It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islamofascists Disembowel, Draw and Quarter school teacher !!!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I'm thinking of starting a new topic called "Islamofascists Disembowel, Draw and Quarter school teacher !!!", where we can discuss the event that occurred and not the linguistic break-down of the OP's title.


The fact that Innocent people are being tortured and murdered for doing what is right, seems to be the topic at hand.

So, back on the original topic.

What kind of effect is this going to have on the other teachers in the region.

What can be done to combat this problem in the future? Will it get even more extreme with IED's and snipers laying in wait?


Personally, teaching is becoming one of the more dangerous professions to choose in life.




posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Well just another typical day for Islamofascists, chop someone's head off, blow up a building, disembowel teachers.
I think I'm safe to say that people that justify these actions are terrorist supporters, am I not? Because that's all I've seen here from the apologists.
We are presented with one of the several thousands of Islamic-based terrorist acts taking place in the world today and these sympathizers will justify their actions by saying well America did this in Iraq, Israel did that, Christians are bad and the list goes on, and the terrorists are never responsible for their actions.
So it seems pointless to debate with them because they will always attempt to justify anything these islamofacsists do, and that to me shows that they support them, thus they are terrorist sympathizers.

Islamofascism is also an excellent term to use for these savages because they are fueled by religious extremism and ideologies, which they wish to implement on democratic societies.

Anyway great find NumCruncher


[edit on 1-12-2006 by laiguana]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
.... where we can discuss the event that occurred and not the linguistic break-down of the OP's title.


The fact that Innocent people are being tortured and murdered for doing what is right, seems to be the topic at hand.

Well said.

Personally, you and I, as with some others, will continue to get a linguistic breakdown of the word "islamofascists" because frankly, there are too many PC type people on this board who simply continue to utilize the discussion tactic(s) of deflection to avoid real issues...



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

One of the points I try to make is that the US is responsible for the Islamic extremism in Iran. Ever heard of President Mossadegh? He was the democratically elected President of Iran, overthrown by the CIA in a coup organised by Kermit Roosevelt in the fifties. And, yes, he was one of those Roosevelts. The CIA brought back the Shah and trained his death squads to keep the proles in line. Two decades of brutalisation and you have the reaction: an extreme form of Islam and a fundamentalist revolt.

Mossadegh's crime? He kicked out the multinationals who'd refused to renegotiate oil contracts that were an absolute rip-off of the Iranian people.

If the US had not ousted Mossadegh, Iran would still be a democracy, not a theocracy, and would probably be thoroughly secularised and "modern" by now.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by rich23]


Unless I'm getting some bad info from numerous places...the US overthrew Mossadegh because the UK asked for the US' help. Britain owned the Anglo-Persian Oil Comapnay, which Mossadegh wanted to nationalize, since Britain was pumping the oil out of Iran and only gving 15% of the profits back to Iran. Time Magazine (A US publication) made Mossadegh "Man of the Year" in 1951 and praised him for his democratic goals. BRITAIN wanted Mossadegh out and asked the US for help and Truman refused, they came back later and asked Eisenhower and he agreed.

Britain wanted "their" oil and the US wanted to keep the Soviets from having any influence over the region. Iran and Mossadegh were screwed...no doubt about that. The CIA and MI-6 helped to pull off the coup...not just the CIA.

After Mossadegh's overthrow THEN a multinational oil company was put in place with US, French, Dutch, and British interests.

The US' continued support of the Shah and not allowing democracy were just plain wrong...but during the Cold War the US didn't care...they were more concerned about stopping the Soviets from gobbling up more countries like they had in Eastern Europe.

Islamic Fundalmentalists were already in existance prior to the UK-US coup on Mossadegh. Mossadegh had actually made deals with the more radical Muslims to shore up his power base. However, Mossadegh did not promote radical Islam.

I don't think you can say if Mossadegh had stayed in power that secularism would have grown. He would of been under a lot of stress since the West said they wouldn't buy Iranian oil, and from the radical Muslims which he had to make deals with.

No dobut that the US is to blame for part of this mess. My opinion is that there are a lot of messes the US created in order to fight the Soviets. A lot of dirty games played with innocent lives.

Not my source but a great "brief" read for those interested. It is based on the CIA perspective, so it doesn't go into detail on Britain's strategy:
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Seekerof,

You're absolutely correct. 11Bravo has already shown that making the most assinine statements are not below him in his efforts to support his love-affair with intolerant and violent behavior. Just for the record - he thinks women who leave their houses set themselves up to be raped. His position on that is well documented right here on this board.

If using islamofascists to refer to people who will draw and quarter a man for doing nothing more than teaching is unacceptable, then maybe we need to decide exactly what you would call a group of people who would do something like this:

Let's see...violent, murdering, tyrannical, religious zealots acting in the name of Islam

oh wait, I believe that equates to Islamofascists.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by Sri Oracle
If supporting societal pressures which result in traditional family values is sexist... than yes... I am sexist.

Sri Oracle

Are these still "traditional family values" when they are forced upon the woman?

Are they "values" when the choice is taken out of the woman's hands?

They may be "traditional" but I hardly see them as "values".

[edit on 1-12-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
Unless I'm getting some bad info from numerous places...the US overthrew Mossadegh because the UK asked for the US' help.


You're absolutely right, and I did know that. In fact, if I recall correctly, Churchill offered to co-finance the coup. (Something not taught in schools in the UK, I can tell you.) I should have mentioned the UK's complicity in all this, but omitted it for the sake of brevity, and because the success of this operation inspired the US to interfere in a lot of states in a similar way: usually, the results only work out for the multinationals and their shareholders. Everyone else loses out. I think it makes a consistent pattern, that interference is done for business reasons, and that the rhetoric (be it of the cold war or of the war on terror) is secondary.

And there's no way I'd try to deny the appalling things the UK has done. The UK has been involved in some pretty nasty stunts down the years, although more recently we've cleaned up our act a bit... until getting dragged into the bloodbath that Iraq was, it seems, always destined to be. Click on the "history of oil" link in my sig for an amusing and informative dive into some little-known historical facts about Iraq.

I had actually seen your link before - it's a good read. And I'd forgotten it contained this:


Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.


That, just to be clear, is terrorism. And it's not the last time the CIA would use bombs (blamed on other people, of course) in the Middle East.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeachcomaIslamofascism may be more descriptive, but I can't say it's very accurate. For starters what they're doing isn't very Islamic. Another thing is it creates this association, the same sort of association that the term Muslim terrorist create. It leads to eventual paranoia of all things Muslim/Islamic.


What they are doing may not be considered islamic to you, but they do such things with the belief that they are right in what they do, that what they do is for allah, because of brainwashing by imans, mullahs and hatred of all things western.

It is no different to the evils of the church in the past. The bad things done in the name of the pope for example, like wiping out indigenous south American cultures and stealing their wealth because gods representative on earth said it is alright.

Whatever terms you use to describe the perpetrators, these acts that they do in the name of any god can not be right. As most abrahamic religions believe life is a gift of god surely it cannot be right that any man can snuff it out? If you accept that the taking of any life is gods will and that islamofascists or whatever are acting as the arm of god, then surely by definition any death of man by man is an act of god, so bombing and shooting islamic civilians is merely an act of god. My understanding is that the muslim faith is supposed to just accept allahs will and accept death when it happens, hence the rush to bury victims so there can be very little debate, reflection and conflict.

Personally I am glad I have no faith. If any of you mono god faith people are right and there is but one god, he, she or it must be very disappointed in you all and what you allow to happen in he, she or its name.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
On the wings of a snow white dove, he sends His peace from above above... BS! Religion of peace my posterior!


What blows me away is that more people spend time arguing over the vernacular used to describe these people than the actual act!
So, I'll play along... They are Islamic and they are Fascist. Ergo, Islamofascist is VERY much appropriate. Now, some will call me an Islamophobe for my opinion and I will laugh at you. The term "Phobia" means to have a fear of... I do not fear Islam nor do I fear it's fascist wing. I despise it and everything it stands for!

Back on topic: This was an atrocious act that will likely NOT be condemned as the very fabric of their culture is rife with midevil thinking and practices. For the love of God, these people still practice the punishment of stoning!
The entire culture is oppressive by nature. Another example, women can be executed for being raped as it is perceived as adultery - unless it is wtinessed by 5 other men who will testify that it was rape! Here is oneexample.

To conclude, no one should be suprised that such an atrocity would occur in a society that has 6th century values. Furthermore, apologists for such a violent religion shouldn't be suprised when more civilized people call it what it is!



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Personally, you and I, as with some others, will continue to get a linguistic breakdown of the word "islamofascists" because frankly, there are too many PC type people on this board who simply continue to utilize the discussion tactic(s) of deflection to avoid real issues...


Funnily enough, I think the term "islamofascist" is deflection, because it encourages the demonisation of people and deflects us from looking at the horrors for which we ourselves are responsible. The history of the region is also relevant. For example, researching the Russian "invasion", I discovered that Amin, the Prime Minister of Afghanistan at the time, actually provoked the ire of the Muslims because he wanted to modernise the country and break the power of the imams. The US, looking only to destabilise Russia, conducted a secret campaign to finance the Mujahedin, destabilise the country, and draw the Russians into their own Vietnam.

And if I don't bang on and on about how appalling these extremists are and what a dreadful act it was, then it's because I a) don't want to state the obvious and b) don't want to repeat myself, because I said it in my first post on this thread.

Grailkeeper said:


What kind of effect is this going to have on the other teachers in the region.

What can be done to combat this problem in the future? Will it get even more extreme with IED's and snipers laying in wait?


I think the answer to the first question is pretty obvious to anyone with a hint of imagination: it will scare off all but the bravest, who will presumably try to be even more clandestine: however, if anyone in the family of any of the girls who's being educated informs the extremists... personally, it's not a risk I'd take.

As for what can be done to combat this problem? This may sound like a radical idea, but get out and leave them to it. As something smells said,


It is no different to the evils of the church in the past. The bad things done in the name of the pope for example, like wiping out indigenous south American cultures and stealing their wealth because gods representative on earth said it is alright.


The Christian religion was every bit as bloodthirsty a few hundred years ago. Torture, burning people alive... it was all up for grabs. So let's just leave 'em alone for a couple of hundred years to work it out for themselves. Even if I had any faith that we actually could persuade them they're wrong, (a dialogue that should take place between extreme and moderate Muslims) I certainly think that invading their country and arming one faction against another is not the way to do it. Are we learning nothing from the bloodbath of Iraq? Look at it from the point of view of a doctor - the first rule is, do no harm. In a situation as complex as this, when you're dealing with a culture fundamentally different from your own and there are simultaneously questions of the exploitation of the country, to think you can go in there and do some good is dangerously arrogant.

And isn't it funny how people forget why the US went into Afghanistan in the first place. Osama Bin Laden... "he's in our 'Where are they Now?' file..."



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
On the wings of a snow white dove, he sends His peace from above above... BS! Religion of peace my posterior!


What blows me away is that more people spend time arguing over the vernacular used to describe these people than the actual act!
So, I'll play along... They are Islamic and they are Fascist. Ergo, Islamofascist is VERY much appropriate. Now, some will call me an Islamophobe for my opinion and I will laugh at you. The term "Phobia" means to have a fear of... I do not fear Islam nor do I fear it's fascist wing. I despise it and everything it stands for!


Bravo!

Our member just demostrated why is the use of this neologism unapropriate. He connected a religion and political ideology, put it on a sticker and labeled 1.7 billion people on this planet. Congratulations!

Oh, about Islamophobe comment. If you despise Islam, that means you hate it. And hate mostly comes from fear.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

originally posted by Sri Oracle
If supporting societal pressures which result in traditional family values is sexist... than yes... I am sexist.

Sri Oracle

Are these still "traditional family values" when they are forced upon the woman?

Are they "values" when the choice is taken out of the woman's hands?

They may be "traditional" but I hardly see them as "values".

[edit on 1-12-2006 by jsobecky]


Whether forced or not, they are still "traditional family values" - as they have existed for our 6,000 years of civilization. Should women be forced into it? No. But like Harlemhottie said, and I said earlier women should have a choice. In America that is not possible, inflation and debt are so out of control it takes two middle class incomes to scrape by. Someone said well, don't live in a nice neighborhood... ok. That makes sense right there
.

I pay out the !@$ so that I can be at work and know that when my fiance gets off work I don't have to worry about her walking from the car to the apartment. I don't have to worry about break ins, we get plenty of police surveillance, yet still close enough to all the entertainment and city life to be in an enjoyable area instead of 20 miles away from the city.

People always try and move up and out, away from crime and trouble. Should someone have to spare that, live in a run down shack so that someone can look after the kids? Kids are far better with an adult, especially a mother instead of baby sitters and nintendo to educate them.

As for the Islamofascist.

I am telling you it is NOT a word. Stop saying it, you cannot just make up a word with out definition and place it on a group of people!

Ever wonder WHY they fight so hard against our western powers??? Because we went in there, within a 2 year time frame tore them apart, and FORCED upon them OUR cultural ideologies!!

Lemme put it in words that some of you would better understand..

Lets say we are invaded and someone FORCED you war supporters to accept gay marriage. Full benefits to (those scum how dare they! right?) but not only that!, they put in place a even more social health care system! (can hear the war supporters screaming) increased taxes AND legalized marijuana.

Basically a Liberal take over of the nation! ... Which in a sense is exactly what happened in the Middle East.

While I support the troops, and I support killing terrorist, it would be wise to know that invading sovereign ground, destroying kingdoms and changing culture is what breads terrorism, sparks fundamentalism and encourages anarchic acts of violence. Education and understanding may have worked better, of course, that is just to logical..

But, look up Islamofascist. You won't see it because it was a politically motivated word, pulled out of some politicians ass and handed to the media, where poor fools ate it up.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
Our member just demostrated why is the use of this neologism unapropriate. He connected a religion and political ideology, put it on a sticker and labeled 1.7 billion people on this planet. Congratulations!

Oh, about Islamophobe comment. If you despise Islam, that means you hate it. And hate mostly comes from fear.


Oh goody, another "neo... whatever" word - how so new-world and progressive of you! Neo, meaning "new." However, there is nothing new to my ideology, nor did I attempt to paint all of Islam - only those who have fascist interpretation of it. You see, I didn't connect a religion and political philosophy, the Islamofascists did that all by themselves (Does the Shah of Iran sound familiar; perhaps you've heard of the Taliban; how about a neat little thing called Sharia law???). But being the apologist that you obviously are I would fully expect you to miss that FACT. I see reading comprehension isn't a strong point - all is forgiven.

Finally, despise does not mean hate. Despise means, as defined by Websters, to " to regard with contempt, distaste, disgust, or disdain; scorn; loathe." Hmmm, nothing about "hate" in there. Hate is defined by the same people as "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest." Quite a bit more intense, wouldn't you say?

Finally, your assertion that hate comes from fear is a complete non-sequitur and fallacy unto itself. I hate meatloaf but I have no fear of it. I hate cold weather however I do not fear it either. And to wit, I hate posters who are unable to employ simple logic when attempting to flame me, however I do not fear you either. Have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
And hate mostly comes from fear.


Hate can come from stupidity. Hate can come from ignorance.
Hate can come from fear. Hate can also come from intelligence.
Intelligence as in being smart enough to hate and/or fear that which can kill you.

There are many fears that are not healthy for a persons body and/or soul ... but then there are some fears that are VERY healthy.

Sometimes it's very smart to be afraid. Evolutionary psychology shows that it was smart for our ancestors to fear deadly animals and reptiles. It was smart to fear brutal people who were stronger than you.

Sometimes fear is healthy and can keep a person alive.


Originally posted by yanchek
If you despise Islam, that means you hate it.


Despise = hate. yep.

For the record ... I don't despise Islam. I just think it's a very stupid religion and I hate that a whole lotta' people are stuck in it. (I've heard the same thing said about the Catholic church and other religions on this site) Most organized religions end up looking very stupid once you look at them carefully enough.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
when my fiance gets off work


Fiance? I thought you were studying to be a priest. Why the heck did I think that? Geeeeze ... I'm getting old and my brain is starting to fizzle.


[edit on 12/1/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Figures, yet again an example of how islamofascist pigs have no place in this world. We should be fighting a war on them, not just a war on terror.

Quite well said guys...people who defend them are just as bad as the terrorists who commit these terrible acts.

Another thing..we didn't cut off heads in Iraq. We don't intentionally kill noncombatants. We aren't the bad guys...THEY are. We DIDNT do the same things in Iraq. Oh well..we took a few embarassing photo's of them. TOO BAD! THEY CUT OUR CIVILIANS HEADS OFF ON CAMERA! You people want sympathy for TERRORISTS? I'll give them sympathy the day we start hacking off THEIR heads on TV, and we start flying THEIR planes into their buildings.


Get a life islamofascist supporters.


[edit on 12/1/2006 by JBurns]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Excuse me, but this thread went off the rails from post #1..

I am unaware of any organized, substantial opposition to the 'coalition' (mostly the US) being in Afghanistan.

The Taliban was -- and remains -- a terrible oppressive force in Afghanistan and openly supports suppression of education, religious mass murder, etc.

When the US decided to invade Afghanistan, the world supported us. The French were the first to volunteer troops.

The OP's attempt to conflate Taliban actions with what's going on in Iraq is ludicrous. In Afghanistan, we cut and ran without bringing stability to 85% of the country. The Taliban, operating -- to a degree -- out of our ally Pakistan's territory, has resurged.

Afghanistan is a disaster. The new leadership has cut deals with tribal leaders, allowing them to increase opium production in order to coexist. I believe opium production in Afghanistan is about 5X what it was before we invaded. The warlords are also negotiating with the Taliban, of course. Because their philosophies of population management are in sync: keep the people ignorant and weak.

Labels like 'Islamofascist' applied to the Taliban are amusing, but not any more useful than 'Christofascist' applied to the Army of God or the Westboro Baptist Church.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
That woman scientist might help cure cancer, oh wait nope she wa at home washing your clothes.


Perhaps if women were at home teaching their children values and gathering fresh vegetables to feed them, rather than sending the kids off to public education where they can eat polysorbate twinkies from vending machines, we would see a cure to cancer.

I suppose that was ad absurdium though.


Originally posted by BitRaiser

I think a little moderation here is a good thing.

There's a little too much black and white going on.


Agreed. Before I started however, I think there was a little too much lone white. The thread needed a devils advocate


Perhaps it was the ever so journalistic use of islamofacist in the thread title that got us off on that rajas-tic path.


Originally posted by jsobecky

originally posted by Sri Oracle
If supporting societal pressures which result in traditional family values is sexist... than yes... I am sexist.

Sri Oracle

Are these still "traditional family values" when they are forced upon the woman? Are they "values" when the choice is taken out of the woman's hands?


You are a 20 year old American female with 20,000 in college debt, and less than half a degree. Your parents tell you that you are on your own for room and board because you have failed a few classes.

At this same stage in your life you come to a self realization that one day you will be a mom.

Now what are your choices?

You are a 20 year old Islamic woman, debt free and uneducated. Your husband provides for you.

You come to a stage in life where you realize you will soon be a mom.

Now what are your choices?

Should we draw and quarter those who teach our female children algebra? Probably not regularly. It happened however, and the Lord has placed that there for us to see; a lesson.

So what is more important?

Offering an 18 year old female individual financial freedom through education?

Or insuring that same female have the right to stay home and raise a family?

There will always be children.

There will always be a need to raise children.

There will always be a need for mom to be home.

If she is not there... The Man will raise our children.

I think that it what our Drawing and Quartering Taliban were pissed about the possibility of.

As a bottom line I am 100% for home schooling... of both men and women. I do think it should be seperate and I think that it should involve same sex mentors selected by mom or dad respectively.


I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Whether forced or not, they are still "traditional family values" - as they have existed for our 6,000 years of civilization.

Value used as a noun means benefit or desirability. You many call them "values", but they are not. Pointing to six thousand years of history does not make them so, either. I am somewhat surprised that you would defend them.


Should women be forced into it? No. But like Harlemhottie said, and I said earlier women should have a choice. In America that is not possible, inflation and debt are so out of control it takes two middle class incomes to scrape by. Someone said well, don't live in a nice neighborhood... ok. That makes sense right there
.

It is more of a choice in America than anywhere else in the world. No one will come to your door and eviscerate you before drawing and quartering you if you make one choice as opposed to another here.

Pointing to America as a justification for their actions is ridiculous. It is merely an attempt to deflect the topic away from the real issues.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Back on topic: This was an atrocious act that will likely NOT be condemned as the very fabric of their culture is rife with midevil thinking and practices. For the love of God, these people still practice the punishment of stoning!
The entire culture is oppressive by nature. Another example, women can be executed for being raped as it is perceived as adultery - unless it is wtinessed by 5 other men who will testify that it was rape! Here is oneexample.

Emphasis added.

In addition, the five male witnesses must be muslim. How's that for a stacked deck?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Originally posted by sbob
That woman scientist might help cure cancer, oh wait nope she wa at home washing your clothes.


Perhaps if women were at home teaching their children values and gathering fresh vegetables to feed them, rather than sending the kids off to public education where they can eat polysorbate twinkies from vending machines, we would see a cure to cancer.

You always have the choice of packing a nutritional lunch for your child. Or, you have the ultimate choice of not having children at all. In the West, women are not treated as property or chattel.


My responses to the following will be in italics, to differentiate them from yours.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
You are a 20 year old American female with 20,000 in college debt, and less than half a degree. Your parents tell you that you are on your own for room and board because you have failed a few classes.

At this same stage in your life you come to a self realization that one day you will be a mom.

Now what are your choices?

To list only two of many choices, you may decide not to have children at all. Or, you may choose to continue to struggle to complete your education, get a good job, and then get married and have children. Either way, they are still your choices.

You are a 20 year old Islamic woman, debt free and uneducated. Your husband provides for you.

You come to a stage in life where you realize you will soon be a mom.

Now what are your choices?

You have no choices; you never had any choices to begin with under Sharia law. If you are a woman, you are the property of either your family or your husband.

Should we draw and quarter those who teach our female children algebra? Probably not regularly. It happened however, and the Lord has placed that there for us to see; a lesson.

"Probably not regularly? Do you mean there are cases where it is acceptable?

So what is more important?

Offering an 18 year old female individual financial freedom through education?

Or insuring that same female have the right to stay home and raise a family?

It depends on what the woman wants. The freedom of choice is not yours to give or take.

There will always be children.

There will always be a need to raise children.

There will always be a need for mom to be home.

If she is not there... The Man will raise our children.

You have omitted many other options, such as grandparents raising the children.

I think that it what our Drawing and Quartering Taliban were pissed about the possibility of.

It matters not what they were thinking. They were murderous animals.

As a bottom line I am 100% for home schooling... of both men and women. I do think it should be seperate and I think that it should involve same sex mentors selected by mom or dad respectively.

This does not surprise me, that you would support segregating the sexes at an early age. It requires no further comment

I am,

Sri Oracle
I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but, you are, confused and misled.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join