Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver wrote:
I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

You didn't mention the Koran, you mentioned Muslims, and you didn't speak hypothetically, you spoke with certainty. The sentiment you're expressing above is not the same as the one you expressed in your previous post.

Understanding the differences between different things is important to effectively communicating with other people.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hang on a tick...

Spoiler:

My KoolAid senses are tingling...

They were right!

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

You didn't mention the Koran, you mentioned Muslims, and you didn't speak hypothetically, you spoke with certainty. The sentiment you're expressing above is not the same as the one you expressed in your previous post.

Understanding the differences between different things is important to effectively communicating with other people.

Apparently the sarcastic wink got past most people.

When I'm being sarcastic I always put up a wink. I do recall a wink behind that statement. In fact looking at my post I see it plain as day.

Not my fault that even with a sarcastic winky face people decide to take me serious.

Fateweaver wrote:You need to learn to read or quote. You attack me for my view on our involvement with Egypt when I have never made any comment at all about our involvement in Egypt. I think you mistook me for a second for CT Gamer.

"We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully". "

I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

So you haven't read the Koran, then?

And you'll note that people of faith can claim God exists, but that doesn't make it true... just like claiming the Koran is this violent little book doesn't make it true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Apparently the sarcastic wink got past most people.

When I'm being sarcastic I always put up a wink. I do recall a wink behind that statement. In fact looking at my post I see it plain as day.

Not my fault that even with a sarcastic winky face people decide to take me serious.

Because it wasn't a joke. And people will often say exactly what they want to say, but smile to pretend it's just a joke, to avoid responsibility.

Trust me, I'm not one of those.

If I spoke in a non-joking matter I'd be off Dakka in a heartbeat for good. Lord knows I've gotten tattled on by snot-nosed punks who can't stand up for themselves and need big "MOD" brother to step in for them.

The comment about Big Brother wasn't aimed at just our involvement in Egypt. It was referring to EVERY time we step in to help. To this day there are people who question our involvement in WW2. Perhaps I should have clarified it but I figure people with above average intelligence (or those who claim to have it) would have realized it was a blanket statement about our international policies and how other nations view our involvement in foreign affairs.

I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

They did, but I think he may be referring to some questioning our decision to get involved in Europe, which was actually still opposed by a lot of the population....but then Hitler declared war on the US, and the rest is history.

So...who's questioning the US involvement? These countries declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Wait...this is Fateweaver making no sense again, isn't it?

Probably.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

I thought it was Archduke Ferdinand.

Good one EF.

Seriously, I have gotten into discussions with people on WHY the US had to enter. Sure we could have just ignored the attack on PH and Hitlers declaration of war against the US but we didn't, though some people think we should have.

Who is 'some people'? I've never in my life heard of a discussion that was about whether or not the US should have resonded to Pearl Harbour.

And why is this in any way related to the US backing an opressive dictator?

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...who's questioning the US involvement? These countries declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Yeah, but it wasn't as though FDR was simply twiddling his thumbs. There's plenty of evidence that indicates that he was looking for an excuse to enter the war so much, in fact, that a lot of people will tell you that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

The argument is nonsense, of course, by they'll tell you that none the less.

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

I thought it was Archduke Ferdinand.

I see what you Nothing I see nothing!

Fateweaver wrote:If I spoke in a non-joking matter I'd be off Dakka in a heartbeat for good. Lord knows I've gotten tattled on by snot-nosed punks who can't stand up for themselves and need big "MOD" brother to step in for them.

Heh, I actually made my first ever report today, on this forum or any other. Don't worry, it wasn't you or anyone else I've ever argued with. It was just a post made as a joke, but could be seen as recommending a crime, and I didn't know where the site stood on that kind of thing...

The comment about Big Brother wasn't aimed at just our involvement in Egypt. It was referring to EVERY time we step in to help. To this day there are people who question our involvement in WW2. Perhaps I should have clarified it but I figure people with above average intelligence (or those who claim to have it) would have realized it was a blanket statement about our international policies and how other nations view our involvement in foreign affairs.

Yes, but again, feth those people. Folk will complain. If it isn't one lot it'll be the others. But the right thing remains the right thing, and the only reason to note the critics is to play the victim.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

They did. But before that the US attempted to control Japanese expansion by limiting and then completely removing oil sales to Japan. Most folk knew war was inevitable. So some folk are critical of the US' decision to stop selling oil, even though everyone knew what had happened in Nanking. It's a pretty horrible argument, based on the idea that the US should just chase the highest price for it's goods, regardless of what those goods are used for overseas. Well, IBM did install the computers in the extermination camps, so I guess there are some true believers.

There's more criticism of US involvement in Europe, in that Germany never attacked the US. This has more weight, Germany did declare was on the US, but there wasn't much they could have done about it. And yeah, it sucks that US troops got killed for something that had nothing to do with them. It misses the point though, that the politics behind the whole thing had nothing to do with the individual Brits and Russians that were dying, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:And why is this in any way related to the US backing an opressive dictator?

Good question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Yeah, but it wasn't as though FDR was simply twiddling his thumbs. There's plenty of evidence that indicates that he was looking for an excuse to enter the war so much, in fact, that a lot of people will tell you that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

The argument is nonsense, of course, by they'll tell you that none the less.

Well, FDR was doing things to limit Japanese expansion, which was inevitably going to lead to war in the Pacific. That he was actively looking for a war is dubious, and the idea that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour is lunacy.

Oh I know that but sometimes it's so easy to get involved in an argument with idiots and "truthers".

I don't worry anymore about being reported. I watch my P's and Q's but haters gonna hate and there are just some posters on Dakka who feel the need to attack me no matter what the topic is.

I don't like being banned but if I do again I'll just enjoy my small vacation and then come back for more. Like an abused housewife who goes back to her hubby after his release.....

Yes, yes I went there....

Egypt has poor human rights and will continue to have poor human rights. If only a couple thousand of people protest the current government then that means there are a couple million who will continue to do what they have been doing, beating their wives, etc.

Concerning the war effort, the british had spy rings working on the influential of America to get them to join the war effort. We did embargo the Japanese to prevent them from expanding and we even had pilots in China to train Chinese fighter pilots and to also fight the Japanese before we were in the war, technically they were mercenaries. America didn't like what Germany was doing and Pearl Harbor gave us a great reason to join the war effort in Europe as well. When we found out about the concentration camps, whoo boy that was something.

halonachos wrote:Egypt has poor human rights and will continue to have poor human rights. If only a couple thousand of people protest the current government then that means there are a couple million who will continue to do what they have been doing, beating their wives, etc.

Freedom House rates Egypt as roughly in line with the global average in terms of women's rights.

The biggest issue in Egypt isn't human rights abuse, but the absence of political rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:That he was actively looking for a war is dubious, and the idea that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour is lunacy.

When I say "looking for war" I mean "looking to involve the United States in the conflict on a military level".

It wasn't merely opposing Japanese expansion. He actively looked for a way to do an end-run around neutrality legislation, and later entered into negotiations with Churchill over direct, military involvement. Then there's his support for intervention in the fireside chats, and support for a peacetime draft.

The guy didn't want WWII to start, but he wasn't going to sit it out either.

Its actually pretty bad when you ask an Egyptian cop what he would do if they saw a man beating his wife in public and his response is, "Nothing, he has the right to beat his wife."

Don't forget the Lend Lease program. Taking perfectly good supplies and labeling them surplus to be allowed get them to the British wasn't a profit oriented decision.

He wasn't actively seeking it, but certainly was passively seeking it and actively preparing for it.

halonachos wrote:Its actually pretty bad when you ask an Egyptian cop what he would do if they saw a man beating his wife in public and his response is, "Nothing, he has the right to beat his wife."

Different culture, different rules. Also, is this from a personal conversation or do you have a source?

The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

halonachos wrote:The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

You could have just shortened that to, 'No, I don't have a reputable source, it's from a personal conversation.'

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

halonachos wrote:The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

You could have just shortened that to, 'No, I don't have a reputable source, it's from a personal conversation.'

How about some nice statistics to back up the conversation, you people seem to like statistics.

defend international wrote:33% of married women report having been beaten at least once in their marriage (1995)


72% of surveyed women who experienced violence reported being beaten by their husbands, 43% by their fathers, and 37% by their brothers (1995)


80% of rural women in Egypt report beatings are common and often justified (1995)


96% of 444 women interviewed in Manshiet Nasser where ADEW works reported some kind of physical or sexual violence (2001)

http://www.defendinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=49

halonachos wrote:Its actually pretty bad when you ask an Egyptian cop what he would do if they saw a man beating his wife in public and his response is, "Nothing, he has the right to beat his wife."

That gets into whether or not rights are social constructs, or objective elements of the human condition, but from the perspective of someone in the United States that's probably true.

Of course, there are places in Africa where the removal of breasts is common practice, so if you're comparing a beating to that sort of thing it doesn't seem nearly so severe.

Its important to remember that the United States is on the extreme positive end of the spectrum when it comes to women's rights. Egypt is right around the middle.

halonachos wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

halonachos wrote:The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

You could have just shortened that to, 'No, I don't have a reputable source, it's from a personal conversation.'

How about some nice statistics to back up the conversation, you people seem to like statistics.

defend international wrote:33% of married women report having been beaten at least once in their marriage (1995)


72% of surveyed women who experienced violence reported being beaten by their husbands, 43% by their fathers, and 37% by their brothers (1995)


80% of rural women in Egypt report beatings are common and often justified (1995)


96% of 444 women interviewed in Manshiet Nasser where ADEW works reported some kind of physical or sexual violence (2001)

http://www.defendinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=49

That's nice. I don't deny that domestic violence is common in Egypt, but these statistics have nothing to do with police, or police involvement in the domestic violence.

They do cut the clitoris in Egypt and that is also justified.

religioustolerance.org wrote:A 2005 report by UNICEF suggested that 97% of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 who have never been married have undergone some form of FGM or circumcision. 6

A more recent study by the Egyptian government found that 50.3% of girls aged 10 to 18 have been circumcised.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm

Yeah, not nice people. Mubarak's wife has openly opposed this practice according to the BBC.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:That's nice. I don't deny that domestic violence is common in Egypt, but these statistics have nothing to do with police, or police involvement in the domestic violence.

freedomhouse.org wrote:Another problem is the reporting and investigating of an "honor crime." Police officials, especially at the local level, often do not investigate such cases with the same rigor as they might for other crimes. Families and villages may collude by not informing or assisting police. Local authorities often close investigations of "honor crimes" by labeling them as accidents or crimes perpetrated by an unknown person.

freedomhouse.org wrote:Egyptian families and government authorities, such as the police, often ignore violent acts against women. Domestic violence and marital rape are not considered crimes in Egyptian law, and women victims of rape and incest have tremendous difficulties prosecuting their perpetrators. Spousal abuse is grounds for a divorce, but the victim is required to produce medical reports of bodily harm as proof.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=172

sebster wrote:

I know everything and dismiss your opinion...
[/paraphrasing]

Is your crystal ball battery powered or solar?

I'm not gonna continue to argue this with you, because you seem to have all the answers, which is fortunate for us all.

Enjoy the rest of the thread and whatever your witty final retort will be.

CT GAMER wrote:

sebster wrote:

I know everything and dismiss your opinion...
[/paraphrasing]

Is your crystal ball battery powered or solar?

I'm not gonna continue to argue this with you, because you seem to have all the answers, which is fortunate for us all.

Enjoy the rest of the thread and whatever your witty final retort will be.

Actually Sebster usually does have his gak in tip top shape which makes it annoying to argue with him at first, but it generally makes one try harder.

halonachos wrote:They do cut the clitoris in Egypt and that is also justified.

religioustolerance.org wrote:A 2005 report by UNICEF suggested that 97% of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 who have never been married have undergone some form of FGM or circumcision. 6

A more recent study by the Egyptian government found that 50.3% of girls aged 10 to 18 have been circumcised.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm

Yeah, not nice people. Mubarak's wife has openly opposed this practice according to the BBC.

I doubt that statistic a great deal, as it contravenes everything else I have read. I have no doubt at all that FGM is practiced in Egypt, as it is practiced in the vast majority of places in the world, but I doubt its as common place as 97% of unmarried women, which is itself likely to be a fairly small population.

In any case, I only claimed that Egypt was about average when it came to women's rights. Simply pointing out that its worse than Western states doesn't mean anything, as almost all nations are worse than Western nations when it comes to women's rights.