My "You Have Come A Long Way Baby"

False, my definition does not contain that requirement. You added that yourself. The definition is simply an adult who is sexually attracted to young children, and Muhammad fits the bill, considering he married a 6 year old and deflowered her at age 9.

"The typical pedophile" description and characteristics may or may not apply to Muhammad, but that doesn't refute the definition of pedophile above.

Why would I need to provide further evidence? We both agree on the fact that Muhammad was in his 50's and married a 6 year old girl, which agrees with the definition pedophile given above. Someone doesn't need to be only sexually attracted to children in order to be a pedophile. You fabricated that. I like how you are implying that age 6 was not considered a child at some point in the past... it really shows the degree of tortured logic required to escape the fact that the perfect man of Islam was a child diddler.

I would expect the person who is supposed to be the perfect role model for Muslims, guided by Allah himself, to know better than to marry a 6 year old girl. The problem with Islam is that his words and deeds are just as relevant to Muslims today as they were back in the 7th century. Maybe this is why child marriage is still practiced in parts of the Islamic world.

 

Don't despair, the old ways are still alive and well, and probably even moreso than in 1945. We saw proof of even more in Vietnam at MyLei.

A mother with her baby in her arms, a grandmother, and a young girl are shown in a photo by Time/Life. The young girl is doing up her blouse because she has just been raped by a US soldier. (Marines I think) Only seconds later they were mowed down in cold blood by a US soldier.

Or in Iraq: Wounded Mulim man shot dead for moving his body a little and begging for help from a US soldier. (most likely Marines again)

Any mention of sensitivity training is most likely just propaganda being used in an attempt to defuse the charges by Karzai of US soldiers treating Afghanis with brutality and slaughtering.

 

Witness the extremes of PF.

In this thread, we have people bemoaning the supposed loss of masculinity in our culture.

In another thread in the Latest World News section, we have people bemoaning the war in Afghanistan because of our "barbarity."

The truth is in between.

 

Alright.

Not really; I wanted imply the differing views on age of consent, but yes, I could have worded it better.

Well this is what it all comes down to. Your expectations are fundamentally anachronistic...what is wrong now wasn't always the case back then.

 

That's a cop out. If their primary concern was "gay rights" and they had any consistency to their moral standard, they would not be content to sit idly by while people are killed for being gay. They would do whatever was necessary to prevent such atrocities. It's the same way western feminists are more concerned about their wombs and their pocketbooks than with 16 year old girls in Islamic countries being forced to marry their rapists. I, as a very ardent non-leftist, am appalled by both of these practices and would actually support feminists and gay rights activists if they ever deemed these people's lives and freedom worth their time. But they won't. Which makes their entire stance a total farce.

 

What you're saying is also a cop-out. You can find any organization or group you want, and then point out things it's not doing that you think it should be. Go ahead, give me any group(s) you want, and I'll bet I can come up with things they ought to be doing that they aren't.

People are always going to care about what's closer to their lives. How many people in those countries do you think are concerned about domestic issues in America? It's not right, or wrong. It's just the way people are usually, no matter what group they belong to.

And also, how certain are you that there aren't gay right's activists in this country who aren't concerned or trying to do something about things like that?

And lastly, you know about those people getting killed too. Where is your moral standard? How much are you doing to try and stop those killings? Since you're not gay, it's not your job? Is it only a job for gay right's activists? They are the only ones with the moral responsibility to do something about it?

I really think you've chosen a cop-out too.

 

[Weakness inevitably begets agression" The classic example was that September in Munich, 1938.

An old friend once called me on a weekend some years ago just to say he had this creepy feeling that something was coming in out of Left Field to hit us, like the storming and takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, because everyone and their brother was away out of town that weekend and nobody was minding the store over at DOD. Thankfully, his worrying was all for naught.

DOD liasons had to know where Senator Kennedy was at all times because he was the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, even down to the out of the way favorite watering holes the Senator frequented. When they, on occassion, had to hunt him down at one watering hole or another, he would invariably be found with Chris Dodd (D-CT) going toe to toe, seeing who could drink whom under the table first.

Mr Daniel Greenfield's got his shorts all tied in knots, currently, over Rand Paul and the drones, which I kindee think I disagree with him about, but he's right on, here, in this article. Comrade Forksucker Obama is following in some illustrious footsteps here, Adolph Hitler loved trashing his generals because he thought he could do a better job militarily than they could. The Allies, on the other hand, thought "Why bother trying to assassinate this b@st@rd, he's doing such a sh!tty job managing the war, he'll bring it to an end quicker than we could ever, by ourselves." Joe Stalin just decided in typical Bolshevik style "Why bother picking and choosing, just kill them all" regarding his officer corps and by doing so gave the German Army a six hundred mile pentration into Soviet territory along a two thousand mile wide front in less than three months. Both of those monsters suffered from serious cases of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as does Comrade Obama.

Japan thought they could bleed the Americans into making an acceptable peace. After Iwo Jima was finished, when only two hundred of the twenty one thousand island's defenders chose to accept the opportunity to surrender when it was presented, so thorough was the housecleaning job done by the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Marines, a subtle change must have gone through some of the ranks of the Japanese Army because some 20,00 defenders, a heretofore unheard of large number, of the island of Okinawa chose to surrender three months later. The Island Nation Empire's leaders would choose the same route, with some additional prodding, some two months afterwards.]

"During the Bush administration there were only two American commanders of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Under Obama there have so far been five.....

The parade of musical chair generals began when Obama demanded the resignation of General McKiernan. The Washington Post called the firing of a wartime commander a “rare decision.” It was the first time since the days of General Douglas MacArthur that a four-star commanding general had been purged during a war.

The decision may have been rare, but it was not unexpected. General McKiernan was fired for the same offense that General McArthur had been targeted during the Korean War: He had demanded competency from an incompetent Democrat.

McKiernan had embarrassed Obama by demanding more troops to fight the war. The situation came to a head as General McKiernan pressed an indecisive Obama to make a decision. It was a devastating scene for an administration which had covered its pivot away from Iraq with concern trolling about winning in Afghanistan. The troops would be delivered, but McKiernan would pay the price.

General McKiernan’s firing was put down to the need for fresh ideas. McKiernan was deemed too “old school” because he wanted to fight an old-fashioned war against the Taliban while Obama Inc. believed that the war couldn’t be won by beating the Taliban, but by winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. It was a fashionable and doomed strategy that required sacrificing the lives and limbs of thousands of American soldiers to political correctness.

The old-school general who had once said, “I don’t understand ever putting your men and women in harm’s way, without their having the full ability to protect themselves. That also means operating on actionable intelligence to defeat insurgents, and protect your forces. That’s how you keep your soldiers alive,” was clearly not the man for that job.

Replacing him as ISAF commander was General McChrystal. McChrystal was everything that McKiernan wasn’t. He was hip fresh blood. He voted for Obama, listened to the right music and was a big fan of counterinsurgency. He hooked up with Greg Mortenson and handed out copies of Three Cups of Tea to his staff. The book proved to be a fraud and so did the COIN strategy for winning over the Afghans.

American soldiers were prevented from defending themselves to avoid offending the Afghans and the war was not moving forward. McChrystal claimed that he had presented a plan to Washington for defeating the Taliban, but Washington only wanted their capabilities degraded. The relationship between McChrystal and Obama also degraded, and McChrystal was fired over a negative Rolling Stone article that revealed that the ISAF commander held Obama and his cronies in contempt.

Urgently, Obama swapped out General McChrystal for General Petraeus, a former enemy now turned wartime ally. In only two years, Obama had gone through three generals and fired two wartime four-star generals, setting a new record for mismanaging a war.

Petraeus’s move from Central Command to commanding the ISAF was unprecedented and did not last long. With the Taliban undefeated and the conflict shifting from a military war to a campaign of drone strikes and targeted assassinations, General Petraeus shifted over to the CIA to command the new fallback position of the war effort as Director Petraeus. But a year later, Petraeus met the same fate as McKiernan and McChrystal after alienating the CIA top brass which enmeshed him in a scandal. It did not help matters any that Republicans were salivating over the idea of a Petraeus candidacy in 2016

Petraeus had been replaced by General Allen, who became enmeshed in the same scandal, and the confirmation hearings of his replacement, General Dunford, were sped up. This month, Dunford has taken command of an ISAF in retreat as Afghanistan has become the new Iraq. And Dunford has become the fifth ISAF commander under Obama. Of his four predecessors, all have ended their careers under a cloud.

The War in Afghanistan has been lost and so have the careers of most of its commanders. Obama has constantly swapped out generals, and unlike the rotating allied ISAF commanders during the Bush era, many of them were fired because they threatened Obama politically in some way.

The record is an ugly one, but it is not limited to the war theater in Afghanistan. After the Benghazi disaster, General Carter Ham of AFRICOM was reportedly edged out after telling a Republican Congressman that he had not received any requests for support. His replacement, General Rodriguez, had earlier taken over part of McKiernan’s job after Obama had forced him out.

More recently General Mattis, the commander of United States Central Command, Petraeus’s old job, was booted out without even a personal phone call for being too hawkish about Iran. The insult was unprecedented and the reason was the same. Like McKiernan and McChrystal, Mattis had offended important people in the Obama administration. And for that he paid the price.

General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, exemplifies the costs of career survival in the age of Obama. Dempsey echoes everything that the civilians tell him. He never disagrees with them in public and likely not in private. Whatever new gimmick comes out of the White House, whether it’s Green Energy or homosexuality, he’s right there behind it and out in front of it.

Dempsey has no ideas of his own and he doesn’t need any. He has nothing to bring to the table except a willingness to act as Obama’s pet parrot in a uniform. When McChrystal first met Obama, he recalled thinking that Obama was “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the room full of military brass. That observation helped get McChrystal fired and these days it’s the military brass that feels uncomfortable and intimidated by Obama Inc."

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-war-on-american-generals/

[And almost as if on cue, here's zip]

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/10/...forces-says-global-warming-is-our-top-threat/

 

Which is exactly why their stance has nothing to do with any legitimate sense of right and wrong and is purely self-serving. Out of sight, out of mind.

If there are, they certainly aren't very vocal about it. How often do you honestly hear any concern from these people?

So essentially all you've got here is tu quoque. The point is that, unlike them, I'm not being a hypocrite about it. These people claim to care about gay rights and yet completely turn a blind eye to the most egregious violations of these rights; the basic right to life.

 

Oh yeah? How come you're not out front of the abortion clinics protesting those? I've seen your posts in abortion threads. And those clinics are domestic.

And also, there are many gay right's activists who aren't actually gay, so how would that be self serving for them?

Honestly, I can't say I've ever looked.

And again, how much work do you do for the pro-life movement here in America? I only bring this up because you've posted more than a few times in abortion threads and made your position pretty clear. How about our government? You're definitely no fan of progressive politics so how often do you get out and do political work?

This isn't a gotcha attempt. This is me trying to tell you that you're judging those people by standards that you yourself don't even hold for yourself. You've decided that if these people aren't trying to stop something that have very little chance of stopping, ever, they aren't worthy. Do you go down to your local soup kitchen and tell them they should be over in Africa where famine is a real problem, if they really cared about feeding people?