Leaderboard

Democracy in Iran is directly challenged and impeded by RADICAL ISLAM...so it is very much on topic.

The above comment evidences precisely why Marcus has zero credibility and spews pathetic Palestinian Authority scripts. This excerpt summarizes the above script: source: http://jcpa.org/article/palestinians-arabs-and-the-holocaust/ "One of the major Palestinian Arab arguments regarding the establishment of the state of Israel is that the West facilitated its founding out of guilt over the Holocaust. Palestinians insist that the Holocaust is a purely Western and Christian crime that has nothing to do with them or other Arabs.1 For example, Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti writes as follows: …Palestinians—and Arabs more generally—bear no responsibility whatsoever for the Holocaust, a European genocide committed against mostly European Jews, Roma, and Slavs, among others. It is therefore not incumbent upon Palestinians to pay in our lives, lands, and livelihoods the price for relieving Europe’s conscience of its collective guilt over the Holocaust.2 Jibril Rajoub, a member of the Fatah Central Committee and former Palestinian Authority security chief, asserted on July 24, 2014 that “it was the Nazis, not us, who did the Holocaust to them… We are paying the price for Europe’s crimes against them in the previous century.”3 Likewise, PLO official Husam Zomlot recently stated that “the Nazis were responsible for it [the Holocaust]. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it. The Israelis were responsible for the Nakba.”4 This argument is part of the overall Palestinian narrative which maintains that Palestinians are the innocent victims of an injustice inflicted by others, especially Westerners and Zionists. According to Barghouti, “the conflict is a colonial conflict…based on ethnic cleansing, racism, settler colonialism, and apartheid,”5 and the state of Israel “was created through…[a] well-planned campaign of ethnic cleansing.”6 Thus, the nakba—the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees who were displaced by the war of 1948—is entirely the fault of the Zionists and their Western supporters, not of the Palestinians themselves. According to this narrative, in 1948, the Zionists were waging a war of preplanned ethnic cleansing, not a war of self-defense against Palestinian aggressors with genocidal intentions and a history of Nazi collaboration. Therefore, any accusation of genocide and genocidal hatred should be directed only at Westerners and Zionists, not at Palestinians or Arabs. However, the claim that Palestinians and Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust is false. In fact, Arab and Palestinian leaders played a significant role in aiding and abetting the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews in Europe and they hoped to implement the genocide in the Middle East." Here let Marcus hide from me and the following: http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/muslims-and-jews/the-holocaust-and-muslims.html http://missingpeace.eu/en/2014/01/arab-role-in-the-holocaust-exposed/ I am again calling out Marcus for holocaust denial and trying to re-write to justify his own bigotry against Jews for creating a nation. It is a fact the leader of the Muslims in pre-Israel Palestine, the Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin Al-Husayni, was closely allied with, and actively assisted the Nazis throughout the Second World War. In fact he pressured and was instrumental in getting Adolph Eichman to use cynide to kill Jews and not use bullets so more could he killed faster. In fact Al-Husayni met with Hitler several times, and lived in a confiscated Jewish home throughout WW2 in Berlin He was given a personal tour of the Auschwitz death camp by Heinrich Himmler, where he reportedly “ lectured the guards for not killing Jews fast enough. Al-Husayni has been proven by German documents to have recruited Muslims for the German SS, amounting to hundreds of thousands and he planned and carried out a chemical attack on Jews in Tel Aviv. Yasser Arafat, his protigee and successor served as one of his troops in 1948. The othe r PA genius Mr. Abbas wrote his Ph.d thesis in Moscow denying the holocaust occurred. The support of Hitler in the Arab world of the ME pre, during and post WW2 is fact. Syria, Egypt, Iraq created regimes modelled on Nazi Germany. Hitler mustaches flourished in the ME on most men as a sign of support for Hitler. To this day Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, use the Nazi salute and goose step. Hitler's Mein Kampf and the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have always beemn bestsellers in several Muslim countries. For Marcus to pretend this was only a European phenomena is a crock of shit. That's why he hides from me. He has no idea how to respond when he's exposed but exposed he will be and its why Porch calls him a denier of history. “Kill the Jews wherever you find them, this is pleasing to Allah.” - Mohammad Amin Al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, 1943 http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Exposing-the-myth-of-the-Arab-bystander-to-the-Holocaust-339430

These Christian charitable groups spend a lot of time, effort and money to help people in need. They never ask for attestations or ask what a persons belief system is before giving their time and money, but I could imagine the outrage if they ever did.

Again, I. Don't. Care. I don't care if it's women promoting it or men promoting it. I don't care if a woman says she "chose" it. Some women "choose" to stay in abusive relationships. No, we can't go in and drag them out of abusive relationships for their own good. But we also don't make it legal to abuse your wife. And we don't accept it as a "different" way of life. It is abuse. Whether the woman stays and is complicit in her own abuse is, as you say, her "choice". I do not have to respect or accept that choice. We're not talking about choosing to eat or not eat something, choosing to drink alcohol or nor drink it. We are talking here about something that is ABUSE OF WOMEN. I do not want to see it promoted in my country. I do not want to see it legitimized in any way. I do not want abuse of women to be paraded around the streets and lauded as, "Ooooo, look at how progressive we are in Canada! We allow women the choice to be abused if they want it!" Just.....No. So much No in that statement.

The unfortunate thing is that social media in the countey is restricted by the apparatus of the regime. Fortunately women and younger generations making 65% of the population have the means to access different news outlets

Since some are too daft to figure it out from a BBC comedy skit: uniforms matter. They really do.

No, I don't have to accept 7th century radical Islamist's treatment of women. I really don't.

I think for some reasons you are obsessed with the Nazis. Did you or any of your relatives serve for them in the past or present, DogOnPorch?

I'm also calling out the idea of it being a choice. The choice is: Wear it or....... a. You will be cursed by Allah as a disobedient woman and go to Hell. b. You can never leave the house or be seen in public. c. Your male/female relatives will honour kill you. d. Your male/female relatives will beat you til you comply. e. You will be ostracized by your community. f. You will not be viewed as marriageable. g. Some combination of the above. Given those choices, I'm not surprised that many women are forced to find some kind of "peace" with themselves and their family and their community, so they say, "Yes, it's my choice to wear it."

Besides, those hats with the skulls do look kinda cool, eh? Burqa/Hijab = Islam as per Quran https://quran.com/24/31

And who are you to decide for them (others) what to wear and what not to wear. What gives you the authority to decide and reject other people's choices? I appreciate that you may have suffered in the past but that does not give you the right to decide over other people's body as what they choose to wear or do with their bodies.

Roger that.

And I'm calling your spade a shovel. Just because women participate in their own oppression doesn't make it not oppression.

Nope...need lots more blood from the oppressors....fight the power that be !

Exactly. Women have been and continue to be killed for protesting these covers. I just fail to see how promoting the views of radical Islam by pretending these covers have anything at all to do with women's rights and freedoms, supports the Iranian women.

I wrote...do the Queen's job...ie Queen Elizabeth II's job. "Shame on me", eh? How Canadian....heh

Nobody ever won their freedom by protesting over head scarves...the tree of liberty is nourished by spilled blood.

I predict JT is going to get Me Too'd by someone and the SJW's will have a dilemma on their hands. You telling me he didn't try to get laid at some point?

Seriously I don't think any medication exist to address your serious problem. If there is such change then the Shah will be a King not a Queen. What the hell is wrong with you?

Iran would be a prime example of Islam in action.

She can but I suggested she can open a thread about radical Islam. It is the thread NOT me who puts the boundaries. This thread is about Iran democracy and acts of bravery as per title and discussions that followed. Unlike you Goddess does not wish to hijack this thread or overshadow these acts of bravery with nonsense as you try to do. Shame on you.

I am really struggling to understand what anyone here has against these brave women in Iran who are fighting the oppression and want to be free from headscarves? Surely, if they want to adapt it that is a good thing.

Why only from Muslim women in the West!!!!!!? Why such limitations!!!!. Why should you not as a feminist support your sisters too? Because they may be of different religion (some may not be even Muslims)? But foremost they are women struggling to earn their rights. They deserve support from ALL feminists, freedom loving people in the world regardless of religion, national origin, gendre or beliefs.

You are correct. My apologies. Yes, it's wonderful that women in Iran are fighting this. Where they need support from, though, is not from the West. It's from their Muslim sisters in the West. And unfortunately, Muslims in the West are not behind their sisters in the Middle East.

This whole "choice" thing is bizarre to me in the first place. I can't bleive we in the West are buying into the lie that it is a "choice" and it's about women being free to wear whatever they want. If you see someone who never leaves the house without sporting some kind of Nazi propaganda-wear and you ask about it, they say, "Well, I don't support the ideology, but I am free to wear whatever I want." Would you believe them? I wouldn't believe them any more than I believe that the women who say they don't suport the ideology of radical Islam. Of course they support it! They're wearing its logo!

Please lets get back to the democracy movement in Iran. Thread hijacking is not nice when its result would be overshadowing acts of bravery.

It's not just a "symbol" of oppression of women. It's a symbol of support of radical Islamist beliefs. Yes. if someone "chooses" to wear it, that is most definitely a choice they can make. My issue is that we do not have to respect that choice. We do not have to cater to it, we do not have to kowtow to it, we do not have to buy into the lie that it is harmless and about "women's choice of dress." It's NONE of those things. It is a public show of support for radical islam. I have no problem being vocal about it, the same as I would be vocal about someone who "chooses" to wear a KKK hood or a Nazi swastika t-shirt. They are all 3 - exactly the same.

1500 years of Islam attacking the West proves my point. History is on my side. Ataturk's era is over. I never said ban anything...nice strawman.

No difference...radical Islam would suck on the moon too.

Those are brave women indeed in defiance of rigid rules set by the theocratic regime. They ate risking their lives to earn the freedom they deserve.

Yes I see bigotry. YOURS. You are as bad as hateful ISIS who hate other believers but on opposite side. The article was about democracy and appreciation of bravery, but you just mud it up with your statement. If you make wearing hijab illegal then you are as bad as those who make it mandatory. Because that makes you against freedom of choice and women's rights. An A-hole.

Islam just has the distinction of SUCKING THE MOST out of the three desert cults. Violent, oppressive, bigoted...plus a few I've surly missed. We should be making Moon bases...not kissing butt to the 7th century. Yet here we are...

Outright lie. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007665

Oh look all of a sudden who wants the thread to be on topic. Pathetic. The ole Kactus to Marcus to Eye hand off. Just like watching the Super Bowl except we have no half backs, just half asses.

The above shows how Marcus is completely dettached from reality to the point he spews absolute dribble. Why would he try to pretend there were no regimes in Egypt, Syria, Iraq for example, that have had power and supported Hitler? Why would he pretend that "Arabs" have not been ruthless to their own people in their nations. What type of individual would come on this forum and pretend Arab regimes have not been self ruled and have engaged in ruthless behaviour against their own citizens? What the phack does he think has transpired in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq? What a pathetic attempt to lie and distort history. Who was Muhammed Ghaddafi, Gamel Adnel Nasser, Saadam Hussein? What dimension does Marcus come from? Who Marcus know anything about the civil wars in Lebanon, or the genocide of Yazidi or Kurds? Who Marcus? Oh hell Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, they don't exist and their human rights abuses-poof begone.

Well, sadly, they're not going to get any support from Canada or the West. In Canada, the hijab is a completely innocent article of clothing, viewed as nothing more than an exotic and beautiful cultural/religious garment with no harmful effect on women and girls.

Oh there’s plenty to whine about 1953.... But that’s another discussion and nothing to do with this this thread.

It's possible that the Arabs may have been ruthless and genocidal in their behaviour had they had the power. This still does not excuse the colonization of Palestinians by Europe and the ruthless, racist and discriminatory behaviour of Israelis towards the Palestinians. Europeans are the ones who are responsible for the holocaust. They should have dealt with finding a homeland for the Jews.

Pretty much a cross between Mad Magazine and the National Enquirer near as I can tell.

"It's wrong when Jews do it." ™

If the Arabs had the military power which they don't they would have invaded and captured Israel and likely with no mercy for the population with likely millions killed and raped. They have shown this behaviour in the past and the hate is so strong against Israelis that they will very likely do it now even with all these so called international laws. geez they don't even have mecy for their own. Look at them what they are doing to their own in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, ......!!!.

A must read by Anthony Furey of the Toronto Sun. http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/furey-pc-insiders-tried-to-keep-ford-out-and-now-hes-storming-the-barricades

Trump's political opponents and critics have already screwed up their most important opportunity to stop him, including members of his own party. Hillary Clinton and Democrats failed to win the presidential election against the "likes of" a Donald Trump, capping a long series of Obama inspired political failures that resulted in the loss of the House, Senate, and many state level offices. The very idea of Donald Trump giving the state of the union address to Congress is now the unfathomable reality that confronts people who refused to even consider the possibility of Trump's presidency, so detached were they from the American body politic while immersed in their own "social justice" echo chambers. Each passing day of President Trump's tenure is another day that they said he would never, ever have.

You have to realize that social justice warriors, while they have a deep and almost sycophantic respect for most religions, loath Christianity, everything about it, and everyone who believes in it. So if this pisses you off, that's fine with them. In fact, the more ways they can find to express their disdain and contempt for practicing Christians the happier they are.

The problem with JT on this issue is he made the organization declare their view on Reproductive Rights. That's pretty invasive questioning. You could ask if the grant is for anything that involves protesting reproductive rights and deny based on that. But if an organization is looking to do good charitable work, their views on Abortion is irrelevant. But this is more evidence that JT can't really stomach any opposing views ever.

Your trying to turn the table on me to be obliged to prove something to you when it is you here who is making the claims. IF you trust the Big Bang theory BASED ON AUTHORITY, then should you also NOT trust the majority of the scientific community to at least doubt any SPECIFIC religious beliefs without proof? That is, you are using a method of attack that falsely grants credit by others who do NOT believe that science 'supports' a religious belief by default. How would you like it if I used some quote you said as some authority to support atheism as though YOU believed it? This is appropriating another's words in contexts that is false. If you credit Einstein, for instance, as some trustworthy source for science, he also does NOT support YOUR beliefs and so either you should take his advise or stop using him as though he's a scientist in support of your belief. [On Steady State, Einstein held firm on this and opted out of the debate to attend to another one more relevant at the time. See this article that summarizes this: New Discovery Reveals Einstein Tried To Devise A Steady State Model Of The Universe. Personally, this 'discovery' is NOT new. It is just a disappointing view by those supporting Big Bang. If you want to debate this we can use some other thread. I don't know if Michael would be concerned about this here or not given it is more on the topic of science. But it does have a lot of political significance which defines what we call the 'end' of the era known as "modernity". After the 1960's, we adopted a "post-modernist" view which IS about the abandonment of the old ways of thinking that ended with those like Einstein.] On religion, I asked you why you 'deny' my claim of being your god. Do you not see how this demonstrates that you are selectively choosing when or where you can assert disbelief. Atheism, while it IS a term that comes in an anti-religious culture of the vast majority of the world, it is the state of what a child or even a cat is without being taught anything. While science is something we teach, its enemy is those who 'deny' the practice of treating objective truth as based on one's personal FEELINGS. Religion is based solely on realities that are NOT able to be confirmed NOR denied. One can be atheist AND be agnostic (without knowledge) of what IS the reality while some can also deny it based on some rational arguments (gnostic == knowledge). I DO hold a denial and so am rightfully claiming to also be able to argue against the beliefs in SPECIFIC claims of religion. But this is not necessary. Your welcome to debate with me on these but your claims for this thread is not able to be proven with respect to a scientific support that is UNIQUE. That is why I even mentioned Steady State here. It nor Big Bang speak about whether some god exists BUT supports many religious views. So you are not correct in using a scientific theory to justify anything about your beliefs. "Science" is a word derived from "to see", which is not able to speak of what all people CANNOT agree to 'see' collectively. For your own effort, you'd have to show WHY any particular scientific belief is UNIQUE as a support to your view as well as to how specifically it eliminates alternate religious beliefs UNIQUELY.

So you'd be comfortable giving money to the KKK regardless of their "core mandate"?

China's human rights situation is better than North Korea's, and that's about it. It's a bottom of the barrel country in terms of human rights.

Yup, just more of blacks killing blacks. Is that all they seem to be good at? Just wondering.