Pakistani men can beat wives 'lightly,' Islamic council says

And now you're going to name-call? It's as if you want to prove my point.

Nor do we risk our people's lives for the sake of a stupid "eye for an eye" mentality which is going to get many more people killed in the long run. And I don't see how a bit of introspection amounts to any risking of lives (at the very least, any which is not compensated for) or a "psychiatric evaluation" of anyone.

 

The definition of terrorism is inherently subjective ... ISIS is terrorist ... But How is the US any better ? Both have killed innocent people, and the US has done it on a much larger scale .. (20-30 million people killed by the Americans, directly and indirectly, since WW2, Mostly innocent)

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; there were none. And the Americans knew there were none... But still they invaded Iraq on a "false pretext" ... ME was peaceful ... Things were under control. People were happy the way they were ... But now the ME is burning ... Who is responsible for this ?

 

I guess it depends on who you talk to whether or not you can determine that the ME was "peaceful." Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS is NOT a group of backward arse retards? What's been done has been done. We can't take it back. We defend our citizens against terror attacks with any means possible though.

 

An Iraqi Perspective: How America’s Destruction of Iraqi Society Led to Today’s Chaos

 

I'm not denying that our involvement in Iraq caused chaos. OUR objective was to remove Saddam Hussein. He was a thorn in everyone's side.

 

Well, You guys supported the same Saddam Hussein against Iran, didn't you ? The Americans (and the Brits) built Saddam's war machine. The US credits offered to Saddam made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. Saddam Hussain was a dictator created and then destroyed by America. Serving the welfare of people of Iraq was never your purpose .. The US was only pursuing its hegemonic ambitions and imperial interests in the ME when it created Saddam, and when it destroyed him ..

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war


OUR objective ? ordinary citizens/tax payers may have been duped into believing this, but the US military industrial complex definitely had other objectives as well .. Didn't Dwight D. Eisenhower end his presidential term (in January 1961) by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex. ?

 

I believe the US is a bit too arrogant in international dealings, as well as righteous, and we are involved in too many military and CIA operations around the world...all of which create hatred towards the US and surely are at the root, right or wrong, of most terrorism against the US. The US has double-standards in which we can rationalize why we should assasinate someone, why we should send in forces, why we should bomb the crap out of places, all without any formal declaration of war, yet if any nation on Earth tried to do these same things on US soil, the US would respond on steroids! No matter the politics, the governance, the religions, the tactics, etc. etc. or how we rationalize our actions around the world, no doubt we are creating a lot of the problems...

 

That label means nothing. It's like calling ISIS smelly diaper babies. Not the most productive way to combat Islamism and its painfully evident root causes.

We can't take it back, but we can stop it from spiralling even further out of control, and we can find and get rid of its causes through a sensible process of evaluation.

 

You're using India as an example? Seriously? Why do you ignore the modern world? Are you
afraid you'll see the truth?

You need to face the fact that that "religion of peace" treats women horribly. Why do you want to
ignore this incredibly accurate fact?

India? Really?

 

You didn't answer the question. When was the last time you heard this president mention how
badly that "religion of peace" treats women?

 

It's not ridiculous. Laws DO NOT protect people. They only (occasionally) punish those
who are caught.

It's what THEY call themselves. It provides more information, too.

 

You seem to have some serious comprehension issues. Read my post (#101) once again. Slowly and carefully. Or is it deliberate ignorance ?

 

I did. The only one showing apparent deliberate ignorance is you. What you provided is
laughable information. That "religion of peace" doesn't care about women.

 

It is a ridiculous argument. No law has ever or will ever protect anybody.
You might as well make the argument: YEAH, but gravity will still pull you down.

No kudo's for you.

Whatever... not falling for that.

 

Information provided by me ??

That information was provided by UNDP (The United Nations Development Programme) and World Bank ...

Laughable information .. ?? Not really.

Anyway, only through willful/deliberate ignorance, can one believe/say that this info is laughable.. Thanks for proving me right ..

Adios..

 

You never asked, but your question doesn't make sense. Just what is this "religion of peace" you reference? Are you trying to say Obama supports the mistreatment of women? If that's your intent, you need to say so and back it up with some evidence.

No, I haven't heard this president use those words. But I didn't hear the previous president use those words either. In fact, I haven't heard any president make that declaration. But running a country is a little different from being a right wing demagogue. Just because a POTUS doesn't use the words you would want him or her to, it doesn't mean they endorse the mistreatment of women or aren't pushing for civil rights reforms. The US for a very long time now has tried to encourage Islamic states to improve civil rights for all their people and not just women.

 

well yes it states in this case you can use a stick why should you use your hand when you can use a weapon?

#feminisminislam

 

I find it strange how people talk about these religious figures as if they actually existed when there is really no evidence (aside from stories in holy books) that any of these people really existed. The physical evidence that has been presented as "proof" of these story book characters' existence is thin at best.

 

What kind of backward society & religion legitimizes the abuse of women in the 21st century?

 

The proper way to beat your wife is to tie a handkerchief on the end of a toothbrush.

 

The bedrock issue here that I haven't seen anyone mention is the intent to "instill fear".

There is no such thing as a law to protect women that simply defines what is "necessary to instill fear". Such a law, such a culture/religion still believes it is acceptable and necessary to intimidate and frighten women and use this tactic as a means of control.

 

That is why they prefer to use a stick to beat the woman. Although they now choose a short stick.

 

The "stick" is a miswak.. a toothbrush.

- - - Updated - - -

The "stick" is a miswak.. a toothbrush.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a miswak.. a tooth brush and they tie a handkerchief to the end like a flag.

 

That "religion of peace" certainly does.

 

Good one. That's funny!