How Muslims handle rape charges.

[Sinfix_15]

Norwegian woman fighting jail sentence in Dubai for reporting rape - World News (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/21/19596546-norwegian-woman-fighting-jail-sentence-in-dubai-for-reporting-rape?lite)

[-EnVus-]

Story sounds like there is more to what is being told so i would say the bitch guilty

[Sinfix_15]

Story sounds like there is more to what is being told so i would say the bitch guilty

That's how Muslims operate.... if you get raped, guilty until proven innocent.... by 4 men.

[bu villain]

News flash, women are treated worse than men in some places in the world. Oh and don't forget to judge all muslims based on this. Wouldn't want anyone to think there is a diversity of opinion amongst that billion plus person group.

[Sinfix_15]

News flash, women are treated worse than men in some places in the world. Oh and don't forget to judge all muslims based on this. Wouldn't want anyone to think there is a diversity of opinion amongst that billion plus person group.

I judge all muslims based on the content of the religion they chose to follow.

Niger: Muslim leader defends child marriage -- "We Muslims have the right to marry when we want or give out our daughters at any age we want"
Few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam… [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women—if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

"CHILD MARRIAGE OUR RIGHT AS MUSLIMS, Dokubo tells critics, says 'It is not your business,'" from The Nigeria Today, July 20 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Asari Dokubo Defends Under-aged Marriage Law In Nigeria… “We Muslims Can Marry Girls Of Any Age”. A prominent Niger Delta Muslim, Alhaji Mujahid Abubakar Dokubo-Asari, has lashed out at critics of the moves by Nigeria’s Senate to approve under-age marriage.
Expressing his opinion on the issue this morning, Dokubo, who converted to Islam as an adult, insisted that it is the right of Muslims to marry or give out their daughters at any age they wish, adding that this is not the business of non-Muslims.

Said the Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force (NDPVF) leader through Facebook:

“People should learn to respect other people’s sensibilities…We Muslims have the right to marry when we want or give out our daughters at any age we want. It is not your business and the law must respect our right to do so. Anything short of that is an infringement on our rights. We did not ask you to marry ladies of that age or give your daughters out in marriage at that age. Plzzzzzzzz respect our sensibilities.”

The Nigerian Senate has come under fire from outraged Nigerians and the international community after being convinced by Senator Ahmad Yarima to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing marriage to girls under 18. The former Zamfara State governor who once came under fire for marrying a girl believed to be aged 13 had argued that Islam recognises under-age marriage.

[Sinfix_15]

So BU, when muslims in america say their right to marry a 6 year old girl is according to their religious belief, what is an america that just legalized gay marriage going to say?

[.blank cd]

So BU, when muslims in america say their right to marry a 6 year old girl is according to their religious belief, what is an america that just legalized gay marriage going to say?

Even if that were a tenet of that religion, a Muslim in America would not have that right.

So what in the world does marrying 6 year olds have anything to do with two consenting adults getting married?

[bu villain]

I judge all muslims based on the content of the religion they chose to follow...

First of all I would say, reading some news headlines particularly from conservative American perspectives does not a Muslim scholar make.


So BU, when muslims in america say their right to marry a 6 year old girl is according to their religious belief, what is an america that just legalized gay marriage going to say?

First, let's take a poll of all muslims in America and see how many agree marrying a 6 year old is a right. You imply it is 100%, I would venture it's much closer to 0%. I really have no idea what it has to do with gay marriage though.

[Sinfix_15]

First of all I would say, reading some news headlines particularly from conservative American perspectives does not a Muslim scholar make.



First, let's take a poll of all muslims in America and see how many agree marrying a 6 year old is a right. You imply it is 100%, I would venture it's much closer to 0%. I really have no idea what it has to do with gay marriage though.


Koran permits lying to deceive for the betterment of islam. So are we to believe muslims when they say they dont believe in the radical parts of the religion even when the book specifically says to lie on behalf of islam?

Are you disputing that the koran is radical or are you taking the approach that most muslims simply do not believe in the koran?

Who do you think is to blame for the chaos that surrounds every nation that is predominantly islamic? explain it to me..... offer up your case that would remove the blame from muslims themselves.

[Sinfix_15]

Even if that were a tenet of that religion, a Muslim in America would not have that right.

So what in the world does marrying 6 year olds have anything to do with two consenting adults getting married?

So you can confidently say that muslims would never have that right in the united states? if so.... well then gee golly... that's a relief....


but just for the sake of argument.... what if this issue ever went to vote and passed?

[.blank cd]

So you can confidently say that muslims would never have that right in the united states? if so.... well then gee golly... that's a relief....


but just for the sake of argument.... what if this issue ever went to vote and passed?

I really don't even want to entertain such a fantastic, illogical argument.

But for your sake of argument, an overwhelming majority of your representatives, congress, judges, and the president, republicans and democrats, who are overwhelmingly Christians, would all have to agree that its in the best interest of our society to allow 6 year olds to get married, and would have to radically alter the constitution to make it happen. By that point, an overwhelming majority of the population, who are also overwhelmingly Christian, would also have to support the idea.

[Sinfix_15]

Theoretically speaking............

lets say something crazy happened, like we had a president that wanted to bring millions of muslims to the united states and grant them amnesty. Then lets say this group of muslims starts a civil rights organization and fights for their religious rights. So it goes up for vote to legalize marrying an underage girl and passes. Would muslims not have this right in the united states?

or... are you saying that regardless of what various groups say about a given topic, the core values and traditions of america will continue to be upheld? you know... things like the bill of rights or the sanctity of marriage?

[Sinfix_15]

I really don't even want to entertain such a fantastic, illogical argument.

But for your sake of argument, an overwhelming majority of your representatives, congress, judges, and the president, republicans and democrats, who are overwhelmingly Christians, would all have to agree that its in the best interest of our society to allow 6 year olds to get married, and would have to radically alter the constitution to make it happen. By that point, an overwhelming majority of the population, who are also overwhelmingly Christian, would also have to support the idea.

OK, so lets say that the majority of our representatives vote against it.... the people vote against it........ and president appointed judges decide that prohibiting muslim's religious freedom is unconstitutional.... then could muslims have the right to marry a 6 year old girl in the US??

theoretically speaking of course.... i know things like this never happen.

[.blank cd]

Theoretically speaking............

lets say something crazy happened, like we had a president that wanted to bring millions of muslims to the united states and grant them amnesty. Then lets say this group of muslims starts a civil rights organization and fights for their religious rights. So it goes up for vote to legalize marrying an underage girl and passes. Would muslims not have this right in the united states?I just told you what that would be up against, so if it passed through insurmountable odds, then obviously they, and everyone else in America would have the right to marry 6 year olds and the American people would overwhelmingly support it,


or... are you saying that regardless of what various groups say about a given topic, the core values and traditions of america will continue to be upheld? you know... things like the bill of rights or the sanctity of marriage?Tax advantages to strictly heterosexual couples has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage and isn't in the bill of rights. Heterosexuality isn't a core value of America either.

[Sinfix_15]

I just told you what that would be up against, so if it passed through insurmountable odds, then obviously they, and everyone else in America would have the right to marry 6 year olds and the American people would overwhelmingly support it,

Tax advantages to strictly heterosexual couples has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage and isn't in the bill of rights. Heterosexuality isn't a core value of America either.

So in theory, a group of people who do not uphold any american value can come to america, become a majority and vote away any american value that they want? True or false....

There should be no tax advantages for anyone regardless of who you put your penis in at night.... but with that said.... "one nation under god". Marriage as it is in america is a christian institution.... which does not support homosexuality.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, answer a series of yes or no questions please.

Can money dictate the outcome of an election?
Can a majority vote away a constitutional right?
Is oil the primary export of middle eastern countries?
Is the united states the world's largest consumer of oil?
Would the united states being self sufficient with it's oil consumption damage middle eastern economies?
If Muslims became a majority in the united states, could they vote to change the constitution?

[.blank cd]

So in theory, a group of people who do not uphold any american value can come to america, become a majority and vote away any american value that they want? True or false....I don't even get what you're trying to suggest? Gays uphold equality, blacks uphold equality, both were minorities, what American value does marrying a 6 year old uphold that trumps that 6 year olds liberty? What American value did blacks and gays vote away? Bigotry? Either they did a fantastic job because they're now more equal in the eyes of the law, or they did a shitty job because you've shown that someone somewhere somehow can spin it into their own personal tragedy, deserving of empathy and national support, and through their ignorance, they proudly wear a badge of true American patriotism. Pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

So no. Muslims aren't all baby rapers, its not going to become a right in anyone's lifetime, and it is incomparable to gay marriage in any facet.

[.blank cd]

Blank, answer a series of yes or no questions please.

Can money dictate the outcome of an election?
Can a majority vote away a constitutional right?
Is oil the primary export of middle eastern countries?
Is the united states the world's largest consumer of oil?
Would the united states being self sufficient with it's oil consumption damage middle eastern economies?
If Muslims became a majority in the united states, could they vote to change the constitution?

Simple answer:No

Simple answer: No

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know, don't care

No

[Sinfix_15]

I don't even get what you're trying to suggest? Gays uphold equality, blacks uphold equality, both were minorities, what American value does marrying a 6 year old uphold that trumps that 6 year olds liberty? What American value did blacks and gays vote away? Bigotry? Either they did a fantastic job because they're now more equal in the eyes of the law, or they did a shitty job because you've shown that someone somewhere somehow can spin it into their own personal tragedy, deserving of empathy and national support, and through their ignorance, they proudly wear a badge of true American patriotism. Pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

So no. Muslims aren't all baby rapers, its not going to become a right in anyone's lifetime, and it is incomparable to gay marriage in any facet.

The only link to gay marriage is that the people did in fact vote AGAINST it and the court upheld it anyways. So, with political influence, muslims could render a result that was against the will of the people, is this not correct?

Theoretically speaking....... lets say something crazy happened, like we had a muslim president who appointed other muslims to his cabinet and then they appointed judges who would rule in their favor....

With political influence could muslims not some day gain the right for their religious laws to be honored in the united states? the same way homosexuals have? them being a minority and having the vote of the majority against them?

[Sinfix_15]

Simple answer:No

Simple answer: No

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know, don't care

No

I'm confused now.... so in a democracy, the people do not have the right to vote and change the constitution? or vote and change laws in america?

[.blank cd]

I'm confused now.... so in a democracy, the people do not have the right to vote and change the constitution? or vote and change laws in america?

We don't live in a democracy.

[.blank cd]

The only link to gay marriage is that the people did in fact vote AGAINST it and the court upheld it anyways. So, with political influence, muslims could render a result that was against the will of the people, is this not correct?

Theoretically speaking....... lets say something crazy happened, like we had a muslim president who appointed other muslims to his cabinet and then they appointed judges who would rule in their favor....

With political influence could muslims not some day gain the right for their religious laws to be honored in the united states? the same way homosexuals have? them being a minority and having the vote of the majority against them?

Do you think we live in a single tiered system where one section of government has 100% influence on American life?

[Sinfix_15]

We don't live in a democracy.

So my rights will never be voted away by a majority??

this is great news.... i feel so much better now.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you think we live in a single tiered system where one section of government has 100% influence on American life?

How many sections of government decided to make gay marriage legal?


Why are you ignoring the questions...????

That feeling you get when you're thinking of the answers, but it goes against everything you believe in..... that's cognitive dissonance.

[.blank cd]

How many sections of government decided to make gay marriage legal?All 3. Every time.



Why are you ignoring the questions...????

That feeling you get when you're thinking of the answers, but it goes against everything you believe in..... that's cognitive dissonance.

What question did I ignore? The answer is probably no.

Muslims can't come over here and start imposing theyre own laws.

[Sinfix_15]

All 3. Every time.




What question did I ignore? The answer is probably no.

Muslims can't come over here and start imposing theyre own laws.

A Muslim majority cant vote for the religious rights and civil liberties accustomed to them?

[.blank cd]

They already have them. Muslims are already free to practice their religion in America however they want, as long as it doesn't impose on someone else's liberties. That's the deal.

Since 6 year olds can't give consent, make rational decisions, and endorse legal contracts, it would be an infringement on that child's liberty to be married.

[Sinfix_15]

They already have them. Muslims are already free to practice their religion in America however they want, as long as it doesn't impose on someone else's liberties. That's the deal.

Since 6 year olds can't give consent, make rational decisions, and endorse legal contracts, it would be an infringement on that child's liberty to be married.

Ok.... go back and read that big bold "muslim response" that i posted..... Show me one area of the world where Muslim's embrace any other culture's religious beliefs.

Would i be safe to protest islam and inform people of my religious belief in any predominantly islamic country?

[.blank cd]

Ok.... go back and read that big bold "muslim response" that i posted..... Show me one area of the world where Muslim's embrace any other culture's religious beliefs.Anywhere a Muslim would assimilate?


Would i be safe to protest islam and inform people of my religious belief in any predominantly islamic country?I suppose that would be up to the host countries laws on freedom of speech, huh? But what does that have to do with America?

[Sinfix_15]

Anywhere a Muslim would assimilate?

I suppose that would be up to the host countries laws on freedom of speech, huh? But what does that have to do with America?

It has to do with america because Muslims dont want to come to america to embrace our values.... they want to expand their own. Nothing about Islam teaches tolerance of other beliefs.

[.blank cd]

It has to do with america because Muslims dont want to come to america to embrace our values.... they want to expand their own. Nothing about Islam teaches tolerance of other beliefs.

Your argument isn't holding up. There are about 8 or 9 million American Muslims who are in America who have embraced American values. Can you convince me that more than half of those don't want to embrace American values?

[.blank cd]

And could you also show how your argument is specific to this one religion?

[Sinfix_15]

Your argument isn't holding up. There are about 8 or 9 million American Muslims who are in America who have embraced American values. Can you convince me that more than half of those don't want to embrace American values?

Koran specifically instructs muslims to lie to and deceive opposition for the purpose of infiltrating and ruling over them. If you want to see how muslims embrace american values, look to any country where they are not regulated by american law or where they are the predominant religious presence.

[.blank cd]

Koran specifically instructs muslims to lie to and deceive opposition for the purpose of infiltrating and ruling over them. If you want to see how muslims embrace american values, look to any country where they are not regulated by american law or where they are the predominant religious presence.So what? Most of our politicians, and 90% of our population adhere to a pretty barbaric religious text themselves. Maybe you've heard of it.

If your arguing about Muslims assimating to American culture, why does it matter what the Muslims who have NOT assimilated into American culture are doing abroad?

[Echonova]

This thread makes my brain hurt. Shockingly, I agree with blank. Like he said, I'm more worried about the dirty Mexicans taking over than Muslims. :trollface:









http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/quipfan/deadhorse.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/quipfan/media/deadhorse.jpg.html)

[Sinfix_15]

This thread makes my brain hurt. Shockingly, I agree with blank. Like he said, I'm more worried about the dirty Mexicans taking over than Muslims. :trollface:









http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/quipfan/deadhorse.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/quipfan/media/deadhorse.jpg.html)

Not me........ I'd much rather have mexicans than muslims.

[bu villain]

Koran permits lying to deceive for the betterment of islam. So are we to believe muslims when they say they dont believe in the radical parts of the religion even when the book specifically says to lie on behalf of islam?

No you don't have to believe their words but I find that their actions are a reliable indicator.


Are you disputing that the koran is radical or are you taking the approach that most muslims simply do not believe in the koran?

I've never read a religious text that wasn't radical and the Koran is no exception. I think for any religious text, the Koran included, it's followers interpret and live out it's tenets in a variety of ways. To put it in Christian terms, MLK and Westboro Baptist Church both strongly believe in the bible.


Who do you think is to blame for the chaos that surrounds every nation that is predominantly islamic? explain it to me..... offer up your case that would remove the blame from muslims themselves.

Well there are over 50 countries who are predominately Muslim and I would hardly say they are all in chaos. I can't make such a sweeping generalization to what the cause is of the problems in all those countries. There are a variety of factors and certainly beyond my depth of knowledge. Is part of it due to people's interpretation of Islam? Yes, but I won't condemn all muslims based on the actions of a minor portion. There are far too many Muslims live respectably for me to say that.

[-EnVus-]

She was Pardoned so END THREAD/

[Sinfix_15]

No you don't have to believe their words but I find that their actions are a reliable indicator.



I've never read a religious text that wasn't radical and the Koran is no exception. I think for any religious text, the Koran included, it's followers interpret and live out it's tenets in a variety of ways. To put it in Christian terms, MLK and Westboro Baptist Church both strongly believe in the bible.



Well there are over 50 countries who are predominately Muslim and I would hardly say they are all in chaos. I can't make such a sweeping generalization to what the cause is of the problems in all those countries. There are a variety of factors and certainly beyond my depth of knowledge. Is part of it due to people's interpretation of Islam? Yes, but I won't condemn all muslims based on the actions of a minor portion. There are far too many Muslims live respectably for me to say that.

We're of a like mind when it comes to religion in general, but i dont see how you're not drawing a comparison to muslims of today to the crusading christians of the past. The modern day christian has been subdued and learned to cope with the ever changing society around them. They still grumble from time to time, but ultimately, they're pretty tolerant of nonchristians. Muslims are very anti-western culture and theyre at war with our way of living. If you had a to put a % on it, what % of the world's genocide do you think is on behalf of Islam? The media should do more to show the world how Muslims treat women and children. It scares me to try and understand the reasoning for being tolerant of this radical and violent religion.

[Sinfix_15]

She was Pardoned so END THREAD/

Time to move on to one of the other 295782375892375892758923789572589 raped, tortured, disfigured or murdered women in the name of Islam.

[bu villain]

We're of a like mind when it comes to religion in general, but i dont see how you're not drawing a comparison to muslims of today to the crusading christians of the past. The modern day christian has been subdued and learned to cope with the ever changing society around them. They still grumble from time to time, but ultimately, they're pretty tolerant of nonchristians. Muslims are very anti-western culture and theyre at war with our way of living. If you had a to put a % on it, what % of the world's genocide do you think is on behalf of Islam? The media should do more to show the world how Muslims treat women and children. It scares me to try and understand the reasoning for being tolerant of this radical and violent religion.

I do think modern day jihadists are similar in many ways to the crusaders of the past. Over time they too will become more subdued and tolerant. I believe it is inevitable and the jihadists are already far outnumbered in the Muslim world. I don't have a problem calling out mistreatment of women and children, the only issue I have is that you blame the religion rather than the individuals when most people who claim the religion are peaceful. While by sheer numbers, many muslim are violent and intolerant, your statements usually imply that most Muslims are this way. That is the issue I am taking.

[Sinfix_15]

I do think modern day jihadists are similar in many ways to the crusaders of the past. Over time they too will become more subdued and tolerant. I believe it is inevitable and the jihadists are already far outnumbered in the Muslim world. I don't have a problem calling out mistreatment of women and children, the only issue I have is that you blame the religion rather than the individuals when most people who claim the religion are peaceful. While by sheer numbers, many muslim are violent and intolerant, your statements usually imply that most Muslims are this way. That is the issue I am taking.

I'm just more into preserving the way of life that myself, you, my friends and family enjoy than i am being tolerant or accepting of other countries. The fact that someone like the boston bombers were able to travel back and forth between countries while plotting a terrorist attack and then successfully pull off that attack is very alarming to me. Especially in light of the fact that our government has open access to everyone in america..... It's like they said in the past... "when you start exchanging freedom for safety, you're no longer free or safe".... the spying didnt stop the terrorist attacks, even though we gave up a freedom to keep us safe from terrorists attacks.


Edit... i said we gave up a freedom, correction... a freedom was taken from us.

[bu villain]

I'm just more into preserving the way of life that myself, you, my friends and family enjoy than i am being tolerant or accepting of other countries. The fact that someone like the boston bombers were able to travel back and forth between countries while plotting a terrorist attack and then successfully pull off that attack is very alarming to me. Especially in light of the fact that our government has open access to everyone in america..... It's like they said in the past... "when you start exchanging freedom for safety, you're no longer free or safe".... the spying didnt stop the terrorist attacks, even though we gave up a freedom to keep us safe from terrorists attacks.


Edit... i said we gave up a freedom, correction... a freedom was taken from us.

Yes it is alarming but as you know, freedom is dangerous so we will always be somewhat vulnerable to attacks unless you only believe freedom is a privilege reserved only for Americans. I would also like to generally preserve our way of life but the jihadists feel the same and see America as interfering with their way of life. It's true, we are. We have a global influence and it is very disruptive to societies whose fundamental values haven't changed much that much in hundreds of years. Now of course we believe our values are better because they are OUR values and so we will continue to act on those. The question then becomes how best to convert others and minimize the backlash. You seem to think antagonizing other cultures is the way. I think you catch more flies with honey.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes it is alarming but as you know, freedom is dangerous so we will always be somewhat vulnerable to attacks unless you only believe freedom is a privilege reserved only for Americans. I would also like to generally preserve our way of life but the jihadists feel the same and see America as interfering with their way of life. It's true, we are. We have a global influence and it is very disruptive to societies whose fundamental values haven't changed much that much in hundreds of years. Now of course we believe our values are better because they are OUR values and so we will continue to act on those. The question then becomes how best to convert others and minimize the backlash. You seem to think antagonizing other cultures is the way. I think you catch more flies with honey.

Given the accuracy of what you just said..... why is so impossible for politicians to understand that? Or, assuming they do understand it.... which i think they do, give me the reason for manipulating tragedy to push useless legislation?

[bu villain]

Given the accuracy of what you just said..... why is so impossible for politicians to understand that? Or, assuming they do understand it.... which i think they do, give me the reason for manipulating tragedy to push useless legislation?

Its not that politicians don't understand, it's that many citizens would rather have safety than freedom and believe they can trade one for the other. The politicians are trying to enact the will of that group of people.

[Sinfix_15]

Its not that politicians don't understand, it's that many citizens would rather have safety than freedom and believe they can trade one for the other. The politicians are trying to enact the will of that group of people.

come on................................... please dont tell you believe what you just said.......

So the government is just an unbiased neutral observer who acts solely on the will of the people and does not push in any direction?

[bu villain]

come on................................... please dont tell you believe what you just said.......

So the government is just an unbiased neutral observer who acts solely on the will of the people and does not push in any direction?

I didn't say they were unbiased, they are usually very biased toward getting reelected. Some politicians believe they can trade freedom for security and are willing to do so, just as many of their constituents do. Others don't believe that but will act like they do because they want to get reelected. Very few politicians are willing to do something they believe in even if they know their constituents feel the opposite.

[Sinfix_15]

I didn't say they were unbiased, they are usually very biased toward getting reelected. Some politicians believe they can trade freedom for security and are willing to do so, just as many of their constituents do. Others don't believe that but will act like they do because they want to get reelected. Very few politicians are willing to do something they believe in even if they know their constituents feel the opposite.

rationalize the spying program to me...... since polls are showing that almost all of America strongly oppose it.

[.blank cd]

rationalize the spying program to me...... since polls are showing that almost all of America strongly oppose it.

This is why it's so hard to decipher a point from you. You move from subject to subject like they're the in the same topic expecting to draw a conclusion from the new topic about the old one

Stay. On. Topic.

[bu villain]

rationalize the spying program to me...... since polls are showing that almost all of America strongly oppose it.

Simple! They didn't think they would get caught.

[Sinfix_15]

This is why it's so hard to decipher a point from you. You move from subject to subject like they're the in the same topic expecting to draw a conclusion from the new topic about the old one

Stay. On. Topic.

He said the government is acting on behalf of the people and doing things to gain support for elections......

So i asked him to justify the most controversial program in the current time that almost all americans would vote against.

This is on topic.... you're just too simple minded to understand the connection. Step away, men are talking.

[Sinfix_15]

Simple! They didn't think they would get caught.

So what can we learn from their rogue actions? This doesnt really support your will of the people argument. If they were acting on behalf of the people, they wouldnt need to hide anything from the people. If the will of the people is paramount, then why isnt government completely transparent?

[bu villain]

So what can we learn from their rogue actions? This doesnt really support your will of the people argument. If they were acting on behalf of the people, they wouldnt need to hide anything from the people. If the will of the people is paramount, then why isnt government completely transparent?

This is nuanced so let me try to explain a little better. Politicians number one priority is to get reelected. Depending on the circumstances, this can manifest itself in several ways but I will discuss the two I have already brought up.

1. One way is to take positions their target voters agree with, even if they don't personally agree with it. This could be generally referred to as "will of the people" but is more accurately called "will of the target group of voters". The target group changes depending on the circumstances such as politicians taking more extreme positions in primaries than in general elections. It's also important to note that very few politicians target group is the whole US.

2. Another way is to implement action that will have a result the public likes but hide the nefarious means to get the result. The NSA program is an example of this. Everyone is happy as long as terrorists are caught but if it turns out the tool that was used to catch them is also spying on them, they aren't so happy. If no one ever found out about the NSA program, voters would have remained ignorant and happy that some terrorists were caught.

So the government isn't transparent because many politicians target groups have conflicting views. Transparency would prevent them all from trying to satisfy different groups at simultaneously. Also it aids in their ability to take actions with popular ends but questionable means of getting there.

[Sinfix_15]

This is nuanced so let me try to explain a little better. Politicians number one priority is to get reelected. Depending on the circumstances, this can manifest itself in several ways but I will discuss the two I have already brought up.

1. One way is to take positions their target voters agree with, even if they don't personally agree with it. This could be generally referred to as "will of the people" but is more accurately called "will of the target group of voters". The target group changes depending on the circumstances such as politicians taking more extreme positions in primaries than in general elections. It's also important to note that very few politicians target group is the whole US.

2. Another way is to implement action that will have a result the public likes but hide the nefarious means to get the result. The NSA program is an example of this. Everyone is happy as long as terrorists are caught but if it turns out the tool that was used to catch them is also spying on them, they aren't so happy. If no one ever found out about the NSA program, voters would have remained ignorant and happy that some terrorists were caught.

So the government isn't transparent because many politicians target groups have conflicting views. Transparency would prevent them all from trying to satisfy different groups at simultaneously. Also it aids in their ability to take actions with popular ends but questionable means of getting there.

During the last major terrorist attack, which wasnt prevented by the NSA spying program, the spying program was being used to spy on political opponents while simultaneously allowing a terrorists plot to go under the radar. Is it possible that the government's affection for programs such as this is based on the ability to manipulate elections and retain power than it is keeping americans safe? Is it within the government's range of abilities to override the constitution which was designed to limit the government's range of abilities based on the notion that theyre doing it in our best interest? Given the history of government, is it even feasible to believe that the government is acting selflessly on our behalf with this program?

[bu villain]

During the last major terrorist attack, which wasnt prevented by the NSA spying program, the spying program was being used to spy on political opponents while simultaneously allowing a terrorists plot to go under the radar. Is it possible that the government's affection for programs such as this is based on the ability to manipulate elections and retain power than it is keeping americans safe? Is it within the government's range of abilities to override the constitution which was designed to limit the government's range of abilities based on the notion that theyre doing it in our best interest? Given the history of government, is it even feasible to believe that the government is acting selflessly on our behalf with this program?

Rather than answering each question individually I will say this. Yes, the government can abuse power for political gain. No disagreement there. I do however believe what is in the governments best interest is not always opposed to the people's interest though.

[Sinfix_15]

Rather than answering each question individually I will say this. Yes, the government can abuse power for political gain. No disagreement there. I do however believe what is in the governments best interest is not always opposed to the people's interest though.

Thank you for agreeing that i'm right.

[bu villain]

No need to thank me. My opinion doesn't change depending on whether you agree with it or not.

[Sinfix_15]

No need to thank me. My opinion doesn't change depending on whether you agree with it or not.

Now that we've put that topic behind us....

your thoughts on Chris Christie saying that "libertarianism is a dangerous idea"

All of these politicians swear to uphold the constitution and then attack it when they gain power.

[bu villain]

Now that we've put that topic behind us....

your thoughts on Chris Christie saying that "libertarianism is a dangerous idea"

That's a very loaded statement. Dangerous to who or to what? Democracy is still considered a dangerous idea in many parts of the world. I can see how libertarianism is a "dangerous" idea but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it, explore it, or implement certain aspects of it.

[Sinfix_15]

Our tax money is currently aiding the same muslim terrorists who did this. Nothing gives me a bigger sense of pride than knowing that my country's leaders send billions of dollars in aid to other countries that hate me, you, our friends, wives, daughters and everything we stand for.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRKknYVCEAIDlTA.jpg:large

[bu villain]

Our tax money is currently aiding the same muslim terrorists who did this. Nothing gives me a bigger sense of pride than knowing that my country's leaders send billions of dollars in aid to other countries that hate me, you, our friends, wives, daughters and everything we stand for.

I'm not familiar with this case. Who are the people who did this? Which muslim terrorist groups exactly are we sending aid to?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not familiar with this case. Who are the people who did this? Which muslim terrorist groups exactly are we sending aid to?

Syrian rebels.

[bu villain]

The syrian rebels are a diverse group and not exactly a coherent one. I certainly wouldn't classify them as a whole as Muslim terrorists. Everyone knows the Syria situation is difficult and complicated, why oversimplify it?

[Sinfix_15]

The syrian rebels are a diverse group and not exactly a coherent one. I certainly wouldn't classify them as a whole as Muslim terrorists. Everyone knows the Syria situation is difficult and complicated, why oversimplify it?

You made my point for me.............

and you also indirectly mentioned another government problem that has become an epidemic.

We dont know who the Syrian rebels are... some good, some bad, some terrorists, some al queda... a "diverse group" as you worded it..... yet the government is content raining money on them and hoping that some lands in right spot. This is something they do often. I'm tired of the government reaching in my pocket for money to gamble with. The government is ok with using my money to send guns to a "diverse group of incoherent rebels" without having any clue who they are while at the same time discriminating against american gun owners who actually pay the money needed to keep a functioning government who is supposed to defend our rights, not the foreign countries.

[bu villain]

Again I think you are oversimplifying. Not giving the Syrian rebels support is more of a gamble than giving them some level of support. Global politics is not a game you can abstain from. It affects us whether we like it or not. It is in the US's interest to have democratic governments in the Middle East. That is why we are getting involved, not because we want to protect Syrian rights. We can and do try to vet the groups we give money to but it is impossible to ensure that none of it will end up in the hands of people we don't want it to. Sometimes people are your enemy in one arena and your ally in another and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face.

PS. Thanks for bringing up american gun owners as if that is at all relevant.

[Sinfix_15]

Again I think you are oversimplifying. Not giving the Syrian rebels support is more of a gamble than giving them some level of support. Global politics is not a game you can abstain from. It affects us whether we like it or not. It is in the US's interest to have democratic governments in the Middle East. That is why we are getting involved, not because we want to protect Syrian rights. We can and do try to vet the groups we give money to but it is impossible to ensure that none of it will end up in the hands of people we don't want it to. Sometimes people are your enemy in one arena and your ally in another and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face.

PS. Thanks for bringing up american gun owners as if that is at all relevant.

So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?

Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?

Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens be equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?

should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?

[bu villain]

So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?

Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?

Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.


Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens being equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?

This is not an ideology, it is a practical issue. There is no reason our domestic policies should be the same as our foreign ones but last I checked, the vast majority of the government believes citizens should be able to own guns so that's not really an issue anyways.


should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?

I see no reason to.

[Sinfix_15]

Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.


When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?

When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?

We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?



I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???

[bu villain]

When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?

When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?

We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?

Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.


I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't consider either situation stable and that's not the only relevant question when it comes to whether or not we should aid the Syrian rebels anyways. That's just one piece of the pie.

[Sinfix_15]

Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.


So you assume that some portion of terrorists are acting on behalf of a government?

Based on this assumption, you still feel it's in our best interest to aid a group of rebels who are attempting to overthrow their government? Please help me understand the benefit of this. Are we just trying to cut out the middle man and arm the terrorists ourselves? If a government attacks us, we have a legal course of action to hold them accountable, seeing as how the government is subject to laws. Is it not better to maintain that structure than it is to strengthen the nameless, faceless, "terrorism" in the "war on terrorism"? If nothing else, at least we know who are enemy is with the syrian government standing. Also, isnt our purpose to install democracy and follow the democratic process? how does arming rebels and promoting anarchy accomplish this?

[bu villain]

So you assume that some portion of terrorists are acting on behalf of a government?

No I am not saying this. I am saying some governments try to fight terrorists in their own country, others do not.


Based on this assumption, you still feel it's in our best interest to aid a group of rebels who are attempting to overthrow their government? Please help me understand the benefit of this. Are we just trying to cut out the middle man and arm the terrorists ourselves? If a government attacks us, we have a legal course of action to hold them accountable, seeing as how the government is subject to laws. Is it not better to maintain that structure than it is to strengthen the nameless, faceless, "terrorism" in the "war on terrorism"? If nothing else, at least we know who are enemy is with the syrian government standing. Also, isnt our purpose to install democracy and follow the democratic process? how does arming rebels and promoting anarchy accomplish this?

You are under the mistaken assumption that I believe we need to support the rebels. I'm actually far too ignorant of all the complexities to say for sure. I was merely presenting some of the reasons why many people, both democrat and republican, think we should. You already seem to have a handle on the reasons we shouldn't so there was no need for me to present those arguments. What I do feel informed enough to say, is that what happens will have consequences for the US and there are risks no matter what we do.