Muslim mother takes legal action against school over face veil ban - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14826380
Lefties weren't afraid that Iraq was going to be a disaster, they were terrified that it was going to be a great success

Ahahahaha... wait, you're serious?

Because Saddam totally represented the left and no one was totally lied to bold faced and totally worked out.

You people really, really don't give a shit when you are lied to by people you like. You lap it up like milk. Iraq will pay for itself! Mexico will pay for the wall!

And then you mock liberals for supporting the war (Clinton, even Obama though he wasn't even a senator) and being war hawks.

I may have been against the Iraq War, but that was because there was no evidence and Bush had no idea what his eventual end goal was.

like Grenada, Panama, Bosnia Kosovo and even Afghanistan seemed to be back in early 2003.

Ahacoughcough. Sorry, my lungs hurt from laughing at the last quote.

Afghanistan was a great success.... good god.


EDIT

In the meantime, Trumpets are literally sitting around twiddling their thumbs hoping Obamacare fails. Because they are so virtuous.


EDIT 2

My language in that post is childish. My apologies.
#14826395
Zagadka wrote:I may have been against the Iraq War, but that was because there was no evidence and Bush had no idea what his eventual end goal was.

Apologies if I haven't paid close enough attention to your posts, but I wouldn't characterise you as leftie, perhaps centre left. Properly left is what I meant by lefties and opposition to the Iraq war was not confined to the properly left. Its them that big it up into some "imperialist conspiracy."


Ahacoughcough. Sorry, my lungs hurt from laughing at the last quote.

Afghanistan was a great success.... good god.

I didn't say Afghanistan was a great success, I just said it appeared to be a success in early 2003. I will freely admit that I didn't predict the resurgence of the Taliban that we saw post 2003, but as I stopped supporting the operation in Afghanistan up when they told the Northern Alliance not to enter Kabul, I feel in no way responsible for the ensuing mess.

Similarly with Iraq, removing Saddam and a short occupation would cost significant blood and treasure, but the allies could have quite quickly handed over power to the Shia and Kurdish militia. Most of our blood and treasure was spent on an idiotic quest to turn Iraq into a small government Israel loving, Iran spurning politically correct democracy. As to the debate about removing Saddam within the political class it was similarly idiotic. For me one of the big reasons for invading in 2003 was to not wait until Iraq had the capability to use weapons of Mass destruction outside of Iraq or on invading troops like North Korea has.

Its like people whine that there was no WMD in Iraq. :roll: So would these people have been happy if 3rd Infantry had been taken out by a slew of nukes, Kuwait had been decimated by Sarin gas, or Iraqi agents had released Anthrax on to the New York underground? The fact that there was no real WMD capability was an unalloyed good. In fact the very same people who whine that Iraq had no WMD are the very same people who say we mustn't invade North Korea because it has got WMD.
#14826564
Rich wrote:This nonsense is constantly trotted out. Were Americans murderers when they intervened in France in WWII? Because the bombing we did in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, was nothing compared to what we did in France in 1943 to 1944. Some French wanted America to invade some didn't, exactly the same as in Iraq. When Britain and America invaded French North Africa in 1942, the French arguably put up more resistance than the Iraqis in 2003, they certainly caused more casualties.

I'm sorry to break it to you lefties, but I remember your arguments back in 2003, you won't get away with while I'm around. Lefties weren't afraid that Iraq was going to be a disaster, they were terrified that it was going to be a great success like Grenada, Panama, Bosnia Kosovo and even Afghanistan seemed to be back in early 2003. Not that I ever supported the cretinous occupation of Afghanistan, Air and special forces support for the Northern alliance was all that was required. I remember arguing lefties and saying "Don't worry no ones going to be thanking America." But of course America got precious little thanks for liberating France in WWII, at least the Shia and Kurdish opposition never claimed to have liberated themselves like de Gaulle did.

The only people who consistently oppose cooperation with western Infidels are ISIS and lefties constantly tell us that they have nothing to do with Islam. Muslims are constantly asking us to intervene in Muslim countries.


'The West' - mainly the USA - has, as you know, invaded or attacked Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Pakistan and murdered vast numbers of people. Liberation my lberated anus! The United States 'liberated' France, as you know, simply to get in before the Soviet Union, which had done the real work and lost millions of its people. I find the fantasy that they ever, ever, ever did anything for anyone else ludicrous, I really do.
#14826568
As you know, the USA 'liberated' France to get in before the USSR, which had already done all the real work and lost millions of people doing it, so that they (the US} could control and profit by Europe. In the same way they have invaded or attacked (murdering vast numbers in the process) in Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya, as a first step to their colonisation, as you know, thus creating ISIS to justify tyranny everywhere. Do stop ranting about your imagined 'Lefties' and talk to actual people, if you remember how.
#14826569
Ned Lud wrote:As you know, the USA 'liberated' France to get in before the USSR, which had already done all the real work and lost millions of people doing it, so that they (the US} could control and profit by Europe. In the same way they have invaded or attacked (murdering vast numbers in the process) in Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya, as a first step to their colonisation, as you know, thus creating ISIS to justify tyranny everywhere. Do stop ranting about your imagined 'Lefties' and talk to actual people, if you remember how.


Really? You believe this ^? Why should the US goal have been to help others? You are talking about a period of intense nationalism. :?:
#14826575
If the Muslim mother does not agree with our societies rules

or the rules of the school'

The solution is simple.. she should leave !

I want citizens who obey our rules and laws

and I definitely do not want my taxes to go

towards paying anything

for the medieval & backwards beliefs of this woman.

Invite her to go to a Muslim country,

..... As if they would have her !
#14826576
Ned Lud wrote:Liberation my lberated anus! The United States 'liberated' France, as you know, simply to get in before the Soviet Union, which had done the real work and lost millions of its people.

The SU certainly did some real work with the Nazis like supplying them with the raw materials necessary to conquer France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway and cooperating with the Gestapo to exterminate Polish nationalist resistance. While Joseph Stalin was pallying up to Hitler, the US although non belligerent was at least supporting the British blockade and giving increasing amounts of assistance. We British who with our commonwealth friends and Polish and Czech escapee fighters stood alone against the Axis in 1940 will take no lectures from Commies on fighting Nazis.

I recommend Tony Cliff's "State Capitalism in Russia". He makes the case that the evidence shows that Stalin's Soviet Union had greater inequality than the United States at the time.
#14826580
Rich wrote:The SU certainly did some real work with the Nazis like supplying them with the raw materials necessary to conquer France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway and cooperating with the Gestapo to exterminate Polish nationalist resistance. While Joseph Stalin was pallying up to Hitler, the US although non belligerent was at least supporting the British blockade and giving increasing amounts of assistance. We British who with our commonwealth friends and Polish and Czech escapee fighters stood alone against the Axis in 1940 will take no lectures from Commies on fighting Nazis.

I recommend Tony Cliff's "State Capitalism in Russia". He makes the case that the evidence shows that Stalin's Soviet Union had greater inequality than the United States at the time.



EXCUSE ME ?

We are discussing a completely different topic on here

Please start another topic for your discussion !

#14826583
Elyzabeth wrote:EXCUSE ME ?

We are discussing a completely different topic on here

Please start another topic for your discussion !


Excuse me! Ned Lud accused the West of invading and murdering in Muslim lands. I will not leave these Marxist tropes unanswered. We enter these Muslim occupied countries at the invitation of Muslims. I was merely using the French example to show that intervention always have complications and create losers, but that doesn't mean they are wrong in principle. Ned responded with false claims about the Soviet Union, again I could not leave those unanswered.
#14826644
Diligent wrote:I agree. Women shouldn't be forced by their husbands or government to wear hijabs and other "modesty" gear if they don't want to.


I agree. But for the women who do wish to don the hijab or whatever else - yes, they do exist - they should be able to do without any judgment from men like those ITT.
#14826680
skinster wrote:I agree. But for the women who do wish to don the hijab or whatever else - yes, they do exist - they should be able to do without any judgment from men like those ITT.


I can get behind that. Anyone that wants to wear it, should be able to (except for instances like drivers license photos, airport security checkpoints, and what not). I suppose the male equivalent would be wearing a balaclava on a hot summer day; more power to 'em I guess. It's impossible though to distinguish between the women that actually do want to and the ones that are pressured by their husbands or cultures behind close doors; but I suppose there's no way around that.
#14826699
Diligent wrote:It's impossible though to distinguish between the women that actually do want to and the ones that are pressured by their husbands or cultures behind close doors; but I suppose there's no way around that.


There is no way around that. From my own experience, being raised by Muslims, my mum wore/wears a headscarf, but it was never something my parents imposed on us (probably because we wouldn't listen anyway :D ). In my twin's early twenties when she was into god, she chose to wear a headscarf. She doesn't now because she turned into an atheist a few years ago, but that's by the by.

I agree for passport/driver's licences and airport-crap it should be removed. But overall I don't think men should spend a lot of time worrying about what women wear. Focus on your own shit, like growing beards, all of you, if you don't do that then you're obviously backwards and need to die, or something.

Also this by Roy who is ace:
Image
#14826711
The problem arises with allowing the exception. If she is allowed to cover her face, then you can not prevent anyone from covering their face. This is a bad idea in the US and I would assume other places also.

Edit; this is one of those things that works out best if we resolve them locally without setting legal precedents.
Last edited by One Degree on 25 Jul 2017 02:24, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Maybe you should take a closer look at that photo […]

Being removed from the senate and facing whatever[…]

The Computing Thread

Are you a student? researcher? No, I'm just a h[…]

Is Contraception Murder?

The answer is no.