Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Meet the New Theocrats
An Afghan court has sentenced Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old journalism student, to death for downloading and distributing an article critical of Muhammad's views on women's rights. Disturbing as that news is for anyone who thought the U.S. had freed Afghanistan from the oppressive rule of brutal theocrats, the reaction of Kambakhsh's defenders is in some ways even more troubling (italics added):
The sentence was denounced as unfair by Mr. Kambakhsh's family and journalists' organizations. Mr. Kambakhsh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, denied that his sibling had committed blasphemy, and said that his brother was not given enough time to prepare his defense and was denied a lawyer....
He is being punished for articles written by his brother, said Jean Mackenzie, director of the Institute for Peace and War Reporting in Afghanistan, which has printed some of Mr. Ibrahimi's articles. Officials from the National Directorate of Security raided Mr. Ibrahimi's home and seized his computer hard drive the day after his brother was arrested in October, she said. They were most interested in the sources for an article critical of a local militia leader and legislator named Piram Qol, she said.
In short, the death sentence is excessively harsh, distributing the article did not really amount to blasphemy, the trial was unfair, and the charges were politically motivated. How about the idea that no one should face criminal charges because something he said offended people? That even if Kambakhsh did insult the Prophet, had an adequate defense, and was sentenced only to, say, tongue removal or hand amputation or 40 lashes, there still would be something wrong with the way he was treated? Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?
|1.24.08 @ 1:08PM|#
(I'm preempting LoneWacko)
Clearly JacobSullum has no idea the tremendous PoliticalPower the
MexicanGovernment weilds inside the UnitedStates. Is Sullum just a
CorporateGlobalist who favors the NorthAmericanUnion? NAFTA
SuperHighway.
Geotpf|1.24.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Personally, I favor Ron Paul's general foreign policy positions (minus the whole pulling out of the UN thing). Once we determined we were unwilling or unable to track down Bin Laden et al, we should have pulled out of Afghanistan. And we should have never went to Iraq. And we should have pulled out of places like Germany, South Korea, and Japan decades ago.
|1.24.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Cesar loses the thread. ;-)
Things like this make you start to wonder why the terrorists hate
us for spreading religious freedom and women's rights. "Hello,
we've made a nice cushy theocracy for you in Afghanistan, doesn't
that make you happy?"
|1.24.08 @ 1:15PM|#
I guess with some people you can't win. On the one hand, it's a neocon Jewish plot when we try to create a free society in Iraq, but when we take a hands-off attitude in Afghanistan, it's a huge failure of US foreign policy.
|1.24.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Remember boys and girls, all cultures deserve equal respect.
It's not for us to criticze somebody just because they do things
differently. There are no absolute rights and wrongs, all
judgements must be placed in context of the culture, of which all
are equally moral and valid.
Fortunately, you don't hear much of that nonsense anymore. What a
barbaric society.
Shannon Love|1.24.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Does that perspective have no advocates in the new,
enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?
Yes, but the New York Times won't bother to find them. Notice that
all the information in the story comes from the defendants side.
Clearly, this is press release journalism. We really don't have any
idea what is going on. For all we know, he got busted for kiddy
porn and just has a good PR team.
Remember the Iron Rule of reporting: Journalist never do any wrong
at any time, any place or any circumstances. All prosecutions of
journalist everywhere and always are just trumped up.
As background, It's routine for Islamic courts in the mid-East to
hand down draconian sentences only to mitigate them later. It's a
means of paying lip service to medieval traditions without having
to implement them.
|1.24.08 @ 1:26PM|#
hey, quick question. is there anything in the magazine that you can't get online?
|1.24.08 @ 1:27PM|#
If only there was some way to give every person in every
undemocratic country - Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan - internet
access that was completely secure from government censorship and
monitoring.
If we could, I bet none of them would last 10 years.
|1.24.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Daniel,
Since when is invading a country hands-off? Considering our goal
for Afghanistan was much like the goal for Iraq, to create a stable
functioning democracy to set the example for its neighbors, I don't
see how you could classify this as anything BUT a failure.
Episiarch|1.24.08 @ 1:30PM|#
So wait, imposing your own values on a culture which doesn't share them (at all) doesn't work? Since when?
|1.24.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Trying to teach a country like Afgahnistan to be a liberal democracy is like teaching a dog Algebra. Its just not going to work, no matter how hard you try.
|1.24.08 @ 1:33PM|#
So what do we do IRT countries and cultures that operate under
different legal codes and mores? Do we boycott? Suspend diplomatic
relations? Convert them to liberal, secular republics by
force?
What do other countries and cultures do IRT us, or "the West", etc?
Should we be judged by 2 Girls, 1 Cup or Japanese extreme
manga?
Seriously, I have no ideas as to how to approach this from a
utilitarian perspective.
|1.24.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Could you imagine the US allowing Germany or Japan to set up
governments after WWII that incorporated things like allowing all
laws to be religious or Islamic based?
The Bush folks were really good at comparing these battles to WWII,
but if the US had behaved the way it does now, Japan would still be
a true Monarchy/Fuedalist nation (and wouldn't have bought the
transistor from Ma Bell and wouldn't have done all those wonderful
things with them), and Germany would still be run by those
responsible for the gas chambers.
I've always viewed the Bush adminastrations willingness to allow
both nations to become exclusively Islamic as his way of
surrendering to Osama.
The thing that amuses me, is how few people realize that Bush has
done almost everything in his power to give radical Islamics who
attacked us exactly what they want.
Except leave Saudi Arabia.
(well, they haven't turned on Israel, but that would be too big of
a chip to give up).
I've always considered the governments we allowed to be set up in
both countries to be a complete surrender to the Radical Islamic
community.
Not unlike the way we stopped trying to find Osama.
|1.24.08 @ 1:37PM|#
I can't help but think that when Mike Huckabee reads stuff like this, he has a salivatory response that is utterly Pavlovian.
Abdul|1.24.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Considering our goal for Afghanistan was much like the goal
for Iraq, to create a stable functioning democracy to set the
example for its neighbors, I don't see how you could classify this
as anything BUT a failure.
You don't see any difference between present-day Afghanistan and
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan? Both are equal failures of
democracy?
|1.24.08 @ 1:38PM|#
If the French gov of pre-WWII were surrender monkeys, Bush is a surrender monkey with wings.
|1.24.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Germany and Japan actually had some parliamentary traditions from the 19th century. Afgahnistan and Iraq have none whatsoever.
Tom Walls|1.24.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Since we're in the business of nation-building, we are in the
unique position of making these new governments not kill people for
victimless crimes, such as blasphemy.
But then again, that's what governments do best - kill people for
victimless crimes.
> So what do we do IRT countries and cultures that operate under
different legal codes and mores? Do we boycott? Suspend diplomatic
relations? Convert them to liberal, secular republics by force?
|1.24.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Except leave Saudi Arabia.
That's what the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi
"government" is for.
|1.24.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Hey, I thought we saved that country and made it America Junior. Isn't that what Pat Tillman got accidentally shot for?
|1.24.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Actually, Iraq had quite a few, one of the reasons that radical
Jihadists didn't like Iraq was because of it's secular
government.
Just like what Bush and Huckabee don't like about America.
(yes Saddam was still a fascist pig)
|1.24.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Yea, but Joe, remember, the only reason both countries (A & I) weren't under our control was because Bush didn't want to nation build. And if you are going to go to war for real, you have to clean up after yourselves.
|1.24.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Actually, Iraq had quite a few, one of the reasons that radical Jihadists didn't like Iraq was because of it's secular government.
I'm sorry, but not nearly to the extent that Germany did. When was
Iraq's 1848?
Brian White|1.24.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Gee, Abdul, did you read the article? Is your question meant to
be rhetorical?
Afganistan's new democratic government first almost killed a guy
for converting to Christianity, and now they're killing a guy for
downloading an (allegedly) apostate website.
The poppy fields are producing again - but what other 'good news'
items are the defeatist mainstream media witholding from us?
But the reason I chimed in here was because ONCE AGAIN Reason fails
to provide the websites for which this guy may be executed. C'mon
Reason - you didn't link the riot-provoking Danish cartoons, and
now you don't link to the websites this guy is in the dock for.
What good is this internet thing if you aren't willing to use
it?
Episiarch|1.24.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Hey, I thought we saved that country and made it America
Junior.
Uh, no--Canada is America Jr., according to Homer Simpson.
Afghanistan is now more like "America's Redheaded Stepchild", and
we all know what we do to those, right?
|1.24.08 @ 1:48PM|#
No, not nearly to the extant Germany did.
That's an excuse, not a reason.
An excuse for Bush to once again fail, and shame America before the
world.
|1.24.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Lawrence,
With the troop levels he put in, it wouldn't have mattered what he
wanted them do. They wouldn't have been able to do it,
regardless.
Also, there's another matter - the Japanese and Germans who were
resisting us were defeated.
Brandybuck|1.24.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Producer: "Oh my God! That's horrible! What do they call
themselves?"
Agent: "The Theocrats!" [rimshot]
|1.24.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Does that perspective have no advocates in the new,
enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?
The better part of valour is discretion, in the which better part I
have saved my life.
R C Dean|1.24.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Whoops, wrong thread.
No thread is the wrong thread for a LoneWacko rant.
Anyhoo, we said we were going to establish a democracy, right?
Well, there's nothing that says a democracy can't have religious
blasphemy laws.
If you want us to really create a full-blown Western liberal
society in Afghanistan, you're even more of an interventionist than
Bush.
Abdul|1.24.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Brian,
You're extrapolating from very few data points. As far as creating
a functional democracy, both Afghanistan and Iraq have made huge
strides. The real threat to civil and human rights in those
countries is no longer the state, but stateless actors. That's a
big difference in terms of freedom.
In pre-invasion A & I, there was no voting. There is now
voting. All information sources were governement controlled. Now,
media sources are considerably more free.
Of course laws against blaspehmy are anti-democratic, but using
this case to say that modern Afghanistan is no different than
Taliban-era Afghanistan is fatuous at best.
|1.24.08 @ 1:58PM|#
I know,I know. They had elections. It's a democracy. Imagine giving the vote to 13th century Italians, or Germans, or the English.
|1.24.08 @ 2:03PM|#
de stijl, what should be done in just about every case is try to
trade with them if they are willing to trade with us, talk to them
about our differences, and other than that, leave them alone. If we
do these things A) they won't hate us because we walk the walk
instead of lie B) they will be exposed to new ways of thinking that
someday they may see as better than their own and C) they can
always just say, "you know what, we disagree, don't let the
doorknob hit ya" and we're no worse for wear.
For Afghanistan, specifically, if we really want to make things
better we end the War on Drugs here and allow the legalized trade
of opiates. They will trade it with us for things we have that they
want and thus the dialogue begins. Every time there is a
transaction someone is conversing with someone from the other
culture and eventually things get better, occasionally worse but
it's more of a five steps forward, one step back kind of
discussion. That is preferable over the "we tell them what they
should do" method which usually leads to them resenting us and
shutting us out completely which serves no one. Theocracies tend to
break down when people see a glimpse of freedom. They usually want
more.
|1.24.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Imagine giving the vote to 13th century Italians
But we didn't expect the Spanish Islamic
Inquisition.
(Sorry, JsubD, somebody had to say it.)
Taktix®|1.24.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Does that perspective have no advocates in the new,
enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?
Sullum,
You owe me a new monitor...
|1.24.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Democracy is not always good. I'd rather live in a benevolent monarchy where the king leaves me alone than a democracy where 51% vote to take everything I have and give it to themselves. A limited Consitutional Republic, now that's better. I wonder where we can find one of those.
|1.24.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Jacob,
I'm sure that perspective has advocates but, given what just
happened, they may be inclined to not shout them just now.
|1.24.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Considering our goal for Afghanistan was much like the goal
for Iraq, to create a stable functioning democracy to set the
example for its neighbors, I don't see how you could classify this
as anything BUT a failure.
The rational, constitutional goal was to defend our nation by
beating back the clowns who want to fly planes into our buildings.
We did that. The goal shouldn't be to build a classically liberal
western constitutional republic, because none of those exist
anymore in the world (now, modern liberal democracies, plenty of
those bad puppies). The goal should be to get someone not as bad as
the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan who can fight off the
Taliban's attempts to regain control, then get the hell out.
I leave it to others here to debate if we've already achieved that
minimal goal.
|1.24.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Shannon Love | January 24, 2008, 1:23pm | #
Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?
Yes, but the New York Times won't bother to find them. Notice that all the information in the story comes from the defendants side. Clearly, this is press release journalism. We really don't have any idea what is going on. For all we know, he got busted for kiddy porn and just has a good PR team.
Way to miss the point of the post Shannon! Let's assume that
everything the NYT article printed is PR fluff from the defense.
There is still no statement declaring that it is a man's right to
free speech! If the NYT had interviewed the judges in this case, do
you think it would be any different?
You take what is a lambastation of the narrow mindedness of the
accused and turn it into "Journalists on a Pedastal". Ever think of
working on GWB's PR team. Since Rove left he could use such
word-twisting help.
Gertrude Sanders|1.24.08 @ 2:15PM|#
No offense, but this is a dumb reaction, and one which only a
person in a free society could have.
If a loved one is in danger of death, it's probably not the best
time to make a stand which has near-zero chance of success (i.e.
objecting in principle to prosecution for blasphemy). Better to
work as hard as you can to get him off the charges and then get the
hell out of an evidently insane society. I imagine the guy's
supporters are thinking along the same lines.
jackanapestarian|1.24.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Is anyone here advocating that we (forcibly) remake all our allies in our own image? How, pray tell? Or is the concept rather that we should never deal with any country with whom we have philosophical differences? In other words, isolationism. I'm thinking the latter.
|1.24.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Both are equal failures of democracy?
nick said it- this is exactly what democracy is about. if 51% of
the people have a koran where there brain is supposed to be, you'll
see democratically approved executions of apostates, heretics, and
women who shave their legs.
as much as people conflate the terms, "liberty" and "democracy" are
not the same thing, and in fact are often opposed.
|1.24.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Democracy is not always good. I'd rather live in a
benevolent monarchy where the king leaves me alone than a democracy
where 51% vote to take everything I have and give it to
themselves.
Nick, I'd like to live in rainbow puppy land too. A benevolent
monarchy like you described would be a good thing, except that due
to the hereditary thing, and the absolute power leading to absolute
corruption thing, what you get there is a string of bad
authoritarians, oftentimes crazy from all the inbreeding, with the
occasional relatively sane and hands-off monarch. No thanks.
Democracy, bad as it is, can be a huge improvement (though it
sometimes isn't -- see Chavez, Hugo).
|1.24.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Oh, if only there was something in between "forcibly) remake all
our allies in our own image" and "never deal with any country with
whom we have philosophical differences!"
The real threat to civil and human rights in those countries is
no longer the state, but stateless actors. That's a big difference
in terms of freedom.
Wow. Please note that, under this definition, you can be more free,
even as your ability to move, think, and speak freely are under
greater threat by men with guns.
|1.24.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Oh, edna. It's always time for more coffee.
I just want to point out that, while there are indeed differences
between "liberalism/freedom" and "democracy," which we all
understand very well, there is no such distinction made in our
foreign policy, and there was certainly no such distinction made
when Bush was talking about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq
and Afghanstan. He meant a modern, constitutional system with a
democratic government AND no more knocks on the door at 2AM from
the men with guns.
|1.24.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Does that perspective have no advocates in the new,
enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?
One day perhaps Jacob Sullum should read the emancipation
proclamation...pretty dry stuff for what the profound moral changes
the document was actually implementing.
The defense of liberty does not have to be flighty and pretty in
order for it to be a defense of liberty.
|1.24.08 @ 2:33PM|#
"Well, there's nothing that says a democracy can't have
religious blasphemy laws."
RC Dean against the American Founders. Again.
Why does RC Dean hate freedom?
Why does RC Dean believe you can be free without being free?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, they already do.
RC Dean, a functioning democracy requires freedom. Blasphemy laws
disallow the basic freedom needed to function.
Heinrick|1.24.08 @ 2:36PM|#
"but when we take a hands-off attitude in Afghanistan"
What makes you think were doing that?
|1.24.08 @ 2:43PM|#
I take it back. Apparently, we don't all understand the distinction between liberalism and democracy.
Gus|1.24.08 @ 2:44PM|#
"hey, quick question. is there anything in the magazine that you
can't get online?"
The printed version always has a naked Weigel foldout, but that's
about it.
|1.24.08 @ 2:48PM|#
The printed version always has a naked Weigel foldout, but
that's about it.
Wow, I guess this magazine really has gone downhill sinced
Virginia Postrel left.
javier|1.24.08 @ 2:48PM|#
lawrence,
seriously, you really don't get the difference between democracy
and freedom??
First off, our right to isn't what makes use free in this country.
It is the recognition of liberities, namely, in the bill of rights.
The bill of rights is very ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. I have the right to
free speech no matter what 99% of the others say.
"Mankind will soon learn that unbridled majorities are just as
tyrannical as unlimited despots" - JOhn adams
javier|1.24.08 @ 2:49PM|#
*edit* First off, our right to vote isn't what makes use free in this country
NY Voter|1.24.08 @ 3:08PM|#
RC Dean, a functioning democracy requires freedom. Blasphemy
laws disallow the basic freedom needed to function.
New York state recently allowed sale of beer on Sunday mornings for
the first time in about 100 years. While the amount of freedom in
New York is debatable, I think it was slightly functional during
that time.
Grand Chalupa|1.24.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Disturbing as that news is for anyone who thought the U.S.
had freed Afghanistan from the oppressive rule of brutal
theocrats,
Well, the people who thought a couple ten thousand American troops
were going to change a culture of illiterate tribesman thousands of
years old are morons and deserves to get their hopes crushed. For a
good laugh, look through Christopher Hitchens' archive for stories
of the homosexuality, feminism, socialism and high culture among
his Iraqi friends who were so obviously representative of the
country and would lead a Middle Eastern Sweeden after those evil
Islamo-Fascist Baathists were gone.
This country''s idealism is going to be its undoing.
|1.24.08 @ 3:17PM|#
He meant a modern, constitutional system with a democratic
government AND no more knocks on the door at 2AM from the men with
guns.
I smiled when I read that. Here's one reason
why.
B|1.24.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of
this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"? Give me a
fucking break.
But then again I have learned not to be too surprised when I read
stupid shit on this site. After all, stupid shit is to be expected
when you attract people who post the following:
"I can't help but think that when Mike Huckabee reads stuff like
this, he has a salivatory response that is utterly
Pavlovian."
To the moron who posted the above quotation, perhaps you can answer
this for me: Is his salivary response more, or less intense than
the one experienced by Ron Paul when he sees a cross burning in the
front yard of a black person?
|1.24.08 @ 3:34PM|#
prolefeed, I stand by my desire for a benevolent monarchy OVER a
tyrannical majority democracy. Did I say either one was ideal? No,
however, one lets me live as I see fit while the other does not.
Take a look a Monaco. The people are happy with their monarch
whereas we have a democracy that was taken over by a tyrannical
majority and we complain about it all the time. I would prefer to
have our constitutional republic back, but that is the
responsibility of the majority to elect the appropriate stewards of
said republic. That isn't happening. So, democracy is failing right
here and now, in my opinion, because it relies on the intelligence
and benevolence of far more people than one. Democracy is neither
fair, nor inherently just.
If heredity causes the monarch to be less than benevolent then it
is no longer a benevolent monarchy, now is it?
R C Dean|1.24.08 @ 3:38PM|#
RC Dean, a functioning democracy requires freedom. Blasphemy
laws disallow the basic freedom needed to function.
I think you are conflating "democracy" (meaning the folks get to
vote periodically on who occupies the government) with something
much bigger than democracy, a free society.
I can see no reason why you can't have folks voting periodically,
etc., in a state that outlaws blasphemy.
economist|1.24.08 @ 3:52PM|#
But guys, it's okay for Afghanistan to put him to death because it's a democracy. They got together and voted before deciding to kill him.
The Prophet Mohummad|1.24.08 @ 3:54PM|#
"Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of
this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"?"
Sexual favor kickbacks???
|1.24.08 @ 3:55PM|#
"But guys, it's okay for Afghanistan to put him to death because
it's a democracy. They got together and voted before deciding to
kill him."
Well, that's sort of how it works in the USA...
|1.24.08 @ 3:59PM|#
We replaced the goverment in Afghanistan with a better one. Sady, for those expecting a flourishing of art, culture and women's rights, we neglected replace its people as well.
Devo|1.24.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Nick, I understand your point on benevolent dictatorships such as Monaco, and I believe Luxembourg falls under the same category, but you are not guaranteed a good leader. I imagine that in the US, a benevolent dictatorship would be devastating. As for what happens in Afghanistan, it shows a problem with their culture. If Afghanistan was an Islamic monarchy the journalist would have been put to death. Also for Jacob Sullum's sake, an enlightened Afghanistan was wiped away at about the same time the Soviets invaded.
|1.24.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"?
|1.24.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Maybe because that's what it's called in Muslim societies, like where this story took place?
|1.24.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Wow, everyone seems to be missing my point entirely. I know I
would not be guaranteed a good leader, that's why I qualified it
with "benevolent" which means "good." The whole point was to show
that democracy is not always best because the will of the majority
is not always best. People have been equating democracy with
freedom for far too long and I am trying to show how they are not
the same.
I would still prefer the benevolent monarch over the oppressive
majority but I would prefer freedom over both.
Edna, economist, Billie, thanks for "getting it."
|1.24.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Nick, I think we're arguing over how very much we agree. I too
would like to live under a benevolent monarchy like they have in
Monaco, rather than the kleptocratic democracy we have here. I
suppose if you have the mobility to go live somewhere else if or
when the monarchy in Monaco turns ugly, AND there is another
benevolent monarchy around that will take you in, great.
I would prefer even more to live in a minarchist confederation of
nominally independent states with a strong respect for individual
rights. Problem is, there ain't any of those around anymore.
|1.24.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I don't feel right laughing at that, Jsub, but I can't
stop.
It was an ironic smile.
|1.24.08 @ 4:27PM|#
prolefeed, you tried to argue that democracy was better, which
is why I tried to continue to make the point that it was not.
Since we do, in fact, agree, I think you and those of us that
discussed Daldude's hypothetical libertarian island from an earlier
article should call the island Rainbow Puppy Land. I'm firing up
the grill, brother.
|1.24.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Nick, when you brought up the subject of a benevolent monarchy, my mind flashed back to 4 wonderful days in Nuku'alofa, Tonga. Truly one of the finest liberty ports I've ever been to. And the hotel maid, ;-)
|1.24.08 @ 4:38PM|#
I'd like to thank all for not respoding to the lame trolling attempt an hour or so ago.
B|1.24.08 @ 5:54PM|#
"Maybe because that's what it's called in Muslim societies, like
where this story took place?"
Hey shit-for-brains, this is not a muslim society, it's a blog of a
libertarian magazine. That the author of this post felt the need to
refer to a pedophilic mass-murderer as "The prophet" is
pathetic.
Thorpe|1.24.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Absolutely amazing that people expect Afghanistan to turn from a non-democratic theocracy, with no system of laws whatsoever, outside of Shariah, into one George Washington would applaud relatively overnight. They just had their first legitimate election ever and drafted their first constitution only a few years ago. It takes some time to transform the society and certain political realities must be dealt with. I can only imagine what the people here would be saying if they lived outside the US when the 3/5 clause was added to the Constitution. Good thing the people that ran this country didn't have to listen to a group of naysaying pussies like the ones that post here. You fucking people carp about absolutely everything, and offer solutions to absolutely nothing.
|1.24.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author
of this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"? Give me a
fucking break.
I think it was to distinguish between Muhammad the Prophet and
Muhammad the teddy bear.
I\'m new here, go fuck yoursel|1.24.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Shouldn't I just start out calling people names? That's generally the best way to introduce yourself, right? It makes you sound wordly, intelligent and oh so tuff!
|1.24.08 @ 10:24PM|#
""The thing that amuses me, is how few people realize that Bush
has done almost everything in his power to give radical Islamics
who attacked us exactly what they want.
Except leave Saudi Arabia."""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia
"""Democracy is not always good. I'd rather live in a benevolent
monarchy where the king leaves me alone than a democracy where 51%
vote to take everything I have and give it to themselves. A limited
Consitutional Republic, now that's better. I wonder where we can
find one of those."""
When you find one, let me know.
"""as much as people conflate the terms, "liberty" and "democracy"
are not the same thing, and in fact are often opposed."""
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben
Franklin
|1.24.08 @ 11:19PM|#
B | January 24, 2008, 5:54pm | #
"Maybe because that's what it's called in Muslim societies, like
where this story took place?"
Hey shit-for-brains, this is not a muslim society, it's a blog of a
libertarian magazine. That the author of this post felt the need to
refer to a pedophilic mass-murderer as "The prophet" is
pathetic.
Oh, thanks. We had no idea you were a dickhead and a bigot from
your last remark.
PS, this story took place in Afghanstan, which is Muslim. Duh.
|1.24.08 @ 11:57PM|#
B, you seem to think that, by using the phrase "insult the Prophet" rather than "insult Muhammad", Sullum intended to show respect for Muhammad. But if that's what you think, you are almost certainly wrong.
Muslims Against Sharia|1.25.08 @ 9:57PM|#
Muslims Against Sharia strongly denounce this draconian
sentence. We appeal to President Hamid Karzai, NATO, and the
International community to intervene on behalf of Sayed Parwiz
Kambakhsh. Afghanistan cannot be a member of the free world while
its citizens are being charged with blasphemy.
Source:
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/death-sentence-for-afghan-student.html
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245