BF2S Forums Bros befo Hoes

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

For Thanksgiving?

anytime really.  especially on a bagel sandwich.

Oh, I love it on a bagel sandwich.

I read the first page. Then I decided it was the same old bullshit so I skipped to page 5 which is where I saw the argument go to whether all Muslims are bad, to the concurrence of a mutual fondness for bagels. I really have to start reading the rest of the threads from now on....or should I?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Creed of Islam how it was ment to be according to the Profit Muhummad (peace of shit b upon him).
Remember this article next time you are in Vegas and see a Muslim at the blackjack table, is he thinking about putting a bullet in the head of your favorite hooker?  Yet the same fuckwits that shot these women are willing to kill women and children for Jihad so they can get virgin 'tang in heaven.  What a retarded religion.  See article below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386161,00.html

http://i33.tinypic.com/29xfdkp.jpg

Where did I say all Muslims are bad. 

That would be like me saying that Zombie said that all Muslims are good.  How is it that I can understand that he doesn't think that but he seems to have the notion I think all Muslims are bad.


I addressed that ISLAM sucks ass and caused these womens deaths, the people that killed them in the profits name were proud that they were doing it and did it in front of the village and media.  Gee, I get the feeling that this shit isn't all too common when it is advertised in advance and a crowd form to watch the good deed vs stopping it. 

The big Irony I pointed out is they were killed for prostitution which is something promised by the profit to Mytars during Jihad, hmmmmm.  So the Virgins get put to death along with the pimp profit mohammad according to his own teachings?  What a fucking mental disorder of a belief system.  Yeah, I find it hard to respect anyone that takes this shit hole of a religion seriously, what dim wits.

Anyone that would defend this farce of a religion is a total fuck nut.  It takes a real rim job of an abortion to go around saying they want this disease to fester in their country gathering all the weak minded tools together to teach them violence and re-enforce the darkest stupidities of humanity that wars have been fought to defeat.  But hey, look at the people that show up in these threads to defend Islam as being as normal as American society and Christianity.

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That's quite different from being acceptable.  That's more just a case of cowardice and not letting the authorities know about the problem.

Oh, well so long as they're just letting it continue because they can't be bothered picking up the phone, I guess it's okay.

Where did I say it's ok in America?  It's obviously not.  Domestic abuse, especially against women, is very much a problem in every country.  I think we both know this.  What's most important, however, is that the law doesn't condone it here.  It does condone it in certain Islamic countries.

And if that's what he wanted to discuss, he should have opened with those countries and their laws.  Or at least mistreatment of women in a country that has such laws.  This people were killing the women illegally.

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In places like Saudi Arabia, it's ok to beat your wife for certain things.  There was even that highly publicized case of the female rape victim who might have gotten jailed for being with men other than her spouse and family.  Had it not enraged the world outside, it would have been socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia to imprison her.

And it's like that because of the government, which is propped up by the US.

The majority of the Saudi populace was ok with the sentencing.  This can reasonably be assumed when you look at how past cases have been dealt with and at how Wahhabists wield a lot of influence among the general populace.  So, it's not just a case of us propping up extremists.  The population itself is significantly ultraconservative.  The average Iranian is considerably more moderate than the average Saudi Arabian.  Iran is more a case of a country where the government is less representative of the people, despite being a so-called democracy.

Firstly I think you'll find that Iran has a lot more public support than you claim (certainly more than the US supported dictatorship had).

As to the main point of your post, I strongly disagree.  The Wahhabists are strong because it suits the government, and nobody complains about the laws because doing so is unwise in the extreme.  Having said that, even if you're right, it's still a bit rich for an American to take the high ground when their government supplies one of the worst governments in the region (and probably the world).

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

While the government is propped up by us, the religious police of Saudi Arabia are an institution supported by the people there.  They have only vague connections to the Saudi regime and are somewhat autonomous.

Yeah, sure.  And I'll bet the government are doing all they can to restrict them, too.

Of course not, because if they did, they'd get ousted by the fanatical public.  Siding with the religious police provides the Saudi regime legitimacy among the populace.  I'm sure the Saudis are personally not very interested in religious affairs, but they have to appear to be that way in order to appease the public.  The Saudi regime is really just a bunch of glorified businessmen.

The fanatical public are going to defeat the US backed dictatorship?

Is that a joke?

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Tell that to the United Arab Emirates.

Who haven't modernised that much.  Having said that, they are more modern than other countries, and you'll note that they're better on women's rights than some others too.

That doesn't sound like much of a rebuttal.  So, we can agree that they are more modernized than their neighbors.  Jordan and Qatar are more moderate as well.

How is it not much of a rebuttal?  My statement was that more modernized countries are better on humanitarian issues, you brought up a country that isn't great on humanitarian issues, I pointed out that it supports my theory.

Turquoise wrote:

I think we can agree that the West hasn't exactly made it easy for the Middle East to democratize, but...  it's not all of our fault that they're still culturally so behind.  A lot of that is the result of outdated traditions, many of which even predate Islam.

And as I just said those things tend to get less influence as countries modernise and their populations become rich enough to be economically stable, something that hasn't happened largely because of Western intervention.

Turquoise wrote:

As FatherTed pointed out, Turkey is a better example of a moderate modernized Muslim country, but again, this is because of their choice to lessen tradition and further democratic reforms.  Still, even they have some serious skeletons in their closet that they still won't admit to (like the Armenian genocide).

And they've been able to do that because no Western nations have been interested enough in stopping them.  If anything, Turkey proves my point.

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Selling sex to the enemy isn't a crime punishable by death here.  It's probably punishable by imprisonment though.

Right.  And you have how many foreign soldiers running around with guns killing your citizens?

I see what you're saying, but the ethics of the Taliban don't exactly hold a lot of weight in an ethical discussion.  Can you even reasonably defend them when compared to say....  Australia's ethics?

Again, Australia hasn't been invaded.

A fairer comparison would be to that of France in WWII, as I suggested earlier, where very similar actions were taken.  If you want to get into a broader discussion of Taliban ethics, then come up with examples which demonstrate them (and certainly they'll be far harsher).

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Firstly I think you'll find that Iran has a lot more public support than you claim (certainly more than the US supported dictatorship had).

Is that why the Ayatollah has barred reformists from running for office despite strong public support for reformists?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

As to the main point of your post, I strongly disagree.  The Wahhabists are strong because it suits the government, and nobody complains about the laws because doing so is unwise in the extreme.  Having said that, even if you're right, it's still a bit rich for an American to take the high ground when their government supplies one of the worst governments in the region (and probably the world).

As a citizen of America, does that automatically make me responsible for all that my government does?  If so, I suppose I should take you to task for your government's marginalization of Aborigines.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

The fanatical public are going to defeat the US backed dictatorship?

Is that a joke?

Ever heard of the Islamic Revolution in Iran?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And as I just said those things tend to get less influence as countries modernise and their populations become rich enough to be economically stable, something that hasn't happened largely because of Western intervention.

Western intervention seems to have helped Kuwait along rather nicely, as it has for the U.A.E. and Jordan.

Besides, are you really trying to suggest that the West is the primary reason why the Middle East hasn't progressed much?  If so, I'd have to point out that the Soviets did their share of meddling, and a large portion of the populations in the Middle East tend to support theocracy, which slows progress as well.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And they've been able to do that because no Western nations have been interested enough in stopping them.  If anything, Turkey proves my point.

If that is your point, then I'd have to suggest that you're undervaluing the secular traditions of Turkey.  Their people are more appreciative of the separation of church and state than most of the people to the south of them.  This would remain the same even if we interfered with their affairs.