Are they the proverbial snowbirds that flock to Florida, especially if Jewish, or Arizona if Florida's humidity messes up their hair?
OGEarl is a good guy and that along with his Canadian prairie naivety make him great for most exchanges.
I just need him to admit what nearly everyone else has called him out on or at least witnessed so we can move on to episode 2 of the OGEarl show, called "Why I'm addicted to posting equivalency attempts for the U.S. whenever Muslims are the subject"
Maybe it isn't, but if so we need to be consistent. Close down our military bases, bring all our troops home, stop spying, just lock down our borders and stick to ourselves. If this isn't our fight, then nothing is our fight until it arrives on our shores or everyone agrees it's the next world war. I'm okay either way, but for fuck's sake let's pick a lane and stay in it.I re-read the link, but I missed the part where its our problem.
lol Of course you were. We're not laughing at you, we just, um, all remembered something funny. You had to be there.I wasn't equivocating Muslim behavior with anything in the US, there is no such thing as Muslim behavior
I was equivocating Daesh's human trafficking with human trafficking in the US because human trafficking is human trafficking
Maybe it isn't, but if so we need to be consistent. Close down our military bases, bring all our troops home, stop spying, just lock down our borders and stick to ourselves. If this isn't our fight, then nothing is our fight until it arrives on our shores or everyone agrees it's the next world war. I'm okay either way, but for fuck's sake let's pick a lane and stay in it.
lol Of course you were. We're not laughing at you, we just, um, all remembered something funny. You had to be there.
Shit, you can't even call them by the name they give themselves. Blind people dead three days can still see through you.
You must of missed where I posted "our backyards" and "when the same stuff is happening here?"
Even though a lot of you see me as a foreigner and thus attacking you, I consider Americans my neighbors, Hell your only 10 minutes away.
Oh and I have American family and the rest of my family spends winter there
It is the very reason I call for the organized extermination of ISIS via military force.
Were any of these 19 American citizens?
Maybe it isn't, but if so we need to be consistent. Close down our military bases, bring all our troops home, stop spying, just lock down our borders and stick to ourselves. If this isn't our fight, then nothing is our fight until it arrives on our shores or everyone agrees it's the next world war. I'm okay either way, but for fuck's sake let's pick a lane and stay in it.....
The rest of the world does not care about ISIS. Only Americans. The United States should keep out of this quagmire and let other nations take the lead, for once. (Hello...Iran? Turkey? Saudia Arabia? Jordan? Egypt?) Why aren't the European militaries fighting ISIS? Why aren't the Middle Eastern nations' militaries fighting ISIS in their own backyards?
I want to see ISIS exterminated as much as anyone, but fuck it! If other nations don't care, including those that are much closer to the problem, then why should the United States care? We have other problems to worry about and better things to do with our tax dollars.
The difference is, nobody said anything about Muslims or Islam prior to your posting. No one.
This has nothing to do with a wider commentary or (perceived) castigation of Islam, you hypersensitive buffoon; it was drawing attention to another sanctioned perverse barbarity by a massive fundamentalist group with nation-state aspirations and military capability. That, is sadly, newsworthy.
We get your schtick, Earl. Really. And in some ways it's a noble one. When the xenophobes post their uneducated drivel, then by all means be the voice of reason in demystifying Islam.
But the fact though that you feel the need to swoop in and try and equivocate and morally relativize with no prior lead-in or segue of , "Yuh, but uh, bad stuff happens in 'Merica, too, ya hosers!" when it comes to ISIS just reeks of an awkward, uncomfortable inferiority complex that you very publicly seem to be grappling with in thread after thread.
Not every mention of the atrocities of shit skids like ISIS is a wider attack on Islam around the globe. davmat787 has gone out of his way, I think, to communicate that clearly and effectively. The fact that you turn every mention of their disgusting escapades into the "Yeah, but" show, despite having to perform Gold Medal-level mental gymnastics to equivocate 'bad deeds' is beyond off-putting.
Shit, you can't even call them by the name they give themselves. Blind people dead three days can still see through you.
I do tend to agree with the vast majority of people also who know Daesh is not Islamic even though some Islamphobes here say it is.
Iraq used to be secular and have women's rights
What are you talking about? Arguably, they are more Islamic than just about any other organized group of Muslims. Just because you don't like the reality of what that religion actually is doesn't mean they're not Islamic. Christians and Jews would also come off looking like barbarians if they adhered strictly to their ancient religious texts, too. Here's the article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I am not Muslim. Muslims don't like Daesh pretending to be Islamic
...they don't like their true religion...just like many Catholics don't like religious prohibitions on birth control and abortion.
The rest of the world does not care about ISIS. Only Americans. The United States should keep out of this quagmire and let other nations take the lead, for once. (Hello...Iran? Turkey? Saudia Arabia? Jordan? Egypt?) Why aren't the European militaries fighting ISIS? Why aren't the Middle Eastern nations' militaries fighting ISIS in their own backyards?
I want to see ISIS exterminated as much as anyone, but fuck it! If other nations don't care, including those that are much closer to the problem, then why should the United States care? We have other problems to worry about and better things to do with our tax dollars.
Iraq used to be secular and have women's rights
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Iraqi Laws and Procedures
The Iraqi Social Status (civil) Law follows the Islamic Sharia (Islamic legislation). Under Islamic law, an Iraqi Muslim female may not marry a non Muslim male. However an Iraqi Muslim male may marry a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish female.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Marriage of a Muslim to a Non-Muslim
Muslim women in Iraq are legally prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim. Therefore, the non-Muslim male must convert his religion to Islam and file a petition with the Social Status Court to declare that he is Muslim. Muslim men in Iraq are permitted to marry non-Muslim women if they are Christian or Jewish only. If the woman belongs to any other religion, she must convert to Islam.[/FONT]
Iraqi Laws and Procedures
Iraqi Social Status Law (civil) establishes marriage laws in Iraq. Foreigners marrying in Iraq are subject to the provisions of the Social Status Law. Interfaith marriages are permitted except in the case of a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/09/iraqi-constitutions-downside-for-women.htmlIf an Iraqi woman is marrying a non-Iraqi, one of her parents (or a legal guardian) must be present;
Iraqi Constitutions Downside For Women
By Juan Cole | Sep. 2, 2005 |
0 Retweet 0 Share 0 Google +1 0 0
The Iraqi constitution’s downside for women
Reprint. The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
The Iraqi constitution’s downside for women
By JUAN COLE
Thursday, September 1, 2005, Page A21
One of George W. Bush’s justifications for his Iraq project has been the Greater Middle East Initiative, a long-term plan to bring democracy to the Arab world. So: Is the new Iraqi constitution a setback for human rights — specifically women’s rights? If so, how bad is it?
When challenged on this issue, President Bush responded that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had assured him that the constitution guarantees inherent rights to women and that it talks about Islam only as “a religion,” not “the religion.” But secular-leaning Iraqi women in politics are not so sanguine. One, Safia Taleb al-Souhail, Iraq’s ambassador to Egypt OK?? formerly close to Mr. Bush, recently alleged, “We have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years.”
Islamic law is a dynamic and evolving set of practices rather than a religious code written in stone. Still, contemporary fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law in countries such as Iran have negative implications for the rights of women. They give women only half the amount of inheritance that their brothers receive. They give the right of unilateral divorce only to men. They make no provision for alimony. They allow polygamy. Shia law permits the contracting of temporary marriages for specified periods of time.
Contrary to what the Bush administration keeps maintaining, Iraqi law affecting the status of women had been much revised by modern reformers and by the revolutionary Baath Party, which had been influenced by Marxist thought on women’s rights. In the 1970s Iraq was probably the most progressive Arab country on women’s issues (although women later lost some ground under Saddam Hussein).
In 2003 through 2004, when Iraq was under direct U.S. rule, Shia leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim attempted to put all Iraqis under Shia religious law for personal status matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so forth. His attempt was beaten back by the impressive woman physician and politician, Rajaa al-Khuzai, in alliance with secular-leaning men.
But now women such as Ms. Taleb al-Souhail — whom President Bush honoured at his State of the Union address, and who flashed a “V” for victory sign — are discouraged. The Jan. 30, 2005, elections brought to power the Shia fundamentalist parties that had long sought to overthrow the secular Baath. They dominated the drafting of the new constitution. Article 2 therefore says that Islamic law is “a fundamental source” of legislation.
The Shia religious parties had wanted it to declare that Islam is “the source” of law. The indefinite article was used instead, accounting for President Bush’s somewhat confused statement to the press. But having Islam be “a fundamental source” of law is nearly as strong.
Paragraph A goes on to say that parliament may not pass civil legislation that contradicts the “established laws of Islam.” This phrase is clear in Arabic, but has been mistranslated by the Western wire services. If parliament passes a law requiring that the shares of women’s inheritance be equal to that of their brothers, will it be struck down as contradicting “the established laws of Islam”?
The new constitution does forbid discrimination on gender or ethnic grounds, and prohibits legislation that contravenes human-rights law. Thus it contains a key contradiction.
Another ambiguity comes in article 39, which says, “Iraqis are free to practise matters of personal status in accordance with their religions, sects, beliefs, or choices, and this shall be organized by statute.” The implication seems to be that there will be a civil code passed by parliament, but that Iraqis may choose to be under the religious law of their community instead.
But consider the practical problems of applying this: Might not a woman from a conservative Sunni family feel pressure from her father, brothers and husband to accept Islamic law, even if she were secular-leaning? What would happen if a wife chose civil law and her husband chose Shiite law? Would she be allowed to initiate a divorce? Would she receive alimony?
Given that so much about women’s status is unclear in Iraq’s new constitution, subsequent statutes passed by parliament and the rulings of judges will be decisive. But the religious Shia parties have a good chance of dominating parliament for years to come, given the Shiite majority in Iraq. They will also have opportunities to pack the courts with Shiite fundamentalist judges and even ayatollahs (article 90 allows appointment of experts in Islamic law as court judges).
Clearly, conservative, religious parliamentarians and justices could take away with one hand the provisions for gender equality that the constitution has granted with the other.
Some have taken hope from the provision that at least 25 per cent of parliamentarians be women. But both in Pakistan and Iraq, fundamentalist parties have easily found women to run who will uphold religious law.
As for Rajaa al-Khuzai, who once bested the clerical leader al-Hakim, she is thinking of emigrating. “I am not going to stay here,” she told the New York Times, adding: “This is the future of the new Iraqi government — it will be in the hands of the clerics.”
Yet another thread with the Dunning-Kruger Effect in full effect.
You get past the tear jerking stories and bravado of conquest, and you hear nothing of a plan of how we actually achieve any better state.
Islamic law is a dynamic and evolving set of practices rather than a religious code written in stone.
Which are you typing about?
Why I don't follow along with the Islamphobes or the why do I always post the why are you guys freaking about foreign countries when the same stuff is happening here?
The rest of the world does not care about ISIS. Only Americans. The United States should keep out of this quagmire and let other nations take the lead, for once. (Hello...Iran? Turkey? Saudia Arabia? Jordan? Egypt?) Why aren't the European militaries fighting ISIS? Why aren't the Middle Eastern nations' militaries fighting ISIS in their own backyards?
I want to see ISIS exterminated as much as anyone, but fuck it! If other nations don't care, including those that are much closer to the problem, then why should the United States care? We have other problems to worry about and better things to do with our tax dollars.
It's a bit sad you don't understand the difference. I will explain to you in simple terms:
Human trafficking and slavery exists in US and Europe. It is against the laws of these countries and those who commit this crime will be punished when caught.
Human trafficking and slavery exists in ISIS territory. The law allows it and the authorities actively encourage it.
(I searched but couldn't find an actual list of all countries fighting ISIS, if anyone could, please post it, because I wish I could name more than those small countries).