All Hank, all the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside whatever aspects of sharia they may be pushing for, or whatever aspects of sharia may be debatable -- do you find it at all disturbing that people would suggest that a subset of the population should be judged by a different set of laws?

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.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You people are insane.

Occupy Palestine and Lebanon? Yes, that would be a lovely way to incite worldwide jihad against the US -- on a scale far beyond anything we've seen to date. Leaving aside the thousands of US lives and trillions of US dollars that this decades-long misadventure would cost, do you have even a clue of how many Arabs we would kill in the process? We've just seen what Hezbollah is capable of -- do you think that they will respond more kindly to a US invasion and occupation? And do you think that our response would be anything less destructive than Israel's?

As for occupying Israel -- going to war with a democracy and an ally, because we've decided that they don't think right -- I can only say that next time I'm in wonk-land, I hope he shares whatever stuff he's been sampling.

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.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You people are insane.

Occupy Palestine and Lebanon? Yes, that would be a lovely way to incite worldwide jihad against the US -- on a scale far beyond anything we've seen to date. Leaving aside the thousands of US lives and trillions of US dollars that this decades-long misadventure would cost, do you have even a clue of how many Arabs we would kill in the process? We've just seen what Hezbollah is capable of -- do you think that they will respond more kindly to a US invasion and occupation? And do you think that our response would be anything less destructive than Israel's?

As for occupying Israel -- going to war with a democracy and an ally, because we've decided that they don't think right -- I can only say that next time I'm in wonk-land, I hope he shares whatever stuff he's been sampling.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You people are insane.

Occupy Palestine and Lebanon? Yes, that would be a lovely way to incite worldwide jihad against the US -- on a scale far beyond anything we've seen to date. Leaving aside the thousands of US lives and trillions of US dollars that this decades-long misadventure would cost, do you have even a clue of how many Arabs we would kill in the process? We've just seen what Hezbollah is capable of -- do you think that they will respond more kindly to a US invasion and occupation? And do you think that our response would be anything less destructive than Israel's?

As for occupying Israel -- going to war with a democracy and an ally, because we've decided that they don't think right -- I can only say that next time I'm in wonk-land, I hope he shares whatever stuff he's been sampling.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

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

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

I find it more abhorrent for that reason.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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...)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside whatever aspects of sharia they may be pushing for, or whatever aspects of sharia may be debatable -- do you find it at all disturbing that people would suggest that a subset of the population should be judged by a different set of laws?

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?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside whatever aspects of sharia they may be pushing for, or whatever aspects of sharia may be debatable -- do you find it at all disturbing that people would suggest that a subset of the population should be judged by a different set of laws?

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

What racial slur?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What racial slur?

"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.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"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.

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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"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.

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.