A new view of Islam?

I read this and thought it insightful.

http://www.hoover.org/research/islam...-looking-glass

It is perhaps one of the most coherent essays I've read on the subject yet.

Very interesting. But it is not a "new" view of Islam. The Byzantine Empire would have recognised this easily.

In essence we should leave them to kill each other and trade with them but not try to understand them as even if we were to we'd still not agree with them or be able to interact in ways that are mutually beneficial without outcries.

If they want to come over here they should naturalise or leave and if their descendants (or indeed any other locals) want to go back and rejoin the old proud tradition of killing each other we should let them leave and not let them back.

~:smoking:

That's why I put a question mark at the end of the title! ~:)

I agree that should they want to go and live in a 'pure' country we should do everything we can to help them. It's like those women and kids who went to live in ISIS because the west is debauched and evil. I say good. We should charter a 'plane and give out free (one way) tickets to all those that want to live in a 'pure' country.

Oh and revoke their passports for treason btw.

If the book is anything like its summary, it's pure bollox.

I'm looking forward to it, it looks really hilarious.

"Iranians didn't revolt, due to the evilness of SAVAK (after all, Iranians always specialized in torturing, said the open-minded author), because the revolutionary chiefs were baddies, too!".

Nursery school logic.

Same mistake all over, Islam is not the same thing as just being muslim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Such projects also reflect an ignorance of the incompatibility of the tribal mentality with the canons of liberal democracy. Despite the support of the Europeans after World War I in creating nations with constitutional governments, the Arabs “have resorted more and more to their basic social and religious institutions, the tribe and Islam, to provide the structure of government. Any progress towards political maturity has been stultified by their inability to comprehend any loyalty other than that to family, tribe or religious sect. Loyalty to the nation or to the constitution is a concept devoid of meaning for them.”

---

It's racist.

Number 45 on my new book 'how the misuse of the term racism has resulted in none knowing what it actually is anymore'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

I'm looking forward to it, it looks really hilarious.

"Iranians didn't revolt, due to the evilness of SAVAK (after all, Iranians always specialized in torturing, said the open-minded author), because the revolutionary chiefs were baddies, too!".

Nursery school logic.

---

Are we reading the same article? He's clearly saying the iranians revolted against the savak and not the mullahs because savak was much worse at suppressing dissent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Number 45 on my new book 'how the misuse of the term racism has resulted in none knowing what it actually is anymore'

---

That's what Hitler said before he murdered everyone.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...68/692/63a.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's racist.

---

Prejudicial, possibly, racist, no.

Muslims have never lived under Constitutional governments or according to secular laws, everything HAS been filtered through tribe and religion.

To believe your norms are normative, that because you cleave to something everyone else naturally will, is much closer to racism than that book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's what Hitler said before he murdered everyone.

---

Not that your posts always are brilliant, but this was a new low.

"Iranians have a distinct talent for devising bizarre methods of punishment"

That's clearly rascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Are we reading the same article? He's clearly saying the iranians revolted against the savak and not the mullahs because savak was much worse at suppressing dissent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelly

it wasn’t the cruelty of the Shah, unexceptional in the region even today, that sparked the revolution, but his ostentatious corruption and, most important, his alienation of the clerical class brought on by his liberalizing and secularizing reforms which were seen as threats to Islam.

---

"Liberazing" usually means democratic, Kelly, not the introduction of women's bags to Iran. After all, his bias is evident when he compares the peaceful period during which Reza Pahlevi reigned, with the aftermath of the revolution, in parallel with the war status against a state that murdered PoWs, used chemical gas and genocidal methods.
He avoids to inform the reader though, that all the unexceptionally cruel SAVAK leaders available were rightfully executed by the revolutionaries...

"Muslims have never lived under Constitutional governments or according to secular laws, everything HAS been filtered through tribe and religion." Err, France has 4 millions "Muslims" (which makes France the most Muslim populated country in Europe, if you don't count Turkey in Europe)and is a Constitutional government and is secular. And "Muslims" live there and don't mass emigrate. In fact, there are more "Muslims" fleeing the "Muslim" states than Muslims going to ISIS. Apparently thousands of them can't wait to come in Evil Western Countries and live a happy life without compulsory religious rules. The Muslim atheists are happy to be protected from genocidal killers by secular laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Prejudicial, possibly, racist, no.

---

Well, it depends on how you read it. The sentence "Any progress towards political maturity has been stultified by their inability to comprehend any loyalty other than that to family, tribe or religious sect." can easily sound as though he is saying that the arab is inherently too stupid to understand modern civilized concepts of the West. And thinking that an entire group of people is inherently inferior to your own group of people, what is that called again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Muslims have never lived under Constitutional governments or according to secular laws, everything HAS been filtered through tribe and religion." Err, France has 4 millions "Muslims" (which makes France the most Muslim populated country in Europe, if you don't count Turkey in Europe)and is a Constitutional government and is secular. And "Muslims" live there and don't mass emigrate. In fact, there are more "Muslims" fleeing the "Muslim" states than Muslims going to ISIS. Apparently thousands of them can't wait to come in Evil Western Countries and live a happy life without compulsory religious rules. The Muslim atheists are happy to be protected from genocidal killers by secular laws.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, it depends on how you read it. The sentence "Any progress towards political maturity has been stultified by their inability to comprehend any loyalty other than that to family, tribe or religious sect." can easily sound as though he is saying that the arab is inherently too stupid to understand modern civilized concepts of the West. And thinking that an entire group of people is inherently inferior to your own group of people, what is that called again?

---

I don't think he means that the Arabs are stupid, rather it is a cultural thing. I've heard this said before about Arab armed forces and why they are so ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

---

From what LEN has been saying and what I've been seeing, at least some of that is to do with the EU insisting that Turkey become a properly democratic country instead of allowing its Kemalist elite to impose their will on the masses. It turns out the Turkish masses (especially in the countryside) are more alien to our ways than the Kemalists were. We are really stupid and we should stop insisting on everyone following our liberal democratic ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

"Iranians have a distinct talent for devising bizarre methods of punishment"

That's clearly rascist.

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, it depends on how you read it. The sentence "Any progress towards political maturity has been stultified by their inability to comprehend any loyalty other than that to family, tribe or religious sect." can easily sound as though he is saying that the arab is inherently too stupid to understand modern civilized concepts of the West. And thinking that an entire group of people is inherently inferior to your own group of people, what is that called again?

---

As to the first bolded: I don't think he meant that Arabs are to stupid...

I think he meant that arab and western cultures are so far apart that we can't expect each other to act in predictable ways.

Let's face it, the tribe and the religion has a MUCH larger impact on the everyday arabs life, than a white person.

Where did you get that they would be inferior?

This is honestly just your brainwashed PC German post-nazi comprehension of the issue...

They are DIFFERENT - yes.
They are hard to integrate into a western society - sure.
They are inherently inferior - at what?

They might be inherently inferior when it comes to being fully functional in a western society... It does NOT however make them inferior as persons, no?

But with your glasses on, anything that isn't bending over and absolutely spreading - towards immigration and integration is racism, aight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

As to the first bolded: I don't think he meant that Arabs are to stupid...

I think he meant that arab and western cultures are so far apart that we can't expect each other to act in predictable ways.

Let's face it, the tribe and the religion has a MUCH larger impact on the everyday arabs life, than a white person.

Where did you get that they would be inferior?

This is honestly just your brainwashed PC German post-nazi comprehension of the issue...

They are DIFFERENT - yes.
They are hard to integrate into a western society - sure.
They are inherently inferior - at what?

They might be inherently inferior when it comes to being fully functional in a western society... It does NOT however make them inferior as persons, no?

---

Perhaps, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

But with your glasses on, anything that isn't bending over and absolutely spreading - towards immigration and integration is racism, aight?

---

Yes, absolutely, and you come across totally unbiased saying that. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

As to the first bolded: I don't think he meant that Arabs are to stupid...

I think he meant that arab and western cultures are so far apart that we can't expect each other to act in predictable ways.

Let's face it, the tribe and the religion has a MUCH larger impact on the everyday arabs life, than a white person.

Where did you get that they would be inferior?

This is honestly just your brainwashed PC German post-nazi comprehension of the issue...

They are DIFFERENT - yes.
They are hard to integrate into a western society - sure.
They are inherently inferior - at what?

They might be inherently inferior when it comes to being fully functional in a western society... It does NOT however make them inferior as persons, no?

But with your glasses on, anything that isn't bending over and absolutely spreading - towards immigration and integration is racism, aight?

---

Kad - you need to bookmark this, so next time you're arguing with Husar and groping for an articulate way to express your views on immigration whilst drunk you can link to it.

Also - hey - Kad and I said basically the same thing in two separate threads.

Given that we grew up in different countries it MUST be our shared Swedish ancestry - it's that gene that makes all swedes inherently racist, the one they usually suppress with decades of liberal schooling.

Two points.

Iranians are on the main Persians not Arabs. It's like confusing an Englishman with an Italian.

Second point is read up how the Iranian revolutions were instigated. Read up the backstory on how democratically elected officials were removed from office by UK and USA in favour of ones who were pro their oil companies. These are well documented facts of a puppet state, not conspiracy theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

MUST be our shared Swedish ancestry - it's that gene that makes all swedes inherently racist, the one they usually suppress with decades of liberal schooling.

---

I have a Swedish surname.
A shaven head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Two points.

Iranians are on the main Persians not Arabs. It's like confusing an Englishman with an Italian.

Second point is read up how the Iranian revolutions were instigated. Read up the backstory on how democratically elected officials were removed from office by UK and USA in favour of ones who were pro their oil companies. These are well documented facts of a puppet state, not conspiracy theories.

---

Rather than beat ourselves over what we did decades and generations ago, why not accept that the world now is what it is now, and work with that? If we hadn't got ourselves het up over how the middle east wasn't a liberal democracy, we'd have never have implemented the neocons' fantasies, and Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad would still be securely in power, spitting defiance at the west, but keeping an effective lid on the far nastier undercurrents of the societies under their thumb. I don't want Iran or any other middle eastern country to become any more of a democracy, certainly if it involves our effort, than they currently are, if it means (and every instance points that way) that Islamism will take hold. I don't want us to install dictators any more. But neither do I want us to depose any dictators who are already around. They can have whatever they currently have, and if they want to change it, it'll have to be on their own effort alone, without anything from (and thus any fault assigned to) us. Every single instance of our trying to do good in that region has rebounded on us, and I want us to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Rather than beat ourselves over what we did decades and generations ago, why not accept that the world now is what it is now, and work with that? If we hadn't got ourselves het up over how the middle east wasn't a liberal democracy, we'd have never have implemented the neocons' fantasies, and Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad would still be securely in power, spitting defiance at the west, but keeping an effective lid on the far nastier undercurrents of the societies under their thumb. I don't want Iran or any other middle eastern country to become any more of a democracy, certainly if it involves our effort, than they currently are, if it means (and every instance points that way) that Islamism will take hold. I don't want us to install dictators any more. But neither do I want us to depose any dictators who are already around. They can have whatever they currently have, and if they want to change it, it'll have to be on their own effort alone, without anything from (and thus any fault assigned to) us. Every single instance of our trying to do good in that region has rebounded on us, and I want us to stop.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

---

You want to go into the world of gauging everything from wrongs and righting wrongs? We've already tried our best to do this according to our values. Take responsibility, give, nurture. It's gone spectacularly wrong, and we've been blamed, even on our home soil. If you want us to have another go at righting our past wrongs, what value system would you like us to plan things by, to get better results this time round? Or do you want us to repeat what we've already done, and hope for better results this time?

It's easy to assign blame for past wrongs. Less easy to find a way of righting them, that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You want to go into the world of gauging everything from wrongs and righting wrongs? We've already tried our best to do this according to our values. Take responsibility, give, nurture. It's gone spectacularly wrong, and we've been blamed, even on our home soil. If you want us to have another go at righting our past wrongs, what value system would you like us to plan things by, to get better results this time round? Or do you want us to repeat what we've already done, and hope for better results this time?

It's easy to assign blame for past wrongs. Less easy to find a way of righting them, that works.

---

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.

I'd say no more installing or supporting or selling to dictatorships.

Also any of our contracts made when they were a colony, client or puppet state need to be renegotiated on equal terms or the contract stopped.

Two wrongs won't make a right any way. Whoever did whatever in the past, whosoever was exploited in whatever terrible way, clinging on to it and trying to fix it when clearly it's not working is pointless.
There'll always be people who'll want more 'compensation' for past wrongs. There'll always be people who'll just rile up others for their own personal gain. There'll always be people who'll just want to live peacefully and make the best of what they have.
Maybe just turning away and letting them kill each other is not the solution. But then trying to atone for 'sins' of past generations by forcing a happy and liberal life on a people whose current generation has probably grown up seeing nothing but war and strife is just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

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 (:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?