A new view of Islam?

[Pannonian]

Would you say contracts such as this one should stay around while we blissfully declare that our responsibility for the situation in Africa has officially ended?

http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/

I am saying it is not as easy as we may both wish it were. I was not aware that such contracts were renegotiated on a more equal footing before. Most of them seem to originate from times where the african country pretty much had to accept everything it was given and could not really demand much in return. If we keep these contracts active, how can we claim that their decrepit situation is entirely their fault?

In the Middle East the situation is a bit more complicated even, especially if we have sold their dictators all the weapons they use to stay in power and then blame the people for not starting their own revolution and maybe even claim it is not our fault that they still suffer under a regime that kills all dissenters with our weapons and operates a secret police based on our intelligence and information equipment.

I do not quite disagree with the idea to leave them alone, but we have to realize that we would still leave a legacy behind even if we cut all ties now.

The French can do whatever they like. As long it doesn't impinge on us, I don't care one way or another.

[Papewaio]

If you are part of NATO you should care...

[Crandar]

If an uprising is a truly popular revolution, the regime will succumb to the revolutionaries, as long as no foreign power intervenes in favour of preserving the status quo. The majority of the army will defect and the few loyalist remnants will not be able to resist against the masses.
Consequently, the morally right option is never to intervene in cases of revolution, since your power will disrupt the procedure and inevitably disorientate the revolutionaries. After all, let's be realistic, the foreign states only care about the protection or enforcement of their own interests, not about any humanitarian principles.

"The Romans had a distinct talent for devising bizarre methods of punishment"

Or for a more modern example

"The Germans have a distinct talent for managing and organising large construction projects"

Another -

"Anywhere in the world where there are people trying to dig things out of the ground you will find a Cornishman with a pasty"

The last from a Cornish miner.

Face it - torture is an art form, and the Iranians have been known for millennia as refined practitioners - remember how the Parthians killed Crassus by pouring liquid gold down his throat? They did that to be ironic.

You only think it's racist because you perceive torture as a negative thing - again - this is a cultural norm, it's far from universally accepted.

I don't agree with everything in that review by a long stretch but I agree with the core point - we were wrong to assume that Western democracy was a natural state that all peoples would "progress" towards.

All your examples attribute certain characteristics to a group of people, based on their racial status, which is not only stupid, but also racist.
Efficiency at different actions, like torturing or management, concerns either specific personalities or political institutions, not people, so the author could have supported his argument only by mentioning how all the people who were opponents of the Shah were also interested in torturing, before the Shah was deposed. Of course, such a task was impossible, so he was forced to make an incoherent reference to the Iranian past.

By the way, Crassus was already dead, when gold was poured to his mouth, so that action shows disrespect for the dead, not a tendency to torture. A better exaple would be how Darius II got rid of Sogianus.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All your examples attribute certain characteristics to a group of people, based on their racial status, which is not only stupid, but also racist.

No, characteristics based on culture - not race. Being born in a particular place doesn't make you into a certain kind of person but if you grow up around certain people you will gorw up a certain way. A good example of that would be religious belief - we know that certain religious upbringings can foster either fanatical loyalty to the sect or complete rejection of it - and it's not too difficult to predict which way it would go.

Try it another way - if you grow up in England today you're very likely to believe in due process of law and democracy, a thousand years ago you would likely have believed in the Divine Right of Kings and Feudalism.

That's not racism, it's sociology.

[Gilrandir]

The French can do whatever they like. As long it doesn't impinge on us, I don't care one way or another.

Very symptomatic: I don't want to see anything, to hear anything, to know anything which might disturb my current carefree life.

[Slyspy]

I think that is certainly a better approach than trying to fix it but breaking it even more.
On the other hand ignoring the fact that we share a part of the responsibility of their ecurrent broken state might be easy to ignore for you, but not for everyone else. And that is a reality you will also have to deal with just like the people there have to deal with the broken world they were born into partially thanks to us.

If you want to leave the past behind, I'd say all the contracts governments and companies have with these countries should be renegotiated from scratch. Otherwise you may leave behind your sins while they still suffer from contracts that were forced upon them when they were in a much weaker position to negotiate from. Which would mean you just eradicated the past wrongs in thought but not in practice.

Here is an interesting thing which I learnt recently - many major organisations, including the UK government, owe Iran millions in compensation for reneging on contracts made with the Shah's government when the mullahs took over. The money is there, sitting in the vaults of the international banks, but cannot be handed over due to sanctions. The sins of the past are surprisingly resilient.

Edit:

Also the comments under the article linked in the OP are hilarious.

[Fragony]

Here is an interesting thing which I learnt recently - many major organisations, including the UK government, owe Iran millions in compensation for reneging on contracts made with the Shah's government when the mullahs took over. The money is there, sitting in the vaults of the international banks, but cannot be handed over due to sanctions. The sins of the past are surprisingly resilient.



Also the comments under the article linked in the OP are hilarious.

Do you have any more on that, that seems very likely. Never heard of such a thing.

edit: blogs are no problem they are usually right

[Slyspy]

Do you have any more on that, that seems very likely. Never heard of such a thing.

blogs are no problem they are usually right

I have it direct from someone who works with such matters on a daily basis. Basically the issue is that the deals were made with the Iranian state, a state which still exists even though it is no longer the same bunch in charge. When things went bad for the Shah and his Western puppet-masters allies those organisations involved withdrew, leaving them in breach of contract. And so, legally, money was and still is due. The debts are acknowledged and the funds available but payment impossible. The Challenger I MBT project is one example. An embarrassment for all concerned.

[Hax]

France is not a majority Muslim country, and was not founded by Muslims. You still have a counter point with Turkey, unfortunately Turkey has seen its secular constitutional government devolve back into a Islamic autocracy under the current government, so maybe it is time to hop off the ice before it breaks underneath you.

Dude, have you even been to Turkey? The current political process is a setback to say the least, but it's still a far cry from an "Islamic autocracy". Come on now.

[rvg]

Dude, have you even been to Turkey? The current political process is a setback to say the least, but it's still a far cry from an "Islamic autocracy". Come on now.

There is Turkey, and then there's Turkey. Istanbul is no different from any other European metropolis, Izmir is pretty lax as well (basically any tourist spot is). The heartland is very different though: that's where you see men with scruffy beards and headscarved wives.

[Papewaio]

There is Turkey, and then there's Turkey. Istanbul is no different from any other European metropolis, Izmir is pretty lax as well (basically any tourist spot is). The heartland is very different though: that's where you see men with scruffy beards and headscarved wives.

Based on that definition the U.S. is an Amish country...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dude, have you even been to Turkey? The current political process is a setback to say the least, but it's still a far cry from an "Islamic autocracy". Come on now.

I was too overreaching with my point. My apologies. Nevertheless it does seem as if the secular old guard are losing control over the government.

[Hax]

There is Turkey, and then there's Turkey. Istanbul is no different from any other European metropolis, Izmir is pretty lax as well (basically any tourist spot is). The heartland is very different though: that's where you see men with scruffy beards and headscarved wives.

Yep, and the last time I was in Turkey I was not in Istanbul or Izmir. But okay, let's go along for now, who the hell cares if someone has a scruffy beard or wears a headscarf? Just the fact that there are religious Muslims in Turkey who make up a part of the electorata, doesn't mean it's some kind of "Islamic autocracy". To suggest anything else is simply ridiculous.

I was too overreaching with my point. My apologies. Nevertheless it does seem as if the secular old guard are losing control over the government.

No harm done. If anything, I'm the first to express their concern about the changing situation in Turkey. Interestingly however, Erdogan's AKP actually lost their majority position in the last elections (:

[Pannonian]

Yep, and the last time I was in Turkey I was not in Istanbul or Izmir. But okay, let's go along for now, who the hell cares if someone has a scruffy beard or wears a headscarf? Just the fact that there are religious Muslims in Turkey who make up a part of the electorata, doesn't mean it's some kind of "Islamic autocracy". To suggest anything else is simply ridiculous.

Someone representing them has won a majority in the last few elections though. And that, after we'd been pressing the Kemalist establishment for more freedom and democracy in Turkey. In the future, perhaps it would be better if we were to wait until the majority were more like us in our belief in liberal democratic ideals, before pushing for more democracy. Pushing for majority rule where the majority are hostile to us isn't the cleverest of foreign policy directions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just wanted to pop back in to point out that Crander said Greeks don't pay their taxes/are good at avoiding paying taxes.

According to him, that's racist, which undermines his point in this thread.

[Crandar]

I just wanted to pop back in to point out that Crander said Greeks don't pay their taxes/are good at avoiding paying taxes.

According to him, that's racist, which undermines his point in this thread.

The author claimed, without presenting any evidence, that the Persians (the people, not the government) always endorsed torturing, while I said, supporting my statement with anecdotal evidence and statistical researches available in the Internet, that a great part of the modern Greeks refuses to pay its taxes.
I think the differences are quite obvious, aren't they?