Pakistani male student raped and quartered by giant mob

[Mormolyce]

Such nice people, those Middle Easterners.

Mmmm, back to school for you.

[Tijuana]

The last crime in a long list of lynch mobs killing people based on their appearance. You want to tell me everyone in the US is younger than 19? Otherwise dont use stupid blanket statements. Lynch mobs aren't typical for any race/religion/country but happened everywhere at some time, even in the MUCH younger history of your nation.

That doesn't excuse this horrific crime, not at all, but as i see it in this threat it is attributed to their culture and religion, and while it might be propagated (as homosexuality is banned and is therefore somehow justifiable for the people (but culture have irrational taboos (like the west has the stupid incest taboo))) its in no way specific to a certain region/culture/religion, and you should be aware that a lot of people in your own country are still alive that lynched people because of their appearance. All i want is a bit more of a nuanced approach to the topic instead of blanket statements like yours.

You are literally comparing conditions on every block of Iraq, to a series of incidents that happened 20 years ago. This is akin to saying Chicago murders are not a problem, because there was a single murder in Peoria 20 years ago.

[Pannonian]

Except in Pakistan's case the radicalization is related to Saudi Arabia; they have funded numerous religious schools in Pakistan and exported radical imams there

Though to be honest religion tension is the founding legacy of Pakistan. Even with the further radicalization i think the tribal society with honor courts plays a way larger role. As most of this crimes play out, some kind of Court of Elder probably sactionized it. In Saudia Arabia something like that wouldn't happen as the government is much more stronger. In the remote areas the government doesn'treally have a lot of power and the need this local authorities to enforce the little law they can.

So i would bet some local authority said it was ok, and that would be the reason why the people feel justified, and of course they wont have to fear punishmeht, as long as the shitstorm in the internet doesnt get too hard and forces the government...

[Tijuana]

Mmmm, back to school for you.

Can't use the word I wanted to use. =p

[Pannonian]

You are literally comparing conditions on every block of Iraq, to a series of incidents that happened 20 years ago. This is akin to saying Chicago murders are not a problem, because there was a single murder in Peoria 20 years ago.

No i dont do that, i just was showing how your one post was stupid as should be clear with one look in the history of your country. Of course that is fundamental different, but your original quote:

If I can't walk down the street of a country, and not be attacked based on my appearance, then I don't want anyone from that country in mine. It seems like a very simple standard.

I'll agree with you hat the situation is vastly different and complex.

[Tijuana]

No i dont do that, i just was showing how your one post was stupid as should be clear with one look in the history of your country. Of course that is fundamental different, but your original quote:

If I can't walk down the street of a country, and not be attacked based on my appearance, then I don't want anyone from that country in mine. It seems like a very simple standard.

I'll agree with you hat the situation is vastly different and complex.

So, in your mind, walking down any street in America, you can by lynched for your appearance? What the actual fuck are you talking about?

[Pannonian]

So, in your mind, walking down any street in America, you can by lynched for your appearance? What the actual fuck are you talking about?

This did happen til a few years back, and people that commited these crimes are still alive, so by your own standards you should leave there - fast! The question would be where to, because i cannot think of a country that didn't do this sort of thing in a human lifetime...

I even agree with you that people immigrating from iraq and pakistan and basically anywhere should be vetted. Are they a danger? Do they fit? Will they get a job? and even if all this is sufficient, i think the target country should be able to decline.

For seeking asylum this should be different, but at least my country doesn't consider iraq a warzone anymore, so you need specific reasons for asylum (homosexuality, threatend by Al quaida for collaborating, etc.) but still it should be checked if you're a danger (what happened 2015 shouldn't be standard)

Again, i just think your "standard" as presented in your statement is rather stupid as you wont find a nation that fits your standard.

[VarsityAthlete]

From there all we do is try to educate the people of Pakistan through the internet or what media that can reach them.

Ha. Ahaha. Ahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaha!!!! You are beyond delusional.

[Pannonian]

While this is certainly true and evident in the history of the region, the radicalization was never truly needed. The Pakistani identity was clearly islamic and certainly separate enough to preserve their society without introducing radicalization. I could have seen this happen without external assistance if there was a significant effort to Westernize Pakistan but there is no such effort.

It depends what you see as westernization. First of i think the word is rather bad (and i don't think its good PR for it to use it ) and second it mostly describes industrialization, but thats not really whats needed. They "need" to accept homosexuals and in a broader sense individual expression differing from the collective norm. And thats something that didn't start in the west with industrialization but much much later and is even going back in some countries (eastern europe)

I'm not sure if the west hasn't already meddeld enough without getting any results, If i look at iraq/afghanisation - yeah they've been shitholes before, but now they're shitholes without stability. Sometimes i would wish we had a decent plan before starting anything, but i dont have a solution for this myself - or maybe it isn't even my place - we had to evolve past this point ourselves (and some of us didnt even do it) - so maybe it wont help anything, and trying to push it will just incite more reaction.

[Skalm]

Pretty easy. Talk about the individuals/group that did this, and don't pretend that the religion as a whole endorses this kind of thing.

But, there really is just two groups that make up this religion. And they believe in the same thing.

The two groups:
-The ones that do take action on all their beliefs (killing non-believers).
-The ones that believe it, but do not take action on all their beliefs (they cheer it on, which is why they try to separate Islamic and terrorist from being in the same sentence. And also why they will not speak about how it is bad what they are doing, because they do believe it too).


[Infracted - Religion-bashing]

@Endus, maybe you could point out exactly what in this post is 'bashing'? I merely pointed out that all followers of the religion, believe in the same religion and what the religion stands for. How is that bashing?

That is no different than saying all Christians believe in Christianity, and what it stands for.

[Pannonian]

But, there really is just two groups that make up this religion. And they believe in the same thing.

The two groups:
-The ones that do take action on all their beliefs (killing non-believers).
-The ones that believe it, but do not take action on all their beliefs (they cheer it on, which is why they try to separate Islamic and terrorist from being in the same sentence. And also why they will not speak about how it is bad what they are doing, because they do believe it too).


[Infracted - Religion-bashing]

Religion is just a tool, and like most religious wars/discussion, it has been mostly used as an execuse or justification (islamic expansion, 30 years war, etc. all used the religion as justification, but it was merely a struggle for power)

As pointed out in my posts, i'm sure some local authority authorized this act. And thats important, as the people in this video, at least in their point of view, didn't do anything bad or unruly. The acted within the boundaries of their society.

We all want to change that, but how? I see 2 things that need to happen:

Authority - Such violent acts are inherent in a tribal society where a small selection of people is the highest authority and therefore a shift in this power structure can have drastic shift in the actions they take. What helps is an evolved and "absent" form of government, absent meaning that they aren't too involved in every group, so they can govern with a broader view. If you're stuck in this small society you feel much more pressure etc. A democratic government with checks and balances is the best form of course, at is has the best way to clean itself.

Personally this is also the reason, at least in my opinion, why we struggle to integrate iraqi/afghani refugees in our society, as they have a complete different view on authority. While i get my laws from the government that i believe in, for them it seems abstract, and the opinion of their local communities has a higher weight. For me thats the main problem, which is also enforced if i look at other immigrants (in my case we had a lot of iranians in the 70s) with the same religion, but from a much more stable government/authority system - they integrated much more easily

Acceptance - thats the other thing. Humans basically shun anything that is different. That isn't inherently bad as it is a survival mechanism that obviously helped in the past, but in the globalized world it also provides problems. We in the West aren't inherently tolerant, but we have accepted a much broader range of behaviours that are acceptable (homosexuality, free woman). Through that we are arguably also a bit more tolerant to new things, but ultimately they first have to prevail to be included into the norm. Same has to happen there. How? Probably only confrontation works - if they people don't feel threatend by it they will eventually accept it. But its a long way.

[Maybach]

Should they join ISIS? Or should they join Assad to gas civilians? (at least thats the current US narrative... dont know) or should they join another of the islamistic terrorist groups?

Would you have turned jews away in the 1940s, citing they should fight against Hitler?

Really thats the most stupid argument you hear in this whole immigrant discussion.

You re forgetting one thing about your risible jewish analogy, the majority of jews who made it to the UK in WWII were women and children

Couple that with the fact that many of the jewish men who made it here then joined up and fought agains the nazis from Britain, which was also at war with Germany

So bang goes that comparison

And seriously, should they join ISIS or Assad?

Really?

this the best you got?

No they could pick one of the many moderate groups or go with the Kurds and fight

At least that way they would not be leaving their wives and kids in worsens while they sit in a nice cushy safe haven country

How you can even defend people who leave their families in war zones beggars belief

[Auxora]

Pakistan is also the #3 ranked most dangerous country to visit in the world, which although I know it's not a great place was still much higher than I though. It's actually ranked as more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan which are #4 and #5. I had a manager that was from Pakistan and quite successful, and even he didn't want to go back to visit relatives it was so bad. I've flown over Pakistan otw to India, and that's as close as I'd like to get. There are plenty of very good people there, it's just that it's not a safe place that you'd want to visit.

Part of the problem there beyond the radicals is that conspiracy theory tinfoil hat media is really the norm there. It's an example of what happens if you really let the wild 9-11 denier/flat world/faked moon landing conspiracy theorists run all media. Almost every global news event there that happens is somehow turned into a deep state conspiracy, which over time makes even mainstream people suspicious of government, police, media, any other large countries, etc. There are many very good people there, but there are also areas like Pashtun that the state doesn't even control. And in other areas the police have a bad reputation of being crooked. Also hard to forget it's where OBL was, and that Pakistan was angry rather than apologetic when the US went in to get him. So not much there surprises me.

[Slirith]

[Infracted - Religion-bashing]

@Endus, maybe you could point out exactly what in this post is 'bashing'? I merely pointed out that all followers of the religion, believe in the same religion and what the religion stands for. How is that bashing?

That is no different than saying all Christians believe in Christianity, and what it stands for.

Religious facts have no place in Gen-Ot is the most likely answer.

[SageKalzi]

[Infracted - Religion-bashing]

@Endus, maybe you could point out exactly what in this post is 'bashing'? I merely pointed out that all followers of the religion, believe in the same religion and what the religion stands for. How is that bashing?

That is no different than saying all Christians believe in Christianity, and what it stands for.

Endus "protects" the people who he thinks can't protect themselves, there's no bashing to it, he is on a high horse, as usual.

On topic: This was an unfortunate act that unfortunately is too common (not to say it's always happening) in the middle east.

[Rennadrel]

Pakistan is probably one of the most uncivilized countries in the world. Next to Saudi Arabia and Iran, human rights violations are pretty rampant in Pakistan. I wonder why that is?

[Mormolyce]

Can't use the word I wanted to use. =p

So you chose the wrong region instead?

[Sam the Wiser]

As a US ally I stand by the actions of, Pakistan.

[Deleted]

But, there really is just two groups that make up this religion. And they believe in the same thing.

The two groups:
-The ones that do take action on all their beliefs (killing non-believers).
-The ones that believe it, but do not take action on all their beliefs (they cheer it on, which is why they try to separate Islamic and terrorist from being in the same sentence. And also why they will not speak about how it is bad what they are doing, because they do believe it too).


[Infracted - Religion-bashing]

@Endus, maybe you could point out exactly what in this post is 'bashing'? I merely pointed out that all followers of the religion, believe in the same religion and what the religion stands for. How is that bashing?

That is no different than saying all Christians believe in Christianity, and what it stands for.

Seriously, you have the guts to ask what's wrong with your fucking post?!

[Deleted]

I mean Pakistan has gone this radical largely because of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been exporting radical islamic teaching to Pakistan for over a decade and helped raise a new generation there.

Not only in Pakistan.Heres something from Reddit user AfghanFace, in a thread called "Do you believe that the ideology of Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab are directly responsible for the growth of Islamic extremism throughout the world?":


"Absolutely yes I do and I say that as an Afghan Sunni. And this isn't some fringe belief. Starting from Ibn Taymiyya's own time when he was rejected by his contemporaries and jailed and defeated in debates by the likes of the Azhari Grand-shaykh Ibn Ata'Allah al Iskandari and others, all the way through the Ottoman Era when the likes of Grand Mufti Zahid al Kawthari (the last grand mufti of the Ottoman Empire) wrote books against wahhabism to even the Afghan Mujahideen who despised the Arabs salafis coming over and making Afghans repeat the Shahadah (declaration of faith) because they weren't Muslim enough for their bedouin tastes. Salafism and Wahhabism has always been a cancerous sore on the collective Muslim body ever since Ibn Taymiyya. Their ideology is violent and genocidal, even if individual Wahhabis/salafis may choose not to practice violence.

The only people that disputes this are:

1 - Salafis / Wahhabis themselves

2 - Western muslims who grew up attending Ikhwani / Salafi / Saudi funded mosques and think Salafism = Sunni Islam because they don't know anything else. This crossection makes up the majority of western practicing Muslims.

3 - Western Liberals who think that this vile barbarism of Wahhabi Islam is the actual true embodiment of the Islamic religion and hence must be defended because "muh (liberal) values". These are the westerners for example you see on this sub who whenever someone criticizes a rebel video for excessive takbirs (ALLAHUAKBAR's) go around saying no no all Muslims shout takbir like fanatics there's nothing extra ordinary here. These liberals suffer from a white man saviour complex and view Muslims as noble savages that must be saved from islamaphobes and racists in their countries, and by doing so they alienate actual moderate Muslims and empower Islamists. This crossection makes up the majority of Western Syrian-rebel supporters.

4 - Neoconservatives with a hard-on for weaponised political Islam to be used against the enemies of neoliberalism, globalization and NATO."

I thought his fourth group of people was a bit of an exaggeration, untill I remembered the "Al Qaeda is on our side" leaked Hillary cable.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails...3225#efmAGIAHu