Man Beheads Wife in 'Honor' Killing

Name the last problem that was solved by war in the Middle East.

Name the last one solved by a meeting/dialogue.

Name the attempts made for peace in the Middle East, who made them and how?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't believe that it's as simple as you portray it to be. Here's some excerpts from wikipedia's article on the Mughal Empire:

The Mughal Empire was a Muslim imperial power of the Indian subcontinent which began in 1526, ruled most of the Indian Subcontinent by the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and ended in the mid-19th century.[1]...

Following 1725 it declined rapidly. Its decline has been variously explained as caused by wars of succession, agrarian crises fueling local revolts, the growth of religious intolerance, and British colonialism.​

Here's some excerpts taken from the angle of the wikipedia article on the British Empire:

During its first century of operation, the English East India Company focused on trade, rather than empire building, with the Company no match for the powerful Mughal Empire,[38] which had granted the Company trading rights in 1617. Company interests turned from trade to territory during the 18th century as the Mughal Empire declined in power and the East India Company struggled with its French counterpart, the La Compagnie française des Indes orientales, during the Carnatic Wars in south-eastern India in the 1740s and 1750s. ​

So why did the Mughal empire decline in the 18th century? I think wikipedia's article on what has been considered to be the last great mughal emperor, Aurangzeb speaks volumes:

Aurangzeb ruled India for 48 years, bringing a larger area under Mughal rule than ever before [1]. He is generally regarded as the last Great Mughal ruler. His constant wars, however, left the empire dangerously overextended, isolated from its strong Rajput allies, and with a population that (except for the orthodox Sunni Muslim minority) was resentful, if not outright rebellious, against his reign. His last twenty five years were spent fighting rebellions in the Deccan. After his death, the Mughal Empire shrunk. Aurangzeb's successors, the "Later Mughals", lacked his strong hand and the great fortunes amassed by his predecessors.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh, what do your points have to do with the results of both the Mughals [800 years] and British [200 years] dominance and their consequences for India and its citizens?

And my other points, which you may have missed:



Native Americans still live on reservations. They are still fighting for their rights [e.g. water rights].

Structural adjustment policy spreads hunger and inequity, it is the dominant economic policy of western nations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK. So avoid a war in the ME, civil or otherwise. Great.

They exert a not insubstantial political and economic authority now; nor do all live on reservations.

And Eastern ones, yes. Thankyou; "we" do not wish to trade our inequities for yours.

 

You don't know what structural adjustment policy is, do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I still believe that she's simply trying to defend her beliefs. I have other beliefs, ofcourse, but I'm happy that we are able to disagree without hauling out the insults.

 

Perhaps there were Mughals in India for for 800 years, but as to the Mughal Empire, wikipedia states that it was only around for a little over 300; in its last hundred or so, its power was also definitely on the wane. In many ways, your Mughal empire seems to be much like the British one that replaced it, eager to conquer new lands. They would also lose some to other empires. Paraphrasing from wikipedia's entry of emperor Shah Jahan:

Shah Jahan was ruler of the Mughal Empire in the Indian subcontinent from 1628 until 1658. The chief events of his reign were the destruction of the kingdom of Ahmadnagar (1636), the loss of Kandahar to the Persians (1653), and a second war against the Deccan princes (1655)​

On to his son, who I have mentioned before:

Aurangzeb ruled India for 48 years, bringing a larger area under Mughal rule than ever before [1] His constant wars, however, left the empire dangerously overextended...​

That's a new point, not an old one. In any case, if they are on reservations now, it's because they wish to be; they are free to move off of their reservations if they wish.

Many muslim women fight for rights as well:

The Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women!

The Rights of Muslim Women

The Hidden World of Muslim Women - Middle East Forum

Islamic women seek recognition of their rights - International Herald Tribune

Bangladesh: Discriminaton and violence against women persist

I never said that western nations were perfect. I simply believe that in many ways they do things a lot better then other nations. I believe this is why immigrants generally come to western nations instead of the other way around. Nations don't need to take loans from western nations either.

 

You're comparing the ethnic cleansing of native Americans to gender issues?

And you still missed my point about the Mughal vs the British.
To the British, we were subhuman, like the niggers, reds and abos.

When they waxed eloquently in their Parliament on the Magna Carta and human rights, the coolie and the nigger were not a part of the equation.

It's the same way today, in their dealings with developing countries. When they force farmers to go bankrupt to fill their pockets, human rights are not considered applicable to those who will die of starvation to sustain their unsustainable societies.

It's a huge joke to see the Americans pouring billions and trillions to save their jobs when they have been forcing the "free market" on the developing world, forcing people to lose their jobs, be driven into extreme poverty and starvation rather than help them.

Of course the page looks vastly different when it turns on your own society.

 

It might have needed a full-stop or two, but damn well said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure Sci's Americans have more grounds to be offended, but I am sick of S.A.M's completely ignorant posts on the British. According to her we are all still our Victorian counterparts, wholly in the sway of the US and the most intolerant country in the world.

Magna Carta? That was written 800 years ago.

I sometimes wonder why I spend time reading such idiotic drivel.

 

Geez you really are behind, aren't you? Try to keep up, deah.

I believe the term is puppy.

 

After 800 years of Mughal rule, India was a poor, illiterate, caste-ridden, subdivided nation whose population of less than 150 million (including Pakistan) was stabilized by disease, government oppression (including taxation for war, etc), and malnutrition. It was rich only in comparison with the pre-industrial economies of plague-ridden wintry Europe and the epidemic blasted Americas.

After 200 years of British rule, the population had more than doubled (I believe you use that as a criterion of "thriving", as opposed to "dying", when referring to modern cultures) and such features as the caste system had been thrown into doubt. Also, the country was unified politically (as well as by railroads etc).

Meanwhile, you need to quit talking about the NA Red stuff until you are more familiar with what actually happened, and what the situation is now.

SAM's point about the structural adjustment stuff is well taken. The Westerner's here seem to have very little idea what their own countries have been up to in foreign lands.

 

Where do you get your info? I got mine off of the British description of pre-British India and our own history post British.

e.g.the Chengalpattu survey documents unearthed in the 1960s

 

99.9% do so by thier own choice. native americans also occupy positions in the US government.

as do plenty of other people sam.
i'm sure i can scare up a shitload of white folk fighting for their water rights.

what are you referring to here, capitalism?
i can think of no better system for the colonizing period of a nations history, can you?

 

No, I'm comparing people fighting over water rights with people fighting to end the stoning of women, amoung other things; honestly, I think I'd rather have to fight for water rights then be stoned.

I think generalizing that much in regards to the British isn't fair. There's also the issue that India became independent more then half a century ago; This isn't the first time that I've found you referring to past wrongs committed by western nations while all but ignoring the very real wrongs still committed in islamic nations.

As Cellar Door has rightly pointed out, the Magna Carta was written almost 800 years ago. I think you're doing your own arguments a disservice by referring to these rather ancient events that have little relation to how things are today. You were doing much better talking about the devastation caused by western bombs in my view.

S.A.M., unless a western nation is actually occupying the country, as is the case with Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think you can ignore the role of the countries who allow greedy western commercial enterprises to have their way. I also don't think you can ignore that the governments of these poor countries make sure to benefit a fair amount from these arrangements.

I'm with you when it comes to the billions being thrown around in these 'stimulus' packages; and, by the way, a lot of it doesn't ever get near the middle class, let alone the poor; instead, much of it goes to the same banks that got us into this mess in the first place (some of who then proceed to spend these gifts foolishly).

SAM, I'm well aware that my society has its flaws, although I think that you exagerate in some cases. I find that your biggest weakness is that you can't seem to see the flaws in your own.

 

You don't know anything about structural adjustment policy too, do you?

Here is some homework

1. In which developing countries has western intervention brought more democracy, without war?

2. In which country, since 1920 did the west support an elected government over a dictator? And vice versa?

3. Why is there the pattern you see in 1 and 2?

Let's see if you can figure it out by yourself

Some hints:

The Saud kingdom was established with the help of the British.
Also the Kuwaiti kingdom
Iran had a parliament in 1905, brought down by the British. Again in 1952, brought down by the Americans
Afghanistan had a democratic movement, albeit communist by the 1970s
Pakistan only gets billions when a dictator is in power

 

I never said that this man's crime had anything to do with religion. I was merely quoting what the media said; not my personal opinion. The media asserted that this man's actions were based on religion, which is one of the reasons why I found the article interesting and posted it.

And I merely offered thoughts on your post and it was your knee-jerk reaction that caused you to think I was accusing you of something...which I wasn't. I was speaking of the legality of the issue and stating my opinion that if what this man did do was based on religion and he planned on using it as a defense then I found that to be unacceptable. I never said that was the reality of the situation.

 

I'm not sure if you're addressing me; after looking at leopold's recent post, I'm beginning to think you were addressing him. Anyway, I'll take it as if you were addressing me...

You assume that I'm interested in spending the time to figure this out. That's not the case at present, but if you'd like to volunteer some information, it'd be appreciated.

Same as above...

I would assume that the answer is that when the U.S. helped democratic nations, it helped democracy.

Don't they have a parliament again now?

I'm fine with admitting that the U.S. and others have made some big mistakes regarding foreign policy. I don't believe it takes away from the points I've already made, however.

 

Your sources probably will do. You just have to read them - compare population estimates, etc.

 

you need to realize something scott, most of what sam claims as foreign policy of the US was actually clandestine operations of the CIA that was made available by the FOIA. at the time these events happened the US government AND the people had no knowledge of these events.

and another thing, never argue with someone that is intellectually dishonest.
right sam?

 

How many men and women who suffer in silence is speculation. Nevertheless, Western societies go to great efforts to fight the abomination of domestic abuse, and such behaviour (well, domestic abuse perpetrated by men against women) is universally scorned. Can the same be said for Middle-Eastern societies? Is domestic abuse universally condemned? Have they undergone the same social and legal reforms to prevent and protect victims of domestic abuse. I doubt it.

And that officer would keep his conduct secret, because he knows if his abuse was discovered, he would be barred from his career and most likely thrown in a 4*4 cell. The victim would be encouraged to come forward and report the crime, and she would be entitled to all the protections of the State. What protections are abused women in Middle-Eastern societies entitled to, exactly?

That's because the battered spouse is emotionally dependent on the abuser, and will attempt to rationalise the abuser's behaviour. That's a failing of relationships in general, not Western culture. Western culture goes out of its way to condemn such behaviour (just witness the "Violence Against Women, Australia Says No!" advertising campaign). Is such behaviour universally condemned in the Middle-East? What initiatives and reforms have they instituted to prevent and protect the abused? Or is the problem just swept under the carpet, with women being expected to submit to their abusive husbands?

Nonsense. The West is overly-zealous in enforcing domestic violence laws. The problem the figures are 'high' is because you can't enforce a law if a crime isn't reported. This is why the West has gone to such efforts to encourage abuse victims to come forward and report said abuse.

If domestic abuse occurs less frequently in our civilisation, and our society makes a sincere and sustained effort to combat it, then yeah, it does make us better. Sorry, it really does.

Why? So we can't offer up criticism of others if we ourselves aren't flawless? What a load of crock.

Why can't we do both?