More demands in Britain
 

It's disturbing, but not unprecedented. Take, for example, the Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they have the religious right to deny medical treatment to their minor children. It's also no more objectionable in a purely abstract sense than the Wingnuts in Kansas and elsewhere who want to take evolution out of the textbooks.

I find the notion abhorrent, but I freely admit that it's because I find Sharia to be abhorrent.

Can we kill them all?
 

I never thought I would say this, but I agree with all of what Sidd posted.

Lebanon and Syria are Israel's problems to corral. Ultimately, notwithstanding the recent battles, untethered, eventually Israel could take these guys down. As long we do our part and take out Iran before it gets the nukes.

Can we kill them all?
 

I have repeatedly said that I don't think it's practical or that it's going to happen. I've only said that I think it's the only solution.

Can we kill them all?
 

When I say "we" I mean a coalation, not just us. Nation building is right up the UN's ally, or so I've been told. Preferably I would keep our soldiers completely out, as we are the only military left (save UK and Israel) that's actually worth a damn for real combat.

And I would never propose occupying Israel.

More demands in Britain
 

I agree it's not unprecedented. But it is abhorrent, regardless of the religion that is advocating it.


I disagree with this, as Kansas is trying to do that to all public school students. As a practical matter, that is certainly a worse thing. As a matter of creating (or destroying) a society, it isn't, because you aren't saying that different people are subject to different laws. A better analogy would be if the Kansas-kooks advocated for a law that Christian teachers could legally be stoned for teaching evolution.


I find it more abhorrent for that reason.

Can we kill them all?
 

Your "solution" entails the US slaughtering Arabs and Israelis, and Americans being slaughtered in turn.

Can we kill them all?
 

Please identify instances in which the UN has occupied a country for the purpose of nation-building. That seems contrary to the basic elements of the UN Charter as far as I know.

And please identify instances of successful nation-building that followed an invasion. (And if you name Iraq, I'll laugh at you...)

More demands in Britain
 

think this through. if Muslims can have a carved out law that only applies to them for domestic court, who's to say we can't use that for precedent for a carved out aviation law that says their bags have to go by FedEx and we can hand cuff during the flight. Penske. Can you check and see if that would violate any of the tenants of the Koran?

More demands in Britain
 

2.

No one is saying that the UK cannot decide to go pure Sharia in say 50 years once the popular vote supports it- I suppose the first vote to approve it would have to allow women to vote, before the new government can establish a ban on women voting.

Anyway, most of those details will have been worked out over the next 25 years as the Scandanavian Coutries, the Netherlands and france become Islamic Republics.

George Allen
 

In case anyone needed proof that George Allen is too stupid to be the next President, he called an Indian-American at a campaign rally by a racial slur twice while the guy was videotaping him. What a moron.

More demands in Britain
 

Yes, I find it disturbing. But I don't condemn asking. I find it far more disturbing when someone asking about application to undefined "family law" is used toas evidence to support "See!!! Muslims in Britain want to be able to stone people to death!!!!"

I'm interested in how certain orthodox jewish issues are handled (e.g. divorce) -- is there one thing that happens to make it how it should be under jewish law, and anyone who tries to go to the civil courts to reverse (if there is, eg, a rule on who gets custody), they are punished by ostracism?

Because it seems like whatever that is should be the same for muslims. I'm not sure the extent to which a judge might overrule e.g. a custody arrangement agreed to by both parents, though.

I'm not sure whether religious tradition of the family is a factor considered in custody decisions in the states in which I'm admitted, let alone in Britain.

George Allen
 

What racial slur?

George Allen
 

"macaca"

Not one I'm familiar with, but he used it twice. Evidently it's a French slur used to refer to North Africans (Allen's mother is French Tunisian and he speaks French), although there are other theories about what he meant.

You can watch the episode on YouTube if you like.

George Allen
 

Did the Indian (India indian or Native American Indian?)-American head butt him in the chest afterwards?

George Allen
 

Not at work, alas. Perhaps he was unaware that it is a slur? It seems unlikely he'd use it that way. Nonetheless, stupid. Was it a French Indian guy and he was trying to be hip to the culture? Yes, I know you said Indian-American but I don't know what the forum was.

As I said, though, stupid.