Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?

[Bryn Mawr]

librtyhead;1339242 wrote: The fact that there are no Christians chopping off heads, stoning or subjecting women to what amounts to slavery only reinforces my belief that Islam is a not a religion of peace. Why are there not more non-radical forms of Islam bashing the use of force to expand religious motivated hatred and truly evil intent towards others. I believe that even the non-violent forms are somewhat blind to the truth. At least the bible thumpers do not put people to death in the center of town for marrying an un-believer. It is a barbaric primitive religion that would rather keep people un-educated and ignorant than allow them to move forward into the 21st century, and they will never stop. Another Alexander the Great is needed to push these people back into their caves.


Are these the types of caves you mean? All built whilst we were throwing up castles and living in timber houses :-

Attached files

[librtyhead]

Bryn Mawr;1339246 wrote: Are these the types of caves you mean? All built whilst we were throwing up castles and living in timber houses :-


That would do for starters.........to bad they have better care in their host countries, they don't want to go back.

[recovering conservative]

Saint_;1339187 wrote: You're putting the cart before the horse. We didn't invade iraq until they invaded Kuwait.
Aren't you forgetting that little gap of about 12 years? And wasn't the excuse - weapons of mass destruction....and then it was regime change....and then it was 'we have to fight them there or we'll be fighting them over here' or some equivalent bullshit! And now there are millions of Iraqis dead or living in exile -- so where are the war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld?

We didn't invade Afghanistan until they attacked us. If they wanted to be left alone, they might have tried a more peaceful approach to us.
Afghanistan didn't attack America, Al Qaeda guerillas who were welcomed there for because of their service in the guerilla war against the Soviet Occupation, were the ones who planned, financed and launched the 9/11 attacks. And now that the CIA estimates that there are at most - about a 100 Al Qaeda fighters left there, what's the excuse now for an American and Allied occupation......unless it has something to do with the billions of dollars worth of rare minerals, such as Lithium, found in the north east section of the country!

[K.Snyder]

Let's play a hypothetical game...OOOOO these are fun!!!!!

If it's divinely wrong to eat meat do we look down upon our ancestors and condemn them or suggest they did what they had to do to survive?

If the practice is divinely wrong then do we make exceptions for certain groups considering their lack of available food or shall morality trump and we expect them to starve?

Cannibalism might seem unnecessary on the face of things but I doubt anyone has the right to judge anyone until they've faced a situation that appleeared one might meat certain death.

Given the abundance of food in today's society would cannibalism then be accepted since it was practiced in the past and if so would this exception be strictly tolerated only by the group in question? Is survival of the species what's most important or is "morality" better left to individuals to decide to honor?

[recovering conservative]

Saint_;1339190 wrote: Yeah right. What relevance does a murderer, pedophile, robber, thief, and general low-life have to us today who have to deal with an entire culture that worships him as a God on Earth and uses everything he did and said to justify similar actions?
So, are you talking about Muhammed? Or Moses, or perhaps Joshua!

Regardless; let's see if Christians have clean hands when it comes to religiously inspired barbarism:

Villagers, many straight from their farms, and armed with machetes, sticks and axes, are shouting and crowding round in a big group in Kenya's fertile Kisii district.

I can't see clearly what is going on, but heavy smoke is rising from the ground and a horrible stench fills the air.

More people are streaming up the hill, some of them with firewood and maize stalks.

Suddenly an old woman breaks from the crowd, screaming for mercy. Three or four people go after her, beat her and drag her back, pushing her onto - what I can now see - is a raging fire.

Burned alive

I was witnessing a horrific practice which appears to be on the increase in Kenya - the lynching of people accused of being witches.

I personally saw the burning alive of five elderly men and women in Itii village.

As a stranger I felt I had no choice but to stand by and watch. My fear was that if I showed any sign of disapproval, or made any false move, the angry mob could turn on me.

Not one person was protesting or trying to stop the killing.

Hours later, the police came and removed the charred bodies.

Village youths who took part in the killings told me that the five victims had to die because they had bewitched a young boy.

"Of course some people have been burned. But there is proof of witchcraft," said one youth.

He said that a child had spent the night walking around and then was unable to talk the following morning - except to one of the so-called witches.

I asked the youths whether or not people involved in this supposed witchcraft should be punished.

"Yes, they must be punished, every one," said the first youth.

"We are very angry and that's why we end up punishing these people and even killing them."

His friend agreed: "In other communities, there are witches all round but in Kisii we have come up with a new method, we want to kill these people using our own hands."

I later discovered that the young boy who had supposedly been bewitched, was suffering from epilepsy.

His mother had panicked when he had had an attack.

All too common

The village elder was dismissive of my horror, saying that this kind of thing happens all the time in the western district of Kisii.

He told me about Joseph Ondieki, whose mother had been burned to death less than two months earlier.

I found Joseph and his wife Mary Nyaboke tending vegetables in their small shamba, or homestead...........................

As I drove away I passed signs pinned to trees, warning witches that they would be tracked down.

"We know you by your names", someone had typed in bold.

Well, Praise the Lord!!!!

Here's the video of the beating and burning of five elderly in Kisii who were declared to be witches, if you dare watch: Burned at the Stake After Being Accused of Witchcraft

More stories of Nigerian pentecostals persecuting children condemned as witches :

African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

And, ScienceBlog's Ed Brayton posted a story about the American connection to pentecostal witch-hunting crusaders.....which includes one who cast the demons out of Sarah Palin, if you recall that highly entertaining little video from a couple of years back.

What little attention Christian extremist violence in Africa receives in the U.S. has focused more on violence against homosexuals and Christian-inspired laws to execute gays in Uganda, rather than on the burnings and maimings of albinos and suspected witches -- but Pam's House Blend has the important points in one brief article that show the progression of the spread of American Evangelical Pentacostal religion in Uganda, along with calling upon Ugandans to "be martyrs for their faith:"

There's disturbing and sad news out of Uganda today. The severed head of Ugandan LGBT rights activist Pasikali Kashusbe was found in a latrine on a farm in Uganda. Pasikali and his partner Abbey are youth workers with Integrity Uganda, a Ugandan LGBT rights group. The two organized young LGBT people in activities which helped them prepare and face the challenge of homophobia that they encounter living in Uganda................

While details on the suspects and arrests in the case remain vague, the violent and horrific nature of this murder only further highlight the danger of being LGBT in Uganda that goes far deeper than the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill that captured world attention due to its draconian harsh punishments and death penalties for gay Ugandans and their allies. ...............

waymonhudson :: A Call for Violence Answered in Uganda: Gay Activist Found Beheaded

The Call Lou Engle3.JPG-thumb-220x165-11132.jpegEngle has repeatedly encouraged his followers to be martyrs for their faith, calling homosexuality a "spirit of lawlessness" and called for "martyrs" to become "God's Avengers of Blood" to stop the "homosexual agenda" at all cost. Engle's bloody message makes no qualms about violence, including rhetoric like:

The most "dangerous terrorist" is not Islam but God. One of God's names is the avenger of blood. Have you worshipped that God yet?

It is this message that was exported to Uganda in early May. And it is a call that has been answered.

Lou Engle was the latest American Evangelical to go to Uganda. ABC Nightline News has a good piece on the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" Bill and the direct connection to the rabid anti-gay movement in the US. Three evangelicals from the United States - Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, and Don Schmierer - held a three-day conference on homosexuality in Kampala, Uganda, in March 2009. Scott Lively, professional gay-hater, holocaust revisionist, and recognized hate group leader from the US, traveled to Uganda to whip up anti-gay animus in the country. Video of Lively at this conference shows him saying gay people were behind the Nazi holocaust and labeling all gay people as child molesters.

And then there's the good Christian soldiers of the Lord's Resistance Army:



YAMBIO – A surge in rebel attacks in southern Sudan by the Christian extremist Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebels is creating grave concern, a senior UN official said on Friday.

“Many innocent people are losing their lives every week, and the United Nations is very concerned about the killing, abduction, maiming and displacement of innocent civilians,” said Ameerah Haq, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan.

The Ugandan-led LRA began its campaign of brutal guerrilla raids two decades ago, but has launched a fresh wave of attacks terrorising a vast swathe of land across several nations.

The guerrilla group aims to establish a theocratic government in Uganda, based on the Christian Bible and the Ten Commandments.

Their ferocious extremist attacks, with Christian rebels chopping off the limbs and lips of their victims, were often aimed more at the civilians they said they fought for than at the military.

The LRA’s top Christian extremist leaders — fugitives from the International Criminal Court — are accused of having forcibly enlisted child soldiers and sex slaves, and of slaughtering tens of thousands of people.

The radical Christian group is still enslaving children.



Oh COME ON! A child could see the relevance!


See the relevance?

[recovering conservative]

Bryn Mawr;1339246 wrote: Are these the types of caves you mean? All built whilst we were throwing up castles and living in timber houses :-


That reminds me....while I was surfing around and checked in to see what was new at Huffpo, they had this little picture article that will make some heads explode around here:

24 Beautiful Mosques Around The World (Photos)

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1339160 wrote: I tried but I cannot hold a conversation with myself

I guess it's easier to make judgmental statements than to justify them - either that or discussing moral philosophy doesn't get the angry responses Glaswegian appears to aim for.I'm aware of that, my comment was directed at the member I quoted.

[Ahso!]

librtyhead;1339242 wrote: The fact that there are no Christians chopping off heads, stoning or subjecting women to what amounts to slaveryThats mainly due to the fact that its forbidden in this country, however, when they were allowed to get away with it, they certainly did behave barbarically.

librtyhead;1339242 wrote: Why are there not more non-radical forms of Islam bashing the use of force to expand religious motivated hatred and truly evil intent towards others. They probably do disagree with the radical behavior, but FOX doesn't cover that side of the story (to be fair to FOX, really no major American media outlet does) librtyhead;1339242 wrote: I believe that even the non-violent forms are somewhat blind to the truth.Oh. Please explain "the truth" to us all.librtyhead;1339242 wrote: At least the bible thumpers do not put people to death in the center of town for marrying an un-believer.Their history is hanging blacks for marrying whites and burning witches. librtyhead;1339242 wrote: It is a barbaric primitive religion that would rather keep people un-educated and ignorant than allow them to move forward into the 21st century, and they will never stop.I wouldn't worry about this too much, I think we've got Christianity pretty well bottled up at this point.

[Ahso!]

Saint_;1339190 wrote: Yeah right. What relevance does a murderer, pedophile, robber, thief, and general low-life have to us today who have to deal with an entire culture that worships him as a God on Earth and uses everything he did and said to justify similar actions?

Oh COME ON! A child could see the relevance!Geez, I didn't know this thread was about the catholic church.

Unfortunately too many young male children have experienced the relevance far too often.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1339348 wrote: I'm aware of that, my comment was directed at the member I quoted.


I know, so was mine

[Glaswegian]

Bryn Mawr;1338808 wrote: Given that you accept that moral values are subject to change I'd like to examine the implications of that belief.

If moral values can change over time, over a great deal of time they can change a great deal. What is morally acceptable now might well have been considered immoral at some time in the past and what was considered to be moral then might be considered to be unacceptable now. This can be demonstrated over many times and cultures.

An individual's moral code reflects the moral code of the society in which he lives. I'd go further than that, a person's moral code is taught to him by the society in which he grows up. If he is a thinker it can then evolve but moral values change by evolution, not revolution and it will continue to be based on the society's moral code.

Each person believes that his set of moral values is the best set available - by definition, if he believed that a change to the moral code would make it better then his moral code has changed. To continue to use the previous code is to knowingly act in an immoral way under those circumstances.

The moral code of a society evolves as the leading thinkers within that society introduce new ideas. Those ideas are either accepted by the society and become part of the code or not as the case may be.

A person can act according to the precepts of his moral code or he can act outside of it. If he does the former then he is acting in a moral fashion, if the latter then he is acting immorally.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Given the above, I hold that you can use your current moral code to decide whether you think a given society was moral in your eyes and you can use the society's moral code to decide whether an individual acted morally or not.
Very well. I will do what you suggest here - I will use my current moral code to decide whether or not a given society was moral, and I will use the latter’s moral code for the same purpose. The society I will choose for this exercise is that of Ancient Greece. I must also choose something about this society on which to make a moral decision - for example, a particular form of behaviour, or a particular cultural practice, or a particular institution which obtained in it. I choose human slavery.

As you know, slavery was widespread in Ancient Greece. Now, when I use my current moral code to assess this cultural practice I find it morally unacceptable. Therefore, Ancient Greek society was immoral - at least to the extent that it practiced slavery - in my view.

But was this the view of the Ancient Greeks? Did they regard their society as immoral because it practiced slavery? No. For when we use their moral code to assess this practice - that is, when we view it from their moral perspective - slavery was morally acceptable. Needless to say, the slaves in Ancient Greece did not see it this way. They felt moral discontent at their condition of bondage no doubt, and would preferred to have been free. But their moral perspective on this matter did not count. For what counted in Ancient Greece was the moral perspective of the slave-owners. Theirs was the one that held sway.

Bryn Mawr wrote: You, however, want to judge an individual by your moral code with no reference to the moral code that obtained at the time and place in which he lived and I maintain that it is not possible
As you witnessed above, I judged slavery in Ancient Greece using my moral code and I also judged it with reference to the moral code of the slave-owners. According to the former, slavery is morally wrong and according to the latter it is not. So whose moral judgement is correct here - mine or the slave-owners’? Or would you say that adjudication on this matter is not possible since the moral codes from which these different judgements are derived are morally equivalent, that one code is no better than the other regarding slavery?

Bryn Mawr wrote: your moral values are not invariant and the individual was not aware of or acting according to your moral code.
My moral values are certainly not invariant. But whose are? Any individual who claims he has access to moral values that are absolute and invariant is making a claim which cannot be demonstrated to be true. If this individual claims that his moral values have been vouchsafed to him as absolute and invariant by ‘God’ or a ‘Holy Book’ then we have every reason to doubt him. Why? Because since time immemorial countless other individuals have made this same claim - only they have sought to justify it with reference to different ‘Gods’ and different ‘Holy Books’.

When an individual makes a moral judgement he does so from a particular moral perspective, and this is necessarily the case. It is impossible for him to do otherwise. For he does not have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing or anything remotely like it. But this is also the case with societies and cultures: for, like the individual, they too are of a particular time and place, and hence their moral perspectives are necessarily limited as well. Given the fact that the moral perspectives of individuals, societies and cultures are nothing more than this - just perspectives, just particular moral frameworks embraced at a particular time and place - does this mean that all moral perspectives are equivalent, that none are better than others?

If you think that this is the case, Bryn, then your position is one of moral stalemate. For how can you judge any individual, society or culture when the moral perspective that you seek to make this judgement from is no better than any other? Indeed, how can you judge anything outside your own skin? But who knows? - perhaps this state of moral paralysis holds some appeal for you. After all, some people are afraid of making moral judgements and accepting the responsibility that goes with them.

As for me, I hold that some moral perspectives are better than others. Once this decision has been made, moral judgement becomes possible.

[gmc]

posted by glaswegian

As you witnessed above, I judged slavery in Ancient Greece using my moral code and I also judged it with reference to the moral code of the slave-owners. According to the former, slavery is morally wrong and according to the latter it is not. So whose moral judgement is correct here - mine or the slave-owners’? Or would you say that adjudication on this matter is not possible since the moral codes from which these different judgements are derived are morally equivalent, that one code is no better than the other regarding slavery?




Are you so sure? The slaves might themselves have been prepared to be slave owners had circumstances been different. many slaves would have been prisoners of war who in their own lands might have been slave owners in their turn. People could be sold in to slavery to pay off debts a practice that was morally acceptable. In our society we put prison in jail and in some instances make them do work - is that not also a form of slavery when someone's liberty is taken away and they are enslaved to pay a debt to society?

Moral judgement becomes possible but is always subjective. A fundamentalist muslim judges our society degenerate because we allow our women to go around semi naked, and easy divorce has led to the breakdown of the family. there are plenty of people who think the same that aren't muslim.

There are blokes who think a girl somewhat the worse for wear and wearing a skirt is asking for it and it's not rape and our courts share the same view that someone who is raped was somehow responsible for the attack. Others think there is no excuse for rape. That too is a moral judgement. Who has the better moral perspective?.

Many think it acceptable to hit children for their own good. Others think it inexcusable under any circumstances, who has the better moral perspective?

I don't know your view on homosexuality but many find it immoral. That is a moral judgement so which is the better moral perspective? More to the point what makes your perspective better than someone else's? What makes your moral judgement better than someone who has the good lord to guide him or her?

My moral values are certainly not invariant. But whose are? Any individual who claims he has access to moral values that are absolute and invariant is making a claim which cannot be demonstrated to be true. If this individual claims that his moral values have been vouchsafed to him as absolute and invariant by ‘God’ or a ‘Holy Book’ then we have every reason to doubt him. Why? Because since time immemorial countless other individuals have made this same claim - only they have sought to justify it with reference to different ‘Gods’ and different ‘Holy Books’.


When an individual makes a moral judgement he does so from a particular moral perspective, and this is necessarily the case. It is impossible for him to do otherwise. For he does not have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing or anything remotely like it. But this is also the case with societies and cultures: for, like the individual, they too are of a particular time and place, and hence their moral perspectives are necessarily limited as well. Given the fact that the moral perspectives of individuals, societies and cultures are nothing more than this - just perspectives, just particular moral frameworks embraced at a particular time and place - does this mean that all moral perspectives are equivalent, that none are better than others?

If you think that this is the case, Bryn, then your position is one of moral stalemate. For how can you judge any individual, society or culture when the moral perspective that you seek to make this judgement from is no better than any other? Indeed, how can you judge anything outside your own skin? But who knows? - perhaps this state of moral paralysis holds some appeal for you. After all, some people are afraid of making moral judgements and accepting the responsibility that goes with them.


As for me, I hold that some moral perspectives are better than others. Once this decision has been made, moral judgement becomes possible.


Make up your mind will you. It does seem you believe you have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing. Do tell what makes your moral perspective better than others.

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1338925 wrote: Personal survival just appears as species survival because everyone molds their virtue around it, everyone.

What this means is that marrying a 9 year old can and does only exits when the one marrying the 9 year old wishes to fulfill their personal pleasures derived from the either concious or subconcsious desire to survive. Personal greed and equally as sick.
Tell me, K: why do you think Muhammad married six year old Aisha?

Do you think it was because he was impressed by the power of her intellect?

Do you think it was because he wanted her to be his personal spiritual advisor?

Do you think it was because he wanted to have convenient access to her skills as a military strategist?

Or do you think it was because he wanted to fu*k her?

~o0o~


What do you make of the following?…

Sahih Bukhari 9.140

Narrated Aisha:

'Allah's Apostle [i.e., Muhammad] said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"

Do you think this came from Allah? Or do you think it was a dream fuelled by the lust of a dirty old man?

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1339861 wrote: Very well. I will do what you suggest here - I will use my current moral code to decide whether or not a given society was moral, and I will use the latter’s moral code for the same purpose. The society I will choose for this exercise is that of Ancient Greece. I must also choose something about this society on which to make a moral decision - for example, a particular form of behaviour, or a particular cultural practice, or a particular institution which obtained in it. I choose human slavery.

As you know, slavery was widespread in Ancient Greece. Now, when I use my current moral code to assess this cultural practice I find it morally unacceptable. Therefore, Ancient Greek society was immoral - at least to the extent that it practiced slavery - in my view.

But was this the view of the Ancient Greeks? Did they regard their society as immoral because it practiced slavery? No. For when we use their moral code to assess this practice - that is, when we view it from their moral perspective - slavery was morally acceptable. Needless to say, the slaves in Ancient Greece did not see it this way. They felt moral discontent at their condition of bondage no doubt, and would preferred to have been free. But their moral perspective on this matter did not count. For what counted in Ancient Greece was the moral perspective of the slave-owners. Theirs was the one that held sway.



As you witnessed above, I judged slavery in Ancient Greece using my moral code and I also judged it with reference to the moral code of the slave-owners. According to the former, slavery is morally wrong and according to the latter it is not. So whose moral judgement is correct here - mine or the slave-owners’? Or would you say that adjudication on this matter is not possible since the moral codes from which these different judgements are derived are morally equivalent, that one code is no better than the other regarding slavery?



My moral values are certainly not invariant. But whose are? Any individual who claims he has access to moral values that are absolute and invariant is making a claim which cannot be demonstrated to be true. If this individual claims that his moral values have been vouchsafed to him as absolute and invariant by ‘God’ or a ‘Holy Book’ then we have every reason to doubt him. Why? Because since time immemorial countless other individuals have made this same claim - only they have sought to justify it with reference to different ‘Gods’ and different ‘Holy Books’.

When an individual makes a moral judgement he does so from a particular moral perspective, and this is necessarily the case. It is impossible for him to do otherwise. For he does not have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing or anything remotely like it. But this is also the case with societies and cultures: for, like the individual, they too are of a particular time and place, and hence their moral perspectives are necessarily limited as well. Given the fact that the moral perspectives of individuals, societies and cultures are nothing more than this - just perspectives, just particular moral frameworks embraced at a particular time and place - does this mean that all moral perspectives are equivalent, that none are better than others?

If you think that this is the case, Bryn, then your position is one of moral stalemate. For how can you judge any individual, society or culture when the moral perspective that you seek to make this judgement from is no better than any other? Indeed, how can you judge anything outside your own skin? But who knows? - perhaps this state of moral paralysis holds some appeal for you. After all, some people are afraid of making moral judgements and accepting the responsibility that goes with them.

As for me, I hold that some moral perspectives are better than others. Once this decision has been made, moral judgement becomes possible.


I think there is some confusion here - you say you are doing what I suggested but you are not.

The suggestion was, as you have quoted :-

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

Given the above, I hold that you can use your current moral code to decide whether you think a given society was moral in your eyes and you can use the society's moral code to decide whether an individual acted morally or not.


Your second paragraph does the first part of that, you have looked at their culture and found it, in your eyes, wanting but nowhere do you do the second. What you are doing is using your moral code to judge the culture and using their moral code to judge the culture (which, by virtue of the fact that it's their moral code is going to find the culture moral). What I suggested was that you could use your moral code to judge whether, in your eyes, the culture was moral but that you needed to use their moral code to judge whether that actions of any specific individual were moral.

Go back to the example that we were using, the Aztec Priest.

We can easily say that, by current moral standards, their culture was immoral. Now judge the actions of the priest using the moral standards of his day. Were his actions moral? As I see it the answer must be yes, he was acting strictly within the moral code of his society.

By separating perspectives in this way it is possible to come to a judgement on both the moral state of a culture and the moral state of an individual - no moral paralysis at all but reasoned moral judgement based on the fact that moral values are not invariant.

I say again, if moral values are not invariant then you cannot judge the actions of an individual by your own moral standards, you must use the moral standards that the individual was living with.

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1339927 wrote: Tell me, K: why do you think Muhammad married six year old Aisha?

Do you think it was because he was impressed by the power of her intellect?

Do you think it was because he wanted her to be his personal spiritual advisor?

Do you think it was because he wanted to have convenient access to her skills as a military strategist?

Or do you think it was because he wanted to fu*k her?

~o0o~


What do you make of the following?…

Sahih Bukhari 9.140

Narrated Aisha:

'Allah's Apostle [i.e., Muhammad] said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"

Do you think this came from Allah? Or do you think it was a dream fuelled by the lust of a dirty old man?


If you look through history you will find that most such marriages were made for political or diplomatic reasons, not through lust. If you're going to provide a list of possible causes then it's as well to provide a complete list or people might think you biassed.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1339927 wrote: Tell me, K: why do you think Muhammad married six year old Aisha?

Do you think it was because he was impressed by the power of her intellect?

Do you think it was because he wanted her to be his personal spiritual advisor?

Do you think it was because he wanted to have convenient access to her skills as a military strategist?

Or do you think it was because he wanted to fu*k her?

~o0o~


What do you make of the following?…

Sahih Bukhari 9.140

Narrated Aisha:

'Allah's Apostle [i.e., Muhammad] said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"

Do you think this came from Allah? Or do you think it was a dream fuelled by the lust of a dirty old man?
Bryn Mawr wrote: If you look through history you will find that most such marriages were made for political or diplomatic reasons, not through lust.
In that case let me ask you this:

When fifty-four year old Muhammad slept with nine year old Aisha do you think he was motivated by lust to do this?

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1339948 wrote: In that case let me ask you this:

When fifty-four year old Muhammad slept with nine year old Aisha do you think he was motivated by lust to do this?


I have no idea, I have seen nothing that would give me any information on the subject - what was being discussed, and what I replied to, was what was the motive for the marriage and your list of possible reasons for that was very one-sided and incomplete.

[gmc]

posted bt glaswegian

As for me, I hold that some moral perspectives are better than others. Once this decision has been made, moral judgement becomes possible.


posted by me

Make up your mind will you. It does seem you believe you have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing. Do tell what makes your moral perspective better than others.


Come on glaswegian your ranting is doing my head in. Answer the question.

[recovering conservative]

Glaswegian;1339861 wrote:

When an individual makes a moral judgement he does so from a particular moral perspective, and this is necessarily the case. It is impossible for him to do otherwise. For he does not have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing or anything remotely like it. But this is also the case with societies and cultures: for, like the individual, they too are of a particular time and place, and hence their moral perspectives are necessarily limited as well. Given the fact that the moral perspectives of individuals, societies and cultures are nothing more than this - just perspectives, just particular moral frameworks embraced at a particular time and place - does this mean that all moral perspectives are equivalent, that none are better than others?
No it doesn't! I finally got around to cutting through the clutter here and isolating your argument that all ethics are subjective and relative. All that writing is based on a faulty premise....the same one that religious fundamentalist conservatives keep hammering away at -- that we have two choices 1. a transcendent system of morality and ethics given to us from a divine outside source, or 2. subjective, man-made ethics, where everyone decides what's right and wrong, based on their own personal desires and prejudices.

The problem here is that there is a third choice: Objective ethics -- which are not transcendent and separate from human experience; but instead are part of a collective process of how a community of people decide what's right and what's wrong. Objective ethics can be formulated around the basic Utilitarian principles of doing what maximizes good, and minimizes the harms to the greatest number of people. The actual laws can vary over time depending on circumstances, but the underlying principles can still act as a guide for deciding on the rules.

You mentioned previously that slavery was a universally accepted practice until recent times. But, you didn't include the reasons why slavery was considered acceptable. First, the concept of universal suffrage has only been with us for a couple of centuries at most! In days past, outsiders were considered less than people within the group...whether it be the nation or tribe. For centuries, darker skinned races were considered inferior by Europeans, so modern arguments about personal rights and freedoms were not even considered. It's not that what was ethical had changed; what changed was the concept of who the rules apply to. After it became generally accepted that rights and freedoms should apply to everyone, religious doctrines supporting slavery had to be reinterpreted by everyone....including the fundamentalists!

[xyz]

Glaswegian;1331950 wrote: Muhammad, the founder of Islam, took Aisha as his bride when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
That should read:

Muhammad, bloody murderer, the founder of Islam, took Aisha as his bride when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Let's get a sense of perspective, please.

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;1340160 wrote: That should read:

Muhammad, bloody murderer, the founder of Islam, took Aisha as his bride when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Let's get a sense of perspective, please.


I wish we could - do you have any opinion on the questions of morality that have been raised in this thread or do you just wish to spout your predudice wherever you post?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1339923 wrote: Moral judgement becomes possible but is always subjective.
I agree.

You and I are on the same track. The reason why this isn’t obvious to you is because we are using different terms with which to orient ourselves. So bear with me while I try to set out my position more clearly.

You said above that moral judgement is always subjective. Yes it is. And this is what I asserted when I wrote the following words:

‘When an individual makes a moral judgement he does so from a particular [i.e., subjective] moral perspective, and this is necessarily the case. It is impossible for him to do otherwise. For he does not have access to a moral perspective which is absolute, invariant, eternal and all-encompassing [i.e., an objective one] or anything remotely like it. But this is also the case with societies and cultures: for, like the individual, they too are of a particular time and place, and hence their moral perspectives are necessarily limited as well.’

What I am saying here is this: all moral judgements are necessarily subjective - whether they are made at an individual, societal or cultural level. And the reason for this is because we, as human beings, do not have access to a moral code which is objective, final, and complete, and agreed upon by all. We can find no such code wherever we look - either ‘out there’ or within ourselves, neither in the heavens nor in our hearts. It simply does not exist for us. Consequently, we cannot help but make moral judgements which are subjective. We are condemned to make them.

Given the fact that all moral judgements are subjective - does this mean that one moral judgement is as good as the next, that no moral judgement is better than another? This seems to be the case, doesn’t it? For there is no objective moral code that we can use to measure moral judgements against in order to see how far they depart from this code or stick by it.

So what do we human beings do faced with this situation where we don’t have an objective moral code to our name - no objective moral yardstick whatsoever with which to measure moral judgements and decide between them? What we do is this: we use something else for this purpose, some other mode of measurement, and this mode of measurement happens to be ourselves. Thus, what determines the rightness or wrongness or goodness or badness of moral judgements in our eyes is how they impact on us: that is, when these moral judgements are put into effect we assess them in the light of whether they increase our suffering or reduce it, whether they make us nicer human beings or worse ones…whether they lead us closer to the death camp or further away from it, and so on.

Let me illustrate what I’ve just said with an example.

During the Second World War, the Swedish diplomat - Raoul Wallenberg - saved many thousands of Jews from being exterminated by issuing them with ‘Swedish Protective Passports’ which placed them under the protective custody of his government. Why did he do this? Because Wallenberg judged the lives of these Jews to be of value and worth saving. During this same period, the Final Solution adept - Adolf Eichmann - sent many thousands of Jews to their deaths in concentration camps. Why did he do this? Because Eichmann judged the lives of these Jews to be worthless and fit only for slaughter.

These two judgements - Wallenberg’s and Eichmann’s - were subjective, and derived from moral codes that were just as subjective. Does the fact of their subjectivity mean that each judgement possesses the same moral value as the other, and that it is impossible to decide between them? For example, is Eichmann’s judgement about the Jews every bit as commendable and praiseworthy as Wallenberg’s? Are they simply on a moral par with each other? In order to decide whether one of these judgements is better than the other, it is necessary to look at what each of them amounted to in practice - to look at how they impacted on the lives of thousands of Jews in this case. When this is done the consensus among rational and civilized people is that Wallenberg’s judgement about the Jews is the better one.

It is this process - of looking at the consequences of moral judgements, of looking at what happens when they are put into practice - which allows us to assess them. And not only moral judgements - the moral codes which give rise to them as well.

This is why it is possible to hold - as I do - that some moral codes are better than others.

This is why your moral code, for example, is better than Eichmann's.

Do you agree?

Or are you into genocide when you aren't playing the flute?

[gmc]

posted by glaswegian

These two judgements - Wallenberg’s and Eichmann’s - were subjective, and derived from moral codes that were just as subjective. Does the fact of their subjectivity mean that each judgement possesses the same moral value as the other, and that it is impossible to decide between them? For example, is Eichmann’s judgement about the Jews every bit as commendable and praiseworthy as Wallenberg’s? Are they simply on a moral par with each other? In order to decide whether one of these judgements is better than the other, it is necessary to look at what each of them amounted to in practice - to look at how they impacted on the lives of thousands of Jews in this case. When this is done the consensus among rational and civilized people is that Wallenberg’s judgement about the Jews is the better one.


Arguably the moral codes of both have the same origin, namely judeo christian, so presumably you can argue eichmann has chosen to disregard it which is not a line of argument I would use. That same moral code is also the basis for the justification of treating the jews as less than human, there are plenty who thought the jews got what they deserved and it didn't matter until the full horror of it all became known. That same moral code was the justification for enslaving the black man even if he was a christian. You can argue that they were all perversions of that moral code.



Does the fact of their subjectivity mean that each judgement possesses the same moral value as the other, and that it is impossible to decide between them?


It is this process - of looking at the consequences of moral judgements, of looking at what happens when they are put into practice - which allows us to assess them. And not only moral judgements - the moral codes which give rise to them as well.




This is why your moral code, for example, is better than Eichmann's.

Do you agree?

Or are you into genocide when you aren't playing the flute?


If the nazis had won they would have been proved right and their extermination of the sub species vindicated.

This is why it is possible to hold - as I do - that some moral codes are better than others.


It's a moot point you can argue till the cows come home without coming to any conclusion. You can hold that view if the moral code happens to be the one you agree with. I do happen to think some moral codes are better than others but my view is entirely subjective. Take the attitude to homosexuality, to many religious people it is morally wrong I take the view that It has no appeal but accept to some it is part of who they are. Some people object to abortion on moral grounds, if they also object to the free availability of contraception I think that hypocritical. I consider it wrong in some circumstances but think it a decision the woman has to make for herself. Some would say I lack a proper sense of what is moral.

I get pissed off with the unco guid and others who try and shove theirs down my throat. All you can do is come to an ever changing consensus through constant discussion about what is morally acceptable or not. Some moral codes may be better than others but that will always be personal opinion, there is no and can never be any objective viewpoint. Just be ready to fight your corner.

Bomber harris famously said of Dresden

We've been accused of murder. What would we have been accused of had we let Hitler and *his* bloody gang win the bloody war? As for Dresden, it's simple, any psychiatrist can explain it: it's all to do with German brass bands and Dresden shepherdesses! All I can say is that all the German towns *put together* aren't worth the bones of a British grenadier!


I doubt that at the time there were many in Britain who would have thought that morally reprehensible. At least not amongst those who had relatives fighting or who had been bombed out of their homes. Much criticised Bomber harris had also seen the horrors of trench warfare in ww1, he took the view it was better to bomb the enemy and destroy them that way rather than have that horror again inflicted on his countrymen. That's a moral stance

I knew one bloke who was in the tank corps, in the middle east and beyond D day. He was with those who relieved Belsen. They were using dozers to bury the dead and he saw some of the german guards who were being used in the task get caught up in front of the moving earth in front of one of them, obviously the driver couldn't see. I remember his words, "I saw british soldiers do something I never thought I would see, they turned their backs and let them be buried alive." When asked what he thought he said having seen what the bastards had been doing I didn't give a **** either. He too had a strict moral code but adapted to circumstances.

Morality is a moving buffet table, to think one choice is morally better than another mistakes the nature of the feast. All you can do is make your own choices and stick with them.

[recovering conservative]

What I am saying here is this: all moral judgements are necessarily subjective - whether they are made at an individual, societal or cultural level. And the reason for this is because we, as human beings, do not have access to a moral code which is objective, final, and complete, and agreed upon by all. We can find no such code wherever we look - either ‘out there’ or within ourselves, neither in the heavens nor in our hearts. It simply does not exist for us. Consequently, we cannot help but make moral judgements which are subjective. We are condemned to make them.


No they are not necessarily subjective! If you can get it through thick head before you do any more damage, moral judgments can be scrutinized and evaluated by others. That makes a process of objective morality possible and necessary.

It is this process - of looking at the consequences of moral judgements, of looking at what happens when they are put into practice - which allows us to assess them. And not only moral judgements - the moral codes which give rise to them as well.


You are talking about establishing a consequentialist system of ethics. It's not like we don't have precendents already for what might work and what won't. Your example of Eichmann's and Raoul Wallenberg's moral judgments being equally valid is ridiculous; they did not have to wait for results to evaluate the utility of both. On the modern universally accepted and objective presumption of universal suffrage (which Eichmann and the Nazis did not accept) his planned course of action was a mass scale violation of fundamental freedoms and the right to life of his victims, and no one had to wait for the gas chamber experiment to evaluate who's morality was better!

In this scenario, we are still waiting, after 23 pages for you to explain how arranged marriages to child brides that inspired you to vilify all Muslims with this thread -- and that was widely practiced on the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century, relates to modern Muslims who do not accept this practice in the West, and even in places where arranged marriages are still practiced (such as Yemen), men have been prosecuted for having sex with their underaged brides. If your conspiracy theory that all Muslim men have scriptural authority to be pedophiles was a legitimate argument -- there would be no men prosecuted in Muslim countries for this! Your thread is nothing more than a 23 page smear campaign to gin up fear and hatred against the group that fascists and neofascists want to use as their favourite scapegoat.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian wrote: This is why it is possible to hold - as I do - that some moral codes are better than others.
gmc;1340189 wrote: It's a moot point you can argue till the cows come home without coming to any conclusion. You can hold that view if the moral code happens to be the one you agree with. I do happen to think some moral codes are better than others but my view is entirely subjective.
Your view of moral codes cannot be anything other than subjective, gmc. And nor can anyone else’s. But this does not stop you, me and other individuals from embracing a particular moral code - subjective as it is - and making moral judgements on the basis of it. And this is always done in the belief that the moral code which we embrace is the one most deserving of our allegiance, the right one, the best among alternatives. Otherwise we would not embrace it.

Surely you would agree that there are some moral codes that are worse than others - ones that are so patently awful and pernicious that the world would be a far better place without them. Here is one which I think fits into this category very easily:

Sharia Law

As you know, in many Muslim societies there is a growing demand by Islamists for these societies to be made more Islamic through the implementation of Sharia Law based on the Koran and the life and utterances of Muhammad. This development has been generally greeted with dismay and alarm by Westerners because they regard Sharia as an outdated and barbaric system of law. Many of the punishments meted out under Sharia are in blatant conflict with various codes of conduct stipulated in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. For example, the Sharia penalties of hand amputation for theft, flogging for adultery, and execution for apostasy are clear violations of a number of UDHR articles.

But it is not only Westerners who regard Koranic-based Sharia as a primitive moral code that is unsuited for the modern world. For instance, the eminent Muslim lawyer, Faruq Sherif, has written:

‘Nearly all the penal provisions contained in the Koran reflect the social conditions which were characteristic of the Arabian tribes fourteen centuries ago, and to treat them as binding today would in many cases be a lamentable anachronism. An outstanding example is the law of talion. To maintain, in legislating today, that commandments laid down fourteen centuries ago are invariable and binding for all time is to defy the primordial law of evolution…All aspects of life on earth are necessarily subject to change, and no enlightened community would legislate on a contrary principle.‘ From A Guide To The Contents Of The Koran (1985)

In my judgement, the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights is a far more humane and enlightened moral code than Sharia Law, and therefore a better one. What is your judgement on this? - subjective as it is.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1339927 wrote: Tell me, K: why do you think Muhammad married six year old Aisha?

Do you think it was because he was impressed by the power of her intellect?

Do you think it was because he wanted her to be his personal spiritual advisor?

Do you think it was because he wanted to have convenient access to her skills as a military strategist?

Or do you think it was because he wanted to fu*k her?

~o0o~


What do you make of the following?…

Sahih Bukhari 9.140

Narrated Aisha:

'Allah's Apostle [i.e., Muhammad] said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and

I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"

Do you think this came from Allah? Or do you think it was a dream fuelled by the lust of a dirty old man?You have it backwards, the parents of the child wanted their daughter to marry him, he obviously obliged.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1339927 wrote: Tell me, K: why do you think Muhammad married six year old Aisha?

Do you think it was because he was impressed by the power of her intellect?

Do you think it was because he wanted her to be his personal spiritual advisor?

Do you think it was because he wanted to have convenient access to her skills as a military strategist?

Or do you think it was because he wanted to fu*k her?

~o0o~


What do you make of the following?…

Sahih Bukhari 9.140

Narrated Aisha:

'Allah's Apostle [i.e., Muhammad] said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"

Do you think this came from Allah? Or do you think it was a dream fuelled by the lust of a dirty old man?
K.Snyder wrote: You have it backwards, the parents of the child wanted their daughter to marry him, he obviously obliged.


No.

I do not have it backwards, K.

It was not Aisha’s parents who wanted their daughter to marry Muhammad. The opposite is the case. It was Muhammad who wanted to marry Aisha - as the following hadith makes very clear:

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated Ursa:

'The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said, "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she [Aisha] is lawful for me to marry."'

It is also very clear from the above hadith that Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, felt some reluctance about this marriage.

[Glaswegian]

MUHAMMAD AND AISHA

A Modern Day Analogy



MUHAMMAD (1933 AD)




This uncivilized and murderous brute lusted after a female who was much younger and smaller than himself

~o0o~


AISHA (1933 AD)




This female was forced to suffer the attentions of an illiterate and bestial male who was much older and larger than herself

~o0o~

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian wrote: ‘A culture that celebrates femininity and considers women to be the masters of their own lives is better than a culture that mutilates girls’ genitals and confines them behind walls and veils or flogs or stones them for falling in love.’ - Excerpted from Nomad: A Personal Journey Through The Clash Of Civilizations by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

If you take your head out of your bum, rc, then you will see it. It is the one which surrounds you - the culture of the West.
recovering conservative;1338912 wrote: More bullshit propaganda from you! But I guess I can expect this since you butchered my quotes and ignored my objections. If you won't respond to legitimate objections to paid Neocon propagandists, I'm not going to be steered into your simple-minded and simplistic portrayal of world affairs as "culture that celebrates femininity" vs. culture that mutilates girls' genitals!"
When Ayaan Hirsi Ali criticises the oppression of females under Islam why does this cause you to get your knickers in a twist, rc? Why do you take great offence at these criticisms and pretend to yourself that they are just ‘Neocon propaganda’? For you know very well that Hirsi Ali’s criticisms are supported by a vast body of evidence. The following is an example of such evidence - evidence which clearly shows that Hirsi Ali’s criticisms of Islamic oppression of females are not propaganda at all, but are firmly grounded in reality.

The Global Gender Gap Report (2010)

On the 12th October 2010, the World Economic Forum published its Global Gender Gap Report which ranked 134 countries around the world according to the degree to which they have succeeded in closing gaps between women and men in four key areas:

(1) Economic Participation and Opportunity

(2) Educational Attainment

(3) Political Empowerment

(4) Health and Survival

What this report found is that the vast majority of the worst-scoring countries in these areas of gender inequality are Islamic, with no less than seventeen of them being ranked among the 20 countries at the bottom of the gender gap scale: viz., Lebanon (placed at 116), Qatar (117), Nigeria (118), Algeria (119), Jordan (120), Oman (122), Iran (123), Syria (124), Egypt (125), Turkey (126), Morocco (127), Benin (128), Saudi Arabia (129), Mali (131), Pakistan (132), Chad (133) and Yemen (134).

~o0o~


How would you account for the findings of this report? Are these findings just ‘Neocon propaganda’? Or are they indicative of something real - something that is actually experienced by females in the Islamic world?

This report comes as no surprise to rational persons who are capable of being honest with themselves. For it is only one amongst numerous other reports which unanimously point to the same thing time and time again: namely, that the oppression and inequalities suffered by females under Islam far surpass anything generally experienced by their sisters in the West. Now, imagine if the countries of, say, Western Europe were ranked at the bottom of the gender gap scale. That really would be surprising, wouldn’t it? This fact speaks volumes - and makes your dishonesty on this matter glaringly obvious.

The Global Gender Gap Report (2010) can be accessed here: World Economic Forum - Gender Gap Report

recovering conservative wrote: You think you're a real man because you proclaim your hatred of 1.5 billion Muslims anonymously from a discussion forum!
I have not proclaimed hatred of 1.5 billion Muslims - neither in this forum nor anywhere else. I haven’t the time, energy or inclination to hate 1.5 billion Muslims. I am too busy hating the haemorrhoid which will take up residency in my arse in about thirty years from now to embark on the task of hating 1.5 billion Muslims.

On the subject of race hatred…

Glaswegian wrote: In many Islamic communities, the pernicious doctrine that the Jews are the chief enemy and conspirators against Islam is systematically inculcated in Muslims. In her book Nomad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes her own experience of being subjected to this anti-Semitic brainwashing, and of espousing it mindlessly.


In Nomad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes the anti-Semitic brainwashing of Muslims in some detail and claims that this phenomenon is widespread in the Islamic world. Is she justified in making this claim? Or is this claim also nothing more than ‘Neocon propaganda’ in your view?

[gmc]

posted by glaswegian

Surely you would agree that there are some moral codes that are worse than others - ones that are so patently awful and pernicious that the world would be a far better place without them. Here is one which I think fits into this category very easily:


Yes I would but my viewpoint is entirely subjective. I will not tolerate someone shoving their moral code at me and demanding I comply, by the same token what I will not do is indulge in a crusade to ram my moral code down anybody else's throat and demand they comply by it. We live together by consensus and agree the rules we wish to live by and the laws we wish to make to settle disputes are intended to avoid conflict. They are also primarily aimed at curbing the power of those in authority to do as they wish.

When you have two groups that believe their moral code is the best they either find a compromise or go to war over it. In arguing that some moral codes are in themselves better than others you will find every fundamentalist on the planet will agree with you on that basic point but start an argument over which one is best and since to them there is no argument because it comes from god you end up in conflict with them. You think yours is better so there is no room for compromise either. Two pig headed people butting heads.

You can't claim to be morally superior and also condemn those who claim the same. Your argument is pointless. This is what I believe and I will fight for it is a better one. at least it's honest. There is no objective standard you can apply, moral codes change with the times. Ghengis Khan was a warlord who believed what you can take you can keep, he also introduced the rule of law and united a disparate people. If you were one of those who was subjugated maybe you wouldn't see him as a very moral person, but he was. So was Hitler, by his own lights at least, so were the bomber pilots that fire-bombed civilians in german cities and so were the pilots that dropped nuclear bombs on Japan and so are the talibam fighters placing IED's.

Would you like me to post links to areas and times when islam has been an enlightened religion and those living under it prospered even if not muslim? If I post links to all the with trials aimed at women and their treatment at the hands of Christians would that balance things out for you? The most recent examples of attempted genocide have been inflicted by christians on muslims

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Box 16.3: Gender and genocide in the Bosnian War, 1992-5

Female civilians among the Bosniak Muslims and some other groups were subjected to a different kind of treatment. From an early stage, accounts emerged of women being raped as part of a systematic tactical pattern which included the phenomenon of rape camps where women were subjected to multiple rape, often with the intention of impregnating them with 'Serb' babies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grbavica_(film)). This came to be seen as part of the wider pattern of genocide, and was also practiced during the Serb campaigns against Croatia and Kosovo. In 1995, a charge of rape was brought in the ICTY, the first time ever that a sexual assault case had ever been prosecuted as a war crime by itself, and not as part of a larger case. The estimates of the number of women raped during the war run as high as 50,000.

The slaughter of men and boys on the one hand, and the systematic rape of women on the other, during this war, illustrate gendered aspects of warfare resulting in the most extreme forms of group violence. In recent years, rape in war (which can also be perpetrated against men as an attack on their masculinity, although it is much less common) has achieved much greater prominence as an issue in the narration of war histories generally. Previously the crime of rape had been the 'hidden atrocity' of warfare; few people, for example, knew that an estimated 2 million German women had been raped by members of the Soviet Army at the end of World War II, or that about 200,000 Bangladeshi women had been subjected to a similar ordeal during their country's war of liberation against Pakistan in 1971 (for a discussion see War rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It has been alleged that American soldiers in Vietnam used the same tactic to undermine the morale of their enemies (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yXxvKtnEY). (Warning: the content of this video may be upsetting for some.)




]The atrocities during the war in the former Yugoslavia were probably the most shocking because the results of this conflict were reported in detail almost as they were happening. Thus it quickly became known in the West that adult men and boys were being separated from women before being shot by the Serbs; it took little imagination to guess what was happening to many of the women. The idea that women were being held in rape camps seemed to be an extension of the crazed 'logic' of the ethnic cleansing which was clearly a central element of the Serbian strategy. The sudden realization that rape was a key weapon of war probably ensured more publicity for cases in other continents, like the civil war in Rwanda in 1994 (for details see Wave of Rape Adds New Horror To Rwanda's Trail of Brutality - NYTimes.com)]


And what did the moral west do? nothing. Quiite frankly you can take your argument that some moral codes are better than others and some so pernicious and awful we could do without them and shove it. It's a nonsensical argument and also one that has been used to justify every kind of atrocity since time began. If you believe you are morally superior to everybody else that is your prerogative. I too believe I have good moral values. But that is your opinion just as it is mine. no more no less.

[CinnamonBear]

Glaswegian;1340879 wrote:

I have not proclaimed hatred of 1.5 billion Muslims - neither in this forum nor anywhere else. I haven’t the time, energy or inclination to hate 1.5 billion Muslims. I am too busy hating the haemorrhoid which will take up residency in my arse in about thirty years from now to embark on the task of hating 1.5 billion Muslims.




OMGosh!! I just fell out laughing!! :yh_rotfl:wah::yh_rotfl

[Bryn Mawr]

CinnamonBear;1341150 wrote: OMGosh!! I just fell out laughing!! :yh_rotfl:wah::yh_rotfl


True

I must admit though, I hadn't realised he was so young :wah: