Iran restricts "Western" social sciences

[England my lionheart]

If there is it must be a subtle difference as opposed to "Eastern" school of thought. And "Oceanic" school of thought. And "Pre-colonial Western" school of thought. And "African" school of thought. And "Penguin" school of thought. That should cover all the continents.

I think there are many Schools of thought,i must say though that the Penguin School of thought sounds the coolest,a School of thought that cordons itself off from the rest of everything has a big problem IMO

 

[AxisMundi]

Actually 'limited/biased education' is. I'm unaware of the content of the subjects being objected to, but because the source of the said subjects is said to be from a pro western thought pattern, it can significantly contradict with the religious thought pattern.

And educating oneself with religious thought pattern/social sciences also requires years of hardwork and equisite study to actually have some sound knowledge of it. Religion has a vast scope of application and its quite deep in its content as compared to any other documented study of any era.

E.g, Just because Freud would refute morals to be a part of human nature, doesn't mean that moral socio thought patterns (from religion or from self) are all null and void, most of the psyche analysis offered by freud for instance is just a load of nonsense as compared to the psyche/ nature analysis outlined in divine texts.

When your frame of reference is significantly different, your studies , social moral patterns go in tangents to your base knowledge and THAt is a waste of precious thought and time. A slight mention is all that is required to register a different perspective.

As is normal with many Abrahamics, you are confusing morals, which are socially generated and sourced, with religious laws.

Foring women to wear burkas, for example, is not a question of "morality", but of relgiious law. It is in fact IMMORAL to force women to be as property in such a manner.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not arguing for one side or the other, merely pointing out that each situation and example presented has more than a certain "X" that supports so and so's beliefs. Iran can be looked as a hardline religious government, as well as an economic success that has done well to empower women in seeking higher education and supporting themselves.

Actually, the empowerment to women that you have mentioned were from the direct results of the works and reforms of former presidents, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, mostly Khatami.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done nothing but erode the previous reforms which had empowered women. With other senior clerics as advisory to Ahmadinejad, they have far more hardliner approaches and attitudes towards women that along the lines of the Talibans. Iran have been going backward since Ahmadinejad had came into power, and the country is still going backward, so women are becoming more oppressed than liberated.

But the truth is that Iran is not to blame in its entirety for Iran going backward. Part of the blame goes to the foreign policy of the previous US president - George Bush. It is his bl@#dy "axis of evil" speech that encouraged the hardliner clerics to dismantle Khatami's presidency, who policies was moderate and beneficial towards women, and only to be replace by a deranged madman. The US should have worked with Khatami, but NOOOOO...The US had to elect an equally derange cowboy, who made a complete mess for everyone else.

 

[Starsoul]

I am not a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, but let's get our facts straight. The Taliban were given a chance to hand over Bin Laden. The deadline came and went and then the Taliban said they would *discuss* handing over UBL *to a third country* if the U.S. provided compelling evidence. They had already said they weren't going to hand over Bin Laden, a well-known international criminal (even the Saudis and Sudan wanted him arrested). This was just a stalling tactic of the Taliban and a way to try to embarrass the U.S.

Source: Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World news | guardian.co.uk

And why would Us NOT present ANY substantial evidence for any of its war justified accusations is a big question mark!

Does the Us present any other country its citizens or prisoners if Saudia has 'compelling un-disclosable evidence' that Us actually is involved in nine eleven? (for an example)

Taliban never wanted a war with Us, nobody does, for obvious reasons, but war was imposed. Afganistan is their country, not Us's and its they who get to choose what to give or not, if Us chose not to provide the 'compelling evidence' to the whole world about nineeleven, its not afganistan's fault.

Nobody can even actually claim that a Super developed and advanced power like US is vulnerable to the ignorant, poorest of the poor people of the mountains who live in broken houses, walk in torn clothes and shoes, wait for the tiniest scrap of food for days in anticipation and have few hand made arms. I'm from Afganistan , you cant shove those propaganda lies on my face.

I see things from my eyes which you only have access to in the comfort of your couch, delivered to you conveniently 'shaped and tweeked' by the media. If you stop seeing my posts one day, you should know what happened to me.

 

[Starsoul]

[emphasis added] Please provide evidence and sources for this claim.

Do you really expect me to quote sources for that kind of a thing from the propagandist controlled information flow and media?

This is COMMON knowledge in ALL muslim countries, just like people inside of america know that a Us president has to have a black dog, for no good reason.(excuse the example) And well, Im rather surprised that you did not know, Even Riz khan, the ex CNN reporter now working on Al-jazeera news, confirmed that piece of information and it wasn't even a breaking news because everybody already knew , whats sad is nobody can or would do anything, we know and yet we suffer.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And why would Us NOT present ANY substantial evidence for any of its war justified accusations is a big question mark!

I think that's an excellent point and I tend to agree with you. But, if you will forgive me for "playing devil's advocate" for a moment, perhaps there wasn't absolute proof that Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks. There was just strong circumstantial evidence which made Bin Laden the #1 suspect. In order to obtain proof you generally have to arrest suspects and do an investigation, but Bin Laden's Taliban friends were not allowing that. And every moment that goes by without access to the suspect, a search of his house, etc. is another lost opportunity to collect evidence or even capture him. And, every moment that he was not arrested was another risk of another massacre, since Bin Laden was at that moment continuing to call for more attacks.

I'm not saying what the U.S. did was right. All I'm saying is you can't totally dismiss the U.S. perspective at the time. EVERYONE knew Bin Laden orchestrated and funded international crimes which killed U.S. (and other) soldiers and civilians on many occasions. Western governments, Islamic governments, Sudan, Saudi Arabia -- everyone knew this. The Taliban were the only ones who would take him as anything other than a suspect who should be put in jail and put on trial, and while UBL was living as the Taliban's respected guest he was behind several attacks against the U.S.

It looked like what happened was the Taliban were continuing the policy they had for decades of protecting UBL and asking for "proof" which of course they knew the U.S. didn't have, this was just a stalling tactic.

Does the Us present any other country its citizens or prisoners if Saudia has 'compelling un-disclosable evidence' that Us actually is involved in nine eleven? (for an example)

If a person living in the U.S. has called for and is suspected of orchestrating attacks against Saudi Arabia for years, including killing civilians, yes he should be arrested and investigated and then handed over to Saudi Arabia.

Taliban never wanted a war with Us, nobody does, for obvious reasons, but war was imposed.

No, war was imposed on the U.S. by Bin Laden and this came to a climax when his Jihadis hijacked and crashed four planes while shouting "God is great!" The U.S. would not have become involved in the war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, if the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden. You could argue the U.S. actions were unreasonable and wrong. But, wasn't it also unreasonable and wrong of the Taliban to hope the U.S. was bluffing and risk war, instead of simply handing over a well-known criminal?

Afganistan is their country, not Us's and its they who get to choose what to give or not, if Us chose not to provide the 'compelling evidence' to the whole world about nineeleven, its not afganistan's fault.

It sounds like a convenient game, to protect a prime suspect and demand "proof" beyond circumstantial evidence, but forbid actions that would be necessary to gather proof. Imagine trying to prove a murderer is guilty without being able to arrest and interrogate him, his friends, or search and seize his possessions, tap his telephone, etc. and in the meantime the murderer calls for more murders and boasts about past murders. It sounds like you're saying Bin Laden should have been safe for another decade to carry out another dozen attacks, like the previous decade, and there would never be any direct proof linking him to the crimes since the Taliban won't arrest the #1 suspect, perform a search and seizure of his possessions as evidence, spy on him to gather evidence, etc. So you think the U.S. should have just accepted that there would be more massacres, we should have just waited for the World Trade Center to get bombed for a third time, and let the Taliban protect their billionaire friend who is calling for these attacks and boasting about them? Come on.

Nobody can even actually claim that a Super developed and advanced power like US is vulnerable to the ignorant, poorest of the poor people of the mountains who live in broken houses, walk in torn clothes and shoes, wait for the tiniest scrap of food for days in anticipation and have few hand made arms. I'm from Afganistan , you cant shove those propaganda lies on my face.

I'm very interested to hear about and learn from your experiences as someone from Afghanistan, Starsoul. I want to learn from you. I tend to agree with you the U.S. actions were wrong, I'm just pointing out that you can't dismiss the U.S. perspective entirely and if the U.S. actions were unreasonable, the Taliban actions were absolutely insane.

I hope I haven't shoved propaganda in your face. In my defense, no one ever claimed Afghans were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers were from other countries and Bin Laden was not Afghan, either. However, he was living under the protection of the Taliban for years, during which time there was a lot of circumstantial evidence linking him to many international crimes. Many countries recognized this, not just the U.S. Only the Taliban protected him from arrest and investigation.

I see things from my eyes which you only have access to in the comfort of your couch, delivered to you conveniently 'shaped and tweeked' by the media. If you stop seeing my posts one day, you should know what happened to me.

I admit that you are right. My limited and biased knowledge of Afghanistan comes to me filtered by the media and while I'm on the comfort of my couch. I do my best to learn from alternative sources (like this website) and from people like you, I hope you'll share your experiences with me and educate me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you really expect me to quote sources for that kind of a thing from the propagandist controlled information flow and media?

I'm not saying you have to quote mainstream U.S. media. But surely if you believe something there must be some evidence for it somewhere, whether from Al-Jazeera or some other place. I'm not saying you are wrong about this I just asked for sources/evidence so I can learn.

This is COMMON knowledge in ALL muslim countries, just like people inside of america know that a Us president has to have a black dog, for no good reason.(excuse the example) And well, Im rather surprised that you did not know, Even Riz khan, the ex CNN reporter now working on Al-jazeera news, confirmed that piece of information and it wasn't even a breaking news because everybody already knew , whats sad is nobody can or would do anything, we know and yet we suffer.

I read the Wiki page CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've mentioned suffering twice now, you spoke of tattered clothes and scraps of food. Could you tell me more about this? What is the nature of the suffering in Afghanistan you have seen, and what should the U.S. do, or stop doing, to alleviate it? Were conditions better under the Taliban, the same, worse ... ? What do Afghans want Western countries to do?

 

[Aquitaine]

What do Afghans want Western countries to do?

My best guess is to leave their lands.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, Afghans want westerners to crawl back under their rocks from where they came.