About Sweden vs Israel? Page 5
|May 1st, 2006||#41|
| || |
mod edit: if you cannot post your views in a semi respectful manner, do not even bother posting
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
Last edited by Duty Honor Country; May 16th, 2006 at 02:41..
|May 3rd, 2006||#42|
| || |
The Muslim population in france represents about 5% to 10% of the total populous. Thats compared to the 83% to 88% of the Roman Catholics. (CIA).
Headscarf Ban. Look at why the French enforced the headscarf ban. The country has a "passionate commitment to secularism and the republican ideal of separation between church and state"(YaleGlobal). The debate wasn't over the headscarves themselves, but over whether or not they should be allowed to wear a religous symbol, something other religons were not allowed to do. If the French government all of a sudden said that was ok, would the majority (Roman Catholics) not have been upset at the inconsistancy??
I am not denying that France stood up to the Muslims, but they had to in order to avoid a bigger, more imminant problem with Roman Catholics had they not.
Now back to Sweden...
WOW is all I can say. THink about it...we live in probably the most criticized country in the world. Radicals all over the globe publish slanders, lies, convoluted stories about US all the time. If you were to look solely at these things, you would probably draw the wrong impression off of these publications. The US of A is not the only country to have this type of criticism. How far into those sources did you read??
The information drawn from this source is severly questionable. When other topics include "YES THEY'RE NAKED, BUT ARE THEY CHRISTIAN?" (Which makes no sense compared to the topic it addresses) and "MARYSCOTT O'CONNOR IS A FUN DATE", how credible is this source? At the "ME" page it gives nothing other than a picture and his likes and dislikes. I need a little bit more than something that "Jeff" posts on his blog.
Islamic law used by secular Swedish court
This information seems to be drawn from a more, although still questionable source. Ignoring the source, the story he addresses deals with how a divorce case was handled. The man was "an Iranian man living in Sweden. He had married an Iranian woman, but was now reluctant to live with her anymore because of suspected infidelity." The court ruled that the man, according to 'Fjordman', had to pay his ex-wife an "islamic dowry". Okay, click on the link that is the defination of this "dowry". THere is no definition provided for either Islamic "dowry" or "dowry" after searching the page for it.
Dictionary.com: "Money or property brought by a bride to her husband at marriage" Now wait... Fjordman claims its the other way around. So we must look at the court to decided why they made the choice they did.
Surely Sweden is not the only country to have this issue come up. With a little research, a related issue from BBC news comes up. Aina Khan, a lawyer specializing in Islamic law working in london, explains the dowry concept:
"Further, to avoid disputes later on, the wife is given a set financial sum at the time of the marriage, which is written down as a term of the 'Nikah' or marriage contract.
This sum is known as 'Haq Mehr', and is intended to give the wife enough to survive on in the event of divorce or widowhood. Often, a husband refuses to pay the 'Haq Mehr', which we then enforce in English law as a contractual right. "(BBC)
If you sign a contract, you are obligated to meet the terms therein. Marriage is a contract, this is recognized in America, England, Iran, just about every nation on earth. The contracts differ, and the Islamic contract for marriage requires this 'Haq Mehr'. If you are going to marry someone inside islam, the islamic contract is used. Thus, the courts decision was not a use of Islamic law, but enforcement of the Western law regarding contractual agreements.
Ikea manuals sexist, says Norwegian PM
So the argument presented is that the Swedish company IKEA is sexist because "...the Swedish furniture giant is guilty of stereotyping because only men are shown assembling furniture in its instruction booklets."
OMG... talk about political correctness. If that is as sexist it gets in Ikea, women have nothing to worry about. Who cares?? In the article provided, it also suggests that perhaps the Norwegian Prime Minister merely have been "...indulging in Norwegian regional rivalry with its neighbour, often manifesting itself as Sweden-bashing."(Guardian)
Ikea's excuse as to why there are only men on the books sounds like a stretch. In my OPINION, it seems like it was an oversight, and an attempt to save face and maintain "their anti-discriminatory policy". (Guardian)
BTW as far as sexisim in Sweden goes, did you know that there was a man-tax proposed? Yes, thats right. A tax for being a man. Heres the link: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive.../gay100804.htm Granted it is biased, but I found the idea rather comical.
Dont make the mistake of jumping to conclusions off of a few publications, particulary those that are not known for their credibility. One could argue that the Feminist initiative group played a role in Swedens withdrawl from the exercise because other nations had very few women in their militaries. I know that is preposterous, but I was using this assumption to prove a point.
Perhaps Sweden withdrew because of Islamic pressure, or perhaps because of extremist left, or feminist groups, I DONT KNOW. But rather than assume we know why, maybe we should ask them.
Qui tacet consentire.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Nec Aspera Terrent.
Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.
Last edited by Spartacus; May 3rd, 2006 at 20:47..
|May 3rd, 2006||#44|
| || |
Political correctness makes me sick.
Last edited by Duty Honor Country; May 16th, 2006 at 02:42.. Reason: do not double post
|May 5th, 2006||#45|
| || |
Where is the mention of the problem with the Catholics in the article (which they don't have a problem with catholic to begin with). I didn't not see it in the article.
If you really read the article although the ban prohibits all conspicous religious items the main aim was to help forcibly integrate Muslims into French society.
The French ideal of strict separation of church and state has pushed the government to ban this "conspicuous" display of religious identity in state schools. Moreover, some feminists and government officials consider the veil to be a repressive symbol, directed at subjugating women.
You made it seem like the article was saying something totaly different when it wasn't.
It makes me wonder how treat all the other articles that I showed, you substitute your own information based on none of its contents, and simply your own reasoning. Which is at this point looking rather dubious.
Here is more on the headscarf ban to prove my point about France's standing up to Muslim pressure, and also to prove what you are saying is not true:
France Bans Head Scarves In School
The law forbids religious apparel and signs that "conspicuously show" a student's religious affiliation. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses would also be banned, but the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms.
Raffarin insisted the law was needed to contain the spread of Muslim fundamentalism and ensure that the principle of secularism on which France is based remains intact.
Please don't give us a bunch of baloney that this was really about the Catholic problem.
That fact is they stood up and did not give in like the Swedish.
The thing and danger with court rullings are they set a thing called a "precedent" which all law thereafter is based upon.
Most all other countries deal with this kind of thing based on their own law.
The original point was Ikea catering to Muslims.
"We have to take account of cultural factors," was all a spokeswoman would say yesterday.
"In Muslim countries it's problematic to use women in instruction manuals," she added.
That's a quote from the company spokesperson an official representative of the company. So there.
You were misrepresenting them to prove prove your point.
Go ahead, they'll probably give you some official excuse again.
As for me I'm not into eating a platefull of BS like you do.
I've already posted all the sources including those which shows nothing being done about anti-Semetism in Sweden and how the left-wing does support thing anti-Israel and side with the Muslims.
To which you did agree, here I'll quote you...
Hey if you don't believe it then its up to you. You can pretend this stuff doesn't exist due to technicalities or whatever... join the rest of them who turn a blind eye if you want.
Yes there is no bais in Sweden against Israel, suuure theress it has all got a perfectly good explantion to it, sure it does.
Sweden Boycotts Israel, Embraces Hamas
A Swedish official told Israel Radio that Israel was not currently advancing peace and was therefore not fit to take part in the exercise.
Sweden has increasingly led anti-Israel moves in Europe, and the Swedish government has just recently granted visas to members of the Hamas terror group as well. Swedenís Ambassador Robert Rydberg was called to Israelís Foreign Ministry Thursday to explain the move.
So lemme get this straight according to Sweden Israel is not advancing peace, ...and Hamas is?
Isn't that a little biased there, care to explain that?
Last edited by gladius; May 7th, 2006 at 08:49..
|May 15th, 2006||#46|
| || |
The reason given by Foregain affairs minister was that as Isreal is not part of the PfP, there for Sweden will not participate in this PfP exercise. Has nothing todo with Hamas.
This is Göran Perssons response regarding Hamas:
"- Det som Hamas har stått för hittills är inte förenligt med ett demokratiskt statsskick. En palestinsk regering måste ta avstånd från våld och terrorism och erkänna Israels rätt att existera."
What Hamas stands for so far is not connected to a democracy. A palestinian goverment has to take distance from all violance and terrorism and adhere Isreals right to exist. (my translation)
These are the issues Sweden will not back away from, these are the things that must be done before any cooperation with the palestinian government can even be considered. This is what was discuess on the Hamas meeting, making sure they knew these ware the terms. Also hearing what they're thoughts on this was.
Devin, they are holding your life and they will never let go! Come home safe!
Last edited by AlexKall; May 15th, 2006 at 16:09..
|May 18th, 2006||#47|
| || |
Since the subject has been brought up by quotes in messages, etc on this forum and this thread in particular a little known fact: Since the end of WW2 in the US Congress more so called "liberal" Democrats members have served in the military and fought in conflicts than Republicans. In fact today more Democratic members of Congress have served in the military than Republicans. And last today both houses of the US Congress are controlled by the "patriotic" Republicans. Want to guess how many members of that Congress today have a son/daughter or grandson/granddaughter in the US military during what they claim is a time of war just like WW2.
Jack E. Hammond
Note> Also note I sign my full name and my profile lists other items including my age. It says a lot.
|May 18th, 2006||#48|
| || |
"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".
|May 19th, 2006||#49|
| || |
Please understand that the ratio is extremely low compared to the rest of the nation. In fact compared to past wars it is shameful. During WW2, which President Bush and the Republicans are always quoting about President Roosevelt almost all Senators and House Members had sons and grandsons in the military. President Roosevelt had a son with a Marine raider battalion and one of the famous US Army generals of D-Day was the early 1900 President Teddy Roosevelts grandson. If you ever watch news TV of President Bush or powerful Republicans of Congress you never hear them encouraging young people to join the US military -- ie while not spoken many in all parts of the country (ie including US military) are aware that President Bush has two military age daughters.
Jack E. Hammond
|May 19th, 2006||#50|
| || |
I was talking about the ratio of American houselholds with a man/woman in the military and the ratio of Congresspersons's households:
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Letís ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And let us also ignore the fact that some families have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military.