4
   

Terror - The clock is ticking...

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:21 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
So you're going to help out TKO, are you?

Pointing out stupidity is a public service.
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:30 pm
@gustavratzenhofer,
gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Did you say there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11, Lone Voice?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Daschle_letter.jpg


Hi Gus. How's it hanging?

(unlike these other insensitive bastards who so callously ignored your post, I just wanted you to know that I acknowledge and appreciate your contribution to the thread!)
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:32 pm
@parados,
Paradox....

Sigh.

It's there, in one of the audio reports in the link.

But here is a direct link to the information:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18226044

What is it, with the left? Attack the person, in order to ignore the information? Paint someone you don't agree with as a 'radical extremist', in order to mitigate the information they provide?

That way, 'progressives' can ignore the bad news that is staring them in face; I guess it allows you guys to look in the mirror, or something.

OK, you do read the news, right? You are aware in Britain, for example, a judge ruled Sharia law is to be allowed in Muslim communities?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html

I'm sorry, am I a 'radical extremist' for pointing this out?

Again, this issue is in context to the discussion that was going on between TKO and me. I see in true A2K lib fashion, you are eager to pile on. That's cool; I just ask that you read our prior posts so you don't continue to appear ignorant...

A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:37 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

Pointing out stupidity is a public service.


Well played, DD! I'm in awe of your deep, intellectual thinking! What an inspired, well thought-out post!

Great response, in the truest 'progressive' sense...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:40 pm
It certainly qualifies as an accurate assessment of his opposition in this "debate."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:42 pm
I will note that the discussion has gone from "The clock is ticking" to "some countries are having trouble with acculturation."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 08:47 pm
@A Lone Voice,
It is? Where? I listened to it. At what point do you think it exists?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 08:48 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
OK, you do read the news, right? You are aware in Britain, for example, a judge ruled Sharia law is to be allowed in Muslim communities?

I also realize that Muslim communities are NOT the British government any more than Native American communities in the US are the US government.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 08:56 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:

But here is a direct link to the information:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18226044

Please point out where it discusses Germany and Sharia law in that link.

I await you providing the specific quote stating Germany is at risk of Sharia law from that link. None exists that I can see.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:26 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

You deliberately manipulate my words to craft a false stance to strike at. That's the definition of a strawman.


I know. I counter one of your (was it an intellectual you called yourself?) arguments, so I use a straw man fallacy. Because everyone knows that as an intellectual, you can't possibly be wrong.

You've been called out. Stop whining and dry your eyes. Here...
http://www.redstaplerchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kleenex.jpg
A Lone Voice wrote:

I MUST be manipulating your words, evil straw man conservative that I am...

Apology accepted.
A Lone Voice wrote:

How about this? Just lay out your arguments, dude. Quit getting hung up on how impressively intellectual you are.

I'm sure you consider yourself to be quite the debater. I've addressed your arguments already.

You based your argument that Bush's use of Gitmo was correct in some part (be it full or partial) on the fact that we have not been attacked. The idea that our safety is measured in terms of zero attacks is somehow exclusive to the USA because I asked about other nations who have also not been attacked since 9/11 (nor in recent history prior to 9/11) you have no reply except for some red herring (go ahead and whine your heart because you're being called out again) about Muslim communities in states like Germany and how their culture is changing.

You're unable to show how your means of measuring our safety (and Bush's policies) are measured well by the fact we haven't' been attacked. Since you cannot reconcile how then other countries would be more safe with obviously more liberal foriegn policies etc, I accept your concession on this matter.
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

If we adopt your means to measure security, we fall behind countries that were not attacked prior to nor after 9/11. What you attempt to do here is equate circumstance to causation.

Denmark?
Iceland?
Germany?


Would you trade the Islamic societies Denmark and Germany currently possess for their 'safety'? You do realize the culture in both those countries is radically changing, right?

Are you saying they are less safe in those countries? I thought since they haven't been attacked... Rolling Eyes

What's illegal about the culture changing?

A Lone Voice wrote:

Read this, from NPR: (You 'progressives' still love NPR, don't you?):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182321

What article did yo read?
A Lone Voice wrote:

The way you libs complain about right wing Christian fundamentalists in the US (frankly, I don't like 'em either) makes me think you would go nuts under Sharia law...

But then again, maybe not, the way you libs give Muslims a pass. Witness First Amendment issues and Islamic lobby groups…

That's why we are supposed to live in a secular society where individuals are free to pursue the religion of their choice or no religion at all. The USA will never live under sharia law because of the bill of rights prohibits something like that from happening.

How am I giving Muslims a pass?

I understand that if you ignore the constitution and reality how scary these things can be for you though. You have my compassion.

I'm going to do a reality check on you. I'm going to see if you are as dumb or crazy as I suspect. It's a simple question. How many Muslims would need to be in the USA before you lived under Sharia law? Be prepared to support your answer. Direct question, direct answer please.
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

We're the intellectuals. We think plenty. One day we're being hung from by a tree with a sign saying we think too much, the next we apparently don't think at all... Whatever dude. I'll accept you have your own description. It doesn't mean anything.

I've got little respect for someone prepared to defend the Bush terror policies, and telling me about "unintended consequences."


No, you guys really don't have any common sense. Sorry. Witness Joe (the wrong side of history on every major foreign policy decision) Biden. The best your party could do for VP. Talk about a train wreck…

As your Harvard History Professor told you: "Unsupported argument."

A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Conservatives might wonder why we sent men to fight in countries where we couldn't seize material assets like oil or spread Christianity.

Obama doesn't have to be a perfect man, just an honest one for me. Anything is better than the train ride towards fascism that Bush was taking us on.


Um, your BDS really shows when you become angry. It really takes away from any logic you might want to convey in the future...

Angry? The only rise in blood pressure I get is from the excitement that you're a fresh face here at A2K that brings the same old defeated arguments I've seen time and time again. I get to see them fail the test of logic as if it was the first time. Imagine watching Star Wars like it was the first time, every time.

No sweat. I don't even bother cracking the knuckles.
A Lone Voice wrote:

I know it plays well here at A2K, (and maybe college campuses) what with all the intellectualism, but you know, the choir and all…

In the real world, you just sound like a left wing loony.

Sure dude. As left and loony as they sound I'm sure. I'd hate to have the approval of the academics, those lefty loonies. Who wants the respect of the intellectual choir? Yikes. This real world of yours sounds pretty scary! I guess I'll stay holed up in my house insulated from any sort of opinion contrary to my own.

I'm not a social person at all.

Tell me how to stop being so s-s-s-s-s-smart. I wanna be just like you.
K
O

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:30 pm
@Diest TKO,
While we're on the topic, I read a pretty good article today...

Quote:
When Gitmo Was (Relatively) Good

By Karen J. Greenberg
Sunday, January 25, 2009; B01


In his first week in office, President Obama signed an executive order that would shut down the notorious U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. But as the United States moves to end this shameful episode, it's worth reflecting on the untold story of the very beginnings of Guantanamo.

The following account, which draws on dozens of interviews I conducted over the past few years, tells the startling tale of a period shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, when military officers on the ground tried to do the right thing with the recently captured detainees but were ultimately defeated by civilian officials back in Washington. Those early days -- back before Gitmo became Gitmo -- strongly suggest that the damage the prison inflicted on America's honor and security could have been avoided if policymakers had been willing to follow the uniformed military's basic instincts. It may be too late for these revelations to help redeem Guantanamo in its waning days. But those crafting U.S. detention policy in the years ahead could still benefit from learning about these small initial efforts at decency.

The story begins in the first week of January 2002, when Joint Task Force 160, led by Marine Brig. Gen. Michael Lehnert, dutifully landed at Guantanamo Bay. Lehnert's approximately 2,000 troops were fired up about their mission: building the first detention facility for prisoners taken from the Afghan battlefield. The unit had a 96-hour deadline, according to Lehnert, and they were told that about 300 detainees were already en route to Cuba. As Col. William Meier, Lehnert's chief of staff, explained it, the task force had to scavenge materials from existing structures on the base to help build hundreds of cells and the massive tent city needed to house the U.S. troops coming in to guard them. One commander working on the construction mission, Lou V. Corielo, told a Marine Corps interviewer at the time that he found himself lamenting the absence of a Home Depot.

But it wasn't the logistics that most worried Lehnert. It was the policy vacuum into which he and his troops had been thrown. "We are writing the book as we go," one officer said at the time. Lehnert said he had been told by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Geneva Conventions would not technically apply to his mission: He was to act in a manner "consistent with" the conventions (as the mantra went) but not to feel bound by them. The Joint Task Force, advised by U.S. Southern Command, was essentially left on its own to improvise a regime of care and custody for the allegedly hardened al-Qaeda terrorists -- whom the Bush administration famously called "the worst of the worst" -- who would be coming their way. The idea, as Lehnert told me he understood it, was to detain them and wait for a legal process to begin.

In the absence of new policy guidance about how to treat the detainees, Lehnert told me that he felt he had no choice but to rely on the regulations already in place, ones in which the military was well schooled: the Uniform Code of Military Justice, other U.S. laws and, above all, the Geneva Conventions. The detainees, no matter what their official status, were essentially to be considered enemy prisoners of war, a status that mandated basic standards of humane treatment. One lawyer for the Judge Advocate General Corps, Lt. Col. Tim Miller, told me that he used the enemy-POW guidelines as his "working manual." A corrections specialist, Staff Sgt. Anthony Gallegos, called Washington's orders "shady," which he told me gave his colleagues no choice but to "go with the Geneva Conventions."

The task force set to work around the clock, processing the detainees upon arrival, administering medical treatment and providing general care in the cells of the newly built Camp X-Ray. Lehnert's lawyers studied the 143 articles of the Geneva Conventions, paying particular attention to Common Article 3, which prohibits "humiliating and degrading treatment." The head of the operation's detention unit, Col. Terry Carrico, summed up the situation to a team of Marine Corps interviewers several weeks into the mission: "The Geneva Conventions don't officially apply, but they do apply."

But there were early signs of trouble. Lehnert told me that his request to bring representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to Guantanamo -- something international law requires for all prisoners being held in war-related situations -- was, as he heard it, shunted aside somewhere up the chain of command. "The initial request," he recalled, "was turned down." He persisted. Even if he obviously could not implement some of the Geneva Conventions requirements -- the right to musical instruments, for instance, or the right to work for payment -- he wanted advice from ICRC professionals to help him ensure the prisoners' safety and dignity.

Exasperated by repeated attempts to find out which guidelines to apply to the detainees, Col. Manuel Supervielle, the head JAG at Southern Command, picked up the phone and called the ICRC's headquarters in Geneva. As one member of the Southern Command staff remembers the episode, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had warned the Gitmo task force that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office opposed getting involved with the ICRC. But now, according to Supervielle, a U.S. officer was asking the ICRC to help out at Guantanamo. The ICRC answered with an immediate "Yes."

It was a pivotal moment in the history of Guantanamo. Once Supervielle's call had been made, the civilian policymakers around Rumsfeld could not undo what the uniformed military had done -- although, according to Supervielle, an irritated team of lawyers, including Pentagon general counsel William J. "Jim" Haynes II, asked the Southern Command lawyer days later whether there was "a way to back out of it now."

The ICRC arrived at Guantanamo on Jan. 17, 2002 -- six days after the detainees did. Thus began what amounted to a period of subtle defiance of Washington's lack of direction. The ICRC worked with Joint Task Force 160 to create a rational, legal detention operation. ICRC representatives immediately began to help Lehnert's troops improve the grim physical situation of the hastily constructed camp: the open-air cages in which prisoners were held, the cells without toilets, the constant exposure to heat and rain.

To intensify his efforts, Lehnert told me, he requested a Muslim chaplain, Navy Lt. Abuhena M. Saifulislam. "Saif," as the Bangladeshi American imam was known throughout the camp, became a fixture inside the blocs of cages at Camp X-Ray. Task force members recall him strolling daily through the camp, sometimes accompanied by Lehnert, and conversing with the detainees -- some of whom were in no mood to chat, some of whom had stories to tell. Lehnert tried to assure them that some form of legal remedy or transfer home was in the works, as one former detainee, British citizen Shafiq Rasul, told me.

Brig. Gen. Lehnert had built his own Guantanamo, one with ICRC oversight, a Muslim chaplain and an overriding ethos that stressed codified law and the unwritten rules of human decency. Lehnert's team let the detainees talk among themselves; it provided halal food, an additional washing bucket inside cells that lacked toilet facilities, a Koran for each detainee, skullcaps and prayer beads for those who wanted them, and undergarments for the prisoners to wear at shower time, in accordance with Islamic laws that proscribe public nakedness.

Perhaps Lehnert's Guantanamo could have been sustained. But Rumsfeld wanted something else: He expected to get valuable, actionable intelligence from the detainees. By late January 2002, according to Brig. Gen. Galen B. Jackman, Lehnert's chief contact at Southern Command, the defense secretary told officers on a video conference call with Southern Command that he was frustrated by the absence of such information.

A displeased Rumsfeld seems to have decided to create a second command, one that would exist side by side with Lehnert's. It would be devoted solely to gathering intelligence and would be headed by a reservist major general, a former U.S. Army interrogator during the Vietnam War named Michael Dunlavey. Jackman told me that he considered the idea of two parallel commands a "recipe for disaster." At the same time, Navy Capt. Robert Buehn, the commander of the naval base at Guantanamo, recalled, the Gitmo task force's initial expectations of orders to build a courtroom began to fade.

As Dunlavey's command took shape in late February and early March, the fabric of prisoner's rights that Lehnert had woven was beginning to unravel. By the end of February, nearly 200 detainees had mounted a hunger strike to protest their treatment. Interrogations, not trials, had become the future of Guantanamo.

But Lehnert did not concede defeat. In later accounts, several detainees described the surprise they felt watching the general walk through the camp in response to the hunger strike. As these prisoners remembered it, Lehnert would sit on the ground outside the wire-mesh cells, hat in hand, and make promises to prisoners in exchange for their agreement to eat. According to these detainees, he promised to remove a guard who they said had kicked a copy of the Koran and to find a way to reduce the chafing of the ankle shackles they wore during transport. One German detainee, Murat Kurnaz, was among the detainees who watched Lehnert negotiate with the prisoners. "Was he trying to signal that . . . he wanted to speak to the prisoner as a human being?" Kurnaz wondered. Lehnert admitted to me that, with the help of Saif, the chaplain, he even put in a call to a detainee's wife to find out whether she had safely delivered the baby they were expecting -- a boy, it turned out. Above all, the U.S. general hoped to avoid having to feed the prisoners by force.

Thanks in large part to Lehnert's efforts, the hunger strike dwindled to a couple of dozen fasters by the first week of March. But as much as he might have championed the need to respect the detainees as individuals -- albeit allegedly dangerous terrorists -- Guantanamo's future had been decided. As the hunger strike wound down, Lehnert said, he and his unit were given notice that they would soon be leaving.

Once Lehnert's troops departed, a new Guantanamo took shape -- the Guantanamo that an appalled world has come to know over the past seven years. Inmates were kept in isolation, interrogation became the core mission, hunger strikers were regularly force-fed, and above all, the promise of a legal resolution to the detainees' cases has eluded hundreds of prisoners.

As Obama moves to close Guantanamo down, the story of Joint Task Force 160 takes on new significance. Had the United States been willing to trust in the professionalism of its superb military, it could have avoided one of the most shameful passages in its history. Lehnert still regrets the legal limbo that Guantanamo became -- and the damage that did to America's "stature in the world." As he put it, "the juice wasn't worth the squeeze."

And there is a final irony on the horizon.

One of the places now being considered as a new U.S.-based destination for the remaining Gitmo detainees is Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base in Southern California. The base's commanding general is none other than Michael Lehnert, now a major general. The detainees might well be returned to his custody. In several senses, we could wind up right back where we started. This time, however, we should have the law on our side -- not to mention a conscience.


source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302313_pf.html

T
K
O
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:26 am
@Diest TKO,
Sounds like the Bush administration had some kind of horrible circular argument going on in their head: we have to treat them inhumanely, or people will think these prisoners are entitled to humane treatment!
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 03:41 pm
@parados,
Quote:

I also realize that Muslim communities are NOT the British government any more than Native American communities in the US are the US government.


Huh?

You do realize that the Indian nations are technically sovereign? So a British judge allowing Sharia law in a Muslim community compares how?
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 03:52 pm
@parados,
Quote:

Re: A Lone Voice (Post 3556113)
Quote:

But here is a direct link to the information:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18226044


Quote:

Please point out where it discusses Germany and Sharia law in that link.



Seriously? One thing that frustrates me with the left here at A2K is the close-minded society you've built for yourselves. You spend so much time agreeing with each other and citing only left-wing articles, you lose focus on other opinion that may be out there, even if you disagree with them.

One reason I like it here is the discussion; if I wanted to find people who only agreed with me, I would hang out at one of the right wing sites.

But you people really need to get out more...

Anyway, I highlighted the passage you said you couldn't find. Please do me the courtesy of at least reading my links, especially since I try to find sources that are agreeable to your close-minded view of the world...

I marked it in bold.

Stumble Upon

What is this?
Reporter's Notebook
by Sylvia Poggioli
Issues for Muslim Women in Europe Evolve


Sylvia Poggioli, NPR
Women in the Neukölln district of Berlin. Officials are now focusing on Muslim women in the hope that they can facilitate Muslim integration into mainstream society.


Sylvia Poggioli, NPR
Lubaaba al Azami (left) and Mahera Ruby, at the East London Mosque, say they have found empowerment in their Muslim identity.


NPR.org, January 20, 2008 · When I first started reporting on Muslims in Europe more than a decade ago, I soon learned that women, more than men, want to be a part of European societies.

When given the opportunity, Muslim girls and young women eagerly seek education to widen their horizons. Everywhere I went, I heard that it was the girls who did well in schools, while boys seem more often to have problems adapting.

Eren Unsal, a German-born schoolteacher in Berlin, told me in 1999 that her parents strongly desired that she integrate into German society.

"My mother left her headscarf on the plane" from Turkey to Germany, she said. But today, walking through Berlin's Neu-Koln and Kreuzberg neighborhoods where many Turkish immigrants live, it's immediately clear that many headscarves are no longer being left on the flight from the homeland. Most women, young and old, are covering their heads " and not with the flowery cotton squares typical of rural Anatolia. Today, they tightly wrap their heads in what has become known as the Islamic headscarf.

In Britain, I also observed a significant increase in headscarves among Muslim women, many of whom have even taken to wearing the niqab, the face-veil that leaves only the eyes visible.

The way Muslim women dress and cover their heads is a topic of fierce and emotional debate in Europe: some non-Muslims see it as a sign of rejection of modernity and even of radicalization " and many believe it is a sign of women's submission to male power. The debate is made more strident by the simple fact that Europe was not socially and culturally prepared for the post-World War II influx of immigrants; no country had an integration policy, and the arrival of millions of Muslims re-awakened centuries-old animosities between Islam and Christendom. Tension turned to alarm after the Sept. 11 attacks and the Madrid and London bombings.

As I traveled through Europe this fall to report for this series, I remembered the words of filmmaker Yamina Benguigui, my first guide into the world of what she called "ghost women." French-born to Algerian parents, she broke with her strict patriarchal family and married a non-Muslim Frenchman.

In her documentaries, Benguigui explored the phenomenon of some young French Muslim women who, in the early 1990s, had taken to wearing the headscarf even when their mothers did not. While many of these young women said the headscarf was a mark of their cultural identity in a society where they felt discriminated, Benguigui said it was also something else: a way of getting around the dilemma of living a double life in two different cultures. Instead of breaking with their families, "they decide to take the Koran as a weapon against their families, by submerging themselves completely in religion, brandishing the veil and the Koran, they become the leader in the family … (the Muslim girl) will not be forced to marry and she can come home when she wants. She can drive a car and she's completely free," Benguigui told me in 1995.

Twelve years later, I met many Muslim women who still have not found their places and are still torn by two cultures. But I also met many Muslim women who are asserting themselves much more forcefully " either in identifying with European secular culture and demanding the same rights as their Western sisters, or by appropriating Islam for themselves, through a new female perspective. Or in a combination of the two.

While there is no distinct Europe-wide pattern, in many places a quiet revolution among Muslim women is under way.

In Britain, I encountered some highly educated women with a confrontational attitude toward non-Muslim Western society. I met women, British-born citizens, who do not vote and will not vote unless their ballots were to lead to the introduction of sharia, Islamic law. I met students at the London School of Economics who party " but girls-only, segregated by gender. I met women whose major concern is to avoid too much mingling with Western culture. Some of them are pressuring their mothers and grandmothers to wear headscarves for the first time in their lives to further underline their Muslim identity. And I was able to enter one of the few mosques that are opening their doors to women. I found a high degree of self-confidence as more and more Muslim women use education to appropriate the Koran for themselves " and take part in a debate on the nature of Islam that had always been a male-only domain.

In staunchly secular France, women wearing headscarves can be seen mostly around mosques. The fierce headscarf debate over the 2004 law banning it from schools has faded away. The law was more sharply criticized abroad than at home. I met many secular and observant Muslim women, all of whom identify themselves first as French, then Muslim. This widespread embrace of civic values is unique to France, despite continued, overt discrimination against Muslim minorities. And it is in France where women have made huge inroads in religious studies " many are enrolled in Islamic theological departments. Sociologist Douna Bouzar, herself a Muslim, told me that these women are the first French generation of Muslim faith, a generation of women who do not seek answers in the Islamic homelands of their parents and grandparents, but whose reference point is French, secular society.

The situation is very different in Germany, where the level of education of Muslim women is generally much lower than of those in France and Britain, and where the non-Muslim society is more distant and less welcoming. Turkish and German cultures differ sharply over the roles of women, the notion of arranged and forced marriages and of individual freedom " Turks see the family as the ultimate arbiter of what its members can do, while Germans consider parental involvement in their children's marital choices an infringement of personal freedoms.

In contrast with the first women immigrants who arrived from Turkey in the 1950s and 60s, who went to work directly in factories, the more recent immigrants are all new spouses. Muslim women activists strongly oppose the practice of importing brides from rural areas of Anatolia, which they say perpetuates separation. In fact, I met Turkish women who told me they had met their husbands just before their wedding days. Several said they don't want the same to happen to their daughters.

Turkish-German sociologist Necla Kelek is the author of the best-seller The Foreign Bride. She says that by importing women, sometimes as young as 14, Turkish patriarchs strengthen their families' segregation, relegating these young women to a state of anti-Western isolation. She writes, "they live in Germany, but never arrived here."

Muslim women who have broken with the patriarchal system are also seen as a threat to the Turkish rural family structure. Several books by Turkish-German women who describe their painful struggle for "emancipation" have become best-sellers in Germany, but at a large bookstore I visited in the Neu-Koln neighborhood in Berlin " where those books were prominently displayed " a saleswoman told me that she has never sold any to Turkish-German women " that it's only Germans who read them.

Lawyer and women's rights activist Seyran Ates told me it is very difficult to reach women isolated behind their walls of silence. Contact is usually made only with the few who are brave enough to scale those walls and seek refuge in a woman's shelter.

For Muslims in Europe, the main issues " discrimination by host societies, difficulty in finding jobs, and family conflicts " have remained more or less the same since I first started looking at immigrant communities in Europe. But with regard to Muslim women, I've seen changes " albeit in different directions and at different paces. It is still hard to say where these changes will lead. But at a time when Europeans are beginning to question the notion of multiculturalism that often leads to separate, parallel societies, authorities are now looking to Muslim women in the belief that their empowerment can facilitate their communities' integration into mainstream societies. And Muslim women themselves, better-educated and more experienced than their mothers and grandmothers, are beginning to grapple with the obstacles and abuse facing women in both their communities and in the broader society.

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 03:59 pm
The article talks more about Muslims adopting European culture. The bolded part you highlighted does not in any way support that the British are having to live under Sharia Law. If those women don't want to vote for things that wont lead to Sharia law, then so be it. It's no different than any other reason that people choose to sit out of elections/votes.

Strike out Lone Voice.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 04:05 pm
@Diest TKO,
Didn't want to leave you hanging, since I've already replied to a couple of your lesser helpers.

I'm going to watch the game, so we'll have a chance to pick this up when I can give the time for a detailed response.

I will agree with one point: as in many A2K threads, this one has spun away from the main point.

But then again, that's half the fun, isn't it?

But I've noticed you still haven't addressed the main points in my first post, (speaking of spinning):

The clock is ticking. Obama is making drastic changes to procedures and policies the Bush admin implemented since 9-11.

Agree with them or disagree (as we have), there has not been another successful terrorist attack on US soil.

My point was this: Who will be held accountable if some of the Gitmo prisoners are involved? Will the national press even raise the issue?

But we'll play more later, you intellectual giant, you...

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:25 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Didn't want to leave you hanging, since I've already replied to a couple of your lesser helpers.

I'm not Santa. I don't have helpers...
A Lone Voice wrote:

I'm going to watch the game, so we'll have a chance to pick this up when I can give the time for a detailed response.

I was pleased with the game. I would have been happier had the Cardinals not let that last touchdown drive happen. C'mon guys... Pick up on the pattern! There defense was great, and every time they got greedy is when the Steelers would make big gains...

I hope Kurt Warner doesn't retire.
A Lone Voice wrote:

I will agree with one point: as in many A2K threads, this one has spun away from the main point.

But then again, that's half the fun, isn't it?

About 60% of the time in my opinion it's fun when the subject... evolves.
A Lone Voice wrote:

But I've noticed you still haven't addressed the main points in my first post, (speaking of spinning):

The clock is ticking. Obama is making drastic changes to procedures and policies the Bush admin implemented since 9-11.

Agree with them or disagree (as we have), there has not been another successful terrorist attack on US soil.

Whether or not there has been a successful attack or not is not up for question. What that means in terms of Bush's policies unknown. You can't simply say that is a good means to measure and then toss out other countries that also haven't been attack (better records even) and not consider their foreign policies.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean by "not addressed." This has been the point most addressed if you reread the thread thus far.

What clock is ticking? When did it start ticking? By mentioning that we were not attacked under Bush do you imply that it was not ticking while he was in office?

How about this: There are people in this world that have an aggressive agenda both locally in their country and against us (or the West). They want to attack us, and so no matter who is in office, no matter the policies, the clock is ticking. It doesn't mean the alarm goes off. It doesn't mean that we sacrifice our principles to chase boogymen.

Hell, there's a clock ticking right now until the next person is murdered in the US. It's probably gone off at least once in the time I've taken to write this now. Can I honestly say that if one more murder happens, it's unacceptable and then go demand the resignation of the Police Chief? If the Chief demand that some rights (but never YOUR rights) be surrendered so he can do that, does the clock stop ticking?

Season your argument with some reality.

I do not feel anymore safe because Gitmo existed.
A Lone Voice wrote:

My point was this: Who will be held accountable if some of the Gitmo prisoners are involved? Will the national press even raise the issue?

That's why we put them on trial (those who we charge), or release them to other government to be detained and put on trial there. Those who aren't guilty of anything (e.g. - Chinese Uighurs), we now have the responsibility to find a home for, on OUR time and dollar.

Who will be accountable? Depends on the case; circumstances. Did the government we released them to do their part? Why didn't we put them on trial?

Theoretically, we could ruin a case against a guilty man because we choose to coerce information illegally... like torture. Whose fault then? Rumsfield? Cheney? Bush?

What about those released who never do anything, join any group, etc? What are they owed for their captivity? Their sacrifice of liberties? You've got jack squat for them.

What was the Gitmo end game anyway? If these men are combatants, and therefore detainable indefinitely, was the plan to... you know... hold them indefinitely... as in forever? When does the war on terror end so that these men may have their military commission? Didn't the Bush admin start having military commissions even though the war never ended? Isn't that a bit contradictory? Seems like the rule is, we hold you until we feel like it. What about those who were held there for acts prior to Bush's famous declaration of victory in Iraq? Those men wouldn't be enemy combatants anymore now would they?

I'm not sure what your conscience says about our government treating others worse than they expect to be treated, or where your ethical compass points north at, but I can find no reason to believe that Bush got the Gitmo idea right. Such a heavy price in dignity (important to me, but I'm not going to force that burden on you) and for what? Just to say that we've only been attacked once (which puts us BELOW many other nations) in the Bush era?
A Lone Voice wrote:

But we'll play more later, you intellectual giant, you...

That reminds me of how glad I am that the Giants didn't make it the Super bowl.
K
O
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:10 am
@Diest TKO,
And this is what the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, said before the election. (I ALWAYS LISTEN TO AND BELIEVE WHAT VICE PRESIDENTS SAY ABOUT THEIR SUPERIOR OFFICERS)

quote:

"And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work, then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn't have to lose lives. It's how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there's gonna be some tough decisions. They may emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia's newly-emboldened position because they're floating in a sea of oil."

end of quote--


Now, I do hope that Vice President Biden is NOT correct, but if an American city finds itself undersome kind of nuclear or biological seige, President Obama's new found popularity will vanish like a leaf in the wind.
The American public will wonder why he was unable to keep us safe!!!
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:13 am
@A Lone Voice,
Lone Voice- sir!

Are you surprised that the left can do little but make adhominem attacks in the face of evidence?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:49 am
@A Lone Voice,
You stated -
Quote:
Would you trade the Islamic societies Denmark and Germany currently possess for their 'safety'? You do realize the culture in both those countries is radically changing, right?

Read this, from NPR: (You 'progressives' still love NPR, don't you?):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182321

The way you libs complain about right wing Christian fundamentalists in the US (frankly, I don't like 'em either) makes me think you would go nuts under Sharia law...


I asked you -
Quote:

Please point out where it discusses Germany and Sharia law in that link.



You responded by highlighting this -
Quote:
In Britain, I encountered some highly educated women with a confrontational attitude toward non-Muslim Western society. I met women, British-born citizens, who do not vote and will not vote unless their ballots were to lead to the introduction of sharia, Islamic law


You do realize that Britain and Germany are not the same country, don't you?

So... let me ask again... where is any support for your first statement or are you willing to admit it was hyperbole?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 06:28:18