It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IRAN: Outrage, and a warning, over Swiss vote to ban minarets

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Not at all.
The people voted and decided against the Minarets.
End of story..
That's democracy for you.

I think the Swiss have every right to decide what happens in their own country.


That's ironic - the US installed the Shah in Iran in 1953 after toppling a democratically-elected government that didn't support the US. Where was your deference to democracy then? Oh yeah - democracy is only good as long as people vote for the things you like or you simply don't care about it one way or the other.

No one is talking about "regime change" in Switzerland. We do have the right to protest their actions though. So, it's not the end of the story even if you could care less about anyone but yourself.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by andrewh7]




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
this is one of those grey areas. I do believe in a countries right to make its own laws, If you dont like them, then move.

However, the west has been telling iran what to do for how long? I think they are just trying to get the west back.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
this is one of those grey areas. I do believe in a countries right to make its own laws, If you dont like them, then move.

However, the west has been telling iran what to do for how long? I think they are just trying to get the west back.


Huh? How is going after switzerland getting back at the west? they going to hurt their cheese exports?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hack28
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 


Why?
you make statements and put up pictures that are not translated or sourced those could have been from a swiss hate group.


They are the posters from the group who wanted the minaret ban.
vodpod.com... erland


Originally posted by Hack28
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 


Why is it racist or discriminatory to have a vote and live with the results? The reason why the Swiss dont want these is because in Switzerland and other parts of the UK they have been used to preach hatred towards the citizens of the occupied country.
So if i follow your logic, if someone is saying racists things and trying to garner up hatred towards me i should not say anything because it is a specific group wanting to do this? and retaliating would constitute racism? Thats insane!


Do you have a shred of evidence to back up your claims of minarets being used to spout hatred and racism?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
That's ironic - the US installed the Shah in Iran in 1953 after toppling a democratically-elected government that didn't support the US. Where was your deference to democracy then? Oh yeah - democracy is only good as long as people vote for the things you like or you simply don't care about it one way or the other.




TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

We are talking about a popular vote not whether to overthrow a Government.
The people have spoken no amount of myopic non-Swiss opinion will change how they feel.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The Swiss are wrong in banning minarets in the first place. It's quite discriminating and dictating. I feel sorry for the Muslims there.

Sure a vote is a vote but still, it's pretty disgusting to ban the construction of a building where one goes to worship.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Sure a vote is a vote but still, it's pretty disgusting to ban the construction of a building where one goes to worship.



They are not outlawing the practice of the Islamic faith nor banning the building of mosques just not allowing the minarets.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Now Iran has thrown their opinion into the ring. [...] This is getting pretty ridiculous. Whether Iran or any Islamic country disagrees is of no matter.


Oh right, them barbarians have thrown their opinion into the ring. How dare they? How dare an Islamic country express their opinion into a matter concerning Islam.


Of course we get the muslim "outrage"


Of course. Everyday we are bothered with them muslims. Good thing Christians or Jews publicly never outrage about anything at all.


Iran knows how to "work it" - create international press coverage regarding the issue and force the spotlight on the Swiss, sit back and let international pressure help facilitate and overturn the vote. In the meantime, international eyes are off them [Iran] for a bit.


That's genius. Them clever Iranians.


Unfortunately that seems to be the case.
Do as we say or there will be consequences.


Yes, that's how Iran has always acted. They always dictate other countries how to behave and if they don't follow their instructions they are getting bombed. Oh wait, wasn't that another country who does that?


Wouldn't it be nice if they respected the rights of the host country, and quietly acquiested to the Swiss ruling?


Oh really? Then tell me what the US is doing in Latin America. They are building up their military presence in Columbia to be able to exert more influence on the whole region, so that they can direct in which they want the continent to be heading. In other words: The US once again shows no respect whatsoever for the will of another people.


What if the Swiss do this and then tell Iran to bow to international law and stop making the nuclear energy?

IRAN should STFU, give up its arms and follow the Japenese in the way of peace before the world decieded that a silent Iran is worth the price of a few bullets. As for making threats, look in history how that has never worked in the favor of the one issuing those treats.


Are you for real? First of it all, Iran is abiding to international law, even if CNN says otherwise. Marvelous that you're not mentioning the fictitious "bomb", but now they are not even allowed to have any nuclear energy, although they're a signatory of the NPT and more importantly under constant and detailed inspections by the IAEA. I won't even comment on your inhuman utterance about "silencing" Iran with a "few bullets."

Your last remark is preposterous since the Western world is threatening Iran and not the other way round.


No one has a right to tell people how to live all over the world, not us, not them...


Iran is ordering nobody how they should live their lives. Them villains only expressed their "opinion."


I don't blame Iran for being angry over this. [...]


The first time someone here is neither anti-Iran nor anti-Islam. Of course it would be highly surprising to detect a star on that one.

This thread saddens me. So much hatred. It seems that public opinion has been moulded enough so that a war against Iran might be launched. It's even the other way around, people are asking for war, for "a few bullets." There has been nothing learned at all from the propaganda prior the Iraq war. They're using the same tactics now and people fall for it nevertheless. And this is an "alternative" forum where you may have thought that people don't buy all the proapganda. I'm amazed.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 


Yeah ive got proof,

www.thelondondailynews.com...

now let me ask you this, are the Swiss traditionally a group of people with racial tendencies? Or are they traditionally viewed more as a neutral nation?
So this neutral nation one day decided you know what these peacefull polite people who are practicing their religion in our country shouldnt have this right anymore? You really think that a COUNTRY voted out of spite, and not some hate filled country THE SWISS!!!! My thinking leans towards the fact that the Swiss live in their country and they have heard what is being preached at these minarets. Ohhh and the Londoners with the biggest Muslim Mosque population outside of Turkey is in favour of the Swiss 75%, these arent biggotry numbers they are people living everyday in the scenario and made up their minds. Look up Wimbly in England, google Englands feelings towards the muslim take over of their country.
.
I suppose if i make the argument "i cant build a church and hoist a giant cross out front or have a manger scene in Iran so why should i have to adhere to them elsewhere?" You would say that it is unfair to compare the two, but why? Why should we have to make exceptions for them and they not for us? Is freedom one way? When the US had slaves did they say "hey go ahead do what you want because even though you aint free we are so knock yourself out."? NOPE, free men dont have to cater to the demands of those who enslave.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanzaisha
Oh right, them barbarians have thrown their opinion into the ring. How dare they? How dare an Islamic country express their opinion into a matter concerning Islam.

the proapganda. I'm amazed.


GET REAL...

I've never considered the Persians as barbaric.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hanzaisha
 

Oh please. Don't quote me and then add that you are saddened by hatred and religion bashing with regards to Iran and Muslims. My point was regarding political games and it would have been the same comment, regardless of the country being talked about.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
No minarets allowed in Switzerland?

Wow. That's a toughie for the PC set isn't it?

Damn, it's tough when the popular vote proves that dismantling the local culture in the name of progressive social conditioning isn't what everybody wants.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I can't believe you guys. Its great that Iran and other countries are pointing out how it is wrong to not allow religions to co-exist. Switzerland's best move would be to redact the law in turn for any one Muslim country to show they are doing more to allow Christians to integrate into their country by say supporting the rights of a Christian church in their area.

Personally if I were building a structure I wouldn't ask government permission to build. Its my freakin' property and if the government thinks they can tell me what I can't do with my own property they can just shove it.

Aside from that Switzerland is possibly the best country in the world. They have gone decades if not centuries without mass murder of innocent people and that makes them a lot better than the United States.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hack28
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 


Yeah ive got proof,

www.thelondondailynews.com...


That's London and it still doesn't say anything about the minarets being used to spout hatred and racism as you claimed. It just has more anti-minaret drivel.


Originally posted by Hack28
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 

now let me ask you this, are the Swiss traditionally a group of people with racial tendencies? Or are they traditionally viewed more as a neutral nation?
So this neutral nation one day decided you know what these peacefull polite people who are practicing their religion in our country shouldnt have this right anymore? You really think that a COUNTRY voted out of spite, and not some hate filled country THE SWISS!!!! My thinking leans towards the fact that the Swiss live in their country and they have heard what is being preached at these minarets. Ohhh and the Londoners with the biggest Muslim Mosque population outside of Turkey is in favour of the Swiss 75%, these arent biggotry numbers they are people living everyday in the scenario and made up their minds. Look up Wimbly in England, google Englands feelings towards the muslim take over of their country.


Swiss neutrality is a tool the state uses to benefit by playing to both sides. Nazi gold is the perfect example.


Originally posted by Hack28
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 

I suppose if i make the argument "i cant build a church and hoist a giant cross out front or have a manger scene in Iran so why should i have to adhere to them elsewhere?" You would say that it is unfair to compare the two, but why? Why should we have to make exceptions for them and they not for us? Is freedom one way? When the US had slaves did they say "hey go ahead do what you want because even though you aint free we are so knock yourself out."? NOPE, free men dont have to cater to the demands of those who enslave.


WTF? I don't even understand your first question. I think everyone should be able to put up whatever religious symbols they wish anywhere in the world.

I don't even know how slavery popped into this, or what your argument is.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

That's ironic - the US installed the Shah in Iran in 1953 after toppling a democratically-elected government that didn't support the US. Where was your deference to democracy then? Oh yeah - democracy is only good as long as people vote for the things you like or you simply don't care about it one way or the other.




Well i wasn't born then so i couldn't really speak out

At least the Swiss were given a vote..

Unlike us in England who have been promised a referendum on Europe for years... but that is no longer an option.





No one is talking about "regime change" in Switzerland. We do have the right to protest their actions though. So, it's not the end of the story even if you could care less about anyone but yourself.




What are you talking about?
I never mentioned regime change,

Are you sure you have the right person?

I'm confused


[edit on 7/12/09 by blupblup]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hanzaisha
 


First of all, you took a religious debate and turned it into a country debate. Thats the problem with Iran state and religion are too inter twined. I cant speak for everyone but i believe whole heartedly that what the US and the world is doing to Iran concerning the Nuclear aspirations is wrong. The UN made the rules Iran followed them and then some, i dont have an issue with that.

I do however have an issue with this new notion that somehow not garnering rights to a religion that strips peoples of rights is somehow bigotry or racist? In 1936 would i be called a bigot for saying the Nazis shouldnt be able to hold a conference in NYC (they did, but my year is wrong).
My point is how is it wrong to VOTE on an issue of a religious matter, and in that religion people have their rights taken away (if you disagree your an idiot and have no idea about Islam), so why am i supposed to sit back and give any credence to a group that says their rights are being violated when they do that all the time to others? How i honestly dont get the others side on this one? Someone please make me see the other side with an argument that goes deeper than "welll there its wrong and youse full of hate" anyone got an argument that isnt a nutshell observation?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   


Personally if I were building a structure I wouldn't ask government permission to build. Its my freakin' property and if the government thinks they can tell me what I can't do with my own property they can just shove it.


Well, every country I can think of has zoning laws of some sort. If you break them there will be consequences.
As for your property, there really is no such thing. It's always the government's property in the end.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 


K, well just because you think with your mighty keyboard that everyone should be able to display any religious symbol anywhere doesnt make it so. Where a cross around your neck and go have that debate in a muslim society see how long that lasts, im sure they will see right to the main core of your point.
Slavery was brought into this because as you dont seem to understand my point is why should one group that strips and violates the rights of soo many groups be given any consideration when their rights are violated?
Is it not "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Hack28]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Pretty obvious the Muslim world would voice opposition at the Swiss move to ban the building of any further minarets.

Iran would be no different in voicing theirs, than the rest of the Arab/Muslim world.

My question would be why put the spotlight on Iran, and not Libya, Saudi and anyone else who tries to put pressure on the Swiss to reconsider?

This is just another straw for the war cart.
Iran bashing seems very popular lately...the propaganda (stirring gits) agencies must be on overtime with Iran.

The Swiss must do as they wish, and not bow to pressure from elsewhere.

They are doing the right thing IMO, that is unless they like a skyline reminiscent of Tehran, which obviously they don't.

Nothing wrong with the Swiss wanting their country to look like Switzerland is there?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7



You fundamentalist neocons are a joke! Once again showing yourselves to be sunny day consitutionalists. You don't actually believe in the ideals on which this country was built if those ideals somehow support someone or something you don't like.


Hmmm... the issue was put to a vote. Sounds like a Democratic response to a percieved problem... too many Minarets. Besides, it's not the US so it's not our constitution is it?

BTW - Do you know what Neocon means? Maybe you should refresh your memory.


Yes - please spare me the comments that this is Switzerland - not the US. Believe it or not - some Americans believe that the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution are universal. Some Americans think that that any government passing laws that specifically target particular religions is wrong, regardless of where it takes place.


I think you mis-understand the legslation, it didn't ban the religion, only the architecture type.

I find it interesting you should be so adament about protecting Iranian Muslim's "Constitutional rights" when the Gov. of that country violates many Human rights on a daily basis.



I pity neocons because they're intellectually incapable of putting themselves in another's shoes. They'd much rather hate and fear those who are different. They'd rather bomb a house into the ground that try to understand those who live within it.


Again, don't think you truly understand what the term "neocon" means.


Perhaps, one day some government will decide to ban their religion by preventing the construction of their churches. They'll throw their arms up in the air and whine about heartless leftists. I have zero respect for hypocrites.


You seem to be confused as to what is being banned, again it's not the religion, only the Minarets. HUGE DIFFERENCE!


Merry Christmas Neocons!
How Ironic.






new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join