Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
I've often said that the US doesn't really care about "good leaders" and "bad leaders". We might talk about wanting to bring modern freedoms and democracy to the rest of the world, but in the end we don't really care if you are good or bad as long as you are an ally. It's nothing new, we've always done that. If you got something we need or if you are somehow helpful to us, then we are very willing to turn our eyes and become your friends.

Exactly that.

What country does?

 Frazzled wrote:
Brunei goes sharia and its the US's fault?

(scratches head)

You have to re-read the OP. This thread has nothing at all to do with Brunei, it's just a backhanded way of making another "lol fartbama sucks" thread.

I had a stop over in Brunei one time. Wandered around a bit, but the only thing that left an impression was a book in the airport bookstore - it was Henry Ford's Protocols of the Elder's of Zion. For sale right there in a mainstream bookstore. Knowing absolutely nothing else about Brunei, I took away that there's some level of pretty extreme Islamic sentiment in the country.

 djones520 wrote:
We're discussing this current one. Not everyone else.

And the discussion of the current one beings and ends with 'he's doing the same thing that they all do and will continue doing and it really outrages me when he does it'.

Which is boring nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I've often said that the US doesn't really care about "good leaders" and "bad leaders". We might talk about wanting to bring modern freedoms and democracy to the rest of the world, but in the end we don't really care if you are good or bad as long as you are an ally. It's nothing new, we've always done that. If you got something we need or if you are somehow helpful to us, then we are very willing to turn our eyes and become your friends.

People complaining about Obama "praising" the Brunei guy are not really any different than people complaining about Bush being all hanky-panky with the Saudi guys. They are our friends, not because we like them but because they got stuff we want.

I think it's true up to a point. There's a certain level of donkey-cave behaviour that the US, or any other country, will overlook for the sake of national interests. Exactly how much they'll overlook depends on how valuable you are (Saudi Arabia gets away with a lot, Bangladesh would get away with a whole lot less), and a bunch of other specific factors (support for Israel has little to do with US national interests and everything to do with internal US politics).

As to whether Brunei is important enough that the US is willing to let these awful laws happen without doing anything, well time will tell on that one. I honestly don't know.

I do know that people who like complaining about Obama will use it to complain about Obama, just like people who liked complaining about Bush used similar instances to complain about Bush.

 Frazzled wrote:
What country does?

Well, speaking of those I know, not France. Switzerland is slightly better. Slightly.

 sebster wrote:
Exactly how much they'll overlook depends on how valuable you are (Saudi Arabia gets away with a lot, Bangladesh would get away with a whole lot less)

Pakistan is going away with a huge freaking lot, and they are not bringing in much. But hey, nuclear power and “fighting terrorism” .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
As to whether Brunei is important enough that the US is willing to let these awful laws happen without doing anything, well time will tell on that one. I honestly don't know.

Actually, let us be real for a second. If Brunei is not important to the U.S., they will let those awful laws happen without doing anything. The U.S. government is not a bunch of good guys going around improving stuff and caring for people of other countries. They do not give a damn about whether or not people of Brunei live in a shithole. The only questions are power and money. That whole “white knight in shinning armor” correcting the wrongs of the world is just empty posturing. So the U.S. will not do anything about those laws.

It's not often that I'll quote Bill "Life has a Liberal bias" Maher, but I think it works here:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's not often that I'll quote Bill "Life has a Liberal bias" Maher, but I think it works here:

I don't think I agree with this as being Muslim doesn't mean you automatically support sharia laws in fact there's quite a few Muslim majority nations where sharia plays no role in the judicial system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Use_of_Sharia_by_country.svg

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't think I agree with as being Muslim doesn't mean you automatically support sharia laws

The guy did not say that the problem was Muslim people, he said the problem was Islam . Though of course, that makes the reference to Boko Haram a bit wrong, I guess.
Given that this guy certainly is Christian, and quite hardline I guess, that is a bit hypocritical from him too .

 Cheesecat wrote:
... in fact there's quite a few Muslim majority nations where sharia plays no role in the judicial system...

And now there's one less.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't think I agree with as being Muslim doesn't mean you automatically support sharia laws

The guy did not say that the problem was Muslim people, he said the problem was Islam . Though of course, that makes the reference to Boko Haram a bit wrong, I guess.
Given that this guy certainly is Christian, and quite hardline I guess, that is a bit hypocritical from him too .

Yeah, but by his logic wouldn't that mean we should blame Christianity for the Westboro Church and the kkk (not a statement that I agree with just seems to the message he's implying). Also Bill Maher is agnostic.

EDIT: stupid post on my part.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Brunei goes sharia and its the US's fault?

(scratches head)

You have to re-read the OP. This thread has nothing at all to do with Brunei, it's just a backhanded way of making another "lol fartbama sucks" thread.

Actually, no. What I wrote is a fairly straight forward association between President Bush's comment about Putin's soul and President Obama's own choices in dealing with the Sultan of Brunei. I made this association because one of the things the President wanted to do was to "repair our image" in the world. You'll notice that the legacy of pretending Putin is our friend has had its fill of embarrassing moments. Our friendship with Brunei has become an embarrassment and will likely become even more embarrassing as time goes on.

Also, as I think over my many posts on politics, I don't remember ever calling the President names. Still, that little detail didn't stop you from attributing such behavior to me, did it? Let's see... you inferred intent to my post that I did not imply and then you associate my comments with crass name calling done by immature/hostile forum trolls. GG, Ouze. That's two. Let's go for the hat trick, why don't you?

 Breotan wrote:
Also, as I think over my many posts on politics, I don't remember ever calling the President names. Still, that little detail didn't stop you from attributing such behavior to me, did it? Let's see... you inferred intent to my post that I did not imply and then you associate my comments with crass name calling done by immature/hostile forum trolls. GG, Ouze. That's two. Let's go for the hat trick, why don't you?

I think the maiden doth protest too much. This thread was clearly framed specifically in your OP and your first response to it not about Brunei (because, lets face it, who the feth cares about Brunei, a country I doubt one dakkaroo out of a thousand could identify on a map), but as a tiny turd you could fling at the President. And you know what? That's OK. He's kind of a mediocre to average president, at best, so why not keep on fething that chicken? I get it, I do.

But to play the the gasping, aw-who-me? wounded innocent here kinda of smacks of disingenuousness, I think.

(because, lets face it, who the feth cares about Brunei, a country I doubt one dakkaroo out of a thousand could identify on a map),

Careful with the assumptions, I have relatives from there.

And Brunei has many issues as a 'modern' nation, but then I suspect all nations do. I look forward to see Australia's great leap somewhere tomorrow as our Treasurer lays out his plans.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also Bill Maher is agnostic.

Oh. My bad, then.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, but by his logic wouldn't that mean we should blame Christianity for the Westboro Church and the kkk (not a statement that I agree with just seems to the message he's implying).

Sharia laws are literally “the laws of Islam”. There are different “versions” of Sharia laws because there are different interpretation of Islam. It is quite telling that, keeping in mind Sharia laws just means laws that are Islamic whatever your interpretation of Islam is, many country with a huge Muslim majority do not want them, is it not?
On the other hand, the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK are U.S. phenomenon that have absolutely no bearing at all on Christianity in the rest of the world. Though the comparison with Boko Haram holds way better, I will give you that.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Like I said. A curious mix of ideology and realism. We're happy to remove a state when we think no one is looking and call it a 'victory for democracy'

But true hilarity only occurs when ideology and realism are forced to play chicken.

Insightful, but thy desire for lulz consumes thee.
Had you replaced hilarity with chaos you would have coined an epic quote about the worlds condition.

feeder wrote:
The only people who have something to fear from this are those who are breaking the law. Don't want to get flogged? Don't break the law. What's the problem here, exactly?

Don't be a woman who gets raped, or you'll be stoned to death for adultery.

 scarletsquig wrote:

feeder wrote:
The only people who have something to fear from this are those who are breaking the law. Don't want to get flogged? Don't break the law. What's the problem here, exactly?

Don't be a woman who gets raped, or you'll be stoned to death for adultery.

With enough examples of stuff like this in the world, you'd think people would be better informed than to ask what the problem is.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also Bill Maher is agnostic.

Oh. My bad, then.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, but by his logic wouldn't that mean we should blame Christianity for the Westboro Church and the kkk (not a statement that I agree with just seems to the message he's implying).

Sharia laws are literally “the laws of Islam”. There are different “versions” of Sharia laws because there are different interpretation of Islam. It is quite telling that, keeping in mind Sharia laws just means laws that are Islamic whatever your interpretation of Islam is, many country with a huge Muslim majority do not want them, is it not?
On the other hand, the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK are U.S. phenomenon that have absolutely no bearing at all on Christianity in the rest of the world. Though the comparison with Boko Haram holds way better, I will give you that.

OK, I have no counter argument to that you win.

 Orlanth wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Like I said. A curious mix of ideology and realism. We're happy to remove a state when we think no one is looking and call it a 'victory for democracy'

But true hilarity only occurs when ideology and realism are forced to play chicken.

Insightful, but thy desire for lulz consumes thee.
Had you replaced hilarity with chaos you would have coined an epic quote about the worlds condition.

Meh, I don't really care, we're hardly the arbiters of morality and justice that we try to make ourselves out to be, if this is the way they want to go then let them, if its not then the people will fight back against this decision one way or another.

Personally, I'm more concerned over the long term ramifications that may arise from this, for some reason I see future headlines reading to the effect of "China invades Brunei over human rights abuses".

An earlier comment by feeder dovetails into this new article I saw today.

feeder wrote:
The only people who have something to fear from this are those who are breaking the law. Don't want to get flogged? Don't break the law. What's the problem here, exactly?

Hopefully the following will provide you with an example of what the problem is.

http://news.yahoo.com/sudanese-woman-sentenced-death-converting-christianity-204352842.html;_ylt=AwrBJSC1MXVTcEcA98nQtDMD

Reuters wrote:Sudanese woman sentenced to death for converting to Christianity

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.

Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.

Judge Abbas al Khalifa asked Ibrahim whether she would return to Islam. After she said "I am a Christian," the death sentence was handed down, the judicial sources said.

A government spokesman said the ruling could be appealed in a higher court.

"Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law," Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Outside the court, around 50 people held up signs that read "Freedom of Religion", while some Islamists celebrated the ruling, chanting "God is Greatest".

Students have mounted a series of protests near Khartoum University in recent weeks asking for more freedoms and better social and economic conditions.

Western embassies and Sudanese activists have condemned what they said were human rights abuses and called on the Islamist-led government to respect freedom of faith.

(Reporting by Khaled Abdel Aziz; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

So, not only is converting to Christianity a criminal offense under sharia law, but her marriage to Christian man is viewed as adultery under that same sharia law. But I guess it's her fault for breaking the law, right?

I remember reading that story and my jaw kinda dropped. Truthfully you should probably give that a thread of it's own, although the way that last Muslim related thread went, it would probably get locked by page 3 anyway.

 Ouze wrote:
I remember reading that story and my jaw kinda dropped. Truthfully you should probably give that a thread of it's own, although the way that last Muslim related thread went, it would probably get locked by page 3 anyway.

Rule #3. Never expect civility in a thread about religion

Its not my sig anymore but its still true

 Ouze wrote:
I remember reading that story and my jaw kinda dropped. Truthfully you should probably give that a thread of it's own, although the way that last Muslim related thread went, it would probably get locked by page 3 anyway.

I didn't think it was enough to merit its own thread and when I found it, I remembered feeder's comment and that's why I brought it here.

scarletsquig wrote:

feeder wrote:
The only people who have something to fear from this are those who are breaking the law. Don't want to get flogged? Don't break the law. What's the problem here, exactly?

Don't be a woman who gets raped, or you'll be stoned to death for adultery.

When one tastes anger or offense at a comment near the beginning of a thread, I find it usually serves to read the entirety of the thread before leaping to comment.

Breotan wrote:An earlier comment by feeder dovetails into this new article I saw today.

feeder wrote:
The only people who have something to fear from this are those who are breaking the law. Don't want to get flogged? Don't break the law. What's the problem here, exactly?

Hopefully the following will provide you with an example of what the problem is.

The above advice goes doubly in one's own thread. I have already clarified my statement.

feeder wrote:

dementedwombat wrote:

feeder wrote:
The only people who have something to fear from this are those who are breaking the law. Don't want to get flogged? Don't break the law. What's the problem here, exactly?

Not really sure if you're serious about this, but that is the kind of statement I am tempted to go along with. Don't want to get in trouble with the law? Don't do anything illegal. We're fine here.

Poe's Law. Sorry.

feeder wrote:
Poe's Law. Sorry.

That's why the internet has emoticons.