• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands

PureX

Veteran Member
I suspect the "journalists" who made the video, view the world thru the dangerous, far-left "oppressed vs oppressor" mindset, and so they see opposition to "oppressed" Muslims as being "far right". argh.
It's hard to say, as so little journalism is actually journalism, anymore.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I'd say most of this is a fallout from the recent batch of Islamic Auhoritarian Regimes ;)
Which are bolstered by the West's misadventures in the Middle East. Saddam and Gaddafi's government's were bulwarks against Islamism and Jihadis, but we killed them and destroyed their countries, allowing the racist Jihadists to run amuck with our weapons. If you want the refugee crisis to end, stop voting for warmongering politicians who then go and bomb the smithereens out of their countries. You'd leave, too.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Which are bolstered by the West's misadventures in the Middle East. Saddam and Gaddafi's government's were bulwarks against Islamism and Jihadis, but we killed them and destroyed their countries, allowing the racist Jihadists to run amuck with our weapons. If you want the refugee crisis to end, stop voting for warmongering politicians who then go and bomb the smithereens out of their countries. You'd leave, too.

Just to be clear, are you saying Saddam and Gaddafi should have been left in place?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Just to be clear, are you saying Saddam and Gaddafi should have been left in place?
I believe the West needs to stop warmongering and leave those people alone. Yes, they should've been left in place. They posed zero threat to us and we turned that region into hell on earth with what we did.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
As with other forms of governance like tribes, empires and city states, there are many problems with the nation state (and also many benefits).

What alternative do you see as being both (hypothetically) plausible and superior though?
A full globalistic approach which emphasizes ecological, anthropological and demographic perspectives.

Not only superior, but probably necessary.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I believe the West needs to stop warmongering and leave those people alone. Yes, they should've been left in place. They posed zero threat to us and we turned that region into hell on earth with what we did.

There are some war mongers in the world - but it's hardly limited to the West.

But I would say that Iraq and Libya were ALREADY hell on earth. So it's not clear to me that we should stand by and watch countries full of people be abused by authoritarian leaders. But I would say yours is a false dilemma. So I would agree that the Iraq war was totally horrible. But I have to think there are other approaches other than war or negligence?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
There are some war mongers in the world - but it's hardly limited to the West.

But I would say that Iraq and Libya were ALREADY hell on earth. So it's not clear to me that we should stand by and watch countries full of people be abused by authoritarian leaders. But I would say yours is a false dilemma. So I would agree that the Iraq war was totally horrible. But I have to think there are other approaches other than war or negligence?
No, Libya was doing pretty good for itself, before the vampires in Washington turned their sights on it:

And no one can say with a straight face that Iraq is better off.

We stand by and allow people to be abused by authoritarian leaders all the time, such as our "allies", Israel and Saudi Arabia and we continue to do business with the depotic Chinese government. Our foreign policy has little to do with what is right.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
No, Libya was doing pretty good for itself, before the vampires in Washington turned their sights on it:

And no one can say with a straight face that Iraq is better off.
That is a lot of wishful thinking.

We stand by and allow people to be abused by authoritarian leaders all the time, such as our "allies", Israel and Saudi Arabia and we continue to do business with the depotic Chinese government. Our foreign policy has little to do with what is right.

Indeed. There are quite a few genuine dilemmas there.
 

libre

In flight
Staff member
Premium Member
That is a lot of wishful thinking.
I found the Telesur article compelling.

It is right to suggest that in terms of HDI, Libya was better under Gaddafi. Looking at the data it's really obvious when the military intervention occurred and that the country has not returned to it's former heights since.


1703814451574.png
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
With all due respect, that is a misleading conclusion.

One has to consider, among many other factors, that the current chaotic situation is a consequence of decades under the rather immature and crippling regime of Gaddafi. That is no minor contribution.

Besides, I have to take issue if the implication is that some non-Islamic government or entity is to blame for Gaddafi's fall - or even that it had some sort of duty to attempt to avoid it. That is, frankly, quite absurd and a non-starter.
 

libre

In flight
Staff member
Premium Member
With all due respect, that is a misleading conclusion.

One has to consider, among many other factors, that the current chaotic situation is a consequence of decades under the rather immature and crippling regime of Gaddafi. That is no minor contribution.

Besides, I have to take issue if the implication is that some non-Islamic government or entity is to blame for Gaddafi's fall - or even that it had some sort of duty to attempt to avoid it. That is, frankly, quite absurd and a non-starter.
I don't mean to suggest in any way that there was not resistance to Gaddafi, or that he did not deserve such.

However Gaddafi being deposed and killed in 2011 was the result of NATO involvement, and they were happy to take credit for such.
If your argument is that Gaddafi was to blame for the intervention - that argument is bad faith in the existential sense.

I definitely wouldn't ever suggest the west had an obligation to protect the Gaddafi government, but I do suggest that their involvement caused a large degree of suffering and was done under false pretenses.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
With all due respect, that is a misleading conclusion.

One has to consider, among many other factors, that the current chaotic situation is a consequence of decades under the rather immature and crippling regime of Gaddafi. That is no minor contribution.
The facts are that Libya was a prosperous nation under Gaddafi, and NATO destroyed it.
Period.
No wonder Lula was elected, in your country, dearest.
Because people are disgusted by what certain demonic élites have been doing for the last two decades. In Venezuela, as well.
So they elected someone like Lula.
On whose side are you?
Besides, I have to take issue if the implication is that some non-Islamic government or entity is to blame for Gaddafi's fall - or even that it had some sort of duty to attempt to avoid it. That is, frankly, quite absurd and a non-starter.
Gaddafi was overthrown thanks to the NATO supporting ISIS.
Utterly disgusting.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I don't mean to suggest in any way that there was not resistance to Gaddafi, or that he did not deserve such.

However Gaddafi being deposed and killed in 2011 was the result of NATO involvement, and they were happy to take credit for such.
If your argument is that Gaddafi was to blame for the intervention - that argument is bad faith in the existential sense.

I definitely wouldn't ever suggest the west had an obligation to protect the Gaddafi government, but I do suggest that their involvement caused a large degree of suffering and was done under false pretenses.
My country had such obligation because of the Italian-Libya treaty, but the United States doesn't respect its own allies.
 
Last edited:
Top