Intro: "Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces pushed into the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Saturday, defying world demands for an immediate ceasefire and forcing rebels to retreat."
A warplane of Gadhafi's forces is seen being shot down with the pilot parachuting out over the outskirts of Benghazi, eastern Libya, 03/19/11. (photo: AP)
Gaddafi Defies West and Pushes Into Benghazi
18 March 11
�
ibyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces battled insurgents on the outskirts of the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Saturday, defying world demands for an immediate ceasefire and forcing rebels to retreat.
The advance by Gaddafi's troops into Libya's second city of 670,000 people appeared to be an attempt to pre-empt Western military intervention which diplomats say will come after an international meeting currently underway in Paris.
A Libyan rebel spokesman said Gaddafi's forces had entered Benghazi while a Reuters witness saw a jet circling over the city shot down and at least one separate explosion near the rebel movement's headquarters in the city.
"They have entered Benghazi from the west. Where are the Western powers? They said they could strike within hours," rebel military spokesman Khalid al-Sayeh told Reuters.
Hundreds of cars full of refugees headed east from Benghazi toward the Egyptian border. One family of 13 women from a grandmother to small children, fled Benghazi on Saturday morning.
"I'm here because when the bombing started last night my children were vomiting from fear," said one of them, a doctor, sitting crying in the lobby of a hotel on the road to Egypt. "All I want to do is get my family to a safe place and then get back to Benghazi to help. My husband is still there."
In the besieged western city of Misrata, residents said government forces shelled the rebel town again on Saturday and they were facing a humanitarian crisis as water supplies had been cut off for a third day.
"I am telling you, we are scared and we are alone," a Misrata resident, called Saadoun, told Reuters by telephone.
Gaddafi said Western powers had no right to intervene.
"This is injustice, this is clear aggression," government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim quoted Gaddafi as saying in a letter to France, Britain and the United Nations. "You will regret it if you take a step toward interfering in our internal affairs."
The Libyan government blamed the rebels, who it says are members of al Qaeda, for breaking the ceasefire around Benghazi.
Rebel City Doubts West
As explosions shook Benghazi, rebel fighters said they were being forced to retreat from the outskirts of the city, but later claimed victory after holding back the advance, as they have in other towns they eventually lost to government troops.
"We revolutionaries have taken control of four tanks inside Benghazi. Rebel forces have pushed Gaddafi's forces out of Benghazi," said Nasr al-Kikili, a lawyer who works for the rebel media center in Benghazi, as crowds celebrated by firing guns in the air and parading on top of a tank.
Earlier, an unidentified fighter jet was shot down over Benghazi.
"I saw the plane circle around, come out of the clouds, head toward an apparent target, and then it was hit and went straight down in flames and a huge billow of black smoke went up," Reuters correspondent Angus MacSwan said.
"It seems it was attacking the Benghazi military barracks."
Benghazi residents were angry at the West's delay. "Europe and America have sold us out. We have been hearing bombing all night, and they have been doing nothing. Why? we have no one to help us but God," said Hassan Marouf, 58, standing outside the door of his house in Benghazi.
"Us men are not afraid to die, but I have women and children inside and they are crying and in tears. Help us."
Inside the city, residents set up make-shift barricades with furniture, benches, road signs and even a barbecue in one case at intervals along main streets. Each barricade was manned by half a dozen rebels, but only about half of those were armed.
Al Jazeera said there were 26 dead and more than 40 wounded in Jala hospital in Benghazi, without giving further details.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is meeting European and Arab leaders in Paris to discuss coordinated intervention in Libya. A source close to the meeting said air strikes could start as soon as talks end.
France, Britain and Canada could take part jointly in an initial intervention, the source said, while the United States could participate later on and any participation by Arab nations would come after that, he said.
But Canada would need two more days to get its jets ready, a government spokesman told Reuters.
Ambassadors from the 28 NATO states adjourned a meeting in Brussels on Saturday to discuss possible NATO involvement in policing Libyan skies till after the talks in Paris.
"Attacks Must Stop"
Within hours of President Barack Obama saying the terms of a UN resolution meant to end fighting in Libya were non-negotiable, his UN envoy Susan Rice, asked by CNN whether Gaddafi was in violation of these terms, said: "Yes, he is."
Obama made clear any military action would aim to change conditions across Libya - rather than just in the rebel-held east - by calling on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well as from the east.
"All attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said, a day after the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing international military intervention.
"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya ...
"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable ... If Gaddafi does not comply ... the resolution will be enforced through military action."
Reporting by Mohammed Abbas and Angus MacSwan in Benghazi, Tom Perry in Cairo, Maria Golovnina and Michael Georgy in Tripoli, Hamid Ould Ahmed and Christian Lowe in Algiers; Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Giles Elgood.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
No, they don't. So, now what?
Having given Billy Bob the 'first green thumbs up' mark, I'm sad to say that there's not anything we can do; another RSN commentator said the nation was "still-born" right from the beginning because the compromises needed to get it started were just too horrendous. It is a shame to think that all the good work and beautiful words of Lincoln will not prevent us from descending into a 'police state'. We cannot fix this at the ballot box as long as the folks with money want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. Having voted for the Iraq War, she should be consigned to the dust bin of history.
Let there be a real, intelligent set of primary debates with Hillary, Bernie, and whoever else is serious about running, without all the tacky put-downs based only tangentially on issues and mostly on misogynist undercurrents that smack of mindless Teapugnicanist hate-speech.
There is no relationship at all between incest and gay marriage. None. Scalia and Alito are so out of touch that they think bigotry is fine as long as it's been practiced for a long time. Pathetic
As a "recovering Catholic", I recognize the fact that these five Supreme Court justices are regressive, reactionary Catholic males who are vainly clinging to the patriarchal value system of the Church. The irony is that the current Pope seems more enlightened than they are about many issues.
quite a sight. No surprise really since Scalia seems determined to flaunt his 15th c. tendencies to high drama, however repellent.
Let's look at Mesopotamia, from where all Western civilization arose. That part of the world gave us mathematics and written language, among other things. Its people were nothing short of extraordinary - so what happened?
Along came Islam and all progress ceased! It's not ONLY Islam - Christianity has done the same kind of damage. Religion is authoritarian and anti-enlightenm ent. Most of the great minds of science are NOT religious - and for good reason.
And their record shows it!
But is that what the Supreme Court is *supposed* to be about?
..
Term limits for jurists makes about as much sense as mandatory sentencing.
Black and white alternatives have far more negative consequences than benefits.
I respectfully disagree. With the power to appoint judges to the federal judiciary (and SCOTUS), we are stuck with the legacies of people like George W Bush for a very, very long time.
What is wrong with legalizing same sex civil unions and calling them that. Afford civil unions with the same rights and privileges given to heterosexual couples and call it good.
What you say sounds reasonable but as I note in my post on another thread here, it tries to cure the symptom. The cause is emotional, and trying to cure the symptom with the BandAid of reason and logic just does not work. I agree with bpuharic 2015-05-05 09:24 above.
You're speaking from the margins of something you apparently don't understand fully.
My daughter and her "partner" did the "Civil union" thing but work benefits like healthcare and such weren't recognized and so could not be shared.
So when Wisconsin (Scott Walker's attempts to block it notwithstanding ) approved same-sex marriage, there was a rush of GLBT couples to the altar rails or wherever else they could be "Legally joined", not just to jump a final bureaucratic hurdle but as they felt that the legally recognized mutual commitment was important.
It's never just as simple or simplistic as you'd apparently like it to be.
That was tried, but it always turn out to be less than marriage as far as rights were concerned. It doesn't work.
It's called "separate but equal". Do a little research on the history of "separate but equal" and then come back and tell the class what you learned, OK?
Neither one of the black robes involved in this foolishness makes any kind of sense whatsoever.
"Neither one of the black robes involved in this foolishness makes any kind of sense whatsoever."
Exactly right. That is proof that these people act out of their emotions, as I note in my post above.
Creating the controversy is so far more important...
I don't know a single soul (in my heterosexual world) that gives two shits whether gays marry each other... it doesn't effect anyone in the heterosexual community... all the controversy is MANUFACTURED!!!
Therefore, IMO this thread should be a lot shorter! No offense .
To clarify, I mean: the time spent here commenting on this topic and arguing with each other on this topic is time wasted... Time better spent on things that actually effect our/your lives directly!! .. that's the game...
Despite all the smart people on here, with all their smart comments, everyone seems to be feeding the controversy...
I wish I could see a comment section on this type of topic that looked like the following;
Johndoe345: shmh!
Smackum456: pfft!
Trollkiller678: shmeesh!
Dartgun789: lol!!!
Dumby987: LMAO!
bigwaste123: pfffffft,,,,!
..Imagine that folks..Imagine that.
"To clarify, I mean: the time spent here commenting on this topic and arguing with each other on this topic is time wasted..."
I understand your point, but I feel you are being a bit shortsighted in that view. Personally, I learn a lot from the comments made on RSN. There are a bunch of people that are way smarter than I am in a lot of areas, and the opportunity to learn is appreciated by me, at least. That knowledge comes not just from the particular content of the article, but the interplay between the people here and the exposure to ideas I had not considered.
I have used links provided to pursue more depth about something of interest. I have had to learn how to better communicate through writing. Learn how to more concisely convey my thoughts and ideas.
There have been comments that have truly sent me down a path that I would never have considered. I am grateful for many of the posters posting here, and I compliment them on their efforts and thoughts when it strikes me.
Continued below
Lastly the audience that reads RSN is probably large. They "clock in" at all levels of understanding about any topic. You may have done all the homework about a subject (like this one) that you need, but there are many others who are still learning. They can benefit from the wealth of commenters here. The age of the commenters here is "getting up there" as they say. I will be 80 this year and there are a number of others who have admitted to being 65 and older. Some with invaluable Viet Nam experience. The younger folks need them for the real life understanding they have.
The massive amount of experience of the posters here is a treasure trove for folks wanting to learn from it.
It is all of this that I see when I say that your view, although not wrong for you, is shortsighted. We can all learn a lot from each other.
Cheers
Only this particular topic is one that I feel should be largely ignored as it is one that really does not effect the lives of the majority of people and clearly is being used against us all by being propped up as something we all care about...thereby wasting our time.. Creating controversy where there is none..
There are so many important things that really require or collective attention. Things that actually effect us all directly..
If any positive change is ever going to occur it will only happen when we all band together. The PTB are skilled at mis-direction. This topic is just one example.
Cheers back at you!
I had no idea you were near 80. Based on the energy you project, I just assumed you were younger than me, even though I'm roughly 1/2 your age. You are one of the most convincing arguers on here and one of those I have the most respect for, yourself. In fact, your comment here, was very well presented and clearly argued. If anything, you're too modest.
You don't show, even the slightest sign, of slowing down. You're a pretty fierce debater, and a well-rounded thinker. I don't always agree with you, but, I guess that's the whole point, right? Whether or not, we change each other's minds, it's also useful to all of us that we keep each other sharp and capable of answering for the opinions we have.
Keep up the good work.
It is time to elevate the level of RSN online discourse. Bill Quigley's prose is tortured and grammatically inept. He wastes his first two paragraphs trotting out a rhetorical banality more than 60 years old, then commits the exact same trick as Scalia, Alito and even Old Joe McCarthy himself by lurid accusations involving the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. To top it off, he repeats the "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" canard.
Quigley demands that homosexuals "be allowed to marry their same sex partners just like the rest of us." Parse this sentence closely.
I wonder at the logic of those who feel the state should have the power to outlaw, for example, "heterosexual polygamist marriage." What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?
A better question might be, "why do all American politicians have to declare a disgusting religious orthodoxy?" Or "How come the SCOTUS is stacked with half a dozen Catholics?" All the old Judeo-Christian -Islamic religions condemn homosexuality, eating of pork, blasphemy and any kind of sexual or moral freedom.
The court majority is about to rule on the right side of the question; there's no need for all this hysterical shrieking about a couple of decrepit RC troglodyes. They are doing what they were paid to do when they were appointed.
Right on! You cover the field very well! A powerful post! Thanks for it!
Pretty cute in describing the hypocritical bloviations of a guy who gets his rocks off by flying south to some Latin nation and buying the favors of some poor Latina (Gawd knows what he pays, or forces them to do) loaded down with viagra and pain-killers.
As for Scalia, Ailito and the other Catholic males on the SCOTUS, they form the majority which almost amounts to a Theocratic bench, especially Scalia and his lapdog-puppet Thomas as members of the secretive, elite cult "Opus Dei", committed to upholding the dictates of the Roman Church before all else (Thomas also being a known lecher and pornographer).
They should never have been on any bench in the first place and have about as much "Sense of decency" -as the spoon puts in them, which is how my late, pungently witty mother might have put it!
Like all reactionaries, they are masters of the ability to declaim from on high without arguments being acknowledged, from the murky depths of their own entrenched ideologies, to point clawed fingers at assumed alleged miscreants of "The other" with "no attempt to shovel a glimpse into the ditch of what each one means" (Bob Dylan -The Gates of Eden).
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent,
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument;
About it and about but evermore,
Came out by the same Door as in I went".
A wise Persian.
"As for Scalia, Ailito and the other three Catholic males on the SCOTUS, they form the majority which almost amounts to a Theocratic bench, especially Scalia and his lapdog-puppet Thomas as members of the secretive, elite cult "Opus Dei", committed to upholding the dictates of the Roman Church before all else (Thomas also being a known lecher and pornographer)."
Powerful stuff, reiver! Sadly, I must agree. Especially about the Opus Dei cult. The perverse ideology espoused by it should never be part of the SCOTUS, for as a believer, the cultist can not divorce himself from it when making his decisions.
Judicial interpretation is intended to be emotion free, and based on the law and judicial precidence. Your thought of a theocratic bench is so true, and is a harbinger of the state of our country today.
I hate to keep repeating myself, as in this case with the Opus Dei/Theocratic thing but it needs to be put out there as much as we are capable of hammering hard and often to embed it into the public consciousness.
Sadly, the US Owner media won't touch this with a ten-foot tarry pole so the rest of us must do what we can.
"I hate to keep repeating myself, as in this case with the Opus Dei/Theocratic thing"
Don't think twice about it! (What Goebbels said!) Your comments are important and certainly appreciated. I learn from you!
And besides that, the trolls keep saying the same things over and over and their message has no real value at all in what it says. (Of course I love being able to poke them with my seemingly outlandish and inane comments. My posts to these trolls always have messages that they will understand, and not be able to deal with. I think of it as frustrating the enemy. They know my subtle message is being read by a whole lot of people and there is nothing they can do about it!
Cheers
Thanks mate.
(I'll play devils advocate just for one moment - imagine the chaos if the courts allowed every defendant to replay the issues at trial over and over).
In Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the presumption of evidence disappears once the defendant has been found guilty. In fact, "innocence" is actually the WORST legal argument to present when it comes to an inmate on death row. On appeal, innocence is very difficult (some would say almost impossible) to pursuade an appeals court to consider. It's no longer legally relevant.
Here is a great piece for the non-lawyers here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/667
Whilst Obama, The Congress, and their DHS/CIA/etc Henchmen shred the Bill of Rights, this is what these Schmucks ponder, debate and Pontificate.
Rule of Law is Dead, before our very eyes. And we even bother to consider this?
Treason Is as Treason Does.
Wake up.
A bisexual person might reasonably ask to be entitled to marry one of each. I have houses in two states and would like to have a wife in each. I have seen happy households of trios and quads living together as if married, I know this is feasible. The traditional marriage is only one lifestyle possibility, let's go forward and liberate other possibilities.
Right now Germany is debating to legalize incest and does not prohibit bestiality, and the sky is not falling in Berlin.
Whatever you want,whoopee; life is short and happiness is dearly bought. I am not looking for a companion of the canine persuasion, but if you are, then woof for you!
It doesn't change the fundamental equation ONE iota.
Absent religion, this issue wouldn't even be in litigation.
Normally, everyone shares the same fundamental rights FROM BIRTH. In other words - our rights are NATURAL rights. They don't flow from god (or gods), they don't arise from the Constitution, and, for that reason, the majority does not have the authority to "give" or "deny" or "curtail" the rights of anyone, especially a minority.
To curtail/abbrevi ate/limit a person's fundamental rights, the community needs a damned good reason.
Let's consider the issue of quarantine for infectious disease. Freedom is a most basic right. So let's take ebola... We can curtail a sick person's freedom of movement to protect the community at large. But the curtailment must be narrowly tailored, etc.
Let's turn to gay marriage. What is the "damned good reason" for denying the right to marry of two 90+ year old ladies who have been together for 70+ years?
Anyone? I'm waiting.
By the way: the bible doesn't qualify unless/until we rescind the 1st Amendment.
Too bad NatLamp is no longer being published, the original crew of humorists there from before PJ killed it would have had a fine time with this issue!
Yeah but what do you call an inter-racial union between two old men on the Supreme Court? ;-)
homosexuals, but while I strongly support civil union, I cannot in good conscience support homosexual marriage. The slogan "Marry whom you love," is shallow, in that it is without the restrictions of affinity, or age as well as gender difference. Moreover, there are other, some would say richer, ways of showing love than sexual gratification. Disagreeable as it is to be on the same side as Alito, Scalia et al., they are correct in their opinion in this matter if in nothing else.
"I DO NOT HATE homosexuals" (quote).
How "broad-minded" -and patronizing of you!
Do you actually KNOW any GLBT folks at all????
Your post is very revelatory and SHALLOW in summation and lack of understanding of the whole issue -and the theological declamations of Scalia, Ailito and the other Holy Romans, which are WRONG in this matter out of sheer ignorance and wanton obfuscation thereby.
What ANY couple, gay or straight does inside their own door aint nobody's business as long as it's consensual. The hysteria ("high fever") comes from those who are obsessed by sex and scandal, not those of us trying to mediate with an even hand.
Have you ever heard of the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York, where the patrons of a Gay bar were tired of police harassment and fought back? Check it out -you might just learn something!
Anyhoo, the tide of history, not hysteria, is agin' you Bubba.
Here's a quote from Jerry Faldwell:
"I do not believe we can blame genetics for adultery, homosexuality, dishonesty and other character flaws."
and the Quran:
"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
Homosexuality is, of course, not a new behavior. It has existed in practically all cultures and among all people, but usually in fewer numbers and in secrecy, not with an "in your face" attitude as it does in the west now. The Homosexuals, in an attempt to polish their image, constitute a very active and powerful lobby group. They have strong political and social ties and access to the elites of the society, especially in the US. Even though majority of the people in the US believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, it is intriguing, but never the less remarkable, that the homosexuals have gained public acceptance for their behavior in a very short period of time. This acceptance by the US public is a reflection of people who are committed to their cause and give due thought, time, money and effort to achieve their purpose. The homosexual's agenda is a very simple one to make their behavior acceptable as NORMAL, and in the process recruit more to their ranks. The most effective milestone in the homosexual movement, was probably when in 1976 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) declared that homosexuality was no longer to be considered an illness but was to be regarded merely as an orientation or a sexual variant. The rest, as they say, is history.
The strength of the movement was demonstrated by the outbreak of AIDS. The innocent were put at risk and their lives made a living hell, some were even lost just for a political gain. The lie that is being promoted is that AIDS is equally rampant amongst the heterosexuals as it is amongst the homosexuals. Statistics contradicts this statement.
They use proven methodologies in changing social acceptability and behavior towards themselves. They then discuss, or frame the issue as it is known, to convince us of their legitimacy and how wrong, narrow minded and bigots all these moralists are.
colleges and universities have a profound impact on the intellectual development of our young people. It is the time in their lives where new and independent thoughts are introduced, incubate, and develop. However, most of these institution are a bedrock of secular extremism and promote all other values except the divine ones. In these circles, it is politically and socially acceptable to talk about, promote and experiment with all behaviors, homosexuality included, but to discuss and further divine values is considered being close minded and narrow.
contd. below
We as Muslims need to state unequivocally and unambiguously that homosexuality is a deviant behavior and that there is not even an iota of doubt that Islam condemns the behavior.
Thus stated, we need to clarify, that it does not mean that we hate the homosexual person but rather that we find the behavior abhorable. We want to help with sensitivity and care whoever has these tendencies, or practices such behavior. We can further point out the following:
Between the two sexes a gravitating combination of love, tenderness, and care is engendered, so that each finds in the other completeness, tranquility, and support (Quran 30:21). Having children and loving them represents another fulfillment of the human nature (Quran 42:49-50).
The blessings of this completeness are not ended by their accomplishment, but they continue and develop through bringing forth children, raising them, and providing the whole family with material, emotional, and moral needs.
If there is any truth to the claim that the male homosexual behavior could be genetic, how about the bisexuals and the lesbians. They for sure are making a choice and by our standards a wrong one too.
The debate and the argument advanced by the homosexuals is "Be what you are," and "do not be ashamed of it".
Even if there is a genetic propensity towards homosexuality, it is the nobility of the human spirit that can overcome it. This pre-disposition to risk taking behavior can easily lead to the destructive behavior of gambling. We do not encourage the people with a propensity to alcoholism or gambling to keep on indulging in these vices, but rather encourage them to resist and overcome them We should do the same with homosexual feelings and tendencies. Whether one has the orientation or harbors "homosexual genes," one's feelings and desires cannot dictate behavior.
There is a period during our growth process where we are most comfortable with and try to bond with persons of the same gender. Some carry this behavior to an extreme and experiment with homosexuality. Some Psychiatrists still believe that those who continue with the homosexual behavior are really arrested in their development process. They avoid or are afraid to continue with the normal psychological growth. This condition is treatable by psychotherapy.
While we abhor acts of discrimination against individuals or groups, we also place a high value on discretion.
Humans are not homosexuals by nature. People become homosexuals because of their environments. Particularly critical is the environment during puberty. Suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. If these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced.
Human beings are especially able to control their thoughts, entertaining some and dismissing others.However, if this free will is not recognised it is easy to get into a cycle of thinking which starts from accepting a hypothesis about yourself as true rather than as a possible choice (even if the options are sometimes difficult).For example: "I am lazy " could be supposed true by someone.
That's a Helluva tirade of words from someone who hasn't a clue about that of which they write at such length.
It's all very self-revelatory if tortured and labored in it's coruscation's in and around the periphery of the subject matter, whatever y'r source(s).
It also smacks of narcissism in it's assumption that anybody would stagger through its wordy quicksands.
It's very simple:
Don't like gay marriage?
DON'T HAVE ONE.
I really don't have nearly as much time as you, to match you word for word. I just want to leave you with a simple thought, that I think you should take seriously:
1. Homosexuals are born that way. God made them that way. Get over it.
2. You were not born a Muslim. You chose to be one. You have the freedom to choose or not choose your religion.
3. Homosexuals are being persecuted by people with similar thoughts to yours (often masking themselves under the guise of phony "compassion" - much like you're doing).
4. Muslims are being wrongly persecuted, not only for their religion, but even for things that have nothing to do with Islam (much like homosexuals are enduring).
5. If anyone should be more HONESTLY compassionate, and should completely reserve judgement against other persecuted minorities right now, it is Muslims. Have you learned absolutely nothing from your own persecution?
6. Do you really feel it's in your best interests to spout off about your own religious beliefs in a way that supposes you can cram them down our throats without us pushing back? Do you really think it furthers the cause of Muslim rights, to play directly into the stereotypes evangelical Protestant Christians have about Muslims, by doing exactly, the very thing you're being accused of (cramming your religion down our throats)?
7. How does it feel to know that your condescending comments only legitimize and embolden the likes of Pam Geller?
If you mean Muslims are being persecuted by Islamic laws, (like the law against homosexuality) I don't see how.
It's not just Islamic law it's most religions that do not approve. I don't see how any law which is there for the good of a human being, like the Islamic laws against gambling and drinking, can be considered persecution.
Both the AMA and the APA consider your opinions on homosexuality to be categorically WRONG.
Educate yourself before spouting off.
-------
Your inability to respond to me correctly (i.e. show that you actually understood what I wrote and can respond coherently) is further evidence of the fact that you may not be the best "expert" on these matters.
Islamic laws are NOT the laws of the United States of America.
PERIOD.
DEAL WITH IT.
Why should 6th Century fiction control our rule of law?
If fiction is going to control our understanding of human behavior, why not Xena: Warrior Princess?
Oh, and PLEASE cite your "scientific study" that "proves" homosexuality is not based in genetics. No scientist would ever make such a claim. At least not one worth his/her weight in salt.
Here's a clue: "PROOF" as you are using it refers to mathematics, NOT SCIENCE.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mathematical-proof-vs-scientific-proof-are-they-the-same/
In the early years of Islam, the prophet and the new Muslims were persecuted just for believing and spreading the word that there is only ONE God, as opposed to hundreds of idol gods. When they were persecuted they fought back, that was true Jihad. The prophet had a mission to fulfill for God, that was to give the pagan Arabs the message about the ONE God. Jihad according to Islam, cannot be conducted by anyone other than the prophet, and his descendants or their representatives . Unfortunately, Islam is being hijacked by the Wahhabis, who appear to have no clue about true Islam. And unfortunately, America stays silent about the Saudis who are Wahhabis. They are bombing the Yemenis that is aggression, that is not against Islam.
POT
KETTLE
BLACK
As a Muslim, you should be very careful about your own lack of empathy and tolerance for others. Do you really want to piss off the only people who are protecting you from right-wing CHRISTIANS?
"hate" appears on placards carried by persons on both sides. Not everyone of us who disagree with your position supports what I believe is the truly evil hysteria of the Westborough group. -- Acting in "good conscience" refers to my assent or dissent as a voting citizen to something that is proposed as a matter of law. -- To me, the phrase "Marry whom you love" is shallow because while it may appear appealing, it fails to acknowledge the diversity of relationships: parent / child, brother / sister (matters of affinity), adult / child (age), friend / friend. -- Other very powerful ways of love are those of sacrificial service and caring.
I hope that this is a clarifying reply to your questions. Homosexual friends and colleagues have understood that their and my identity as human beings is, contrary to our present cultural emphasis, much more than our sexual desires.
Whether the state chooses to recognize the marriage of homosexuals, really has no bearing on whether they are truly married. Many homosexuals have been in loving and committed marriages for many decades already, even though their marriage is totally disregarded and denied by people who don't have the right or business to deny them anything.
In a sense, this isn't about marriage at all. Married people have the right to decide for themselves what their marriage means to them, and their definition of marriage itself.
This is about the rights of individuals and families to be treated as equals, in the eyes of the state. Unless the state recognizes that homosexual marriage is marriage, just like any other marriage, then that right is being denied, which has direct and profound implications in the lives of people who cannot live their lives without the intrusion of being told their marriage doesn't exist, and therefore, none of the state-sanctione d rights of married couples apply to them.
Why should gay spouses be denied those rights?
Consider the following lesbian couple, together for more than two decades. One suffered a catastrophic stroke from a ruptured aneurysm. They were legally "civil-unioned" . The healthy partner brought all documents with her to the ER, but the Evangelical hospital administrator refused to recognize them, even LOOK AT THEM. (So did the hospital staff.)
The hospital had called in her parents, also Evangelicals, who had cut ties when their daughter came out decades prior. One of the first things they did was block access of the healthy spouse. The sick partner had made her wishes perfectly clear - she did not want to be put on machines. This wish was ignored.
The woman died, of course. Even though her partner had the legal right/obligatio n to make the funeral arrangements - her dead partner had made it clear she wanted to be cremated - the parents had her embalmed (contrary to her wishes) and buried in the family plot on the other side of the country. The parents tried, unsuccessfully, to have their daughter's surviving spouse evicted from the home they shared.
If this is what you advocate you DO hate homosexuals.
Some of us thought this divisive issue was settled some four centuries ago: Can you see it? If so, do other people necessarily see what you see and interpret it the same way? Can you build it? If so, does it always come out the same way?
In either case, if not, what you are seeing or building is probably not "reality based."
But let's look at this reasonably.let' s look at the facts. The majority of beings across species are NOT homosexual, and for obvious reason, because if they were they would cease to exist. So right there, in principle, this is wrong.
In order for the male and female to engage practically and easily to perpetuate the species, the Creator has blessed us with the compatible body parts for the sexual act. Homosexuality on the other hand, requires those who engage in the act to use a part of the body that was constructed for another purpose altogether. Every part of the human body has a purpose for which it was specifically and intelligently designed. You do not eat through your nose or your ear, you don't hear with your eyes, you don't talk through your a**. This is a no-brainer, yet unfortunately, people are not reflective enough to see the profundity of this.
We also have seen other negative effects of homosexuality, like a much higher risk of disease.
The scriptures, whether Abrahamic or Eastern have forbidden it, but now the gay lobby comes along, and in a very shrill and demanding voice tells us to abandon everything, our own inner voices, our own instincts and intellects, the warnings in the scriptures, and not only accept, but laud this lifestyle.
You are in luck, bibi...you are constitutionall y protected by the First Amendment to do something against your religion...like have sex or marry a gay partner. However,I am supposed to be equally Constitutionall y protected against having your religion imposed on me.
I am not "imposing" anything on you. I am not coming up to you and insisting you follow Islam. I don't call you intolerant or some other name for not following Islam. But if I do not agree with homosexuality, I am automatically labelled a bigot and intolerant. Our children are taught at an early age that homosexuality is normal. That to me is an an example of imposition. And also this: In one school in the US that I know of, (maybe it's the case in many others) children are told to cross dress on a day reserved for this. Children feel pressured to do it, because it's school and their peers will be doing it.
I choose to live my life according to the basic tenets of Islam, because it makes the most sense to me. Out of all that the constitution allows in this society, if anything makes sense to me, I would gladly embrace it.
The fact, Bibi, is that you only live safely, in this country (assuming you are an American, at all), THANKS TO THE VERY CONSTITUTION YOU DECRY - AND THANKS TO THE PROTECTION IT IS PROVIDING YOU WITH, AS WE SPEAK.
It's not for you to decide whether or not you "embrace" the Constitution of the United States of America. It's the law of the land. You have no choice.
The only thing you've "cleared up", is that you've further proven my point, that you really haven't put any of YOUR OWN thought into any of this.
I have put my own thoughts. I have thought about homosexual behaviour long before quoting from this website. I see those same reasons for not agreeing with it.
I believe in a Creator, and I submit to HER will. I don't need a 1,500 year-old document to tell me what SHE believes. I just spoke to her this morning, and she told me she doesn't like YOU, and she has REASONS why she doesn't agree with, or condone YOUR "lifestyle".
Gee, I didn't know there were so many different ways to be a "Muslim".
Yes, I know we say He, for lack of a better word. But God is neither male or female in reality. Why do you think God is a she? I'm just curious.
You're saying these are Quran's verses, but NONE of them are. Now, you could be deliberately assuming ignorance in which case, you're a dangerous clown!
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/011-sbt.php
2. Volume 8, Book 76, Number 505
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/076-sbt.php
3. Volume 7, Book 65, Number 356
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/065-sbt.php
---------
Any questions?
By the way, shouldn't you know all of this anyway? Aren't Muslims supposed to KNOW the Koran? Forgive me. Maybe you went to a school where girls weren't allowed to do this. Ask your husband.
I live in Canada, which is even more liberal than the US.
You're saying, unfortunately I cannot apply such force because I'm greatly outgunned and outnumbered. Dear, you sound a bit tyrannical to me to tell the truth! I am NOT interested in applying force. I get engaged in arguments or discussions with people if something is important to me,(if I have good reasons to make that argument) and the constitution allows me to do that, at least so far.
My other point was, in the US and here in Canada, we can for sure question why something is being pushed so much - as in the case of homosexuality, giving the reasons for why WE think it shouldn't be.
As I said, a school in the US that I know of, has cross dressing day. The boy I know who is 11, refused to dress as a girl.He just didn't want to. And a girl came to school on that day dressed even more girlishly. As much as parents of these children notice and fear the pressure that's there, the children's refusal to cross dress is a testament to the fact that everyone does not "embrace" everything that is allowed.
"Even more Liberal than the US" (quote).
If you think that the US is "Liberal", you have a seriously warped view of y'r Southern neighborhood bully, which never saw a right-wing oligarchy it couldn't arm, send "advisers" to and/or install in opposition to any attempts at democratic "liberal" self-realization.
And well - Harper's hardly "Liberal" in any sense, is he?
Harper is conservative in the worst sense. He is the war-mongering type, and he says he supports Israel unconditionally . I wouldn't support any tyrant unconditionally , even if it's my own flesh and blood. But in other ways Harper is as liberal as you can get.
The racists and bigots are the Americans who are the most like YOU. You should LOVE them, but, oh yeah, I almost forgot, much of their hatred is directed at YOU. So, I guess, that's not ok. If it's directed at gays, that's perfectly fine, because they aren't you, so you have nothing to worry about.
Something about Christianity, that you could learn from is called, "THE GOLDEN RULE"
It happens to be the most important tenet of ANY true Christian. Too bad, that, as a right-wing, looney, extremist, Muslim, you don't feel bound by its truth in any way.
Once again, NO ONE CARES IF YOU LOVE "THEIR LIFESTYLE".
I don't "love" "YOUR lifestyle" either.
Would it be ok for me to say, "Go ahead and be Muslim (even though I don't approve of it), but just don't do it in public"?
I have daughters. I don't think it's ok for me to have to tell them to wear a burkha and submit to men, just because they witnessed YOU doing it.
I guess I ALSO HAVE THE "RIGHT" to tell you to take the damn burkha off in public and not show any outer signs of being Islamic in front of my children.
I hope you can "understand" my position. After all, I have "REASONS" for it. I just don't want to expose my children to your bullshit.
But apparently you want to actually go and tell a Muslim woman to remove her burkha, when it's really none of your business. So who's more intolerant than YOU?
For at least the 5th time, this conversation is about:
WHETHER GAY AMERICANS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY IN THE UNITED STATES.
--------
This isn't about thoughts and feelings on race relations. This ALSO isn't about cheese.
Let me illustrate:
I don't think you should be allowed to practice your religion (after all, it's a CHOICE) in front of my children, but please don't call me "cheese-ist". I LOVE ALL KINDS OF CHEESE. I'm NOTHING like people who hate cheese and ALSO hate Muslims, because I LOVE cheese.
I don't care if you like race cars, or chia pets, or coat hangers either, by the way. I hope I don't have to list every single thing in the universe that this topic is NOT about. That could take a while.
--------
AND, Once again, I DON'T CARE what your "reasons" are.
1. You're not an American.
2. You don't even believe in the American Constitution (it dramatically disagrees with your interpretation of your religion).
3. You live in Canada, but you'd rather be in Iran.
4. This is about LAW in America - NOT about your thoughts and feelings on race, or what turns you on, or about cheese, or about potted plants. We DON'T CARE what you feel, or "why" you feel it, or "what your reasons are". We ONLY care about the LAWS of the U.S. (something you're not interested in, and not qualified to even argue about, since they don't affect you, since you don't live here).
"And fight in the cause of God with THOSE WHO FIGHT WITH YOU, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and PERSECUTION IS SEVERER THAN SLAUGHTER, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) UNTIL THEY FIGHT WITH YOU in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely God is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for God, but IF THEY DESIST, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO HOSTILITY EXCEPT AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS." [Quran 2:190-192]
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. LOOK IT UP! Ssshhh! I PROMISE I won't tell your husband!
The rest of your bullshit rant was based on not bothering to look up the GOLDEN RULE, so I won't dignify it with a response.
The Golden rule simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
POT
KETTLE
BLACK
You cannot, in one comment, tell me about how hate-filled Pam Geller is, and in another accuse me of "tyrannical" thoughts regarding your own hate-filled rhetoric, if you want to be taken seriously.
If you have the right to spout off, so does Geller, and so does the KKK. My guess, is that the KKK (which has A LOT in common with YOU), is a source of FEAR to you. My guess, is that you wouldn't spout off your true opinions in a white Baptist church in Mississippi, or Alabama. You'd have ever reason to be fearful for your life, if you were to try such as suicidal stunt.
My thought is that, you ALSO have been relying, your whole life, on the LIBERALS of Canada and the U.S. to save you from being lynched. Believe me, if American conservatives had their way, each and every Muslim would be deported back to the Middle-East (somewhere many of you don't want to be, for some reason), or you'd be treated much like the Germans treated the Jews in the '30s and '40s.
These conservatives would be exercising the same "rights" (to domination) that you claim for yourself. These conservatives would have many of your own beliefs about homosexuals.
It's the very liberals whom you ridicule for protecting the rights of homosexuals, that stand in your way of having your genitals used to test batteries (regardless what you think God put them there for).
It would surprise you to know that I'm here in N. America in a different way than you might have imagined, as a person who married a man who was already here. I didn't come here looking for a better life. I was sad to leave India where I was born, and I love Iran which is where my grandparents are from.
2. Go BACK to India. I'm sure you, and the Hindus will have a grand old time blowing each other up to prove a point. Did you ever notice that, whenever Muslim extremists (such as yourself) are around Hindus, there's violence? Did you ever notice that when Muslim extremists (such as yourself) are around members of ANY OTHER SECT THAT IS NOT MUSLIM, there's violence? Do you see a pattern here?
Maybe you should take your man (oops, that's right. You're a woman, so you could NEVER get him to do this) back to IRAN with you. There, you could enjoy being a member of an extremist majority, where the moderates, liberals, and intellectuals already FLED TO GET THE HELL OUT - DECADES AGO.
We don't ask you to agree with Canadian and American LAWS. We only ask you to abide by them, and keep your un-American opinions to yourself.
---
Seriously, no one is stopping you from going back to India, right?
I think you're suggesting that I have no say when it comes to the man in my life. Far from the truth with me, and with many other Muslims. It might surprise you to know women have a lot of influence on men in Muslim households.
And last but not the least, if it's ok for us from eastern lands to come here and build these countries, by becoming citizens, by contributing to the economy, then we also have the right to offer our opinions on how these countries should be shaped. We are citizens, and as such have that right. Nobody is not an immigrant in N. America, except for the native peoples.
Well then, what you believe is something I'd expect to read in a Ruppie Muck-doc tabloid rag, not in a discussion based on verifiable facts and -figures if you like.
There must be a word for obsession with genitalia but I don't know what it is (Knackeritis? Ovarianility? Ballsoutness? Clitoriality?).
My guess is as good as your understanding of the subject.
Get it?!
Genitalia are there for sex. It's not an obsession to say we have body parts and organs which are there to serve specific purposes, and genitals also serve a purpose.I mean you can stick a anything else into your genitals, or stick your genital into a body part than was to serve another function. That's your choice. I just find that a little bizarre!
We liberals (whom you obviously disdain), are your only protectors. It's not, honestly, possible for us to defend the rights of every minority against the onslaught of conservative anger. Perhaps, we should stop defending you, since it's your intention (as a persecuted minority) to become a majority, so you can, one day, have the fun of persecuting others.
To me that sounds like you expect Muslims to be empathetic, and you find it bizarre they aren't.
Try wording your sentences to be understood the way you want them to be understood.
That last sentence is not in the Koran, but you should look it up, because that sentence is protecting your life, as we speak, from a huge majority of Americans, who, right now, are feeling a whole hell of a lot more anger directed at you and your CHOSEN religion, than any feelings of ill-will against homosexuals, whom only want the right to live their lives without your bullshit interrupting their AMERICAN rights.
Secondly, people might think it will make them happy to be free to be sexually deviant, to gamble and drink and get drugged out, but there's a lot of misery beneath the absolute freedom that's supposed to give one happiness.
I'm not interested in YOUR "solutions" to YOUR perceived "evils of the whole world". I'm only interested in a way that keeps people like you from dictating to others, and keeping your UNAMERICAN beliefs as far away from government as possible.
"Your saying it's perfectly normal it's perfectly normal doesn't make it so for us." Superstition might be perfectly normal for you, but not for the MAJORITY of those who base our lives in reason.
Let me assure you that - having been a lesbian for more than 35 years - our bodies have no problems whatsoever "fitting" together.
If your argument is based on "intelligent design" that's a very easy one.
You want to claim the eyeball - or even nature - is far too complex to have come into existence w/o some intelligence designing it.
Would that not mean that by definition that architect would need to be far more complex in order to account for the vast diversity in nature?
So... how did that "intelligent designer" come into being? Don't tell me - that's different - right?
Nope, it isn't. Sooner or later your argument fails. You want to claim that natural selection could never account for the complexity in nature BUT you want us to buy that the intelligent designer simply appeared out of nothingness?
Your ideology fails the chicken vs. egg test.
If that's your belief - fine.
My rights should not hinge on YOUR superstition and myths.
It's not your father's Republican party, nor is it your father's Democratic party.
I have heard three year old children who are just as good at calling people they like names as Quigley is.
"Sexual License".
Pretty cute but meaningless.
Clarence Thomas for one, that well-known robed dirty old man, and Rush Limpballs are only TWO of the most sexually-licens ed, licentious and libidinous abusers of their power to propound and propagate hatred of "the other", whilst slinking through the shadows disguised as "Straight" or "Normal" guys.
I guess you're one of their disciples.
When, like universal healthcare, all people of any persuasion are included, that benefits society. The tribes that once blended with the rhythms of this continent had such an all-inclusive social structure -but we in our advanced "wisdom" called them "savages".
NOTHING is guaranteed.
If push comes to shove, expect to be shoved BACK.
what are the benefits to society from fornication that outweigh the damages and thus justifies allowing fornication to be legal?
Ask y'r leaders.
Some of the worst "Fornicators" are roaming the halls of power seeking whom they might devour -and DC Beltway sex industry laborers of both sexes are the most expensive and exclusive in the country.
You sound just like the late Jerry Falwell and his equally hypocritical buddy Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and all those o' so pure and judgmental whores of the media.
Read Robert Burns "Holy Wullie's Prayer" sometime -if you are capable of understanding his satirical words of the same kind I'm using here.
You speak contemptuously first of the worst "fornicators" in power, then you compare eddie who is 100% right btw, to Jerry Faldwell (I suppose to insult him). You sound very arrogant. But may be you're just plain scared. I just saw this exchange, and had to butt in!
I like Betty White's solution:
"Mind your own business, take care of your affairs, and don't worry about other people so much..."
Evangelicals illogically embrace an assumption that LGBT's seek or want their approval.
I've often heard them that Gay Pride is the LGBT community's effort to foist our "choices" upon them to gain their "approval". Gay Pride is no more about approval than St. Patrick's Day is. It about coming together to celebrate community & family.
Human rights are afforded at birth. They are considered "natural rights", not given by god (or gods) or the Constitution and certainly NOT the majority. Since these rights are not granted by the majority, they cannot be curtailed or denied by the majority.
There are absolutely no reason(s) to deny gay people the right to marry (which entails one otherwise legally competent consenting adult marrying another similarly situated adult) other than religious reasons.
Just from a first amendment standpoint it's abhorrent. The act of denying rights based in religious ideology violates the Establishment clause. (Never mind Equal protection).
It's immaterial whether beliefs about gays are sincere or not. Our rule of law is secular. Islam or Jesus or whomever, therefore, is simply not relevant. It may matter in Iran - but it doesn't here. Regardless of the assertions of the Mullahs of the Tealiban.
And the Evangelicals are right. The LGBT it seems, wants the WORLD's approval, never mind only theirs. Which is why they are so vocal about how some countries treat gays.
I simply do NOT understand this "human rights are afforded at birth" bit! This is not about denial of human rights, it's about living your life the right way, the natural and normal way, as the Creator intended it. He created you, he sets the rules. At least that's what we all used to believe! So there's no such thing as ABSOLUTE freedom. If human beings want to break these rules of nature set by God, then they can, because God has also given them free will. But free will has been given to choose from all the things for which you have a choice.
We can see the problem here in a secular country where religion cannot really have a say, though it can still exert some influence. "Islam and Jesus" are still relevant for some people here, but cannot have any formal control over people's behaviours.
Elections have consequences and there is a difference between the two parties. To the winner goes the cabinet and judicial appointments.
Given that some people here are threatening to vote third party or stay at home if they don't get their way 100% in the Democratic primaries, this is a reminder that elections have consequences. So, as I've said before, you have every right vote third party or stay at home; but you are choosing these consequences.