• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
The Human Q-Tip said:
Well, you know.more than I do, and I trust you to be honest on the facts even if we don't ultimately agree.

Thanks. I'd actually understand it better if there was an agreement that Jews couldn't even go there, based on the idea that it isn't their land.

But the ban on praying seems just indefensible to me. I mean, if there is one thing that should be an exception to normal rules of sovereignty, it should be the freedom of prayer for all religious pilgrims. This just smacks of pretty blatant religious intolerance. I was honestly wondering if there was something more to it than that, but I guess not.

I think someone in one of these threads mentioned previously that there were some Jews living in the west bank, not in settlements, that were actually Palestinian citizen. Are they barred from praying there as well?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it is more of a political agreement than anything. Basically, it was pretty much the only concession Palestinians received after the 1967 war. But, to your point, a Jewish Palestinian would not be able to pray there. So it goes beyond politics.

I think part of the issue also stems from prayers at the Western Wall. I don't actually know if Muslims can pray there (I'd imagine they could), but it has traditionally been a sexist, racist, and bigoted process. It wasn't until 2013 that people with disabilities could pray at the wall. And when the Pope went to pray there a big debate emerged because he didn't want to take off his cross (the people who run the wall eventually ceded this).

I guess my view on it is that both Palestinians and Israelis are using religion as a political tool. With that said, the right to run the wall is pretty much the only degree of sovereignty Muslim Palestinians have, so I understand the desire to control it. Again though, straw breaking camel.
 
jking948 said:
Yeah, I think it is more of a political agreement than anything. Basically, it was pretty much the only concession Palestinians received after the 1967 war. But, to your point, a Jewish Palestinian would not be able to pray there. So it goes beyond politics.

I think part of the issue also stems from prayers at the Western Wall. I don't actually know if Muslims can pray there (I'd imagine they could), but it has traditionally been a sexist, racist, and bigoted process. It wasn't until 2013 that people with disabilities could pray at the wall. And when the Pope went to pray there a big debate emerged because he didn't want to take off his cross (the people who run the wall eventually ceded this).

I guess my view on it is that both Palestinians and Israelis are using religion as a political tool. With that said, the right to run the wall is pretty much the only degree of sovereignty Muslim Palestinians have, so I understand the desire to control it. Again though, straw breaking camel.
Click to expand...

If the Israeli government forbids people from other religions from praying at the Western Wall, or delegates that power to another group that does that, I'd say that's intolerant bullshit too.

I mean, even Saladin and Richard III could agree on that much. Basic humanity as far as I'm concerned.

I could understand restrictions/limitations if there have been numerous acts of terrorism committed by visitors to a site. I don't know if that's the case in either location, though.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
If the Israeli government forbids people from other religions from praying at the Western Wall, or delegates that power to another group that does that, I'd say that's intolerant bullshit to.

I mean, eve Saladin and Richard III could agree on that much. Basic humanity as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
Great historical analogy, haha. Yeah (I think?) we may agree on this issue. Unfortunately, until politics change, religion is going to be part of this conflict.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
If the Israeli government forbids people from other religions from praying at the Western Wall, or delegates that power to another group that does that, I'd say that's intolerant bullshit too.

I mean, even Saladin and Richard III could agree on that much. Basic humanity as far as I'm concerned.

I could understand restrictions/limitations if there have been numerous acts of terrorism committed by visitors to a site. I don't know if that's the case in either location, though.
Click to expand...

Tut, tut @The Human Q-Tip, not a mistake I thought you'd make ;):

This is Richard I, the Lionhearted, who went on Crusade:

dd2d38b0-9ec8-4395-adc2-c4c2eb118bdf_zpswy2rneh1.jpg


He also named every toilet in the realm after his treacherous brother, John.


This is Richard III, last Plantagenet king and victim of a Main-Stream Media, Shakespearean hatchet-job (damn liberals!):

McKellanRIIIGif_zps09tnaodb.gif


He later became a wizard and the best friend of Jean-Luc Picard.
 
Holy fuck, I knew that. Why the hell did I type III?

Must have had Bosworth Field on the brain.....
 
Let's just all stop having religion.
 
This is the big, completely predictable reason I didn't like the Iran deal. The whole idea that we'd still be able to sanction Iran for non-nuke related misconduct was a lie from the start.

Obama held hostage: How Iran’s using the nuke deal as license to go wild

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were convinced their one-sided nuclear deal would lead to better relations with Iran, but it’s already doing the reverse.

Tehran has taken two more Americans hostage just this month — and followed up with a massive cyberattack on the US government, especially the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs.
The kicker: Iran is holding the nuke deal hostage — threatening to junk it if Obama tries to punish the country for its fresh outrages.

Wake up and smell the coffee, guys.

When they seized one of the new hostages, the Iranians also grabbed his computer and forced him to unlock it. That allowed the Revolutionary Guard to launch what The Wall Street Journal reports is a massive cyberattack.

And, of course, the new hostages — charged with spying, natch — join three other American citizens already held.

Tehran has also cracked down on Iranians advocating better ties with Washington, while dialing up the anti-American propaganda. There’s legal action, too, including a new ban on the import of any US-made consumer goods. They even shut down a KFC in Tehran.
(So much for the dreams of new openings in Iran for American businesses.)

In case there was any doubt, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reiterated his commitment to “Death to America” (while telling Americans not to take it personally).

Vintage Iran, in other words. Little different from the days of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that culminated in the taking of 52 American hostages and holding them in captivity for 444 gut-wrenching days.

Back then, the Jimmy Carter administration found itself unable or unwilling to respond forcefully. Likewise, Team Obama today.

Some in Congress want new sanctions targeted at, for example, the Guard officials behind the cyberattacks. But Obama and Kerry are instead lifting all US sanctions as part of the nuke deal.

And, again, Tehran says it will tear up the pact if Washington retaliates for the latest provocations.

Mind you, Iran has yet to see the vast bulk of the hundreds of billions of dollars it’s to receive under the deal — but it’s still threatening to renege. How much worse will it get once the first $100 billion or so has cleared?

This is the time to see if the Iranians mean it: Hit them with new sanctions before handing over that cash, and see if they pull out. Better to know now, at the lowest cost.

The president won’t do it, of course: He sees the nuke deal as key to his legacy, right up there with ObamaCare. Iran’s leaders know it — and they’re going to use this hostage ruthlessly

http://nypost.com/2015/11/07/obama-held-hostage-how-irans-using-the-nuke-deal-as-license-to-go-wild/
 
Last edited:
Lol @ someone quoting the New York Post as a legitimate source of journalism and discourse.

o-NEW-YORK-POST-HILLARY-CLINTON-facebook.jpg

o-NEW-YORK-POST-facebook.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top