Islamophobia in Canada

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think sympathy for the oppressed is a virtue, not a problem. 

What are you replying to?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What are you replying to?

Sorry, I should have quoted. I'm on a tablet and I can't see a page back. I think it was the first sentence of your post above mine. If it wasn't I'll correct myself with an edit. 

 

Edit> First and second sentences.  

Edited October 5, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think sympathy for the oppressed is a virtue, not a problem. 

Only if one assumes that every woman dressed like that doesn't want to be.  

Although I guess handing her a hand fan in 90 degree weather might be practical regardless of whether its her choice or duress. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Only if one assumes that every woman dressed like that doesn't want to be.  

Although I guess handing her a hand fan in 90 degree weather might be practical regardless of whether its her choice or duress. 

And one assesses the reasons why any that do want to be, do want to be. 

Thats not possible though, so I make educated assumptions. 

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not if the person listening hears something completely different.

 

Too bad for you it was LITERALLY what you said.

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think sympathy for the oppressed is a virtue, not a problem. 

Then why don't you ever show any sympathy for the oppressed?

[bush_cheney2004]

These oppressed sympathize for each other with car bombs.

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

These oppressed sympathize for each other with car bombs.

Isn't that what they used at Khobar Towers? Are these weapons worse than US phosphorus bombs, US napalming villagers, US planning genocide against the Iraqi people, the US murdering tens of millions with all their wild evil destructive imaginations? 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Then why don't you ever show any sympathy for the oppressed?

I do.  Do you want me to telegraph you or something.  Semaphore?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Isn't that what they used at Khobar Towers?

 

Sympathy is expressed many ways....Islamists love car bombs.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I do.  Do you want me to telegraph you or something.  Semaphore?

You glorify the oppressed being brutalized by the illegal and immoral actions of the US/UK/... and to suggest that you don't is ludicrous. You are silent about the US/UK genocides.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sympathy is expressed many ways....Islamists love car bombs.

The US would love car bombs if they weren't so inefficient but the US loves its myriad weapons of death just as you also love these myriad weapons of death. Hypocrites shouldn't be pointing fingers.

[Guest]

Just now, hot enough said:

You glorify the oppressed being brutalized by the illegal and immoral actions of the US/UK/... and to suggest that you don't is ludicrous. You are silent about the US/UK genocides.

To suggest you have an opinion that isn't influenced 100% by rabid xenophobia is also ludicrous.  I guess we both have our problems.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ask any car why they fear Muslims....car bombs !

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

To suggest you have an opinion that isn't influenced 100% by rabid xenophobia is also ludicrous.  I guess we both have our problems.

Ludicrous. And you know it because you don't even deny it.

You defend the equals of Nazi Germany. That is solely your problem. 

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Ask any car why they fear Muslims....car bombs !

That's really funny. Half a million children under five years of age murdered by the US/UK in a planned US genocide and you make corny jokes. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, hot enough said:

That's really funny. Half a million children under five years of age murdered by the US/UK in a planned US genocide and you make corny jokes. 

 

Bull puckey...more Muslim children and adults have been killed by "sympathetic" Islamists.

No wonder they have Islamophobia.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Bull puckey...more Muslim children and adults have been killed by "sympathetic" Islamists.

 

Another B_C evidence free posting.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

Using your reasoning, in your world  a bunch of fundamentalist head to toe covered  Muslim women  sitting in the same room with feminist non Muslim women will soon be talking about their babies and grandkids and then men. You know because you know women.

Drum was dead on. What you said was juvenile sexist shit.

You don't' speak for me or any man I know. In my world women fight terrorists and don't sit around with other women laying eggs and they sure as hell don't support fundamentalist religious doctrine and your definition of them as all being domestic hens.

Man I would give you less than 10 seconds before you'd be spitting your balls our your nose saying what you did to some women I know..

You have no clue what a woman will do to defend her family, friends and comrades  from terrorism or for that matter when they engage in terrorism, that much is obvious.

What is also obvious is you reference women like some asswipe little Prince who grew up in a sheltered world of clucking hens who doted over every word you said..

You are deluded . In the real world,  when those women get together, if they do reference you its to compare you  to the hemmeroids they have.

 

 

 

 

Good points, I find it rather ironic that some of these leftists openly defend a culture that gives a Muslim man the right to treat women as if they are mere chattle, to be controlled, covered, beaten when necessary, and even give support to the opinion that women are simple-minded passive creatures having no strong views on politics or human rights. The inconsistency of these views baffles me.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Another B_C evidence free posting.

Which genocide are you talking about in particular?  A cursory search for information on the one I assume you're talking about reveals a 2017 study which discusses the issue.

Abstract

In August 1990, Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait and consequently the United Nations imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. In 1991, an international military alliance expelled the Iraqi army from Kuwait during a short war. Nevertheless, the economic sanctions remained in place—their removal required that Iraq should destroy its weapons of mass destruction. Subsequent years saw reports of acute suffering in Iraq. The sanctions undoubtedly greatly reduced the country’s ability to import supplies of food and medicine. Particular concerns arose about the state of young children. These concerns crystalised in 1999 when, with cooperation from the Iraqi government, Unicef conducted a major demographic survey. The results of the survey indicated that the under-5 death rate in Iraq had increased hugely between 1990 and 1991 and had then continued at a very high level. The survey results were used both to challenge and support the case for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And they were cited by Tony Blair in 2010 in his testimony to the Iraq Inquiry established by the British government. Indeed, the results of the 1999 Unicef/Government of Iraq survey are still cited. Since 2003, however, several more surveys dealing with child mortality have been undertaken. Their results show no sign of a huge and enduring rise in the under-5 death rate starting in 1991. It is therefore clear that Saddam Hussein’s government successfully manipulated the 1999 survey in order to convey a very false impression—something that is surely deserving of greater recognition.

http://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000311

[OftenWrong]

 

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

I don"t like those either and feel uncomfortable seeing a woman dressed like that.  But that is my problem, not hers.   Her problem is different and varies.  If its her choice to dress like that, facing the disapproval and sometimes physical hostility  of the wider public.  If she is coerced into wearing it through family pressure, its facing their disapproval and sometimes physical hostility if refuses.   I would say her problems are bigger than mine.

And I would say that you have abandoned her. Everyone wants a piece of her, family, public. The problem goes away on both sides if the family stops forcing their women to dress that way, or more importantly stops treating them as if they have no right to their own self determination. The only way to make that happen is to change their culture. I used to think they had the right to wear whatever and didn't care either, but my opinion changed over time. I support the idea of banning this symbol of oppression.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I used to think they had the right to wear whatever and didn't care either, but my opinion changed over time. I support the idea of banning this symbol of oppression.

That's only because it fits right in with the current right wing culture that screams terrorist terrorist just like the old goofy right wing culture that screamed commie commie. Your hypocrisy is highlighted, just as it is for all the other "people who care so deeply " because you have never complained about Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, ... . 

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That's only because it fits right in with the current right wing culture that screams terrorist terrorist just like the old goofy right wing culture that screamed commie commie. Your hypocrisy is highlighted, just as it is for all the other "people who care so deeply " because you have never complained about Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, ... . 

What I said was not even about terrorism. Your point about Amish etc. is not a bad one, since they also dress very modestly but that is not my concern either. If the cultural examples you give believe they have a god-given right to beat their women then they are included in my criticism.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

 

And I would say that you have abandoned her. Everyone wants a piece of her, family, public. The problem goes away on both sides if the family stops forcing their women to dress that way, or more importantly stops treating them as if they have no right to their own self determination. The only way to make that happen is to change their culture. I used to think they had the right to wear whatever and didn't care either, but my opinion changed over time. I support the idea of banning this symbol of oppression.

Sure, let's ban this symbol of oppression; for the women who wear it by choice, they can decide not to wear it, no problem.  Or if they decide.to stay home, well I might think that's dumb ... but their choice.

But what are you going to do about the women whose family says ... No burka, no leaving the house?   

One of the most effective methods an abuser has to control his victim is to isolate her.  Isolating her keeps her from seeking help and this would be even more effective for a woman who is not familiar with Canadian culture. With a burka ban, the woman most in need of exposure to Canadian culture, its freedoms and its resources are denied that if they can't leave their house.

People who think banning the burka is helping oppressed women fail to realize they are simply adding another layer of oppression.  Banning the burka will just make the most oppressed women invisible and quite literally trapped at home.  But I suppose banning a "symbol" of oppression is easy and when all the burkas disappear, along with the women who wear them, people can tell themselves they've accomplished something.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

But what are you going to do about the women whose family says ... No burka, no leaving the house?   

 

Put the family in jail for kidnapping...?