Hey folks, the attack in Bali should just remind us that it isn't just the big bad U.S. that these people are after. These terrorists have an overall agenda for manipulating the world. The attack on Bali had absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Only two of the dead were americans. Any connection to american policy is purely imaginary, and just shows how quickly some people will place blame.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US occupation plans for Iraq?
- Thread starter jbtrader23
- Start date
Originally posted by traderfut2000
Daniel said to me that women rights were no respected in arab states, and my answer was how can you be so sure..
No let's take rape, pedophilia ... the statistics in the US are just horrifying.. I am not judging.. But it is easy to criticize other parts of the world..
Now a lot has to be done. But please don't take the argument that women has no rights to invade Iraq. For me just a nonsense...
How can i be sure? just look at the contents of that hate filled "holy" book, the Quran. specific information that women are INHERENTLY inferior to men. pretty simple isn' t it? no propaganda, just straight from the horse's mouth.
+ there is HEAPS - MOUNTAINS - of evidence to show that the lot of women in muslim countries - to varying degrees in each of them - is simply UNACCEPTABLE. PATHETIC.
rape and pedophilia? how the hell can a MUSLIM have a problem with rape and pedophilia? aren't muslims supposed to try and emulate the prophet (curse his name) Muhammed? we only need to look to the Quran to see that he was both rapist AND a pedophile (what else do you call a 53 year old guy that has sex with a 9 year old????)
so much for the most perfect man to have ever lived...
tradefut, where the hell do you get these crazy ideas that i ever said iraq should be attacked because of the plight of women in islam? stop putting words into my mouth.
mondotrader is right, muslim terrorists don't simply have a problem with US foreign policy, they have a problem with US full stop. and a problem with everything non-muslim. THAT is the thing that nobody is willing to acknowledge. muslim terrorists aren't "extremists", that is simply complete sugar-coated bullshit. they are simply practising good Islam.
the superiority of western economic and legal structures ensures that arab nations will never ever be able to measure up to the progress made in western nations. so what do they do, turn to their roots for a sense of identity. and what are those roots? islam. vicious circle continues.
a US post-invasion occupying force would be welcomed with open arms in iraq. sans its crazed dictator, iraq could become a shining beacon to other arab nations and a catalyst for change (read: get rid of islam). doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me. GO USA!
Needless to say that this is a horrifying and a terrible thing⦠I am deeply sorry for what happened in Bali. All the more I even wanted to go there this year. So it is something that can happen to any of us.
But as Candle said there should more democracy on this world and I am for more democracy it is the only way to limit that kind of damage..
Why, I am always sceptical about the USA is that I know many great men in the African continent killed by the CIA. I talked about Lumumba, but you had also a great thinker mehdi Ben barka an many others⦠those people were killed because they anted more freedom and more wealth for their people.. and The USA did not accept it.
Of course, the solution is not only to be found outside, but it took nearly 200 years to Europe to achieve economic progress. It did not come from day one and there were very few laws for the workers and on top of that all the main European countries colonised and exploited the resources of third world countries..
And today you have very rich countries that are some of the poorest of the world.. This is the case of many African countries. Again, I think this continent has a great potential but with all the puppet government, the FMI and the brain drain, it can take time for those countries to be at the top⦠but it is doable.. it only takes timeâ¦
Now with all those reforms will the killings disappear ??? I doubt it.. So many crazy people on this planet⦠Look at the sniper killer in Washington. Lately a French guy entered in a room full of local politicians and started shooting on everybody he killed something like 9/10 person. Innocent people were killed once again by a guy that said he hated politicians..
But as Candle said there should more democracy on this world and I am for more democracy it is the only way to limit that kind of damage..
Why, I am always sceptical about the USA is that I know many great men in the African continent killed by the CIA. I talked about Lumumba, but you had also a great thinker mehdi Ben barka an many others⦠those people were killed because they anted more freedom and more wealth for their people.. and The USA did not accept it.
Of course, the solution is not only to be found outside, but it took nearly 200 years to Europe to achieve economic progress. It did not come from day one and there were very few laws for the workers and on top of that all the main European countries colonised and exploited the resources of third world countries..
And today you have very rich countries that are some of the poorest of the world.. This is the case of many African countries. Again, I think this continent has a great potential but with all the puppet government, the FMI and the brain drain, it can take time for those countries to be at the top⦠but it is doable.. it only takes timeâ¦
Now with all those reforms will the killings disappear ??? I doubt it.. So many crazy people on this planet⦠Look at the sniper killer in Washington. Lately a French guy entered in a room full of local politicians and started shooting on everybody he killed something like 9/10 person. Innocent people were killed once again by a guy that said he hated politicians..
I am fed up with those childish remarqs of people that are so openly racists and that do not know anything about hooly books...
It is stupid people like you that are intellectually weak that create this hatred of Islam..
Islam is the first religion (in terms of people) on Planet earth. there can be foolish guy but there are also many many good people... If you don't get that then you are certainly intellectually weak...
Islam is certainly what the terrorist use to convince people to follow them.. Does that mean that Islam say kill people.. NO...
Just for your personal culture I will put a comparison between Woman in Islam and Christianity...
But as I said to Cannyon is it yet again the motives behind attacking Iraq??? then you are dumb stupid. Iraq was one of the most advanced country in the middle east and a laic state above all where the prime minister is christian.. I keep on repeting the same things but when you have stupid guy in front of you there is no other solution.
It is stupid people like you that are intellectually weak that create this hatred of Islam..
Islam is the first religion (in terms of people) on Planet earth. there can be foolish guy but there are also many many good people... If you don't get that then you are certainly intellectually weak...
Islam is certainly what the terrorist use to convince people to follow them.. Does that mean that Islam say kill people.. NO...
Just for your personal culture I will put a comparison between Woman in Islam and Christianity...
But as I said to Cannyon is it yet again the motives behind attacking Iraq??? then you are dumb stupid. Iraq was one of the most advanced country in the middle east and a laic state above all where the prime minister is christian.. I keep on repeting the same things but when you have stupid guy in front of you there is no other solution.
Selected reading from Charles Templeton's book, Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith
http://www.submission.org/christians/templeton_women2.html
What is the status of women in the Bible? Even a perfunctory reading makes it clear that, with rare exceptions, women were regarded and treated as inferior, subsidiary creatures, often as little more than chattels
THE BIBLE IS A BOOK by and for men. The women in it are secondary creatures and usually inferior. The woman is portrayed as the temptress in Eden, the tool of the serpent (a.k.a. Satan). He gulled her into getting her husband to eat of the forbidden fruit - "the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." When, as a consequence of their disobedience, the first couple was banished from Eden, Yahweh laid a threefold curse on all women:
· That her suffering in childbearing would be "greatly multiplied.'
· That she would nevertheless be made to lust for her husband.
· That she would be subsidiary to the man: "He will rule over you."
THE GOD OF THE Bible is not genderless; he is male. His attributes are masculine as are his actions and most of his attitudes. The Holy Trinity comprises three males, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus was himself unquestionably male, and when it became needful that the Virgin Mary be impregnated so that he might be brought into the world as a man, the Holy Ghost "came upon her" and Jesus was conceived.
Adam and Eve had three children, all male: Cain, Abel, and Seth. They may have had daughters but the writer of the Genesis account does not find them worth mentioning. In the long list of Adam's descendants over the hundreds of years that intervened before the Great Flood, not one female is so much as named!
An unmarried woman was regarded as the property of her father or of a brother. A father could, at his option, give her away or, indeed, sell her to a prospective husband. He could also sell her as a slave and she had no say in the transaction. A prospective groom paid what was called a "bride price," in part because the bride had some value around the house and in the bedroom and because if she bore him children they would be the property of the husband. If a man seduced a virgin he was required to pay her father a bride price and do so even if the father refused to give her to the seducer in marriage.
http://www.submission.org/christians/templeton_women2.html
What is the status of women in the Bible? Even a perfunctory reading makes it clear that, with rare exceptions, women were regarded and treated as inferior, subsidiary creatures, often as little more than chattels
THE BIBLE IS A BOOK by and for men. The women in it are secondary creatures and usually inferior. The woman is portrayed as the temptress in Eden, the tool of the serpent (a.k.a. Satan). He gulled her into getting her husband to eat of the forbidden fruit - "the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." When, as a consequence of their disobedience, the first couple was banished from Eden, Yahweh laid a threefold curse on all women:
· That her suffering in childbearing would be "greatly multiplied.'
· That she would nevertheless be made to lust for her husband.
· That she would be subsidiary to the man: "He will rule over you."
THE GOD OF THE Bible is not genderless; he is male. His attributes are masculine as are his actions and most of his attitudes. The Holy Trinity comprises three males, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus was himself unquestionably male, and when it became needful that the Virgin Mary be impregnated so that he might be brought into the world as a man, the Holy Ghost "came upon her" and Jesus was conceived.
Adam and Eve had three children, all male: Cain, Abel, and Seth. They may have had daughters but the writer of the Genesis account does not find them worth mentioning. In the long list of Adam's descendants over the hundreds of years that intervened before the Great Flood, not one female is so much as named!
An unmarried woman was regarded as the property of her father or of a brother. A father could, at his option, give her away or, indeed, sell her to a prospective husband. He could also sell her as a slave and she had no say in the transaction. A prospective groom paid what was called a "bride price," in part because the bride had some value around the house and in the bedroom and because if she bore him children they would be the property of the husband. If a man seduced a virgin he was required to pay her father a bride price and do so even if the father refused to give her to the seducer in marriage.
http://www.submission.org/women-comp.html
The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.
"And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another" (3:195).
The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).
"A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3)
It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first:
" To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49).
The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.
"And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another" (3:195).
The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).
"A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3)
It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first:
" To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49).
The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is not brighter:
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things...." (58:1).
A woman in the Quranic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet of Islam himself. No one has the right to instruct her to be silent. She is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things...." (58:1).
A woman in the Quranic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet of Islam himself. No one has the right to instruct her to be silent. She is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.
BIBLE
"How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his...... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband..." (San. 71a, Git. 62a)
Quran
"And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer" (4:4)
Female inheritance
One of the most important differences between the Quran and the Bible is their attitude towards female inheritance of the property of a deceased relative. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: "The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions." 44 Why were the female members of the family considered part of the family estate? Rabbi Epstein has the answer: "They are owned --before marriage, by the father; after marriage, by the husband." 45
The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband's estate, while he is her first heir, even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother is not an heir at all while the father is. Widows and daughters, in case male children remained, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. That is why widows and orphan girls were among the most destitute members of the Jewish society.
Christianity has followed suit for long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in the father's patrimony. Besides, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived till late in the last century46.
Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Quran abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives inheritance shares:
"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large --a determinate share" (4:7).
Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters had received inheritance rights thirteen hundred years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. The division of inheritance is a vast subject with an enormous amount of details (4:7,11,12,176). The general rule is that the female share is half the male's except the cases in which the mother receives equal share to that of the father. This general rule if taken in isolation from other legislations concerning men and women may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must take into account the fact that the financial obligations of men in Islam far exceed those of women (see the "Wife's property?" section). A bridegroom must provide his bride with a marriage gift. This gift becomes her exclusive property and remains so even if she is later divorced. The bride is under no obligation to present any gifts to her groom. Moreover, the Muslim husband is charged with the maintenance of his wife and children. The wife, on the other hand, is not obliged to help him in this regard. Her property and earnings are for her use alone except what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam vehemently advocates family life. It strongly encourages youth to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue. Therefore, in a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and single life is the rare exception. That is, almost all marriage-aged women and men are married in an Islamic society. In light of these facts, one would appreciate that Muslim men, in general, have greater financial burdens than Muslim women and thus inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance so that the society lives free of all gender or class wars. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of Muslim women, one British Muslim woman has concluded that Islam has treated women not only fairly but generously. 47
"How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his...... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband..." (San. 71a, Git. 62a)
Quran
"And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer" (4:4)
Female inheritance
One of the most important differences between the Quran and the Bible is their attitude towards female inheritance of the property of a deceased relative. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: "The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions." 44 Why were the female members of the family considered part of the family estate? Rabbi Epstein has the answer: "They are owned --before marriage, by the father; after marriage, by the husband." 45
The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband's estate, while he is her first heir, even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother is not an heir at all while the father is. Widows and daughters, in case male children remained, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. That is why widows and orphan girls were among the most destitute members of the Jewish society.
Christianity has followed suit for long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in the father's patrimony. Besides, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived till late in the last century46.
Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Quran abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives inheritance shares:
"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large --a determinate share" (4:7).
Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters had received inheritance rights thirteen hundred years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. The division of inheritance is a vast subject with an enormous amount of details (4:7,11,12,176). The general rule is that the female share is half the male's except the cases in which the mother receives equal share to that of the father. This general rule if taken in isolation from other legislations concerning men and women may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must take into account the fact that the financial obligations of men in Islam far exceed those of women (see the "Wife's property?" section). A bridegroom must provide his bride with a marriage gift. This gift becomes her exclusive property and remains so even if she is later divorced. The bride is under no obligation to present any gifts to her groom. Moreover, the Muslim husband is charged with the maintenance of his wife and children. The wife, on the other hand, is not obliged to help him in this regard. Her property and earnings are for her use alone except what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam vehemently advocates family life. It strongly encourages youth to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue. Therefore, in a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and single life is the rare exception. That is, almost all marriage-aged women and men are married in an Islamic society. In light of these facts, one would appreciate that Muslim men, in general, have greater financial burdens than Muslim women and thus inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance so that the society lives free of all gender or class wars. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of Muslim women, one British Muslim woman has concluded that Islam has treated women not only fairly but generously. 47
Originally posted by traderfut2000
I
Islam is certainly what the terrorist use to convince people to follow them.. Does that mean that Islam say kill people.. NO...
actually, it says it with CRYSTAL CLEAR CLARITY. if you have actualy read the damn thing, you will know this perfectly well. so stop playing dumb.
as for the rest of your crap:
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
it seems you think the way to answer an accusation is by making a few (dozen) of your own.
i've told you a thousand times, i consider christianity to be just as big horseshit as islam, so bashing christianity doesn't help your cause.
the BIG difference is that i don't see many christian terrorist groups blowing themselves up yelling, "Jesus is great!"
it's embarrasing isn't it? that a RELIGION ( of all things) could contain so much evil, so much hate, so much prescription for the mistreatment of other human beings. yet, at the end of the day, that is exactly what islam is. not propaganda, just simple, every day facts. why do you think arab intellectuals are leaving islam in droves? cos they can't stand that hateful crap that the quran is full of. absolutely full of. like i said, embarrassing.
Nothing is perfect in the muslim world today and I would even say that it is today the darkest period of its history...
But this is history and if many christians and jews converted into Islam it is simply because this religion gave more rights to the people... At the time of Islam, Christianity was the first monotheist religion but Islam came with something new and incredible.
Abolition of slavery,
Women before Islam even in christianity were considered as inferior specie and many arab or westeners killed their daughters because it was a curse for them... With Islam this was forbidden and woman had the right to inherit to educate herself even to fight.... and this was in the 7th century...
Now of course you will take examples from afghanistan and say look how a woman in Islam looks like.0 But as I said it has nothing to do with Islam but more with stupidity of men...
Don't forget that even in Europe Women had their rights only in the fifties. don't forget that in the US slavery was abolished in the sixties and 2 great black leaders were killed for that malcolm X and Martin Luther King... This is not long time ago...
I sincerely hope that the situation of women improves in arab countries but for me may be it is not because of Islam but more because those guys are real stupid...
But this is history and if many christians and jews converted into Islam it is simply because this religion gave more rights to the people... At the time of Islam, Christianity was the first monotheist religion but Islam came with something new and incredible.
Abolition of slavery,
Women before Islam even in christianity were considered as inferior specie and many arab or westeners killed their daughters because it was a curse for them... With Islam this was forbidden and woman had the right to inherit to educate herself even to fight.... and this was in the 7th century...
Now of course you will take examples from afghanistan and say look how a woman in Islam looks like.0 But as I said it has nothing to do with Islam but more with stupidity of men...
Don't forget that even in Europe Women had their rights only in the fifties. don't forget that in the US slavery was abolished in the sixties and 2 great black leaders were killed for that malcolm X and Martin Luther King... This is not long time ago...
I sincerely hope that the situation of women improves in arab countries but for me may be it is not because of Islam but more because those guys are real stupid...