@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...Where are you and others going on and on about the threat that is presented by White Christians to the people of this nation? Why aren't you raising flags about that stuff?
Cycloptichorn
Why are you not "going on and on" about the way Islamic countries treat their women, compared to western (i.e., "White Christians") treatment of women. Personally, all the radical Moslems could end their jihad with the west, and I believe it would still behoove us to address the way Moslem women are treated.
I don't go on and on about it, because in large part Muslim women tell the West to mind it's own ******* business. I used to think that it was my duty to judge how their male-female relations worked, until I learned more about it.
I do rail against abuses of women; stoning to death, ritual scarification, forced marriages et cetera. I have discussed those at length here on A2K.
Quote: No telling if in a few hundred years our descendants could be living under Sharia law, and I would not want female descendants to be living under their mores for women, in that instance.
There is zero - zero - reason to believe that this will happen. Why should anyone worry about it? You have no conception at all what it would take for such a thing to come about.
Quote:Terrorism might just be a diversion from a greater threat to our civilization. The treatment of one-half of the population.
Or, this might be an overblown change-of-topic on your part. That seems much more likely.
Cycloptichorn
You speciously trivialized my comments, I believe.
I do think it behooves the west (i.e., Christians - White, Black, Brown) to try to get Sharia law more in line with current western cultural mores, so future generations of everyone's female descendants will not be treated like chattel. Sort of like another Emancipation Proclamation. The analogy has logic, since the original Emancipation Proclamation was for the "slave states." This newer version could be for the "radical Muslim 'barrios.'"
The benefit of the original Emancipation Proclamation was that it forced the Civil War to be fought until the South was completely defeated and "unconditionally surrendered." In effect, it eliminated the possibility of the South "sueing for peace" which could then have wound up with a festering/lingering slave society somewhere in the continental U.S.
Anyway, I see an analogy between the adversarial relationship, between the North and South, before the Civil War, and radical Islam's adversarial relationship with western mores. Both sides, in both points of history, heard their own respective drummer, so to speak.
