Yeah I dont get it either, waterloo was the end of the war, last I checked ISIS is still kicking.
Printable View
Yeah I dont get it either, waterloo was the end of the war, last I checked ISIS is still kicking.
Hence 'looks like', not 'it is'. By now we know it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I mentioned them as a connection with the bombing campaign which basically concerns the western powers, not with the infantry operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There is a possibility that they deliberately target the ISIS forces in Kobane, in order to get a moral victory, considering that the public opinion of their countries, because of the media coverage, is almost excusively interested in the fighting with the Syrian Kurds, ignoring the other frontiers.
Swedish media is big on US miss-dropping army materials (guns etc) to ISIS...
Who cares, they already have Millions worth of stuff from when they shooed away the Irak Army...
Was Waterloo the location of the battle or the place the messages about having won the battle sent from?
It's an ABBA song.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Just google it.
People have culture in Australia it seems, non-sunni imam got shot. See there is the difference between immigrants and colonists. Immigrants leave their shit behind, colonists bring it with them.
Let things burn, and see who is left.
That would be us, lefties will realise it affects their comfortable highly moral bliss as well once they can't find a decent school or neighbourhood.
Never more true http://www.brucespeaks.com/myblog/wp...-blind-too.gif
Any link for the shot imam?
The only one I found speaks generally about a man shot in front og a shia mosque. Furthermore, only sunni mosques have imams as a leading official, in shia, imams have much more superior roles.
Finally, how do we know he wasn't shot by an upset christian-fascist, instead of the muslim version?
No reliable one sorry, right for now it's a 'seems like', link has been removed so it's probably bull
Quite a few sources for this
http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...ey-shooting-pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-0...ooting/5864818
""Obviously we saw the attack on two policemen in Victoria a month or so back," he said.
"It seems there is an ISIL death cult influence on this shooting in Sydney in the last 24 hours or so.
"The important thing is for all of us to absolutely reject this death cult."
Mr Abbott said the Federal Government was responding to the "new and virulent threat" domestically and abroad.
"We have a potent military force which is already striking hard against ISIL in Iraq," he said.
"We've also put money aside to boost our community harmony programs."" - Australian PM
ISIS comes to Libya.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/wo...html?c=&page=1
I for one welcome a united Islamic State.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Mainly because it would let the world see what an absolute **** religion Islam is.
Geez, invented by a pedophile in a desert living tribe some thousand years ago... I think we in the west should just withdraw each and every support we give, and let the damn MENA-area sort itself out.
Then, when they have decided to be less savage and have organized some sort of a nation system, we can take up negotiations with them.
The pedophilia thing has never been conclusively proved. Nor, I might add, would all folks accept your use of the word "invented" -- though I know you, personally, don't believe that to be a uniquely Muslim religious characteristic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Mohammed married a girl 6 years old, and consumed the marriage when she was 9. It's proven well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Heck, it wasn't even eyebrow-raising in that Beduin tribe at the time.
Sure he might have been a divine being or have had divine orders... But LOTS of dudes have made that claim in history. And logically speaking, really onlyone can be right. If of course any.
So sorry for saying he invented the religion, I just mean that the statistical odds given what we know is absolutely STAGGERING against Mohammed being more than a pedophilic psycho.
European Nobility were often married off at the age of 13 and were expected to consummate the marriage immediately - since these were political marriages as well a lot of the time one of the pair would be vastly older.
Mohammed was a king, he like the European Nobility married for politics not love and consummated his marriage because that was the expected thing to do - it is a stretch to prove he was a pedophile - you would need to prove he prefered young girls and not that it was merely a political union, which was normal for the time.
Arranging marriages when children were very young was the norm back then pretty much everywhere. I'd be surprised if there were too many comsumation of marriage before the girl had her first period. After that, I'm pretty sure it was fair game. regardless of the age.
Yeah, was normal everywhere. At least keep things fair, that he married a really young girl says nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I already said that it was normal in his day and age. Had he been some random dude I wouldn't have cared...
However, it's held as belief that he is a (THE!!) divine prophet, and the voice of God. His example is meant to last forever. To then stick his pee pee inside a 9 year old... I simply find it extremely morally distasteful :shrug:
IMHO, a good and loving God might, just MIGHT, have inserted some "DUDE DON'T DO IT" clausul in the Quran, no?
It only says that he married her, not that they had intercourse when she was nine. I believe it is forbidden to have sex before someone is sexually mature. Not sure though, Hax probably knows.
Should we now make a list of Swedish royals who married young girls, and then draw a conclusion that all Swedes are pedos?
Or should we just point to the thousands of Swedish girls currently abused by Swedish males?
You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
IIRC she was 6 when she started to practise to have sex (rub herself against him I guess) and 9 when the penetrational sex happened.
Also, that argument STILL doesn't quite explain why God wouldn't just tell him it's preferable to have sex with people in a position to say no.
For the third time, yes it was common practise back then. However, God REALLY has shaky morals if he bothers telling people what to eat, drink, wear, think and do... But not a word about it possibly being unseemly to rape or have sex with children.
For goodness' sake, are people really going to try and excuse the rape of a 9 year old girl just on the basis that lots of people were doing it?
I'm surprised people are taking their moral relativism this far. There is no way it would ever be OK to sexually abuse a 9 year old. It is unnatural and perverse to have any sort of attraction to a child of that age. It will always be abusive to the girl whatever point in history it happens at.
I think the whole world has gone mad.
As has been said, it was a political marriage not one based on attraction, and muhammed had a precident of marrying older women: his first being 40 when he was 25, his second being 55 etc. It's reasonable to assume he wasnt attracted to the 9 year old and merely gritted his teeth, as for whether or not he should be blamed for doing so: it is hard to judge someone for doing something everyone in his time period+region had been raised to consider it ok. It's hard to blame a person for not knowing and abiding to the sexual morality of the 21st century when he was born in the 6th.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Bolded A: Why is it reasonable? If he played naked games with 6 year olds already, and full on penetrated 9 year olds... What says he didn't quite enjoy it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
You seriously swear him free of the act because it's possible, just possible, that he REALLY didn't like it but felt forced into it (specially being some sort of damned King with enough power to create a damn world religion... Yeah, he CLEARLY is a victim here, not a thing he could have done to avoid it).
That's from the purely secular perspective.
Bolded B) The religious perspective is where it gets REALLY interesting to me. I have already explained my view on this some posts up, but yeah, Allah is either made up, or an absolute ****hole if he seriously don't consider pedophilia to be worth a clause in the Quaran, no?
How can anyone SERIOUSLY defend this...
Sure PEOPLE at the time might have done whatever weird things... But surely an almighty god would know just a little bit better, and be able to communicate it? He sure seems to have been able to communicate a WHOLE lot of other things very clearly.
"Don't have sex with someone not in a position to say no" is IMHO setting the moral bar so low, that it should be a damn cornerstone in each and every religion worth a ****.
For hundreds of years before Muhammad's time most of the civilized world set the marriagable age at 12 (including Romans and the Catholic Church). The idea of not sexually abusing children isn't some 21st century innovation. Plus, if Muhammad wasn't attracted to her then why would he consummate the marriage? It may have been normal within the culture of exploitation that Muhammad lived in, but the systematic nature of the abuse in society doesn't change the fact that individual abusers are still responsible for their actions. And whatever Muhammad's culture may have taught, the fact is that to commit the act, he had to overcome all those natural human urges to protect children and to respect the principle of consent, and he also must have fostered some sort of unnatural sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Its disgusting and against nature whatever century it happened in.
I'm going to ignore kadagar because 3600 posts has persuaded me that nothing I can say can ever peirce that thick skull.
Of which mohammed had little contact with before marrying said 9 year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No, but a widespread idea of having an age of consent above 13 is less than 200 years old.Quote:
The idea of not sexually abusing children isn't some 21st century innovation.
Because pre modern marriages werent considered official until consumation, and mohammed was marrying her to gain the loyalty of her father, the man who among other things would become his sucessor in ruling the islamic empire.Quote:
Plus, if Muhammad wasn't attracted to her then why would he consummate the marriage?
Hypothetical: In 1400 years mankind will have all but completely abolished the consumption of meat, that small population that continue the practice do so underground and are considered disgusting and against nature by 99% of humanity. Now, is it fair for the humans of 3400AD to condemn all the hundreds of thousands of people who were born and raised to consider meat eating to demonising, regardless of thier accomplisments just because what was considered innocuous at the time was reevaluated as evil millenia later?Quote:
It may have been normal within the culture of exploitation that Muhammad lived in, but the systematic nature of the abuse in society doesn't change the fact that individual abusers are still responsible for their actions.
And please dont insult our intelligence by saying meat eating is natural and paedophillia is not, both happen all over the animal kingdom.
Regardless of any disneyesque preconceptions nature can be equally disgusting at times as mankind; the only difference is that mankind is universally able and expected to restrain itself (save for the severely mentally ill), but humans will only restrain themselves if they know they should, and they are primarily taught to do so by family and society, which mohammed almost certainly was not.
It is highly debatable that the natural human urges comes from instinct instead of following familial and societal examples. As for respecting the principle of consent, the entire political right wing puts the kibosh on the idea that it is a universal human instinct.Quote:
And whatever Muhammad's culture may have taught, the fact is that to commit the act, he had to overcome all those natural human urges to protect children and to respect the principle of consent, and he also must have fostered some sort of unnatural sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent body.
Since when are we supposed to take religion seriously, you are a historian, you should know very well that Mohammed probably never existed at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Way to win arguments mate...Quote:
I'm going to ignore kadagar because 3600 posts has persuaded me that nothing I can say can ever peirce that thick skull.
I have changed my mind in a LOT of questions since I joined... Gun ownership and abortions comes to mind...
That argument was just silly and make me think less of you.
What is happening here.
I think this is the leading theology throughout all jurisprudential schools of Islam. It's not really my area of interest, so if someone comes up with some preacher making idiot claims: okay.Quote:
It only says that he married her, not that they had intercourse when she was nine. I believe it is forbidden to have sex before someone is sexually mature.
I don't think the reports are that..ehm "explicit". I just checked the reports considered the most correct within the Islamic tradition (Bukhari and Muslim) and they just mention that Aisha says she was six when she married, and 9 when the marriage was consumed. This is the leading tradition within most Islamic communities (with some rebellious types claiming she was like 16 or whatever, it's still creepy).Quote:
IIRC she was 6 when she started to practise to have sex (rub herself against him I guess) and 9 when the penetrational sex happened.
I'm gonna get back on why this is not really interesting anyway.
Eh, I was under the impression that it was more-or-less set to "whenever puberty hits", which is usually around 12, but can differ of course. Guys this is starting to creep me out.Quote:
For hundreds of years before Muhammad's time most of the civilized world set the marriagable age at 12 (including Romans and the Catholic Church).
Actually this is not true at all: most reports (even within the Islamic tradition) mention that Muhammad travelled to Syria quite a lot. Additionally, the Arab peninsula was much better connected to the rest of the Middle-East than is often assumed. The myth of the "Arab in isolation" is something that we find from 11th century pseudo-nationalistic tracts onward, which had mostly to do with a kind of chauvinism ("our ancestors were pure Arabs, who spoke pure Arabic, and never heard of your fancy modern stuff and-so-on", as well as to stifle criticism towards the Quran ("but Muhammad lived in isolation, so he can't have taken anything from the Bible!"). If you're interested in this subject, cf. Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Michael Macdonald.Quote:
Of which mohammed had little contact with before marrying said 9 year old.
Well this is going a bit too far, but not entirely wrong I think. I don't think there's a lot in merit in saying that Muhammad didn't exist. There's probably some kind of soothsayer-poet-king-figure-person that existed in 7th century Arabia -- but then again, there were a lot of those going around.Quote:
Since when are we supposed to take religion seriously, you are a historian, you should know very well that Mohammed probably never existed at all.
What is much more interesting is the way people tend to decontextualise the reports on Muhammad's life, known as the hadiths (english plural, the actually Arabic would be ahadith of course). These were canonised two centuries upwards of Muhammad's death, so what is interesting is that it tells us much more about a degree of orthodoxy that was starting to exist at this point. In this period (cf. shu‘ubiyya) there was a large degree of social upheaval in Caliphate, which led to all kinds of fun stuff, like milleniarism, terror attacks, large-scale revolts, etc., as well as some serious religious criticism -- both from Muslims and non-Muslims -- on certain aspects of Islamic theology. Shi'ism is actually incredibly interesting, because it is a kind of Islam with a huge blend of Persian ideas on kingship.
In any case -- the problem with all this is that these reports (so the ahadith) can't really tell us anything useful about the historical person known as Muhammad. They only tell us something about how 10th century religious scholars liked to think about Muhammad. Keep that in mind when talking about the guy.
Edit: Oh and about ISIS: just wait and see what happens when the money dries up. the caliphate will fall apart more than a Jenga tower in hurricane season. I hope. Otherwise I will drink myself to death. the joke's on you, abu bakr.
So, our residential Muslim is arguing I am right, more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Hax, I am rather certain there is some text about how Aisha "practised" sex before she was penetrated at 9 years old... I might have been wrong about the details, maybe it was just a BJ.
Regardless, I welcome your contribution as to how it's unimportant anyway. Feel free to take however much time you need to write it :shame:
psst, he is a buddhist... but he did study the middle-east and knows Arabic, hence his knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Oh damn... Here I was hoping for an ISIS sheepherder, not a middle-east graduate who speaks Arabic and HAS KNOWLEDGE...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Gotcha. Good example to follow indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
ISIS is washing her kalashnikovs on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
Derna, an ancient Greek colony recolonised by Arabs from Spain is notorious for being the first operation of the the United States of America in the old world. Perhaps, it is a sign from fate, whoever conquers Derna becomes the next superpower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
...in 140+ years
140 years yeah right, they are allready here, spread all around Europe.
Some home-built construction... Can't say the Sergeant in me don't get a boner though...
Blame ISIS for all you want (I for one think they are a rotten cancer on society). But they do seem more organized than most groups in that region...
I think we in the west should just completely withdraw... And let them sort themselves out. When they have something resembling a political party, we should of course be open for discussions again :shrug:
Attachment 14795
But what is it. Can't leave imho, IS is truely savage. Would also greatly give confidence to would-be jihadi's here.
Forgive for I have chuckled. There might be ebola in IS territory, but the allahu akhbard the doctors. This of course not funny at all as nobody is going to risk their necks going into IS territory to aid the locals. Good news for us though, perfect reason to deny returnees acces.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0L814H20150204
Hopefully now the Muslim states of Middle East understand that it is primarily their job to get rid of the scum called IS and those supporting IS will understand what they are supporting and stop such idiotic behaviour.
I read a theory yesterday (I forgot where) that the footage might be several weeks old. It seems plausible, because IS and Jordan were bargaining to release him in exchange for that female terrorist on death row in Jordan. IS seemed to place a great deal of value on her, yet when Jordan demanded that they'd get evidence that the pilot was alive before agreeing to anything, they flat out refused.
I watched the video of the burning earlier today. Can't recommend it unless you have a thick skin.
It was obviously made by a bunch of sadistic former Call of Duty players who seem to take some kind of pleasure or pride (or both) in the act.
That they think of themselves as somehow being the righteous few has to be a joke considering that their deeds are something you would expect from a satanic or death cult. Yes, death cult. The burning looked like a rite or the deed of a cult that celebrates the death of a defenseless man in a most cruel manner.
It wasn't just a punishment, it was a message that said: "We can into video editing, but we're really just stupid, sadistic barbarians."
Not going to watch it but the joke is on them, shock-fatigue is kicking in, acts like this don't work. They will have to sink even lower to surprise anyone.
I'm particularly fond of the rumours spread by some arab media that Abdullah II. is going to participate personally in the retaliatory air strikes conducted by the Jordani Air Force. Has a certain "I'm the bloody king and you just crossed that line" ring to it.
Apart from that, while Jordanias outrage and a strong military reaction is understandable (and has my full sympathy), I'm afraid it's just what they wanted. A pro-west government bombing IS targets - might bring IS supporters in Jordania to the point of taking action.
Weren't the UN invented after WW2 in order to prevent territorial aggression and crimes against humanity?
You say that as though Jordania wasn't bombing IS targets before the IS burned a Jordanian pilot who was caught trying to bomb IS targets. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by I of the Storm
The video I watched also showed IS fighters who got killed or wounded by the bombings. I don't understand arabic but I suppose that was meant to get sympathy for their "righteous" cause and not meant to invite more bombings. The burning of the pilot was probably an attempt to scare people who oppose the IS.
The UAE already suspended air strikes for fear that their pilots might get caught when the IS captured the Jordanian pilot. They want the US to station SAR Ospreys closer to northern Iraq to get potentially downed pilots out faster before they resume their bombings.
There's a rumour that the Jordanian pilot was already dead and ISIS just burnt its body. The reason behind this is that they (the exported wahhabis) unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with the Jordanian government for a PoW exchange: The pilot (they pretended he was alive) with a female martyr wannabe.
When the Jordanian government insisted on being provided with a piece of evidence that the pilot is still alive, they staged that fake execution, for PR purposes.
I don't find that theory very plausible, but I haven't watched the video, yet.
I haven't watched the video either, but from what I've read, he was very much alive in that cage.
Husar, I know they were already participating, but rather reluctantly (as were most of the local members of that anti-IS-coalition). Partially because of their own population being rather reluctant. Especially public opinion has changed a bit now, so I expect an increased participation of Jordanian Forces and subsequently an increase in the "production of martyrs" while the military gain might be rather marginal. So they are basically playing into IS hands, I think.
That theory is not very plausible and can only come from people who either didn't watch the video or think that ISIL is led by the same NWO-lizardpeople who already faked the videos of the moon landing. I'll refrain from describing the video for those with a good imagination.
As for the Jordanian participation, it was small and will stay small compared to e.g. the US, my point was that it was an attempt to scare all their enemies away in general, not just Jordania. Whether it's possible to play into the hands of the IS I'm not sure, I'd say no, it's not. By now it should be clear that only martyrs, sadists and stupid people join their cause while everybody who is sane supports or at least tolerates bombing them anyway. I just found this opinion peace where the guy says the solution is basically more bombing because they're obviously scared of it.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...085308300.html
Quote:
Similarly, the air campaign will have had a psychological impact across all ISIL's rank and file. The constant attrition reveals how perilously exposed they are outside urban areas, and the flow of texts to families in Europe announcing the martyrdom of their relatives recently killed will have helped slow the flow of recruits.
[...]
Kassasbeh was involved in that fight. While there are no positives to be drawn from the manner of his death, its brutality highlights the impact of his mission and hence a way out of this morass: more air strikes.
It is 2015 and someone still thinks that if you just keep bombing, the Islamic extremism will stop.
Got better ideas? It is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Come to think of it, it would be best not to eliminate ISIS completely. Rout them, contain them, and let them exist on a smaller scale. They are a magnet that attracts scumbags from all over the civilized world. That leaves us free to bomb those aforementioned scumbags into smithereens, something that we can't do back in their home countries. Tighter controls are of course needed to deal with those who decide to come back, but overall, having ISIS control some area in Syria or Iraq would work out to our overall security advantage.
Agreed. Keep bombing them to keep them insignificant and a jihadi-magnet. It's just convenient, use it.
you cant beat an idea with bombs - in order to end Islamist ideas you have to combat the philosophy - we have failed massively so far, alienating the Muslims we should be working with and playing right into the Islamist hands by constantly giving them such a high profile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Bombs may end IS but another group will sprout elsewhere and the whole thing will start again.
Not that you arsn't right, but how would you do that? The gap is too big. I understand perfectly well that muslims aren't all that happy with these guys, don't get me wrong. But they are powerless against them as long as we keep relativating islamists. Normal muslims are terrified of these guys and with good reason. They have a good reason to be afraid of them, but also of us because some just refuse to make a difference between normal muslims and islamists. Though spot if you only care about what's for dinner. In any case, keep bombing these islamist idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
We do not need THIS caliphate. However, the world might be better served if there WERE a caliphate.
It would have to come about as a result of some well-attended 'Meccan Council' or some such. As it stands, Islam is too balkanized to reform and progress in how it manifests its philosophy. It took a reformation and a few centuries for Mother Church, but with some form of central authority, long term reform is possible.
Until Muslims marginalize these Wahabo-fascists, in such a manner that they are a demonstrable "out group" and not an attractive clique, these problems will continue.
Won't happen in my lifetime. If it did, it probably would get derailed by extremism anyway. Sad.
That's a garble of the original rumour. That is that they already burnt the pilot before starting to negotiate for a PoW release. Based on the official information, it's plausable, but since the unofficial information is what counts... It's hard to telll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
I'm not planning to see that video, but are there any time indicators in the video? Because if they talk in generic "this is what happens to those who oppose us" rather than a more specific mention of a failed PoW exchange, it's fairly plausable.
"However, the world might be better served if there WERE a caliphate." What? A bigger Iran, Saudi-Arabia? No.
The problem is until the Muslim masses are told/understand that the Quran is only a guide line and not the words of God itself, nothing can be done. If the Holly Book being the words of God is telling you to kill the gays as they are abomination, well, as a follower you have to kill gays. It is not even an option to say no. That is God's will.
What the Muslim Religion needs is in fact less believers, as we had in Europe/USA. More atheists, more theists, more "let live" persons. Who really care what the Pope say? Even Ireland which was the last bastion of Catholicism starts to prosecute the pedophile priests.
Generally speaking, "Christian" back-grounds populations do as they please, and good if the religions agreed with it.
You want a Religion to become softer and more human? Criticism, reason and freedom will do the job.
I don't see why it should be up to us to do their auto criticism and auto reform for them though. I don't really care what kind of crappy regime they set up in their own homes. I just want these nutters as far away from me as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I dont think what anyone needs is a Caliphate in a sense of theocracy, but it could be that only way to stabilize Middle East could be by creating a large state for Sunni arabs involving number of current states of the area. Now how to accomplish this and how to secure it would be even somewhat secular. I havent got a clue how to achieve that...:shrug:
Abit too late to start reconstructing the Ottoman Empire.
"I just want these nutters as far away from me as possible." And how a Caliphate would achieve this?
It would give them a state to go to, allowing us to remove their British or whatever citizenship. If they want to go to their utopia, they're welcome to, and as soon as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Not untill you recognise the IS as a state, and IS is a state you are officially at war with. Just liquidate threats ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not at all what I was intimating. I am talking about an extra-national caliphate whose power is focused upon the Muslim faith. Without some accepted central "figure" in the religion, Islam will always be splintered by reform efforts and never altered as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Neither the Saudi Monarchy nor the Iranian quasi-theocracy can maintain power and influence without an appeal to physical force. THAT is what is lacking.
I do not think any sort of central Islamic religious figure/council will do anything to help. This is because religious conflict is usually a political conflict or a resource conflict, where religion is simply a convenient and easy to market cover for more abstract or nefarious reasons.
What do you think that
Time for some lighthearted fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6hGiAwlxg IS-fail compilation.
I love the one where a hostage-taker has to hold a baby, and the jihadis who can't stop laughing while shooting the video
Warning, in some parts people could have died. Not that you see it but it's possible.
Quite a lot of people dying in that video, but the intention is appreciated.
Edit: Some look like really hot candidates for the Darwin Awards, though.
Because when all parties live under a secular democracy that does not hand out political power based on religion, suddenly the Protestants and Catholics are no longer slaughtering each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well, at least not in job lots. The Irish Troubles mean your principle has a few exceptions at leastQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The Troubles were not Protestants and Catholics killing each other. The Troubles were nationalists and unionists killing each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The term you're looking for is covariance, I think.
Some truth to that, of course. However, there was an awful lot of conflation between the two labels, as you well know, and more than a few who defined it in religious terms rather than political.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"The Troubles were not Protestants and Catholics killing each other. The Troubles were nationalists and unionists killing each other" Well, the troubles were that 2 nationalism (unionists being as much as nationalist than Republicans you qualify as nationalists) were killing each other, and the line of partition was on the Religion. Plus real discrimination towards Catholics and Orange Marches. So, lot of economical factors, humiliations and political mistakes...
That Muslim terrorist Barrack Obama has asked Congress for Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)
Republicans are aghast because they could end up supporting Obama; some Democrats are aghast because stopping the war was their talking point.
It looks like the Muslim King of the USA may have to continue the war through Executive Orders; have to wait and see if the hate for Obama is sufficient to have the hawks decline the president's request, with support from the doves.
Politics, it just makes your brain hurt sometimes :)
http://wonkette.com/576138/gop-rep-j...-about-to-bomb
Why is obama wanting to get back into the fight?
To leave the country how he found it.
Because Obama is the world police...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Wanting to? Hardly that. For the most part, Obama has sought a domestic Presidency. His FoPo has been, at best, reactive for the entire time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Tiring. All of it is just malfing tiring.