im not denying anything, Im asking you to prove where shariah law allows the killing of women over honour, and which quranic verses support this, you cant. Theres a saying “either put up or shut up”

Il give you some general information which might enlighten you on this global phenomenon.

This is obviously confusing you. Whether a literal reading of any specific text states that a certain act is right or wrong is irrelevent. It is the perception and belief of people that follow those texts that counts. In the case of Islam the perception is clearly that savagery and oppression is a good thing.:mad:

I have told you time and time again that bad things happening elsewhere does not justify some of the traits of radical Islam.:mad:

Read again what you have written, association does not make it correct. I suggest you do abit of reading in this matter, maybe you can join Jon in the challenge and find me where shariah supports honour killings and in which country. Im also waiting for the verses in the quran that support these actions.

If you can prove me wrong I will willingly end this subject.

Now you are still denying reality. Even without literal translation of the core text horrific punishments, and oppression are now standard facets of Islam.

So the 100+ in the Air Force just can’t engage ships right? :rolleyes: More amazing logic you should report to the DoD I think . . .

With 250 in total available, I don’t know, lets see, maybe 150 are combat capabable?

120 / 160 in service?

another 30 from the reserve?

or maybe 100 / 160 in service

and another 50 from reserve?

So unless you can provide better information, I’m going to stick with about 150 in total service in both Naval and Regular Aviation (which work together, by the way, if need be, check out the exercises in the Mediterranean for a recent example). With 90 in reserve, I doubt the planes have just rotted away into rust and dirt there too.

Again it is time for you to provide proper information. Those aircraft assigned to Strategic Aviation will be far less versed in the AShM delivery role than those in Naval Aviation something which will reduce their combat capability.

Given the recent history of reserve Russian equipment there is every reason to suspect that they have rotted away.

I asked you to provide me which shariah law and in which country it supports honour killings and you have provided me a news source highlighting how legislators in NWFP in Pakistan are trying to push for Shariah law. Im confused here can you elaborate?.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Islam is like any other religion its traditions and laws are derived from various quarters but the fact is that a particular set of codes and barbaric deeds have become associated with Islam as such they are one. Islam has absorbed these elements and now it is responsible for them.

“Unenlightened self-interest” has always been a vote-winner in the UK. 😎

I must confess to holding a similar position myself, I am very much in favor of free trade and limited regulation for the economy. My social liberalism is the reason for my very strong belief in the right to free speech and my disdain for religion. The notion that people should be oppressed for their sex or sexual orientation or subjected to barbaric punishments (especially for only minor crimes) sickens me to my very core.

come on address the issues raised…if you dare!!!!

It is very difficult to address issues when you do not raise any. I am still perplexed as to your obsession with raising US foreign policy when it has nothing to do with the right to free speech in the context of religion.

I find it highly offensive that UK Muslim preachers have said that homosexual men should be thrown of mountains, yet I have no desire to see them banned or harmed. Equally if I wish to draw a cartoon mocking their ideology I feel that I should be safe from violence.

Exactly the point I was making.

That’s one of the major problems with UK (and, I daresay, US) politics today. Everything has to be presented as “black/white”, “either/or”, “for/against”, whereas reality inconveniently deals in infinitely varying shades of grey.

Certainly true, but I have started to notice a bit of consistency in the younger generations, both in the UK and the US. People tend to be social liberals and economic conservatives and I would suggest that part of the reason for New Labours success is a reasonable embrace of that position.

I think the confusion here arises in part from the difference between “socio-political” liberals and “economic” liberals.

Economic liberals are usually socio-political conservatives, although there are always exceptions.

There are far more exceptions than you may imagine, the economic conservatives (by which I mean Thatcherites) have a very difficult relationship with the social conservatives.

Exactly the same thing is present in the Democrat party, the Social liberals there also tend to be economic conservatives (by principle in International trade) which puts them at odds with a major part of the party base who are economic liberals. This is why you see Democrat presidential candidates flirting with protectionism whilst George Bush pursues it as hard as he can. Yet the social-liberals (the part of that category that attended Live8) is very much pro free trade, Its all a bit of a mess, which is why the parties go through regular masochistic sessions. The key to success is to keep your partys mix better balanced than the other guys. George Bush failed this miserably (as well as overseeing the Iraq collapse) so he fell from grace. For me at least this is what makes McCain so interesting, the reason he is getting such a bashing from certain quarters in the Republican party is becouse they are so used to getting there way. In reality McCain is far more of the Reagen streak that bought so much success in the eighties.