Enemy Mine.

(\(\(\/)/)/) said:
Poor Blabo.


Fearmonger much?


Are you aware that stoning, classification of menstruating women as "unclean" and some of the other things you want us to fear are also prescribed in the Holy Bible?


You might try reading it sometime.
Click to expand...

Bravo has a hard time separating religious practices from cultural ones.
 
christiefan915 said:
Give me one reason why France or the US would allow stoning women... on Main St., I guess, since town squares are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...
Why ?...... its part of the Muslim religion isn't it....the punishment for fornication or getting raped.........like 20 lashes for disobeying your husband or something....
cutting off the hands of thieves, selling your 8 year old daughter to the 70 year old Imam, etc.....I don't claim to be a religious expert....I just enjoy pulling you liberal chain.....

What the hell, we already have 15 states (including Arkansas, California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Louisiana) that have provisions that allow for driver's licenses absent of an identifying photograph in order to accommodate individuals who may have a religious reason to not have a photograph taken.....the nose is already under the tent as the saying goes.....
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Bravo has a hard time separating religious practices from cultural ones.
Click to expand...


Is that like allowing Mormons to have 20 wives ?....Oh wait...we don't allow that religious practice do we....we'll see how that works out when the Muslim demand it.....
 
christiefan915 said:
No comment until I research this further. Glenn Beck's website doesn't inspire me with confidence that he's telling the truth

Especially seeing as how he's a smearcaster Islamophobe.
Click to expand...
You don't believe News 10 in Toronto ?
:palm:
Beck never lied to us before, what makes you thinks he'll start now.....:palm:
 
bravo said:
Is that like allowing Mormons to have 20 wives ?....Oh wait...we don't allow that religious practice do we....we'll see how that works out when the Muslim demand it.....
Click to expand...

The Qur'an allowed Muslims to have up to four wives, not twenty, and that's from 1300+ years ago in the Middle East. I'm pretty sure Muslims would get into legal trouble here for having more than one wife, just like fundamentalist Mormons do. They're both subject to U.S. laws.

Maybe you should read up on the subject. Multiple marriages are permitted in many societies.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[6] To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth, power, and fame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
 
bravo said:
Really ?.....AQ....? I saw some speculation before the facts were known, actually just minutes after the bombing but haven't seen any Al Qaeda references lately....

Link me up, I'd like to read some of that stuff.....
Click to expand...

For me, it was in my local (Murdoch owned) NY Post...home to such intellectual and objective "journalist" like Michelle Maulkin.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/22/terror-blast-in-oslo/

Others were CNN contributing writer Erickson

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/23/god-and-oslo/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ing/2011/03/29/gIQAB4D3TI_blog.html#pagebreak
 
tom prendergast said:
I will agree with much that you are saying here but would you defend the wearing of the burkha? To my mind, It is a medieval practice mostly instigated by men on their female partners. It has no place in modern society, I welcome France and Belgium' s decision to ban this abhorrence to female rights. Where I live in Northern England until about 10 years ago you never saw anybody wearing the bhurka yet now it has become increasing common to see amongst young females. It is a practice that is increasingly frowned on in the Middle East, in fact in many countries it has been banned for some time. I was in Bangkok some weeks ago and was watching a woman wearing a contraption that I can only describe as a T-shaped piece of metal that went under the eyes, covered her nose and more or less covered her mouth. My friend Neil Attisha, who is an Iraqi Christian, told me that it originates from Egypt but I have a hard time defending such practices.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters you're operating under the premise that if women wearing either a full or abbreviated burhka that they are being kow towed and beaten by their husbands, who are secretly advocates of some version of Islamic fundamentalism via Al Qaeda or the Taliban. You and I both know that is not the case for the thousands of muslims living in industrial societies of Europe and the West. Also, if you enforce a gov't ban on a form of religious dress, is it all encompassing to the society? Are French Jews banned from wearing yamulkes? Are French Catholics banned from the practice of marking the forehead for Ash Wednesday, or displaying crucifixes on chains around their necks?

I included the Sarkozy move in my opening posts to point out a low level of fear being used to indulge societal bigotry and excercise a sense of "control", which worked well for Sarkozy's election. That can be a stepping stone for more drastic measures down the line if the political/social climate is right. Jokers like Breivit, with his irrational and paranoid rantings, would welcome such a move in the Norwegian gov't.
 
bravo said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, the world has to face the trageic results when you mix extremism with hate. This time it's some evil, narcissistic asshole in Norway, who wasted 80 some lives in order to gain attention for his mean spirited viewpoints.

Now here in America, the initial reaction was that Al Qaeda was somehow linked to this horror. But even after the facts reveal that the culprit was a totally home grown terrorist, some of our local papers opinion and op-ed analysis STILL tried to mentally link Al Qaeda to the situation, as if this incident will somehow take some steam out of the Al Qeada fear factor that drives much of our Homeland Security and basic national security appropriations and actions.

And this is what annoys me, because given the history of the world one cannot keep pretending that only people of a certain race or ethinic group or religious belief are capable of mass destruction and murder.....that it's "others" who are only capable of such evil acts, and that it "rarely happens here". I recall how Italy STILL has a political party expousing fascism, and Germany has one with shades of nazi ideology dripping from it, and how France's Sarkozy makes forcing muslim women to remove their ceremonial head scarves a rallying point for his society. Then you have the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, Bosnai/Croatia/Kosovo, the murder of catholics in the Sudan, that Chile's Pinochet literally got away with murder, the far right, anti-immigrant nationalist Swedish Democrats the old National Front and it's offshoot the BNP in England....and God knows the plethora of separatists/supremacist groups that are alive and functioning here in the good old USA.

I could go on, but hopefully you get my point....we must all acknowledge the evil that dwells within our own backyard, and make the effort on any level to stamp out or halt it's spread. Remember, the jokes you think are harmless about someone's race or religion or culture that are told among your friends may be taken seriously by one.

Thats a serious observation and absolutely true......whether its about Muslim fanatics, crazy Scientology, or Evangelical Christians or Christian Fundamentalists, or "teabaggers"....those are dangerous and hateful things to say even in jest....and it sometimes is the tipping point to drive someone over the edge......you're absolutely right....



..and as we see in Norway, one is all it takes. I see it like this...I don't have to like you or hang out with you or agree with everything you say or do...but so long as you don't break laws or hurt anyone, I do have to give you the same respect and courtesy that I expect to be given. Remember, as children in 1st grade we were taught to share and be nice to each other. Maybe applying those simple rules to the adults in the world might prevent another Norway terror strike.
.
Click to expand...


"Teabagger" is a slang used to demean advocates of the "Tea Bag Party", originated by sighting a woman carrying a sign at a rally saying, "Teabag Obama before he Tea Bags You." It has been members of the Tea Bag Party and attendants at their rallies who have made veiled threats of violence if they don't get their way, not the other way around. I notice how you didn't have any negative adjectives for the Christians in your short list...interesting. Just pointing these things out, because I'm sighting people who are the aggressors and hate mongers....NOT the non-provoking victims or objects of this hate or bigotry.
 
bravo said:
Its no different that defending female circumcision or beating your wife or some of the other medieval shit they inflict on women....
If some idiot was burning cats or goats on an altar because it was his "religion", we wouldn't allow it.....
Click to expand...

That is a totally ignorant and irrational statement you just made......wearing a head scarf is no way in hell the equivalent of female circumcision no more than having an ash mark on your forehead once a year or wearing a skull cap. You and Tom are missing my point.....or actually making it. Statements born or irrational, extreme viewpoints that are appropo to bigoted ideals are NOT exclusive to dark skinned muslims....as Breivik demonstrated, and as the other examples I gave do.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Well, for starters you're operating under the premise that if women wearing either a full or abbreviated burhka that they are being kow towed and beaten by their husbands, who are secretly advocates of some version of Islamic fundamentalism via Al Qaeda or the Taliban. You and I both know that is not the case for the thousands of muslims living in industrial societies of Europe and the West. Also, if you enforce a gov't ban on a form of religious dress, is it all encompassing to the society? Are French Jews banned from wearing yamulkes? Are French Catholics banned from the practice of marking the forehead for Ash Wednesday, or displaying crucifixes on chains around their necks?

I included the Sarkozy move in my opening posts to point out a low level of fear being used to indulge societal bigotry and excercise a sense of "control", which worked well for Sarkozy's election. That can be a stepping stone for more drastic measures down the line if the political/social climate is right. Jokers like Breivit, with his irrational and paranoid rantings, would welcome such a move in the Norwegian gov't.
Click to expand...

Burkhas are banned for more reasons than you cite. They are banned chiefly because the identity of the wearer cannot be verified. You will, no doubt, remember tales of Michael Jackson in Saudi wearing a burkha to shield his identity and a leading TV journo in the UK reported from Iran (?) by wearing one.
We have, in the UK, total inconsistency whereby a youth in a hoody may be banned from entering a shopping mall, but a crowd of burkha wearers (they might be male or female or something in between) are allowed free access.
If it was a religious consideration it would not work because Muslim ladies wear anything from a simple headscarf to the full bell tent depending on where they are from. You cant ban headscarfs or the entire Italian fashion industry would go out of business.
Unfortunately people of both Islamic faiths and non Islamic faiths sell the religious bit rigorously because that is the best way to 'win'.
It is not about 'control' or culture. It is about policing and verification.
 
One thing people should remember is that al-Queda leadership has literally called for a rise in attacks on Northern Europe, with particular emphasis on England, but also on Scandinavia. That could be would gave this guy the final motivation for his own attacks.
 
(\(\(\/)/)/) said:
I don't make a practice of exhibiting a keen sense of outrage regarding prevailing attitudes in countries I don't inhabit or plan to visit, since they tend to be none of my affair.


Do carry on, though. This is utterly fascinating.
eekfacepalm[1].gif
Click to expand...

In other words, I will avoid answering as otherwise I would have to give an opinion.
 
christiefan915 said:
No comment until I research this further. Glenn Beck's website doesn't inspire me with confidence that he's telling the truth

Especially seeing as how he's a smearcaster Islamophobe.
Click to expand...

I had never seen Mr. Beck in action before until I saw Fox News Extra in a hotel in Saigon, of all places. Even if he speaking the truth, he comes across as a nasty slippery slimy snake oil salesman type of character.
 
christiefan915 said:
He started a long time ago.

The Glenn Beck Report / Deconstructing Glenn Beck Lies / Lie of the Day Archive
Click to expand...

You gotta be joking.....that website is your basis for pointing out Beck lie....? What bullshit.....I did take a look at it.....
Though I certainly realize Beck makes mistakes and isn't right 100% of the time and some of his opinions aren't accepted by everyone....no one opinions are, are they....
that doesn't make them lies....


First, ....the Web site theroot.com had published a list of the "blackest white folks we know," and it included Beck and Urlacher.

Beck had photos of the group on a board during his show Thursday on Fox News and started to identify the ones he knew. When he came to a picture of Urlacher, who had a very close-cropped hair cut, he said: "I think this guy's a neo-Nazi."....it was a joke you toad....to say he was lying is ludicrous....

and he apoligized when he realized what he said was taken out of context and the joke was taken seriously by the pinheads like you...

With that kind of criteria, I could say Bill Mahar is lying every time he opens his mouth....
 
tom prendergast said:
I had never seen Mr. Beck in action before until I saw Fox News Extra in a hotel in Saigon, of all places. Even if he speaking the truth, he comes across as a nasty slippery slimy snake oil salesman type of character.
Click to expand...
So does Bill Clinton and guys like James Carville and Al Sharpton.....don't let it throw ya.....:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top