Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I rate there being four major Islamic powers. Iran, Pakistan, the Saudis, and Indonesia.

This seems like a weird list to me, because it doesn't reduce it to the two sectarian cornerstones everyone is always looking at, Saudi Arabia and Iran, but it's also not consistently inclusive, ranking Pakistan (it would be more appropriate to include Afghanistan along side it, counting the region rather than specific states) and Indonesia (which, while not an insignificant country, isn't a major player in the related geopolitics), and not, say, the UAE or Turkey.

Iran is as hard-line as they come, Pakistan is so chaotic as to be pretty bad (I take points off for nukes). Indonesia is considerably better.

Iran is considerably more progressive than Saudi Arabia (if less so than, say, Turkey, the UAE, or Qatar), its government just refuses to be pushed around by western powers. The government also has significant opposition amongst the people of Iran, and even a degree in the religious institution.

Pakistan is in the midst of a civil war, part of which is spillover from the occupation of afghanistan. Even if it is a major player because of its nuclear arsenal, it's still not to be looked at as much of a model of anything. Although it should also be noted that it too is more progressive than Saudi Arabia...

Indonesia... Well, I'm a bit less familiar with it, but if memory serves it too beats Saudi Arabia in these criteria...

So really, Saudi Arabia comes out at the bottom of the list. I don't think you'll find worse outside of, say, North Korea or territory controlled by fanatic warlords or militias.

[kuro_suna]

it would be more appropriate to include Afghanistan along side it, counting the region rather than specific states

But Afghanistan isn't much of a power. Its poor, has little military strength and need foreign support to maintain a centralized government.

Iran is considerably more progressive than Saudi Arabia (if less so than, say, Turkey, the UAE, or Qatar), its government just refuses to be pushed around by western powers. The government also has significant opposition amongst the people of Iran, and even a degree in the religious institution.

Its too bad since if it wasn't for that operation ajax bit Iran would probably be a valued ally of the west.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

it would be more appropriate to include Afghanistan along side it, counting the region rather than specific states

But Afghanistan isn't much of a power. Its poor, has little military strength and need foreign support to maintain a centralized government.

I meant lumped in with Pakistan as one region, but then... I don't know, I don't like that list, because there a number of states equally or more influential and/or powerful than Pakistan excluded, so it comes across as sort of a random collection of names that have been in the news a lot...

Iran is considerably more progressive than Saudi Arabia (if less so than, say, Turkey, the UAE, or Qatar), its government just refuses to be pushed around by western powers. The government also has significant opposition amongst the people of Iran, and even a degree in the religious institution.

Its too bad since if it wasn't for that operation ajax bit Iran would probably be a valued ally of the west.

From what I've heard, the people of Iran themselves are mostly either pro-western, or at the least not anti-western, aside from the handful of ideologues you get anywhere. Even the government appears more defensive than anything...

[zchris13]

Egypt. You forget Egypt.

[ChairmanPoo]

The Saudi goverment has issued a stay of execution. Guess they are having trouble finding a duck.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8600398.stm

[Strife26]

Egypt. You forget Egypt.

I put Egypt tied for 5th with Turkey.

[Jude]

From what I've heard, the people of Iran themselves are mostly either pro-western, or at the least not anti-western, aside from the handful of ideologues you get anywhere. Even the government appears more defensive than anything...

Even if they don't like their own government, they're not necessarily pro-western. Many are of course but many aren't even among the opposition

Especially on the nuclear issue. Even among anti-theocracy types I'd think a lot of them still want not only nuclear power, but nuclear weapons. If you look at it from their position it's easy to see why: all the other major world powers have nukes, including ones in their area: Russia, India, Israel all do. When you have the nukes, it's easy to say "Nobody else can make a nuclear weapon." When you don't, that just sounds like somebody trying to keep a gun levelled at your head which they can fire whenever they want.

[Muz]

Eh, witchcraft is a serious thing. Doesn't matter whether or not it works, but if you're trying to use it to kill people and stuff, you should be arrested for attempted murder. Or if you're using demons to steal, arrested for attempted robbery, etc.

Of course, horoscopes and fortune telling is pushing it a bit.

Only reasoning I see for such an extreme sentence is the whole Al-Masjid Al-Haram in Mecca thing. Wikipedia says it means "sacred mosque", but translated literally, it means "forbidden mosque". It means that non-believers are forbidden to enter the land. Being a heretic would offend people as much as espionage. Makes sense for people to be pissed off at him doing a pilgrimage.

Also, Saudi Arabia is pretty much the only nation ruled by a full monarchy. And much of their money comes from Muslim tourists going to Mecca, so it makes sense for them to act more fanatical than necessary.


This rather annoys me more than it amuses. All those fanatical idiots going about unstopped. And the human rights activists aren't going to really fight for him, no, people fight harder for animal rights than human rights. If he dies, it's another charlatan lost to the world, no sympathy there.

[Earthquake Damage]

The big international issue I see here is that a Lebanese man has been railroaded through a Saudi court and sentenced to execution.  Shouldn't they have deported him?  And if they find him so terrible that the thought of his return is unbearable, they could have threatened bad things if he comes back.

[Rooster]

Eh, witchcraft is a serious thing. Doesn't matter whether or not it works, but if you're trying to use it to kill people and stuff, you should be arrested for attempted murder. Or if you're using demons to steal, arrested for attempted robbery, etc.

I thought about killing someone that annoys me today. I should be hanged to death for that.

Thought is not a crime.
Waving your hands around in the air is not a crime.

Why should someone be arrested for that?
The actual arrest should only happen only if there is proof of crime, such as a weapon used in murder.

What you're saying is that if I would say someone straight in the face ' I curse thee, you shall die tommorow!' and that person died in a car crash exactly the day predicted, I should be arrested.
Heck I should be arrested even for saying these words.

1) It's unjust
2) Too many exploits are possible with this. It's just wrong.

[kilakan]

I agree with rooster, plus you should be a little less, "all witches should die" a number of my friends practice wiccan tradition, and it's extremely offensive.  There's also a town nearby where I live, that there is still a bloody training school for shamanism.  So please discuss it, but avoid being insulting? 

[Jude]

Eh, witchcraft is a serious thing. Doesn't matter whether or not it works, but if you're trying to use it to kill people and stuff, you should be arrested for attempted murder. Or if you're using demons to steal, arrested for attempted robbery, etc.

Treating witchcraft as a crime requires the law to recognize that witchcraft WORKS and is not just poppycock, which would of course send any reasonable legal system into the pits of oblivion.

[Aqizzar]

Treating witchcraft as a crime requires the law to recognize that witchcraft WORKS and is not just poppycock, which would of course send any reasonable legal system into the pits of oblivion.

If someone goes around selling their services as a Rainmaker, people pay him, then they sue him for fraud when the rain doesn't show up, would the ruling determine whether rainmaking is real?  I'm honestly stumped on that.

[Strife26]

Treating witchcraft as a crime requires the law to recognize that witchcraft WORKS and is not just poppycock, which would of course send any reasonable legal system into the pits of oblivion.

If someone goes around selling their services as a Rainmaker, people pay him, then they sue him for fraud when the rain doesn't show up, would the ruling determine whether rainmaking is real?  I'm honestly stumped on that.

In America?
I believe that it'd be a simple case of whether or not it was clearly billed as "entertainment use ONLY!"

[Jude]

Treating witchcraft as a crime requires the law to recognize that witchcraft WORKS and is not just poppycock, which would of course send any reasonable legal system into the pits of oblivion.

If someone goes around selling their services as a Rainmaker, people pay him, then they sue him for fraud when the rain doesn't show up, would the ruling determine whether rainmaking is real?  I'm honestly stumped on that.

Well personally I'd throw the case out, since in my view people have a right to use their money how they want, and I say fraud can only apply if there could be a reasonable expectation of the services actually being delivered. If you ruled that it WAS fraud, then you'd be implying that there was reason to expect the rain to come, which would imply that the lawgivers thought rainmaking worked.