Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on April 22, 2009, 07:06:27 AM
-
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Taliban militants who implemented Islamic law in Pakistan's violence-plagued Swat Valley last week have now taken control of a neighboring district.
Control of the Buner district brings the Taliban closer to the capital, Islamabad, than they have been since they started their insurgency. Islamabad is 60 miles (96 km) from the district.
"Our strength is in the hundreds," said Moulana Mohammad Khalil, as heavily armed men openly patrolled the roads in pickup trucks, singing Islamic anthems.
The militants had taken control of the area to ensure that Islamic law, or sharia, is properly imposed, Khalil said.
The government called the advance into Buner a breach of a recently-signed peace agreement.
"Now Taliban are violating the peace agreement, and if they continue the government will take strict action and not allow the Taliban to create a parallel government in that area," said Mian Iftikhar, a spokesman for the regional administration in the North West Frontier Province, where Buner is located.
Last week, the Taliban imposed sharia law in Swat Valley as part of a peace deal with the government. Under the Taliban's strict interpretation, the law prevents women from being seen in public without their husbands or fathers.
Earlier this month, the militant movement made forays into Buner and clashed with locals before withdrawing.
Now the Taliban appear to have returned in force -- a move that indicates the recent government concessions may have emboldened the militants to expand their reach.
The Pakistani government appears unable or unwilling to stop the Taliban's steady advance deeper into the territory of this nuclear-armed country.
In the days after the government's April 13 decision to implement sharia law in Swat, pro-Taliban clerics have staged rallies in Swat and Islamabad. They have demanded the imposition of Islamic law across Pakistan and beyond.
Speaking before an audience of tens of thousands in the Swat Valley town of Mingora on Sunday, cleric Sufi Muhammed declared democracy and Pakistan's judicial system "un-Islamic."
A Taliban spokesman in Swat went a step further Tuesday, calling anyone opposed to his strict interpretation of Islam a non-Muslim. IReport:Should the U.S. interfere in Pakistan?
"Let the judges and the lawyers go to Islamic university," Muslim Khan said. After "they learn Islamic rules, Islamic regulation, they can continue to work."
The rise of the Taliban in Swat has alarmed and frightened some members of local civil society there.
"This is a time bomb for the country," said Aftab Alam, the head of the lawyers' association in Swat district.
Meanwhile, in another Taliban-run region called Orakzai, details emerged of militants forcing a small community of Sikhs to pay a jaziya, or "minority tax," of 10.5 million rupees (roughly $18,000) earlier this month.
advertisement
Khan said if his vision of an Islamic society is fulfilled in Pakistan, terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden will be welcome to travel and live openly here. "Sure, he's a Muslim, he can go anywhere," Khan said.
Khan added that he would like to see sharia law implemented beyond Pakistan, even in America, a country he knows intimately. For four years, the Taliban spokesman lived in the United States, working as a painter near Boston, Massachusetts.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/22/pakistan.taliban/index.html
Pretty obvious these nutjobs won't stop until Sharia Law is implemented across the entire planet.
This thread has fuck all to do with HH6's Hugo, so if you're going to bury it in another thread, then I expect that you'll do the same for all the other threads with similar topics.
-
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistani authorities on Thursday deployed paramilitary troops to a district, only 96 kilometers (60 miles) from the capital, where Taliban militants appeared to be consolidating control after this week's land-grab.
Pakistan has deployed paramilitary troops to a district taken over by the Taliban.
Pakistan has deployed paramilitary troops to a district taken over by the Taliban.
Militants locked up courthouses and seized court documents in the district of Buner, said police Superintendent Arsala Khan.
However, a highly placed Buner official said the judges left voluntarily after meeting with Taliban leaders.
A van carrying Frontier Corps paramilitary troops through the district came under fire Thursday. One police official was killed and another wounded, authorities said.
The troops were sent to protect civilians and properties, said Maj. Gen Athar Abbas, spokesman for Pakistan's military.
He said the government was monitoring the situation closely, and talks were under way among community elders, the civilian administration and the Taliban.
"Taliban is only in control of 25 percent of Buner district," Abbas said. "The Taliban will either move out or they'll be thrown out, one way or another."
The militant group's leaders met with community elders and the civilian administration Thursday and agreed that its members will not move about openly with guns nor will they disturb police, courts, schools, hospitals or non-governmental organizations.
The takeover of Buner brings the Taliban closer to the capital, Islamabad, than it has been since the insurgency started.
The Taliban commander in Buner, Mowlana Mohammed Khalil, gave a statement before Pakistani television cameras Wednesday, appearing with his face hidden behind a cloth mask.
"We came here only to preach Islam," Khalil said. He added that his fighters were carrying weapons only because they were an important symbol for Muslims.
The militants said they took control of the Buner district to ensure that Islamic law, or sharia, was properly imposed. The Pakistani government called the advance into the district a breach of a recently signed peace agreement.
Residents of Buner said the militants had set up checkpoints and were patrolling streets throughout the district.
Speaking by telephone from Buner on Wednesday night, Sardar Hussain Babik, education minister for the North West Frontier Province regional government, accused the militants of looting the offices of non-government organizations and stealing cars. Video Watch Clinton on Taliban threat »
"This is an open violation," Babik said. He said it was the government's duty to re-assert its authority in the region, and added that troops were being mustered to resist the Taliban.
"We are collecting from different parts of the province," he said.
A few hours' drive away, in the Pakistani capital, salesmen hawking Urdu newspapers in morning traffic on Thursday called out headlines over the din of car engines. IReport:Should the U.S. interfere in Pakistan?
"Taliban has entered Islamabad," a newsboy yelled.
On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Pakistan was in danger of falling into terrorist hands because of failed government policies, and called on Pakistani citizens and expatriates to voice more concern.
"I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, a nuclear-armed state," Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in her first appearance before Congress since being confirmed.
"I don't hear that kind of outrage and concern coming from enough people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan."
Mike Mullen, U.S. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was in Islamabad on Wednesday to meet with Pakistani officials.
Taliban militants implemented Islamic law in Pakistan's violence-plagued Swat Valley last week, before taking control of the neighboring Buner district. But Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, told CNN on Wednesday that the situation was not as dire as Clinton described.
"Yes, we have a challenge," Haqqani said. "But, no, we do not have a situation in which the government or the country of Pakistan is about to fall to the Taliban."
Taliban fighters moved into the Swat Valley as part of a peace deal with the government that has come under fire from U.S. observers. But Haqqani compared it to the deals U.S. commanders in Iraq made to peel insurgents away from Islamic jihadists blamed for the worst attacks on civilians there.
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani said at a news briefing Thursday: "I want to explain to the West and Hillary Clinton about the agreement. ... The agreement is actually a very good thing. ... It brings two parties to an agreement based on mutual understanding."
advertisement
"We have to establish control of government in Malakand division," which includes Swat, he said. "If peace is not restored in that area [Malakand], certainly we have to review our policy."
"If there is an effort of Taliban-ization, we have the right to review our policy."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/23/pakistan.taliban.control.swat/index.html
-
This is really a very bad thing. If there is some sort of uprising and the Paki government falls, nukes will fall into Taliban hands.
WTF? Is going on there? It look like the paki goverment is losing control of their country.
-
This is really a very bad thing. If there is some sort of uprising and the Paki government falls, nukes will fall into Taliban hands.
WTF? Is going on there? It look like the paki goverment is losing control of their country.
you aint lying if pakistan government fails US invades pakistan and we shouldnt fight with our hands tied this time there is to much at risk.
-
you aint lying if pakistan government fails US invades pakistan and we shouldnt fight with our hands tied this time there is to much at risk.
We might not have too much to worry about going at it alone at least. India also has vested interest in a stable Paki government.
-
We might not have too much to worry about going at it alone at least. India also has vested interest in a stable Paki government.
very true lol just turn those fuckers loose im sure they wont fight with their hands tied
-
haha i'm betting we already have the missiles pointed at whatever nuke facilities we'll be taking out in pakistan should the place fall under taleban rule.
-
haha i'm betting we already have the missiles pointed at whatever nuke facilities we'll be taking out in pakistan should the place fall under taleban rule.
very true and we should hit them in the case that they make it there
-
anyone who thinks they can negotiate with the Taliban are crazy....they use negotiations as a tactic to appear moderate while they take over and kill the police and others who stand in their way....the Pakistan government is weak and scared.....
-
Hey, what a great time to be cutting the military budget huh?
-
Hey, what a great time to be cutting the military budget huh?
This is pretty frightening stuff. The implications of a nuclear armed Taliban is nightmarish. Unlike the Russians, who actually, didn't use them on us because they didn't want their own people destroyed....the Taliban lunatics welcome death. Great time to have an "Appeaser in Chief" in office.
-
Yet Obama want to cut the military budget.....brilliant!!
-
This is pretty frightening stuff. The implications of a nuclear armed Taliban is nightmarish. Unlike the Russians, who actually, didn't use them on us because they didn't want their own people destroyed....the Taliban lunatics welcome death. Great time to have an "Appeaser in Chief" in office.
very scary indeed, like i said if they get close to it send some ppl in or just level the entire place and everything for a few square miles around it.
-
Yet Obama want to cut the military budget.....brilliant!!
Well..Liberals seem to believe that our enemies only hate us because we're arrogant and that if we talk to them and see things from their side, they will stop being angry with us and start being our friends. Why would you need a miltary budget when all you have to do it negotiate with them. Once they see we're nice people, they won't attack us. Right? Now that they know we won't pour water on their heads anymore, they're really going to friendly.
-
Hey, what a great time to be cutting the military budget huh?
wait, I thought Obama was catching heat from the dems because he was actually spending MORE on the wars than Bush did?
80 billion $ more, I believe?
-
Really, post a LEGIT link. Regardless he wants to cut the military budget by at least 25%.
-
God bless Israel and India
-
Really, post a LEGIT link. Regardless he wants to cut the military budget by at least 25%.
Obama's adding 100,000 troops, much to the disdain of lib websites.
http://www.progressive.org/mp_ford011508
Just this week, Gates and Obama proposed increasing overall military size by 4%. That's HUGE.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/09/obama-gates-propose-4-increase-in-defense-spending/
Joe, maybe you missed it the last 3 weeks as the liberal talking heads have been trashing obama nonstop for actualy INCREASING spending, instead of cutting it.
Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending. True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $527 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan). That is more than the U.S. allocated for defense in 2009 and equals what the Bush administration budgeted for 2010:
If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.
Joe,
Obama is outspending Bush by 8% and adding 4% more men than Bush did.
Will you accept that - surprise - Obama's actually NOT cutting defense spending?
-
better yet, Joe, this FOX NEWS link will explain that repubs are mad that Obama is CUTTING the pentagon's bloated budget, and sending all that money (and a whole lot more) over to the troops so they have more guys having thier back, and more armor, better vehicles.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/
So if you're pissed that he's giving LESS MONEY to bloated civilian govt programs, and MORE MONEY to the troops... well, then I have to wonder...
-
Wonderful 240 in getting the facts out there.
I think the more we continually point out the facts and evidence, the more their irrationality dwindles and the less disinformation is spread.
-
Wonderful 240 in getting the facts out there.
I think the more we continually point out the facts and evidence, the more their irrationality dwindles and the less disinformation is spread.
I watch hannity most days. I enjoy his show.
And he frequently attacks Obama for military spending. Why? Because in the primaries, Obama said he'd like to reduce military spending.
He would "like to".
I'd like to spend a weekend with eva longoria in tahiti. it ain't happening, but i'd like to :)
He took office, ascertained the situation, and took Gates' advice on exactly what to do. He slashed the bloated Pentagon budget, and he sent all that money - along with 100k more men and another big pile of money - to the troops overseas.
Is it working? We lost NINE soldiers in iraq in March 09. We lost 39, in march off 2008. Daily total allied trop casualties are lower under Obama than Bush - for all of 2009.
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
It's working, baby. More money, more troops, and kicking more ass. And less men are dying. obama's actually winning this war, and losing less men, because he's making iraqis do their own street corner guarding.
The bottom line is that Obama is spending more money on our troops, and less $ on govt bloated civilian spending. The former generals (who now coincidentally work for defense contractors) don't like this, as they like the private sector profits.
-
Joe,
Obama is outspending Bush by 8% and adding 4% more men than Bush did.
Will you accept that - surprise - Obama's actually NOT cutting defense spending?
The lie is dead Joe.
-
Actually Obama isn't spending as much as Bush.
Bush used supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0409/040909cdpm2.htm
The additional request, if approved, would bring this year's total to $151.4 billion - far less than the $187.7 billion appropriated in fiscal 2008 and the $171 billion approved for fiscal 2007.
As for casualty total in Iraq it was the surge not Obama that cause the totals to drop.
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
4-2009 4-2009 14 0 0 14 24 0.58
3-2009 3-2009 9 0 0 9 31 0.29
2-2009 2-2009 17 1 0 18 28 0.64
1-2009 1-2009 16 0 0 16 31 0.52
12-2008 12-2008 14 2 0 16 31 0.52
11-2008 11-2008 17 0 0 17 30 0.57
10-2008 10-2008 14 0 0 14 31 0.45
9-2008 9-2008 25 0 0 25 30 0.83
8-2008 8-2008 23 0 0 23 31 0.74
7-2008 7-2008 13 0 0 13 31 0.42
6-2008 6-2008 29 0 2 31 30 1.03
5-2008 5-2008 19 0 2 21 31 0.68
Looking deeper in the numbers many of these deaths are non-combat related.
Though tragic none the less.
-
Actually Obama isn't spending as much as Bush.
Bush used supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0409/040909cdpm2.htm
The additional request, if approved, would bring this year's total to $151.4 billion - far less than the $187.7 billion appropriated in fiscal 2008 and the $171 billion approved for fiscal 2007.
As for casualty total in Iraq it was the surge not Obama that cause the totals to drop.
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
4-2009 4-2009 14 0 0 14 24 0.58
3-2009 3-2009 9 0 0 9 31 0.29
2-2009 2-2009 17 1 0 18 28 0.64
1-2009 1-2009 16 0 0 16 31 0.52
12-2008 12-2008 14 2 0 16 31 0.52
11-2008 11-2008 17 0 0 17 30 0.57
10-2008 10-2008 14 0 0 14 31 0.45
9-2008 9-2008 25 0 0 25 30 0.83
8-2008 8-2008 23 0 0 23 31 0.74
7-2008 7-2008 13 0 0 13 31 0.42
6-2008 6-2008 29 0 2 31 30 1.03
5-2008 5-2008 19 0 2 21 31 0.68
Looking deeper in the numbers many of these deaths are non-combat related.
Though tragic none the less.
uh, you are not using total Defense Spending. You are Cherry Picking in an attempt to portray Obama as not a defense spender which in fact he is.
Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending. True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $527 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan). That is more than the U.S. allocated for defense in 2009 and equals what the Bush administration budgeted for 2010:
If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.
-
Also note that military operations are winding down in Iraq so less money is called for.
-
As for casualty total in Iraq it was the surge not Obama that cause the totals to drop.
Surge started in Jan of 2006.
Two years later, the death numbers suddenly drop when obama takes over?
So it was a time-release surge that wasn't supposed to kick in until Bush left office, because he was never one to take credit? Sweet!
-
Yes but Barry the appeaser was going to run the war out of the DOD budget ONLY...he was forced to do another supplemental bill after the Joint Chiefs and the DOD explained they can't run the war if it wasn't. So u can increase the DOD budget by a few % and pretending to support the military, but then cut off our legs by cutting down the number of Bde's supported under Bush and making war funds comew out of the DOD budget.
-
As for casualty total in Iraq it was the surge not Obama that cause the totals to drop.
Surge started in Jan of 2006.
Two years later, the death numbers suddenly drop when obama takes over?
So it was a time-release surge that wasn't supposed to kick in until Bush left office, because he was never one to take credit? Sweet!
I posted the numbers .
the average casualty rates is the same as October. Well before Obama.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/2008_defense.htm
FY 2008 Budget Proposal :
For FY 2008, the President has requested the following:
* The Defense Department Base Budget - $481 billion.
* WoT(non-DoD) Base Budget - $73 billion.
* Supplemental Funding for WoT - $145 billion.
Total requested Dod/WoT spending is $699 billion, or 65% of total net Discretionary spending.
Obama
151.7+527=678.7
Again Bush outspent Obama by 3% and I don't need big font to prove it.
-
I posted the numbers .
the average casualty rates is the same as October. Well before Obama.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/2008_defense.htm
FY 2008 Budget Proposal :
For FY 2008, the President has requested the following:
* The Defense Department Base Budget - $481 billion.
* WoT(non-DoD) Base Budget - $73 billion.
* Supplemental Funding for WoT - $145 billion.
Total requested Dod/WoT spending is $699 billion, or 65% of total net Discretionary spending.
Obama
151.7+527=678.7
Again Bush outspent Obama by 3% and I don't need big font to prove it.
Question, does more money equal better results? (Obama is spending more)
I personally think that more money is in no way indicative of better results but that seems to be your argument.
-
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
However, there is no additional funding request for the War on Terror or BioShield operations, as there was in last year's budget. Total requested Security/DoD/WoT spending was $738 billion in FY 2009, compared to $663.7 for FY2010.(Source: OMB, Defense Department Budget, 2010; Mid-Session Review , Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009 Table S-2.)
I know its tough to acknowledge that WOT spending is gone.
Oh well.
Spending isn't directly related to better military, but it sure does help.
-
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
However, there is no additional funding request for the War on Terror or BioShield operations, as there was in last year's budget. Total requested Security/DoD/WoT spending was $738 billion in FY 2009, compared to $663.7 for FY2010.(Source: OMB, Defense Department Budget, 2010; Mid-Session Review , Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009 Table S-2.)
I know its tough to acknowledge that WOT spending is gone.
Oh well.
Spending isn't directly related to better military, but it sure does help.
Any Evidence to back up that more money produces better results? And what is the percentage threshold where results increase exponentially if you do believe this to be the case.
-
Any Evidence to back up that more money produces better results? And what is the percentage threshold where results increase exponentially if you do believe this to be the case.
I never said it did.
However the military needs money to operate and sometimes canceling programs doesn't wind up saving very much.
The F-22 and the B-2 are both examples of this. This is due to the cost of initial tooling.
Closing bases would help, but many countries don't want their bases closed because they like the American money.
Both the German and British governments are examples of this.
-
Every time we close bases in the ROK, the Koreans go apeshit. We were supposed to be closing bases in Germany, but instead we're consolidating bases and then making those much much bigger.
-
I watch hannity most days. I enjoy his show.
And he frequently attacks Obama for military spending. Why? Because in the primaries, Obama said he'd like to reduce military spending.
He would "like to".
I'd like to spend a weekend with eva longoria in tahiti. it ain't happening, but i'd like to :)
He took office, ascertained the situation, and took Gates' advice on exactly what to do. He slashed the bloated Pentagon budget, and he sent all that money - along with 100k more men and another big pile of money - to the troops overseas.
Is it working? We lost NINE soldiers in iraq in March 09. We lost 39, in march off 2008. Daily total allied trop casualties are lower under Obama than Bush - for all of 2009.
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
It's working, baby. More money, more troops, and kicking more ass. And less men are dying. obama's actually winning this war, and losing less men, because he's making iraqis do their own street corner guarding.
The bottom line is that Obama is spending more money on our troops, and less $ on govt bloated civilian spending. The former generals (who now coincidentally work for defense contractors) don't like this, as they like the private sector profits.
Hannity is such a dick
-
If Taliban gets close to the nukes, the US and other powerful countries must nuke Pakistan's military capability back to the stone age. Too much is at stake here if Taliban gets close. They are not a rational player, and counting on the reassurance from MAD = stupid move.
Here we are in 2009, science = booming. And still, we have millions of smelly bearded apes spending their entire lives trying to impose some outdated stupid religious crap on everybody ::)
-
I think this is the most delusional thread I have ever seen on here. That commie bastard already said he wants to cut a 1/4 of the military budget, he's been in office almost 100 days and already weakend the security of this country. Fuck are you libs really that delusional??
-
If Taliban gets close to the nukes, the US and other powerful countries must nuke Pakistan's military capability back to the stone age. Too much is at stake here if Taliban gets close. They are not a rational player, and counting on the reassurance from MAD = stupid move.
Here we are in 2009, science = booming. And still, we have millions of smelly bearded apes spending their entire lives trying to impose some outdated stupid religious crap on everybody ::)
Just be happy your not living in the U.S. where we have a leader that empathizes with the transgenic chimps, and deems their "comfort", while in custody, to outweigh the safety of the nation. A leader who fears offending suicide bombing, decapitation broadcasting, primitive savages- that he demands the phrase War on Terror be changed to "Overseas Contingency Operation," as not to hurt the feelings of these entities by calling them Terrorists. I may end up moving to your country.
-
Just be happy your not living in the U.S. where we have a leader that empathizes with the transgenic chimps, and deems their "comfort", while in custody, to outweigh the safety of the nation. A leader who fears offending suicide bombing, decapitation broadcasting, primitive savages- that he demands the phrase War on Terror be changed to "Overseas Contingency Operation," as not to hurt the feelings of these entities by calling them Terrorists. I may end up moving to your country.
These savages are getting even better threatment here. The US = still playing 100000x more hardball against these shit smelling cavediggers.
-
I think this is the most delusional thread I have ever seen on here. That commie bastard already said he wants to cut a 1/4 of the military budget, he's been in office almost 100 days and already weakend the security of this country. Fuck are you libs really that delusional??
He said it in the primaries to get the nomination?
Just like every lib and every neocon all sucked up to their base. Mitt wanted to open another gitmo, remember? They kiss ass then become centrists when they win.
Action talks a lot louder than babble he fed the lefty base. His spending is right up there with Bush. We can argue about the way he's spending it, which funds it's out of, etc, but they both spend just about the same amount, barring the various accounting methods or which categories you count or don't count.
You don't want to list all the silly things the repubs said in the primaries. You know how that works. Obama isn't shrinking the military, and you're still pissed. You'd be mad if he shrunk it, and you're mad that he's growing it.
There's no pleasing ya, joe :)
-
Hey, what a great time to be cutting the military budget huh?
Obama has increased the military budget, not cut it.
-
Obama has increased the military budget, not cut it.
I dont think that fact matters to Joe. He's all riled up.
-
He said it in the primaries to get the nomination?
Just like every lib and every neocon all sucked up to their base. Mitt wanted to open another gitmo, remember? They kiss ass then become centrists when they win.
Action talks a lot louder than babble he fed the lefty base. His spending is right up there with Bush. We can argue about the way he's spending it, which funds it's out of, etc, but they both spend just about the same amount, barring the various accounting methods or which categories you count or don't count.
You don't want to list all the silly things the repubs said in the primaries. You know how that works. Obama isn't shrinking the military, and you're still pissed. You'd be mad if he shrunk it, and you're mad that he's growing it.
There's no pleasing ya, joe :)
LOL and QFT
-
I dont think that fact matters to Joe. He's all riled up.
Hey Rob, go picture this:
*the economy starts booming again
*the wars around the world cool down and America is still #1
*overall quality of life in the US improves
Imagine if this all happened under Obama, Coach would still be bitching... :D
-
I have a message to all those who think the taleban pose a threat to The People of the USA:
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/denie81/inbreeding.jpg)
-
I didn't say he already did, I said he want too. His words
-
Obama has increased the military budget, not cut it.
That is a myth.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
However, there is no additional funding request for the War on Terror or BioShield operations, as there was in last year's budget. Total requested Security/DoD/WoT spending was $738 billion in FY 2009, compared to $663.7 for FY2010.(Source: OMB, Defense Department Budget, 2010; Mid-Session Review , Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009 Table S-2.)
-
These savages are getting even better threatment here. The US = still playing 100000x more hardball against these shit smelling cavediggers.
Sorry then, Debussey..guess I won't be visiting you there anytime soon.
-
well dropping bombs from drogues in N Paki is is seriously fackin working for us...
all we've managed to do is radicalize the region ...
guess we didn't learn a damn thing from Russia....
bombs from drogues might kill 2 terrorists and 20 innocent folks...
now the families of those 20 Innocent folks are future possible terrorists....
-
also ..what a fucking shame..swat is beautifull country
(http://www.undergroundfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/2395457-swat_valley_mini_switzerland_of_pakistan-pakistan.jpg)
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1697318-Highest_Mountain_Ranges-Pakistan.jpg)
-
the guys on here who are anti-obama are so biased against him they stretch the truth tremendously
-
the guys on here who are anti-obama are so biased against him they stretch the truth tremendously
Yup.
Truth is: Obama sucks and do did Bush. Both are lying scumbag politicians.
-
Yup.
Truth is: Obama sucks and do did Bush. Both are lying scumbag politicians.
not true..Obama has very high marks among the public....and he is the hardest working president in the history of the USA...he is working on a multitude of issues at one time...
you should be grateful for this.....he's actually working on the issues instead of posturing for his base and only talking about them
-
also ..what a fucking shame..swat is beautifull country
(http://www.undergroundfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/2395457-swat_valley_mini_switzerland_of_pakistan-pakistan.jpg)
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1697318-Highest_Mountain_Ranges-Pakistan.jpg)
I've heard that too from a Pakistani co-worker! He showed me pictures of the place and it looks unbelievable. Main problem for me: No alcohol and covered-up vee-man.
-
If Taliban gets close to the nukes, the US and other powerful countries must nuke Pakistan's military capability back to the stone age. Too much is at stake here if Taliban gets close. They are not a rational player, and counting on the reassurance from MAD = stupid move.
Here we are in 2009, science = booming. And still, we have millions of smelly bearded apes spending their entire lives trying to impose some outdated stupid religious crap on everybody ::)
Sad world we live in. Even sadder that people in the West sympathize with a demographic that contributes nothing but war, violence and terror to the rest of the world.
Muslim scientists have won 5 Nobel Prizes. Total. Absolutely pathetic.
These happenings just show that the Taliban can't really be negotiated with. Pakistan gave them the area and they're already trying to move into the next one. They're just another power mongering group trying to take power using the veil of religion as a cover. ::)
-
not true..Obama has very high marks among the public....and he is the hardest working president in the history of the USA...he is working on a multitude of issues at one time...
you should be grateful for this.....he's actually working on the issues instead of posturing for his base and only talking about them
This was satire right????
-
the guys on here who are racist are so biased against him they stretch the truth tremendously
fixed! :)
-
I've heard that too from a Pakistani co-worker! He showed me pictures of the place and it looks unbelievable. Main problem for me: No alcohol and covered-up vee-man.
(http://www.visitpakistanonline.com/photogallery/lakes/saiful%20muluk.jpg)
i've been close to swat....trust me ..at THAT altitude you can forgo alkie for a few days....no biggie...the country keeps ya buzy!
as far as covered up women goes...as i said ....you'll be too buzy hiking and catching your breath most of the time... :)
-
Muslim scientists have won 5 Nobel Prizes. Total. Absolutely pathetic.
oh noooo..it just cant be true......gasp >:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6389157.stm
The research shows an important breakthrough had occurred in Islamic mathematics and design by 1200.
They made tilings that reflect mathematics that were so sophisticated that we didn't figure it out until the last 20 or 30 years."
-
Sad world we live in. Even sadder that people in the West sympathize with a demographic that contributes nothing but war, violence and terror to the rest of the world.
Muslim scientists have won 5 Nobel Prizes. Total. Absolutely pathetic.
That pretty much applies to 90-95% of the countries around the world, muslim or not. Small price to pay when it's a faith that you're after I presume.
These happenings just show that the Taliban can't really be negotiated with. Pakistan gave them the area and they're already trying to move into the next one. They're just another power mongering group trying to take power using the veil of religion as a cover. ::)
Don't forget to warn us all that the next territory they're looking to move into is the USA proper!
I'm shaking in my boots.
-
oh noooo..it just cant be true......gasp >:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6389157.stm
The research shows an important breakthrough had occurred in Islamic mathematics and design by 1200.
They made tilings that reflect mathematics that were so sophisticated that we didn't figure it out until the last 20 or 30 years."
Anyone can pretty much take Christian contribution to the sciences from when the apes started walking upright to around the 1400s and make the same conclusion, whereas the Muslim (contribution) was much greater, up until that time that is. Or, if we want to REEEEEAAAAALLY take it out context, BerzerkFury style, we can isolate certain Christian states (or groups of states) and reach the same conclusion.
-
oh noooo..it just cant be true......gasp >:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6389157.stm
The research shows an important breakthrough had occurred in Islamic mathematics and design by 1200.
They made tilings that reflect mathematics that were so sophisticated that we didn't figure it out until the last 20 or 30 years."
Awesome. Thanks for proving my point. They made progress in 1200. It's 2009. Their society is a failure and their inability to progress past the year 1200 is only indicative of how pathetic they are. Can't really make gains when you're facing East and praying on your knees 5 times a day, beating your wife and getting in your requisite beheadings.
The funny thing about the Muslim who won the Nobel prizes? Almost every single one of them did their research outside of their repressive country. Hell, Pakistani scientists have only received 8 international patents in the last 50 years.
Just look at you. You're an alcoholic, drug addicted, pill popping Muslim burnout of a failure still living at home at 32. ;D
-
Anyone can pretty much take Christian contribution to the sciences from when the apes started walking upright to around the 1400s and make the same conclusion, whereas the Muslim (contribution) was much greater, up until that time that is. Or, if we want to REEEEEAAAAALLY take it out context, BerzerkFury style, we can isolate certain Christian states (or groups of states) and reach the same conclusion.
lmao! i agree!
remember though....the taliban are fundies...Al-queda is a terrorist organization...
the taliban have just become an easy recruiting ground..
there are many many moderates in paki that are just fed up with the situation and are starting to blame America..when ya cant take your wife out to dinner without HAVING to come home at a certain time cause you gotta drive thru certain areas..eventually its frustrating
-
Awesome. Thanks for proving my point. They made progress in 1200. It's 2009. Their society is a failure and their inability to progress past the year 1200 is only indicative of how pathetic they are. Can't really make gains when you're facing East and praying on your knees 5 times a day, beating your wife and getting in your requisite beheadings.
The funny thing about the Muslim who won the Nobel prizes? Almost every single one of them did their research outside of their repressive country. Hell, Pakistani scientists have only received 8 international patents in the last 50 years.
Just look at you. You're an alcoholic, drug addicted, pill popping Muslim burnout of a failure still living at home at 32. ;D
i still say some brownie stole your girl and i sympathize ;D
-
Just look at you. You're an alcoholic, drug addicted, pill popping Muslim burnout of a failure still living at home at 32.
n o btw...you always mention this as if you found me out! ::)
i've mentioned all of this myself on several occasions! :-\
your mum # on the other hand! ;D
-
lmao! i agree!
remember though....the taliban are fundies...Al-queda is a terrorist organization...
the taliban have just become an easy recruiting ground..
there are many many moderates in paki that are just fed up with the situation and are starting to blame America..when ya cant take your wife out to dinner without HAVING to come home at a certain time cause you gotta drive thru certain areas..eventually its frustrating
What is really irreversibly stupid is trying to measure a group of people's worth based on how many Nobel prizes its group members have won. Take China for example. It is, most likely, the most influential country in human existence... yet only two Chinese have won the Nobel prize. So, in essence, what are we trying to measure here? A rampant bias towards Western academics, which is well known to everyone (let's not forget Milton Friedman, thanks to whom many people have died in Latin America, has won the Nobel prize, same as Henry fucking Kissinger!! Henry Kissinger won the Nobel price!!), or is this fella trying to deface, dehumanize, an entire group of people based on the acts of a few bad apples?
And, let's not forget the historical fact that Christians are perfectly capable of admirable humanistic progress (as is the case in many fields) and also the worst, as is the case with, for example, the "disappearance" of 90 million native Americans, the institutionalized hate towards Jews which has caused multiple mini (and not so mini) holocausts in European lands, two world wars in the past 60+ years, et cetera.
If I were to measure another group of people's "human worth" (an morally abominable concept IMHO) I'd start with its tolerance of other groups. And we all know VERY, VERY few groups are this open minded, including Christians.
-
What is really irreversibly stupid is trying to measure a group of people's worth based on how many Nobel prizes its group members have won. Take China for example. It is, most likely, the most influential country in human existence... yet only two Chinese have won the Nobel prize. So, in essence, what are we trying to measure here? A rampant bias towards Western academics, which is well known to everyone (let's not forget Milton Friedman, thanks to whom many people have died in Latin America, has won the Nobel prize, same as Henry fucking Kissinger!! Henry Kissinger won the Nobel price!!), or is this fella trying to deface, dehumanize, an entire group of people based on the acts of a few bad apples?
And, let's not forget the historical fact that Christians are perfectly capable of admirable humanistic progress (as is the case in many fields) and also the worst, as is the case with, for example, the "disappearance" of 90 million native Americans, the institutionalized hate towards Jews which has caused multiple mini (and not so mini) holocausts in European lands, two world wars in the past 60+ years, et cetera.
If I were to measure another group of people's "human worth" (an morally abominable concept IMHO) I'd start with its tolerance of other groups. And we all know VERY, VERY few groups are this open minded, including Christians.
well put my friend BUT remember your audience...you're talking to bitchfury :-\
-
What is really irreversibly stupid is trying to measure a group of people's worth based on how many Nobel prizes its group members have won. Take China for example. It is, most likely, the most influential country in human existence... yet only two Chinese have won the Nobel prize. So, in essence, what are we trying to measure here? A rampant bias towards Western academics, which is well known to everyone (let's not forget Milton Friedman, thanks to whom many people have died in Latin America, has won the Nobel prize, same as Henry fucking Kissinger!! Henry Kissinger won the Nobel price!!), or is this fella trying to deface, dehumanize, an entire group of people based on the acts of a few bad apples?
And, let's not forget the historical fact that Christians are perfectly capable of admirable humanistic progress (as is the case in many fields) and also the worst, as is the case with, for example, the "disappearance" of 90 million native Americans, the institutionalized hate towards Jews which has caused multiple mini (and not so mini) holocausts in European lands, two world wars in the past 60+ years, et cetera.
If I were to measure another group of people's "human worth" (an morally abominable concept IMHO) I'd start with its tolerance of other groups. And we all know VERY, VERY few groups are this open minded, including Christians.
What bias? In 50 years Pakistani scientists have received 8 international patents. Eight!!!! One of the more "advanced" muslim countries and a nuclear armed nation can only get 8 innovations patented in 50 years. Incredible progress! ::)
Muslims are good at reverse engineering and that's it. They can't think for themselves and they aren't innovators. Probably due to their unrelenting worship of a book written 1500 years ago.
It's pretty simple, though. There are 1 billion Muslims. They've won 5 Nobel Prizes. 4 of those prizes were won by Muslims doing research in other countries. Not surprisingly, the Muslim who won the peace prize while living in a Muslim country was later assassinated by Muslim extremists. Shocker!!!!
Most "christian" scientists are atheists.
I know it bothers you that your Muslim brethren are incapable of contributing anything to society, but get over it.
You know you pissed away your argument when you try to prove your point by referencing advances made in the year 1200!!!!!!!!!!!! How absolutely pathetic.
Another shocker that Slapper is staging yet another retarded argument. This is the same retard claiming the Chinese army would win a war against the US because they know kung-fu!
This thread is about the Taliban's advances on the capital of Pakistan. Not your pro-Muslim bias and hatred for everything else. Apologists, please avoid derailing it by trying to bring the other religions into this.
-
The Pakistanis helped create the Taliban and supported them for many years....now the Taliban is biting them in the ass..they can't get Afghanistan back so they try to take over Pakistan and the Pakistanis roll over for them.....incredible
-
The Pakistanis helped create the Taliban and supported them for many years....now the Taliban is biting them in the ass..they can't get Afghanistan back so they try to take over Pakistan and the Pakistanis roll over for them.....incredible
err <ahem>
its pakistani
i'll stop right here
-
What bias? In 50 years Pakistani scientists have received 8 international patents. Eight!!!! One of the more "advanced" muslim countries and a nuclear armed nation can only get 8 innovations patented in 50 years. Incredible progress! ::)
Yes, I agree, but I don't know what you're trying to say with all of this. Where are you are trying to go? Are you implying backwardness is a Muslim phenomenom? Because I can point out many Christian countries whose most advanced technoloty is an elevator. Right now, XXI century. Apart from this, is it more human to possess 2 nukes and not use them than to have 50 thousand and have actually used them on civilians? Is that one of the great accomplishments of non-Muslims (for lack of a better term since you seem to divide the world in muslims vs non-muslims)? What would be more humane, a stone-age civilization that has learned to live in peace with nature and other humans or one that has evolved science to the point that it's most valuable possession is its stockpile of nukes capable of destroying the world 10 times over?
Muslims are good at reverse engineering and that's it. They can't think for themselves and they aren't innovators. Probably due to their unrelenting worship of a book written 1500 years ago.
No, they're just going through a rough time right now, much like Christians did during the Middle Ages.
I know it bothers you that your Muslim brethren are incapable of contributing anything to society, but get over it.
And what do you suppose we do about that?
You know you pissed away your argument when you try to prove your point by referencing advances made in the year 1200!!!!!!!!!!!! How absolutely pathetic.
Well, if you consider human existence and its worth to be only measurable when YOU are on top then, yes, I agree. But I bet generations of al-Andalusians (Muslim, Christian or Jewish) would have to say something about that.
Another shocker that Slapper is staging yet another retarded argument. This is the same retard claiming the Chinese army would win a war against the US because they know kung-fu!
You've said that about a million times. You and the kung-fu argument is making me shit piss.
This thread is about the Taliban's advances on the capital of Pakistan. Not your pro-Muslim bias and hatred for everything else. Apologists, please avoid derailing it by trying to bring the other religions into this.
It was you who derailed the central argument, not me.
-
No, they're just going through a rough time right now, much like Christians did during the Middle Ages.
A rough time? Like the Christians during the middle ages? The Muslims were just as bad, if not worse, than the Christians during the same time period. The only difference is that the rest of the world moved on while the Muslims have not made one single modicum of progress since then.
When will this rough patch end? Maybe in another 1500 years they'll be where we are now? Well, that is if they don't get their caliphate established all over the world like their overarching aims are.
-
Muslim society is NOT a failure at all. Perhaps if you look from the cultural and technological side of it, it is.
Islam is spreading quickly. It has now surpassed Catholicism as one of the largest religions in the world. It marches on the secular holdouts in the Middle East and takes advantage of the chaos in sub-saharan Africa to hold power. As European and Israeli birthrates are in severe decline, Islamists and others in the Third World susceptible to this religion are growing in ever-increasing numbers. They move into Western Europe en masse, easily using the modern Liberal ideologies to their advantage in law, the courts, and education. Multiculturalism, diversity, post colonial guilt(or white guilt, if you'd prefer) are weapons used against a shrinking majority-minority to deprive them of political and social power.
In other words, we will see much of Europe become Islamist states in the near future.
-
Yes, I agree, but I don't know what you're trying to say with all of this. Where are you are trying to go? Are you implying backwardness is a Muslim phenomenom? Because I can point out many Christian countries whose most advanced technoloty is an elevator. Right now, XXI century. Apart from this, is it more human to possess 2 nukes and not use them than to have 50 thousand and have actually used them on civilians? Is that one of the great accomplishments of non-Muslims (for lack of a better term since you seem to divide the world in muslims vs non-muslims)? What would be more humane, a stone-age civilization that has learned to live in peace with nature and other humans or one that has evolved science to the point that it's most valuable possession is its stockpile of nukes capable of destroying the world 10 times over?
No, they're just going through a rough time right now, much like Christians did during the Middle Ages.
And what do you suppose we do about that?
Well, if you consider human existence and its worth to be only measurable when YOU are on top then, yes, I agree. But I bet generations of al-Andalusians (Muslim, Christian or Jewish) would have to say something about that.
You've said that about a million times. You and the kung-fu argument is making me shit piss.
It was you who derailed the central argument, not me.
Backwardness is a cornerstone of islam.
Your statement would be true if islam was anything like Christianity in terms of reformation and moderation. The koran implicitly states it cannot change and its laws are eternal - but I guess you're missing key ideological concepts in the koran due to your ignorance in assuming all religions are equal.
Muslim society is NOT a failure at all. Perhaps if you look from the cultural and technological side of it, it is.
Islam is spreading quickly. It has now surpassed Catholicism as one of the largest religions in the world. It marches on the secular holdouts in the Middle East and takes advantage of the chaos in sub-saharan Africa to hold power. As European and Israeli birthrates are in severe decline, Islamists and others in the Third World susceptible to this religion are growing in ever-increasing numbers. They move into Western Europe en masse, easily using the modern Liberal ideologies to their advantage in law, the courts, and education. Multiculturalism, diversity, post colonial guilt(or white guilt, if you'd prefer) are weapons used against a shrinking majority-minority to deprive them of political and social power.
In other words, we will see much of Europe become Islamist states in the near future.
This is true, to criticise muslims for inputting nothing to modern society in recent times is irrelevant, that's not their goal, their goal is to take over and sadly they're doing very well. Ultimately islamisation of Europe will never happen if history repeats itself.
-
Mexicans.
-
Backwardness is a cornerstone of Islam.
Says who? You? Because if it's just you who's saying so I'd like to turn the page with a simple STFU.
Your statement would be true if Islam was anything like Christianity in terms of reformation and moderation.
What?! Looky hiah homeboy... The only reason Christianity has reformed itself is because it was forced upon them by democratic institutions and not by their own choice. Even nowadays many Christians, especially catholics (Opus Dei, Mormons, et cetera), will say things that will make you think "what the fuck?!" on more than one occasion. Abortion, religions in schools, homophobia, et cetera. Remember Bush and all the bible thumpers? All about the Christian God baby! Boom! Almost 100,000 souls killed.
The Koran implicitly states it cannot change and its laws are eternal - but I guess you're missing key ideological concepts in the Koran due to your ignorance in assuming all religions are equal.
No, I see Islam as another religion (ideology as you like to call it) that will quickly fade away as soon as the people in Muslim countries realise they are being taken for a ride. I do not see Muslims as helpless zombies collectively brainwashed and "wired" to kill other non-Muslims. I see them as humans first. Many of them are really fucked up in the head... but so do many Christians or Hindus.
This is true, to criticise Muslims for inputting nothing to modern society in recent times[...]
You said it! Take it out of context when it best serves your purpose. It's funny because if we were to live in Roman times and you asked a Roman about the Gauls, the Germanic tribes or the Celt tribes of Great Britain you'd most likely be told that they were nothing but barbarians who brush their teeth with urine, who practise homosexuality and offer nothing to human advancement. Fast forward to today. That's right: That's why you need to be careful with your choice of words. Some nuance please. Or take, if you will, the Vikings and compare them to today's Scandinavians. Just to give you some examples.
And the reason I included the Roman vs Barbarians example is because I wanted to point out how an incredibly rich period in human advancement can easily be followed by the blackest of holes, as is the case with Roman Europe and what followed: Almost 1,100 years of nothing but record-breaking backwardness that sent Europe back to the stone age. Oh, and before I forget, the Catholic Church's maximum period of expansion took place... when? That's right, the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church was quick to pick up the ashes of the Roman empire and built one of their own, complete with death, dispair, where all irreligious knowledge was banned until the Italian Renaissance.
Take notes. Listen. Learn.
Next thing you know you'll be telling me you have nothing against Muslims... ::) ::) ::)
-
Says who? You? Because if it's just you who's saying so I'd like to turn the page with a simple STFU.
Does islamic law make a woman's testament in court 1/4 that of a male? Is a woman "a field to be ploughed"? Read the koran, the source of the ideology and self proclaimed infallible word of God that cannot be changed.
So remove the ad hominem, then prove me wrong.
What?! Looky hiah homeboy... The only reason Christianity has reformed itself is because it was forced upon them by democratic institutions and not by their own choice. Even nowadays many Christians, especially catholics (Opus Dei, Mormons, et cetera), will say things that will make you think "what the fuck?!" on more than one occasion. Abortion, religions in schools, homophobia, et cetera. Remember Bush and all the bible thumpers? All about the Christian God baby! Boom! Almost 100,000 souls killed.
Well, the FACT still remains that mainstream Christianity HAS reformed. Mainstream islam cannot be reformed due to its ideological premise - which you cannot seem to grasp. The rest of your post could be applied to any thought process.
No, I see Islam as another religion (ideology as you like to call it) that will quickly fade away as soon as the people in Muslim countries realise they are being taken for a ride. I do not see Muslims as helpless zombies collectively brainwashed and "wired" to kill other non-Muslims. I see them as humans first. Many of them are really fucked up in the head... but so do many Christians or Hindus.
Muslims are humans, when and where did I say they were not? There are moderate muslims, there's no moderate islam - refute THAT point. Discussing other religions when islam is being directly criticised is a weak point - islam isn't any less or more guilty due to the action of adherents of religion X.
You said it! Take it out of context when it best serves your purpose. It's funny because if we were to live in Roman times and you asked a Roman about the Gauls, the Germanic tribes or the Celt tribes of Great Britain you'd most likely be told that they were nothing but barbarians who brush their teeth with urine, who practise homosexuality and offer nothing to human advancement. Fast forward to today. That's right: That's why you need to be careful with your choice of words. Some nuance please. Or take, if you will, the Vikings and compare them to today's Scandinavians. Just to give you some examples.
I said in recent times, being the past 100 years; their impact is negligible. Muslim lands have disproportionately immense oil wealth but islamic ideology stops any stem of growth.
And the reason I included the Roman vs Barbarians example is because I wanted to point out how an incredibly rich period in human advancement can easily be followed by the blackest of holes, as is the case with Roman Europe and what followed: Almost 1,100 years of nothing but record-breaking backwardness that sent Europe back to the stone age. Oh, and before I forget, the Catholic Church's maximum period of expansion took place... when? That's right, the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church was quick to pick up the ashes of the Roman empire and built one of their own, complete with death, dispair, where all irreligious knowledge was banned until the Italian Renaissance.
Take notes. Listen. Learn.
Next thing you know you'll be telling me you have nothing against Muslims... ::) ::) ::)
1100 years of nothing? Can you point me to the evidence showing that? ???
-
Does islamic law make a woman's testament in court 1/4 that of a male? Is a woman "a field to be ploughed"? Read the koran, the source of the ideology and self proclaimed infallible word of God that cannot be changed.
So remove the ad hominem, then prove me wrong.
Well, the FACT still remains that mainstream Christianity HAS reformed. Mainstream islam cannot be reformed due to its ideological premise - which you cannot seem to grasp. The rest of your post could be applied to any thought process.
Muslims are humans, when and where did I say they were not? There are moderate muslims, there's no moderate islam - refute THAT point. Discussing other religions when islam is being directly criticised is a weak point - islam isn't any less or more guilty due to the action of adherents of religion X.
I said in recent times, being the past 100 years; their impact is negligible. Muslim lands have disproportionately immense oil wealth but islamic ideology stops any stem of growth.
1100 years of nothing? Can you point me to the evidence showing that? ???
(http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh112/roaringwoodside/dining%20in%20and%20out/mexican_food.jpg)
-
(http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh112/roaringwoodside/dining%20in%20and%20out/mexican_food.jpg)
Those look nice!
I once had a taco in Orange County and the shell was like plastic and the cheesy insides like wax :-X
-
Those look nice!
I once had a taco in Orange County and the shell was like plastic and the cheesy insides like wax :-X
Got to go to Mexico my friend!
-
Does islamic law make a woman's testament in court 1/4 that of a male? Is a woman "a field to be ploughed"? Read the koran, the source of the ideology and self proclaimed infallible word of God that cannot be changed.
So remove the ad hominem, then prove me wrong.
Prove what wrong? Prove that misogyny is hardly a Muslim phenomenon? Prove that the Koran is hardly the only religious book that contains violence, including misogyny? I invite you to read Does the Bible Justify Violence? by John J. Collins. Good book.
Well, the FACT still remains that mainstream Christianity HAS reformed. Mainstream Islam cannot be reformed due to its ideological premise - which you cannot seem to grasp. The rest of your post could be applied to any thought process.
Yes, Christianity did reform, but not by choice, but by force. Illegitimate power centers like the Catholic church or any other type of religious, political or financial entity do not go down without a fight and always try to influence policy. And, again, this is the case with many, many religions. I lived in Europe for many years and had the opportunity to travel around and in some small towns the church is still the "center of town" in every way.
Muslims are humans, when and where did I say they were not? There are moderate Muslims, there's no moderate Islam - refute THAT point. Discussing other religions when Islam is being directly criticised is a weak point - Islam isn't any less or more guilty due to the action of adherents of religion X.
Ok... so you are agreeing with me then? ??? ???
I said in recent times, being the past 100 years; their impact is negligible. Muslim lands have disproportionately immense oil wealth but islamic ideology stops any stem of growth.
So do you think it's fair to judge and entire civilization that spans millennium by what they have collectively done in the past 100 years? Would it be Ok to judge human evolution, for example, by what humans have done in the past 500-1000 years?
1100 years of nothing? Can you point me to the evidence showing that? ???
What did happen in Europe during the Middles Ages dude? Was it a step or two backwards from a human advancement perspective?
You tell me.
-
Great Slapper..nobody should disagree...but its the 21st century. I missed where the Catholic church is handing out white tabbards with maltese crosses on them. They suck..u know they suck...end of story.
-
Prove what wrong? Prove that misogyny is hardly a Muslim phenomenon? Prove that the Koran is hardly the only religious book that contains violence, including misogyny? I invite you to read Does the Bible Justify Violence? by John J. Collins. Good book.
Huh? Can you not follow a simple conversation? You were the one saying "who says islam ... you? STFU...". I prove my point with tangible evidence by using the koran and history. I'm starting to come to terms with your issue, I believe you to be a cultural relativist.
Also, please show me A SINGLE INSTANCE where I said the Bible DID NOT contain violence. I am simply of the opinion that ISLAM as is written in the KORAN is a more dangerous ideology; in terms of both violence, human rights and other issues.
Yes, Christianity did reform, but not by choice, but by force. Illegitimate power centers like the Catholic church or any other type of religious, political or financial entity do not go down without a fight and always try to influence policy. And, again, this is the case with many, many religions. I lived in Europe for many years and had the opportunity to travel around and in some small towns the church is still the "center of town" in every way.
Yes yes, but still the concept of the koran as the infallible word of God escapes you. It is THE fundamental rule in islam: the koran is a perfect copy of the mother of all books - which is the infallible book which has been beside God for eternity. The Bible is a lot, lot, lot more spiritual if you take this into consideration - which you must to ever make any kind of intelligent and truthful comparison.
Ok... so you are agreeing with me then? ??? ???
Huh? If you agree with what my sentence there says, then I guess we must be in agreement.
So do you think it's fair to judge and entire civilization that spans millennium by what they have collectively done in the past 100 years? Would it be Ok to judge human evolution, for example, by what humans have done in the past 500-1000 years?
No, when did I judge them for times gone? I made it perfectly clear what time frame I was criticising.
What did happen in Europe during the Middles Ages dude? Was it a step or two backwards from a human advancement perspective?
You tell me.
http://listverse.com/history/top-10-inventions-of-the-middle-ages/
-
Huh? Can you not follow a simple conversation? You were the one saying "who says islam ... you? STFU...". I prove my point with tangible evidence by using the koran and history. I'm starting to come to terms with your issue, I believe you to be a cultural relativist.
You said "Backwardness is a cornerstone of islam" and used misogyny as an example of that backwardness. The problem is that you can just as easily be a misogynist and not be a Muslim. Hence misogyny is not a Muslim problem per se, or at the very least not only a Muslim problem. Thus you used the wrong example to demonstrate Islam's backwardness. Either that or WE are also backward, and I do not think you want to admit to that.
Also, please show me A SINGLE INSTANCE where I said the Bible DID NOT contain violence. I am simply of the opinion that ISLAM as is written in the KORAN is a more dangerous ideology; in terms of both violence, human rights and other issues.
And yet Christianity, in practice, has somehow achieved as much, if not more, violence and death. And this IS NOT only my humble opinion. It is in the Christian's Book of Love and Compassion.
Yes yes, but still the concept of the koran as the infallible word of God escapes you. It is THE fundamental rule in islam: the koran is a perfect copy of the mother of all books - which is the infallible book which has been beside God for eternity. The Bible is a lot, lot, lot more spiritual if you take this into consideration - which you must to ever make any kind of intelligent and truthful comparison.
Believe me, I understand exactly what you are trying to say. Thought I do not share your point of view of how a book that contains obvious violent language immediately translates into a violent person (or makes one such). I mean theory is one thing and practice is another.
Huh? If you agree with what my sentence there says, then I guess we must be in agreement.
If you think Islam is shit, Christianity is shit and all other religions are shit then we're on the same boat.
No, when did I judge them for times gone? I made it perfectly clear what time frame I was criticising.
http://listverse.com/history/top-10-inventions-of-the-middle-ages/
Early Middle Ages (just to narrow it down a bit) as defined in Wikipedia: "[...]is a term in historiography referring to a period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning. [...]Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.".
I think you now officially belong to me.
How big and long would you like your ball and chain to be?
-
You said "Backwardness is a cornerstone of islam" and used misogyny as an example of that backwardness. The problem is that you can just as easily be a misogynist and not be a Muslim. Hence misogyny is not a Muslim problem per se, or at the very least not only a Muslim problem. Thus you used the wrong example to demonstrate Islam's backwardness. Either that or WE are also backward, and I do not think you want to admit to that.
My example is perfectly acceptable - islam (not individual muslims 100% of the time - unless they uphold every aspect of the koran [as they should]) promotes men above women in many aspects, many degrading in our mindset. Not being a muslim but being an misogynist isn't in question, you point serves no purpose other than to show neither party in discussion is perfect.
Your main point seems to focus on cultural relativism; which is absurd. Simply because (and I agree) that are society isn't 100% equal between the sexes then my position is invalid. It doesn't take a genius to understand and accept my society is much fair to women that the society proposed by islamic law.
I will ask again; are you a cultural relativist?
And yet Christianity, in practice, has somehow achieved as much, if not more, violence and death. And this IS NOT only my humble opinion. It is in the Christian's Book of Love and Compassion.
Again, irrelevant unless you propose everyone must debate from a cultural relativists position - which is a fallacy. I'm discussing islam, the ideology so instead of using the atrocities caused by adherents to Christian beliefs why not compare the Christian beliefs? Would Nazism be an atrocity inspired by Christian belief much like aspects of what we know as terrorism are inspired by islamic ideology?
Believe me, I understand exactly what you are trying to say. Thought I do not share your point of view of how a book that contains obvious violent language immediately translates into a violent person (or makes one such). I mean theory is one thing and practice is another.
Muslims aren't guilty by association... prove to me exactly WHERE I have said that? ::)
If you think Islam is shit, Christianity is shit and all other religions are shit then we're on the same boat.
Early Middle Ages (just to narrow it down a bit) as defined in Wikipedia: "[...]is a term in historiography referring to a period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning. [...]Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.".
I think you now officially belong to me.
How big and long would you like your ball and chain to be?
Ha ha, your argument is on shaky ground if you're using POPULAR CULTURE as fact ::)
-
This is really a very bad thing. If there is some sort of uprising and the Paki government falls, nukes will fall into Taliban hands.
WTF? Is going on there? It look like the paki goverment is losing control of their country.
Steal my posts 'OZMO' - I will look the other way. ::)
How long before a major city, like NY or LA, has a dirty bomb set off slap bang in the center of town ??
It would not kill more than, say 2000 people max, but 'Manhattan island' would have to be evacuated, & it would be left un-inhabitable for 1000's of years.
Bang goes your financial district, fuck, we could change the Monopoly game to suit this theme.
I mean, your borders with Mexico are a fucking joke, that is of course, assuming, that no out-side intelligence agency would be assisting (Hegelian Dialectic) in the transport/delivery of Uranium from an old Pakistani 'ICBM' - how long, in reality, do we all think it's going to be before we see this ??
What would follow would be, in sequential order -
1) declaration of a state of emergency
2) 'FEMA' get to have a fucking party (they have been on the edge of their, collective, seat for a good while now, just waiting..waiting..waitin g)
3) People are - MADE - to evacuate, where to ?? "FEMA' camps of course.
4) ----------------
5) ----------------
Thought............on 4 & 5.
-
We might not have too much to worry about going at it alone at least. India also has vested interest in a stable Paki government.
Yeah.
& India has more - than double the gold bullion - America has in it's national reserve.
Hahahahaha
Who will keep it up (financially) for the longest ??
You wankers are going to run out of money, yeah open up another theatre why not.
It is what - Zibignew - wants after all. ;) ;D
Lambs to the slaughter............
-
Question, does more money equal better results? (Obama is spending more)
I personally think that more money is in no way indicative of better results but that seems to be your argument.
You can all play dumb for as long as you want.
I can hardly blame you, if I lived there with - NO - way out, I would be shitting it also.
The $$ is on the verge of - HYPER INFLATION.
If the 'OPEC' crew decide (which is very possible) to fuck off the $$ when it comes to trading in Oil, & go with the Euro, OH-MY !!
The term "shit creak - no paddle" is one that echoes round my head. ;D
-
Muslim scientists have won 5 Nobel Prizes. Total. Absolutely pathetic.
& who was it that kept all the scientific, astronomical, mathematical, knowledge ( + more)
During the dark ages in 'Europe' ??
Before the colonization of the states, hhhmmmmm.
-
Muslims are good at reverse engineering and that's it. They can't think for themselves and they aren't innovators. Probably due to their unrelenting worship of a book written 1500 years ago.
As opposed to poeple who subscribe to a book that was written 500 years previously, yeah good point. ::)
-
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c358/alx723/motivator8952030.jpg)
-
As opposed to poeple who subscribe to a book that was written 500 years previously, yeah good point. ::)
pwned! ;D
-
My example is perfectly acceptable - islam (not individual muslims 100% of the time - unless they uphold every aspect of the koran [as they should]) promotes men above women in many aspects, many degrading in our mindset. Not being a muslim but being an misogynist isn't in question, you point serves no purpose other than to show neither party in discussion is perfect.
And how exactly is it a "perfectly acceptable" example? By that line of logic you can just grab any disease and focus it on the Islamic faith. I mean, take your pick: Homsexuality, racism, et cetera. That's how wrong you are. You mix apples and oranges. Mysginy is a human problem not an Islamic problem.
And yes, Islam does promote men above women, but so do the majority of large religions. Heck, in the Christian faith (in Genesis I believe) women come from a rib of a man for peace sake! Look, do me a favor, you do not have to trust my word at any point, just to a google search for "Islam & misogyny" and "Catholicism & misogyny" and see which one gets more hits. Like I said, you do not have to believe my word, check it out.
I mean, things that really get Westerners upset about radical Islam like the burka and what not... you'd be very surprised that something along those lines was being practised for many years up until very recently (and still today) in Europe: The custom of females wearing black when your husband/dad dies. Up until a few years ago, when carrying the deceased to be buried, the widow used to march in the procession from the house to the cemetery (usually around or near the church) totally covered in black and a thin black veil covering the face. This black-veil-over-the-face practise was eventually stopped, but I am talking about 10-15 years ago. Widows in sourthern Europe STILL wear black and cover their head with a scarf. To this day.
This is in northern Spain today:
(http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2008/03/15/sociedad/alava/fotos/4710795.jpg)
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2009/04/090409140149_sp_galeria_mujeres_526x395.jpg)
Do you see that little thing on top of their heads? It's nowadays called a peineta, or comb, but years ago it was The Veil that went over the face of the beatas (widows), only that, due to the summer's heat and the fact that the processions were usually done at around 10AM to 12PM the heat would get the better of them and eventually the practise was stopped. It's well known fact that this "tradition" was followed well into Franco's time, with beating's included in some small towns to those who decided not to observe the practise. I'm talking 1950-1970 (more or less). Look at Spain nowadays: 9th richest country in the world, with a population of less than 40 million souls. What happened you my ask? The majority of Spaniards told Catholicism to go fuck itself.
And this is just to give you an example. I mean you can pick and choose "women in the workforce", "women in the workplace", et cetera; a highly misogynist society promoted nonother than "God's Messengers" themselves. And, like I said, this happened until very recently.
Your main point seems to focus on cultural relativism; which is absurd. Simply because (and I agree) that are society isn't 100% equal between the sexes then my position is invalid. It doesn't take a genius to understand and accept my society is much fair to women that the society proposed by islamic law.
But in making such a far-assed observations shouldn't you at the very least define some things first? Out of respect alone. I mean, what is "my society"? Did anyone do a study on the subject or is your "doesn't take a genius to understand and accept" based solely on personal and obviously biased observation? I mean, why do you keep insisting that I take your word as fact? Once you pick apart the points of contention we can then honestly research the data and come to some reasonable conclusion. Until then I think it is perfectly reasonable to regard my schepticism as a valid point (since nothing has been defined) and your conclusiveness (aka your opinion) as questionable.
I will ask again; are you a cultural relativist?
I don't know what a "cultural relativist" is! Look, all I ask of you is to be open minded and not repeat slogans that you read in website x or newspaper y. I'll appreciate it a lot more if your opinion is coming from you and not some blog that you read every morning. Be human, not a robot that takes input from a certain TV station or newspaper alone.
Again, irrelevant unless you propose everyone must debate from a cultural relativists position - which is a fallacy. I'm discussing islam, the ideology so instead of using the atrocities caused by adherents to Christian beliefs why not compare the Christian beliefs? Would Nazism be an atrocity inspired by Christian belief much like aspects of what we know as terrorism are inspired by islamic ideology?
That is OK if you blur the dividing line between what is theory and what is practise. I mean, we can all agree that the Bible and the Koran are merely theory. We can also agree that these "theories" have been taken into practice and permiated their societies to some degrees, some more than others now but others more than some before. Now, if you take practise alone, or what has actually taken place, we can honestly conclude that Christianism is a much more violent, thus dangerous, religion than Islam. Take Bartolomé de las Casas' account (I believe he was a Dominican priest) and his writings about the "conquest" of America (more like take over) and the 90 million deaths, many of them directly attributable to the catholic church or the Spanish inquisition. Doesn't it strike you as "odd" that even such an intensely secular regime as the Nazis were they did "somehow", when it came time to killing innocent civilians, found it in their "hearts" to kill and slaughter over what are obvious religious lines (Jews vs non-Jews)? Yes, they did kill many other non-Jews, but they did so because they were Gypsies, communists, union workers, et cetera; and not because they were Muslim or Buddists or anything else.
Muslims aren't guilty by association... prove to me exactly WHERE I have said that? ::)
One has to only look at your opinions.
Ha ha, your argument is on shaky ground if you're using POPULAR CULTURE as fact ::)
It wasn't me, it's Wikipedia...
-
And how exactly is it a "perfectly acceptable" example? By that line of logic you can just grab any disease and focus it on the Islamic faith. I mean, take your pick: Homsexuality, racism, et cetera. That's how wrong you are. You mix apples and oranges. Mysginy is a human problem not an Islamic problem.
And yes, Islam does promote men above women, but so do the majority of large religions. Heck, in the Christian faith (in Genesis I believe) women come from a rib of a man for peace sake! Look, do me a favor, you do not have to trust my word at any point, just to a google search for "Islam & misogyny" and "Catholicism & misogyny" and see which one gets more hits. Like I said, you do not have to believe my word, check it out.
I mean, things that really get Westerners upset about radical Islam like the burka and what not... you'd be very surprised that something along those lines was being practised for many years up until very recently (and still today) in Europe: The custom of females wearing black when your husband/dad dies. Up until a few years ago, when carrying the deceased to be buried, the widow used to march in the procession from the house to the cemetery (usually around or near the church) totally covered in black and a thin black veil covering the face. This black-veil-over-the-face practise was eventually stopped, but I am talking about 10-15 years ago. Widows in sourthern Europe STILL wear black and cover their head with a scarf. To this day.
This is in northern Spain today:
(http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2008/03/15/sociedad/alava/fotos/4710795.jpg)
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2009/04/090409140149_sp_galeria_mujeres_526x395.jpg)
Do you see that little thing on top of their heads? It's nowadays called a peineta, or comb, but years ago it was The Veil that went over the face of the beatas (widows), only that, due to the summer's heat and the fact that the processions were usually done at around 10AM to 12PM the heat would get the better of them and eventually the practise was stopped. It's well known fact that this "tradition" was followed well into Franco's time, with beating's included in some small towns to those who decided not to observe the practise. I'm talking 1950-1970 (more or less). Look at Spain nowadays: 9th richest country in the world, with a population of less than 40 million souls. What happened you my ask? The majority of Spaniards told Catholicism to go fuck itself.
And this is just to give you an example. I mean you can pick and choose "women in the workforce", "women in the workplace", et cetera; a highly misogynist society promoted nonother than "God's Messengers" themselves. And, like I said, this happened until very recently.
But in making such a far-assed observations shouldn't you at the very least define some things first? Out of respect alone. I mean, what is "my society"? Did anyone do a study on the subject or is your "doesn't take a genius to understand and accept" based solely on personal and obviously biased observation? I mean, why do you keep insisting that I take your word as fact? Once you pick apart the points of contention we can then honestly research the data and come to some reasonable conclusion. Until then I think it is perfectly reasonable to regard my schepticism as a valid point (since nothing has been defined) and your conclusiveness (aka your opinion) as questionable.
I don't know what a "cultural relativist" is! Look, all I ask of you is to be open minded and not repeat slogans that you read in website x or newspaper y. I'll appreciate it a lot more if your opinion is coming from you and not some blog that you read every morning. Be human, not a robot that takes input from a certain TV station or newspaper alone.
That is OK if you blur the dividing line between what is theory and what is practise. I mean, we can all agree that the Bible and the Koran are merely theory. We can also agree that these "theories" have been taken into practice and permiated their societies to some degrees, some more than others now but others more than some before. Now, if you take practise alone, or what has actually taken place, we can honestly conclude that Christianism is a much more violent, thus dangerous, religion than Islam. Take Bartolomé de las Casas' account (I believe he was a Dominican priest) and his writings about the "conquest" of America (more like take over) and the 90 million deaths, many of them directly attributable to the catholic church or the Spanish inquisition. Doesn't it strike you as "odd" that even such an intensely secular regime as the Nazis were they did "somehow", when it came time to killing innocent civilians, found it in their "hearts" to kill and slaughter over what are obvious religious lines (Jews vs non-Jews)? Yes, they did kill many other non-Jews, but they did so because they were Gypsies, communists, union workers, et cetera; and not because they were Muslim or Buddists or anything else.
One has to only look at your opinions.
It wasn't me, it's Wikipedia...
-
That is exactly my point!!
All religions are shit!!
-
This does not make front page:
(http://ijournalwest.com/Beatings.gif)
This does:
(http://www.downloadriches.com/children_of_apes_and_pigs/assets_c/2008/05/women%20beating-thumb-300x222-thumb-300x222.jpg)
Don't get me wrong, both are wrong, here, in China, in the X Century or whether you're a Muslim or Scientologists.
-
And since Nordic has used misoginy as an example of Islam's "backwardness", here is a little excert from Wikipedia about women's rights from a historical perspective:
"Historical background
Suffrage parade, New York City, May 6, 1912Until the mid-nineteenth century, writers assumed that a patriarchal order was a natural order that had existed[3] as John Stuart Mill wrote, since "the very earliest twilight of human society".[4] This was not seriously challenged until the eighteenth century when Jesuit missionaries found matrilineality in native North American peoples.[5]
In the Middle Ages, an early effort to improve the status of women in Islam occurred during the early reforms under Islam, when women were given greater rights in marriage, divorce and inheritance.[6] Women were not accorded with such legal status in other cultures, including the West, until centuries later.[7] The Oxford Dictionary of Islam states that the general improvement of the status of Arab women included prohibition of female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood.[8] "The dowry, previously regarded as a bride-price paid to the father, became a nuptial gift retained by the wife as part of her personal property."[9][6] Under Islamic law, marriage was no longer viewed as a "status" but rather as a "contract", in which the woman's consent was imperative.[9][6][8] "Women were given inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives."[6] Annemarie Schimmel states that "compared to the pre-Islamic position of women, Islamic legislation meant an enormous progress; the woman has the right, at least according to the letter of the law, to administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work."[10] According to Professor William Montgomery Watt, when seen in such historical context, Muhammad "can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights."[11]
Some have claimed that women generally had more legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems until more recent times.[12] English Common Law transferred property held by a wife at the time of a marriage to her husband, which contrasted with the Sura: "Unto men (of the family) belongs a share of that which Parents and near kindred leave, and unto women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, whether it be a little or much - a determinate share" (Quran 4:7), albeit maintaining that husbands were solely responsible for the maintenance and leadership of his wife and family.[12] "French married women, unlike their Muslim sisters, suffered from restrictions on their legal capacity which were removed only in 1965."[13]
In the 16th century, the Reformation in Europe allowed more women to add their voices, including the English writers Jane Anger, Aemilia Lanyer, and the prophetess Anna Trapnell. However, it has been claimed that the Dissolution and resulting closure of convents had deprived many such women of one path to education.[14][15][16] Giving voice in the secular context became more difficult when deprived of the rationale and protection of divine inspiration. Queen Elizabeth I demonstrated leadership amongst women, even if she was unsupportive of their causes, and subsequently became a role model for the education of women.[17][/b]"
-
And how exactly is it a "perfectly acceptable" example? By that line of logic you can just grab any disease and focus it on the Islamic faith. I mean, take your pick: Homsexuality, racism, et cetera. That's how wrong you are. You mix apples and oranges. Mysginy is a human problem not an Islamic problem.
And yes, Islam does promote men above women, but so do the majority of large religions. Heck, in the Christian faith (in Genesis I believe) women come from a rib of a man for peace sake! Look, do me a favor, you do not have to trust my word at any point, just to a google search for "Islam & misogyny" and "Catholicism & misogyny" and see which one gets more hits. Like I said, you do not have to believe my word, check it out.
I mean, things that really get Westerners upset about radical Islam like the burka and what not... you'd be very surprised that something along those lines was being practised for many years up until very recently (and still today) in Europe: The custom of females wearing black when your husband/dad dies. Up until a few years ago, when carrying the deceased to be buried, the widow used to march in the procession from the house to the cemetery (usually around or near the church) totally covered in black and a thin black veil covering the face. This black-veil-over-the-face practise was eventually stopped, but I am talking about 10-15 years ago. Widows in sourthern Europe STILL wear black and cover their head with a scarf. To this day.
This is in northern Spain today:
(http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2008/03/15/sociedad/alava/fotos/4710795.jpg)
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2009/04/090409140149_sp_galeria_mujeres_526x395.jpg)
Do you see that little thing on top of their heads? It's nowadays called a peineta, or comb, but years ago it was The Veil that went over the face of the beatas (widows), only that, due to the summer's heat and the fact that the processions were usually done at around 10AM to 12PM the heat would get the better of them and eventually the practise was stopped. It's well known fact that this "tradition" was followed well into Franco's time, with beating's included in some small towns to those who decided not to observe the practise. I'm talking 1950-1970 (more or less). Look at Spain nowadays: 9th richest country in the world, with a population of less than 40 million souls. What happened you my ask? The majority of Spaniards told Catholicism to go fuck itself.
And this is just to give you an example. I mean you can pick and choose "women in the workforce", "women in the workplace", et cetera; a highly misogynist society promoted nonother than "God's Messengers" themselves. And, like I said, this happened until very recently.
But in making such a far-assed observations shouldn't you at the very least define some things first? Out of respect alone. I mean, what is "my society"? Did anyone do a study on the subject or is your "doesn't take a genius to understand and accept" based solely on personal and obviously biased observation? I mean, why do you keep insisting that I take your word as fact? Once you pick apart the points of contention we can then honestly research the data and come to some reasonable conclusion. Until then I think it is perfectly reasonable to regard my schepticism as a valid point (since nothing has been defined) and your conclusiveness (aka your opinion) as questionable.
I don't know what a "cultural relativist" is! Look, all I ask of you is to be open minded and not repeat slogans that you read in website x or newspaper y. I'll appreciate it a lot more if your opinion is coming from you and not some blog that you read every morning. Be human, not a robot that takes input from a certain TV station or newspaper alone.
That is OK if you blur the dividing line between what is theory and what is practise. I mean, we can all agree that the Bible and the Koran are merely theory. We can also agree that these "theories" have been taken into practice and permiated their societies to some degrees, some more than others now but others more than some before. Now, if you take practise alone, or what has actually taken place, we can honestly conclude that Christianism is a much more violent, thus dangerous, religion than Islam. Take Bartolomé de las Casas' account (I believe he was a Dominican priest) and his writings about the "conquest" of America (more like take over) and the 90 million deaths, many of them directly attributable to the catholic church or the Spanish inquisition. Doesn't it strike you as "odd" that even such an intensely secular regime as the Nazis were they did "somehow", when it came time to killing innocent civilians, found it in their "hearts" to kill and slaughter over what are obvious religious lines (Jews vs non-Jews)? Yes, they did kill many other non-Jews, but they did so because they were Gypsies, communists, union workers, et cetera; and not because they were Muslim or Buddists or anything else.
One has to only look at your opinions.
It wasn't me, it's Wikipedia...
Again more and more points based on cultural relativism...
Even if the Bible DICTATED that a women MUST wear a garment like a burqa; that's a non-issue - this thread isn't about being limited to fallacies based cultural relativism.
I just don't get your issue - I agree with what you have to say about other religions, yet you can't accept that I highlight islam due to its unique ideology - so you come along with stupid points trying to enforce your mindset of easily debunked cultural relativism.
Oh and you see the blonde women covered in blood in the bottom of the first picture? If I recall correctly she was raped by muslim immigrants in Sweden that did so because of the way she was dressed and wasn't acceptable in the eyes of the koran.
And since Nordic has used misoginy as an example of Islam's "backwardness", here is a little excert from Wikipedia about women's rights from a historical perspective:
And since Slapper doesn't accept criticism towards islam exclusively and tries to enforce his idiotic and stupid cultural relevant on every topic... he's a retard!
-
Again more and more points based on cultural relativism...
Even if the Bible DICTATED that a women MUST wear a garment like a burqa; that's a non-issue - this thread isn't about being limited to fallacies based cultural relativism.
I just don't get your issue - I agree with what you have to say about other religions, yet you can't accept that I highlight islam due to its unique ideology - so you come along with stupid points trying to enforce your mindset of easily debunked cultural relativism.
Oh and you see the blonde women covered in blood in the bottom of the first picture? If I recall correctly she was raped by muslim immigrants in Sweden that did so because of the way she was dressed and wasn't acceptable in the eyes of the koran.
And since Slapper doesn't accept criticism towards islam exclusively and tries to enforce his idiotic and stupid cultural relevant on every topic... he's a retard!
Yes, that women was, in-fact, raped by Muslim immigrants. They also said that Swedish women deserved to be raped for dressing the way they do and that some of them intend to continue beating and raping women as it's warranted by the Koran. Remember, the laws of a 1500 year old book > the laws of the country you move to.
What amuses me about Slapper and his incessant need to bring up Christianity in every thread regarding Islam is that the people he's debating with are atheists. ::)