On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Read your post again and really, truly try to think about the extreme level of ignorance you have exhibited.
ignorance you say MY brother is in the military this shit isn't a joke they WANT to kill you they don't fucking care who you are or what you do they will kill you based on the sole fact that is what all muslims do when they take the koran literally and these people ARE innocent people and it isn't funny what happens and now i must explain this freedom thing but to be honest i don't want to stfu read the post understand the post then comment also i always write very brief summarys trying to get across alot of stuff as in this post is as long or longer then the first but only explains 1 detail
Your EXTREME generalizations aside and ignoring your pathetic attempt at anecdotal evidence...
Sure, fundamentalist Islam isn't something that should be promoted.
i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts)
Nice two options you offer, extermination of 1.5 billion people or moderation. I like it.
A very, very very small minority of Muslims believe in violence to achieve ends. Likewise, a small minority of Christians, militant Jews, and members of other faiths all exhibit extremist tendencies.
Your post implies that all or at least a substantial majority of Muslims will kill you if you don't practice their faith. Read this post:
Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
And then try to understand it in the context of your post.
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Who started these Middle Eastern Wars? Who invaded Iraq and exactly why? unneccesary?
But yes allot of American's now believe that the war in Iraq is a racket and want to back out. At the time most felt the war was justifiable and believed that Iraq was in position of WMDs and also a terrorist training ground. Members of our government lied to use and only latter has the truth came out. Democracy is like that it only works if the citizens are well informed unfortunately most American's would rather play video games and watch sex and the city then read the news or read up on the world events.
The American role in the Middle East You have to remember that the Middle Eastern countries are relatively new and most only came into existence post WWI or WW2 after independence from their colonial masters. Wars are inevitable as people fight fro their own cultural identity (this applies more to Africa)
Post WW2 Iran The USA has been involved twice in "changing the regime" in Iran post WW2 through the CIA. Understandably many Iranians chant "death to america" because of this. After the majority of the population revolted against the imposed king the popular senitiment established a theocracy with democratic principles. All people elect their representatives and they do have power similar to any western nation.
The USA was instrumental in causing Iraq to invade Iran shortly thereafter. They provided material support (guns n all that), money and chemical weapons. A war in which nobody won and decimated both countries.
Afghan resistance Meanwhile, USA supported with guns, money and everything else the Afghan resistance, an important part of whom was Osama Bin Laden. They defeated the bad guy Russians, but sadly, when you give this minority of crazy extreme islamic people the means to do bad things, bad things happen. We all know what happened next.
Back to Iraq Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be.
Corrupt dictators The USA has supported and countinues to support a number of the corrupt dictators of a number of countries ("King" Saud for one). They give them legitimacy and military and financial backing. Shouldnt the "free world" take a stand against these corrupt undemocratic dictators? It happened in Libya but on the whole ... no because they suppress the population and keep them under control. Saudi Arabian royalty especially use their own extreme interpretation of religion as a means to control the populace. Did you know women are. not allowed outside their homes unless accompanied by a male family member of their husbands
The champion of freedom and Liberty? The notion that america is a promoter of democracy and freedom throughout the world is blatantly untrue. They are acting in your own best interests at the end of the day. But dont kid yourself that they have some moral superiority over other cultures when really they are just as bad if not worse, but in their own way.
WMDs Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry.
Why do people support these actions? It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
Sorry about rant. This sums up another perspective of US actions in the middle east
A rule of thumb, if you see a wall of text without any structure, such as paragraph or sentence, it is most likely that person doesn't have rational thinking.
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Who started these Middle Eastern Wars? Who invaded Iraq and exactly why? unneccesary?
But yes allot of American's now believe that the war in Iraq is a racket and want to back out. At the time most felt the war was justifiable and believed that Iraq was in position of WMDs and also a terrorist training ground. Members of our government lied to use and only latter has the truth came out. Democracy is like that it only works if the citizens are well informed unfortunately most American's would rather play video games and watch sex and the city then read the news or read up on the world events.
You have to remember that the Middle Eastern countries are relatively new and most only came into existence post WWI or WW2 after independence from their colonial masters. Wars are inevitable as people fight fro their own cultural identity (this applies more to Africa)
The USA has been involved twice in "changing the regime" in Iran post WW2 through the CIA. Understandably many Iranians chant "death to america" because of this. After the majority of the population revolted against the imposed king the popular senitiment established a theocracy with democratic principles. All people elect their representatives and they do have power similar to any western nation.
The USA was instrumental in causing Iraq to invade Iran shortly thereafter. They provided material support (guns n all that), money and chemical weapons. A war in which nobody won and decimated both countries.
Meanwhile, USA supported with guns, money and everything else the Afghan resistance, an important part of whom was Osama Bin Laden. They defeated the Russians, but sadly, when you give this minority of crazy extreme islamic people the means to do bad things, bad things happen. We all know what happened next.
Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be.
The USA has supported and countinues to support a number of the corrupt dictators of a number of countries ("King" Saud for one). They give them legitimacy and military and financial backing. Shouldnt the "free world" take a stand against these corrupt undemocratic dictators? It happened in Libya but on the whole ... no because they suppress the population and keep them under control. Saudi Arabian royalty especially use their own extreme interpretation of religion as a means to control the populace. Did you know women are. not allowed outside their homes unless accompanied by a male family member of their husbands
The notion that america is a promoter of democracy and freedom throughout the world is blatantly untrue. They are acting in your own best interests at the end of the day. But dont kid yourself that they have some moral superiority over other cultures when really they are just as bad if not worse, but in their own way.
Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry.
It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
Sorry about rant. This sums up another perspective of US actions in the middle east
The problem is that it is easy as hell to lobby politicians in the US. As a matter of fact most lobbyist are well connected former government employees.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Count the commas and periods and I believe your questions will be answered.
I havnt seen that before actually. An insightful read. Quaker Oats are nice too
What I was trying to understand is why some middle eastern countries are anti-american. I looked at the historical evidence (its on wikipedia.) and it was quite a compelling case. This also applies to other areas such as South and Central America!
I hadnt really looked pre WW2, but thanks for the insight
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Read your post again and really, truly try to think about the extreme level of ignorance you have exhibited.
ignorance you say MY brother is in the military this shit isn't a joke they WANT to kill you they don't fucking care who you are or what you do they will kill you based on the sole fact that is what all muslims do when they take the koran literally and these people ARE innocent people and it isn't funny what happens and now i must explain this freedom thing but to be honest i don't want to stfu read the post understand the post then comment also i always write very brief summarys trying to get across alot of stuff as in this post is as long or longer then the first but only explains 1 detail
Your EXTREME generalizations aside and ignoring your pathetic attempt at anecdotal evidence...
Sure, fundamentalist Islam isn't something that should be promoted.
i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts)
Nice two options you offer, extermination of 1.5 billion people or moderation. I like it.
A very, very very small minority of Muslims believe in violence to achieve ends. Likewise, a small minority of Christians, militant Jews, and members of other faiths all exhibit extremist tendencies.
Your post implies that all or at least a substantial majority of Muslims will kill you if you don't practice their faith. Read this post:
Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
And then try to understand it in the context of your post.
your so stupid its ridiculous my post means this and ih ate to point it out to you that if your an extreme muslim you should die likewise if your a muslim and dont want to kill people ect im cool with you what exactly is wrong with my post? what if 1.57 billion people tried to kill off everyone else? what just let the rest of the 4.43 billion people jsut die? that is in essence what i meant and i stand by that also you just basically said what i meant so go suck a dick?
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
we shall agree to disagree then
Its funny because the more you post the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. Keep posting without paragraphs it's clearly working!
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
we shall agree to disagree then
Its funny because the more you post the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. Keep posting without paragraphs it's clearly working!
ummm im confused was that to me or the dude who replied to me?
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
we shall agree to disagree then
Its funny because the more you post the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. Keep posting without paragraphs it's clearly working!
ummm im confused was that to me or the dude who replied to me?
On January 17 2011 09:12 UberThing wrote: Haha! I found that funny. You have to remember it is the lunatic fringe that threatened to do violent things. Most muslims who did care peacefully protested.
Funny how the USA supports Saudi Arabia fully even though Saudi citizens are the prime financiers of terrorism. Also Saudi is where the really crazy strict (I mean next level) islam ideology is coming from. Wahabiism (the strict stuff) is a relatively modern invention and it is what inspires the terrorist activities.
Because they have the money they can spread this crazy strict islam. The USA needs to stop supporting them.
SOURCE: Most moderate muslims in the UK
Not only threatened, but this "lunatic fringe" actually have, and continue to do violent things. Are their reprehensible actions justifiable due to a (assumingly majority) moderate base? Why aren't moderates more outspoken against this extremism?
I agree with you 100% on Saudi Arabia. However I always assumed the ideology discussed stemmed from Sharia law, the archaic religious laws from the 7th century which still governs the various theocracies (including Saudia Arabia and "moderate" Malaysia). As you know, Britain now has a Sharia court system (and similar rudimentaries of such sprang up in the USA) which systematically promotes values such as gender inequality. A specific example of rulings in these non-Muslim Western states include permittance of sexual abuse in marriage (UK). Would this be considered moderate?
No their actions are totally unacceptable. most religious muslims are passive. When things are bad they pray to god and when theyre good they thank god. The silent majority are timid pacifists. Moderate imams do speak out all the time, but it doesnt make good evening news unfortunately. For reasons I still cant understand, "impartial" news organisations give these small number of idiots a platform to say their stupid things, but rarely do they interview a mainstream imam to give a balanced picture. An unfair portrayal in the media? most certainly.
Most moderate muslim (the silent peaceful majority) do not support the superceeding of the law of the land with Sharia Law. British law is good as it is (maybe except the 4 week detention times ) The Saudis are financing the training of imams who spout this harsh backwards religious rhetoric. They are infiltrating the mosques and giving shitty nonsensical sermons. They are in the ears of government ministers and they probably influenced the decision for these courts. They are definately good buyers of military hardware (see al-yamamah corruptionhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bae).
Sharia Law in the historical sense was used at a time when there was no proper laws. It superceeded the rule of the strongest and was fair for its time in history pre-industrial. It served a fantastic purpose then contributing to law and order. Times have changed and values have evolved.
The Saudi royal family fully support the clerics who spout this nonsense. They essentially use it to subjugate and suppress their own people so they are unable to challenge their authority. To add legitimacy, they fund its export to other countries like Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan and now the UK + others. Because of the historical significance of Saudia (it was where islam was founded) they have perceived moral authority, even though it is just a corrupt regime. +They are causing this extremism, but no western news organisation even touches the subject.
Other muslim countries are quite mild in comparison. Turkey for example even allows drinking alcohol. Iran has the biggest population of Jews outside of Israel in the middle east.
I am annoyed because the US, who should support the freedom and liberty values watches on and invades secular arab countries (iraq) for their economic benefit instead of realising the real ideological threat and their tacit support for something they should be ideologically opposed to. They pick a fight with iran, even though the country which really exports the terror is their oil ally.
The peaceful majority of british muslims love living in britain for the especially british values of tolerance, fairplay and courtesy. Its just the small-minded saudi-indoctrinated minority who give us all a shit rep.
On January 17 2011 08:46 UberThing wrote: Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) married her 1st cousin Albert. This is not some prehistoric thing and it was very common until not more than 100 years ago.
It is a tragedy about the children but these asian families usually have absolutely no idea about the risks. Better education is needed in asian communities (muslim, hindu and sikh).
I take issue with your original implication that this is a strictly muslim thing, because it is not. Research the issue before you say such flippant islamaphobic things.
I don't see what a marriage that occured over 100 years ago (Science is a little more advanced than it was 110 years ago) has to do with 55% of british muslim TODAY getting married to their first cousins.The number was even higher (75%) for Bradford if you watched the video.
There again i don't like in the UK anymore so i don't have to pay the ever increasing NHS costs that caring for these disabled kids brings.You should be outraged , unless you are unemployed/living off the state yourself.
Why do people support these actions? It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
What a strange thing to say. Where were you when 3 million people protested against the Iraq war in London? We are at a stage now where the leaders do what they wish regardless of what the public wants.
Why do people support these actions? It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
What a strange thing to say. Where were you when 3 million people protested against the Iraq war in London? We are at a stage now where the leaders do what they wish regardless of what the public wants.
I am just speaking from personal experience and from what others have said. I was talking about the many more british people who trust these news organisations
btw I was sitting my bloody medical exams so I couldnt go.
On January 17 2011 08:46 UberThing wrote: Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) married her 1st cousin Albert. This is not some prehistoric thing and it was very common until not more than 100 years ago.
It is a tragedy about the children but these asian families usually have absolutely no idea about the risks. Better education is needed in asian communities (muslim, hindu and sikh).
I take issue with your original implication that this is a strictly muslim thing, because it is not. Research the issue before you say such flippant islamaphobic things.
I don't see what a marriage that occured over 100 years ago (Science is a little more advanced than it was 110 years ago) has to do with 55% of british muslim TODAY getting married to their first cousins.The number was even higher (75%) for Bradford if you watched the video.
There again i don't like in the UK anymore so i don't have to pay the ever increasing NHS costs that caring for these disabled kids brings.You should be outraged , unless you are unemployed/living off the state yourself.
I will say it again.
The majority of these families have no idea about the risks They are from the lower socio-economic classes and have little education. Yes I got taught in med school about it but how would you expect some immigrant parents generation to know? They are the ones arranging who arrange the marriage for their kid. There is the issue of arranged marriages though. I dont even understand why it still happens today.
But, this is why the government has started education classes to increase awareness.
Things are changing. On victoria, I was refering to how when before society knew the risks, it was common. This came about through education.
Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.[180] Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women.
It does lead to problems and it is unhealthy. But you cannot stigmatise people who do this and alienate them You have to engage, so by education you will show them why it is not desirable. This are british values of tolerance and engagement unlike some other western nations.
I think many people have a mistaken belief that a majority of Muslims world wide condemn the attacks that have come to symbolize extremist islam. This is not the case, the vast majority of Muslims are of the Sunni set of beliefs. Sunni Muslims typically will tacitly condone, though maybe not out right participate in, terrorist acts. It is no coincidence that most of the members of the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, Saudi Arabia is by far the most populous and wealthiest Islamic State, and a vast majority of Saudi's are of the Sunni belief set.
So to claim that even muslims do not support terrorism is a fallacy, they support it whole heartedly both in propaganda and money. Every Islamic state in the world today aids in funding Hezbollah, though typically through their "humanitarian" wing. Osama Bin Ladin is the eldest son of the Saudi royal family, though they claim to have disowned him, he is the eldest son in a very patriarchal society, I refuse to believe that they have totally cut him off.
All in all though most of the Muslim world isn't outspoken in their support of terrorism, they are decidedly NOT outspoken in criticizing it. Also, to a large extent they will secretly support with money, and believe that terrorists are doing the right thing. We are not dealing with a religion, who like most of the others in the world, that can take a joke. Yes there are Christian extremists, but the percentage of the population is far, far, less than that of Muslim extremists. Islam is a religion that is violently opposed to anything other than itself, and as such a religion there is no "middle ground" either you fight them, join them, or they will kill you.
On January 18 2011 02:42 innoby wrote: I think many people have a mistaken belief that a majority of Muslims world wide condemn the attacks that have come to symbolize extremist islam. This is not the case, the vast majority of Muslims are of the Sunni set of beliefs. Sunni Muslims typically will tacitly condone, though maybe not out right participate in, terrorist acts. It is no coincidence that most of the members of the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, Saudi Arabia is by far the most populous and wealthiest Islamic State, and a vast majority of Saudi's are of the Sunni belief set.
So to claim that even muslims do not support terrorism is a fallacy, they support it whole heartedly both in propaganda and money. Every Islamic state in the world today aids in funding Hezbollah, though typically through their "humanitarian" wing. Osama Bin Ladin is the eldest son of the Saudi royal family, though they claim to have disowned him, he is the eldest son in a very patriarchal society, I refuse to believe that they have totally cut him off.
All in all though most of the Muslim world isn't outspoken in their support of terrorism, they are decidedly NOT outspoken in criticizing it. Also, to a large extent they will secretly support with money, and believe that terrorists are doing the right thing. We are not dealing with a religion, who like most of the others in the world, that can take a joke. Yes there are Christian extremists, but the percentage of the population is far, far, less than that of Muslim extremists. Islam is a religion that is violently opposed to anything other than itself, and as such a religion there is no "middle ground" either you fight them, join them, or they will kill you.
Very good post. This sums up the whole muslim issue perfectly. Sadly the majority of westerners rather keep their eyes closed and pretend like everything is well and that 99% of muslims enjoy the company of other religions.
January 16 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired three mortar shells at Israel, all of which exploded in an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. The Color Red siren did not sound.
2011 ( 12 attacks in one month so far )
Israel became a state in 1312 b.c., two millennia before Islam
Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood
After conquering the land in 1272 b.c., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. it was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it
Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly )
King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it
Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem
it's like, they don't acknowledge the existence of a jewish homeland in the qu'ran
there was enough material to get a 20% purity in iraq... good enough for weapons
there was also a wikileaks article that did eventually "prove" something that was already proven...
EPT
) The Saudis are financing the training of imams who spout this harsh backwards religious rhetoric. They are infiltrating the mosques and giving shitty nonsensical sermons. They are in the ears of government ministers and they probably influenced the decision for these courts. They are definately good buyers of military hardware (see al-yamamah corruption
