'Women-friendly' mosques praised

[IVAN LILLEY]

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/uk-and-world-news/2010/06/09/women-friendly-mosques-praised-84229-26616364/

 

its not perfect (seperate room etc) but its a step in the right direction

 

"Batool Al-Toma, of the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group, said: "This project must be hailed as a welcome and useful exercise for the whole of the Muslim community in the UK"

 

crumbs to mice

[spindrift]

OK, Islam has a problem with terrorist factions using it's name. A lot. Fact.

 

It would be far more worthwhile discussing why this is, what can be done to prevent it, and how Muslim's can counter the stigma given by these groups than to try to cover up the fact and try to belittle those who raise it.

 

I'm pointing out noddy is a racist liar.

[IVAN LILLEY]

I'm pointing out noddy is a racist liar.

 

you are the racist

[tab1]

terrorism is the modern word used to describe a struggle by a people from those in power. the current wars and conflicts around the world are going on in muslim dominated nations, so any struggle by any 'faction' against injustice is easy to blame under the fictional umbrella organisation 'alqaeda'.

there is no legal definition of terrorism.

I would like tro point out at this stage that the bogeyman name was created by the Americans to describe their own database of Jihadists they sent into Afghanistan to fight the Russians, they called it Al-Quieda and no such entity exists as an organisation, but only American's own database. They were stuck with having to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and to make their legal system work it was more convenient to prosecute him as being head of an orgainisation than an individual because as an individual he could not have committed the atrocities that they wanted to prosecute him for. So AlQuieda became the buzz-Word. Till then no Muslim had heard of the alleged organisation let alone being a member of it.

 

It's just all too convenient for them to blame anything on Alquieda which has come to describe anyone opposed to their illegal medaling in the Mid East.

However the name is enough for the Islamophobes to crap their pants every time they of hear it, so even Bin Laden climbed on the bandwagon and adopted the name.

[tab1]

you are the racist

Still exchanging pleasantries I see, don't you have a life?

[MAMALOCHA!]

I would like tro point out at this stage that the bogeyman name was created by the Americans to describe their own database of Jihadists they sent into Afghanistan to fight the Russians, they called it Al-Quieda and no such entity exists as an organisation, but only American's own database. They were stuck with having to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and to make their legal system work it was more convenient to prosecute him as being head of an orgainisation than an individual because as an individual he could not have committed the atrocities that they wanted to prosecute him for. So AlQuieda became the buzz-Word. Till then no Muslim had heard of the alleged organisation let alone being a member of it.

 

It's just all too convenient for them to blame anything on Alquieda which has come to describe anyone opposed to their illegal medaling in the Mid East

 

thanks tab1

I didn't know till recently having gone on the FBI's most wanted list (see if i'm on there) that bin laden doesn't have the charge of 911 to his name which i find rather strange

 

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

[tab1]

thanks tab1

I didn't know till recently having gone on the FBI's most wanted list (see if i'm on there) that bin laden doesn't have the charge of 911 to his name which i find rather strange

 

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Bin Laden doesn't because every Muslim does it seems (for some}.

[MAMALOCHA!]

However the name is enough for the Islamophobes to crap their pants every time they of hear it.

 

make your people fear the bogeyman thus enabling you to adopt ever more intrusive laws for there safety.

[IVAN LILLEY]

Still exchanging pleasantries I see, don't you have a life?

 

how are the cats?

[Wildcat]

An offence is the wrong terminology for what we're talking about here which destroys the comment above even if you attempt to put the idea of physically assaulting somebody in the same context as making derogitory remarks about somebody which clearly is not the same thing. To even attempt to argue that it is simply shows gross ignorance or a troll like nature of the person trying to argue the unarguable.

 

No it doesn't. It simply negates the point she was trying to make.

 

By trying to make a point using an analogy that has no bearing on the point being discussed?

That might work in your political world wildcat where spin, duplicitousness and misrepresentation hold sway, but to a logical thinking, scientific mind, these attempts to argue the unarguable are as transparent as the lens on my camera (which reminds me, I've recently uploaded some more photos of Shiny Sheffield to my Panoramio page in my signature below.....sorry, but I had to get that in.)

 

We appear to be talking a different language

 

con·text Pronunciation (kntkst)

n.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

 

a·nal·o·gy Pronunciation (-nl-j)

n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

1.

a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

 

offence US, offense [əˈfɛns]

n

3. annoyance, displeasure, or resentment

give offence (to) to cause annoyance or displeasure (to)

take offence to feel injured, humiliated, or offended

 

Note: analogies don't require two situations to be the same, it requires them to have something in common. In the analogy given it is the sense of offence that the two acts have in common and that they should be condemned.

 

It is really quite simple.