House Martins, Swallow And Other...
Animals & Nature2 mins ago
Child brides
88 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-106360 5/Nine-year-old-brides-saved-authorities-marri ed-Muslim-weddings.html
When one discusses Black shootings on this site, certain people wishing to turn the attention away from this fact, often accuse Whites of engaging in paedophilia.
Having read this report I think this accusation of paedophilia should be planted firmly on the Muslims.
Ministers angered campaigners two years ago by dropping plans to make it a criminal offence to force someone to marry, after Muslim groups objected strongly to the plans.
Whether the Muslims object is unimportant, these acts of shipping children abroad to be married, is nothing short of slavery and child abuse. Any parents found guilty of this disgusting pratice should feel the full weight of the law, laid firmly down upon them.
When one discusses Black shootings on this site, certain people wishing to turn the attention away from this fact, often accuse Whites of engaging in paedophilia.
Having read this report I think this accusation of paedophilia should be planted firmly on the Muslims.
Ministers angered campaigners two years ago by dropping plans to make it a criminal offence to force someone to marry, after Muslim groups objected strongly to the plans.
Whether the Muslims object is unimportant, these acts of shipping children abroad to be married, is nothing short of slavery and child abuse. Any parents found guilty of this disgusting pratice should feel the full weight of the law, laid firmly down upon them.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting.
What I don't qute understand is why, when fanatics scream RACISM, their opponnets consider the debate killed or brushed under the carpet.
Why don't they speak up and explain why their sentiments aren't racist? Why are they so ill-equipped to challenge the accusation? Is it because there's a kernel of truth to it?
What I don't qute understand is why, when fanatics scream RACISM, their opponnets consider the debate killed or brushed under the carpet.
Why don't they speak up and explain why their sentiments aren't racist? Why are they so ill-equipped to challenge the accusation? Is it because there's a kernel of truth to it?
Quinlad � Sorry I haven�t replied sooner. I�ve been busy.
You stated � �Why don't they speak up and explain why their sentiments aren't racist?�
Simple really. Once you�ve been accused of being racist, anything you say is considered invalid. Even if you haven�t got a racist bone in your body, you�ve been �branded�.
�Why are they so ill-equipped to challenge the accusation?� � They�re not. It�s just that no one is listening anymore. By playing the racism card, you�re effectively stifling debate. What you are saying is, �I�m not listening to a racist. Go away.�
�Is it because there's a kernel of truth to it?� � Possibly. Possibly not. Either way, whatever you say is rendered mute.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where the phrase �there�s no smoke without fire� is true. This is quite possibly the stupidest phase in the whole lexicon of the English language. It assumes that if someone accuses you of something, even if it is patently untrue, some people will still believe it � even if every single piece of evidence suggests it is untrue.
Interesting that no one has bothered to try to defend the wonderful prophet Mohammed and his kiddy fiddling ways...
You stated � �Why don't they speak up and explain why their sentiments aren't racist?�
Simple really. Once you�ve been accused of being racist, anything you say is considered invalid. Even if you haven�t got a racist bone in your body, you�ve been �branded�.
�Why are they so ill-equipped to challenge the accusation?� � They�re not. It�s just that no one is listening anymore. By playing the racism card, you�re effectively stifling debate. What you are saying is, �I�m not listening to a racist. Go away.�
�Is it because there's a kernel of truth to it?� � Possibly. Possibly not. Either way, whatever you say is rendered mute.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where the phrase �there�s no smoke without fire� is true. This is quite possibly the stupidest phase in the whole lexicon of the English language. It assumes that if someone accuses you of something, even if it is patently untrue, some people will still believe it � even if every single piece of evidence suggests it is untrue.
Interesting that no one has bothered to try to defend the wonderful prophet Mohammed and his kiddy fiddling ways...
Different mindsets, clearly.
As for the kiddy fiddling, I don't think anyone here would defend it. Which is why AOG's attempt to grab the moral high ground ("Any parents found guilty of this disgusting pratice should feel the full weight of the law, laid firmly down upon them") is so incontestable a statement that it goes without saying.
He's failed to understand the reason for the frequent mentions of white paedophilia. They crop up when people tar the entire black community with gun crime, criticise them for not apologetically delivering mea culpas for the criminals in their midst, and point to statistics to suggest that, because it's a largely black phenomenon, black people must be inherently predisposed towards shooting people.
The statistics show that paedophiles are overwhelmingly white males. Yet there's no expectation that the 'white community' should carry the can for the crimes of a few, we don't overlook ethnic paedos because they don't fall into the same white demographic as the majority, and we don't believe that whites have a natural inclination towards touching up kids.
By pointing out that Muslims commit paedophilia as well, AOG has shown that this argument has utterly passed him by.
As for the kiddy fiddling, I don't think anyone here would defend it. Which is why AOG's attempt to grab the moral high ground ("Any parents found guilty of this disgusting pratice should feel the full weight of the law, laid firmly down upon them") is so incontestable a statement that it goes without saying.
He's failed to understand the reason for the frequent mentions of white paedophilia. They crop up when people tar the entire black community with gun crime, criticise them for not apologetically delivering mea culpas for the criminals in their midst, and point to statistics to suggest that, because it's a largely black phenomenon, black people must be inherently predisposed towards shooting people.
The statistics show that paedophiles are overwhelmingly white males. Yet there's no expectation that the 'white community' should carry the can for the crimes of a few, we don't overlook ethnic paedos because they don't fall into the same white demographic as the majority, and we don't believe that whites have a natural inclination towards touching up kids.
By pointing out that Muslims commit paedophilia as well, AOG has shown that this argument has utterly passed him by.
Quinlad
Wed 01/10/08
15:13 Incidentally, I don't equate anti-immigration with racism. I'm just confused as to why the word causes people who were previously up for a debate to pick up the ball and go home.
Personally, I wouldn't clam up.
no you don''t do you, just change the script back to white paedophilia.
anyone puts a post with anything that may contain the slightest hint of a racial overtone and quinlad and sp1814 are there
chip on there shoulder ?
more like a sack
Wed 01/10/08
15:13 Incidentally, I don't equate anti-immigration with racism. I'm just confused as to why the word causes people who were previously up for a debate to pick up the ball and go home.
Personally, I wouldn't clam up.
no you don''t do you, just change the script back to white paedophilia.
anyone puts a post with anything that may contain the slightest hint of a racial overtone and quinlad and sp1814 are there
chip on there shoulder ?
more like a sack
You forgot
to leave a big space.
By the way, I didn't change the script back to paedophilia. birdie did, at the end of his post. I'll cut and paste it for you now, so you can see which bit I mean - you seem to have missed it.
Here:
"Interesting that no one has bothered to try to defend the wonderful prophet Mohammed and his kiddy fiddling ways..."
DTH?
to leave a big space.
By the way, I didn't change the script back to paedophilia. birdie did, at the end of his post. I'll cut and paste it for you now, so you can see which bit I mean - you seem to have missed it.
Here:
"Interesting that no one has bothered to try to defend the wonderful prophet Mohammed and his kiddy fiddling ways..."
DTH?
Quinlad � Re: �white paedophilia�
You�re right to point out that paedophilia is not a crime exclusively committed by any one section of the community. However, the original question was regarding Muslims and their holy scriptures, which apparently condone the marriage of very young, pre-pubesant girls to older men. While some white males are clearly aroused by very young girls, the laws in this country and almost every other country in the world legislate against this practice. It�s abuse, pure and simple.
What I have a problem with is that Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world and it clearly condones paedophilia. Their prophet practiced it. Therefore, it�s okay because whatever Mohammed did is sanctioned by God.
I�ve asked questions about this particular matter before and I�ve had some �heated� arguments with a regular contributor to AB. He/she has stated time and again that it was common practice in Mohammed�s day for men to marry and have sexual intercourse with girls under the age of ten. This may well have been the case. But what this particular AB regular didn�t seem to understand is that times have changed. Every country in the world agrees that pre-pubesant girls cannot give their consent to sexual relations because they are not emotionally capable of doing so.
So the question still stands. Is Islam wrong not condemn it�s own prophet from indulging in a practice that we today see as abhorrent?
I already know the answer to this. No Muslim will ever criticise Mohammed because to do so would be �un-Islamic�. This is the reason Muslims can commit child abuse (because Mohammed did it) and kill none believers (as Mohammed did regularly).
You�re right to point out that paedophilia is not a crime exclusively committed by any one section of the community. However, the original question was regarding Muslims and their holy scriptures, which apparently condone the marriage of very young, pre-pubesant girls to older men. While some white males are clearly aroused by very young girls, the laws in this country and almost every other country in the world legislate against this practice. It�s abuse, pure and simple.
What I have a problem with is that Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world and it clearly condones paedophilia. Their prophet practiced it. Therefore, it�s okay because whatever Mohammed did is sanctioned by God.
I�ve asked questions about this particular matter before and I�ve had some �heated� arguments with a regular contributor to AB. He/she has stated time and again that it was common practice in Mohammed�s day for men to marry and have sexual intercourse with girls under the age of ten. This may well have been the case. But what this particular AB regular didn�t seem to understand is that times have changed. Every country in the world agrees that pre-pubesant girls cannot give their consent to sexual relations because they are not emotionally capable of doing so.
So the question still stands. Is Islam wrong not condemn it�s own prophet from indulging in a practice that we today see as abhorrent?
I already know the answer to this. No Muslim will ever criticise Mohammed because to do so would be �un-Islamic�. This is the reason Muslims can commit child abuse (because Mohammed did it) and kill none believers (as Mohammed did regularly).
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
