Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

ISIS militias committing atrocities

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hate to be a pedant but the only theocracy in the region is Iran. The gulf states are monarchies. Were the religious running them, they'd be far far worse than they are now.

    That is haberdash everyone and their mother knows Saudi Arabia is a good for nothing totalitarian dictatorship. The difference between Iran and Arabia is a question of scale and if you stack up all the injustices in Arabia it would probably come up worse than Iran. Just because Iran has the "Death to America" slogan means diddle squat. The Iranians are just less accommodating. We should be done with the lot of them and just cooperate with states that directly need our help. If people say Arabia is too valuable because of the oil than just look at Nigeria the violence over there is fuelled by the Saudi clerics and their Islamic fanaticism.


  • Options
    #33
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    That is haberdash everyone and their mother knows Saudi Arabia is a good for nothing totalitarian dictatorship. .

    Its a monarchy, but "totalitarian dictatorship" is fine too. It is not, however, a theocracy. Theres only one, and that's Iran.
    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The difference between (....................)fanaticism.

    You seem to be having an argument with somebody other than me there, as I made comparison between the two, merely stated the fact that one is a genuine theocracy and the other an absolute monarchy. In Iran, ultimate power lies with the clergy by law, it does not in Saudi.


  • Options
    #34
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Nodin wrote: »
    Its a monarchy, but "totalitarian dictatorship" is fine too. It is not, however, a theocracy. Theres only one, and that's Iran.


    You seem to be having an argument with somebody other than me there, as I made comparison between the two, merely stated the fact that one is a genuine theocracy and the other an absolute monarchy. In Iran, ultimate power lies with the clergy by law, it does not in Saudi.

    Saudi Arabia is a theocracy in all but name. To be pedantic about it Britain, Sweden, Swaziland, Brunei, Thailand and Japan are theocracies because the monarch is also the head of the established church. Nobody is suggesting Prince William is the equivalent to the Royalty in Saudi Arabia as he is not directly controlled by clerics.


  • Options
    #35
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Saudi Arabia is a theocracy in all but name. To be pedantic about it Britain, Sweden, Swaziland, Brunei, Thailand and Japan are theocracies because the monarch is also the head of the established church. Nobody is suggesting Prince William is the equivalent to the Royalty in Saudi Arabia as he is not directly controlled by clerics.

    And likewise you can't claim Saudi is a theocracy as the monarchy aren't controlled by clerics either. If you think the house of Saud and its allies get the same treatment from the religious police as the rest of the population you're sadly mistaken. Neither do the religious have a veto over the monarchy and legislation. Iran is the only state in the area defined as a theocracy because there the clerics have the ultimate say, which is written into the constitution and occurs in practice.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html


  • Options
    #36
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hate to be a pedant but the only theocracy in the region is Iran. The gulf states are monarchies. Were the religious running them, they'd be far far worse than they are now.

    The religious? I thought they were just conservative? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Given the historic interweaving between Islam and Middle east affairs, transposing Western ideological -ologies divisions would not be a best fit. Models are only a subset and not the actual reality being described. As for blanket claim that Monarchies being a better form of government rather betokens that one should read Kapuściński's work on Iran on the Shah's regime.


  • Options
    #38
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manach wrote: »
    Given the historic interweaving between Islam and Middle east affairs, transposing Western ideological -ologies divisions would not be a best fit. Models are only a subset and not the actual reality being described. As for blanket claim that Monarchies being a better form of government rather betokens that one should read Kapuściński's work on Iran on the Shah's regime.

    I don't believe I said that, rather that should the Imams be in charge in Saudi, it would be a yet more conservative state.


  • Options
    #39
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Nodin wrote: »
    I don't believe I said that, rather that should the Imams be in charge in Saudi, it would be a yet more conservative state.

    Can't we all agree that we should work with secular states.


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Can't we all agree that we should work with secular states.

    Wherever possible, yes.


  • Options
    #41
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Can't we all agree that we should work with secular states.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Wherever possible, yes.

    That worked so well with the USSR.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    That worked so well with the USSR.

    It could be argued the totalitarian system constituted a cult. In particular under various Politburo officials and General Secretaries. Gorbachev like other Russians as in Marshal Zhukov were honourable politicians advocating diplomatic and political cooperation.


  • Options
    #43
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    It could be argued the totalitarian system constituted a cult. In particular under various Politburo officials and General Secretaries. Gorbachev like other Russians as in Marshal Zhukov were honourable politicians advocating diplomatic and political cooperation.

    Not really. The USSR instituted State-sponsored "lack of belief" rather than belief. Even so, they were secular, and they were terrible.

    Religion isn't the end-all, be-all. If Iran or the KSA was secular, they could be just as brutal and repressive as they currently are.


  • Options
    #44
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Not really. The USSR instituted State-sponsored "lack of belief" rather than belief. Even so, they were secular, and they were terrible.

    Religion isn't the end-all, be-all. If Iran or the KSA was secular, they could be just as brutal and repressive as they currently are.

    All three promoted an ideology that was circulated across the world. Be it Wahhabism, Political Islam or Stalinism. This propaganda was regarded as a religion.


  • Options
    #45
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    All three promoted an ideology that was circulated across the world. Be it Wahhabism, Political Islam or Stalinism. This propaganda was regarded as a religion.

    One of these is not like the others. Can you spot it?

    Wahhabism is dictated by religion. Sharia Law (whatever the Iranian version is as well) is dictated by religion. Stalinism was not, it was directed by a form of economics mixed with authoritarianism, yet it was just as brutal, just as repressive and just as vicious.

    The fact of the matter is that religion in and of itself does not make anything better or worse. Yes, Islam is a violent religion, but so is (was) Christianity, and so can secularist regimes.


  • Options
    #46
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    One of these is not like the others. Can you spot it?

    Wahhabism is dictated by religion. Sharia Law (whatever the Iranian version is as well) is dictated by religion. Stalinism was not, it was directed by a form of economics mixed with authoritarianism, yet it was just as brutal, just as repressive and just as vicious.

    The fact of the matter is that religion in and of itself does not make anything better or worse. Yes, Islam is a violent religion, but so is (was) Christianity, and so can secularist regimes.

    Your making a case for siding with any dictator regardless of who they are. You fail to distinguish between the awful religious run states and the modern secular run states. It is not in the worlds interest to cooperate with countries that want to start religious wars which is why I mentioned Stalinism, the old Soviet Union was peddling war and acting in defiance of international law. Nobody knew if tomorrow it would advance from Budapest to Brussels.


  • Options
    #47
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Your making a case for siding with any dictator regardless of who they are. You fail to distinguish between the awful religious run states and the modern secular run states. It is not in the worlds interest to cooperate with countries that want to start religious wars which is why I mentioned Stalinism, the old Soviet Union was peddling war and acting in defiance of international law. Nobody knew if tomorrow it would advance from Budapest to Brussels.

    No, I'm not, but I am arguing the point that Secular States are not inherently better (or worse) than Religious States. Stalinism is not a religion, it is an economic and political belief. It was secular, it was just as violent (if not more so) than Iran and KSA. The "Saudi would be worse if it was Imam-run" is not necessarily true in this regard.


  • Options
    #48
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    No, I'm not, but I am arguing the point that Secular States are not inherently better (or worse) than Religious States. Stalinism is not a religion, it is an economic and political belief. It was secular, it was just as violent (if not more so) than Iran and KSA. The "Saudi would be worse if it was Imam-run" is not necessarily true in this regard.

    I cannot agree with you on this Saudi Arabia and Iran are both totalitarian states. Neither have freedoms, the state enforces everything and society is deeply conservative. The same was true of the Jim Crow Southern States. Today North Korea practises a form of Stalinism and Il Jung is regarded as divine. Backward Nations with the West giving them way too much attention.


  • Options
    #49
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    I cannot agree with you on this Saudi Arabia and Iran are both totalitarian states. Neither have freedoms, the state enforces everything and society is deeply conservative. The same was true of the Jim Crow Southern States. Today North Korea practises a form of Stalinism and Il Jung is regarded as divine. Backward Nations with the West giving them way too much attention.

    Of all these, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst. It has total support from the West, has massive oil reserves that are well developed, has not suffered a major war on its soil in recent years (unlike virtually every other big Middle East state) and knows it can get away with much more than any of its neighbours can.

    Iran is a country of two halves: an educated middle class who want change and have always been used to a society similar to what we have (Iran afterall only started copying Saudi Arabia's system in 1979 and were trying to implement Saudi style laws on a population used to something more similar to European laws). That's why it is not nearly as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Then, there's the poor masses from the East of that country who more hardline elements of the regime have fooled with voodoo for years. Iran's government has since 1979 between a power struggle between moderates and Saudi-styled voodoo besotted hardliners. But Iran has a future, wants to change its image and may well end up as rich, moderate country with proper elections and separation between church and state.

    North Korea is a mix of traditional emperor worship (emperors in Korean and Japanese cultures were considered to be gods) along with Stalinism. Both ideologies appealed to the Kims who love a cult leadership style. Still, it has got to be more fun than Saudi Arabia!


  • Options
    #50
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Of all these, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst. It has total support from the West, has massive oil reserves that are well developed, has not suffered a major war on its soil in recent years (unlike virtually every other big Middle East state) and knows it can get away with much more than any of its neighbours can.

    Iran is a country of two halves: an educated middle class who want change and have always been used to a society similar to what we have (Iran afterall only started copying Saudi Arabia's system in 1979 and were trying to implement Saudi style laws on a population used to something more similar to European laws). That's why it is not nearly as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Then, there's the poor masses from the East of that country who more hardline elements of the regime have fooled with voodoo for years. Iran's government has since 1979 between a power struggle between moderates and Saudi-styled voodoo besotted hardliners. But Iran has a future, wants to change its image and may well end up as rich, moderate country with proper elections and separation between church and state.

    North Korea is a mix of traditional emperor worship (emperors in Korean and Japanese cultures were considered to be gods) along with Stalinism. Both ideologies appealed to the Kims who love a cult leadership style. Still, it has got to be more fun than Saudi Arabia!

    Interesting you point out that distinction in Iranian society much like neighbouring Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. A wealthy upper class that in the case of India has nuclear weapons and a space programme but also has a caste system full of endemic poverty.


  • Options
    #51
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Interesting you point out that distinction in Iranian society much like neighbouring Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. A wealthy upper class that in the case of India has nuclear weapons and a space programme but also has a caste system full of endemic poverty.

    The caste system is to India what [abused] Sharia law is to Islamic countries. It clearly is also designed to keep the people down and also belongs in the stone age. But all of India's rules from the Moghuls to the Muharajahs to the British to the modern capitalist republic have ALL been allies of the caste system for obvious reasons.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement