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.

 

A senior Iranian legislator : West's Double-Standard Attitude towards Terrorism

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hmdphantom
 



You just want to say division of religion and state ,


Correct.


But I think other way. I think it is possible to have democratic-religious state.


There is not a single country on Earth where this works. A non-secular government ( where government and religion are not divided) is also really bad for international relations, too much mystery. Even in Turkey they had to divide religion and state because otherwise, the country won't prosper. Religion or faith, as I like to call to true belief, is within the heart of a human.

Besides, harsh punishments are not of this time anymore. Whips? Hangings? Stonings? That shouldn't exist. And it does exist with religious authorities.


And remember Shah wasn't loyal to Iranian people.


Not in the start, but even though the Islamic regime likes to trash talk the Shah, it was the Shah who first mentioned and opposed the Zionist lobby. It was the Shah who brought OPEC into existence(because one country is too weak to foreign corporate influence, but a lot of countries together is stronger), without which Iran and a lot of other countries would have missed out on a lot of money. After he became more loyal towards the people, that's when he was outed. However, my ideal is not a kingdom where a king, who lives like an elite and is supposed to be worshiped by his people, my ideal is a proper democracy. Too bad too many people are not ready for that responsibility yet.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hmdphantom
 



You just want to say division of religion and state ,


Correct.


But I think other way. I think it is possible to have democratic-religious state.


There is not a single country on Earth where this works. A non-secular government ( where government and religion are not divided) is also really bad for international relations, too much mystery. Even in Turkey they had to divide religion and state because otherwise, the country won't prosper. Religion or faith, as I like to call to true belief, is within the heart of a human.

Besides, harsh punishments are not of this time anymore. Whips? Hangings? Stonings? That shouldn't exist. And it does exist with religious authorities.


And remember Shah wasn't loyal to Iranian people.


Not in the start, but even though the Islamic regime likes to trash talk the Shah, it was the Shah who first mentioned and opposed the Zionist lobby. It was the Shah who brought OPEC into existence(because one country is too weak to foreign corporate influence, but a lot of countries together is stronger), without which Iran and a lot of other countries would have missed out on a lot of money. After he became more loyal towards the people, that's when he was outed. However, my ideal is not a kingdom where a king, who lives like an elite and is supposed to be worshiped by his people, my ideal is a proper democracy. Too bad too many people are not ready for that responsibility yet.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hmdphantom
I think it is possible to have democratic-religious state..

Riiiiiiiiight. So when women in Iran want to go out of the house with sandals without fear of being beaten by the 'morals police', or homosexual men want to be able to spend time together in private ... they are able to do so in your so-called democratic-religious state?

EPIC FAIL.


Originally posted by hmdphantom
And all extremist terrorist groups that I know , are Wahhabi.

The totalitarian regime in Iran is a terrorist group. Just ask their VICTIMS



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I think in the end our difference in culture is what separates our ability to observe behavior we don't like and our ability to judge behavior we don't like. The two are not necessarily the same thing. We can observe a culture objectively but after a certain point we begin to judge ,when really that is not our place. In our own culture little weight is given to criticism made from abroad. Why should our criticism of another culture be deemed necessary or vital in any way except for our own growth as a society.

Having the correct answer and being in a position to give that answer are not the same thing either. We may deem the solution to their culture is simply for them to be like us. The question is whether they see a problem with their culture at all and most importantly if they solicited our help or opinion. Imposing it is never the correct thing to do as it is a moral problem they face, not us. Interrupting that realization, if there a need for it at all, in essence steals from them the ability to correct it in the future on their own.


They don't have any say in our society, why should we have a say in theirs.


edit on 11-1-2012 by casenately because: more



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by casenately
 



The question is whether they see a problem with their culture at all and most importantly if they solicited our help or opinion.


No. And all opinions should be weighed according to their value.


They do don't have any say in our society, why should we have a say in theirs.


The people don't really have a say about the religious authority. Or about their own life. There are very little jobs even though there are enough educated and qualified people. The government is just short of a front while the religious elite soak up a lot of Iran's wealth through self-proclaimed ownership of oil fields and subsequent contracting with foreign nations whom they sell the oil to, however it must be said that the government does spend money on infrastructure and social security. The religious elite are not elected by the people yet they wield the most power.

The government then takes a staunch stance against "the West" making all kinds of crazy statements and actions that in turn net Iran international trade sanctions; meaning even less jobs and opportunities for the educated and well qualified people of Iran or foreign businesses who might want to invest in Iran and its people.

It's nothing short of self-destructive what the government is doing, beyond that, the religious authorities have their own armies they can mobilize against any possible insurrection against their authority.

And being able to put trade sanctions on a country = a say in the country.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I do not argue if it is flawed. I ask what gives a country like the USA the right to interfere with another sovereign state. You can argue the horror of their world and I would still ask what gives us the moral imperative to adjust it to our own standards. It is something they should do on their own.

Could you imagine if another sovereign state invaded the USA during its civil war, or before it. Think of the lesson we would have had stolen from us. Even a victory in ending slavery and the preservation of the union would have been seen as an outside victory over us. France ended our slavery, or Spain preserved our union. It would cheapen our history and our identity as a people.


edit on 11-1-2012 by casenately because: fix



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I just want to add.
Trade sanctions and embargos only punish the common person. A person with power will never go on a bread line he would just take someone else's bread. They are usually put in place to force a people into dissent. In a totalitarian regime which even you admit they have, it only solidifies power as it gives a common enemy for all the people. Any dissent they might have had is silenced as a threat to the country since all people suffer from outside influences. If an Iranian had support of "Americanism" that support would actually be treasonous in the very strict definition of it. Supporting a foreign country or ideal over your own. It would be in-defendable no matter how noble because the source of that noble ideal is making your country suffer.

edit on 11-1-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by casenately
 




I think in the end our difference in culture is what separates our ability to observe behavior we don't like and our ability to judge behavior we don't like. The two are not necessarily the same thing. We can observe a culture objectively but after a certain point we begin to judge ,when really that is not our place. In our own culture little weight is given to criticism made from abroad. Why should our criticism of another culture be deemed necessary or vital in any way except for our own growth as a society.

Having the correct answer and being in a position to give that answer are not the same thing either. We may deem the solution to their culture is simply for them to be like us. The question is whether they see a problem with their culture at all and most importantly if they solicited our help or opinion. Imposing it is never the correct thing to do as it is a moral problem they face, not us. Interrupting that realization, if there a need for it at all, in essence steals from them the ability to correct it in the future on their own.

They don't have any say in our society, why should we have a say in theirs.



Golden points.














edit on 12/1/12 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join