lesson by 9/11, so when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan, they went back to "nation building" by Blackwater XE and Halliburton, with predictable results.

by graycat 13y ago

lobster_johnson 13y ago

Turkey is a secular state. While the population is muslim, the state has historically resisted attempts at islamification. That resistance is being eroded, however. Off-topic: You seem to be using the word "net" a lot in a way that seems odd to me. Net as in "the net effect of which is"?

graycat 13y ago
"Net" is partly from accounting where we calculate, say, earnings, and have already subtracted off expenses, etc. More generally "net" means a summary or a very simple statement of the core point. In writing to be understood, often it is good be clear, and even too simple, about the main 'points'. Otherwise it is too easy that no 'points' at all get across. Your comment and at least two 'siblings' are far more thoughtful than mine was so that my oversimplifying with "net" is not appropriate. Back here in the US, after 9/11 and now 12 years in Afghanistan, we need to make some difficult decisions: We tried, hard but in total ('net'!) not hard enough, to make Afghanistan a "shining city on a hill" but apparently have failed and maybe even 'net' have done more harm than good. Bin laden is gone. The Taliban government that let Bin Laden use their country as a base to attack the US is not gone but is out of power. There are stories that some even in the Taliban now understand that it was a big mistake to let Bin Laden use Afghanistan as a base to attack the US. The US has tried 'nation building' in several countries of the world. We were largely successful in Germany and Japan. With US military protection, Taiwan and South Korea have done well. The US has tried hard to have peace with both Russia and China and not have them become another 'Axis' like Germany and Japan in the 1940s. Still, in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the results of US efforts been from frustrating and/or poor (Iraq) down to worse. Viet Nam is the grand tragedy: I have a nice 600 dot per inch black and white printer from Brother, made in Viet Nam. Terrific for Viet Nam. The US couldn't be happier. The Brother printer is much better than the HP printer I bought in 1994. That Brother and Viet Nam are at least in part beating HP in the printer business is mostly fine in the US (except for HP stockholders!). As far as I can tell, what Viet Nam is now is just fine with the US. The big, huge point for the US is that Viet Nam is not part of some Axis of Moscow, Peking, and Hanoi that seemed to be a threat starting just after WWII where the US had just defeated the Axis and didn't like things that looked like an Axis. The WWII Axis also hurt Viet Nam -- Japan occupied Viet Nam. But, the way Viet Nam is today, it is clearly no threat to its neighbors or the US, and that's really all the US wanted. The US didn't want a colony, and for the rubber or lumber, wanted to pay fair prices for it. The tragedy is that Viet Nam and US relations as they are today could have been just the same in the early 1970s, the 1960s, ..., back to just after WWII (to heck with the French) just by both sides just deciding to and shaking hands on it. In summary ('net'), the US has tried, sometimes at great expense in US blood and treasure, often with much more expense in blood in the other country, sometimes been successful, and sometimes not. When we have failed, we didn't really know why. For why the US was successful in Germany and Japan, both countries had very strong, highly disciplined cultures, suffered just devastating, horrible, defeats, with homeless people wandering cold and hungry in the streets with rotting bodies under piles of rubble, and then used their discipline to say "never again", mean it, implement it, do a lot of really hard work, and rebuild themselves. So, 'culture' played a part. So, why not success in Afghanistan? My view: Culture. The culture was different; either the US didn't understand it or it was insufficient. What was that culture? In a word, Islam; it runs nearly everything. The US tried to build a 'secular' (independent of religion) democracy, and the Taliban have Islam on their side. The US has B-52 bombers from 40,000 feet, GPS location, A-10 airplanes that reduce tanks to piles of scrap iron in seconds, supersonic F-16 airplanes that can reduce a tank to scattered scrap iron in even less time, schools, hospitals, etc. and lose, and the Taliban have sticks, stones, some RPGs, and rusty AK-47s and win. To me, the main difference is that the Taliban have the 'culture', in this case, Islam, on their side. Whatever, likely the US will be leaving Afghanistan, fairly soon. For the US, it's much more difficult to attack us now. In particular, it's difficult even to have nail clippers on a US commercial airplane. And I can believe that in many Islamic countries, anyone shouting "Jihad! Death to ..." will quickly get a 'corrective lesson' they won't forget, maybe even can't forget. For Turkey, if they become more fundamentally Islamic, then they will find that the US, NATO, the EU, and maybe even Russia will become much less friendly.

neebz 13y ago

> Apparently the main part of Pakistan relevant to Afghanistan is the 'tribal regions' mostly not governed by the rest of Pakistan. There your claims of a "mix" seem to be not correct. They do. The 'tribal regions' are known 'tribal' for a reason. They are dominated by tribes, who have there own traditions & rivalry. They have affiliations with Taliban because of Pashtun traditions. This affiliation goes back even before the Pakistan came into being. Islam is a cultural part of this region but not the sole driving force. They used poppy/heroine for ages but Islam strictly prohibits using drugs. So yet another sample where your nice little narrative doesn't fit. > Further, much of the problem the US has had with Pakistan is from the strong role of Islam there and in Afghanistan erm ..US played an important role during the Afghan-Russia war. They actually pumped up the Jihadist sentiment at that time. Religion in the grand scheme has just been a tool to achieve interest. > For reasons of religion, culture, domestic politics, and foreign policy, Pakistan has been mostly on the side of the Taliban, that is, wants to dominate Afghanistan. Only foreign policy. Pakistan cannot afford to fight with neighbors on both sides of border. That's the sole reason Pakistan wants to friend whoever comes into power in Afghanistan (apparently the notorious double-game Pak army has been playing with US is because once US goes back they would have to deal with Taliban ..and they want to be in there good books). Pakistan has also been super-friendly with China but no religion, culture, domestic politics play any role in that. It's only foreign policy. > My comments about Islam were focused on Afghanistan. The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq You do know Iraq fought war with Saudia Arabia ..the be and end all of all things Islam ? You do know how things were in Iran before the revolution ? If you start looking things from an economics-perspective then everything fits in place. There are some nut-jobs who leave everything to go and fight for the sake of religion but the majority of the population doesn't do that. They just want good food and good living style regardless of whose in power. Iranian revolution can be traced back to that as well. > But the main reason for the formation of Pakistan was just Islam -- they wanted an Islamic country. Net, the main culture in Pakistan is just Islam. then how come there hasn't been any Islamic governing system in Pakistan since the creation? There are gazillion open things in this country which are against the very premise of Islam yet no one talks about that. Pakistan wasn't created by an imam or cleric. The most ironic thing (and I would suggest you should go and study that) is that creation of Pakistan was opposed by virtually every single cleric at that time. Founder of Pakistan (Jinnah) lead a very secular life & wasn't a fan-favourite of Islamic imams at that time. Pakistan was created because Muslims were living a second-class life in all of India. Again economic reasons. > The main interest in this tread is what the heck is the US going to do about Afghanistan and why? The main content of why is just the role of Islam. That I agree. But that is not something which you can use as a reason to justify how things work in every Muslim country out there. US invaded Afghanistan at a time when they had right-wing extremists in power. So obviously they'll have to deal with problems in the same domain. You don't need to create grand conclusions out of it.

pooriaazimi 13y ago

> The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq. No, it doesn't. I don't disagree with you on the whole (and certainly appreciate that you are even attempting to understand the issue, which is more than almost anyone does), but like neebz I think your narrative is very simplistic and out of touch with reality. Islam is not as powerful in the "Islamic world" as you portrayed. Taliban is the exception, not the rule. I currently live in Tehran, and TBH I personally know less than 8 people (less, because it's been a while since I've talked to a few of them) who are supportive of the government, or in general of Islamic rule. And the number of "religious" (as in, religion is more than something theoretical for them - you believe in Quran, and even though you don't follow it's instructions, the mere belief gets you a place in paradise) people I personally know is probably no more than 20 (most of them friends at college). The reason for Islamic rule (at least in Iran), is not because they have the support of the people, but simply because they have the money and power. You don't sell hundreds of billions of dollars of crude oil every quarter and get rich and powerful, only to allow to be overthrown! You do everything you can to prevent that. I hate typing on iPad, so, please read the rest of what I wanted to say in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820604

graycat 13y ago
> Islam is not as powerful in the "Islamic world" as you portrayed. Taliban is the exception, not the rule. Sure. But I was talking mostly about Afghanistan. And the US got 'impatient' with the Shiite/Sunni fighting in Iraq. And the Shiite yelling and screaming, "Death to America" from Iran is difficult to respect. For the connection between the clerics and the economy in Iran, there was an article in, maybe, 'Forbes' long ago explaining that basically the clerics get a 'cut' of nearly everything in the economy, control who gets to do what, etc. But, why? That is, why are the Islamic clerics in Iran running the economy with a short leash and running an aggressive military and foreign policy at great cost to their domestic standard of living? Is this just religion? No. But Islam is not just religion and, instead, is often also economic, legal, military, foreign policy, etc. That's not new: The Roman Catholic church was doing that in Europe for hundreds of years. They owned a major fraction of all the farm land in France which has a major fraction of all the good farm land in Western Europe. They built little things like the cathedrals, while the people were living in, what, mud huts? They built the Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg, awash in some of the fanciest art and architecture in all of civilization -- not cheap, and built by citizens in, what, mud huts? The Roman Catholic church was running everything. E.g., to be a king, had to have the Pope tap you on the head or some such. And they were corrupt. So, they had the Protestant Reformation, religious wars, etc. Lots of blood. Finally they learned their lessons about religion. In the US, we borrowed those lessons -- the state will establish no religion; there will be separation of church and state; there will be freedom of religion. Done. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan still have to learn these old lessons. Sorry about the Shah; he was a pawn in the Cold War. The US had just finished WWII and, thus, took the Cold War seriously. We spent a LOT of money, and blood, winning the Cold War. Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the other Arab oil states, should all do the same thing: Cool down. Relax. Embrace peace. Get the clerics into religion only. No more clerics measuring the lengths of women's skirts or censoring the Internet. Pump oil. Enjoy life. Then work on culture, good government, education, technology, and a strong economy for when the oil runs out. And stop shouting "Death to America". Want nuclear power for electric power, taking the salt out of water and growing vegetables? Fine. Just accept the usual international rules, safeguards, and inspections, and light up your cities and have fountains and big swimming pools of pure water. All this fighting is over nothing, wasteful, and absurd.

ucee054 13y ago

The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq If you think Salafist Afghanistan, Kohmeinist Iran and Baathist Iraq had anything in common then you know jack shit. That's like comparing Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and the US colonies in Cotton Mather's time, sticking them all into one big pot because they are all "Christian". Idiocy.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
graycat 13y ago
You miss the point: It's not that all the versions of Islam and Islamic governments are alike. Instead, it's that in the more backward Islamic countries, Islam is essentially all the culture there is. And Islam is not just a religion but is also into law, government, education, etc. So, in such a country, Islam is about all the culture there is and can block, actively or just passively by default, essentially all progress. As you point out, there are still some differences. But what is in common is that Islam, in whatever flavors, is so strong, and not just a religion, and essentially all the culture there is, is able to block progress. Look, to be more clear, the problem is not just Islam. Instead, the Roman Catholics ran everything in Western Europe for hundreds of years, were corrupt, blocked progress, and finally Europe got out of it, after religious wars, etc. The point is not that Islam is a bad religion, even if it is. Instead the point is that to run a good society, need a good culture, and that culture needs to come from much more than just some religious clerics. A religious state, Roman Catholic, Islamic, or anything else, just will not be a successful state. In the countries where Islam is the only culture, Islam needs to shrink back to being just a religion, hopefully one of several, and let the culture have other inputs besides just religion. Got it now?
- ucee054 13y ago
  Got it now? Don't patronize me. You wrote a screed justifying bombing the hell out of civilians because you didn't like their speech. Somewhere in your moral bankruptcy, you wrote So, in an Islamic country, take away Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just chaos This was your characterization of Iran and Iraq, which showed that you don't know jack. It also won't work for Turkey or Malaysia. By the way, "nation building" failed in Germany as well, largely because Americans are hypocrites who SAY "nation building" and DO war profiteering, corruption and vindictiveness. The result was Adolf Hitler. So the US had to fight another World War with Germany, and after getting their asses kicked so badly by the Axis, and coming close to losing in several ways, the US decided in 1945 to do actual nation building in half good faith, hence the Marshall Plan. This time round, it succeeded in Germany and Japan. Unfortunately, the US forgot this lesson by 9/11, so when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan, they went back to "nation building" by Blackwater XE and Halliburton, with predictable results.