**** Admin note: There are multiple sock puppets in this thread. See the admin post and replies below. ****

where's the outrage?

http://conservativetribune.com/video-shows-12-year-old-girl/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=romulus&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-04-22



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2017 11:34AM by Concrete Zipper.

Why? Because she'll have to wear a burka?

It's been explained to me here that burkas are voluntary religious garb on par with a farmers straw hat. They are not a symbol of submission or slavery. It's just another religion. Freedom of religion trumps all. Faith. It's another way to understand the mystery of life. It contains truths. Respect it.

and christians.

Wait! I thought lefties loved Buddhists, herbal teas and yoga, and Jews lived in NYC and were all lefties, since being anarchist commies was now out of style.

This is soooo confusing. :-/

A lot of the polictal support for Moslems in this country comes from Jews.

rug rug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and christians.

To that, all I can say is "you're full of shit."

define "leftie".

Little if any outrage there either.

I assure you that liberals don't care for Islam.

Straw hat? How about straw man?

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's using a distorted version of your opponent's position that is easy to argue against. Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I don't know anyone who would think that an 80 year old man sleeping with a 12 year old is not outrageous.

Who, precisely, on the "left" is defending this? Who is this mysterious group that is not outraged?

Are you claiming that, because a horrible thing is being done by a Muslim, and that there are people who do not condemn every Muslim and all of Islam, that these people are somehow condoning the horrible thing? Do you somehow believe that Islam is monolithic and that all Muslims are the same?

Such logic is more twisted an any pretzel I've ever seen.

Some exmos never gave up their logic-twisting.

Straw? I'm thinking limp noodle.

Ya ever try and stuff a marshmallow into a key hole?

Clitorectomies
Child Marriages
Subserviant Wives
Death to Gay Men
Sharia Law over US Law

All of them.

Where's the Media?

At the Oscors giving Ashton Kutcher a standing O?

The media is on Islam with the same fervor they dug into the Iraq war claims.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2017 08:03PM by thingsithink.

Really????

Is there some way to block these sock puppets and trolls? I understand leaving this up, but we dont need them to continue this indefinitely



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2017 11:30PM by bona dea.

no muslim will ever condemn the practice, neither will any western government, because to do so is retrospectively condemning the muslim prophet since his favourite wife entered his household and his bed when she was just nine. We all know how well muslims take people speaking badly of their 'prophet' - no western politician wants a fatwa issued on them.

Western governments have been pushing the 'girls should be in school' line, rather than the 'it's child abuse and morally repugnant to our culture' line. To tolerate child brides in western countries is to give precedence to sharia over the law of the land that all non muslims live by.

The taking of child brides in muslim majority countries is not our business as we have no right to dictate behaviour in countries other than our own, as they in turn have no right to dictate to us.

Actually her age is disputed

"There’s no excuse for sexual assault or domestic violence. There’s no reason that young girls should suffer genital mutilation. There’s no place in civilized society for the early or forced marriage of children. These traditions may date back centuries; they have no place in the 21st century."
- Barack Obama
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/26/remarks-president-obama-kenyan-people

Or an example of official government policy:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/254904.pdf

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to add one more. Here in the US we do have a problem with underage brides, but it doesn't have much to do with Islam.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2017 12:00AM by tokki.

not read link but am aware of the lower age of marriage in some parts of the south in response to a declining white population in comparison to the rising black population at the time.

That law should have been amended years ago.

Obama's declaration about 'early marriage' is so open to interpretation that it is not a dismissal of the practice of child brides. In islam, men are encourage to marry their daughters off before their first menstruation: too much earlier would be against islam, therefore religiously wrong, but who gets to decide what age is 'too young'? Forced marriages and arranged marriages are two different things that sometimes get confused by we westerners, although all forced marriages are indeed arranged.

With the recent influx of refugees, in some parts of europe immigrant wives of fourteen years or more are allowed to continue to reside with their husbands, as most have children of their own by that age. Younger girls are allegedly to be removed into state juvenile care (or with other relatives, which makes no difference), but proving age is sometimes difficult. In comparison, when romanians first brought their fourteen year old wives to the union countries there were more people condemning the practice and demanding the separation of the girls from their husbands. It is culturally acceptable amongst the roma to take teen brides but people were condemning the practice, whereas today there is more emphasis on 'understanding' the religious (not cultural apparently) practice of the middle eastern, african and asian migrants. Now, protecting the young wife's reputation and place in the family home is more important that protecting a young girl from a life of drudgery.

How times change.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not read link but am aware of the lower age of
> marriage in some parts of the south in response to
> a declining white population in comparison to the
> rising black population at the time.
>
> That law should have been amended years ago.

You should have read it because you got absolutely nothing right about underage marriages in the US. You also should have read the State department document where the US government specifically calls child marriage a violation of human rights. If you're going to criticize something, at least gets your facts right.

In this thread, the original poster "mleo" and the repliers "rug rug" and "amy" are all the same person.

Someone is sock-puppeting to push an agenda. Just so you know.

CZ (admin)

Then why not nix the thread?

An earlier one was nixed because of racist concerns, why doesn't this qualify?

Also, the OP links to a fake news site, with an agenda too obvious to miss.


For the record, I'm not for nixing threads. I get deleted any time I raise issues about American war crimes etc, atrocities many on this board could actually do something about, as opposed to this "over there they are doing bad things" stuff. I don't complain. I believe in a free for all.

But there should be consistency with how things are nixed if there is nixing to be done, no?

Human

Trying a little more transparency in this case. Sometimes it's important to show how some posters attempt to manipulate us.

There are multiple admins and mods, so consistency is difficult to achieve. We try our best.

CZ (admin)

Thank you. Your answer makes perfect sense.

And I agree with your reasoning. I'd rather posters have the chance to reveal themselves as they are, even when it is ugly from some of our points of view, than have such things scrubbed. In this context, I value Poopstone's contributions as well as the contributions of those who voice their disgust, opposition, etc.

Not my board, though. Just my opinion.

And please know I value and appreciate the board and its mods even when I disagree.

Thanks CZ.

Human

Thanks for the heads-up, CZ.

Human, I am still trying to get used to this new-fangled "fake news" thing. It's always something!

http://ktul.com/news/local/north-tulsa-pastor-second-arrested-in-child-porn-investigation
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/hurst-associate-pastor-arrested-on-child-porn-charge/425287026
http://nbc4i.com/2017/04/07/two-toledo-priests-arrested-for-sex-trafficking-children/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/10/pastor-arrested-for-chopping-up-teen-kept-counseling-kids-for-23-years.html
http://people.com/crime/former-florida-high-school-football-coach-and-youth-pastor-charged-with-40-counts-of-child-sex-abuse-may-have-more-victims-police-chief-says/

Where was your outrage?

To be less tongue in cheek about it, I don't think it's fair to assume that the other posters on this board are somehow willing to overlook child sexual abuse just because they don't scream in outrage over every case of victimization. In fact, judging by the recent thread on FGM, I'd be willing to wager that most here would completely support arresting and punishing the man, even the "lefties."

An angel with a sword told him to do it.

For Human; How did you determine that the news site the OP linked to is fake news? I honestly haven't heard of this site before but would like to know what criterion you use to determine fake news.

Hi Felix.

Like Summer, I am pretty new to the idea of "fake news", but in this case it wasn't difficult.

When I encounter a news source I am not familiar with I first go to the "about us" page to learn awho is employed, in what positions, and who owns it. Usually you'll find a list of editors in their various ranks, a list of columnists, and a list of reporters, at the least. You should also find info about who owns it and/or who funds it.

The "about us" page at conervstive tribune has none of this that I could see.

Then I would use google to learn more.


I don't mind that there is a lot of bullshit out there. The mainstream outlets are chock-full of bullshit, spin, propaganda, etc. But I want to know who is paying for it, if it'a a think tank or a media corporation for example, and who works for it etc.

My guess, judging from the content, this stuff is backed by the kind of money that backs the likes of Frank Gafney, Pam Geller etc, or Tarek Fatah in Canada. Etc. Their sole purpose is to created hatred towards Muslims.

Human

Conservativetribute looks like a legitimate news and opinion site with an overt right-of-center viewpoint. I read some articles, and noted that they were forthright in acknowledging that they were working on verification of certain facts and points. I can accept that.

Speaking of child brides and fake news, a couple of years ago* some person(s) in Norway ** introduced "Thea, the 12-Year-Old Child Bride" as a public relations ploy to dramatize the problem of child brides. The blonde, Norwegian girl was not really getting married to a 37-year-old man --it was a transparent hoax-- but it served to dramatize this Islamic practice by presenting in a native Norwegian context.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/thea-norway-child-bride-plan-international_n_5954802.html

*I posted this once before.
**Norway is now regarded as the rape capital of Europe.