Jump to content

Women Who Cover Their Faces Shouldn't Be accepted To Enter Canada!


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, hot enough said:

From the Islamaphobe "scholar".  See above.

 

'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals

 

Oy you are painful. Your words are like hemmeroids.Sit. How do I break this to you. The archaic references to anger and violence in the Bible are plentiful. The point is they are not practiced mainstream anymore while the ones in the Koran are. Zip again over your head. Next, the study you quote is seriously flawed. It was based on a literal translation of the Bible. Not all verses in the Bible that would appear to be violent by surface reading are. Same with the Koran or any other book. To determine the content of a verse one must understand its full context and not read it literally out of context as your study did. Cleary Theology is not your forte, quoting simplistic pop media is.

All religious books contain questionable wording. The very verses in the Bible uou think you understand have over the years been updated.The whole point of the Talmud was to have created a continuous debating system to challenge and continually update the meaning of the verses in the Old Testament. Judaism is a fluid religion. Its not fixed. Your study did not understand that or consider it or the modern translations and reinterpretations of the Bible from continiuing Talmud studies

So no we Jews don't stone gays anymore. No we don't say deaf people can't get married because they can't hear the vows anymore. They are no longer practiced. They remain for historical reference only. Zip over your head. In fact most violent passages of the Koran have nt been reinterpreted yet by mainstream Islam. If it ever evolved through critical analysis to do that it might then evolve into a peaceful religion.

\No I will not get buried in cloth as traditional lessons say. Moden laws won't allow that. You can't dump a body outside a coffin in cloth in the ground as the Bible says and no we Jews don't do that anymore. In fact I will donate my non diseased parts and cremate the rest although if I had my way I would feed myself to the vultures. Sorry Bible scholar, modern Jews and Christians don't follow those old passages anymore, the majority of Muslims still do follow their Koran without questioning it. Their Reformist Progressives are much more of a minority-the point again is and you can't grasp it, the fact that all holy books have questionable passages that can be read literally is not the issue. That is a fact.  No one has said otherwise. Its you failing to grap the issues yet again. The people using those books using them to  engage in extremist fundamental values are the issue. You keep trying to argue if Jews and Christians wrote violent passages this makes Islamic ones equally as valid. No it doesn't make any of them valid if they are used to practice violence.

" that boy fears all concepts he can't grasp as kites without strings..maybe if he didn't blow such hot air they wouldn't keep flying over his head..."

Rue 1567

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rue said:

The point is they are not practiced mainstream anymore while the ones in the Koran are.

If you were honest enough to look at the US terrorism/torture/war crimes past and recent past, you would know that is false.

Nicaragua: I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

... 

And you can go and read from these things, classic CIA operations that we know about, some of them very bloody indeed. Guatemala 1954, Brazil, Guyana, Chile, the Congo, Iran, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Equador, Uruguay - the CIA organized the overthrow of constitutional democracies. Read the book Covert Action: 35 years of Deception by the journalist Godswood. [6]

Remember the Henry Kissinger quote before the Congress when he was being grilled to explain what they had done to overthrow the democratic government in Chile, in which the President, Salvador Allende had been killed. And he said, `The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves'.

We had covert actions against China, very much like what we're doing against Nicaragua today, that led us directly into the Korean war, where we fought China in Korea. We had a long covert action in Vietnam, very much like the one that we're running in Nicaragua today, that tracked us directly into the Vietnam war. Read the book, The Hidden History of the Korean War by I. F. Stone. [14] Read Deadly Deceits by Ralph McGehee [9] for the Vietnam story. In Thailand, the Congo, Laos, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Honduras, the CIA put together large standing armies. In Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, the Congo, Iran, Nicaragua, and Sri Lanka, the CIA armed and encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up and fight. The first thing we began doing in Nicaragua, 1981 was to fund an element of the Mesquite indians, to give them money and training and arms, so they could rise up and fight against the government in Managua. In El Salvador, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Uganda and the Congo, the CIA helped form and train the death
squads.

In El Salvador specifically, under the `Alliance for Progress' in the early 1960's, the CIA helped put together the treasury police. These are the people that haul people out at night today, and run trucks over their heads. These are the people that the Catholic church tells us, have killed something over 50,000 civilians in the last 5 years. And we have testimony before our Congress that as late as 1982, leaders of the treasury police were still on the CIA payroll.

Then you have the `Public Safety Program.' I have to take just a minute on this one because it's a very important principle involved that we must understand, if we're to understand ourselves and the world that we live in. In this one, the CIA was working with policeforces throughout Latin America for about 26 years, teaching them how to wrap up subversive networks by capturing someone and interrogating them, torturing them, and then getting names and arresting the others and going from there. Now, this was such a brutal and such a bloody operation, that Amnesty International began to complain and publish reports. Then there were United Nations hearings. Then eventually our Congress was forced to yield to international pressure and investigate it, and they found the horror that was being done, and by law they forced it to stop. You can read these reports -- the Amnesty International findings, and our own Congressional hearings.

These things kill people. 800,000 in Indonesia alone according to CIA's estimate, 12,000 in Nicaragua, 10,000 in the Angolan operation that I was sitting on in Washington, managing the task force. They add up. We'll never know how many people have been killed in them. Obviously a lot. Obviously at least a million. 800,000 in Indonesia alone. Undoubtedly the minimum figure has to be 3 million. Then you add in a million people killed in Korea, 2 million people killed in the Vietnam war, and you're obviously getting into gross millions of people...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot Enough I can't help you. This is a debate on religious extremism practiced mainstream that leads to extremist and terrorism and may prove problematic in democratic societies. You clearly don't grasp the topic. You present Old Testament passages as if they validate terrorism. Now you present presumably American political foreign policy decisions you depict as violent. And? How if they are true, does that legitimize or validate Muslim fundamentalist extremism or any other religion's extremism? The issue is do we want any symbols of religious intolerance and extremism  being accepted in Canada as mainstream harmless moderate behaviour. That was and remains the issue you can't grasp..

At best even if what you said is an illustration of violent foreign policy, how is that religious-how is that a religious practice of mainstream people?

How does questionable foreign policy  justify archaic sexual practices?

Do you even understand the issue?

No alleged US foreign policy as you present it would not justify demanding women turn into a bag of potatoes.

 

"I have no idea what he calls them French fries, he's never heard them speak French "

Rue 1999

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2017 at 5:16 AM, Rue said:

Hot Enough I can't help you. This is a debate on religious extremism practiced mainstream that leads to extremist and terrorism and may prove problematic in democratic societies. You clearly don't grasp the topic.

You can't help yourself, Rue, so there is zero likelihood of you helping anyone else.

Quote

You present Old Testament passages as if they validate terrorism.

I had to go back to see what deception you were trying to pull off. That response was to DoP's terrible "scholarship".

Dop uses the Koran to justify Islamaphobia. And you and a lot more jump on the bandwagon. That anyone can be so willfully blind to the real reasons that western nations are receiving CIA promised "blowback" is stunning in its audacity.

You "saints" were not doing this dog and pony show until the US government pulled off another of its famous false flag events to create for themselves a new boogeyman. And just like all good dupes, out came the Islamaphobes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2017 at 5:16 AM, Rue said:

Now you present presumably American political foreign policy decisions you depict as violent. And? How if they are true, does that legitimize or validate Muslim fundamentalist extremism or any other religion's extremism? The issue is do we want any symbols of religious intolerance and extremism  being accepted in Canada as mainstream harmless moderate behaviour. That was and remains the issue you can't grasp..

At best even if what you said is an illustration of violent foreign policy, how is that religious-how is that a religious practice of mainstream people?

How does questionable foreign policy  justify archaic sexual practices?

Do you even understand the issue?

No alleged US foreign policy as you present it would not justify demanding women turn into a bag of potatoes.

You obviously have no grasp of the concept of personal freedom. You, and yours, are trying to describe things for others that you have long tolerated in many sectors of Canadian society. You and yours have not spoken out against the missing and murdered First Nations women because they don't even appear on your radar screen. 

You and yours speak out now, for, as you described, irrational fears about terrorism for you poor poor Canadians who have been supporting terrorism like you will never see against myriad peoples around the world.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

You can't help yourself, Rue, so there is zero likelihood of you helping anyone else.

I had to go back to see what deception you were trying to pull off. That response was to DoP's terrible "scholarship".

Dop uses the Koran to justify Islamaphobia. And you and a lot more jump on the bandwagon. That anyone can be so willfully blind to the real reasons that western nations are receiving CIA promised "blowback" is stunning in its audacity.

You "saints" were not doing this dog and pony show until the US government pulled off another of its famous false flag events to create for themselves a new boogeyman. And just like all good dupes, out came the Islamaphobes.

That was completely incoherent even for you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

You obviously have no grasp of the concept of personal freedom. You, and yours, are trying to describe things for others that you have long tolerated in many sectors of Canadian society. You and yours have not spoken out against the missing and murdered First Nations women because they don't even appear on your radar screen. 

You and yours speak out now, for, as you described, irrational fears about terrorism for you poor poor Canadians who have been supporting terrorism like you will never see against myriad peoples around the world.

 

 

Again you provide incoherent babblings. Who is "you and yours"? How is it personal freedom when a man forces a woman to be submissive to him?  What have I tolerated in many sectors of Canadian society?  How do you know myself and this reference you smeer me to, "you and yours"  don't care or have not spoken about First Nation women? Since when do you presume to know what I have said and think let alone know and have heard what "you and yours" have stated let alone think.  How the phack do you know what I do for a living and what I have done with my life and what I have witnessed in my life? You engage in juvenile accusations and stereotypes  smeering me and whoever this "you and yours"  is because you assume anyone who does not agree with you thinks identically the same way and has the same views that you can then mock.

You create this artificial boogy man called " you and yours", attach me to this boogy man and then project on me and "you and yours" incoherent smeers. You clearly are psychic because you have never spoken to any of "us".

You now accuse me and "you and yours"  of fearing Islam  because presumably they or I do not approve of symbols that depict women as inferior to men and in need of being covered up. You also repeat this naive assumption that Muslim  women who cover their faces do so as an act of personal freedom.

Tell me where do you get off speaking for the millions of Muslim women who do NOT choose their coverings and have no personal freedom and have it forced on them? How is it logical to see you support personal freedom to choose to be a slave? How is that a personl freedom choice to put on chains?

 Where do you get off claiming this on behalf of Muslim women? 

The fact is you have never been to a Muslim country. You live in a privileged sheltered bubble and  presume to tell Muslim women what personal freedom is let alone me what terrorism is. You are yet another privileged sheltered soft boy presuming to tell others what terrorism is. You've never seen it, you've never smelled it but hey why let that stop you.

 

You haven't a bloody clue what women live with in the Muslim world having acid thrown in their faces, the honour killings, the beatings, the rape by their own relatives. You know phack all about it.. You've never lived with it and yet now you presume to lecture me about what it is  let alone terrorism let alone Muslim terrorism.

You need to be placed in a Muslim  society.

I have lived with and witnessed first hand what it is like to live in a Muslim society. I have worked side by side Muslim social workers, lawyers, doctors, teachers. Sorry to burst your bubble, I do not hate them and they do not hate me and we'v e looked the same demons in the face. You don't walk in my shoes or theirs. You are a left wing bubble boy posing as an ally of them. You aren't.. You don't have the humility to stop stereotyping Muslims  or Native Women the way you do as imagined leftist allies in your make believe world where you in fact call challenging Muslim fascism a phobia. You don't speak for Native Women. You speak for yourself. Native women, Muslim women, you haven't a clue what they live with and now you presume to tell me you know what they do and you'll throw it at me to pose as being morally superior to me? Lol.

What a joke.

People like me once we witness such things don't fear. You don't get it because your hands are soft dude.

 We look the demon in the eye which is man made, and say that demon is just men-men phack it up, , men can fix it.

Its that simple and yet that complex.

In this world of man made chaos  your purile stereotypes of good and bad guys don't exist-there' just men killing each other for the same reasons. You can't grasp it because you live in Mama's basement.

Stay in the bubble son. You'd die if you left. You couldn't handle the smell let alone the reality.

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rue said:

 How is it personal freedom when a man forces a woman to be submissive to him? 

 Where do you get off claiming this on behalf of Muslim women? 

You haven't a bloody clue what women live with in the Muslim world having acid thrown in their faces, the honour killings, the beatings, the rape by their own relatives. You know phack all about it.. You've never lived with it and yet now you presume to lecture me about what it is  let alone terrorism let alone Muslim terrorism.

 

Hear hear. We must support women's movements for equal rights and freedom all over the world especially in Middle East where they are suppressed the most. Well made statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Hear hear. We must support women's movements for equal rights and freedom all over the world especially in Middle East where they are suppressed the most. Well made statements.

Thanks but I don't  presume to speak for women just me. I speak from working in the legal system. I just have seen crap. I witness what women and men and kids have gone through. I don't presume to speak for anyone but me but  just I get so damn frustrated Citizen with bubble boys I call them.. I wish they knew what they were embracing. Also you know me well enough from past points I don't walk up to Muslim women who genuinely choose to wear certain clothes and berate them.. I express a personal opinion about the total cover up just as I do about say my own religion's orthodox  beliefs about women.. Doesn't mean I fear it.. I challenge it but I have defended the right of Christians to be conservative and fundamentalist on this forum when attacked as well. I just think our religious beliefs should be challenged.

Now we have some clearly angry man in London who seems to have engaged in a copy cat pay back type attack on Muslims coming out of  a Mosque. It never ends. Interestingly the press is quickly pointing out the attacker is  "white" not say "Christian" or "Jewish" -which is a subconscious slip-its part of portraying Muslims as non white-and they already have him down as a terrorist without knowing the full facts. He appears to be an idiot not a terrorist. Whether he was sent by any terrorist group remains to be seen but the press these days they slot Muslims, whites, anyone in simplistic stereotypes to sell quick 10 second sound bites..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hot enough said:

You can't help yourself, Rue. You support Dop and the gang.

Not really.  Rue is clear that he dislikes terrorism (who doesn't?) and holds those who engage in terrorism responsible, he dislikes the more fundamental aspects of Islam which essentially results in the oppression of women, but he applies the same standard against all groups and doesn't assume every Muslim is an incipient terrorist or automatic barbarian.  I don't agree with Rue 100%, but he's definitely one of the more reasonable and balanced on this site.   

Might I suggest that instead of flailing around looking to argue, you could stop and read what people are saying a bit more carefully.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not really.  Rue is clear that he dislikes terrorism (who doesn't?) and holds those who engage in terrorism responsible, he dislikes the more fundamental aspects of Islam which essentially results in the oppression of women, but he applies the same standard against all groups and doesn't assume every Muslim is an incipient terrorist or automatic barbarian.  I don't agree with Rue 100%, but he's definitely one of the more reasonable and balanced on this site.   

Might I suggest that instead of flailing around looking to argue, you could stop and read what people are saying a bit more carefully.

 

Jesus Christ, dialamah, you said you have me on ignore. How can one trust such people?

Rue doesn't hold the biggest terrorists in the world responsible and neither do you. If I remember correctly you too don't believe that the US/western nations are guilty of terrorism. 

Rue lies on 911 and when he was called on it he refused to address it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Jesus Christ, dialamah, you said you have me on ignore. How can one trust such people?

Rue doesn't hold the biggest terrorists in the world responsible and neither do you. If I remember correctly you too don't believe that the US/western nations are guilty of terrorism. 

Rue lies on 911 and when he was called on it he refused to address it. 

Actually, one can choose to view an individual post by someone one has on ignore, if one chooses.  

You can still be on ignore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Jesus Christ, dialamah, you said you have me on ignore. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Actually, one can choose to view an individual post by someone one has on ignore, if one chooses.  

You can still be on ignore

 

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How can one trust such people?

Why would you expect to trust a stranger on the internet?   Unless of course they were promoting bizarre conspiracy theories.

34 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Rue doesn't hold the biggest terrorists in the world responsible and neither do you. If I remember correctly you too don't believe that the US/western nations are guilty of terrorism. 

You remember incorrectly.  

35 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Rue lies on 911 and when he was called on it he refused to address it.

You claim that about everyone who doesn't believe what you want them to believe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why would you expect to trust a stranger on the internet?   Unless of course they were promoting bizarre conspiracy theories.

MLW believes that people should be trustworthy and act like adults in discussions. It's particularly disingenuous to accuse someone of " promoting bizarre conspiracy theories" when you don't even extend the courtesy of listening and discussing that. The US government conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. The only difference is that the US theory has holes as big as tanks. 

Two questions no one will answer: 

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

Why do you think no one will answer those questions? 

Answer in the appropriate thread.

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:
50 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Rue doesn't hold the biggest terrorists in the world responsible and neither do you. If I remember correctly you too don't believe that the US/western nations are guilty of terrorism. 

You remember incorrectly.  

Are you speaking for both of you? As regards you, I apologise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:
52 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Rue lies on 911 and when he was called on it he refused to address it.

You claim that about everyone who doesn't believe what you want them to believe.

Rue was called specifically on some false things he had said and he failed to address them. You are doing the same thing here now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Rue was called specifically on some false things he had said and he failed to address them. You are doing the same thing here now. 

Why don't you just start a thread about 9-11 and post your conspiracy Steve Jones nonsense on there, and quit bringing it into threads that have nothing to do with your infatuation. We'd all be thankful I expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Why don't you just start a thread about 9-11 and post your conspiracy Steve Jones nonsense on there, and quit bringing it into threads that have nothing to do with your infatuation. We'd all be thankful I expect.

I know that you will do anything to avoid that issue because you are frightened, but if you will note, in this exchange between you and me, you are the only one who mentions the "dreaded issue". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I know that you will do anything to avoid that issue because you are frightened, but if you will note, in this exchange between you and me, you are the only one who mentions the "dreaded issue". 

Oh I'll quite happily engage your 9-11 thread, but others who want to talk about other issues would probably prefer you not interfering with your endless derailing their threads.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...