naomiglover

Just like some Christians would disagree that killing doctors is bad or many other groups who express stupid behaviour and then group themselves under a certain religion. This jbg person sounds like a real gem. "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" - Laughing.

Those who will try to find any chance to chastise 'the other party' to promote their bigotry seem to want to make it an issue.

I have no problem sharing this planet with you.

You mentioned the Muslim Canadian Congress. Maybe you should look into whether they have spoken out before announcing that they haven't spoken out: http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/articles.html#terror

Looks like for you, the only options you see is to kiss one ass or the other.

I wonder if our Chief will pay a visit to Gaza to see what a great job Israel's military has done. He seems to already be praising Israel but he says he will hold his judgment until he reads the report? What's with politicians kissing Israel's ass?

Exports: $79 million f.o.b. (2002 est.) according to CIA ~$265 million according to IMF [35] Exports - commodities: livestock, bananas, hides, fish, charcoal, scrap metal Exports - partners: UAE 37.2%, Yemen 22.3%, Oman 10.1%, China 6%, Kuwait 4.4%, Nigeria 4% (2003) Imports: $344 million f.o.b. (2002 est.) Imports - commodities: manufactures, petroleum products, foodstuffs, construction materials, khat Imports - partners: Djibouti 33.9%, Kenya 15.5%, Brazil 6.6%, UAE 5.1%, Thailand 4.2% (2003) - Wikipedia

I just did a google search and came up with this: http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&...106722b7fae5837 So it looks like many Muslims do speak out against terrorism and other crimes. American Woman is correct to say that those with extremist religious views are not going to listen to or care for what the moderates have to say. Whether you are Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

Here is Jon Stewart's take on CNN's factcheck: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily...des/#clip223012

I agree. So how can they be stopped? Should we and can we turn away and let it play out? There is very little trade between Somalia and western countries, so boycotting and sanctions would be pointless.

How responsible are other Muslims when it comes to Somalia or even other fundamentalist groups like the Taliban? How much power do other Muslims have? I don't know what the debate is in the Muslim world about Somalia. Do you?

Somalia’s hardline Muslim extremists have ordered women to shake their breasts to determine if they are wearing "un-Islamic" bras. The orders have been carried out at gunpoint by a group called Al Shabaab, who are running the streets of Mogadishu. Women are publicly inspected to see if they have natural firmness or if there is assistance from a bra. The Daily Mail has reported that some women have been publicly whipped for wearing hidden undergarments, with insurgents claiming that it is a "deceptive" act to violate Islam by wearing bras. Al Shabaab is attempting to impose a strict interpretation of Sharia law over all Somalia. They have also been known to whip men caught without a beard. The group has also banned movies, most musical events, dancing at wedding ceremonies and soccer playing. http://story.australianherald.com/index.ph...id/555958/cs/1/ How can we in the west, put pressure to deter such things. How far can we go or should we go to stop them?

Why did you downplay the importance of this amendment? Why do you act like it's not a big issue that 30 senators voted against this amendment? She has not been able to press charges for years. There is a problem. If you don't see it as a problem, then you are making excuses. Have you looked into how long it has taken and what she had to go through to get a hearing? Maybe you should. The first post in this thread was about the 30 senators who voted against the amendment. You downplayed how bizarre it is for these senators to vote against an amendment that would not give contracts to companies who protected employees who rape. Why aren't you unhappy that 30 lawmakers voted against this amendment? It is a big deal.

It took her 3 years to get the right to take any legal action, mostly due to KBR's efforts and the states departments lack of effort to take this case seriously. If there was no 'rape is okay' clause, it wouldn't have taken this long. It will take another few years before she can take them to court. "An examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers. " http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1 So why are you two downplaying this incident like it's not really a problem? KBR has done everything in its power so that Jamie Leigh Jones would not be able to press criminal charges against the rapists. Here is the amendment. Why is it wrong to vote for this amendment? Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Tell me how many of the rapists have received punishment. How many of them are still working at KBR? Like, maybe, not work there anymore? Because it's bad to rape, beat up and imprison people. Right? We still believe that it's wrong?

This can be sugarcoated in many different ways, but what it comes down to is that the contract prevented a rape victim from having any recourse. Are there any other companies that you know of that have such a clause in their contracts? Have the rapists been disciplined by the company?

You've tried to downplay these lawmakers' vote from the beginning. Their vote was against an amendment that would prevent companies, who try to disable employees from receiving the right to take rapers to court, from receiving funds from the federal government. It is a big deal. Anyone who tries to justify their vote or downplay their vote is advocating rape. There should be zero tolerance for such people.

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/ I would like to check to see how much funding each of these legislators receive from KBR and other companies who have "you can't punish company rapers" rules in their contracts. Also, I am convinced that this person, "American Woman" is not a real woman. I have never met any woman who would, in any way, try to justify voting against or try to downplay voting against this amendment. Disturbing.

It is bizarre that 30 senators voted against an amendment that would give rape victims the chance to seek justice. I'm assuming that all KBR employees are subject to U.S. Law: Contractors Working Overseas Subject to U.S. Law Members of the House of Representatives passed legislation making U.S. contractors operating overseas accountable under U.S. law. The bill, passed 389-30 on Thursday, comes after the recent shooting deaths of Iraqi citizens by Blackwater USA, the private security firm hired to protect U.S. State Department officials in Baghdad. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=15027390

An amendment that would ban federal funds going to companies that require arbitration in the case of sexual assault passed the Senate on Tuesday. The amendment was offered by Sen. Al Franken and was added to the defense appropriations bill by a vote of 68 to 30. The amendment was offered after Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of Kellogg, Brown & Root (formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton) was sexually assaulted by her co-workers in Iraq and then locked in a shipping crate when she tried to report the rape. Her return to the United States was facilitated by U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex., but upon her return, she learned that the fine print of her employment contract banned her from taking the case to court. On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken rebutted, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court. 30 senators voted against this amendment. What a bizarre world we live in. http://minnesotaindependent.com/46483/fran...-assault-passes

"Apparently", you can write whatever you want and pass it as an opinion, whether it's misinformation or not. From your own article, in the second paragraph: Libi, a Libyan national and al-Qaeda suspected third in command, railed against China's treatment of the Uighurs, a Turkic Muslim minority group in the country's far west who chafe under Beijing's rule. Uighurs complain of government discrimination, from being frozen out of jobs to having their language and religion suppressed. Those grievances and frustrations seemed to boil over this summer, when ethnic riots city of Urumqi left nearly 200 people, mostly Han Chinese, and were answered by a ruthless state crackdown. The Chinese hope, said Libi, "for [the Uighurs'] demise and destruction so that their numbers would decline and Islamic identity would be dissolved." "Apparently", this is not about the ethnic riots and the crackdowns. This is about Al Quaeda and the Muslim world's hate for capitalism.

You came up with the opinion that Al Queda is threatening China because of capitalism even though the article is about a Muslim minority group, China's dealing with them and Al Queda's response to China's dealing with them. I hear Foxnews is hiring.

So you are basing your 'opinion' on a sentence that does not mention capitalism and you have elected to ignore what the article talks about, which is China's treatment of the Muslim minority and Al Quaeda's reason for threatening China. Your opinion is contrary to facts and even contrary to the article you have posted.

How about the fact that they have stated it's due to the treatment of Muslims in China? How about the fact that they have not mentioned it's because China is practicing capitalism? How about the fact that Finland, Ireland and many other capitalist countries have not been threatened and are not under threat, despite being capitalist? That's enough for me and any person who is interested in reality and not in creating a fearful and hateful world to conclude that your opinion has misinformation in it.

This is what you said in your first post: Seems as China becomes more 'capitalistic,' it's being 'noticed' more by al Qaeda. You're simply wrong for making that statement. The Al Quaeda threat is not due to capitalism. It's due to the treatment of Muslims in China.