The growing mess that is Iraq

[Hermann]

ISIS is brutal and there's no excusing their behaviour.

No, there is not, as I pointed out in my post.

I just said that, if I were faced with the choice convert or die, I would convert rather than die.

If they try to spread their religion by fire and sword, the way Islam was originally spread in the 6th or 7th century, then you are a fellow Muslim once you convert, and enjoy their protection.

But then the US Airforce might kill you.

 

[Ritafee]

@Kimmio ..."I don't think it's that simple Hermann, especially for women who are being, not only forced to be fully covered"

The veil, in other words, might be oppressive—but so are unrealistic beauty standards.

A team of psychologists, led by Malaysian-born British psychologist Viren Swami at the UK’s University of Westminster, interviewed 587 Muslim women in London, 369 of whom regularly wore some sort of hijab. Their ages ranged from 18 to 70; the mean age was 27. The majority—about 79 percent—were unmarried, and they represented several ethnic groups—Bengali, Pakistani, Indian, and Arab. More than three-quarters held an undergraduate degree.
Swami and his team gave the women several tests to measure their attitudes toward their bodies—and the women who wore Western dress scored higher on every scale of body dissatisfaction. When subjects were asked to look at several sketches of women’s bodies and pick the one they would most like to have, the choices of the women who wore the hijab more closely resembled the bodies they actually possessed. On a measure of “drive for thinness”—determined by answers to questions about preoccupation with body weight, fear of becoming fat, and excessive concern with dieting—women who didn’t wear the hijab scored, on average, 3.58 out of 6 points, compared to 2.87 for women who cover up. Women who wore Western dress also registered a higher degree of “social physique anxiety,” or concern with how others perceived their physical appearance: 3.26, versus 2.92, on the 6-point scale.

Women in Western dress were also more likely to deem various forms of media an “important source of information about being attractive.” And they scored higher on a measure of the degree to which they accepted as normalunrealistic ideals of beauty (3.09 versus 2.43). Women in hijabs also spent less time engaging in “appearance-management behaviors,” and ranked their own appearance as less important than did women who wore Western clothes.

The researchers concluded that it wasn’t just the womens' faith that was making them less susceptible to idealized depictions of beauty. “It might thus be concluded that use of the hijab offers Muslim women a small protective effect in terms of their body image … the use of the hijab may act as a buffer against negative body image,” write the authors. The veil, in other words, might be oppressive—but so are unrealistic beauty standards.

 

[Ritafee]

@Kimmio "but forcibly married off "
Marriage in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Government of Canada has exclusive authority governing marriage and divorce in Canada under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867

@Kimmio "and raped by these guys"
Sexual Assault Statistics in Canada
A Numerical Representation of the Truth

• Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only 6 are reported to the police
• 1 - 2% of "date rape" sexual assaults are reported to the police
• 1 in 4 North American women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime
• 11% of women have physical injury resulting for sexual assault
• Only 2 - 4% of all sexual assaults reported are false reports
• 60% of sexual abuse/assault victims are under the age of 17
• over 80% of sex crime victims are women
• 80% of sexual assault incidents occur in the home
• 17% of girls under 16 have experienced some form of incest
• 83% of disabled women will be sexual assaulted during their lifetime
• 15% of sexual assault victims are boys under 16
• half of all sexual offenders are married or in long term relationships
• 57% of aboriginal women have been sexually abused
• 1/5th of all sexual assaults involve a weapon of some sort
• 80% of assailants are friends and family of the victim

The above noted statistics have been taken from various studies across Canada. While the numbers can never been 100% accurate, a few key generalizations can made:

1. sexual assault is far more common than most would suspect
2. relatively few incidents of sexual assault are reported to the police
3. young and otherwise vulnerable women are most likely to be sexually abused
4. most sexual assaults are committed by someone close to the victim, not a stranger

Please see of Myths vs. Facts page for more info about common misperceptions regarding sexual assault and child sexual abuse.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Kimmio "but forcibly married off "
Marriage in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Government of Canada has exclusive authority governing marriage and divorce in Canada under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867

@Kimmio "and raped by these guys"
Sexual Assault Statistics in Canada
A Numerical Representation of the Truth

• Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only 6 are reported to the police
• 1 - 2% of "date rape" sexual assaults are reported to the police
• 1 in 4 North American women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime
• 11% of women have physical injury resulting for sexual assault
• Only 2 - 4% of all sexual assaults reported are false reports
• 60% of sexual abuse/assault victims are under the age of 17
• over 80% of sex crime victims are women
• 80% of sexual assault incidents occur in the home
• 17% of girls under 16 have experienced some form of incest
• 83% of disabled women will be sexual assaulted during their lifetime
• 15% of sexual assault victims are boys under 16
• half of all sexual offenders are married or in long term relationships
• 57% of aboriginal women have been sexually abused
• 1/5th of all sexual assaults involve a weapon of some sort
• 80% of assailants are friends and family of the victim

The above noted statistics have been taken from various studies across Canada. While the numbers can never been 100% accurate, a few key generalizations can made:

1. sexual assault is far more common than most would suspect
2. relatively few incidents of sexual assault are reported to the police
3. young and otherwise vulnerable women are most likely to be sexually abused
4. most sexual assaults are committed by someone close to the victim, not a stranger

Please see of Myths vs. Facts page for more info about common misperceptions regarding sexual assault and child sexual abuse.

Why are you throwing Canadian stats into this? I realize sex assault is underreported in Canada - victims afraid to speak up. That is not what we're talking about. None of that makes Isis practices okay. There are no laws to protect the abusers. They are the law. It is not because women are afraid to speak up - there's noone they can go to! Why are you arguing with me to some how minimize their actions? Why? Plus, I have never heard of the government of Canada forcing anyone to marry (have you? Have you ever met anyone who the government physically forced to marry and have sex? That would be particularly bizarre and horrible, wouldn't it - I do not for a moment think such a case exists - and probably never did, here) - and what Isis is doing is grabbing young women, marrying them to have 'legal' sex and then passing them off to the next 'soldier' to do the same. What you are trying to do right now is point out problems with our system in order to minimize what I am saying about Isis. It's not even in the same ballpark. You would not want to trade places with those women would you? You would not want to be near them or your daughter near them. You would not want to be any place they were 'governing'. Don't pretend what they are doing is not that bad and we have it worse here. That's just not true, and I think you know that and are just trying to irritate me.


(#%^**#%^+#% )

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Y

@Kimmio ..."I don't think it's that simple Hermann, especially for women who are being, not only forced to be fully covered"

The veil, in other words, might be oppressive—but so are unrealistic beauty standards.

A team of psychologists, led by Malaysian-born British psychologist Viren Swami at the UK’s University of Westminster, interviewed 587 Muslim women in London, 369 of whom regularly wore some sort of hijab. Their ages ranged from 18 to 70; the mean age was 27. The majority—about 79 percent—were unmarried, and they represented several ethnic groups—Bengali, Pakistani, Indian, and Arab. More than three-quarters held an undergraduate degree.
Swami and his team gave the women several tests to measure their attitudes toward their bodies—and the women who wore Western dress scored higher on every scale of body dissatisfaction. When subjects were asked to look at several sketches of women’s bodies and pick the one they would most like to have, the choices of the women who wore the hijab more closely resembled the bodies they actually possessed. On a measure of “drive for thinness”—determined by answers to questions about preoccupation with body weight, fear of becoming fat, and excessive concern with dieting—women who didn’t wear the hijab scored, on average, 3.58 out of 6 points, compared to 2.87 for women who cover up. Women who wore Western dress also registered a higher degree of “social physique anxiety,” or concern with how others perceived their physical appearance: 3.26, versus 2.92, on the 6-point scale.

Women in Western dress were also more likely to deem various forms of media an “important source of information about being attractive.” And they scored higher on a measure of the degree to which they accepted as normalunrealistic ideals of beauty (3.09 versus 2.43). Women in hijabs also spent less time engaging in “appearance-management behaviors,” and ranked their own appearance as less important than did women who wore Western clothes.

The researchers concluded that it wasn’t just the womens' faith that was making them less susceptible to idealized depictions of beauty. “It might thus be concluded that use of the hijab offers Muslim women a small protective effect in terms of their body image … the use of the hijab may act as a buffer against negative body image,” write the authors. The veil, in other words, might be oppressive—but so are unrealistic beauty standards.

Oh FFS (I am getting testy over all this minimizing of these brutes) unrealistic beauty standards ARE bad ... But the threat of death for not being covered head to toe is much worse. Get real. How can you even compare? Bizarre comparisons you're making.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Why are you throwing Canadian stats into this? I realize sex assault is underreported in Canada - victims afraid to speak up. That is not what we're talking about. None of that makes Isis practices okay. There are no laws to protect the abusers. They are the law. It is not because women are afraid to speak up - there's noone they can go to! Why are you arguing with me to some how minimize their actions? Why? Plus, I have never heard of the government of Canada forcing anyone to marry (have you? Have you ever met anyone who the government physically forced to marry and have sex? That would be particularly bizarre and horrible, wouldn't it - I do not for a moment think such a case exists - and probably never did, here) - and what Isis is doing is grabbing young women, marrying them to have 'legal' sex and then passing them off to the next 'soldier' to do the same. What you are trying to do right now is point out problems with our system in order to minimize what I am saying about Isis. It's not even in the same ballpark. You would not want to trade places with those women would you? You would not want to be near them or your daughter near them. You would not want to be any place they were 'governing'. Don't pretend what they are doing is not that bad and we have it worse here. That's just not true, and I think you know that and are just trying to irritate me.


(#%^**#%^+#% )

No laws to protect the abused FROM the abusers. The abusers are protected because they enforce the law with abuse. Canada may not be perfect but the laws to protect women are significantly, very much, better and you know it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

For anyone for that matter - the laws are better here.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Kimmio ..."I don't think it's that simple Hermann, especially for women who are being, not only forced to be fully covered"

The veil, in other words, might be oppressive—but so are unrealistic beauty standards.

A team of psychologists, led by Malaysian-born British psychologist Viren Swami at the UK’s University of Westminster, interviewed 587 Muslim women in London, 369 of whom regularly wore some sort of hijab. Their ages ranged from 18 to 70; the mean age was 27. The majority—about 79 percent—were unmarried, and they represented several ethnic groups—Bengali, Pakistani, Indian, and Arab. More than three-quarters held an undergraduate degree.
Swami and his team gave the women several tests to measure their attitudes toward their bodies—and the women who wore Western dress scored higher on every scale of body dissatisfaction. When subjects were asked to look at several sketches of women’s bodies and pick the one they would most like to have, the choices of the women who wore the hijab more closely resembled the bodies they actually possessed. On a measure of “drive for thinness”—determined by answers to questions about preoccupation with body weight, fear of becoming fat, and excessive concern with dieting—women who didn’t wear the hijab scored, on average, 3.58 out of 6 points, compared to 2.87 for women who cover up. Women who wore Western dress also registered a higher degree of “social physique anxiety,” or concern with how others perceived their physical appearance: 3.26, versus 2.92, on the 6-point scale.

Women in Western dress were also more likely to deem various forms of media an “important source of information about being attractive.” And they scored higher on a measure of the degree to which they accepted as normalunrealistic ideals of beauty (3.09 versus 2.43). Women in hijabs also spent less time engaging in “appearance-management behaviors,” and ranked their own appearance as less important than did women who wore Western clothes.

The researchers concluded that it wasn’t just the womens' faith that was making them less susceptible to idealized depictions of beauty. “It might thus be concluded that use of the hijab offers Muslim women a small protective effect in terms of their body image … the use of the hijab may act as a buffer against negative body image,” write the authors. The veil, in other words, might be oppressive—but so are unrealistic beauty standards.

I think what you are doing is confusing religious observance of the veil by choice and what Isis is doing. Remember - they are extremists. They are not typical - they are dangerously insane -regular Muslims fear them in the countries they are infultrating also...so don't confuse the two. This is not about putting down everyday Muslims who choose to wear a veil.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I don't think it's that simple Hermann, especially for women who are being, not only forced to be fully covered, but forcibly married off and raped by these guys. Are their thoughts really free? I might rather die if it were me - or have someone intervene and save me! I think any woman here faced by the same thing would feel similarly so I do not know why I am being made out as a bad guy on here. ISIS is brutal and there's no excusing their behaviour.

Well, I've never been dead, but I'm well acquainted with the condition. I have been raped, as have many women, and I can guarantee you, that dead's both worse, and more permanent.

Kimmio, the reason I keep hammering at you (and I don't think you're the "bad guy", just need your compassion stretching) is that you don't seem to be able to conclude that 'these people' are human beings EXACTLY like you, same number of fingers, toes, hormones, etc. - SAME SPECIES. They have needs that are not being met, and so they are behaving badly. I think you cannot say, that if by some different wyrd chance, your meat body had been born next to theirs, that you wouldn't be one of them.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Well, I've never been dead, but I'm well acquainted with the condition. I have been raped, as have many women, and I can guarantee you, that dead's both worse, and more permanent.

Kimmio, the reason I keep hammering at you (and I don't think you're the "bad guy", just need your compassion stretching) is that you don't seem to be able to conclude that 'these people' are human beings EXACTLY like you, same number of fingers, toes, hormones, etc. - SAME SPECIES. They have needs that are not being met, and so they are behaving badly. I think you cannot say, that if by some different wyrd chance, your meat body had been born next to theirs, that you wouldn't be one of them.

I don't feel compassion for what they are doing, no. And I am always the one feeling sorry for the underdog. Not these guys. They are overtaken by something so sinister I can't fathom - it's not human need, it can't be put down to hormones. It's terrible brainwashing - and once they are far gone they need to be kept from harming people and i don't think a few kind words would stop them. Perhaps for who they could've been, I can feel sorry for - I feel sorry for the young new recruits and hope that can be stopped and reversed before damage is done. But once they are engaged and fully committed to what they are doing without regret, all my sympathy stops. People need to be kept safe from them, that's the priority, not their 'needs'. I feel sorry for their parents...but ultimately I feel sorry for their victims.

And if by some 'wyrd' chance I were born there I'd likely be one of their victims. I'd like to see your compassion stretch in that direction.

By the way...I do fear the consequences of more war...increased islamophobia, etc. Not unlike what happened after 9-11 all over again. The world has changed since then. I just fear that by ignoring Syria - speaking of compassion- 200,000 have died there while we bickered on WC in comfort - we were able to ignore and forget, they can't - and barely was it ever discussed - that we have painted ourselves in the west into an aweful corner while this problem grew - and we either help the victims over there or we ignore them some more - and that won't lead to anything better either. The world is really f'kd up.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Awful (sp)

 

[Ritafee]

Obama ... "Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim"

The bigger the lie, the better Obama is at telling it. Islamic texts and teachings command the oppression, subjugation and slaughter of the kuffar. Shia Muslims are considered heretics. Obama was raised a Muslim. He knows this. So he is lying — taqiyya — to the American people. And he speaks only about the Muslims who are victims (shia and secular Muslims, considered apostates) — no mention of the millions of Christian victims. Obama does not concern himself with non-Muslims as well, and not just in aiding and abetting their defeat. Obama insists that the Islamic State is not Islamic as Muslims from the US, Canada, Europe, Australia flock to join them in the cause of Islam.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/obamas-big-speech-islamic-state-islamic.html/#sthash.9pyeYK1o.dpuf

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

More 'hate on Obama' fox news style bulls**t. Liberal Christians are considered heretics by baptists and Pentecostals and Baptists and Pentacostals heretics to many Coptic and Orthodox Christians and vice versa - the point is no civilized country or people condones, or should condone violence in the name of God anymore and that's that.

 

[Ritafee]

This is how bad political correctness has become in America.

Well, I am about to use a term which will surely offend politically correct people everywhere…

“Islamic Terror”

You see, the cold, hard reality of the matter is that the Islamic State is far from alone. All over the world, radical jihadist organizations are committing unspeakable acts in the name of Islam. In case you are ignorant about these organizations, here are the names of just a few of them…

Boko Haram

al-Nusrah Front

Hamas

Hezbollah

Army of Islam

Ansaru

Ansar Dine

Mujahidin Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem

Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis

Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia

Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah

Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi

al-Mulathamun Battalion

Abdallah Azzam Brigades

Indian Mujahedeen

Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami

al-Shabaab

Islamic Jihad Union

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Ansar al-Islam

Jemaah Islamiya

Asbat al-Ansar

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

The Muslim Brotherhood

Abu Sayyaf

The Haqqani network

Are you starting to get the picture?

Islamic terror is real, and it is not going to go away just because our politically correct politicians wished that it did not exist.

Those that truly love liberty and freedom should be against tyranny in all of the forms in which it is found.

And one of the forms that tyranny takes in our world today is radical Islam.

If radical Islamists had their way, we would all be forced to convert to Islam and live our lives under very strict sharia law.

Personally, that is not something that I would ever want for myself, for my family or for future generations of Americans.

What about you?


back to top
» If you liked this article, please subscribe to Right Side News Daily

 

[Ritafee]

According to one White House aide, the president is escalating the call for more aid to the rebels so they could act as the ground troops to support potential U.S. airstrikes against ISIS.

Can you imagine the laughter that will ensue when ISIS leaders read this?

Secondly, if you want to conduct air strikes against ISIS, you have got to get permission from the nation where you will be conducting those air strikes.

The Obama administration has permission from the Iraqi government to conduct air strikes against ISIS targets inside Iraq, and the Pentagon says that those air strikes have been effective.

However, it is being reported that Obama now wants to bomb ISIS targets inside Syria...

President Barack Obama, who will set out a broad long-term strategy to defeat the Islamic State in a speech to Americans on Wednesday evening, is prepared to authorize air strikes against the group in Syria, U.S. officials said.

Pursuing the Islamist radicals inside Syria would complement an expanded military campaign to back government forces in Iraq following the formation of a more inclusive government in Baghdad.

But Obama does not have permission from the Syrian government to do that. In fact, the Syrian government is warning that any U.S. air strikes within their borders will be considered an act of war.

Do we really want to declare war on Syria on top of everything else?

Sadly, Obama doesn't seem to think that he needs permission to do much of anything.

In fact, he insists that he doesn't even need the permission of Congress to start conducting air strikes inside Syria...

President Obama is prepared to use U.S. military airstrikes in Syria as part of an expanded campaign to defeat the Islamic State and does not believe he needs formal congressional approval to take that action, according to people who have spoken with the president in recent days.

We have a man occupying the White House running around doing whatever he wants without even having an elementary understanding about what is going on over in the Middle East.

And he has the audacity to stand up in front of the American people and "explain" to us why we need to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to arm groups that are clearly aligned with ISIS.

Below, I want to share an extended excerpt from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson. In his article, Watson lists numerous examples that show that the "moderate" rebels and ISIS are still very much working together...

The lunacy of such a policy is illustrated by the fact that Bassel Idriss, commander of an FSA-run rebel brigade, recently admitted that Washington-backed “moderate” rebels are still collaborating with ISIS.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,” Idriss told Lebanon’s Daily Star. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”

A July report in Stars and Stripes also documented how the 1,000 strong Dawud Brigade, which had previously fought alongside the FSA against the Assad regime, defected in its entirety to join ISIS.

Also in July it emerged that “several factions within the FSA, including Ahl Al Athar, Ibin al-Qa’im” had “handed over its weapons to the Islamic State in large numbers” and pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Islamic State fighter Abu Atheer also told Al-Jazeera, “We are buying weapons from the FSA. we bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.”

The Obama administration has spent weeks working on a "strategy" to deal with ISIS, and this is what they have come up with?

Rather than "defeating ISIS", this strategy is likely to make ISIS even stronger and have the added bonus of potentially starting a war with Syria.

Exactly what is Obama trying to accomplish in the Middle East anyway?

But in the end, the real fault lies with the American people. Despite relentless warnings, the American people willingly chose to elect this con man to the highest office in the land two times in a row, and as a result we all get to suffer the consequences of those very foolish decisions.​

 

[chansen]

...Obama was raised a Muslim....

Not this crap again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories


Keep your stupid chain emails out of here. They make you look stupid by association.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Certainly lowers the level of the discourse.

Kimmio, it's only some sort of arbitrary luck, or lack thereof, that you're female in this meat-body. If you'd been born a neighbour (let's say a male) of one of "these people", it is hubristic in the extreme to suggest that you'd be better.

 

[Delightful Life]

Not this crap again.

Even though Smiler was raised in a Muslim family, so what?

 

[Ritafee]

@chansen ... you take 5 words out of context and that gives you the right to give the order "Keep your stupid chain emails out of here. They make you look stupid by association." ... again the bullying ... @BetteTheRed ... "Certainly lowers the level of the discourse" - Directed at whose comment please?

Could I hear some feedback on these two points ...

• Obama Said ... "Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim"

• However, it is being reported that Obama now wants to bomb ISIS targets inside Syria...Obama does not have permission from the Syrian government to do that. In fact, the Syrian government is warning that any U.S. air strikes within their borders will be considered an act of war. Do we really want to declare war on Syria on top of everything else?
  

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Well, I remember reading a few years ago about Syrians wanting help from the international community and it wasn't delivered. Locals who legitimately wanted out from Assad's tyranny were armed and left to their own devices instead and my understanding is that's how Isis splintered off - Syria is a wasteland now and whatever regular citizens are still there trying to save what's left of their home really sincerely want capable help from the west.