Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Tajikistan

mattlakeman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 412 posts

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#121

Post by aprilthird2021 »

hagbard_c wrote: post #45
mkoubaa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that

Islam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world. Ignoring this fact does not make the problem go away and only serves to undercut those who attempt to start an 'islamic enlightenment'.

No it doesn't. I'm Muslim. Like most monotheistic religions, it actually says that most people will become irreligious before the end of time

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#122

Post by protomolecule »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #117
protomolecule wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How it is not relevant? Anyway, from your own link: "The Sino-Vietnamese War was a brief conflict that occurred in early 1979 between China and Vietnam. China launched an offensive ostensibly in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. The conflict lasted for about a month, with China withdrawing its troops in March 1979." In both other…

Again, not talking about it being good or bad, but you cannot deny that this happened (China invading a neighbor), which is the point being made.

This thread started from the claim that China will invade with particular purpose: "I can see it bleeding more territory to China".

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#123

Post by mda »

meowtimemania wrote: post #51
mkoubaa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that

I think by "kept in check" they mean good separation of church and state. Some islamic countries don't have good separation of church and state.

The thing described is far from separation of church. It is straight out oppression.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#124

Post by quickthrowman »

mkoubaa wrote: post #99
surfingdino wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.

The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

Religious freedom is fine.

What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms.

If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that.

For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#125

Post by slt2021 »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #112
slt2021 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tajikistan had civil war in 1990s where Islamist radicals were the opposition and wanted to turn TJ into sharia run state. open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies). Keeping islam in check, also means keeping in check Gulf oil $$$$ that install their own version of islam. the pipeline of volunteers from *stans to join ISIS/Al-Qaeda was funded…

> open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies). No it doesn't. Provide one example where this has happened?

i lived there, gulf monarchies are financing construction of mosques all over the *stans, and are sending people to "study islam" in ... Pakistan and Bangladesh, where they are radicalized and brainwashed.

various conflicts in Causasus in russia - where caucasians were bankrolled and brainwashed via gulf money (dagestan and chechnya)

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#126

Post by mkoubaa »

quickthrowman wrote: post #124
mkoubaa wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

Religious freedom is fine. What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms. If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that. For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s t…

I couldn't agree more

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#127

Post by wewtyflakes »

protomolecule wrote: post #122
wewtyflakes wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, not talking about it being good or bad, but you cannot deny that this happened (China invading a neighbor), which is the point being made.

This thread started from the claim that China will invade with particular purpose: "I can see it bleeding more territory to China".

I was replying to the poster who said:

``` Number of countries invaded by China in the middle east: 0

Number of countries invaded by USA in the middle east: 3 and few more got bombed

I mean "This is so long as there isn't a NATO-like structure to keep Chinese aggression in check, constituted of its neighbors.".. try to be a bit more self reflective. ```

I was pointing out that this seems to misrepresent the acts of China, due to its numerous armed conflicts with its neighbors in recent history. Though incidentally, this sidebar does seem also shore up the point for the "I can see it bleeding more territory to China" regardless. Here are more citations if you need them: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mongolia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#128

Post by protomolecule »

thriftwy wrote: post #87
protomolecule wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own link says that during the revolution of 1911 in China local theocracy seized power in Tibet and held to it for 40 years. "After the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, most of the area comprising the present-day Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) became a de facto independent polity, independent from the rest of the Republic of China" "At the time Political Tibet obtained de facto independence, its socio-economic and poli…

It's always funny to me how facts about previous allegiance are withheld with impunity, apparently in hopes to confuse a distracted reader. I can forgive people for forgetting to mention that Baltic states were part of Russia for centuries before they were re-annexed by the USSR in 1945. Indeed I can see how people had 20 years of independence and weren't fans of being included into a socialist utopia. But, just yest…

"re-annexed"

Wrong word.

"In Nystad, King Frederick I of Sweden formally recognized the transfer of Estonia, Livonia, Ingria, and Southeast Finland (Kexholms län and part of Karelian Isthmus) to Russia in exchange for two million silver thaler, while Russia returned the bulk of Finland to Swedish rule." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nystad

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#129

Post by protomolecule »

dvdkon wrote: post #120
thriftwy wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always funny to me how facts about previous allegiance are withheld with impunity, apparently in hopes to confuse a distracted reader. I can forgive people for forgetting to mention that Baltic states were part of Russia for centuries before they were re-annexed by the USSR in 1945. Indeed I can see how people had 20 years of independence and weren't fans of being included into a socialist utopia. But, just yest…

Certainly many parts of the world aren't too big on democracy and self-determination, but from my point of view any military operation not sanctioned by the target region's people or government counts as an invasion. Maybe that's not how all the people involved saw it, but we see, judge, and name events through the lens of our own values.

[flagged]

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#130

Post by protomolecule »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #127
protomolecule wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread started from the claim that China will invade with particular purpose: "I can see it bleeding more territory to China".

I was replying to the poster who said: ``` Number of countries invaded by China in the middle east: 0 Number of countries invaded by USA in the middle east: 3 and few more got bombed I mean "This is so long as there isn't a NATO-like structure to keep Chinese aggression in check, constituted of its neighbors.".. try to be a bit more self reflective. ``` I was pointing out that this seems to misrepresent the acts of C…

"its numerous armed conflicts with its neighbors in recent history"

So which country has China invaded in the recent history? Bringing up events that happened more than hundred years ago looks strange.

Post reply on HN