I agree Islam SHOULD be called the piece.

A piece of you here, a piece of you there ;)

After a Pakistani boy cut off his own hand following a public accusation of blasphemy, BBC Urdu's Iram Abbasi travelled to his village in Punjab province to find out what happened. She is the first international broadcaster to speak to him. Some readers may find the details that follow disturbing.

"Why should I feel any pain or trouble in cutting off the hand that was raised against the Holy Prophet?"

Those are the words of 15-year-old Qaiser (not his real name) who chopped off his right hand just a few days ago believing he had committed blasphemy.

The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act.

wally1 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act.

The problem is the literal interpretation of Bible verses like, "if thy right hand offendeth, cut it off". The problem is the jaded culture that promotes such fundamentalism. The witch hunts. The honour killings. The official sanctioning of blasphemy laws.

In a culture like this, it would make perfect sense to cut off your hand because of a misheard question. The kid's being held up as a hero. No one's even blaming the imam for getting his facts wrong and accusing someone of blasphemy - a crime in Pakistan that probably rivals child sexual abuse here.

Pakistan has not always been like this. This thinking is new. It's the result of the rich Saudi Wahabists funding madrasahs and religious outreach programs. Muslims on the subcontinent were traditionally flexible, not rigid in their thinking. You only need to read the Persian and Mogul poets to get this.

Once this thinking takes over, I doubt it can be neutralized all that easily - particularly in a crowded, developing country like Pakistan where quick judgments and black and white thinking are the norm. The message of the complexity of creation and the importance of all forms of love, temperance, humility and tolerance is not an easy sell, even if they are the message of those poets, who's work was essentially secular (and studied by Hindus today).

That kid didn't cut off his hand to make things right with God, he cut off his hand to prevent his death at the hands of the mob.

a culture which many are willing to import and welcome  here in mass without question.

ian wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 11:07am:

a culture which many are willing to import and welcome  here in mass without question.

The idea of importing a culture like the Saudi Arabia to Australia is unthinkable, dear. Try to imagine it and let me know what you come up with.

you islamophobes should be happy  .... 5 less Islamic trigger fingers

John Smith wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 11:49am:

you islamophobes should be happy  .... 5 less Islamic trigger fingers

Brilliant observation, congrats.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:49am: you islamophobes should be happy  .... 5 less Islamic trigger fingers Brilliant observation, congrats.

It's easy to please a rightard

Don't know why he cut his hand off.
He did not steal anything with his hand.

Blasphemy comes from a thought, from his brain.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

Don't know why he cut his hand off. He did not steal anything with his hand. Blasphemy comes from a thought, from his brain.

what brain? the nice person cut his own hand off!

you're not related to him are you?

John Smith wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:06pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 1:04pm: Don't know why he cut his hand off. He did not steal anything with his hand. Blasphemy comes from a thought, from his brain. what brain? the nice person cut his own hand off! you're not related to him are you?

well, his amputation was misdirected.

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

wally1 wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:46am: The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act. The problem is the literal interpretation of Bible verses like, "if thy right hand offendeth, cut it off". The problem is the jaded culture that promotes such fundamentalism. The witch hunts. The honour killings. The official sanctioning of blasphemy laws. In a culture like this, it would make perfect sense to cut off your hand because of a misheard question. The kid's being held up as a hero. No one's even blaming the imam for getting his facts wrong and accusing someone of blasphemy - a crime in Pakistan that probably rivals child sexual abuse here. Pakistan has not always been like this. This thinking is new. It's the result of the rich Saudi Wahabists funding madrasahs and religious outreach programs. Muslims on the subcontinent were traditionally flexible, not rigid in their thinking. You only need to read the Persian and Mogul poets to get this. Once this thinking takes over, I doubt it can be neutralized all that easily - particularly in a crowded, developing country like Pakistan where quick judgments and black and white thinking are the norm. The message of the complexity of creation and the importance of all forms of love, temperance, humility and tolerance is not an easy sell, even if they are the message of those poets, who's work was essentially secular (and studied by Hindus today). That kid didn't cut off his hand to make things right with God, he cut off his hand to prevent his death at the hands of the mob.

so its saudis fault the kid went and chopped off his own hand?

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 11:11am:

ian wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:07am: a culture which many are willing to import and welcome  here in mass without question. The idea of importing a culture like the Saudi Arabia to Australia is unthinkable, dear. Try to imagine it and let me know what you come up with.

The boy was Pakistani. Try to keep up.

ian wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:11am: ian wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:07am: a culture which many are willing to import and welcome  here in mass without question. The idea of importing a culture like the Saudi Arabia to Australia is unthinkable, dear. Try to imagine it and let me know what you come up with. The boy was Pakistani. Try to keep up.

Karnal claimed to be Pakistani,Pakistan topped the google searches for donkey sex.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:51pm:

ian wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 1:21pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:11am: ian wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:07am: a culture which many are willing to import and welcome  here in mass without question. The idea of importing a culture like the Saudi Arabia to Australia is unthinkable, dear. Try to imagine it and let me know what you come up with. The boy was Pakistani. Try to keep up. Karnal claimed to be Pakistani,Pakistan topped the google searches for donkey sex.

Alas, the old boy claims I’m.Pakistani.

We Paki suspects top the Google search for old boy sex. They’re cheap, easily available, and happy to comply.

They’re always ready to spread their cheeks and let you in.

Allah Uakbar, no?

ian wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:11am: ian wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:07am: a culture which many are willing to import and welcome  here in mass without question. The idea of importing a culture like the Saudi Arabia to Australia is unthinkable, dear. Try to imagine it and let me know what you come up with. The boy was Pakistani. Try to keep up.

We have no problem with Pakistani culture, dear. Apparently the donkeys are to die for.

If thy right hand offendeth...

wally1 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act.

What would Muhammed do?

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:46pm:

wally1 wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:46am: The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act. What would Muhammed do?

cut of his other hand too ... your point?

John Smith wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 10:28pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 9:46pm: wally1 wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:46am: The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act. What would Muhammed do? cut of his other hand too ... your point?

behead him ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 10:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 9:46pm: wally1 wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:46am: The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act. What would Muhammed do? cut of his other hand too ... your point? behead him ?

Behead them.

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

wally1 wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:46am: The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act. Pakistan has not always been like this. This thinking is new. It's the result of the rich Saudi Wahabists funding madrasahs and religious outreach programs. Muslims on the subcontinent were traditionally flexible, not rigid in their thinking.

Was Pakistan was not always like this? From what I've read, the seeds, at least, of what it is now were sown directly after Partition.

From Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Zia-ul-Haq, the country has descended from the high ideals of Jinnah (as an example of tolerance and equality for all Pakistanis) through agonising over 'what constitutes a Muslim' invariably driving the nation towards a hopelessly confused national psyche that has made it an easy victim of ultra hardline religious fundamentalism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:00am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 11:04am: wally1 wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:46am: The kid made his own decision and he shouldnt of cut off his hand, dont think prophet Mohamed would approve of this act. Pakistan has not always been like this. This thinking is new. It's the result of the rich Saudi Wahabists funding madrasahs and religious outreach programs. Muslims on the subcontinent were traditionally flexible, not rigid in their thinking.  Was Pakistan was not always like this? From what I've read, the seeds, at least, of what it is now were sown directly after Partition. From Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Zia-ul-Haq, the country has descended from the high ideals of Jinnah (as an example of tolerance and equality for all Pakistanis) through agonising over 'what constitutes a Muslim' invariably driving the nation towards a hopelessly confused national psyche that has made it an easy victim of ultra hardline religious fundamentalism.

An excellent post, and one that sums up things far more succinctly than I ever could.

But this is not just about leadership, it’s also about development and the social change this brings with it. Imagine a Pakistani version of Pauline Hanson. She could be quite scary, I fear.

It’s also about geopolitics. Pakistan is emerging as an important player in the region. It provides the ports and shipping for Central Asia. As Pakistan’s economy grows, it will continue to look beyond its borders, and so it should. The tribes and ethnic groups that surround Pakistan are influential players in both organised crime and local Pakistani politics.

Pakistan houses millions of displaced people from the region. It has to think beyond its borders. Controlling the region’s weapons smuggling supply line is a handy tool. But Pakistan also has to control the gangs who run the Karachi ports, and then, the lawless mountain areas around Quetta.

What to do? I imagine praying to Allah is the solution of most Pakistani politicians.

Pakistan was founded on secular/nationalist values, and it is still strong in certain areas - particularly middle-class urban. Islamism only took root in the 80s under Zia Ul-Haq. Islamism and the taliban have also become entrenched amongst the Pashtuns - a distinct cultural group who were cut in two by the creation of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:04am:

What to do? I imagine praying to Allah is the solution of most Pakistani politicians.

I've read that some Pakistani intellectuals believe nothing short of a revolution will save Pakistan from itself.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:45am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 10:04am: What to do? I imagine praying to Allah is the solution of most Pakistani politicians. I've read that some Pakistani intellectuals believe nothing short of a revolution will save Pakistan from itself.

But that would not save us from nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:50am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 10:45am: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 10:04am: What to do? I imagine praying to Allah is the solution of most Pakistani politicians. I've read that some Pakistani intellectuals believe nothing short of a revolution will save Pakistan from itself. But that would not save us from nuclear-armed Pakistan.

No.

But then this is a country that can give birth to the likes of Malala Yousafzai... One reason for tentative optimisim, at least.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:10am:

Pakistan was founded on secular/nationalist values, and it is still strong in certain areas - particularly middle-class urban. Islamism only took root in the 80s under Zia Ul-Haq. Islamism and the taliban have also become entrenched amongst the Pashtuns - a distinct cultural group who were cut in two by the creation of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

That' right.

That it is called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and that Jinnah was the president of the Muslim League are irrefutable indicators that Pakistan has been secular from the beginning.  Islam has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin' as regards Pakistan.

Yes, but it is a secular Islamic republic, right Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 1:42pm:

Yes, but it is a secular Islamic republic, right Gandalf?

Of course. The Islamic Republic of Iran is also secular. Everyone knows that.

Iranian female journalists at a press conference
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX45zzpWMAE9rqV.jpg

https://twitter.com/danielrhamilton/status/684047804503834625

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:42pm: Yes, but it is a secular Islamic republic, right Gandalf? Of course. The Islamic Republic of Iran is also secular. Everyone knows that. Iranian female journalists at a press conference https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX45zzpWMAE9rqV.jpg https://twitter.com/danielrhamilton/status/684047804503834625

chairs look full, where else you want them to sit?

looks like a women is sitting on the chair towards the  left of the photo.

wally1 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 5:24pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 3:52pm: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:42pm: Yes, but it is a secular Islamic republic, right Gandalf? Of course. The Islamic Republic of Iran is also secular. Everyone knows that. Iranian female journalists at a press conference https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX45zzpWMAE9rqV.jpg https://twitter.com/danielrhamilton/status/684047804503834625 chairs look full, where else you want them to sit? looks like a women is sitting on the chair towards the  left of the photo.

Wally are you suggesting the women all just happened to turn up late after the chairs were taken?

Suppose you were one of the men in those chairs and the women turned up in their tents and started sitting on the floor. Would you offer them your seat, or would you inform them that all the chairs are full and that it makes perfect sense for them to sit on the floor?

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Iranian female journalists at a press conference

and all the guys standing at the back? are they victims to?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Wally are you suggesting the women all just happened to turn up late after the chairs were taken?

no, he told you


wally1 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 5:24pm:

looks like a women is sitting on the chair towards the  left of the photo.

John why do you think those men are standing at the back and the women are sitting on the floor in the middle of the aisle? Do you think the men just happened to prefer standing and the women chose to sit on the floor?

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:42pm: Yes, but it is a secular Islamic republic, right Gandalf? Of course. The Islamic Republic of Iran is also secular. Everyone knows that. Iranian female journalists at a press conference https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX45zzpWMAE9rqV.jpg https://twitter.com/danielrhamilton/status/684047804503834625

I think its outrageous that those poor men at the back were left without a seat and were shuttled to the back of the room.

And I wonder how that woman got a front row seat? Must have been mistaken for a man surely.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 6:52pm:

John why do you think those men are standing at the back and the women are sitting on the floor in the middle of the aisle? Do you think the men just happened to prefer standing and the women chose to sit on the floor?

But surely the important question here is were they standing in a line or a circle?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:42pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 3:52pm: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:42pm: Yes, but it is a secular Islamic republic, right Gandalf? Of course. The Islamic Republic of Iran is also secular. Everyone knows that. Iranian female journalists at a press conference https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX45zzpWMAE9rqV.jpg https://twitter.com/danielrhamilton/status/684047804503834625 I think its outrageous that those poor men at the back were left without a seat and were shuttled to the back of the room. And I wonder how that woman got a front row seat? Must have been mistaken for a man surely.

You can say a thousand words, Gandy, but the picture says it all.

Post a picture, stop wanking.

John Smith wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 6:42pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 3:52pm: Iranian female journalists at a press conference and all the guys standing at the back? are they victims to?

Are you really so stupid??? Really?

lol you guys really are pathetic - if it was a picture of a group of men on chairs and another group of men on the floor with the women standing up the back it would be every bit as incriminating in your view.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain the woman sitting in the front row.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 12:30am:

lol you guys really are pathetic - if it was a picture of a group of men on chairs and another group of men on the floor with the women standing up the back it would be every bit as incriminating in your view. And I'm still waiting for you to explain the woman sitting in the front row.

You're stretching it a bit Gandalf.

Even if you might argue that 'The Koran does not define women as subservient', can you honestly argue that women are not required to assume a submissive and subservient role in 'Islamic' societies in practice?

There probably sitting on the floor to balance and sit there writing pads on, pretty sure its hard to write if your standing up.

The stupidity of ppl here amazes me.

wally1 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

There probably sitting on the floor to balance and sit there writing pads on, pretty sure its hard to write if your standing up.

That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat.

wally1 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

There probably sitting on the floor to balance and sit there writing pads on, pretty sure its hard to write if your standing up. The stupidity of ppl here amazes me.

Would you give up your seat for one of them Wally?

Journalists write standing up all the time. It's pretty hard to be a journalist if you can't do that. Can you imagine a journalist cornering someone of interest for a few quick soundbites then asking them to wait while they sit down on the floor to scribble a few notes? How far are you willing to stretch reality to accommodate this photograph?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSrpc3JCcAEnImx.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbltB_8CYAE1SPt.jpg

They are forming a protective circle, otherwise known as 'taharrush gamea', around these women.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

wally1 wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 7:25am: There probably sitting on the floor to balance and sit there writing pads on, pretty sure its hard to write if your standing up. That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat.

If your on a full train do u get up because a lady is standing?no.

wally1 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:32am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: wally1 wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 7:25am: There probably sitting on the floor to balance and sit there writing pads on, pretty sure its hard to write if your standing up. That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. If your on a full train do u get up because a lady is standing?no.

You ask a question, then answer for me?

wally1 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:32am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: wally1 wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 7:25am: There probably sitting on the floor to balance and sit there writing pads on, pretty sure its hard to write if your standing up. That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. If your on a full train do u get up because a lady is standing?no.

Ah, I can see you are a Muslim.

If you want to know what I would do Wally, ask me. Don't tell me.

I am asking what you would do. Would you give up your seat so that these ladies do not have to sit on the floor and try to write notes in that uncomfortable position?

Have you ever seen a Journalist (male or female) from a country where women are not oppressed choose to sit on the floor rather than stand in order to write notes? What on earth lead you to believe this was by their own choosing?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 6:52pm:

John why do you think those men are standing at the back and the women are sitting on the floor in the middle of the aisle? Do you think the men just happened to prefer standing and the women chose to sit on the floor?

Would  you sit on the floor or stand? I'd prefer to stand ... I often stand at the back of my kids school hall during recitals and presentations etc, even when they have chairs available.

In there culture I wouldn't be surprised to find that men prefer standing because they like to dominate over women. A trait not limited to muslims by the way. Sitting is always more submissive than standing.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 8:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 6:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 3:52pm: Iranian female journalists at a press conference and all the guys standing at the back? are they victims to? Are you really so stupid??? Really?

Depends, do you understand what stupid is? I suspect not.

If not, then the answer to your question is yes, if you do understand, then you wouldn't have asked that question.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat.

how do you know the women are the PA's or secretaries of the various men sitting? Does your boss sit on the floor while his PA takes his chair?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. how do you know the women are the PA's or secretaries of the various men sitting? Does your boss sit on the floor while his PA takes his chair?

Yes... Or maybe they're not real women... Maybe they're blowup (pardon the pun) dolls set there to equalise gender representation.... Or maybe they are ghosts that no one saw and only the camera picked them up.... We could keep going...

Or maybe (like the  Orthodox Jews who had Hillary Clinton photoshopped out of that picture when they killed Osama bin Ladin ) women are not equal to men in their society and it is important in such a society that women should not only be subservient, they should be seen to be subservient.

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

A trait not limited to muslims by the way.

Thanks for throwing that in John. Sometimes we forget.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:43pm: A trait not limited to muslims by the way. Thanks for throwing that in John. Sometimes we forget.

Wouldn't surprise me if you told me you forgot

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. how do you know the women are the PA's or secretaries of the various men sitting? Does your boss sit on the floor while his PA takes his chair? Yes... Or maybe they're not real women... Maybe they're blowup (pardon the pun) dolls set there to equalise gender representation.... Or maybe they are ghosts that no one saw and only the camera picked them up.... We could keep going... Or maybe (like the  Orthodox Jews who had Hillary Clinton photoshopped out of that picture when they killed Osama bin Ladin ) women are not equal to men in their society and it is important in such a society that women should not only be subservient, they should be seen to be subservient.

so it's settled then,  you don't know what the real reasons are?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:45pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. how do you know the women are the PA's or secretaries of the various men sitting? Does your boss sit on the floor while his PA takes his chair? Yes... Or maybe they're not real women... Maybe they're blowup (pardon the pun) dolls set there to equalise gender representation.... Or maybe they are ghosts that no one saw and only the camera picked them up.... We could keep going... Or maybe (like the  Orthodox Jews who had Hillary Clinton photoshopped out of that picture when they killed Osama bin Ladin ) women are not equal to men in their society and it is important in such a society that women should not only be subservient, they should be seen to be subservient. so it's settled then,  you don't know what the real reasons are?

No, I'm certain...They're obviously aliens beamed down for the nanosecond it took to impress their image on the film.

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:43pm: A trait not limited to muslims by the way. Thanks for throwing that in John. Sometimes we forget. Wouldn't surprise me if you told me you forgot

Would you mind going round to all the other threads and reminding the participants about something nasty done by non-Muslims? Greg has been off his game lately.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:45pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. how do you know the women are the PA's or secretaries of the various men sitting? Does your boss sit on the floor while his PA takes his chair? Yes... Or maybe they're not real women... Maybe they're blowup (pardon the pun) dolls set there to equalise gender representation.... Or maybe they are ghosts that no one saw and only the camera picked them up.... We could keep going... Or maybe (like the  Orthodox Jews who had Hillary Clinton photoshopped out of that picture when they killed Osama bin Ladin ) women are not equal to men in their society and it is important in such a society that women should not only be subservient, they should be seen to be subservient. so it's settled then,  you don't know what the real reasons are? No, I'm certain...They're obviously aliens beamed down for the nanosecond it took to impress their image on the film.

in the end, you'll believe what you want to believe. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:44pm: freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:43pm: A trait not limited to muslims by the way. Thanks for throwing that in John. Sometimes we forget. Wouldn't surprise me if you told me you forgot Would you mind going round to all the other threads and reminding the participants about something nasty done by non-Muslims? Greg has been off his game lately.

why? you have a problem with the truth?
There are good and bad in every religion, why don't you treat Christians based on what the worst Christians do? afterall, its how you treat muslims.

Would you count Muhammed as one of the worst of Muslims?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:50pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:45pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 2:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: That doesn't explain why none of the men, who are not writing, don't think to give up their seat. how do you know the women are the PA's or secretaries of the various men sitting? Does your boss sit on the floor while his PA takes his chair? Yes... Or maybe they're not real women... Maybe they're blowup (pardon the pun) dolls set there to equalise gender representation.... Or maybe they are ghosts that no one saw and only the camera picked them up.... We could keep going... Or maybe (like the  Orthodox Jews who had Hillary Clinton photoshopped out of that picture when they killed Osama bin Ladin ) women are not equal to men in their society and it is important in such a society that women should not only be subservient, they should be seen to be subservient. so it's settled then,  you don't know what the real reasons are? No, I'm certain...They're obviously aliens beamed down for the nanosecond it took to impress their image on the film. John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 3:54pm: in the end, you'll believe what you want to believe. As will you. [quote author=John_Smith link=1453237432/57#57 date=1453614879] It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

How do you know that?

Btw....  Men in patriarchal societies are not ashamed of their womens' subservience...

They don't ask for western apologists' reinterpretation of these kind of images.

They have never known any different.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Would you count Muhammed as one of the worst of Muslims?

Don't know ... I don't try and rate them. We've had butchers throughout history. Do you think bombing or strafing civilians is any better than decapitating them?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

How do you know that?

because you haven't explained what the woman sitting in the chair was doing? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:09pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: How do you know that? because you haven't explained what the woman sitting in the chair was doing? :D :D :D

I gave you a few reasons.

But you're certain... Aren't you?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

I gave you a few reasons.

no you haven't ... or if you have I can't see it ...

what post number was your reason?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:00pm: Would you count Muhammed as one of the worst of Muslims? Don't know ... I don't try and rate them. We've had butchers throughout history. Do you think bombing or strafing civilians is any better than decapitating them?

Should people be judged based on their beliefs? If someone holds up Hitler as the eternal righteous example for all mankind to follow, should they be judged for those views? Why should Muslims be any different?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:12pm: I gave you a few reasons. no you haven't ... or if you have I can't see it ...

Subservience
Blowup dolls
Ghosts
Aliens

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:14pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:12pm: I gave you a few reasons. no you haven't ... or if you have I can't see it ... Subservience Blowup dolls Ghosts Aliens

thats why the woman was sitting in the chair in the front of the photo?

Say no more.

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:14pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:12pm: I gave you a few reasons. no you haven't ... or if you have I can't see it ... Subservience Blowup dolls Ghosts Aliens thats why the woman was sitting in the chair in the front of the photo? Say no more.

It's multichoice.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:00pm: Would you count Muhammed as one of the worst of Muslims? Don't know ... I don't try and rate them. We've had butchers throughout history. Do you think bombing or strafing civilians is any better than decapitating them? Should people be judged based on their beliefs? If someone holds up Hitler as the eternal righteous example for all mankind to follow, should they be judged for those views? Why should Muslims be any different?

No ... people should be judged on their actions. If we judged people because of their beliefs, we'd still be burning witches. People do follow hitler, are they banned from attending public places? Do we ask that they be deported? Do we jail them for their beliefs? Do we bomb them?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:17pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:14pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:12pm: I gave you a few reasons. no you haven't ... or if you have I can't see it ... Subservience Blowup dolls Ghosts Aliens thats why the woman was sitting in the chair in the front of the photo? Say no more. It's multichoice.

no, it's your white flag .... and you didn't eve realise you were waving it! :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:19pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:17pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:14pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:12pm: I gave you a few reasons. no you haven't ... or if you have I can't see it ... Subservience Blowup dolls Ghosts Aliens thats why the woman was sitting in the chair in the front of the photo? Say no more. It's multichoice. no, it's your white flag .... and you didn't eve realise you were waving it! :D :D :D

And here's me thinking it's only Yanks who don't get irony!!

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:15pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 4:00pm: Would you count Muhammed as one of the worst of Muslims? Don't know ... I don't try and rate them. We've had butchers throughout history. Do you think bombing or strafing civilians is any better than decapitating them? Should people be judged based on their beliefs? If someone holds up Hitler as the eternal righteous example for all mankind to follow, should they be judged for those views? Why should Muslims be any different? No ... people should be judged on their actions. If we judged people because of their beliefs, we'd still be burning witches. People do follow hitler, are they banned from attending public places? Do we ask that they be deported? Do we jail them for their beliefs? Do we bomb them?

I am not asking whether we should burn them. Or ban them. Or deport them. Or jail them. Or bomb them. I am asking whether people should be judged on their beliefs. I was hoping that the Nazi reference might make you realise the absurdity of the position you are pushing, but apparently not.

If there were Nazis on this forum telling everyone how wonderful Hitler was, and everyone was ganging up on them and giving them a hard time (perhaps even judging them), would you still be on the apologist bandwagon?

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

If there were Nazis on this forum telling everyone how wonderful Hitler was, and everyone was ganging up on them and giving them a hard time (perhaps even judging them), would you still be on the apologist bandwagon?

pointing out the fallicy or your argument does not mean I'm on any 'apologists bandwagon'. You didn't answer my questions. Here, I'll try again


John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 3:56pm:

why don't you treat Christians based on what the worst Christians do?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

Do you think bombing or strafing civilians is any better than decapitating them?

Quote:

why don't you treat Christians based on what the worst Christians do?

Because I don't treat other people the same way either. Do you see me accusing Gandalf of being a terrorist?

Now it's your turn. Should we judge people on what they believe?  Before you get all carried away, I am not asking whether we should burn, ban, deport, jail or bomb them.

You asked:


Quote:

Should we judge people on what they believe?

No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

Aussie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

All these actions are based on peoples beliefs, peoples beliefs give us an indicator as to their future behaviour. 

ian wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 9:31pm: You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals. All these actions are based on peoples beliefs, peoples beliefs give us an indicator as to their future behaviour.

So.....I am a 'nothing.'  What does that indicate I will do?  I am a Christian.  What does that indicate I will do.  I am a Hindu.  What does that indicate I will do.  I am an Eskimo.  What does that indicate I will do.  Etc etc etc.

Aussie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

Suppose a person is a Nazi and promotes the idea that we should start gassing Jews again. But other than that obeys the law, helps little old ladies across the street, eats cornflakes for breakfast etc.

Are you saying we should not judge that person on their beliefs?

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 9:31pm: You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals. Suppose a person is a Nazi and promotes the idea that we should start gassing Jews again. But other than that obeys the law, helps little old ladies across the street, eats cornflakes for breakfast etc. Are you saying we should not judge that person on their beliefs?

Yet another question from FD.  However, I'll give you the respect I give everyone...which is to answer a question.


Quote:

and promotes the idea that we should start gassing Jews again.

That would be conduct I'd disassociate myself from.  I'd also stop sending him Christmas cards.  Did that answer really surprise you FD?

No it does not surprise me. I have been waiting for common sense to kick in. Are you now saying you would judge a person based on their beliefs?

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:32pm:

No it does not surprise me. I have been waiting for common sense to kick in. Are you now saying you would judge a person based on their beliefs?

Do you just ask questions, and ignore the answers?

I'm pretty certain I have already posted this:


Quote:

No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

But the guy in my example is not gassing any Jews. Suppose he is extremely polite in the way he promotes the gassing of Jews. Should he be judged on his beliefs alone?

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:49pm:

But the guy in my example is not gassing any Jews. Suppose he is extremely polite in the way he promotes the gassing of Jews. Should he be judged on his beliefs alone?

No.  We ought judge him on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

Aussie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

Nonsense. We should judge them on what they don’t say.

Google: taqiyya.

Aussie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:04pm:

ian wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 9:31pm: You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals. All these actions are based on peoples beliefs, peoples beliefs give us an indicator as to their future behaviour.  So.....I am a 'nothing.'  What does that indicate I will do?  I am a Christian.  What does that indicate I will do.  I am a Hindu.  What does that indicate I will do.  I am an Eskimo.  What does that indicate I will do.  Etc etc etc.

if you knew someone who promoted a belief in child adult sex would you allow them to babysit your kids? of course not. because their belief system has given you an indication as to their expected behaviour.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 7:00am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 12:30am: lol you guys really are pathetic - if it was a picture of a group of men on chairs and another group of men on the floor with the women standing up the back it would be every bit as incriminating in your view. And I'm still waiting for you to explain the woman sitting in the front row. You're stretching it a bit Gandalf. Even if you might argue that 'The Koran does not define women as subservient', can you honestly argue that women are not required to assume a submissive and subservient role in 'Islamic' societies in practice?

I expect that crap from the resident trolls here, not from someone like you.

Are we talking about the Quran, or someone's screwed up take on a photo? This is about people jumping to conclusions based on nothing but baseless stereotypes, when they haven't got a damn clue as to the context of the photo. Not to mention the just plain idiotic rationales that are being applied here - ie FD's "argument" hinging on the belief that its easier to write on a notepad sitting on a chair than it is writing on the floor - how exactly does that work FD? Or using a meme about women being forced on to the floor - while supplying a photo showing a woman seated with the men. Not to mention the blind assumption that no one actually had offered them a seat (how the hell could that be known?) Its just BS stereotypes as usual - and if you can't see that this is the core problem here, then you are missing the point.

Karnal wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 11:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 9:31pm: You asked: Quote: Should we judge people on what they believe? No.  We ought judge them on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals. Nonsense. We should judge them on what they don’t say.

Ironically, it is the religious who would argue that (in principle) that people can be judged on what they think... In principle. After all, many religions posit the notion of an afterlife which, if anything, is essentially the existence of disembodied thought after death. If this thought cannot be held 'accountable' for itself, what then would be the nature of this existence?

Isn't that the reason the boy cut his hand off in the first place?

It is the Jimmy Carter "I have committed adultery of the heart" kind of accountability.

Certainly Christianity entertains the notion of the 'sins of the mind', at least in that the seven cardinal sins can be committed in the mind alone. I'd be truly surprised if Islam does not also entertain the same notion.

But what are they thinking?

As the writers of 'The Iron Lady' put into the mouth of Meryl Streep as she channeled Margaret Thatcher... 'Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions.[&etc]'

Again, ironically, secularists would more likely be the ones to repudiate the notion (even in principle) of the 'crime of the mind'.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 4:56am:

Are we talking about the Quran, or someone's screwed up take on a photo? This is about people jumping to conclusions based on nothing but baseless stereotypes, when they haven't got a damn clue as to the context of the photo. Not to mention the just plain idiotic rationales that are being applied here - ie FD's "argument" hinging on the belief that its easier to write on a notepad sitting on a chair than it is writing on the floor - how exactly does that work FD? Or using a meme about women being forced on to the floor - while supplying a photo showing a woman seated with the men. Not to mention the blind assumption that no one actually had offered them a seat (how the hell could that be known?) Its just BS stereotypes as usual - and if you can't see that this is the core problem here, then you are missing the point.

A conclusion drawn (being - an example of womens' subservience)? Yes.

But I'm not sure why anyone here would feel the urge to argue the possibility of another reason, or remain agnostic on the matter.

As I said earlier, men in patriarchal societies are not ashamed of their womens' subservience. They don't ask for western apologists' [alternative] reinterpretation of these kind of images. They have never known any different.

Aussie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 10:49pm: But the guy in my example is not gassing any Jews. Suppose he is extremely polite in the way he promotes the gassing of Jews. Should he be judged on his beliefs alone? No.  We ought judge him on what they do, behave and conduct themselves as individuals.

So you have no problem at all with Nazis politely promoting the gassing of Jews?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 4:56am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 7:00am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 24th, 2016 at 12:30am: lol you guys really are pathetic - if it was a picture of a group of men on chairs and another group of men on the floor with the women standing up the back it would be every bit as incriminating in your view. And I'm still waiting for you to explain the woman sitting in the front row. You're stretching it a bit Gandalf. Even if you might argue that 'The Koran does not define women as subservient', can you honestly argue that women are not required to assume a submissive and subservient role in 'Islamic' societies in practice? I expect that crap from the resident trolls here, not from someone like you. Are we talking about the Quran, or someone's screwed up take on a photo? This is about people jumping to conclusions based on nothing but baseless stereotypes, when they haven't got a damn clue as to the context of the photo. Not to mention the just plain idiotic rationales that are being applied here - ie FD's "argument" hinging on the belief that its easier to write on a notepad sitting on a chair than it is writing on the floor - how exactly does that work FD? Or using a meme about women being forced on to the floor - while supplying a photo showing a woman seated with the men. Not to mention the blind assumption that no one actually had offered them a seat (how the hell could that be known?) Its just BS stereotypes as usual - and if you can't see that this is the core problem here, then you are missing the point.

If common sense fails you Gandalf, you could always try asking a journalist why they prefer to stand and take notes rather than sit on the floor. Or you could try writing while sitting on the floor yourself. Let us know how it goes.


Quote:

Not to mention the blind assumption that no one actually had offered them a seat

Wally the Muslim has already indicated that he would not offer them a seat. He appears to think that is normal. Though to be fair, he has the sense to know when to slink off with his tail between his legs.

So FD, you're now running with 'they weren't even allowed to stand up'?

Thats an interesting one, though I'm not sure it will pass the common-sense test you were so eagerly advocating a second ago.

Would you agree that your meme would be at least as, and probably stronger if it had been a group of women standing in the back instead of those men? You know, previously you lot have been so keen on the "women forced into the back row" thing. Also I'm still struggling to understand how the woman sitting on the chair amongst the men fits in...

Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive Gandalf?

Let me guess - not the woman sitting on the chair?

Not the men shuttled to the back of the room and forced to stand? Why don't you expand on your "its so unfair they weren't even allowed to stand" argument FD - I think thats a real winner.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they are students or trainees there on work experience? That could explain why not all the women are on the floor don't you think?

Quote:

Why don't you expand on your "its so unfair they weren't even allowed to stand" argument FD

I am happy to expand on the things I actually say Gandalf.

Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive?


Quote:

Have you ever considered the possibility that they are students or trainees there on work experience? That could explain why not all the women are on the floor don't you think?

Ah yes. They have not yet learned the fine art of standing up and taking notes at the same time. Maybe it is a fourth year class at the women's University.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

I am happy to expand on the things I actually say Gandalf.

ok sure, so expand on 'what you actually said' about it somehow being more submissive to sit on the floor rather than stand in the back of the room.

Or you could just pretend again that you never meant that the girls on the floor were in the most submissive position in the room - up to you.

Do you think the woman in the chair is being submissive?

Quote:

ok sure, so expand on 'what you actually said' about it somehow being more submissive to sit on the floor rather than stand in the back of the room.

We are still trying to establish that Gandalf. Hence the question you keep avoiding.

Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

We are still trying to establish that Gandalf.

Why does your view of submissiveness depend on mine? I'm not the one giving none-to-subtle hints about who is made to be submissive here.

So can you elaborate on this please:


freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

If common sense fails you Gandalf, you could always try asking a journalist why they prefer to stand and take notes rather than sit on the floor.

Please tell me if I've mistaken this for you implying that the girls occupy the most submissive position in the room. If I did, then great, then we agree that this picture is not a depiction of evil Islamic oppression of women.

If I'm not mistaken, then we can move on to why this is necessarily more submissive than being shuttled to the back of the room and forced to stand. Who knows, we might even be able to get to the lady sitting in the chair.

Quote:

Why does your view of submissiveness depend on mine?

It doesn't. I am not asking you what my opinion is. I am asking you what yours is. In case you are confused, here is the question again.

Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive?


Quote:

Please tell me if I've mistaken this for you implying that the girls occupy the most submissive position in the room.

No Gandalf. This is me implying that I have never seen a journalist freely choose to sit on the floor in order to take notes.


Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, then we can move on to why this is necessarily more submissive than being shuttled to the back of the room and forced to stand.

What a wonderful idea Gandalf. Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

It doesn't. I am not asking you what my opinion is. I am asking you what yours is. In case you are confused, here is the question again. Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive?

I'm not sure FD - you see this whole "submissiveness" idea of this photo was never my idea, it was yours. Which is why I'm asking you to explain it. Your question is premised on the assumption that I think there is some sort of submission dynamic going on in this picture - which in fact I don't. I can hardly offer an opinion on the nature of something I don't believe exists can I? And I don't understand where you are going with this line of questioning - why don't you just come out and explain how sitting on the floor is being submissive, but standing at the back is not, preferably with an explanation of why the woman in the font row avoided the floor "sin bin". Can you answer that like an adult FD - without resorting to childish rhetorical questions or petulantly pretending you didn't imply that the women sitting on the floor are being submissive?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 10:13pm: It doesn't. I am not asking you what my opinion is. I am asking you what yours is. In case you are confused, here is the question again. Which position in the photo would you describe as most submissive? I'm not sure FD - you see this whole "submissiveness" idea of this photo was never my idea, it was yours. Which is why I'm asking you to explain it. Your question is premised on the assumption that I think there is some sort of submission dynamic going on in this picture - which in fact I don't. I can hardly offer an opinion on the nature of something I don't believe exists can I? And I don't understand where you are going with this line of questioning - why don't you just come out and explain how sitting on the floor is being submissive, but standing at the back is not, preferably with an explanation of why the woman in the font row avoided the floor "sin bin". Can you answer that like an adult FD - without resorting to childish rhetorical questions or petulantly pretending you didn't imply that the women sitting on the floor are being submissive?

You dont  know that Muslim men require women to be lower than them? are you sure you are a Muslim?

Quote:

I'm not sure FD - you see this whole "submissiveness" idea of this photo was never my idea, it was yours. Which is why I'm asking you to explain it.

Ah, so you are incapable of answering the question? I haven't seen that one in a while.


Quote:

And I don't understand where you are going with this line of questioning

That's odd. You just finished suggesting we go there:


Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, then we can move on to why this is necessarily more submissive than being shuttled to the back of the room and forced to stand.

more sexist muslims >:(







Ohhh my god, women in chairs and men standing? They can't be muslim:o :o :o :o ...

they must be Christians in disguise.! 


http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1453684085659/sites/telesur/img/news/2016/01/24/kerry_stresses_us_xsolidx_clearx_alliance_with_saudi_arabia.jpg_1718483346.jpg

Thanks John. I often use photos of women with their faces covered to demonstrate gender equality. Check out the wrists on her.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:51pm:

Thanks John. I often use photos of women with their faces covered to demonstrate gender equality.

I thought your problem was that the men wouldn't give up their seats?

Lets stick to one issue at a time FD .... easier for you to keep track of it that way.

Good point John. We should simply ignore the photo of women in letter box outfits that you used to demonstrate how not sexist Muslims are. Perhaps you would like to try changing the topic again? I am sure you can figure it out eventually. Try asking yourself what you would make your wife wear to demonstrate her freedom.

Why is it so difficult for you to explain how the girls are the most submissive here FD? Or would you like to have another go at "I never said they were being submissive"? That might work.


freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:49pm:

Ah, so you are incapable of answering the question?

Literally I am - since you demand that I nominate who is being most submissive in a picture where I don't acknowledge any submissiveness going on. Or, if you like, my final answer is "none of them".

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Good point John. We should simply ignore the photo of women in letter box outfits that you used to demonstrate how not sexist Muslims are. Perhaps you would like to try changing the topic again? I am sure you can figure it out eventually. Try asking yourself what you would make your wife wear to demonstrate her freedom.

try to focus FD, one issue at a time .. forget the letterbox outfit. Afterall, you don't have to wear one if you don't want to.

Your claim with the other photo is that Islamic men won't give up their seats because they want their women to be submissive/sexist or some such crap ... if thats the case, can you explain the photo I put up with Islamic women in the seats whilst the men are standing?

Unless you really think they are Christians in disguise?

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:11pm:

Your claim with the other photo is that Islamic men won't give up their seats because they want their women to be submissive/sexist or some such crap

Yes, but simultaneously he will deny it. For some reason FD doesn't want to expand on his point - maybe he feels embarrassed or something. So he plays these absurd games - like denying he was making any point about submissiveness, and then throwing questions at you to make you explain his own points. Its probably so that he can accuse us of avoiding his questions - and so he'll spend another 10 pages demonstrating how we love to tapdance, and he doesn't have to explain his BS. Thats FD in a nutshell.

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:11pm:

try to focus FD, one issue at a time .. forget the letterbox outfit. Afterall, you don't have to wear one if you don't want to. Your claim with the other photo is that Islamic men won't give up their seats because they want their women to be submissive/sexist or some such crap ... if thats the case, can you explain the photo I put up with Islamic women in the seats whilst the men are standing? Unless you really think they are Christians in disguise?

Interesting you chose a picture of Arabs all in their societal traditional dress. Again, the men in these societies (and reflected in their laws) have no argument with the notion that women are (and ought to be) subservient to men... The rhetorical gymnastics performed by some in western societies to 'account for' or deny this seems Quixotic in its apology, given that no Arab is asking them to apologise for them.

What many Middle Eastern Muslims are culturally shocked by, when they come to the west, is the degree to which Islamic culture is criticised regarding the issue of female subservience (with 'degree' meaning any criticism at all)... The reason? Because so many have never, in their Middle Eastern lives, heard anyone criticise their culture in this way... It just has not occurred to them that women are fully (either culturally or legally) equal to men in an Islamic context.

And to say that they choose their cultural dress (such that they can choose to wear what they like), in those societies, is just plain untrue.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:57am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:11pm: try to focus FD, one issue at a time .. forget the letterbox outfit. Afterall, you don't have to wear one if you don't want to. Your claim with the other photo is that Islamic men won't give up their seats because they want their women to be submissive/sexist or some such crap ... if thats the case, can you explain the photo I put up with Islamic women in the seats whilst the men are standing? Unless you really think they are Christians in disguise? Interesting you chose a picture of Arabs all in their societal traditional dress. Again, the men in these societies (and reflected in their laws) have no argument with the notion that women are (and ought to be) subservient to men... The rhetorical gymnastics performed by some in western societies to 'account for' or deny this seems Quixotic in its apology, given that no Arab is asking them to apologise for them. What many Middle Eastern Muslims are culturally shocked by, when they come to the west, is the degree to which Islamic culture is criticised regarding the issue of female subservience (with 'degree' meaning any criticism at all)... The reason? Because so many have never, in their Middle Eastern lives, heard anyone criticise their culture in this way... It just has not occurred to them that women are fully (either culturally or legally) equal to men in an Islamic context. And to say that they choose their cultural dress (such that they can choose to wear what they like), in those societies, is just plain untrue.

not sure why everyone is now trying to change the topic from the women being forced to sit on the floor while the men take the chairs, to their dress.

Yes, we all know they wear stupid clothes. Now, can we get back to the problem with Muslim men not giving up chairs for the women .... oh wait, I just realised, your argument was all crap to start with and you can't continue it without looking like fools ..

ok, carry on, lets talk about the dresses. What colour dress do you wear?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 4:56am: Are we talking about the Quran, or someone's screwed up take on a photo? This is about people jumping to conclusions based on nothing but baseless stereotypes, when they haven't got a damn clue as to the context of the photo. Not to mention the just plain idiotic rationales that are being applied here - ie FD's "argument" hinging on the belief that its easier to write on a notepad sitting on a chair than it is writing on the floor - how exactly does that work FD? Or using a meme about women being forced on to the floor - while supplying a photo showing a woman seated with the men. Not to mention the blind assumption that no one actually had offered them a seat (how the hell could that be known?) Its just BS stereotypes as usual - and if you can't see that this is the core problem here, then you are missing the point. A conclusion drawn (being - an example of womens' subservience)? Yes. But I'm not sure why anyone here would feel the urge to argue the possibility of another reason, or remain agnostic on the matter. As I said earlier, men in patriarchal societies are not ashamed of their womens' subservience. They don't ask for western apologists' [alternative] reinterpretation of these kind of images. They have never known any different.

North, no one's arguing that these societies aren't patriarchal - but lets not draw lazy conclusions from pictures we know nothing about - its intellectually dishonest. Your argument is tantamount to saying it simply doesn't matter if there's some misinterpretations here and there - since the overall theme still holds. Well it does matter. The truth matters, and calling people out on their porkies needs to be understood as vitally important in and of itself - even if its in relation to the "bad guys". If your concern is not detracting from these sorts of general "themes" - like women oppression in Islamic societies, then know that this sort of intellectual dishonesty only does those causes harm. You know, boy crying wolf sort of thing. If this were an isolated case then it wouldn't be an issue - but its not. You need to understand that the anti-Islam campaign is utterly dependent on lies, we see it literally on a daily basis here. So you need to acknowledge that as one of the key problems to this debate, and not just dismiss them with a casual "oh they're basically right in principle anyway".

Quote:

Your claim with the other photo is that Islamic men won't give up their seats because they want their women to be submissive/sexist or some such crap

That was Wally the Muslim. He said he would do the same. Do you need me to justify what Wally said?


Quote:

if thats the case, can you explain the photo I put up with Islamic women in the seats whilst the men are standing?

I thought you didn't want to talk about this one any more. Tell me John, do you share Gandalf's inability to identify the most submissive position in that photo? Do you hold your alternative photo as an example of gender equality in Islam?


Quote:

Yes, but simultaneously he will deny it.

Gosh, fancy me having to deny saying things I didn't say. If my denials bother you so much, all you have to do is quote me saying these things I didn't say.


Quote:

The truth matters, and calling people out on their porkies needs to be understood as vitally important in and of itself - even if its in relation to the "bad guys".

Is that why you keep having to explain what I 'really' meant rather than simply quoting what I actually said? When you do finally get round to quoting me, you deliberately misquote.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

Gosh, fancy me having to deny saying things I didn't say.

Of course FD - like I said, you'll deny having ever said or implied there is any dismissiveness going on - while simultaneously mocking anyone who suggests there isn't. 

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

When you do finally get round to quoting me, you deliberately misquote.

But of course FD - you never said or implied anything about submissiveness in this thread. Naturally you never meant at all to imply that the girls on the floor are being at all submissive. In fact you literally haven't said anything at all - right? Well since you continually refuse to explain what you did actually say, I guess thats probably not too far from the truth.

Are you denying that you recently used quotes to deliberately misrepresent an exchange I had?

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

Do you need me to justify what Wally said?

No, I need you to justify what you are saying


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

I thought you didn't want to talk about this one any more.

you can add that to your list of 'things I got wrong'


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

Tell me John, do you share Gandalf's inability to identify the most submissive position in that photo?

I believe I covered this in one of my earlier posts on this thread.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

Do you hold your alternative photo as an example of gender equality in Islam?

Who ever said there was gender equality in Islam?

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:15am:

Are you denying that you recently used quotes to deliberately misrepresent an exchange I had?

Yeah I guess I am - where did I misrepresent what you said? Is it "misrepresenting" to say you think there is some submissiveness going on with the girls on the floor?

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:20am:

freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:54am: Do you hold your alternative photo as an example of gender equality in Islam? Who ever said there was gender equality in Islam?

Now now John - we won't have anyone accusing FD of misrepresenting what you said - he accuses us of misrepresenting, thats how this works.

Quote:

No, I need you to justify what you are saying

Perhaps you should quote me then, rather than telling me what I 'really mean'.


Quote:

I believe I covered this in one of my earlier posts on this thread.

A yes or no will siffice John. Do you share Gandalf's inability to identify the most submissive position in that photo?


Quote:

Who ever said there was gender equality in Islam?

It's good that you realise this. How about sexism?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:53am:

North, no one's arguing that these societies aren't patriarchal - but lets not draw lazy conclusions from pictures we know nothing about - its intellectually dishonest. Your argument is tantamount to saying it simply doesn't matter if there's some misinterpretations here and there - since the overall theme still holds. Well it does matter. The truth matters, and calling people out on their porkies needs to be understood as vitally important in and of itself - even if its in relation to the "bad guys". If your concern is not detracting from these sorts of general "themes" - like women oppression in Islamic societies, then know that this sort of intellectual dishonesty only does those causes harm. You know, boy crying wolf sort of thing. If this were an isolated case then it wouldn't be an issue - but its not. You need to understand that the anti-Islam campaign is utterly dependent on lies, we see it literally on a daily basis here. So you need to acknowledge that as one of the key problems to this debate, and not just dismiss them with a casual "oh they're basically right in principle anyway".

Not sure that the 'anti-Islam campaign' is utterly dependent on lies. The current practise of Islam (lets say Islamism) is not compatible with Western secular culture... Even Muslims (such as Salman Rushdie, Tariq Ali et al) agree that this is now true... Yes, they have their theories on the cause, such as Saudi Arabian promotion of their particular brand of Islam &etc... And they often lament the loss of the practise of Islam of the past - i.e. when they were young... But they do agree that there is an 'existential crisis' occurring within Islamic societies (even if they believe that Islam itself is the victim and not the cause)...

But clearly this is not quite so new, given what restrictions Attaturk placed on Islamic practice in Turkey to elevate that then new nation into the 20th century.

The picture? Well, we can all draw our own conclusions on that - It wouldn't be up for any 'misinterpretation' if it was not fundamentally true that Islamic societies subjugate women. I'd have to say I've never been to a western culture-based gathering where anyone but children would be sitting on the floor.

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

ok, carry on, lets talk about the dresses. What colour dress do you wear?

Hmmm... Maybe Ted Kotcheff was right about Australian society of the 60's and 70's... You'd be 60-ish years old John?

Quote:

Not sure that the 'anti-Islam campaign' is utterly dependent on lies.

Gandalf has also claimed that Islamophobia is always about racism.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

Quote: Not sure that the 'anti-Islam campaign' is utterly dependent on lies. Gandalf has also claimed that Islamophobia is always about racism.

Well, isn't it? If by Islamophobia you mean the irrational fear of Islamic society per se (and you extend the definition of racism to include discrimination against societal entities as opposed to referring exclusively to ethnicity).

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:15am:

Are you denying that you recently used quotes to deliberately misrepresent an exchange I had?

Are you denying you’re racist? You’ve always avoided this question.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:50am: ok, carry on, lets talk about the dresses. What colour dress do you wear? Hmmm... Maybe Ted Kotcheff was right about Australian society of the 60's and 70's... You'd be 60-ish years old John?

not even close. 45

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

Perhaps you should quote me then, rather than telling me what I 'really mean'.

or alternatively, you could tell us what you mean. What is it about that photo that you have a problem with? It's far simpler that way, we can then skip the bit where you tell us you didn't say it.


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

A yes or no will siffice John

I told you, I've dealt with that .


John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

In their culture I wouldn't be surprised to find that men prefer standing because they like to dominate over women. A trait not limited to muslims by the way. Sitting is always more submissive than standing.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

It's good that you realise this. How about sexism?

How about it FD? Do you know any cultures with no sexism? Or is this where you pretend sexism is limited to Muslims?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Not sure that the 'anti-Islam campaign' is utterly dependent on lies. The current practise of Islam (lets say Islamism) is not compatible with Western secular culture... Even Muslims (such as Salman Rushdie, Tariq Ali et al) agree that this is now true... Yes, they have their theories on the cause, such as Saudi Arabian promotion of their particular brand of Islam &etc... And they often lament the loss of the practise of Islam of the past - i.e. when they were young... But they do agree that there is an 'existential crisis' occurring within Islamic societies (even if they believe that Islam itself is the victim and not the cause)... But clearly this is not quite so new, given what restrictions Attaturk placed on Islamic practice in Turkey to elevate that then new nation into the 20th century.

Of course criticism of current Islamic culture need not be based on lies, there is more than enough ammunition of truth to use against it - no one's disputing that. And yet the simple fact of the matter is it is heavilly reliant on lies. Just look around you - lie after lie is posted here, the most recent was one I can remember was about muslims demanding the Swiss change their flag - turns out it was left wing atheists, and the muslims came out and rejected such a call. There are a thousand other legitimate stories the poster could have posted that incriminate muslims, but he chose the lie. Why? Of course the poster himself was not deliberately lying, but someone fed him that misinformation, and moreover the poster didn't bother to do a 5 second search to verify the information.

As I said, if this was an isolated incident there would be no issue - but it happens literally on a near daily basis. That is a problem - not least of all for people who really do have genuine concerns about the current state of Islamic culture. That includes you. It is also a problem having the likes of FD doing mental gymnastics to ignore or outright apologise for such lies, thus encouraging the continuation of the lying.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

The picture? Well, we can all draw our own conclusions on that - It wouldn't be up for any 'misinterpretation' if it was not fundamentally true that Islamic societies subjugate women.

What nonsense. A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. The lie that Hitler snubbed Jessie Owens because he was black isn't any less of a lie just because we know that Hitler definitely was racist. Truth matters - in and of itself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:27am: Not sure that the 'anti-Islam campaign' is utterly dependent on lies. The current practise of Islam (lets say Islamism) is not compatible with Western secular culture... Even Muslims (such as Salman Rushdie, Tariq Ali et al) agree that this is now true... Yes, they have their theories on the cause, such as Saudi Arabian promotion of their particular brand of Islam &etc... And they often lament the loss of the practise of Islam of the past - i.e. when they were young... But they do agree that there is an 'existential crisis' occurring within Islamic societies (even if they believe that Islam itself is the victim and not the cause)... But clearly this is not quite so new, given what restrictions Attaturk placed on Islamic practice in Turkey to elevate that then new nation into the 20th century. Of course criticism of current Islamic culture need not be based on lies, there is more than enough ammunition of truth to use against it - no one's disputing that. And yet the simple fact of the matter is it is heavilly reliant on lies. Just look around you - lie after lie is posted here, the most recent was one I can remember was about muslims demanding the Swiss change their flag - turns out it was left wing atheists, and the muslims came out and rejected such a call. There are a thousand other legitimate stories the poster could have posted that incriminate muslims, but he chose the lie. Why? Of course the poster himself was not deliberately lying, but someone fed him that misinformation, and moreover the poster didn't bother to do a 5 second search to verify the information. As I said, if this was an isolated incident there would be no issue - but it happens literally on a near daily basis. That is a problem - not least of all for people who really do have genuine concerns about the current state of Islamic culture. That includes you. It is also a problem having the likes of FD doing mental gymnastics to ignore or outright apologise for such lies, thus encouraging the continuation of the lying.

Yes, point taken... But then even you resorted to gross exaggeration with your claim that the 'anti-Islam campaign' is utterly dependent on lies - although you now somewhat repudiate that with this post... But which post do you believe? By exaggeration aren't you also guilty of the same distortion of truth?

You're nitpicking me on "heavily reliant" compared to "utterly dependent"? Its too reliant on lies - thats the only relevant point here. As someone who is genuinely concerned with how Islamism could impact our society - do you agree that the constant lies is doing your cause a great deal of harm?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

You're nitpicking me on "heavily reliant" compared to "utterly dependent"?

I wouldn't call it nitpicking. 'Utterly dependent' implies lies are the only source of information... 'Heavily reliant' implies that while lies are used to promote the cause, so is truth to some degree. Even you accept that an anti-Islam cause could possibly be supported by truth alone.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

Its too reliant on lies - thats the only relevant point here. As someone who is genuinely concerned with how Islamism could impact our society - do you agree that the constant lies is doing your cause a great deal of harm?

I think you need to take a philosophical point of view here. Is there any cause or issue of any significance that is not sometimes distorted by someone somewhere? And, let's face it, this forum is hardly a site used by 'absolute truth seekers'... Its usually a site for compulsive bitchery... I wouldn't take this site and its posters (or any similar site) that seriously... So, no, I'm not concerned nor influenced by most of the drivel posted here. I can see through it... Can't you?

Quote:

or alternatively, you could tell us what you mean. What is it about that photo that you have a problem with?

The women sitting on the floor. Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?


Quote:

How about it FD? Do you know any cultures with no sexism? Or is this where you pretend sexism is limited to Muslims?

You posted a photo of women in a letterbox outfit with an apparently ironic reference to sexist Muslims. Did you intend it as a symbol of the sexism inherent to Islam, or did you honestly think you were demonstrating liberal Muslims because they let their women sit in chairs?


Quote:

You're nitpicking me on "heavily reliant" compared to "utterly dependent"? Its too reliant on lies - thats the only relevant point here. As someone who is genuinely concerned with how Islamism could impact our society - do you agree that the constant lies is doing your cause a great deal of harm?

Good point Gandalf. When complaining about other people lying, it is perfectly reasonable to slip in a few gross exaggerations. You can also quote a question together with an answer to a completely different question, because it helps to 'clarify' your point.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:

The women sitting on the floor. Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?

yes, my wife was sitting on the floor earlier.


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:

You posted a photo of women in a letterbox outfit with an apparently ironic reference to sexist Muslims. Did you intend it as a symbol of the sexism inherent to Islam, or did you honestly think you were demonstrating liberal Muslims because they let their women sit in chairs?

ironic reference? perhaps you should quote me rather than tell me what I mean? :D :D
I showed you a photo that showed the opposite of what you were trying to claim ... your obsession with their clothes is just your way of not having to deal with the real issue. And I've never claimed that Islam is sexist or liberal. Like every other religion, I believe it has elements of all traits found in humans.

FD have you decided whether or not you are making a point about submissiveness in the picture yet? I was rather hoping we could get on to what, if anything, your point actually is. Or would you like to demand that I explain something that I can't see again?

Quote:

What is it about that photo that you have a problem with?

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:

The women sitting on the floor.

Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere. Are you saying you have some kind of problem with the women sitting on the floor? Or is that being too misrepresentative of what you said? Would you call it "submissiveness"? - or are you still denying that you implied there was anything submissive about this photo?

Quote:

yes, my wife was sitting on the floor earlier.

And you think that was like what was in the photo?


Quote:

I showed you a photo that showed the opposite of what you were trying to claim

What is it the opposite of? Are you suggesting those women were not actually sitting on the floor because you found a different photo of Arab women?


Quote:

your obsession with their clothes is just your way of not having to deal with the real issue.

And what is the real issue?


Quote:

Like every other religion, I believe it has elements of all traits found in humans.

In equal measure?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Quote: What is it about that photo that you have a problem with? freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:39pm: The women sitting on the floor. Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere. Are you saying you have some kind of problem with the women sitting on the floor? Or is that being too misrepresentative of what you said? Would you call it "submissiveness"? - or are you still denying that you implied there was anything submissive about this photo?

Would you and your Muslim mates sit on chairs while your wives sit on the floor?

Wally just finished saying he would, but I don't know if he is Gandalf's mate.

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Quote: What is it about that photo that you have a problem with? freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:39pm: The women sitting on the floor. Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere. Are you saying you have some kind of problem with the women sitting on the floor? Or is that being too misrepresentative of what you said? Would you call it "submissiveness"? - or are you still denying that you implied there was anything submissive about this photo? Would you and your Muslim mates sit on chairs while your wives sit on the floor?

Oh they're the wives now are they?

Fascinating, this story just gets better and better.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

And you think that was like what was in the photo?

she sits on the floor often, in many different scenarios . She's not a journalist so it's certainly not like in the photo ...


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

What is it the opposite of?

you want to pretend they are on the floor because muslims are all subjugated by the menfolk ...


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Are you suggesting those women were not actually sitting on the floor because you found a different photo of Arab women?

no, I'm suggesting that muslim women aren't all subjugated by men and not all muslim men want to subjugate their women


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

And what is the real issue?

not sure, you won't tell us what your issue is ... only that for some reason it's bad


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

In equal measure?

no

Quote:

she sits on the floor often, in many different scenarios . She's not a journalist so it's certainly not like in the photo ...

Ah. I hope you don't mind me repeating the question John. Have another go.

Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?

In case you are still confused, I am asking if you have ever seen anything like what is in the photo, not whether you have ever seen a woman sitting on the floor.


Quote:

you want to pretend they are on the floor because muslims are all subjugated by the menfolk

Ah. So wearing letterbox outfits is the opposite of sitting on the floor in this context?


Quote:

not sure, you won't tell us what your issue is ... only that for some reason it's bad

So you think I am avoiding the real issue, even though you don't even know what he real issue is?


Quote:

no

Wow. This almost sounds judgemental. Would you say that Islam is more sexist than Christianity?

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

So you think I am avoiding the real issue, even though you don't even know what he real issue is?

This is where you explain to us what exactly is the issue here FD. Apparently, from what I can gather from your cryptic rhetorical questions, you think there is some issue related to women sitting on the floor and submissiveness. But you refuse to explain what it is - and instead insist that we explain it for you. While at the same time denying you ever implied anything about submissiveness here.

Care to have a go now?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 6:04pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Quote: What is it about that photo that you have a problem with? freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:39pm: The women sitting on the floor. Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere. Are you saying you have some kind of problem with the women sitting on the floor? Or is that being too misrepresentative of what you said? Would you call it "submissiveness"? - or are you still denying that you implied there was anything submissive about this photo? Would you and your Muslim mates sit on chairs while your wives sit on the floor? Oh they're the wives now are they? Fascinating, this story just gets better and better.

You demonstrate with every post just how culturally alien you have become since you converted to Islam.

For a Western man it is is obvious and needs no endless arguments and hair splitting that you don't let your women sit on the floor while you, Lord Muck, are sitting on the chairs.

But since you are a Muslims, not even the most elementary shared cultural trait can go without challenge and disputation. Islam challenges every aspect of Western culture, whether religious or not.  We share nothing as a matter of course.  And that's a BIG deal.

And that's why it will all end in tears - we share no common ground on which co-existence can occur without constant challenges from one side or the other. You think it's OK for the women to sit on the floor, I think it's not and it's not OK to segregate them in auditoriums either. Or to expect them to cover up, or endorse their covering up like they are covered up in Muslim societies.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?

I haven't even seen it inside the middle East FD. All we have is one photo and a bunch of rabid Islamaphobes. You asked me if I've seen women sitting on the floor, I've told you I have .. apparently now that is not good enough. If you are asking if I've seen that exact scenario, no I haven't ... but I haven't seen a bear sh1t in the  woods either.


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Ah. So wearing letterbox outfits is the opposite of sitting on the floor in this context?

no, sitting on the chairs is the opposite of sitting on the floor ... why are you so determined to change the topic to their dress?


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

So you think I am avoiding the real issue, even though you don't even know what he real issue is?

no, I think you are deliberately avoiding having to tell us what you think the real issue is, all the while letting innuendo and cryptic double speak. If I let my imagination run with it, I'd say you didn't want to be held accountable for what you say. It's far easier to just not say it. :D :D


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Wow. This almost sounds judgemental.

of whether traits apply to particular groups of people in equal measure? No, it's not judgmental, it's common sense


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Would you say that Islam is more sexist than Christianity?

I don't know or care enough about Islam to make that call. I tend to judge the people, not the religion.

Quote:

This is where you explain to us what exactly is the issue here FD. Apparently, from what I can gather from your cryptic rhetorical questions, you think there is some issue related to women sitting on the floor and submissiveness. But you refuse to explain what it is - and instead insist that we explain it for you. While at the same time denying you ever implied anything about submissiveness here. Care to have a go now?

There are many issues Gandalf. I have a problem with those women sitting on the floor trying to take notes. I have a problem with Wally the Muslim being so comfortable in his sexism that he projects it onto others without a second thought. I have a problem with John Smith using a photo of women in letterbox outfits, thinking it will prove his point. Let me know if I have left any out. On a broader level, the eager apologetics is also troubling.


Quote:

I haven't even seen it inside the middle East FD. All we have is one photo and a bunch of rabid Islamaphobes. You asked me if I've seen women sitting on the floor, I've told you I have

You are confused John. Here, have another go:

Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?

In case you are still confused, I am asking if you have ever seen anything like what is in the photo, not whether you have ever seen a woman sitting on the floor.


Quote:

no, sitting on the chairs is the opposite of sitting on the floor ... why are you so determined to change the topic to their dress?

Because it highlights your eagerness to be an apologist that you would overlook the fact that they are in the letterbox outfits. A more savvy apologist would not have used that photo. He would have realised that progressively minded people might get hung up on the letterbox outfits and your vague reference to sexist Muslims.


Quote:

no, I think you are deliberately avoiding having to tell us what you think the real issue is, all the while letting innuendo and cryptic double speak. If I let my imagination run with it, I'd say you didn't want to be held accountable for what you say. It's far easier to just not say it.

This is true John. I do not want to be held accoutnable for the things I choose not to say. Maybe you are a little savvy after all.


Quote:

of whether traits apply to particular groups of people in equal measure? No, it's not judgmental, it's common sense

How about ideologies? Are you capable of judging those also?


Quote:

I don't know or care enough about Islam to make that call. I tend to judge the people, not the religion.

Are you only capable of judging people on an individual basis? If not, what defines "the people" in this context, other than their shared religion?

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

We share nothing as a matter of course.

I was invited to a friends daughters birthday party once ... when I got there I was escorted outside 'with the men' and told to leave the women alone to prepare the food and cook in the kitchen. Once the food was ready the men were served and ate first, then the women.


Do you want to take a guess as to the hosts religion? 

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 6:26pm: So you think I am avoiding the real issue, even though you don't even know what he real issue is? This is where you explain to us what exactly is the issue here FD. Apparently, from what I can gather from your cryptic rhetorical questions, you think there is some issue related to women sitting on the floor and submissiveness. But you refuse to explain what it is - and instead insist that we explain it for you.

It is about the institutionalised inferiority of women in Islam, it is about the religio-political removal of human dignity from half the population in the name of Mohammed.

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:18pm: We share nothing as a matter of course. I was invited to a friends daughters birthday party once ... when I got there I was escorted outside 'with the men' and told to leave the women alone to prepare the food and cook in the kitchen. Once the food was ready the men were served and ate first, then the women. Do you want to take a guess as to the hosts religion?

Italians from the South of Rome??

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 24^th, 2016 at 12:30am:

lol you guys really are pathetic - if it was a picture of a group of men on chairs and another group of men on the floor with the women standing up the back it would be every bit as incriminating in your view.

Well, why don't you post such a picture??

Sounds like Karnal's progressive Muslim fantasy. Is that what you are trying to invoke Gandalf?

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:22pm: Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:18pm: We share nothing as a matter of course. I was invited to a friends daughters birthday party once ... when I got there I was escorted outside 'with the men' and told to leave the women alone to prepare the food and cook in the kitchen. Once the food was ready the men were served and ate first, then the women. Do you want to take a guess as to the hosts religion?  Italians from the South of Rome??

Really? I thought for sure you'd run with Arabs :D

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

I have a problem with those women sitting on the floor trying to take notes.

all women, or just Muslim women?


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

I have a problem with John Smith using a photo of women in letterbox outfits, thinking it will prove his point

still pretending the dress is the issue?  ;D ;D ;D  I can understand why you'd get upset at that. You'd rather everyone tell you how right you are


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

On a broader level, the eager apologetics is also troubling.

what apologetics? You now think everyone who isn't an Islamaphobe is an apologist?


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?

Answered several times ... I'm not going to change my answer regardless of how often you ask the same question


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

Because it highlights your eagerness to be an apologist that you would overlook the fact that they are in the letterbox outfits.

they can wear what they like. I really don't give a crap ... just like I don't care that you wear shorts .


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

This is true John. I do not want to be held accoutnable for the things I choose not to say. Maybe you are a little savvy after all.

it seems you don't want to be held accountable for the things you do say neither.

Quote:

still pretending the dress is the issue?  Grin Grin Grin  I can understand why you'd get upset at that. You'd rather everyone tell you how right you are

Sorry John I thought you were asking me what the issue is. If you would like to go ahead and tell me what my opinion is, we could get through this much quicker.


Quote:

what apologetics? You now think everyone who isn't an Islamaphobe is an apologist?

No John. Only the apologists are apologists. Do you disagree?


Quote:

Answered several times ... I'm not going to change my answer regardless of how often you ask the same question

You were confused several times. Have another go:

Have you ever seen anything like that, outside of the middle east?

In case you are still confused, I am asking if you have ever seen anything like what is in the photo, not whether you have ever seen a woman sitting on the floor.


Quote:

they can wear what they like. I really don't give a crap

Are you saying these women have the freedom to dress how they please, or are you giving them your permission to? Or do you simply not care either way?

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

Sorry John I thought you were asking me what the issue is

yes, I was ... your issue with the first photo.


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

No John. Only the apologists are apologists. Do you disagree?

I wouldn't dare  ::) ::) ... so what eager apologetics were you referring to exactly?


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

You were confused several times.

No I wasn't .. i think you are confused. It's like you've never seen women sitting on the floor before. And don't tell me it's different because they were journalists ... the only difference exists in your head because you want it to be mean something else.


freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

Are you saying these women have the freedom to dress how they please, or are you giving them your permission to?

can you show me where any of the women in the photo were made to wear a burqa? otherwise, you are creating scenarios in your head and applying them as fact.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

There are many issues Gandalf. I have a problem with those women sitting on the floor trying to take notes. I have a problem with Wally the Muslim being so comfortable in his sexism that he projects it onto others without a second thought. I have a problem with John Smith using a photo of women in letterbox outfits, thinking it will prove his point. Let me know if I have left any out. On a broader level, the eager apologetics is also troubling.

Eureka! Finally we have an answer. How long did that take - only about 5 pages I think. Why all the obfuscations FD? Why the denial that you ever implied there was a problem?

By the way, do you honestly believe its easier to take notes standing up than sitting down?

Have you given any more thought as to why there is a woman who is allowed to sit on a chair with all the men?

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 6:10pm: Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 6:04pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Quote: What is it about that photo that you have a problem with? freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:39pm: The women sitting on the floor. Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere. Are you saying you have some kind of problem with the women sitting on the floor? Or is that being too misrepresentative of what you said? Would you call it "submissiveness"? - or are you still denying that you implied there was anything submissive about this photo? Would you and your Muslim mates sit on chairs while your wives sit on the floor? Oh they're the wives now are they? Fascinating, this story just gets better and better. You demonstrate with every post just how culturally alien you have become since you converted to Islam. For a Western man it is is obvious and needs no endless arguments and hair splitting that you don't let your women sit on the floor while you, Lord Muck, are sitting on the chairs. blah blah blah

"Your women" Soren? Interesting use of what most would consider a pretty arcane and inappropriate term while railing against misogynism

The old boy doesn’t let his woman out of the kitchen.

Mormor has to make the stool, you see.

Its almost as comical as a southern redneck saying 'y'all dem arabs in Africa, they such a backward folk - they dun treat dem niiggers wid de respect they deserve'

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:39pm:

Its almost as comical as a southern redneck saying 'y'all dem arabs in Africa, they such a backward folk - they dun treat dem niiggers wid de respect they deserve'

The old boy has an amazing ability to reinvent himself. Old boy the feminist. Old boy the liberal. Old boy the democrat.

And yes, Uncle did exactly the same when he was pounding the war drums back in 2001. Remember? We went into Afghanistan to send girls to school. We went into Iraq to liberate them and bring them democracy.

Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. While Laura Bush was doing her Afghani women thing, the US army was quietly being privatized by Rumsfeld. Afghanistan and Iraq were not about Uncle changing his ways to deliver democracy, they were about trialing a new way of running a military and an occupation, and dishing out the spoils. Everything was outsourced, from the canteens to the security to the computer systems.

The contracts were worth billions. None were tendered. And all went to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's friends.

This is the freedom FD and the old boy defend so righteously. Freedom for "their" women? This is just something for Fox News to run and have endless jolly chats about.

The old boys are about the contracts, as every schoolboy knows.

Karnal wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

Uncle changing his ways to deliver democracy, they were about trialing a new way of running a military and an occupation, and dishing out the spoils. Everything was outsourced, from the canteens to the security to the computer systems.

The occupation decimated the public sector under the auspices of "de-Baathification". The cover story was that we were removing the Baathists from power - the reality of course was that it was compulsory for all public servants to be card-holding members of the Baath party under Saddam. The US brought in their own contractors to fill the void, but not only that, they also brought in their own workers. Just think, millions (literally) of recently laid-off public servants, willing to work, couldn't even get a job with the occupiers. The Bremer regime quickly got to work on the small local private sector too - his infamous 90 something edicts systematically placing severe limitations on local private companies and ultimately rendering them completely unviable. Under the occupation, Iraq became not much more than a gigantic mass of mostly unemployed (reports of over 60% during the height of the occupation).

And who do you think millions of desperate and out-of-work young men turn to during a brutal occupation?

Quote:

No I wasn't .. i think you are confused. It's like you've never seen women sitting on the floor before.

Not in a situation like that shown in the photo. Hence the question (the one I actually asked).


Quote:

And don't tell me it's different because they were journalists ... the only difference exists in your head because you want it to be mean something else.

So you cannot see a difference between that photo and when you saw your wife sitting on the floor? What exactly was the context when your wife was sitting on the floor?


Quote:

can you show me where any of the women in the photo were made to wear a burqa? otherwise, you are creating scenarios in your head and applying them as fact.

This is your story John. I am asking you what you meant, not "creating scenarios and applying them as fact". Seeing as you have such a short memory, this is what you said:


Quote:

they can wear what they like. I really don't give a crap

And the obvious question in response:

Are you saying these women have the freedom to dress how they please, or are you giving them your permission to? Or do you simply not care either way?


Quote:

By the way, do you honestly believe its easier to take notes standing up than sitting down?

Sitting on a chair would be easy enough. Not sitting on the floor. Try it.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Not in a situation like that shown in the photo. Hence the question (the one I actually asked).

how many photos of the press at a press conference have you seen? I don't recall seeing very many at all. Therefore I don't know if it unusual or not. It makes sense to me that it's easier to write sitting than it is standing.


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

So you cannot see a difference between that photo and when you saw your wife sitting on the floor

women+ floor ... wasn't that your whole point?


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

I am asking you what you meant, not "creating scenarios and applying them as fact".

... read your posts if you want to know what I meant


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Are you saying these women have the freedom to dress how they please, or are you giving them your permission to? Or do you simply not care either way?

Care? not much, regardless, I don't know enough about these women to make a call either way? why do you know something you're not sharing?


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Sitting on a chair would be easy enough. Not sitting on the floor. Try it.

actually I can take notes on the floor just as easily as on a chair ... standing up is another thing altogether.

Quote:

how many photos of the press at a press conference have you seen? I don't recall seeing very many at all. Therefore I don't know if it unusual or not.

You could not take it upon yourself to apply a bit of common sense?


Quote:

women+ floor ... wasn't that your whole point?

You already acknowledged that it was nothing like what was in the photo. Are you now saying you have lost the ability to make the distinction?


Quote:

Care? not much, regardless, I don't know enough about these women to make a call either way? why do you know something you're not sharing?

So you don't care whether these women are free to dress how they please? I suppose that explains your efforts in this thread, and that absurd photo you posted in an effort to make a point about 'sexist muslims'.

If you don't care, why have you posted so prolifically in this thread? Do you care about people casting aspersions about Islam,  but not about all the women who lack fundamental rights and freedoms because of Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:53am: Uncle changing his ways to deliver democracy, they were about trialing a new way of running a military and an occupation, and dishing out the spoils. Everything was outsourced, from the canteens to the security to the computer systems. The occupation decimated the public sector under the auspices of "de-Baathification". The cover story was that we were removing the Baathists from power - the reality of course was that it was compulsory for all public servants to be card-holding members of the Baath party under Saddam. The US brought in their own contractors to fill the void, but not only that, they also brought in their own workers. Just think, millions (literally) of recently laid-off public servants, willing to work, couldn't even get a job with the occupiers. The Bremer regime quickly got to work on the small local private sector too - his infamous 90 something edicts systematically placing severe limitations on local private companies and ultimately rendering them completely unviable. Under the occupation, Iraq became not much more than a gigantic mass of mostly unemployed (reports of over 60% during the height of the occupation). And who do you think millions of desperate and out-of-work young men turn to during a brutal occupation?

Careful Gandalf... Willful exaggeration is a form of lie... Were there really millions of public servants put out of the service??

The details don't matter, so long as the general feeling is true. It would be like killing Hitler then firing all the well intentioned Nazi Bureaucrats. What else are out of work Nazis going to do?

Karnal wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

The contracts were worth billions. None were tendered. And all went to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's friends.

The most deeply ironic (in a dark and sinister kind of way, given the region) is that Saddam - a secular leader - was overthrown by an American leader who claimed that god told him to do it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:18pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 6:10pm: Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 6:04pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Quote: What is it about that photo that you have a problem with? freediver wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:39pm: The women sitting on the floor. Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere. Are you saying you have some kind of problem with the women sitting on the floor? Or is that being too misrepresentative of what you said? Would you call it "submissiveness"? - or are you still denying that you implied there was anything submissive about this photo? Would you and your Muslim mates sit on chairs while your wives sit on the floor? Oh they're the wives now are they? Fascinating, this story just gets better and better. You demonstrate with every post just how culturally alien you have become since you converted to Islam. For a Western man it is is obvious and needs no endless arguments and hair splitting that you don't let your women sit on the floor while you, Lord Muck, are sitting on the chairs. blah blah blah "Your women" Soren? Interesting use of what most would consider a pretty arcane and inappropriate term while railing against misogynism

Sooooo.... is it ok for you to sit on chairs while your women - yes, your Muslim women, you know, the 'muslima' - sit on the floor?

Is that OK?

Or are you going to, once again reflexively,  opt for the Muslim base-line of being incredibly dishonest, arse-covering and dissembling, starting to haggle over a word as if all life was the kashbah of carpet traders, spice merchants and slave traders??

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:53am: Uncle changing his ways to deliver democracy, they were about trialing a new way of running a military and an occupation, and dishing out the spoils. Everything was outsourced, from the canteens to the security to the computer systems. The occupation decimated the public sector under the auspices of "de-Baathification". The cover story was that we were removing the Baathists from power - the reality of course was that it was compulsory for all public servants to be card-holding members of the Baath party under Saddam. The US brought in their own contractors to fill the void, but not only that, they also brought in their own workers. Just think, millions (literally) of recently laid-off public servants, willing to work, couldn't even get a job with the occupiers. The Bremer regime quickly got to work on the small local private sector too - his infamous 90 something edicts systematically placing severe limitations on local private companies and ultimately rendering them completely unviable. Under the occupation, Iraq became not much more than a gigantic mass of mostly unemployed (reports of over 60% during the height of the occupation). And who do you think millions of desperate and out-of-work young men turn to during a brutal occupation?

Let’s see. Uncle? Freeeeedom? Al Qaida? ISIS?

That’s a hard one, G. Questions questions.

Maybe you could ask FD.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:22pm:

The details don't matter, so long as the general feeling is true.

Where’s our Wiki?

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

You could not take it upon yourself to apply a bit of common sense?

so you haven't seen any other photos of press conferences? SO how do you know it is unusual for reporters to sit on the floor to take notes?


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

You already acknowledged that it was nothing like what was in the photo

I said she wasn't a journalist . Do you think journalists should be held to different standards?


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

So you don't care whether these women are free to dress how they please?

You're assuming they aren't



freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

I suppose that explains your efforts in this thread, and that absurd photo you posted in an effort to make a point about 'sexist muslims'.

you're still upset that photo shattered your whole argument  ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

If you don't care, why have you posted so prolifically in this thread?

I care about the anti muslim bullsh1t you keep trying to spread.

Quote:

You're assuming they aren't

I am just trying to confirm that you do not care whether they are free to dress as they please. Asking that question requires no assumption on my part.


Quote:

I care about the anti muslim bullsh1t you keep trying to spread.

So this matters to you, but not the millions of women from around the world who lack basic rights and freedoms because of Islam?

Can you quote some of this BS, or is this another case of me saying things without actually saying them?

[quote author=freediver link=1453237432/170#170 date] Asking that question requires no assumption on my part. [/quote]

Sometimes a question is just a question, no?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:05pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:16pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:53am: Uncle changing his ways to deliver democracy, they were about trialing a new way of running a military and an occupation, and dishing out the spoils. Everything was outsourced, from the canteens to the security to the computer systems. The occupation decimated the public sector under the auspices of "de-Baathification". The cover story was that we were removing the Baathists from power - the reality of course was that it was compulsory for all public servants to be card-holding members of the Baath party under Saddam. The US brought in their own contractors to fill the void, but not only that, they also brought in their own workers. Just think, millions (literally) of recently laid-off public servants, willing to work, couldn't even get a job with the occupiers. The Bremer regime quickly got to work on the small local private sector too - his infamous 90 something edicts systematically placing severe limitations on local private companies and ultimately rendering them completely unviable. Under the occupation, Iraq became not much more than a gigantic mass of mostly unemployed (reports of over 60% during the height of the occupation). And who do you think millions of desperate and out-of-work young men turn to during a brutal occupation? Careful Gandalf... Willful exaggeration is a form of lie... Were there really millions of public servants put out of the service??

Yes really there were North. Do a bit of research.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Sitting on a chair would be easy enough. Not sitting on the floor. Try it.

You previously made some sarcastic remark about them not being able to stand - as if that is the preferred position.

Presumably if it was a picture of the women standing up the back it wouldn't be submissive right?

You still haven't explained why at least one woman was allowed to sit - on a chair.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:51am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:05pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:16pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:53am: Uncle changing his ways to deliver democracy, they were about trialing a new way of running a military and an occupation, and dishing out the spoils. Everything was outsourced, from the canteens to the security to the computer systems. The occupation decimated the public sector under the auspices of "de-Baathification". The cover story was that we were removing the Baathists from power - the reality of course was that it was compulsory for all public servants to be card-holding members of the Baath party under Saddam. The US brought in their own contractors to fill the void, but not only that, they also brought in their own workers. Just think, millions (literally) of recently laid-off public servants, willing to work, couldn't even get a job with the occupiers. The Bremer regime quickly got to work on the small local private sector too - his infamous 90 something edicts systematically placing severe limitations on local private companies and ultimately rendering them completely unviable. Under the occupation, Iraq became not much more than a gigantic mass of mostly unemployed (reports of over 60% during the height of the occupation). And who do you think millions of desperate and out-of-work young men turn to during a brutal occupation? Careful Gandalf... Willful exaggeration is a form of lie... Were there really millions of public servants put out of the service?? Yes really there were North. Do a bit of research.

Yes, I did a bit of research and found that the figures vary wildly. Some reports have it that 'thousands' of public servants were removed from their jobs... Some report 'tens of thousands' while others (mainly from NGOs) reported over 100,000. So lets say it was 200,000. That would still leave your figure at least 10 times above that.

Of course, this does not exonerate what Bush (his cronies and his 'coalition of the willing') did to post-war Iraq - which in another time and place would have been considered 'crimes against humanity' (interesting that at least the British had the humility and sense of shame over the affair to hold their leaders to account), but it does question whether you are up to the higher standards you apply to yourself in these matters over others here .

Holding yourself to high standards is a double edged sword... While you may be extended more respect if you keep them, you'll be treated worse than you otherwise would if you fail them.

Like I said before, forums are bitch-fests, not an 'Olympus' of journalistic integrity.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:

I am just trying to confirm that you do not care whether they are free to dress as they please.

That's irrelevant to the topic of the photo. I have no reason to suspect anyone is being forced to do anything. If you have any information about the people in the photo that you aren't sharing, now's the time to share.


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:

So this matters to you, but not the millions of women from around the world who lack basic rights and freedoms because of Islam?

all that from one photo?

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 9:08am:

freediver wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:49pm: So this matters to you, but not the millions of women from around the world who lack basic rights and freedoms because of Islam? all that from one photo?

All from that one photo. FD's just asking, that's all. Remember, sometimes a question is just a question.

Quote:

Presumably if it was a picture of the women standing up the back it wouldn't be submissive right?

It would not look anywhere near as bad. I often see women standing up, even at formal events. Journalists in particular often seem to be standing.


Quote:

That's irrelevant to the topic of the photo.

I am making it relevant John (thanks for asking my opinion on what the real issue is here). Would you agree that it points to a strangely skewed set of priorities that you would declare that you do not care whether millions of women around the world have the right to dress as they please, but would get all hung up on whether we are misinterpreting, or not giving adequate benefit of the doubt to, a photo that clearly demonstrates inequality of the sexes?


Quote:

all that from one photo?

No John. I asked you whether you cared. You said you don't. That is how I know. Is it only the women in the photos whose rights and freedoms you do not care about?

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

No John. I asked you whether you cared. You said you don't. That is how I know. Is it only the women in the photos whose rights and freedoms you do not care about?

Evidently not, FD. John clearly doesn't care about any Muslims. He definitely wants to ban them, kill them and nuke them.

Unlike you, eh? You care.

I'm sorry for assuming this and not asking, FD, but you haven't been doing much answering lately.

You've been caring about other things.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

It would not look anywhere near as bad.

that's rather subjective don't you think?  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:00pm: It would not look anywhere near as bad. that's rather subjective don't you think?  :D :D

You answer FD's question.

Would you agree that it points to a strangely skewed set of priorities that you would declare that you do not care whether millions of women around the world have the right to dress as they please, but would get all hung up on whether we are misinterpreting, or not giving adequate benefit of the doubt to, a photo that clearly demonstrates inequality of the sexes?

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

I am making it relevant John

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

Would you agree that it points to a strangely skewed set of priorities

no


freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

that you do not care whether millions of women around the world have the right to dress as they please

I don't care how anyone dresses. As for their rights, can you show me one iota of proof that those women in the photo are wearing the mailbox dress because they were made to rather than because they wanted to?


freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

but would get all hung up on whether we are misinterpreting

there is no 'whether' .... you ARE misinterpreting and deliberately so


freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

or not giving adequate benefit of the doubt to,

no ones asking you to give anyone any benefit of the doubt ... just don't create imaginary worst case scenarios because it suits your ideology. All you have is a photo ... the wheres and why anyone is in the positions they are in within the photo, or their mode of dress, is fanciful guesswork guided by your own prejudices.


freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

a photo that clearly demonstrates inequality of the sexes?

clearly? if it was clear there wouldn't be any need for debate!