Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for a dozen years
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.
No they are not, and yes it matters.
Note to the usual suspects. This post isn't about me or any 'agenda' which you imagine I might have. It isn't about Donald Trump or how Christians used to be worse.
It's not about whether Islam is good or bad. Islam is islam and it's another religion and it's none of my business if it does not affect me. However what is all our business is if our elected officials are accepting bribes and giving special treatment. Donate to a charity run by clintons and the state dept will get you a meeting with hillary clinton? That cannot be allowed. Obama won a peace prize with a value of over a million dollars - he gave it all to real charities like a decent politician. Clintons accept millions in speaking fees which go straight into their bank accounts, and millions to their charities, and then good things happen for the donors.
Christian Donald Trump is just as bad.
What questions are we supposed to answer here? How about one at a time?
"It's not about whether Islam is good or bad. Islam is islam and it's another religion and it's none of my business if it does not affect me."
That's all well and good, but the question isn't about you. :-)
"Donate to a charity run by clintons and the state dept will get you a meeting with hillary clinton? That cannot be allowed."
And yet it IS allowed.
"Clintons accept millions in speaking fees which go straight into their bank accounts, and millions to their charities, and then good things happen for the donors."
That is the way the Clintons have operated for the entirety of their political careers...and yet people still vote for them. I would suggest the rules don't really matter.
ROTFLMAO!
I like your snark, 'Bro.'
Answer any one you like--or both if you prefer. (FWIW/FYI, I'm not the first person to have asked a compound question on here.)
I would urge more caution. I believe the picture you paint is a rather slanted one.
The organisation and publication you mention are referred to by Vanity Fair as 'a family business'. Having had a quick look at it I would say there are other things one could call it, but 'family business' is not incorrect. Given that, it's easy to see how Abedin could have a connection apart from politics and/or religion. While there have been accusations of links between this organisation and nasty groups, that is currently all they are. Given the popularity of wild statements in today's political pantomime, I'm even less likely to take unsubstantiated accusations seriously. And guilt by association is not satisfying.
I wondered if the years stacked up. Abedin started working at the White House in 1996 and has continued to do so ever since. A dozen years takes us to, say, 2008, which would fit somewhat with her appointment to a more senior position. If I wanted to spend some money I would see if she had occupied any official position within the business - the organisation and the publication - and if so, when it ceased. As I'm not going to spend the cash, I'll never know. ;)
However, I've had a quick look, and can't find a single article this woman has written. Removed? Possibly, but it's a publication available to the public and logically I would expect some of it - were it to support such an argument as you propose - to be used and used eagerly. So again, a cry of 'Smoke!', but no fire. I wouldn't deny it's possibility, but I'm not convinced.
As for how 'radical' the publication is, it operates out of the UK and is not on a banned list. Furthermore, it is peer-reviewed, which is not what I would expect from a radical publication. The publisher is an old and well respected one that specialises in peer-reviewed journals. While not necessarily conclusive of anything (I'd really quite like to read it), all of this tends not to support Islamic radicalism as a foundation belief of the publication.
Now, are women treated equally in Islam? Clearly we can't deal in absolutes here or we will get nowhere. Without seeming to being avoiding an answer, I would ask you to consider some things I find very interesting.
We know that the majority of 'western' Muslims can live quite happily and peacefully in western nations. For simplicity's sake I must discount so-called 'radicalised', home-grown loons due to their comparatively small numbers. We also know that this is not necessarily true of all others. I won't get into the 'why' of that now, as it would take too long, but with the disturbances happening worldwide, refugees are now almost a natural phenomenon. These people are not 'from here' and can be expected to struggle with what for some is a complete life-change.
This is where some confusion always enters the debate. Subjects like honour killings, birth rates, body coverings, are selected and (wrongly) associated with Islam. Some knowledge of history indicates that these are cultural associations rather than religious ones - though it is impossible to completely divorce the two. Honour killings and body coverings do not occur in all Muslim populations, especially those whose ties to their original culture have been weakened by time. Birth rates, high for the first generation after migration, fall to levels similar to indigenous populations by the third generation.
I would agree that to some extent the culture that some worshippers of Islam bring with them is not exactly Velcro with western societies. However, to state that Islam is automatically the problem is not, I think, accurate. While there are many issues and many of them are serious, (far more serious than whether women can drive cars) answers that neglect the complexity of the modern migrant problem and blanket solutions will not work with the situation we find ourselves in. Similarly, applying the requisite force to convince enough people not to mess with the State will not, I think, have the desired outcomes. It's not so much a religious problem as a cultural problem. Cultures change slowly and I'm afraid we're all going to just have to wait.
Hillary let a child rapist off free by suggesting the girl had a liking towards older males in the past. She never presented witnesses and I read the original court documents. Hillary got them off despite the girl being in a coma with evidence of significant trauma not to mention she had the accused clothing brought in for "independent testing" and from what I know Hillary had to pull A LOT of strings to get it there in the first place... so it really doesn't surprise me and it also doesn't surprise me when liberals cover up for people like Hillary and other practices of oppressing women like Islam. Yes it's possible for women to oppress other women. They've done it in history and they will continue to do so.
It seems like they can easily admit that the court system is biased, cruel and corrupt and that cases can be corrupted when it comes to black people in poverty but they'll deny it in many other cases and act like lawyers have a golden halo only when it fits their agenda.
This issue is a very complex one because it's shown in middle east countries over 80% want sharia law. So how can it truly oppress women if women want to be oppressed? Sounds counterproductive but it's really not when you look at the numerous factors involved you start to see a clear understanding.
In sharia law yes there is a thing called the religious police. Religious police are people who enforce sharia law. They can legally go to parks to check for unmarried women and have the right to drag you to jail and bring you to "their" version of a religious court where you are tried (and not fairly.) In their culture women are married at 9 years old. Let's say you were in an area with extreme sharia law, knowing those rules and your culture that if you spoke out it would mean the death of you or at least severe punishment. Would you speak out??? Most women don't. This system is effective and most women get compliant after awhile despite having no rights and little regard for their life.
Now some of it's changed. Some Muslims are not even preferring to wear the hijab and choose to wear make up, wanting to drive etc... slowly but not as much as I liked. From what I find those women are still shamed in their communities. If they live in western society it's a lot easier but the attitudes are still around generally.
So yes Islam does oppress women and very successfully at that.
Here's one Muslim woman standing up to the religious police. I can't show the graphic religious police videos here so I'll just introduce this one. They stopped her for wearing nail polish and was trying to force her outside of the mall. This is not new to Saudi Arabia as this happens regularly in public places. Also keep in mind I don't know what happened to her after or anything but others are not so lucky:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164981/Brave-Saudi-woman-t...
Although I have to say I heard about the religious police being kidnapped in Syria. This made me happy. I hope they get an award whoever it is:
They have to be married at 9 years old of course they don't get treated fairly:
Brilliant post! Well done!!
Now SHE is a courageous human being!
Interesting concept, though, about the differences between contractual marriage versus conjugal (sexual) marriage. Mohammad (pedophilia be upon him) married Aisha at six, but, being the 'gentleman' that he was, didn't consummate the marriage until she was the ripe old age of nine. NINE!
Odd thing is, Islamic tradition (the Hadith) holds that Mohammad (pedophilia be upon him) engaged in a practice called 'thighing' with Aisha until he was able to make the marriage 'official.'
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/03/muhammad-and-thighing-of-ai...
Oh, and the Pro-Mo was 53 at the time.
LOL!
ROTFLMAO!
This one's Kung Fu is strong!
Foo'pah!
Indeed. I discovered this the hard way myself. I reported the "white trash" ottoman cooler post (you know, the one where pretty much every rural person was vilified/dehumanized?), and I was 'rewarded' with having a few of my own responses yanked! I wasn't upset so much as a bit surprised/dismayed. The owner is was a person I respected.
...But it's like I told her at the time: she can selectively censor in favor of her buds all she wants. It IS her sandbox. D'em's the breaks, little trooper. :-) If you want a free speech forum--or at least one where the rules are applied fairly/consistently, you'll have to build it yourself. The days of raucous free-for-alls, where people had to be ADULTS, are over. Nanny has infested the Internet.
@Nimitz yeah she opened up a worldwide conversation of child marriage but after she came out she got lots of criticism for it in the Muslim community and a lot of accusations (no surprise there.) There's a lot of Muslim males who don't believe that but they are in the minority... sadly the minority doesn't really have a say in the matter.
I remember her full video. I can't find it anymore though without people talking over it but she originally said that there are a lot of kids who commit suicide because they'd rather die than get married. In the original video she talked about her aunt (I think her aunt committed suicide not sure now) how her aunt married when she was a little girl and her husband used to beat her with chains so badly. No child should have to see or even hear about that. The middle east has a history of the worst human rights.
I used to keep up on the local news I wish I could find these cases again but there was one little boy who was flogged and then thrown off a cliff, he was 12 years old and just being a child. There was one man who was sentenced to be locked up and flogged for throwing a cig on the ground. Lots of other cases and the victims of sharia law are innocent people... not guilty ones.
Aside from Islam it is estimated there is going to be a rise of 150 million children will be married between 2011 and 2020 because developmental countries have more higher birth rates. It is likely it will increase and not stop anytime soon so it's no surprise that they would run this little girl into the ground... anything to keep on practicing their culture.
It is not uncommon for the children to develop Stockholm syndrome and start to love their captors. I believe this is what allows them to oppress most women. By the time they are adults it just becomes "normal." Even though it isn't.
@Nimitz to add to that here is also a fine example of Sharia law at it's finest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls%27_school_fire
Saudi officials made girls go back into a burning school because they were not "covered" properly. All of them died.
"The event was especially notable due to complaints that Saudi Arabia's "religious police" (aka the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice) stopped schoolgirls from leaving the burning building and hindered rescue workers because the girls were not wearing correct Islamic dress, and possibly for not being escorted by a male"
