logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Afghan man may be executed for being a Christian, This is the free Afghanistan?
kalabus
post Mar 19 2006, 10:56 PM
Post #1


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 279
Member No.: 2,117
Joined: January-3-04

From: Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



Abdul Rahman, a converted christian in Afghanistan faces a possible execution for refusing to revoke his christian faith. This runs in opposition to the new Afghan constitution which is based upon fundamentalist islamic law.

The prosecuting attorney for the trial states that "Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed."

Link to story

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you think the war in Iraq, which is now considered a mistake by most American's and much of the world has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progessive Afghan nation?

2) Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that faciliated and enabled the 9/11 attacks? Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?

3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?


This post has been edited by kalabus: Mar 19 2006, 11:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Blackstone
post Mar 20 2006, 04:57 AM
Post #2


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



1) Do you think the war in Iraq, which is now considered a mistake by most American's and much of the world has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progessive Afghan nation?

I don't see how. Exactly what would you expect U.S. troops to do to "pound out" anything from them, short of a MacArthur-style imposition of a system on them? I do think, for the record, that Afghanistan today represents significant progress(iveness) over Afghanistan under the Taliban.

2) Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that faciliated and enabled the 9/11 attacks? Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?

No, we replaced a dictatorial, tyrannical government with a government based largely on the rule of law, even if the law seems unduly harsh by our standards. Comparing them both to our American society may make them both seem equally barbarous, but believe me, what they have now is an improvement over the previous system in a very fundamental sense. There is now a sense of order, instead of just the whims of whoever has the most guns. That's extremely important for preventing more radicalism from taking root.

3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

In addition to what I mentioned above, "scattering" (or more like disrupting) al-Qaeda is certainly an important goal. As to whether that goal is being met, I can't say for absolute certain, but it appears that al-Qaeda's network could only have been at least critically hampered by constantly having to be on the run and operating in hideouts, instead of being able to have the resources of an actual government like the one the Taliban provided in Afghanistan. If anybody has information to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?

I think so. Intervention in another country's internal affairs should only happen in the event of some major mass crime like genocide, or a total breakdown in law and order.

By the way, your thread title I think is a bit misleading. The man wouldn't be executed for "being" a Christian, but for having been a Muslim who converted away of his faith. Hence, someone who never was a Muslim would be free to be a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu, as I understand the law. It's just apostasy from Islam that's punishable. I agree that it's a barbaric law, but it should at least be accurately described.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 20 2006, 11:38 AM
Post #3


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
  I do think, for the record, that Afghanistan today represents significant progress(iveness) over Afghanistan under the Taliban.


How, exactly? Most of the more horrendous laws, for example those regarding the status of women under the Taliban, have been reimposed by the warlords.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm

They use the same morality and the same tactics as the Taliban, some of them ARE Taliban, and they pay no attention whatsoever to the central authority, the country has dissolved into warlord feifdoms. Some of them are targeting with violence and even death any women who try to take advantage of the supposedly liberal new system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1324936,00.html
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1328

Worse still, Opium production, curtailed by the Taliban, has now reached record highs for the country, and there is evidence that some of the warlords are just as involved in international terrorism as the Taliban was.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...RJ8OVF&b=202861

There have been some sucesses, there is now a single woman in parliament, which would have been impossible under the Taliban, and everywhere she goes she has between 8 and 15 bodyguards, and there have been over 20 attempts on her life.

Don't get me wrong, I was entirely for the elimination of the Taliban, one of the worst cancers on the face of the planet even WITHOUT the links to Al qaida. But the abandonment of this country as Bush Jr moved on to Iraq, and its inexorable slige into Chaos is going to be one of the larger blights on Bush Jr's legacy...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Mar 20 2006, 03:00 PM
Post #4


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Do you think the war in Iraq ... has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progressive Afghan nation?
I think a bigger humanitarian focus after overthrowing the Taliban would’ve helped curve attitudes towards the U.S. military, but I’m not sure what good this would do concerning Afghan’s legal affairs. Once the U.S. told the elected government to have at it, there’s next to nothing the U.S. could do.

Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that facilitated and enabled the 9/11 attacks?
Yes.

Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?
Yes. Stories like this one and girls being raped in Pakistan for their conversion are reasons why I roll my eyes at U.S. Christians alleging religious persecution. Sentencing a man to death because of his religious convictions is nowhere near the ballpark of “rule of law.” Punishing this man mocks the spirit in which rule of law is practiced. The judicial proceedings in this case are a sorry imitation of justice.

Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?
Hell no. Pat Robertson and the Christian Circus should get off their bums and ask members to petition Congress concerning something more worthwhile than The Gay Teletubby if they have it in them to denounce theocratic rule for a moment.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Mar 20 2006, 08:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Juan Speeder
post Mar 20 2006, 06:21 PM
Post #5


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Member No.: 2,874
Joined: April-8-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



Just for the record, he isn't being persecuted for becoming Christian, but for leaving Islam. The religion he chose to convert to is moot.

It would never had made the news here in the US had he converted to say...Buhddism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Mar 20 2006, 06:47 PM
Post #6


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



1) Do you think the war in Iraq, which is now considered a mistake by most American's and much of the world has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progessive Afghan nation?

Yes, but I think its unfair to lay the blame solely on the USA. Responsibility for change comes from within and the Afghans themselves bear a large proportion of responsibility for what has happened.

And so does the international community. There has been much more support for the Afganistan campaign, but frankly, its been lacking. The British are moving more troops into Afghanistan, but I wonder if its not too few too late.


2) Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that faciliated and enabled the 9/11 attacks? Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?

Without a doubt Afghanistans society is still in the grip of Islamic extremism, but I think the government is different. The current government is a lot weaker than the Taliban. I get the feeling it has less support amongst the population.


3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

It has lowered the price of heroin in Europe...? sad.gif


4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?

I agree with most of the points Leslie raised, but I'm not sure who Pat Robertson actually is (other than he's some one I doubt I have much in common with)

I don't think the world should stand quiet, on any issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Mar 21 2006, 04:46 AM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 20 2006, 06:38 AM)
QUOTE
  I do think, for the record, that Afghanistan today represents significant progress(iveness) over Afghanistan under the Taliban.


How, exactly? Most of the more horrendous laws, for example those regarding the status of women under the Taliban, have been reimposed by the warlords.
*

I explained how. Rule of law, however fledgling it may be in Afghanistan currently, was practically non-existent under the Taliban. And the particular case that was referenced in this thread has nothing to do with warlords.

QUOTE(moif)
I don't think the world should stand quiet, on any issue.

Neither do I, but speaking out is not the same as forcibly intervening against the will of the sovereign government there. Other countries have a perfect right to say what they want about our internal policies, but that doesn't mean I want them trying to actively intervene in our affairs here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Mar 21 2006, 05:33 AM
Post #8


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Blackstone @ Mar 20 2006, 11:46 PM)
Other countries have a perfect right to say what they want about our internal policies, but that doesn't mean I want them trying to actively intervene in our affairs here.
*

Intervene as in come between this man and his executioner, or something less direct, like say, crimping President Karzai’s excellent taste in formalwear?

Your refrain and the silence of those who jump on the ACLU are bizarre. There was no shortage of people in Hamas and the new Palestine wanting to stop aid immediately following election results, but democratically passed laws, no matter how unjust, seem to pass the inalienable rights concept conservatives like to lean on—so far in this discussion, anyway.

Yeah, you're arguing it from a sovereignty angle, but I hope the U.N. or somebody would do something more than just throw words at us if we adopted a similarly intolerant "law" and lacked the will to make a one time exception for civilian-sanctioned murder.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Mar 21 2006, 05:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogurt
post Mar 21 2006, 02:56 PM
Post #9


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 5,162
Joined: June-20-05

From: PA, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE
3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?


It killed a bunch of bad guys and destroyed their training camps.
But on a grander note, I think what you are getting is a glimpse of "Christmas' yet to come". This forbears the world that Islam intends for all of us.
-Women's Rights? - nope
-Gay rights? - Hah!
-Human Rights? - Nyet
-Freedom of Religion - Off with your head!

The unwitting accomplices who try to placate them are enabling it to happen. We are so afraid of offending Muslims that they can do whatever they want, wherever they want, and we're not supposed to criticize. The left is so preoccupied with Christians, they are ignoring their real threat. We allow Muslims to polygamize, but not Mormons; We can't publish cartoons about Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him or We Will Keel You) but we actually fund "art" about defecating on Mary and Jesus. Christians are evil for not wanting marriage legitimized for gays, Muslims are OK because they only want to kill them. Is there anything wrong with this picture?

Once we get done scouring Afghanistan of Taliban we pull out and withdraw funding unless and until they change their tune. And we hold the line on funding other terrorists like Hammas, even if they are elected. You want to be governed by terrorists? Fine, but you'll do it without our help.

I am fast becoming a an isolationist any more. The "Global Community" and the Eunuch Nations is nothing more than a dysfunctional family on the order of the Mansons.
Do whatever you want over there, but don't screw with us. Give fair warning in front of the UN that anyone who screws with us will be held accountable to the tune of, say, 1000:1. Period, end of story, no negotiating. You kill one American, you pay the price. No more milk factories.... We take out people. Maybe we hold onto NATO or some simile, in case the UK or Danes would like our assistance, other than that, have a nice life smile.gif

If we try are we could be self-sufficient on energy by 2015, "Get er done!" Let the Euros, China, and Russia deal with it. If Muslims want to live in the US, Great! Provided they do it according to the Constitution and our Laws, and allow others the freedoms they want for themselves.

/rant off

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 21 2006, 04:38 PM
Post #10


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 21 2006, 02:56 PM)
The unwitting accomplices who try to placate them are enabling it to happen. We are so afraid of offending Muslims that they can do whatever they want, wherever they want, and we're not supposed to criticize. The left is so preoccupied with Christians, they are ignoring their real threat. We allow Muslims to polygamize, but not Mormons; We can't publish cartoons about Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him or We Will Keel You) but we actually fund "art" about defecating on Mary and Jesus. Christians are evil for not wanting marriage legitimized for gays, Muslims are OK because they only want to kill them. Is there anything wrong with this picture? 


Apart from how utterly off-topic this is, it is also atonishingly full of pointless vitriol, and very little connected to reality.

The left opposes almost every single thing you just ascribed to them, in fact as a general rule they oppose it MORE than the right does.

Polygamy is illegal for Mormons AND Muslims (and anyone else) in the US.

There is nothing at all preventing you from publishing cartoons of Mohammed, or for applying for art-council funding to do so.

Gay marriage is a matter of equality, and agree or not, I think you will find those who DO want gay marriage legalised are NOT pro-Muslim for their habit of persecuting and even killing Muslims. That also, it might surprise you to know, is illegal in the US.


The only thing wrong with your picture, is that every single bile-filled ranting fact in it is wrong.


QUOTE
Once we get done scouring Afghanistan of Taliban we pull out and withdraw funding unless and until they change their tune.


Wow, way to miss the point. You did essentially pull out of Afghanistan, and THATS THE PROBLEM. You went in there, created a power vaccum and then let the warlords take over without a though. These same warlords are now ramping up opium production, imposing Taliban style laws, and in some cases are accused of aiding and funding international terrorism.

QUOTE
If we try are we could be self-sufficient on energy by 2015, "Get er done!"

Really? Cause right now over 40% of your energy comes from foreign sources, and you can change that in 9 years?


Oh, and Muslims in the US DO live according to US laws. Are you trying to assert otherwise?

You seem to have been unable to make up your mind if you wantd to rant against Islam, the Left (at one point you seem to consider the two synonymous) or just against logic and reality itself...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogurt
post Mar 21 2006, 10:21 PM
Post #11


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 5,162
Joined: June-20-05

From: PA, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 21 2006, 11:38 AM)
Apart from how utterly off-topic this is, it is also atonishingly full of pointless vitriol, and very little connected to reality.


I just think what we are seeing in this Afghani instance is indicative of what Muslims want to enforce everywhere.

QUOTE
Siraj Wahaj was a former minister of the Nation of Islam who initially accepted the leadership of Warith Deen Muhammad. He later split over issues where he felt that Warith Deen Muhammad was being too accomodating to American society. Siraj Wahaj supports polygamy and full implementation of the Shariah where as Warith Deen Muhammad rejected polygamy and favored a more gradual move toward implementation of Shariah. Since the split Warith Deen Muhammad allegedly has moved his group closer to the Wahhabi sect and called for the reestablishment of the Caliphate.
Muhammed Abdullah Ahari

I congratulate Tony Blair on his speaking mission he began today, but a fear it is falling on deaf ears when it comes to Islamists. While I applaud his effort, I'm reminded that it takes two to tango. Negotiations only work in two circumstances:
1. When both parties want to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, or
2) At the point of a gun (or more realistically an army).
The jury is still out on if #1 is going to work...


QUOTE
The left opposes almost every single thing you just ascribed to them, in fact as a general rule they oppose it MORE than the right does.


I understand that, that's why I think that denying that the Muslims would like nothing better than to turn us and everyone else into an Islamic Theocracy is a point being missed by many. I would think the left would be more vocal about increasing Islamic influence. If we allow them to tell the newspapers what we can print, what is next?

QUOTE
Polygamy is illegal for Mormons AND Muslims (and anyone else) in the US.


But it is being openly done by Muslims in the Detroit area, and who knows where else that it hasn't been publicized in, yet nothing is being done...

QUOTE
There is nothing at all preventing you from publishing cartoons of Mohammed, or for applying for art-council funding to do so.


But they are not, and why?

QUOTE
But the Phoenix isn't publishing the Mohammed drawings, and in a brutally candid editorial it explained why.

''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . .
from one who was honest enough to say so.
Others do it because of their "sensitivity", where are those sensitivities when it comes to Christians and Jews?


QUOTE
Gay marriage is a matter of equality, and agree or not, I think you will find those who DO want gay marriage legalised are NOT pro-Muslim for their habit of persecuting and even killing Muslims. That also, it might surprise you to know, is illegal in the US.


How come there haven't been more on the left to actively come out and condemn Islam for their treatment of women and homosexuals then? I don't recall seeing any on the Sunday morning news show...

QUOTE(Mine)
Once we get done scouring Afghanistan of Taliban we pull out and withdraw funding unless and until they change their tune.


QUOTE(Verm)
Wow, way to miss the point. You did essentially pull out of Afghanistan, and THATS THE PROBLEM. You went in there, created a power vaccum and then let the warlords take over without a though. These same warlords are now ramping up opium production, imposing Taliban style laws, and in some cases are accused of aiding and funding international terrorism.


We aren't really out, we're still there. We have just allowed the elected government to do thing thing... If we hadn't pulled back and allowed them to take over, like we're trying in Iraq also, we could rightfully be called occupiers. I just don't think we're going to get the result that the right is hoping for.

QUOTE
Really? Cause right now over 40% of your energy comes from foreign sources, and you can change that in 9 years?

Drat, I gave away my copy of Discover to a friend to read, February issue. I think it was last months. There's a great article in it on how it could happen, and it's all plausible stuff.

QUOTE
Oh, and Muslims in the US DO live according to US laws. Are you trying to assert otherwise?


Case in point the Muslims living in openly polygamist relations in the Detroit area.

QUOTE
Here's a quote from Islamic commentator Hassan Hathout:

We American Muslims are subject to American law and we have the right of objection only if the law forces us to do something against Islam. . . . When an American Muslim takes a second wife (as is rumored to be the practice of some Islamic centers), the second wife is denied her "legal" proof of marriage, and will essentially be kept as a hidden or secret wife
.


QUOTE
You seem to have been unable to make up your mind if you wantd to rant against Islam, the Left (at one point you seem to consider the two synonymous) or just against logic and reality itself...


The point I was trying to get at, is that there seems to be a dichotomy on the left. The right seems to know who the enemy is (but hasn't figured out what to do about it), whereas the left is so focused on the right and Christians that I think they're missing what is coming...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Mar 22 2006, 12:00 AM
Post #12


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(kalabus @ Mar 19 2006, 05:56 PM)
4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?
*



This is the one question that really draws out a response from me.

Afghanistan is a stand-alone nation. As such, Afghanistan is within its right to do whatever it pleases. If that nations law deems being one religion punishable by death, we must assume that its citizens know the law and are willing to face the consequences. If it is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise.

We execute our people for committing murder, while other countries do not. While it may not be within our government's moral compass to execute a person based on religion; it is not within some foreign governments for us to execute anyone period.

Law, in no matter what country, is law. We have no right to force ourselves on another country and tell them how they should be reacting. Laws are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own. We do not have to answer to Afghanistan, they should not be expected to answer to us.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Mar 22 2006, 01:15 PM
Post #13


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



I must say I am incredulous at statements like:
QUOTE
Afghanistan is a stand-alone nation. As such, Afghanistan is within its right to do whatever it pleases. If that nations law deems being one religion punishable by death, we must assume that its citizens know the law and are willing to face the consequences. If it is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise


To that I can state that is one of the most inane comments I have ever read. Sixty-one years ago the world banded together to defeat such a nation. Fifty-eight years ago the United Nations passed a treaty declaring such practises to be a war crime. Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

We (the international community) tried, convicted and hung people for this exact same crime. No nation on the face of the planet is 'within it's right to do whatever it pleases'.

Then there is this:
QUOTE
Law, in no matter what country, is law. We have no right to force ourselves on another country and tell them how they should be reacting. Laws are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own. We do not have to answer to Afghanistan, they should not be expected to answer to us.


We have several thousand soldiers in Afghanistan and supply them with billions of taxpayers' dollars every year. They better darn well be answerable to us. Was the reason that we are have soldiers there, to support a fascist regime, I sure hope not.

What I find very interesting is that President Hamid Karzai has been presented as a 'moderate' Muslim. So the international community has committed billions or dollars and thousands of personnel to support him, and this is the view of a moderate Muslim. The scariest part is that he really is the face of a moderate Muslim, and the best we can hope for.

We not only have a 'right' to stop this, but an obligation under international law to prevent genocide. We certainly have the ability as well.

Nobody and I do mean nobody should ever be punished for their religious beliefs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Mar 23 2006, 12:30 AM
Post #14


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 22 2006, 08:15 AM)
To that I can state that is one of the most inane comments I have ever read. Sixty-one years ago the world banded together to defeat such a nation. Fifty-eight years ago the United Nations passed a treaty declaring such practises to be a war crime. Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
*




The world may have banded together at that time, but does the prevent nations from still existing and ruling how they will? I think not. The fact is, nations still exist, boundaries still are drawn. There are laws for right. There are laws for wrong. They vary from country to country, but the world has no right to be the moral police of a state that may not share their zeal for what they believe to be "right" or what they belive to be "wrong."


QUOTE(loreng59)
We (the international community) tried, convicted and hung people for this exact same crime. No nation on the face of the planet is 'within it's right to do whatever it pleases'.


We should not have. It is not our concern nor our right to meddle in the private affairs of another nation. If we dislike our own government stepping in and telling us how to treat each other: why do we have no problem when it steps in to tell others?


QUOTE(loreng59)
Then there is this:
QUOTE
Law, in no matter what country, is law. We have no right to force ourselves on another country and tell them how they should be reacting. Laws are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own. We do not have to answer to Afghanistan, they should not be expected to answer to us.


We have several thousand soldiers in Afghanistan and supply them with billions of taxpayers' dollars every year. They better darn well be answerable to us. Was the reason that we are have soldiers there, to support a fascist regime, I sure hope not.


I stand by what I said because I believe it whole-heartily. Our soldiers are there to protect against and search for terrorists, they are not there to police and/or force Afghanistan to do anything. We still have troops in Germany, would you presume to tell me they must answer to us, too?


QUOTE(loreng59)
What I find very interesting is that President Hamid Karzai has been presented as a 'moderate' Muslim. So the international community has committed billions or dollars and thousands of personnel to support him, and this is the view of a moderate Muslim. The scariest part is that he really is the face of a moderate Muslim, and the best we can hope for.


This is what I do not get. You say no one should be punished for their religious beliefs. Yet here, you express distaste over the religion predominating and ruling the nation. Why would we punish Afghanistan for practicing their religion. Would you dare insult a religion and a nation for one person who, by their law, has committed a crime?


QUOTE(loreng59)
We not only have a 'right' to stop this, but an obligation under international law to prevent genocide. We certainly have the ability as well.


The international laws are hardly universal. There are nations and groups of people on this earth who do not acknowledge them. Lets say this is the United States. We are too powerful for the international community to stop us. Look at the War in Iraq. International law says that is illegal. Yet we are there. Do not tell me International law governs a nation more than their own.

QUOTE(loreng59)
Nobody and I do mean nobody should ever be punished for their religious beliefs.


And no one, I mean no one, has the right to interfere with this nations policy towards religion because it is their law and their Constitution that governs their actions. Not ours.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post Mar 23 2006, 05:52 AM
Post #15


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



The fourth question for debate has evolved into a very important and profound one. Is it ever proper for one nation to involve itself in the internal policies of another?

I think we can agree that such involvement should be reserved for extreme circumstances. It is also clear that all possible alternative methods of persuasion -- diplomacy, economic sanctions, and so on -- should be used before any form of force. However, there are some outrages which demand direct intervention.

Does the impending execution of one apostate reach this level of outrage? Very nearly, I would say. At the very least, there should be international condemnation and severe sanctions. If Afghanistan continues to follow such an evil policy against its own people, stronger measures from the international community may be necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 23 2006, 08:56 AM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 23 2006, 12:30 AM)
We should not have. It is not our concern nor our right to meddle in the private affairs of another nation. If we dislike our own government stepping in and telling us how to treat each other: why do we have no problem when it steps in to tell others?

And no one, I mean no one, has the right to interfere with this nations policy towards religion because it is their law and their Constitution that governs their actions. Not ours.



Uh, while I applaud the general principle of your moral stance, don't you think in this case it is a bit misplaced? We are not talking about some country which has some laws we don't like, this is not Nigeria or Malasia.

This is a country the US just recently invaded and deposed the central government. It was in all the papers. The US with assorted allies invaded the country, bombed parts of it to ruin, destroyed the existing government, and replaced it with one of our choosing. This happenbed so recently that US and allied forces are still there, not as general observers, but trying to maintain the peace (or create one), defend the government and are suffering casualties doing so. Afghanistan is an ongoing concern, and has been largely abandoned and allowed to slip back into sectarian chaos because Biush got distracted by Iraq.


Given that the US and the World INVADED the country, is OCCUPYING the country, imposed a government WE wanted, then abandoned it, it is not.... a touch odd to say the least to now say we have no business meddling in their internal affairs?



Besides, while military options are not always required, I entirely disagree that the world has 'no place telling nations what to do'. If you truly believe that, I think Nelson Mandela would be interested in your apology for those 'sanctions' and your suggestion that we should never have disapproved of apartheid, which was after all an entirely internal matter...

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 23 2006, 08:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Argonaut
post Mar 23 2006, 09:42 AM
Post #17


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 2,263
Joined: January-23-04

From: State of Jefferson
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 21 2006, 04:00 PM)
If that nations law deems being one religion punishable by death, we must assume that its citizens know the law and are willing to face the consequences. If it is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise...

Law, in no matter what country, is law. We have no right to force ourselves on another country and tell them how they should be reacting. Laws are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own.


I share somewhat in the incredulity expressed by Loreng regarding VDemo's comments. Let's try putting some (real life) meat on these theoretical bones:

"If that nations (Hitler's Germany) law deems being one religion (Judaism) punishable by death, we must assume that it's citizens (Jews) know the law and are willing to face the consequences (slave labor, torture, gas, ovens...)"

Oh really? hmmm.gif

"If it (forced evacuation to concentration camps) is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise... zipped.gif

"Law (government sanctioned genocide), in no matter what country, is law." police.gif

Just doing my job Ma'am. devil.gif

"Laws (requiring sterilization of Jews and other 'undesirables') are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own." bye.gif

Should the Nazis at Nuremberg have been celebrated as "law abiding (and enforcing)" citizens of the Fatherland?....

VDemo continues:
QUOTE
If we dislike our own government stepping in and telling us how to treat each other: why do we have no problem when it steps in to tell others?


Because there is a difference between an abhorance of intrusive government regulation of peaceful and voluntary interactions between people, and support for intervention against thieves, rapists, and murderers... wherever they may be.

Don't get me wrong. I would agree that any "Nation" should "meddle" as little as possible (if at all) in the affairs of other "Nations. But at some point, lines on a map should not trump an individuals right (no matter what his latitude and longitude) to life, liberty, and property. I suppose the question is at what point we cross that line (if ever).

Simplistic statements like "the law is the law" (no matter what?) suggest a reverence for majority (mob) rule (51% +1) through the machinations of a "State" with little (if any) consideration of individual human rights.

Perhaps we should never have had our "revolution"? After all, the colonies were under direct control by rule of the "laws" of Great Britain. Heck, we even welcomed the "Sovereign Nation" of France when she intervened (meddled) on our behalf against the British. Go figure. hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Mar 23 2006, 01:34 PM
Post #18


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
The world may have banded together at that time, but does the prevent nations from still existing and ruling how they will? I think not. The fact is, nations still exist, boundaries still are drawn. There are laws for right. There are laws for wrong. They vary from country to country, but the world has no right to be the moral police of a state that may not share their zeal for what they believe to be "right" or what they belive to be "wrong."


QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
We should not have. It is not our concern nor our right to meddle in the private affairs of another nation. If we dislike our own government stepping in and telling us how to treat each other: why do we have no problem when it steps in to tell others?


I do not advocate the intervention of countries without an extreme reason. Genocide is such a reason

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
I stand by what I said because I believe it whole-heartily. Our soldiers are there to protect against and search for terrorists, they are not there to police and/or force Afghanistan to do anything. We still have troops in Germany, would you presume to tell me they must answer to us, too?


You're darn tooting they better answer to us. As I said before they receive billions of our dollars and have our troops protecting them, we do have a say in the matter. And if Germany passed a similar set of laws the US troops would react for good reason, actually I can think of 6 million good reasons for that reaction. I would even volunteer again for the Army. The world would be demanding it. The only time that they don't is when it involve Muslim religious intolerance, since they have over 25% of the voting bloc in the United Nations.

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
This is what I do not get. You say no one should be punished for their religious beliefs. Yet here, you express distaste over the religion predominating and ruling the nation. Why would we punish Afghanistan for practicing their religion. Would you dare insult a religion and a nation for one person who, by their law, has committed a crime?


I have a strong distaste for any religion that demands punishment for a person's religious beliefs or lack there of. It is wrong not only morally, but legally as well. But then again we are told repeatedly that Islam is a religion of 'peace and tolerance', isn't that what President Bush proclaimed?

Just because a government passes certain laws, there are consequences for such action. That is why there are international laws, to prevent this exact action. Would you support any country executing people because they are Muslim? I sure wouldn't.

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
The international laws are hardly universal. There are nations and groups of people on this earth who do not acknowledge them. Lets say this is the United States. We are too powerful for the international community to stop us. Look at the War in Iraq. International law says that is illegal. Yet we are there. Do not tell me International law governs a nation more than their own.


That is why we have various methods of enforcement, from diplomatic to armed intervention. Your comment about the war in Iraq is not only off topic, but false as well. The Iraq military committed several hundred acts of war against the US and UK prior to the war.

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
And no one, I mean no one, has the right to interfere with this nations policy towards religion because it is their law and their Constitution that governs their actions. Not ours.


They do when it is a war crime. Human rights supersede national laws.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Mar 23 2006, 02:30 PM
Post #19


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Afghanistan is a stand-alone nation. As such, Afghanistan is within its right to do whatever it pleases.


Right, except it isn't a stand-alone country. Withdrawing all troops and economic aid, that would make it stand-alone. Throw Iraq in there too.

Stop doing business with any of these weird people. If they want to live in the sixth century, fine. If they want to kill each other, fine. If they want to slash each other, fine.

Only they can figure out how insane these practices are.

Meanwhile, we need to tighten up our defenses against insanity. The 9/11 attack was avoidable. Admit to that. What we have tried to do in the ME does not work. Admit to that. Now, do things that do work. Stop being insane.

Above all, pay attention. It's a screwed up world out there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Mar 24 2006, 12:19 AM
Post #20


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 23 2006, 03:56 AM)
This is a country the US just recently invaded and deposed the central government. It was in all the papers. The US with assorted allies invaded the country, bombed parts of it to ruin, destroyed the existing government, and replaced it with one of our choosing. This happenbed so recently that US and allied forces are still there, not as general observers, but trying to maintain the peace (or create one), defend the government and are suffering casualties doing so. Afghanistan is an ongoing concern, and has been largely abandoned and allowed to slip back into sectarian chaos because Bush got distracted by Iraq.
*



We invaded Afghanistan to remove the Talibian. Very well, goal attained! Now, our concern was establishing peace. Done that, too! Afghanistan is no longer a threat to the world in strictest sense. Regarding their policy post-invasion: I'm glad they simply have one and have the political might to have any.



QUOTE(Vermillion)
Given that the US and the World INVADED the country, is OCCUPYING the country, imposed a government WE wanted, then abandoned it, it is not.... a touch odd to say the least to now say we have no business meddling in their internal affairs?


We INVADED the country to establish stability. We OCCUPY the country to ensure stability. WE have no right to stick our nose further in DOMESTIC affairs of the OCCUPIED nation; we're simply babysitters in this case.


QUOTE(Vermillion)
Besides, while military options are not always required, I entirely disagree that the world has 'no place telling nations what to do'. If you truly believe that, I think Nelson Mandela would be interested in your apology for those 'sanctions' and your suggestion that we should never have disapproved of apartheid, which was after all an entirely internal matter...


Would you mind telling me how disapproving and demanding are the same thing? I am worried about the world demanding Afghanistan go against its own law. Not the world disapproving of it. I may disapprove of it, but I will not stop them.


QUOTE(Argonaut)
"If that nations (Hitler's Germany) law deems being one religion (Judaism) punishable by death, we must assume that it's citizens (Jews) know the law and are willing to face the consequences (slave labor, torture, gas, ovens...)"

Oh really? 

"If it (forced evacuation to concentration camps) is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise... 

"Law (government sanctioned genocide), in no matter what country, is law." 

Just doing my job Ma'am. 

"Laws (requiring sterilization of Jews and other 'undesirables') are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own." 

Should the Nazis at Nuremberg have been celebrated as "law abiding (and enforcing)" citizens of the Fatherland?....


Genocide does not begin with one person and remain an isolated incident. This is not a widespread problem and if it becomes one, I promise to renounce my stance in the public form of your choosing.


QUOTE(Argonaut)
Because there is a difference between an abhorance of intrusive government regulation of peaceful and voluntary interactions between people, and support for intervention against thieves, rapists, and murderers... wherever they may be.


In an Islamic nation, leaving Islam is just as bad as those things. You may not see things in Middle-Eastern black and white, but that does not mean it does not exist or is any less terrible as murder by their standards.


QUOTE(Argonaut)
Don't get me wrong. I would agree that any "Nation" should "meddle" as little as possible (if at all) in the affairs of other "Nations. But at some point, lines on a map should not trump an individuals right (no matter what his latitude and longitude) to life, liberty, and property. I suppose the question is at what point we cross that line (if ever).


You must know the law to break it. This man knew when he left Islam it would be detrimental to his health.


QUOTE(Argonaut)
Simplistic statements like "the law is the law" (no matter what?) suggest a reverence for majority (mob) rule (51% +1) through the machinations of a "State" with little (if any) consideration of individual human rights.


Dear, oh dear. Afghanistan is not the United States! Our law to human rights is not the same in the Middle-East.


QUOTE
Perhaps we should never have had our "revolution"? After all, the colonies were under direct control by rule of the "laws" of Great Britain. Heck, we even welcomed the "Sovereign Nation" of France when she intervened (meddled) on our behalf against the British. Go figure. 


This is a stretch at best. The United States citizens at the time all felt it was wrong, and they as a people chose to rise up and revolt. Another country did not decide if that was right or wrong. France was asked to assist us by Ben Franklin... Not some foreigner.


QUOTE(loreng59)
I do not advocate the intervention of countries without an extreme reason. Genocide is such a reason.


How many people have died because of this? Is it systematic? Is a dictator in power exercising absolute authority? Genocide is not occurring. This is no different than a trial for man slaughter in the United States according to the Constitution of the nation of Afghanistan.


QUOTE(loreng59)
You're darn tooting they better answer to us. As I said before they receive billions of our dollars and have our troops protecting them, we do have a say in the matter. And if Germany passed a similar set of laws the US troops would react for good reason, actually I can think of 6 million good reasons for that reaction. I would even volunteer again for the Army. The world would be demanding it. The only time that they don't is when it involve Muslim religious intolerance, since they have over 25% of the voting bloc in the United Nations
.

When last I looked, correct me if I'm wrong, it was us that invaded them. Why would a husband answer to the man sleeping with his wife? Your logic seems a bit... Well. We invaded in order to remove an international threat. We have no right to govern them. France did not for us. England no longer does for their former lands.


QUOTE(loreng59)
I have a strong distaste for any religion that demands punishment for a person's religious beliefs or lack there of. It is wrong not only morally, but legally as well. But then again we are told repeatedly that Islam is a religion of 'peace and tolerance', isn't that what President Bush proclaimed?


Well, I'm glad you have distaste. How does this effect their domestic policy though? Islam does practice tolerance. But one of their Pillars is to convert and keep people in the faith. According to their law, they are within right to be doing this.

QUOTE(loreng59)
Just because a government passes certain laws, there are consequences for such action. That is why there are international laws, to prevent this exact action. Would you support any country executing people because they are Muslim? I sure wouldn't.


There shouldn't be. International law is like "Do not swim here" signs. Dare me to do it and I shall. If it was the governing religion's principle, yes I would.


QUOTE(loreng59)
That is why we have various methods of enforcement, from diplomatic to armed intervention. Your comment about the war in Iraq is not only off topic, but false as well. The Iraq military committed several hundred acts of war against the US and UK prior to the war.


My point is still valid. Why would we insist Afghanistan do something for us when they have done nothing to hinder or harm us since the removal of the dangerous regime?


Author, I think everything is above. thumbsup.gif




This post has been edited by VDemosthenes: Mar 24 2006, 12:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 5th, 2021 - 11:32 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.