|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: Afghanistan Christian Convert Facing Death |
 |
|
Death Could Await Afghanistan's Christian Convert
U.S. lawmaker: Christian-conversion prosecution 'outrageous'
Wednesday, March 22, 2006; Posted: 1:03 a.m. EST (06:03 GMT)
Television footage shows Abdul Rahman being interviewed last week during a hearing in Kabul.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.
That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.
Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam. He told local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time.
"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."
The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty.
( Watch how Rahman's case could cast doubts on Afghanistan's commitment to democracy -- 1:17 )
Afghanistan's population is 80 percent Sunni Muslim and 19 percent Shiite Muslim, according to the CIA. The other 1 percent of the population is classified as "other."
http://us.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I see Bush's plan for spreading democracy and freedom amongst the Muslim masses is paying off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
What does Hamid Karzai have to say about this?
But it's a definite WTF?!? situation.
Why are NATO troops there trying to keep/enforce peace if 'peace' means such laws are being upheld? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Child Bride
Posted by Kevin Sites
on Mon, Mar 20 2006, 4:55 PM ET Video Audio Photo Essay
Married at the age of four, an Afghan girl was subjected to years of beatings and torture, finally escaping to discover that within all the world's cruelty, there is also some kindness.
KABUL, Afghanistan - Eleven-year old Gulsoma lay in a heap on the ground in front of her father-in-law. He told her that if she didn't find a missing watch by the next morning he would kill her. He almost had already.
Enraged about the missing watch, Gulsoma's father-in-law had beaten her repeatedly with a stick. She was bleeding from wounds all over her body and her right arm and right foot had been broken.
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs2986 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBlackEquus
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Lotte controls Asia with bad chocolate!
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded people are to assume that an entire nation will become a peaceful democracy within just a few years. That type of thing doesn't just happen overnight. Those who seek to claim that Bush has failed in this need to keep this in mind, as much as those who expect to claim victory so soon.
Also, people claim this has all been a failure because a civil war is brewing.
Do you really think so?
Some might argue that the true genious of this entire action is to get Muslims to fight themselves, and wipe out the lesser factions. It's not politically correct for the USA to do what it really should be doing, which is wiping out those who refuse to agree. Nearly every other war fought in the past has concluded with: The conquered either join with the conquerer, or those who refuse to give in were slaughtered. That is war. There should be no "democratic" or "politically correct" way to fight a war. You wipe out those whom you conquer that will not join you.
The US has its hands tied by the current "politically correct" wave. They have been pointing nasty fingers at Germany, Hitler, Russia, North Korea, etc., for a long time. Now they can't fight a war as it is truly meant to be fought.
So what can be done? Leave it to the conquered country (Iraq) to have it's own civil war. Let the Muslims kill the Muslims. And everyone knows that they won't be merciful.
In the end, one large group is much more easily controlled than several different groups. And if they cannot be controlled, they too will be fought with eventually, but as a whole.
There is a historical lesson in this that the shortsighted are either unable to see, or don't want to see merely so they can claim defeat for their own selfish political gain.
And that is what is really happening here: The quicker we can claim that this Iraq thing has all been a waste of time, and that all Bush policy is trash, than the sooner we can get a non-Bush guy into office.
Things like Democracy take time. So does religious conversion (generations, really).
Bush has brought the Muslim issue out in the open for all to see. Muslims have been silently growing in population the world over. The growth is no longer silent, and Bush has managed to use the destructive/hateful nature of many of them to make the world view the entire religion with doubt/scorn.
And now one former Muslim is making world headlines by his conversion to Christianity. Yet again, the world is seeing the truth of what is really going on in the Muslim world. This man would have been killed 30 years ago for this -- it's not Bush's "failure" that is causing the death of this man.
This is the Muslim world facing failure from within. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coolsage
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: The overcast afternoon of the soul
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There are two thousand Canadian troops (the second-largest contingent, after the US) serving (and dying) in Afghanistan. If this is the sort of medieval mind-set that they are supporting in the interests of 'peace-keeping', then I say pull them out. Now. Yesterday. Let those cave-dwellers sort things out themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teufelswacht
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Mood hardens against Afghan convert
By Sanjoy Majumder
BBC News, Kabul
Abdul Rahman in court
Abdul Rahman is refusing to return to Islam
Increasing international pressure over the case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman is forcing the Afghan government to play a careful balancing act between its Western allies and religious conservatives at home.
Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan's constitution is based, Mr Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam.
"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.
"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.
'Deserves it'
The judge's comments are one indication of why President Hamid Karzai, who already has a reputation for being pro-Western, faces some difficult choices.
The president has yet to comment publicly on the trial but statements put out by his office point out that, while the government respects human rights and personal freedom, the country has an independent judicial system.
In practice, it is even more complicated.
The Afghan judiciary is dominated by religious conservatives, many with strong religious ties or backgrounds.
Many feel it will be difficult for the president and the government to confront the judiciary.
But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.
At Friday prayers in mosques across the Afghan capital, the case of Abdul Rahman and the consequent international outcry is the hot topic of discussion and the centrepiece of sermons.
"We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest.
"What Rahman has done is wrong and he must be punished."
Public mood
The issue has not reached the stage of street protests, as was the case recently during demonstrations against the publication in the West of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
But there is little doubt that feelings run deep and can easily be inflamed.
"What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman.
"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."
Few were willing to listen to the growing condemnation in the West.
"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land," says Mohammed Qadir, another worshipper.
US President George Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by the case.
That cuts no ice with Mr Qadir.
"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."
Western backers of the Afghan government are pressing to create a country that is a moderate and progressive democracy, able to turn its back on its Taleban past.
But analysts say they often forget that Afghanistan is a deeply conservative country rooted in tribal traditions.
"This is a Muslim country. The state is Muslim, people are Muslim 99%," says Judge Ansarullah.
"This is a very sensitive issue."
Afghanistan's constitution, written in 2004, enshrines the country as an Islamic state under which no law can contravene Islam.
But it also protects personal freedom and respects international human rights conventions.
"It is a deliberately ambiguous document which tries to paper over the cracks and contradictions of Afghanistan," says one Afghan law professor privately.
"But now the contradictions have risen to the surface." |
WTF???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4841334.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
| It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded people are to assume that an entire nation will become a peaceful democracy within just a few years. That type of thing doesn't just happen overnight. Those who seek to claim that Bush has failed in this need to keep this in mind, as much as those who expect to claim victory so soon. |
Grab a clue here- it was the BUSH Administration which was making the claim that "an entire nation will become a peaceful democracy within just a few years".
As matter of fact, in feb-march 2003 for Iraq they actually had it down to 90 days!!!
| Quote: |
Also, people claim this has all been a failure because a civil war is brewing.
Do you really think so?
|
Yes.
| Quote: |
| Some might argue that the true genious of this entire action is to get Muslims to fight themselves, and wipe out the lesser factions. |
Are you seriously suggesting that this was a strategy of the US govt for Afghanistan or Iraq? Then pass that crackpipe, will you? You've obviously got a some killer shit there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
Some might argue that the true genious of this entire action is to get Muslims to fight themselves, and wipe out the lesser factions.
Are you seriously suggesting that this was a strategy of the US govt for Afghanistan or Iraq? Then pass that crackpipe, will you? You've obviously got a some killer *beep* there...
|
BBE's defense of the war is more-or-less a version of "flypaper" defense, which states that the whole plan all along was to make Iraq into a "playground" for terrorists(in BBE's rendering "playground for terrorists" has morphed into outright civil war). Of course that completely contradicts the idea that Iraq will become a model democracy, not to mention the idea that Iraq will become a useful ally for American interests.
The imporant thing to remember is that these justifications are being composed AFTER THE FACT, in order to conform to realities that the war architects never envisioned.
-The purpose of the war is to bring peace and democracy to Iraq!
-Uhh, actually terrorism is spinning out of control.
-Oh, uhh, well, you see. That's all part of the plan. Get the terrorists fighting in Iraq so they're not attacking the US.
-But what if it turns into a civil war?
-Well, that's why we need to keep American troops there. To prevent a civil war.
-Uhh, hate to break it to you, but it just turned into a civil war. Dozens if not hundreds of people are dying every week.
-But that's the whole idea!! Start a civil war. Divide and conquer!
Of course, the war hawks haven't had a serious plan since at least as far back as "bring democracy to Iraq", and even that might have been just a ruse, depending on how cynical you are about their intentions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Bush admin has certainly been getting a real hard Derreking lately.
Would that be an ad hominem? oops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
They wanted to remove Saddam, create a democracy in its place, and score a major blow in the war on terror.
Things didn't go as planned.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what was it that Ann Coulter said??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Things didn't go as planned.
|
No, I'd say this is incorrect, as it implies they had a workable plan.
Of course it's a debatable point and a question of semantics, but regardless it's very clear by every account that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz actively discouraged- in fact saying 'sabotaged' would not be much of a stretch- any sort of Post-war planning, at least as far as Iraq is concerned (I don't really know about post-2002 Afghanistan).
They gave explicit reasons for doing so which made it clear that they felt planning was not needed and even counter-productive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Things didn't go as planned.
|
No, I'd say this is incorrect, as it implies they had a workable plan... |
Inasmuch as I am certain that the U.S. didn't go into Iraq with its six guns out and no thought whatsoever about tomorrow, I would disagree with you, if that is what you are suggesting -- and some do suggest exactly that.
Washington has never operated this way, on the fly, so to speak -- I realize anti-U.S. critics are jumping out of their chairs as I say this.
Washington has, however, often operated under simplistic, Eurocentric assumptions, and relied way too heavily on analogy (if the Marshall Plan worked so well in Western Europe, why wouldn't the Alliance for Progress do the same thing in Latin America, they asked, for example, thinking it was simply a matter of investment and determination).
So I think they went in assuming several things, and I think the hawks, being from the conservative party, had no tolerance for economic planning, etc., and wanted to leave things in the hands of "the Iraqi people," who they assumed would simply behave like us once they were "liberated." And they were negligent in not recognizing or accounting for was was apparently a personalist dictatorship that did not allow for any viable or independent institutions that might have helped us administer a postSaddam Iraq.
Again, I think they had little or no idea about what they were getting into in the Middle East, just as they knew little or nothing about Latin American or African affairs during the Cold War.
That still doesn't mean, though, that they had no plan whatsoever.
They had a simplistic, naive plan. I never said anything about a good plan or a workable plan -- those are contestable descriptions, by the way. But there was in fact a plan, an idea of how things would go, and things did not go according to this plan.
That was what I meant to say, and nothing else is implied.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
