![Image](http://ft.trillian.im/37d415a475cffd8772a5d93e2db822adf3ecd390/6JI51hs1kO39ZYEghioE6KQngWraq.jpg)
Why not celebrate the first American Olympian woman to be genitally mutilated?
The first American Olympian woman to wear a chastity belt!
Yes yes... Female oppression must be celebrated (if it's islamic)!
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
The only "assimilation" happening is one way...that of western civilization submitting to islam.Vander wrote:You want a reformation of islam, but you disdain the promotion of those in the process of assimilating. Curious.
I'm confused here. How can you claim this, after posting an image of a Muslim woman not only competing in an athletic event (which in many cases is seen as contrary to Islamic principles), but a distinctly western one?Nightshade wrote:The only "assimilation" happening is one way...that of western civilization submitting to islam.
http://www.angelfire.com/amiga/anthony_ ... Codes.htmlOrganized religion has used dress in two related ways: to maintain the customs and traditions of the organization, thereby establishing a visual identity for the religion; and to simultaneously control the individual identities of its members by symbolically denoting dress as inneed of control. Religions create dress codes to overtly define morality and modesty while covertly controlling sexuality. Fundamentally, dress codes are less about clothing than about the control of the body by the more powerful church members who enforce their groups' ideologies. Religious dress codes express group identity and simultaneously function as a means of reinforcing male patriarchal control.
Personally, I want more to reform America and assimilate it properly for the international community than Islam. As I said, Islamic aggression is not so dangerous as the infinite stupidity of the West, Islam pretty easy to put into their place, religious fanatics generally pretty easy to manipulate unlike almost unguided and therefore potentially dangerous America.Vander wrote:You want a reformation of islam, but you disdain the promotion of those in the process of assimilating. Curious.
If you've read any of my posts here, you'll probably find I don't disagree.sigma wrote:Personally, I want more to reform America and assimilate it properly for the international community than Islam. As I said, Islamic aggression is not so dangerous as the infinite stupidity of the West, Islam pretty easy to put into their place, religious fanatics generally pretty easy to manipulate unlike almost unguided and therefore potentially dangerous America.
If you've read any of my posts here, I am a thousand times already hinted that the U.S. foreign policy needs to be changed. Otherwise, nothing good this is not over.Vander wrote:There's a whiff of irony in ThunderBunny using feminism to critique a woman's clothing.
If you've read any of my posts here, you'll probably find I don't disagree.sigma wrote:Personally, I want more to reform America and assimilate it properly for the international community than Islam. As I said, Islamic aggression is not so dangerous as the infinite stupidity of the West, Islam pretty easy to put into their place, religious fanatics generally pretty easy to manipulate unlike almost unguided and therefore potentially dangerous America.
I understand your feelings, but and you need to understand me too.Top Gun wrote:[ removed personal attack ]
You may not like sigma's point of view, but since he's a foreigner, he has an outside perspective on what other nations perceive and think about the U.S. Take heed, because some of it is not good.callmeslick wrote:that would seem to be TG's choice, and that of any other person here, Sigma. No one NEEDS to understand your point of view. You offer it, and it either gets assimilated or not.
Frankly I do not care for your point of view. Of course, Russia is always trying to solve issues diplomatically, if this doesn't work, then we will be forced teach you a lesson of conscience and morality. Naturally, it would be better not to bring the situation to such decisions.callmeslick wrote:that would seem to be TG's choice, and that of any other person here, Sigma. No one NEEDS to understand your point of view. You offer it, and it either gets assimilated or not.
Obsessive? Sure. That sh** happened to me when over 3000 (AND COUNTING) Americans have been slaughtered by this vile ideology.callmeslick wrote:wow, you are some kind of sick obsessive. Get out more, play with kids or grandkids, go fishing, anything.
sigma, all Russia has to do is wait patiently for the future economic implosion of the formerly strong U.S.A. Since our corporations have sent all our major manufacturing and it's infrastructure to other countries, and since countries really only innovate where their manufacturing is located, which is now in other countries, we're going to become a third rate pipsqueak on the world power stage because we're no longer the manufacturing and innovating powerhouse we used to be. So mark my words, next time there's some global conflict like WWII, we won't be able to produce enough modern equipment to fight such a war.sigma wrote:TC, in my opinion you do not understand that the past few years, Russia hinders and prevents the possible consequences of a rather dangerous provocations USA. I can even explain why. Do you really want, or you yourself can to guess?
well, for damn sure, that woman could gut you like a duck if she so desired. I don't live in fear. 3000 have died from 'that ideology'? How many hundreds of thousands have died due to 'our' ideology? Your pious selectivity of morals would be amusing, were it not so pathetic.Nightshade wrote: Sick is acting like this reality isn't happening. Sick is apologizing and coddling those that would destroy you.
Who told you that the US has become a weak country? From the point of view of GOP, or whom?tunnelcat wrote:sigma, all Russia has to do is wait patiently for the future economic implosion of the formerly strong U.S.A. Since our corporations have sent all our major manufacturing and it's infrastructure to other countries, and since countries really only innovate where their manufacturing is located, which is now in other countries, we're going to become a third rate pipsqueak on the world power stage because we're no longer the manufacturing and innovating powerhouse we used to be. So mark my words, next time there's some global conflict like WWII, we won't be able to produce enough modern equipment to fight such a war.sigma wrote:TC, in my opinion you do not understand that the past few years, Russia hinders and prevents the possible consequences of a rather dangerous provocations USA. I can even explain why. Do you really want, or you yourself can to guess?
umm, you may wish to get out a bit. Not even far, in your case, as Boeing has manufacturing pretty nearby. The idea that ALL our manufacturing has gone overseas in sheer fabrication. Sure, we lost a lot of textile mills, and raw materials production, but don't let anyone say there is NO manufacturing, as that simply isn't true. Innovation of virtually everything is still centered here, because we have the best higher ed system on the planet. Most every cutting edge technology or other scientific field is located out of some US institution. Where do you come up with some of this stuff?tunnelcat wrote:sigma, all Russia has to do is wait patiently for the future economic implosion of the formerly strong U.S.A. Since our corporations have sent all our major manufacturing and it's infrastructure to other countries, and since countries really only innovate where their manufacturing is located, which is now in other countries, we're going to become a third rate pipsqueak on the world power stage because we're no longer the manufacturing and innovating powerhouse we used to be. So mark my words, next time there's some global conflict like WWII, we won't be able to produce enough modern equipment to fight such a war.
Because it is expensive. For example, I like the real American clothing, but in Moscow it is very expensive. Therefore, I find it easier to buy Turkish counterparts, which is ten times cheaper.callmeslick wrote:https://youtu.be/VTSjIIBEPtc
callmeslick wrote:https://youtu.be/VTSjIIBEPtc
but, it changed forever with the Industrial Revolution, changed more after the excesses of that were tempered by modern policies, then microtech, computer tech and other communication tools rendered the whole model into something completely different. The bottom line is that the premise there is built around the idea that every nation should be self-sufficient in manufacture and that just isn't a practical approach in a global economy, IMO.Spidey wrote:Yea…I don’t know exactly how to break this to you, but manufacturing started long before the industrial revolution.
Funny you should mention Boeing, who's latest aircraft, the 787 Dreamliner, turned into an outsourced nightmare of a mess.callmeslick wrote:umm, you may wish to get out a bit. Not even far, in your case, as Boeing has manufacturing pretty nearby. The idea that ALL our manufacturing has gone overseas in sheer fabrication. Sure, we lost a lot of textile mills, and raw materials production, but don't let anyone say there is NO manufacturing, as that simply isn't true. Innovation of virtually everything is still centered here, because we have the best higher ed system on the planet. Most every cutting edge technology or other scientific field is located out of some US institution. Where do you come up with some of this stuff?tunnelcat wrote:sigma, all Russia has to do is wait patiently for the future economic implosion of the formerly strong U.S.A. Since our corporations have sent all our major manufacturing and it's infrastructure to other countries, and since countries really only innovate where their manufacturing is located, which is now in other countries, we're going to become a third rate pipsqueak on the world power stage because we're no longer the manufacturing and innovating powerhouse we used to be. So mark my words, next time there's some global conflict like WWII, we won't be able to produce enough modern equipment to fight such a war.