All Hank, all the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your "solution" entails the US slaughtering Arabs and Israelis, and Americans being slaughtered in turn.

You might have noticed that the Arabs and Israelis are slaughtering each other and have been since we (and by "we" I mean the West) arbitrarily carved up the region and left them to their own devices. Well, left them to their own devices but for arming the Israelis better than their enemies.

And yes, Americans will get killed. I disagree with the term "slaughtered." But, again, Americans are being killed in increasing numbers as well.

I fear that history will prove the region to be not only the cradle of civilization, but it's Achille's heel as well. If the planet goes up in a funeral pyre, the flame will be sparked in the Middle East.

Pretty grim. I hope to hell I'm wrong. But can you show me any evidence to the contrary?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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...)

India.

The United States.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

From the context, it was clear that he was singling the guy out; e.g., he said "Welcome to America" to a person who is from (Northern) Virginia. Allen's initial explanation was that he was referring to the guy as "mohawk," which makes no sense, both because the words are not alike and because he has a full head of hair.

It's all stupid and strange. But the stupidity of doing this to a guy who is videotaping him at the time is what is most odd. Though Allen has never been known as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I fear that history will prove the region to be not only the cradle of civilization, but it's Achille's heel as well. If the planet goes up in a funeral pyre, the flame will be sparked in the Middle East.

Um...let's not forgot about "Dear Leader" over there in the East.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Yes, by pointing out that the article does not contain enough details to know what was really asked for, that naturally means I was defending them.

What I should have done, if I was a rational thinker like you, would have been to assume that while sitting in a meeting with a senior British official, they requested to bring the rule of the Taliban to Britain and were shocked and dismayed that they did not get instant agreement.

I am at a loss here. Don't you see, that during a conference on how to stop these terrorists, bringing up changes to the British legal system is off the reservation. Who cares how much of Sharia law they wanted to implement? The fact that they even brough it up just shows how completely out of touch they are.

Changing the law in Britian means a majority in parliament, which means a majority of the British citizens, which ain't never going to happen - especially after a terrorist attack. Not only are these changes to the law wrong, and never going to pass, but they are completely beyond the control of the people they are talking to.

Trying to use the terrorist attacks as leverage to change the political system, instead of saying they will do whatever they can to stop them is just absurd.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If the planet goes up in a funeral pyre, the flame will be sparked in the Middle East.

Interesting. I suspect the spark will be in Asia. At least if it happens in the next 20 years. The mix of North Korea, South Korea, China, and Japan seems far more conducive to mass extinction than a bunch of countries that can't seem to get their missiles to hit anything reliably from more than a couple of hundred miles, let along fly much further than that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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?

The Supremes read the first amendment as doing this right now, within a limited field. Thus, courts don't step in to judge ecclesiatical matters within churches, but leave them to be resolved by whatever canon law applies - and this has been extended to cover all sorts of disputes that might, in an ordinary business, be a matter of civil suits. Likewise, churches are read as tax-exempt under the constitution - no 501(c)(3) application required. In the criminal area, freedom of religion is regularly pled as a defense to stuff (chomping on peyote, for example). I think the question is, how broad is the field where we defer to ecclesiatic authorities, not whether we do it.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am at a loss here. Don't you see, that during a conference on how to stop these terrorists, bringing up changes to the British legal system is off the reservation. Who cares how much of Sharia law they wanted to implement? The fact that they even brough it up just shows how completely out of touch they are.

Changing the law in Britian means a majority in parliament, which means a majority of the British citizens, which ain't never going to happen - especially after a terrorist attack. Not only are these changes to the law wrong, and never going to pass, but they are completely beyond the control of the people they are talking to.

Trying to use the terrorist attacks as leverage to change the political system, instead of saying they will do whatever they can to stop them is just absurd.

No one said it wasn't absurd. But that also does not mean that the entire British Muslim community is the functional equivalent of the Taliban (the kindest inference I could draw from Slave's post).

And seriously, stop acting like you expect every Muslim in Britain do nothing but fall on the floor apologizing for their evilness.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

Slave's response may have been over the top, but that's Slave. I care more about what real people are actually demanding as a political concession than about the rantings of my imaginary internet friends (however close to my heart they may be).

The situation you outline for orthodox jews is fairly common, though maybe not as explicit -- abortion or divorce or whatever may be perfectly legal for someone, but actually taking advantage of that will lead to being ostracized. That's a social decision, not a legal one. (And personally, I think the earlier you get ostracized from a comunity such as that, the better off you are).

I suspect that this won't work for those who advocate sharia, though, because sharia as I understand it involved punishments that would be considered crimes in non-sharia courts.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"macaca"

.

Well, sounds like a perfectly good word. Was he using it to describe someone who is a "macaca"? If so, he should continue to use it as he pleases.

I think that is the standard I learned today, which is distinguishable from my usual arseholism.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Slave's response may have been over the top, but that's Slave. I care more about what real people are actually demanding as a political concession than about the rantings of my imaginary internet friends (however close to my heart they may be).

The situation you outline for orthodox jews is fairly common, though maybe not as explicit -- abortion or divorce or whatever may be perfectly legal for someone, but actually taking advantage of that will lead to being ostracized. That's a social decision, not a legal one. (And personally, I think the earlier you get ostracized from a comunity such as that, the better off you are).

No, I meant like the effectiveness of a religious divorce, not like whether divorce per se is OK, or divorce in a particular situation is OK.

eta effectiveness of divorce. I don't do marriage, or divorce, or children, and don't have any plans to in the foreseeable future, so I don't know what all one has to do to get married; for some reason I'm thinking that at least in some states the civil stuff is limited or unnecessary if the marriage is performed according to religious rites. Every marriage I've been much involved with, the officiant was a judge. I have been to church weddings, but I wasn't involved in the planning/setting up.

I suspect that this won't work for those who advocate sharia, though, because sharia as I understand it involved punishments that would be considered crimes in non-sharia courts.

Like every single bit of sharia? I think sharia is quite broad and covers a lot of topics, not just familial relations. The thing slave posted said they wanted it for family stuff, not for crimes. It did not specify what family stuff. Hence my objection to his utter condemnation. There is not enough information.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You might have noticed that the Arabs and Israelis are slaughtering each other and have been since we (and by "we" I mean the West) arbitrarily carved up the region and left them to their own devices. Well, left them to their own devices but for arming the Israelis better than their enemies.

And yes, Americans will get killed. I disagree with the term "slaughtered." But, again, Americans are being killed in increasing numbers as well.

I fear that history will prove the region to be not only the cradle of civilization, but it's Achille's heel as well. If the planet goes up in a funeral pyre, the flame will be sparked in the Middle East.

Pretty grim. I hope to hell I'm wrong. But can you show me any evidence to the contrary?

I think what you are advocating is pouring oil on that particular flame.

As for Americans being killed -- you ain't seen nothing yet. How many Americans did Hezbollah kill in Beirut? How much worse will it be if we were to try occupying the entire country?

You are going down the neo-con road here, where you believe that what we can accomplish is limited only by our "will", or our willingness to throw lives and money around. I disagree, and think that making Arabs and Israelis love each other is beyond our abilities (and will become more so if we invade and occupy).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Well, sounds like a perfectly good word. Was he using it to describe someone who is a "macaca"? If so, he should continue to use it as he pleases.

I think that is the standard I learned today, which is distinguishable from my usual arseholism.

Don't be retarded.

What's interesting to me here, is that as everyone knows, and certainly you more than most, given our correspondence, you are close minded, sympathetic to facism, and racism, and a classist elitist greedy oppressor of the poor and minorities and really anyone disenfranchised in our society or the world. I on the other hand are progressive and open minded and rightously against everything I am so immorally for. And yet, despite these differences, when I relay a story, where Senator Allen used a word that has some common connotation, yet otoh, has gained some offensiveness in our modern day society, you respond essentially that anyone elses perceptions or sensibilities are meaningless to you, as long as your use is not directed to offend them.

And you are the asshole.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Interesting. I suspect the spark will be in Asia. At least if it happens in the next 20 years. The mix of North Korea, South Korea, China, and Japan seems far more conducive to mass extinction than a bunch of countries that can't seem to get their missiles to hit anything reliably from more than a couple of hundred miles, let along fly much further than that.

That's possible. I think that, with the exception of Kim Jong Il, the Eastern governments are more pragmatic, though. And remember, more things than rockets go boom.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
No one said it wasn't absurd. But that also does not mean that the entire British Muslim community is the functional equivalent of the Taliban (the kindest inference I could draw from Slave's post).

No one ever said that as far as I know. The point was their requests were absurd, and in no way helped the Muslim community in Britain.

Originally posted by Adder
And seriously, stop acting like you expect every Muslim in Britain do nothing but fall on the floor apologizing for their evilness.

I have never asked anyone to apologize. I have been saying it is in their interest to unequivocally denounce the terrorist acts. It would also be helpful if they said they will do whatever they can to help prevent another one without attaching any conditions to their assistance.