Originally posted by Ihmotepp

The local mullah took to his mosque's loudspeakers, exhorting his followers to take action against Noreen. In a depressingly familiar pattern, her defense of her faith was twisted into an accusation of blasphemy, according to her family and legal observers familiar with the case. As a frenzied mob pursued her, the police intervened, taking her into custody. But far from protecting her, they arrested and charged Noreen with insulting Islam and its prophet. And on Nov. 8, after enduring 18 months in prison, she was sentenced to death by a district court, making her the first woman to suffer that fate. (See how WikiLeaks' disclosure fueled anti-U.S. anger in Pakistan.)

 

the tolerance of Islam.

Please show us a link of some sort, whereas it's harsh that she was sentenced to death, defending her faith could have meant insulting Islam. However, every good muslim should respect Christianity and most importantly, the Prophet Jesus. Often you will get cases of some crazy old mullah insulting every christianity/Judaism without knowing that Islam is against this.

But as for pakistan being intolerant? I'd have to disagree...Strongly. Intolerance is rife in smaller village communities but inner city areas there is no such thing. Amongst the rich there are several christians (not as many as muslim but proportionate to population it makes sense). I can give a personal example, in my own village from which i come from the local christians were given a loan by my uncle to start their own business, and their house is owned by my uncle also. It was given to them on goodwill as they were struggling and my uncle felt that he should help a fellow Pakistani. This is often the case in several villages in Pakistan. Intolerance is generally in the North-west region where the Taliban have a stronghold.

I love how Baff represents typical British views. I must admit, I have never been more proud to be British on this forum.

Great work Baff.

Your saving me a lot of time and effort by responding for me, you basically say everything that i intend to say, so thumbs up and keep up the good work!

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by drbaltazar

like i mentionned we are neutral,you might think other wise.but when canada sent troops to kuwait it was because kuwait was oppressed by irak .

research it!

when we sent troop to irak later it was on the lies of other country that had other agenda .

but our aim is and as always been to help country in need and stay neutral

countless country got helped from canada in the past.countless others will in the futur .we send help to haiti,we sell goods to cuba even tho we shouldnt because usa is against it etc etc .

and countless other .like i said some think canada isnt neutral .but believe me canada is a neutral country

we get manipulated a lot by unscrupulous country we try to sift trough the campain of miss-information but

we arent perfect we dont have the ressource other country have just for lobying .we wish we could but it isnt so

but the goal of canada as and is to stay fair and as neutral as the rest of the world will allow us to be!

 Sorry hun, If you send troops to fight oppression you are FAR from Neutral. Neutrality would mean staying out of all other countries affairs regardless of oppression

 Nope do not see Canada listed as a neutral country,  nor is it even the list of countries " claiming" to be neutral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)

If I just decided to start calling the USA neutral today.. It wouldn;t make it so.

 

drbaltazar supports Radical Islamic Terrorists. 

And he really, really, really wants to believe that the country he lives in, Canada, doesn't fight against radical Islamic terrorists. 

So, that's what he's going to believe, whether it's true or not. 

But actually, Canada is a good ally in the war against radical Islamic terrorists, even though they let people like drbaltazar live there. 

 I just think he is misguided. I do not think he even knows what he is supporting. He saw some pictures of dead children and became enraged agreed to propaganda he doesn;t even understand. If he has no clue what sharia law is, the History of the Kingdom of Israel, has never read the Qur'an  he is just ranting about something he knows nothing about. Kinda like most voters in he US. Seriously - he thinks Canada is NEUTRAL! LOL

Tell me, have you read the Qura'an?

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Khuzarrz

Originally posted by deviliscious

This is a religious war, not just a war  over territory. And face it, the Jewish people were there first.  I am not saying they didn;t in turn do the exact same thing that was done to them when they were originally driven from their lands, I am just saying, they came back home, rather than invaded a land that they had no claim to.

Okay, so why is it you're still occupying Native American territory? If they left the reserves, killed your family and stole your house (and all of your neighbours houses) and continued until they'd taken your whole city, then they built a wall around the slums you now seek refuge in and began to systematically destroy the 'infrastructure' (if you can even call it that) so you all starve to death as they allow no aid in or out of your area - that's cool with you because they were there first, right?

You must be new here. I AM HOPI.  If you had actually read this thread you posted on, you would realize that.  The Name Hopi means " peaceful ones" , not " the ones who will kill all your family."

We WERE here on  Turtle Island first.  We recognize all races to be family though. We recognize different worlds religions as the instructions that were given to each race by the Great Spirit.  Life as we are made to understand it is a bit different than most seem to view the world.  As we were taught, each race was given a set  of tablets that contained their instructions of the Great Spirit, and that one day the tablets would reunite, and the world would know we are all family.

But your Hopi, it doesn't mean all Native Indian tribes were like you, and it does not justify the Western invasion of Native Indian Land, i was going to maek this point but he did it for me.

History is often misguided. When Columbus came to our world, he was amazed at the  how the people gave everything they had freely to them, how they treated them as family. The natives did not  defend themselves until after the extermination began. The same for the Jewish people. They were attecked first and sent from their own Sacred lands. They were returned, and now everyone wants to cast them out again.

Anywho, i thought this would be very interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10208027.stm

Did you not already see the video evidence that there was much more than that used? It was already posted in this thread. They readied for battle prior to attacking the Israelis. " A pro Palestine" supporter is supposed to give more unbiased evidence than the actual video footage?

1) That does not justify taking over someone else's land.

2) The videos show weapons, that could easily be wood or metal. I saw no knives or other weapons as the Israelis claim.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Khuzarrz

Originally posted by deviliscious

This is a religious war, not just a war  over territory. And face it, the Jewish people were there first.  I am not saying they didn;t in turn do the exact same thing that was done to them when they were originally driven from their lands, I am just saying, they came back home, rather than invaded a land that they had no claim to.

Okay, so why is it you're still occupying Native American territory? If they left the reserves, killed your family and stole your house (and all of your neighbours houses) and continued until they'd taken your whole city, then they built a wall around the slums you now seek refuge in and began to systematically destroy the 'infrastructure' (if you can even call it that) so you all starve to death as they allow no aid in or out of your area - that's cool with you because they were there first, right?

You must be new here. I AM HOPI.  If you had actually read this thread you posted on, you would realize that.  The Name Hopi means " peaceful ones" , not " the ones who will kill all your family."

We WERE here on  Turtle Island first.  We recognize all races to be family though. We recognize different worlds religions as the instructions that were given to each race by the Great Spirit.  Life as we are made to understand it is a bit different than most seem to view the world.  As we were taught, each race was given a set  of tablets that contained their instructions of the Great Spirit, and that one day the tablets would reunite, and the world would know we are all family.

But your Hopi, it doesn't mean all Native Indian tribes were like you, and it does not justify the Western invasion of Native Indian Land, i was going to maek this point but he did it for me.

Anywho, i thought this would be very interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10208027.stm

Originally posted by Man1ac

Yep yep, it starts on the 11th of June and I cannot wait! For me, it's the greatest sporting event in the world. I love football(soccer) and I know a lot of you peeps here love it too! I'm going to kinda be neutral this year, even though I support England as it's where I live, I've kinda given up on them lol. I seriously cannot wait to see players like Messi, Ronaldo and Torres in action!

Oh and to put it politely, if you don't like football, just, you know, don't post about how you think it's rubbish for whatever reason(s) you have. 

I don't think Americans love footie as much as we do :(

Originally posted by Bigdavo

Ok seriously that's just fucking gay.

   ^ what he said.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

No one is "discriminating" against your race because they don't let you come to the US illegally, and give you all the rights of a US citizen. 

Citizenship is not about race. If you are white as snow, and immigrated to Mexico  from Ireland, and had lily white children there, those children are Mexican. 

That is their nationality, not their race. 

 

Just like Americans come from Africa, Europe, China, Japan, etc. American is their nationality, not their race. 

If you are not American, you must have permission to be in the United States. 

This has nothing to do with your race, or your color. 

 

The real agenda behind those opposed to the Arizona laws against illegal immigrants, is that they support open borders with Mexico. 

They support all Mexicans having all the same rights as American Citizens. They dont' say this openly, becuase they know this will not be well received, but they do not support securing the borders in any way. 

But, they don't want the US to have any control over Mexico. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to allow Mexico to remain a corrupt lawless country, which is what creates their poverty, and at the same time let all Mexicans have all rights of US citizenship. 

You can't have both. if you want open borders, then the US will have to run Mexico so it is no longer corrupt, which is what creates the poverty there. 

If you dont' want to clean up the corruption in Mexico, then the borders must remain closed. Take your pick. 

 

But what makes you an American? Place of birth? Nationality Papers? or that you hold American values?

 

United States Law. that's what makes you American. 

The law changes. Right now you can become an American many ways. You can be born here, you can also become naturalized, and you can qualify to be naturalized by being a permanent resident for various amounts of time, depending on if you are married to a US citizen or not. 

You cannot become a US citizen if you have committed a crime of "moral turpitude" generally a crime of theft or violence against another person. 

Are you saying that someone in Mexico "holds American values" so that means he or she should be able to vote for the US President, or qualify for all the benefits of a US citizen?

No what i was driving at was; if you are an American National but you don't believe in freedom of speech (or anything else that is anti-american) , does that make you unamerican?

And how would you ever quantify or qualify that? Someone just says "I hold American values" and that's it, they can be an American? I don't think so. 

You are American because of American Law. 

If you fall within those laws, you are a citizen of the US, and if you don't, you are not. 

No country has ever remained a nation with open borders. The US won't either. 

The cry of "racism" is a red herring by people that want open borders, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with race, or white or black or brown color of your skin. 

I think in most cases that might be true but you definately get some people that just don't like the colour of you skin (as you do in most countries) but what matters is how vocal these people are.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

No one is "discriminating" against your race because they don't let you come to the US illegally, and give you all the rights of a US citizen. 

Citizenship is not about race. If you are white as snow, and immigrated to Mexico  from Ireland, and had lily white children there, those children are Mexican. 

That is their nationality, not their race. 

 

Just like Americans come from Africa, Europe, China, Japan, etc. American is their nationality, not their race. 

If you are not American, you must have permission to be in the United States. 

This has nothing to do with your race, or your color. 

 

The real agenda behind those opposed to the Arizona laws against illegal immigrants, is that they support open borders with Mexico. 

They support all Mexicans having all the same rights as American Citizens. They dont' say this openly, becuase they know this will not be well received, but they do not support securing the borders in any way. 

But, they don't want the US to have any control over Mexico. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to allow Mexico to remain a corrupt lawless country, which is what creates their poverty, and at the same time let all Mexicans have all rights of US citizenship. 

You can't have both. if you want open borders, then the US will have to run Mexico so it is no longer corrupt, which is what creates the poverty there. 

If you dont' want to clean up the corruption in Mexico, then the borders must remain closed. Take your pick. 

 

But what makes you an American? Place of birth? Nationality Papers? or that you hold American values?

I think the 'libs' won this thread. In the UK Beck is mocked by everyone, even those on the far Right, because he is infact a moron. He is very offensive and simply talks rubbish backed with no facts and is a failed fearmongerer. WE do get some glen beck over her on fox but noone watches it for other than comedic value.

P.S. I'm a Libertarian.

Originally posted by baff

What's to be glad about? The unelected Prime Minister has lost the election and is still in office.

He has offered to stand down as Labour party leader in 4 months time. Which could even be sometime after the next election. (Giving him another chance to win).

 

He has promised to stay on as Prime Minister as long as it takes to fix the economy. Which is a Catch 22, since as long as he stays on the economy can only get worse.

 

Literally, every time he opens his mouth everyone in the country gets poorer.

Stocks plummet, the pound plummmets...with each and every announcement he makes.

As often as I agree with you, i very much disagree on this occassion. He has now left office however, the incoming Tory government will result in the worst economic downturn we have ever seen.

Here are the components of Aggregate Demand (AD) = C (consumer spending) + Investment + Government Spending (GS) + (Imports minus Exports). When y u have Government Spending at such high levels that the government employs more than half of the work force, cuts in government spending will be disastrous for the economy. Cuts are needed, yes, but not to the level the Conservatives have proposed. They are simply doing it on an ideological basis, not any economic foundation.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dullahman

For those who say muslims don't come out enough against terrorism, this is what i was waiting for, a completely refutation of all terrorist acts on innocent people. Al Qaeda or any otrher Islamic terrorist organisation can no longer claim to have justification over it's actions. Dr Tahir Ul Qadri is a major scholar world-wide, his views are widely respected by all.

Here's the Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544531.stm

 

They will simply say he is Kafir, and that Allah and the Qu'ran justifies their actions.

 

Kafir (Arabic: ???? k?fir; plural ????? kuff?r) is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate"; also the term "Kuffar" (singular "Kafir") is used to refer to peasants (???????? ??????????? ?????????) (Surah 57 Al-Hadid (Iron) Ayah 20;[2]) as they till earth and "cover up" seeds; the term "Kufr" means "to cover up" – this is why earth tillers are referred to as "Kuffar."

 

Even lower than an infidel are those that are born Muslim and then reject the will of Allah.

 

assalamu alaikum

 

But the problem for the terrorists, is that this uses the qur'an and the sunnah to explain fully how it is unlawful. I highly doubt that they will stop their actions but i think it will definately hinder their recruitment process. And i have a feeling they're going to try and kill Dr Tahir ul Qadri, 2 reasons: he spoke out against them and that he's sufi. Despite him being sufi, he is using evidence from sources that muslims universally agree upon therefore giving them no justification, though i do see what you are trying to say.

P.S. you talk about shari'a law as if there is only one version of it, the only version you know of is the Wahabi one, look up Hanafi Shari'a law, i think you would appreciate the difference.

 

No. There will always be fighting when one person tells another, this is the law you must follow. Why? Because that is what my god wants.

But what if I don't worship your god, or if I disagree with the way you have interpreted the word of god? Well, that's to bad isn't it, because I'm in charge.

This sort of rule with ALWAYS lead to strife, with one group telling another what to do, with the ultimate justification brooking no argument. God told me this is the way it should be. You cannot argue with God.

The Hanafi

"The sources from which the law is derived, in order of importance and preference are: the Qur'an, the authentic narrations of the Prophet (Hadith), Consensus (ijma) and analogical reasoning (qiyas), qiyas only being applied if direct material cannot be found in the Qur'an or Hadith."

Again, this leads to oppression, and movements like Al Qaeda.

The only way to have a society free of oppression, which reduces violence, is freedom of religion.

Hanafi is not freedom of religion by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, why I am stating that MOST Muslims are not helping the fight against terrorists, because they do not fully support freedom of religion.

If you support religious rule, then Al Qaeda is just as justified in their demands as any other religion that wants to govern over a people.

Look at the contrast with the American system. Islam says, we have the right to tell you what to do, because we are working for Allah.

The American system, by contrast, says people get their rights directly from God, and the government cannot interfere with those rights.

No one can tell another how to worship in the US or EU. This prevents strife, and those that try to do this are put in jail.

In the ME that is the law of almost every country, that they can tell you how to worship. This resluts in extremist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc.

If I can justify telling you how to live your life with religion, then every version of that religion will have a legitimate claim at governing and they will naturally come to blows with one another.

The solution is to embrace Freedom of Religion. This is a course the majority of Muslims, IMO, have not yet taken.

I said look up hanafi Shari'a law not what Hanfism is, read it! Because interpret verses DIFFERENTLY! We might use the same verse of the Qur'an but we interpret it's meaning differently from Wahabis therefore it's different! Just look it up.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dullahman

For those who say muslims don't come out enough against terrorism, this is what i was waiting for, a completely refutation of all terrorist acts on innocent people. Al Qaeda or any otrher Islamic terrorist organisation can no longer claim to have justification over it's actions. Dr Tahir Ul Qadri is a major scholar world-wide, his views are widely respected by all.

Here's the Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544531.stm

 

They will simply say he is Kafir, and that Allah and the Qu'ran justifies their actions.

 

Kafir (Arabic: ???? k?fir; plural ????? kuff?r) is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate"; also the term "Kuffar" (singular "Kafir") is used to refer to peasants (???????? ??????????? ?????????) (Surah 57 Al-Hadid (Iron) Ayah 20;[2]) as they till earth and "cover up" seeds; the term "Kufr" means "to cover up" – this is why earth tillers are referred to as "Kuffar."

 

Even lower than an infidel are those that are born Muslim and then reject the will of Allah.

 

assalamu alaikum

But the problem for the terrorists, is that this uses the qur'an and the sunnah to explain fully how it is unlawful. I highly doubt that they will stop their actions but i think it will definately hinder their recruitment process. And i have a feeling they're going to try and kill Dr Tahir ul Qadri, 2 reasons: he spoke out against them and that he's sufi. Despite him being sufi, he is using evidence from sources that muslims universally agree upon therefore giving them no justification, though i do see what you are trying to say.

P.S. you talk about shari'a law as if there is only one version of it, the only version you know of is the Wahabi one, look up Hanafi Shari'a law, i think you would appreciate the difference.

Originally posted by Man1ac

Not this?

The awesome trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o

And the best scene ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16_8l0yS-g&feature=related

In the UK pretty much everyone laughs at Glenn Beck no matter where you are on the political spectrum. He's actually viewed as quite moronic here.

Originally posted by Faxxer

http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp

 

ahh they like to put whatever politician they don't like in the name field.

 

good one though

 

"It's a fake!!!!"

Lol oh well, sorry for the false alarm guys.

I got this email a few days ago, thought you guys would appreciate it ;) (this not me attacking a party, i dont even know which pary the senator belongs to, it's just funny how they did it...).

And you think the UK has spin doctors?
No matter what side of the AISLE you're on, THIS is FUNNY and VERY
telling! It just all depends on how you look at some things...

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California ,
was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that
Congressman Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for
horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry
Reid share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in
Montana territory:

On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this
inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison
1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by
Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'

So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about
their great-great uncle.
Harry Reid:

Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical
sketch for her genealogy research:

"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business
empire <<ATT3600476.jpg>> grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and
intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted
several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to
resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a
vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In
1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his
honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.."

NOW THAT's how it's done, Folks!

That's real POLITICAL SPIN

Originally posted by Briansho

Wow, worse time to be a muslim. Ever.

Tell me about it...

It's animal sperm not human sperm btw. Which begs the question, has he been jacking off chickens/horses/dogs?