Islamic compounds in U.S.A Training for Jihad

Smellyman

Michigan Christian Militia group. Woot!

dancepartner

What would be interesting to know: 1) how many military compounds (NOT funded by our taxes) reside within US borders? 2) how many (cumulatively) does this consist of -- individual comrads?

aerial

Smellyman wrote:

Michigan Christian Militia group. Woot!

Michigan militia members acquitted of conspiracy; leader faces lesser charges


The defendants all faced a maximum sentence of life in prison.

But in a trial that began in early February, federal district Judge Victoria Roberts said she did not find that the government's evidence sufficiently proved that the Hutaree militia had planned a conspiracy against the government.

"The Government's case is built largely of circumstantial evidence," Roberts explained Tuesday in her 28-page ruling. "While this evidence could certainly lead a rational fact finder to conclude that 'something fishy' was going on, it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants reached a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the United States Government."

"Pick a sentence here, pick a sentence there -- the (remarks were) taken out of context," a defense attorney for one of the cleared militia members said. "We always said it was a First Amendment and Second Amendment case, and that's what it ended up being," added attorney Michael Rataj, whose client, Tina Stone, is the wife of the elder Stone.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-28/justice/justice_michigan-militia-trial_1_judge-victoria-roberts-hutaree-militia-thomas-piatek?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Smellyman

aerial wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

Michigan Christian Militia group. Woot!

Michigan militia members acquitted of conspiracy; leader faces lesser charges


The defendants all faced a maximum sentence of life in prison.

But in a trial that began in early February, federal district Judge Victoria Roberts said she did not find that the government's evidence sufficiently proved that the Hutaree militia had planned a conspiracy against the government.

"The Government's case is built largely of circumstantial evidence," Roberts explained Tuesday in her 28-page ruling. "While this evidence could certainly lead a rational fact finder to conclude that 'something fishy' was going on, it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants reached a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the United States Government."

"Pick a sentence here, pick a sentence there -- the (remarks were) taken out of context," a defense attorney for one of the cleared militia members said. "We always said it was a First Amendment and Second Amendment case, and that's what it ended up being," added attorney Michael Rataj, whose client, Tina Stone, is the wife of the elder Stone.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-28/justice/justice_michigan-militia-trial_1_judge-victoria-roberts-hutaree-militia-thomas-piatek?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Well duh. You can own guns. Threaten to overtrow the government. etc.


so what are we talking about again?

aerial

familiar with Steven Coughlin?.......Eric Allen Bell?

Smellyman

aerial wrote:

familiar with Steven Coughlin?.......Eric Allen Bell?

renowned Islamaphobe Stephen Coughlin?

Can you post one of your chain letters for me?

aerial

Smellyman wrote:

aerial wrote:

familiar with Steven Coughlin?.......Eric Allen Bell?

renowned Islamaphobe Stephen Coughlin?

Can you post one of your chain letters for me?

I look at my email once every 3 months, maybe........did you check out the video? can you say it is not True? Just shouting Racist, or Islamaphobe is not facts.

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

If you are not familiar with Steven Coughlin, this man has incredible insight into the very real threat of Jihad. He was one of the very top counter terrorism experts inside the US Government. But when he started saying that Islamic terrorism followed Islamic scripture, you can probably guess what happened. He was let go. Listen to what he has to say here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKemdGeYfrA&feature=channel&list=UL

This guy was an analyst for military intelligence, that's VERY similar in function to the analysis side of the CIA- but just for the army. His lectures are as close to sitting in on a CIA briefing as civilian can get.


Another guy to check out is Eric Allen Bell

Link please. I know you didn't write that.

aerial

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

If you are not familiar with Steven Coughlin, this man has incredible insight into the very real threat of Jihad. He was one of the very top counter terrorism experts inside the US Government. But when he started saying that Islamic terrorism followed Islamic scripture, you can probably guess what happened. He was let go. Listen to what he has to say here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKemdGeYfrA&feature=channel&list=UL

This guy was an analyst for military intelligence, that's VERY similar in function to the analysis side of the CIA- but just for the army. His lectures are as close to sitting in on a CIA briefing as civilian can get.


Another guy to check out is Eric Allen Bell

Link please. I know you didn't write that.

There is a link provided already. I did not write it but it is true. Do a little research.

Edible Arrangements: Muslim Owners of Fruit Basket Company Fund HAMAS, Jihadist Extremism
And here is a little more news how Islam has infiltrated the USA, and using Americans money to fund Terrorism.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/56774/edible-arrangements-muslim-owners-of-fruit-basket-company-fund-hamas-jihadist-extremism-what-not-to-buy-for-christmas/

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

I did not write it but it is true. Do a little research.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/bio/

You call that research?


Debbie Schlussel:

When the Virginia Tech Massacre occurred on April 16, 2007, the police told the press that the shooter was an “Asian male.” Schlussel was quick to tie it to Muslims, saying in that "Pakis are considered ‘Asian,’” and that it could be “part of a co-ordinated terrorist plot by Pakistanis.”[19]

In 2011, Schlussel provoked controversy by her comments after CBS reporter Lara Logan's sexual assault suffered while covering the Egyptian protests. Schlussel stated, "Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this 'revolution' by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about. So sad, too bad, Lara."[20]

After the killing of Osama bin Laden, Schlussel wrote on her blog "1 down, 1.8 billion more to go".[21]

Schlussel wrote about the 2011 Norway attacks that while she doesn't "condone violent massacres on innocent civilians" and condemned their killer, she thought that "I’m not sad for either side... Now these kids’ families know what it feels like to be victims of the Islamic terrorists whose Judenrein boycotts and terrorist flotillas against Israel they support." She also stated, "I don’t get too upset when they face the karma that is their fate."

Schlussel blamed the Polish nation as responsible for the Holocaust: "Poles murdered millions of Jews, they maintained several death camps, and they wiped out almost all of both sides of my family, as well as those in hundreds of thousands of other Jewish families", although there is no evidence to support this. Her commentary, publicised by, among others, the Polish Press Agency, met with wide-scale protests in Poland. Chairman of the Polish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Commission Grzegorz Schetyna called it a "pack of lies".[25] During the 72nd anniversary of the first deportation of inmates to the Auschwitz concentration camp numerous Holocaust survivors referred to Schlussel's commentary as "slanderous" and appealed to the president of Poland Bronisław Komorowski to prosecute Schlussel for the "Auschwitz lie", which is a criminal offence in Poland.[26] In its' daily news release, the Institute of National Remembrance dubbed Schlussel's commentary as "defamatory".[27]

Byrnzie

Aerial, you really need to stop quoting known racists, and hatemongers here on the message board, and regurgitating their bile.

It's not cool, and it's definitely not clever.

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

Do a little research.

O.k.

Let's learn a bit more about the woman who you appear to be getting all of your 'information' from:



http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/meet-debb ... -them.html

Meet Debbie Schlussel, who says Norway’s ‘HAMAS Youth’ got what was coming to them
by Paul Mutter on August 5, 2011

One of Pamela Geller's cohorts, Debbie Schlussel, has explicitly stated that those killed at Utoya got what was coming to them because they were "HAMAS Youth" and (at the same time) "Fatah PLO" terrorists.

Schlussel may not be as well-known as Geller (perhaps because Schlussel has not exercised a leading role in anything as prominent as the "Ground Zero Mosque" furor), but she is a politically active Republican and more mainstream than Geller because she is also a culture writer with a strong media presence. (Not that she separates this work from her anti-Islamic campaign - she has criticized the film industry for not doing enough to portray Islam "correctly").

Her opinion on the Norway terror attacks can be summed up with these quotes taken from her ongoing screeds against the terror victims:

"Based on these pics, seems like he’s [Glenn Beck's] spot on, though he should have added, HAMAS Youth camp, too. As we all know, Nazis boycotted Jews and were Jew-killers. And these hateful, privileged brats at the camp boycotted Jews and sided with Jew-killers.

But what goes around comes around. You support terrorists against innocent civilians in Israel, then you get attacked by terrorists who are upset with your support . . . .

Frankly, the HAMAS charter and HAMAS’ behavior, all of which these kids at the Norwegian HAMAS youth camp cheered on, is a lot more scary than the screed and deeds of Breivik . . . .

I shed no tears for these HAMASnik campers with a Scandinavian dialect. Perpetrators are not victims. Sorry. HAMAS collaborators don’t get my pity. They never will."

Far stronger words than Geller was willing to use. But they are par for the course as far as Schlussel is concerned.

Her prominence derives from her utility to the male conservative-dominated anti-Islamic movement. The fact that she is a woman (and also the daughter of Holocaust survivors) speaking out against Islam gives greater credence to an ideological group whose most well-known speakers are white Christian males like Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders and Pat Robertson (the movement is, as a whole, dominated by sociopolitically conservative men, although many are not Christians).

Gingrich and Robertson, for instance, denounce Islamic attitudes towards women, while still being hostile to "feminism" under the cloak of "family values." Having women on their anti-Islamic bandwagon helps prove their "point" about Islamic backwardness and their moral righteousness, which is a combination of faux-progressivism (treating Geller and Schlussel as intellectual co-equals) and paternalism (evoking Orientalist images of rapacious Muslim brutes). A similar logic animates the GOP embrace of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann. Schlussel and Geller, among others, are useful for the right (while at the same time, they castigate individuals on the left for being Islam's "useful idiots").

But back to Schlussel's own anti-Islamic agenda. Before this most recent denunciation of insufficiently Zionist individuals, she famously responded to Osama bin Laden's death by quipping "1 down, 1.8 billion to go." When a family of West Bank settlers were murdered earlier this year, she approvingly quoted PM Netanyahu's son's remarks that "terror has a religion and it is Islam” and “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Schlussel is an ardent Zionist - Hamas and Fatah are basically the same thing, in her analysis, and are dedicated to ending Israel forever. With this in mind, few individuals or institutions are pro-Israel enough for her: Republican Governor Chris Christie, for instance, is "Hamas GOP" because he appointed Pakistani-American Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim attorney who defended individuals (including Hamas supporters) that the federal government sought to extradite from the U.S. after 9/11, to the NJ State Supreme Court. Whole Foods is "anti-Israel" because it sells fair trade products from Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and has dared to wish its customers a good Ramadan (there is ill-intent behind this marketing ploy, of course). And, like Robert Spencer and Pat Robertson, she believes that mainstream media is "anti-American" (and thus, anti-Western) and panders to Islam because it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Western.

Both Congressmen Ron Paul (who has called for a U.S. withdraw from the Middle East and an end to the US$3 billion in aid Washington sends Israel annually) and Dennis Kucinich (who condemned the Israeli assault on the first Freedom Flotilla) are "for" Hamas, according to Schlussel. That a libertarian who caucuses with the GOP and one of the most lefit-wing members of the Democratic Party are somehow colluding to advance Hamas's agenda is well within the realm of possibility for Schlussel: either you are with Israel (and the West - which, by extension, means you're "with" civilization), or against it. For Schlussel, no Muslim can ever be "for" those things.

As Southern Poverty Law Center's Hate Watch asked in its coverage of her work, why did Schlussel even bother saying that she doesn't support Anders Breivik when she says that "I can’t feel sorry for those who support my would-be assassins. And I don’t get too upset when they face the karma that is their fate."

aerial

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

Do a little research.

O.k.

Let's learn a bit more about the woman who you appear to be getting all of your 'information' from:



http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/meet-debb ... -them.html

Meet Debbie Schlussel, who says Norway’s ‘HAMAS Youth’ got what was coming to them
by Paul Mutter on August 5, 2011

One of Pamela Geller's cohorts, Debbie Schlussel, has explicitly stated that those killed at Utoya got what was coming to them because they were "HAMAS Youth" and (at the same time) "Fatah PLO" terrorists.

Schlussel may not be as well-known as Geller (perhaps because Schlussel has not exercised a leading role in anything as prominent as the "Ground Zero Mosque" furor), but she is a politically active Republican and more mainstream than Geller because she is also a culture writer with a strong media presence. (Not that she separates this work from her anti-Islamic campaign - she has criticized the film industry for not doing enough to portray Islam "correctly").

Her opinion on the Norway terror attacks can be summed up with these quotes taken from her ongoing screeds against the terror victims:

"Based on these pics, seems like he’s [Glenn Beck's] spot on, though he should have added, HAMAS Youth camp, too. As we all know, Nazis boycotted Jews and were Jew-killers. And these hateful, privileged brats at the camp boycotted Jews and sided with Jew-killers.

But what goes around comes around. You support terrorists against innocent civilians in Israel, then you get attacked by terrorists who are upset with your support . . . .

Frankly, the HAMAS charter and HAMAS’ behavior, all of which these kids at the Norwegian HAMAS youth camp cheered on, is a lot more scary than the screed and deeds of Breivik . . . .

I shed no tears for these HAMASnik campers with a Scandinavian dialect. Perpetrators are not victims. Sorry. HAMAS collaborators don’t get my pity. They never will."

Far stronger words than Geller was willing to use. But they are par for the course as far as Schlussel is concerned.

Her prominence derives from her utility to the male conservative-dominated anti-Islamic movement. The fact that she is a woman (and also the daughter of Holocaust survivors) speaking out against Islam gives greater credence to an ideological group whose most well-known speakers are white Christian males like Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders and Pat Robertson (the movement is, as a whole, dominated by sociopolitically conservative men, although many are not Christians).

Gingrich and Robertson, for instance, denounce Islamic attitudes towards women, while still being hostile to "feminism" under the cloak of "family values." Having women on their anti-Islamic bandwagon helps prove their "point" about Islamic backwardness and their moral righteousness, which is a combination of faux-progressivism (treating Geller and Schlussel as intellectual co-equals) and paternalism (evoking Orientalist images of rapacious Muslim brutes). A similar logic animates the GOP embrace of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann. Schlussel and Geller, among others, are useful for the right (while at the same time, they castigate individuals on the left for being Islam's "useful idiots").

But back to Schlussel's own anti-Islamic agenda. Before this most recent denunciation of insufficiently Zionist individuals, she famously responded to Osama bin Laden's death by quipping "1 down, 1.8 billion to go." When a family of West Bank settlers were murdered earlier this year, she approvingly quoted PM Netanyahu's son's remarks that "terror has a religion and it is Islam” and “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Schlussel is an ardent Zionist - Hamas and Fatah are basically the same thing, in her analysis, and are dedicated to ending Israel forever. With this in mind, few individuals or institutions are pro-Israel enough for her: Republican Governor Chris Christie, for instance, is "Hamas GOP" because he appointed Pakistani-American Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim attorney who defended individuals (including Hamas supporters) that the federal government sought to extradite from the U.S. after 9/11, to the NJ State Supreme Court. Whole Foods is "anti-Israel" because it sells fair trade products from Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and has dared to wish its customers a good Ramadan (there is ill-intent behind this marketing ploy, of course). And, like Robert Spencer and Pat Robertson, she believes that mainstream media is "anti-American" (and thus, anti-Western) and panders to Islam because it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Western.

Both Congressmen Ron Paul (who has called for a U.S. withdraw from the Middle East and an end to the US$3 billion in aid Washington sends Israel annually) and Dennis Kucinich (who condemned the Israeli assault on the first Freedom Flotilla) are "for" Hamas, according to Schlussel. That a libertarian who caucuses with the GOP and one of the most lefit-wing members of the Democratic Party are somehow colluding to advance Hamas's agenda is well within the realm of possibility for Schlussel: either you are with Israel (and the West - which, by extension, means you're "with" civilization), or against it. For Schlussel, no Muslim can ever be "for" those things.

As Southern Poverty Law Center's Hate Watch asked in its coverage of her work, why did Schlussel even bother saying that she doesn't support Anders Breivik when she says that "I can’t feel sorry for those who support my would-be assassins. And I don’t get too upset when they face the karma that is their fate."

No time to read all your blaa blaa blaa now......but I will later



Can you prove this is not true

Edible Arrangements: Muslim Owners of Fruit Basket Company Fund HAMAS, Jihadist Extremism

aerial

Byrnzie wrote:

Aerial, you really need to stop quoting known racists, and hatemongers here on the message board, and regurgitating their bile.

It's not cool, and it's definitely not clever.

NOT agreeing with Terrorism is not hate mongering or racist.......knowing who the terrorist are and there agenda is Cool (as you put it)
But I am not trying to be cool.....I am informing those that care not to fund terrorism....OK?

Urban Dictionary.....hate monger
1.)A person who uses political beliefs or passions of any kind as a platform to express their hatred for another individual.

NOW who is the Hate Monger?

PJ_Soul

It is a known FACT that women are abused and treated as lower people in Islamic countries. For crying out loud, they only legalized women being allowed to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia in the past year, and that is one of the progressive and modernized Islamic countries! Weighing information and being informed from all sides of an issue so that ones opinions are balanced is a great thing, but some other people in this thread are just as guilty as Aerial is when it comes to believing biased information, but just from the other side of the argument.

aerial

dignin wrote:

fuck wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

@ fuck:

See aerial's posts.

You seem to be in defense of Sharia law. I don't accept that view. Yes, I do know that it involves all kinds of things that are considered the complete and total adherence to Islam. That includes the subjection of women, including the male dominance over them and the right to punish them for various "acts against Islam". It makes me sick, and not only is there no room for that shit within North America, but there is no room for that shit anywhere in the world as far as I'm concerned. Sharia followers can tells us about how clean they need to be and how they want to adhere to Islamic relationships and carry out finances in a certain way until the cows come home. And you can talk about some kind of lack of understanding all you want too (but I think it's ridiculous for you to suggest that women might be in a reasonable and understandable position within such a culture). Until Sharia law dictates that women are equal to men, I cannot and will not respect such beliefs, and I will not apologize for it.

This is not a complicated issue that demands a lot of discussion and research. It is quite cut and dry, in fact. I have no room for such attitudes and treatment towards women in my world view, nor do I have room for understanding for the men who subject women to such beliefs. I find it offensive when anyone defends Sharia law, frankly, assuming they have any understanding whatsoever of what it dictates about the role of men and women within that system. That you make the assumption that I have a lack of understanding of what Sharia law entails because I don't approve of it shows that you don't understand the weight and impact that their laws around male dominance and female subjugation have on a lot of people, particularly other women. I find it curious that your concerns lie with what is "truly Islamic" as opposed to what is actually practiced in real life. To me, it's what is practiced in real life that matters (although I also take issue with your claim that in "true Islam" women are considered equal to men - that is false). What may or may not be the academic pure definition of Islamic teachings is neither here nor there if that is not how it's been translated into actual practice. I don't see the point of this argument. It tends to make excuses for what is inexcusable.

aerial's posts re: this particular topic have a long history of being devoid of any intellect, and the source he or she cited is not acceptable in any normal debate setting. I think on any normal occasion you would agree that aerial's vapid posts lack any real substance, but you're so desperate in this circumstance to find anything to defend your radical position that you are forced to accept it. The mere fact that you see this entire debate as either "for" or "against" Shari`ah further demonstrates that you lack any ability to judge this from an academic viewpoint. You can sit here and say, "I'm only judging this based off of what is applied in real life" as if you are some self-proclaimed realist and have no time to trouble yourself with theories, but everyone knows that that is absolute nonsense--for instance, the United States went to Iraq to spread democracy and freedom. Does it then hold that democracy and freedom are responsible for the carnage that engulfed Iraq as a result of this liberal mission? The fact is, you absolutely cannot sit here and say 'I want to only judge the practice' because there are people putting this practice into effect, and their motives and intentions must be judged. Furthermore, the theory and practice must be separated to then see the role these actors play. The reason for this is that the discussion is whether Islam inherently views women as unequal to men. Citing examples of rogue states and tribes does not help your case, it just demonstrates your inability to see beyond soundbites in Western media.

The fact that you can even so easily claim that this is not a complicated issue that requires discussion and research shows your arrogance. As if it would be o.k. for anyone to say something similar about a Western ideal like liberalism. If the French were spreading liberalism in Algeria, the British in India, and the United States in Iraq, then why are we allowed to go around and tell these peoples that liberalism is some universalist ideal that is applicable any time and any place? Such arrogance. You did not even consider the arguments I gave in my previous post, you just posted some short two paragraph rant about why you're right despite everything, without providing any evidence--for that, you chose to rely on aerial's choice source. Well done.

You're going to have to learn two things, although they play off one another: first, not everyone thinks like you, and your principles may be ideal in a most general sense, but as you get more specific, people think differently from you and you're going to have to learn that. In other words, women in Muslim countries do not want to adopt your liberal feminist viewpoint. Look at the Gallup polls conducted, they want Shari`ah. The fact is, many women see Muslim as their identity, and are unwilling to let it go. Which brings me to my second point, many women do not see Shari`ah as limiting them. Instead, the same rules hold across different parts of the world, including Canada and the U.S., where women are often subjugated by men. The experiences are certainly different, but there's a reason to consider that the principle holds that sexism exists everywhere, because it is not due to Shari`ah. Furthermore, you have no actual history to support most of your claims. Most of your claims of Shari`ah literally entered the news in the past 20-30 years when radical Islamic movements began to emerge, such as the Taliban. However, you ignore over 1000 years of Islamic civilization, not surprisingly, since from what I can tell, the majority of your information comes from Western media reports over the last several years. I have a question: do you go around arrogantly advising people how best to diagnose a serious disease? Probably not, because you haven't studied it, and watching a season of House, M.D. is not enough. It only comes to politics and history that people think they can base their knowledge off of media and television alone. These subjects however are all sciences and DO require research and discussion, no matter how much you refuse to acknowledge it.

Thank you for your posts about Shari'ah law, very informative.

Here is an academic view point for you....some history....and Truth

The history of Islam in Europe and how it effects us to this day. This is a history based on numbers and facts that you may not see anywhere else and explains why we may be afraid to see Islam for what it is based on its own doctrine and practice.

http://www.globalinfidel.tv/video/why-we-are-afraid-a-1400-year-secret-by-dr-bill-warner-must-see?fb_action_ids=4454078482709&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%224454078482709%22%3A388506551214719%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224454078482709%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D


Those that throw out "but the Crusaders killed people".....how many compared to Islamist? and who is still killing?

callen

PJ_Soul wrote:

It is a known FACT that women are abused and treated as lower people in Islamic countries. For crying out loud, they only legalized women being allowed to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia in the past year, and that is one of the progressive and modernized Islamic countries! Weighing information and being informed from all sides of an issue so that ones opinions are balanced is a great thing, but some other people in this thread are just as guilty as Aerial is when it comes to believing biased information, but just from the other side of the argument.

And western countries still treat women as lower people. To put this in perspective, the US just recently gave women the right to vote. In the US white men still try to control women’s bodies. How about how Christian beliefs on relationship between a man and a woman. Catholic church. We are all evolving and that includes the middle east. The more we fight those that aren’t like us the longer it will take for them to catch up as it gives their leaders ammunition to portray the west as being bad. Show understanding, be cool, and the young uns will come on board. The Internet will speed this along but the more we throw hate back, the longer it will take.

PJ_Soul

callen wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

It is a known FACT that women are abused and treated as lower people in Islamic countries. For crying out loud, they only legalized women being allowed to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia in the past year, and that is one of the progressive and modernized Islamic countries! Weighing information and being informed from all sides of an issue so that ones opinions are balanced is a great thing, but some other people in this thread are just as guilty as Aerial is when it comes to believing biased information, but just from the other side of the argument.

And western countries still treat women as lower people. To put this in perspective, the US just recently gave women the right to vote. In the US white men still try to control women’s bodies. How about how Christian beliefs on relationship between a man and a woman. Catholic church. We are all evolving and that includes the middle east. The more we fight those that aren’t like us the longer it will take for them to catch up as it gives their leaders ammunition to portray the west as being bad. Show understanding, be cool, and the young uns will come on board. The Internet will speed this along but the more we throw hate back, the longer it will take.

The US gave women the right to vote in 1910 or something like that. I am talking about the here and now. I don't care what used to happen (just like a don't care what Christians did in the Crusade - it's totally irrelevant to the here and now). I am a woman. I am very, very, VERY aware of how women are or are not treated in the world, or within different religions. I didn't say everyone else was perfect. Just because I say that this is a HUGE issue within Islam, doesn't mean everything is peachy-keen in all other circumstances. However, I do say that it is BY FAR THE WORST for women of the Muslim world. By far. And there is a concerted effort by a lot of Islamic men and religious leaders to RESIST changes for women's rights and equality. The Middle East is NOT really evolving in this regard, and that is a major concern.

callen

PJ_Soul wrote:

It is a known FACT that women are abused and treated as lower people in Islamic countries. For crying out loud, they only legalized women being allowed to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia in the past year, and that is one of the progressive and modernized Islamic countries! Weighing information and being informed from all sides of an issue so that ones opinions are balanced is a great thing, but some other people in this thread are just as guilty as Aerial is when it comes to believing biased information, but just from the other side of the argument.

As to the Evils of Sharia Law, in the US we know there are innocent humans on death row, we release them all the time, yet we are willing to let a few innocents be strapped to a gurney and have lethal dose of poisons injected into their arms....or better yet shoot a bolt of lightning into their bodies so that we get the sweet taste of revenge. Are we really any better?

PJ_Soul

callen wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

It is a known FACT that women are abused and treated as lower people in Islamic countries. For crying out loud, they only legalized women being allowed to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia in the past year, and that is one of the progressive and modernized Islamic countries! Weighing information and being informed from all sides of an issue so that ones opinions are balanced is a great thing, but some other people in this thread are just as guilty as Aerial is when it comes to believing biased information, but just from the other side of the argument.

As to the Evils of Sharia Law, in the US we know there are innocent humans on death row, we release them all the time, yet we are willing to let a few innocents be strapped to a gurney and have lethal dose of poisons injected into their arms....or better yet shoot a bolt of lightning into their bodies so that we get the sweet taste of revenge. Are we really any better?

I do not support the death penalty - I am very much opposed to it - and luckily I do not live in a country where it is practiced. I do not understand your point at all. Yes, the US is better in terms of human rights, despite their disgusting and embarrassing laws re the death penalty. By a LOOOOOONNNNG shot. If you don't think so, then you must be delusional or something. Either way, I just don't get this whole line of reasoning. What difference does it make to this issue if there are other wrongs happening in the world? Do you subscribe to the 2 wrongs make a right theory, or is it the 'well if everyone else is doing it, then it's okay' theory? :?