Great Mexicans can filter in an establish the West and Southwest of the United States as Mexican territory. If "filtering into" gives just cause.
This is a strained analogy. Settlers buying land and making homes in what was an empire, with full knowledge of authorities in that empire and their compliance, cannot be compared to Mexicans today slipping across the border illegally and then demanding that they and other Latinos who do the same thing be given citizenship over people who immigrate to this country legally from other parts of the world.
Quote:
By stating that "terrorism" is a tactic is simply a statement of it's truth. The fallacy is to conclude Hezbollah is a "terrorist" orginization and that the nation state of Israel and the United States are not. That's my problem, and it that reason you will military historeians that dismiss the emotional and political term "terrorists." The United States has without doubt terrorized more peope around the earth than Hezbollah has. So if Hezbollah is a terrorist NGO than the United States can only logically be concluded to be a terrorist nation state.
From you remarks above it’s safe to conclude the following:
“Terrorism” is a tactic and “terrorism” is an emotional term. Affixing “terrorism” to the behavior of groups should cease because, in part, nations like the U.S. and Israel have committed more terrorism (or is it “terrorism”) than other groups. But since everyone engages in “terrorism” no one is a “terrorist”. But the U.S. and Israel have terrorized (no quotation marks) more people than Hezbollah; Hezbollah is simply a “terrorist” organization (quotation marks meant to signify that they really aren’t terrorists), but the U.S. and Israel are both terrorist nations (no quotation marks meant to signify that they really are terrorists). Plus they terrorized more people, which means we shouldn’t denounce the other group’s “terrorism” or “terrorism” itself, just terrorism that emanates from the U.S. and Israel.
I don't much buy that answer... but hey that just me!
I don't buy it either and thankfully that's the opinion of most people.
Quote:
Anyways... I see no reason to see Mohammed as a demon. I have always thought him and Martin Luther have an interesting story to tell as to how people can have talents and virtues yet great personal failings or fragile weaknesses. We tend to like to make out people as soley good or soley bad. Usually this is not how life is though - in my opinion.
In my opinion any grown man (or woman for that matter) - "Prophet" or not - who has sexual contact with children (even as young as seven in some cases) is committing a demonic act. An atrocity. It's true that people are seldom soley good or soley bad, but sometimes ones wrongs - depending on what they are - can overshadow ones good. In many people's minds anyway.
More information about the horrible and devastating consequences related to the practice of child brides...
Life was really horrible for me... the odour of the urine is horrible... that is why even my husband wouldn't allow me to stay in his house
Aminata Kanda
"We just can't imagine the misery of these women, but it's going to be an ongoing misery for the next, perhaps 100 years, perhaps more. I can't see an ending to it," she says.
A few weeks ago the last of the women whose fistulas were repaired by Mercy Ships returned home to a remote eastern province.
They included 15-year-old Sia Foday who was married off by her family at the age of nine and was quickly pregnant.
Sia - small for her age - was only 10 when she tried to give birth and ended up incontinent.
Another of the women, Aminata Kanda, said she only survived because her children collected firewood to sell and helped her tend a small garden.
"Life was really horrible for me. When I was in this sickness the urine was coming non-stop... the odour of the urine is horrible... that is why even my husband wouldn't allow me to stay in his house," she says.
Were it not for Mercy Ships both women would probably have had to live with the condition forever.
United Nations agencies have sounded what they call a "global alarm" about this medical disaster.
In the West - on the rare occasions it occurs - fistula is curable.
But in the developing world it has condemned uncounted millions of women to lives of solitude, poverty and despair.
Egypt, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Pakistan, India, and the Middle East: In the rural villages of these countries many young girls are rarely allowed out of their homes unless it is to work in the fields or to get married.
These uneducated girls are often married off at the young age of 11.
Some families allow girls who are only 7 years old to marry. It is very unusual for a girl to reach the age of 16 and not be married.
Know the Facts
research shows child marriage is…
Common
More than 51 million girls younger than 18 are already married. (ICRW, 2003) It’s estimated that in the next decade, 100 million more girls—or roughly 25,000 girls a day—will marry before they turn 18. (Population Council, 2003)
Widespread
Child marriage exists everywhere. But in some countries, the majority of girls marry before 18. These include: 82% in Niger | 75% in Bangladesh | 63% in Mali | 63% in Nepal | 57% in Ethiopia | 57% in India | 50% in Uganda. (DHS, 1996-2001)
In Nepal, 7% of females are married before the age of 10 and 40% by age 15. (UNICEF, 2001)
In Amhara, Ethiopia, 50% of girls are married before age 15. (Judith Bruce, 2003)
A Major Health Concern
More girls in developing countries die from hemorrhage, obstructed labor, obstetric fistula,* and other pregnancy- and childbirth-related problems than from any other single cause of death.
Girls 10-14 are five times more likely to die of these causes than women 20 to 24.
Girls 15 to 19 are twice as likely to die. (United Nations, 1991)
In sub-Saharan Africa, infants born to mothers younger than 20 are 1.5 times more likely to die than babies born to mothers 20-29. (United Nations, 1998)
*Obstetric fistula—rupturing of the vagina and rectum causing persistent leakage of feces and urine—is a health risk
commonly associated with child marriage because of the mother's physical immaturity at the time of childbirth.
Often Abusive
Child brides are frequently pulled from school and married to older men.
Child brides typically are little more than servants in their in-laws’ homes. They are under tremendous pressure to prove their fertility in the first year of marriage.
And because child brides have no control over resources or the ability to make decisions on their own behalf, others typically decide if or when they get:
a new dress | a chance to visit with friends | an education |
a job | pregnant | pre-natal care
A Factor in the Spread of HIV & AIDS
Marriage does not guarantee protection against HIV transmission, particularly for girls and young women, who often marry older, sexually experienced partners.
Research in Kenya and Zambia indicates that married girls are more likely to be HIV-positive than their sexually active unmarried counterparts. (University of Chicago, 2003)
A Barrier to Education
Married girls are seldom found in school, limiting their economic and social opportunities. Sometimes, parents cut a girl’s education short to marry her off to protect her from the possibility of sexual activity outside of wedlock. When a girl who is in school becomes betrothed, she almost certainly drops out once she weds. And once married, there is virtually no support for her to continue her schooling. (ICRW, 2001)
Linked to Domestic Violence
Child brides are often more susceptible to domestic violence. (USAID Gender Assessment, 2003-2005)
In Egypt, data indicates that 29% of married adolescents were beaten by their spouses—or their spouses and others. Of these, 41% were beaten when they were pregnant. (Population Council, 2000)
A wonderful organization dedicated to helping girls and women suffering from fistulas in Ethiopia...
The Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital is dedicated to treating and preventing obstetric fistula in Ethiopia, restoring the health and dignity of these women. We invite you to join us in helping the hospital with their mission.
Great Mexicans can filter in an establish the West and Southwest of the United States as Mexican territory. If "filtering into" gives just cause.
This is a strained analogy. Settlers buying land and making homes in what was an empire, with full knowledge of authorities in that empire and their compliance, cannot be compared to Mexicans today slipping across the border illegally and then demanding that they and other Latinos who do the same thing be given citizenship over people who immigrate to this country legally from other parts of the world.
Quote:
By stating that "terrorism" is a tactic is simply a statement of it's truth. The fallacy is to conclude Hezbollah is a "terrorist" orginization and that the nation state of Israel and the United States are not. That's my problem, and it that reason you will military historeians that dismiss the emotional and political term "terrorists." The United States has without doubt terrorized more peope around the earth than Hezbollah has. So if Hezbollah is a terrorist NGO than the United States can only logically be concluded to be a terrorist nation state.
From you remarks above it’s safe to conclude the following:
“Terrorism” is a tactic and “terrorism” is an emotional term. Affixing “terrorism” to the behavior of groups should cease because, in part, nations like the U.S. and Israel have committed more terrorism (or is it “terrorism”) than other groups. But since everyone engages in “terrorism” no one is a “terrorist”. But the U.S. and Israel have terrorized (no quotation marks) more people than Hezbollah; Hezbollah is simply a “terrorist” organization (quotation marks meant to signify that they really aren’t terrorists), but the U.S. and Israel are both terrorist nations (no quotation marks meant to signify that they really are terrorists). Plus they terrorized more people, which means we shouldn’t denounce the other group’s “terrorism” or “terrorism” itself, just terrorism that emanates from the U.S. and Israel.
One, I never mentioned illegal Mexicans, G-Man, that's your own assertion about the brown brother's crossing the boarder.
Two, my summed up contention has been and is this, that what we refer to as terrorism is simply a tactic of warfare (ethical/moral issues aside), as such I'm not sure I would refer to an NGO or nation state as "terrorists." The use of the term itself by politicians is simply for emotional persuasion. Nation states as well as NGO's have utilized terror tactics. Some nation states and NGO's are more criminal than others. However a military tactic has a begining and an end... it is not on running continuous through space and time. Currently the IRA is still an NGO and still very much political (according to Clausewitz 'war is the continuation of politics by other means') but right today they are not setting bombs off in London nor engaged in small arms fire with British troops or Protestant militias, in contrast the United States is running militant covert operations (read special forces i.e. guerrilla warfare) around the world and outsourcing torture as well as terror. Israel is also currently conducting "terror" tactics on Lebanon. I don't consider the United States or Israel "terrorists" for reasons I have already given numerous times. The whole thing boils down to, be it Hezbollah, the IRA, the United States, Israel, or any other nation state or NGO, to the principles of tactics, space and time.
One, I never mentioned illegal Mexicans, G-Man, that's your own assertion about the brown brother's crossing the boarder.
Two, my summed up contention has been and is this, that what we refer to as terrorism is simply a tactic of warfare (ethical/moral issues aside), as such I'm not sure I would refer to an NGO or nation state as "terrorists." The use of the term itself by politicians is simply for emotional persuasion. Nation states as well as NGO's have utilized terror tactics. Some nation states and NGO's are more criminal than others. However a military tactic has a begining and an end... it is not on running continuous through space and time. Currently the IRA is still an NGO and still very much political (according to Clausewitz 'war is the continuation of politics by other means') but right today they are not setting bombs off in London nor engaged in small arms fire with British troops or Protestant militias, in contrast the United States is running militant covert operations (read special forces i.e. guerrilla warfare) around the world and outsourcing torture as well as terror. Israel is also currently conducting "terror" tactics on Lebanon. I don't consider the United States or Israel "terrorists" for reasons I have already given numerous times. The whole thing boils down to, be it Hezbollah, the IRA, the United States, Israel, or any other nation state or NGO, to the principles of tactics, space and time.
I think this is well put. Terrorism is one example of an emotionally charged word that is used in political discourse. A "terrorist" uses the tactical maneuvers of bombing, kidnapping, etc. meant to inspire fear and cause confusion in a targeted population - it is not an indication of political ideology. If Hamas or Hezbollah followed the path of the IRA then it would be inappropriate to call them terrorist organizations if they no longer use this tactic. No one refers to the Vietnamese as "guerrillists" afterall.
One, I never mentioned illegal Mexicans, G-Man, that's your own assertion about the brown brother's crossing the boarder.
Two, my summed up contention has been and is this, that what we refer to as terrorism is simply a tactic of warfare (ethical/moral issues aside), as such I'm not sure I would refer to an NGO or nation state as "terrorists." The use of the term itself by politicians is simply for emotional persuasion. Nation states as well as NGO's have utilized terror tactics. Some nation states and NGO's are more criminal than others. However a military tactic has a begining and an end... it is not on running continuous through space and time. Currently the IRA is still an NGO and still very much political (according to Clausewitz 'war is the continuation of politics by other means') but right today they are not setting bombs off in London nor engaged in small arms fire with British troops or Protestant militias, in contrast the United States is running militant covert operations (read special forces i.e. guerrilla warfare) around the world and outsourcing torture as well as terror. Israel is also currently conducting "terror" tactics on Lebanon. I don't consider the United States or Israel "terrorists" for reasons I have already given numerous times. The whole thing boils down to, be it Hezbollah, the IRA, the United States, Israel, or any other nation state or NGO, to the principles of tactics, space and time.
I think this is well put. Terrorism is one example of an emotionally charged word that is used in political discourse. A "terrorist" uses the tactical maneuvers of bombing, kidnapping, etc. meant to inspire fear and cause confusion in a targeted population - it is not an indication of political ideology. If Hamas or Hezbollah followed the path of the IRA then it would be inappropriate to call them terrorist organizations if they no longer use this tactic. No one refers to the Vietnamese as "guerrillists" afterall.
I guess the USA and allied forces in WWII were 'violating' Germany's, Itay's and Japan's 'civil rights' too. Wait, we can fix that, let's give them all reparations.....
________________________________________________________
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
At first, glance, I am not sure that a debate over the definition (denotation, connotation, emotional content, ideological-political usefulness) of the word "terrorism" is germane to this web site. Still, since you guys seem to be enjoying yourselves discussing it, I shall leave you to it. If it continues, however, I may split the thread off to its own topic.
At first, glance, I am not sure that a debate over the definition (denotation, connotation, emotional content, ideological-political usefulness) of the word "terrorism" is germane to this web site. Still, since you guys seem to be enjoying yourselves discussing it, I shall leave you to it. If it continues, however, I may split the thread off to its own topic.
I think on the word "terrorism" we have argued that as far as we can usefully go. If G-Man has something else he want to say on it he can. But for me I think I'm done with that.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 03 Aug 2006 14:41 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
...
This is a strained analogy. Settlers buying land and making homes in what was an empire, with full knowledge of authorities in that empire and their compliance, cannot be compared to Mexicans today slipping across the border illegally and then demanding that they and other Latinos who do the same thing be given citizenship over people who immigrate to this country legally from other parts of the world.
That happens when a country "moves" the border. In this case the U.S. take for itself HALF of Mexico, so no wonder Mexicans are comming. Today there are 40 millions of Hispanics in the U.S. and 25 millions are Mexicans.
Mexico only has 100 million people. So, I guess immigration will stop when there is about the same number of mexicans living in theirs former territory than in Mexico. Perhaps when they reach 75 millions. And perhaps it will be sooner than you think. After all it is predicted that by 2050 25% of the population of the U.S. will be "hispanic"
No much to worry about.
And, after all, you "Americans" did't ask the Indians permission to settle "legally" in the U.S. did you? No. You don't.
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 {Posts: 17 } Location: London, UK
Posted: Sun 09 Aug 2009 20:20 Post subject:
zsana wrote:
In my opinion any grown man (or woman for that matter) - "Prophet" or not - who has sexual contact with children (even as young as seven in some cases) is committing a demonic act. An atrocity. It's true that people are seldom soley good or soley bad, but sometimes ones wrongs - depending on what they are - can overshadow ones good. In many people's minds anyway.
If we put everthing into context, we are talking about a marriage that happened in 622. Wasn't normal for people at that time to marry at a young age? Was it considered an act of pedophilia?
I found this book which talks about the age of marriage in Byzantine empire around the 8th century. In the book, the author states the ideal age for girls was around 12 and men around 20.
But if a man is a widower (as it was the case of Mohamed the prophet who was married to a much older woman Khadija), the age difference would be greater.
I also read Emperor Andronikos was 65 when he married the daughter of the French king Louis the 7th , Agnes of France who just turned 12.
Was that emperor a pedophile? to the 21st century definition , yes he was but at that time, I do not think he was considered as such by his contemporaries.
Up to the 18th century, the age of marriage was still low (compared to our current standards), the last French monarch Louis the 16th was 15 when he married Marie Antoinette who was 14 at that time.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
