Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Pakistan recently gave in to the pressure of Islamist militants. Indeed to buy off peace, Pakistani authorities allowed the imposition of Sharia (Islamic law) in the Swat valley.

How long the cease-fire will last is anyone's guess. But in any case, Pakistan has allowed a precedent that could extend to other provinces; in fact the Swat valley is only about 100 miles away from Islamabad, the capital. But Sharia is not just making inroads in Pakistan but actually creeping in the West and in particular in Europe.


One area particularly touched by this phenomenon is the judicial system in Europe. Two recent cases in Italy and France are particularly troublesome. First, in Italy, three members of a Brescia-based Maghrebi family (father, mother and eldest son) were accused of beating up and sequestering their daughter/sister Fatima because she wanted to live a "Western" life.

But the United Kingdom is a different story, indeed there close to 40 percent of young Muslims are in favor of Sharia law being implemented in Britain. The idea seems to be also making headway among non-Muslims. So, last year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his support for the courts in Britain, saying that the legal recognition of them "seems unavoidable." He added, the United Kingdom has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.


Williams argued that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt within a Sharia court.


But contrary to what Williams advanced, Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim MP said that Sharia courts would discourage Muslims from developing links with other cultural and ethnic groups. He feared also that women could be "abused" by Sharia courts, which may give unequal bargaining power to the sexes.


http://www.metimes.com/International/20 ... orld/1119/

Very troubling development - especially in Europe, where certain countries seem to be surrendering to Islam...

dbackjon wrote:But the United Kingdom is a different story, indeed there close to 40 percent of young Muslims are in favor of Sharia law being implemented in Britain. The idea seems to be also making headway among non-Muslims. So, last year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his support for the courts in Britain, saying that the legal recognition of them "seems unavoidable." He added, the United Kingdom has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.


Williams argued that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt within a Sharia court.

What fokking cowards.....I can't decide who has the tinier dik.....this jellyspined Williams guy or the muslim men who want this law so they can continue to dominate their women with impugnity...

Appaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:But the United Kingdom is a different story, indeed there close to 40 percent of young Muslims are in favor of Sharia law being implemented in Britain. The idea seems to be also making headway among non-Muslims. So, last year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his support for the courts in Britain, saying that the legal recognition of them "seems unavoidable." He added, the United Kingdom has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.


Williams argued that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt within a Sharia court.

What fokking cowards.....I can't decide who has the tinier dik.....this jellyspined Williams guy or the muslim men who want this law so they can continue to dominate their women with impugnity...

Probably both have innies...

Yeah, this is troubling. Though, I will just switch my religion to "The Force" and say only the Jedi Council can hear my case.

This is ridiculous, and just shows how spineless some people are. If they want to live under a different legal system they need to move to a country with Sharia law. If they choose to stay in Britain, British law it is.

Yep....nothing to see here....no threat to anyone....peaceloving people....move along....

There was a deal a while back where Muslim taxi drivers in the Twin Cities would not take on fares that carried alcohol. As far as I know the Metropolitan Airport Commission started suspending licenses of drivers that did not pick up fares that had purchases alcohol.

AZGrizFan wrote:Yep....nothing to see here....no threat to anyone....peaceloving people....move along....

no sh!t........what a worthless fokking religion.....

dbackjon wrote:Very troubling development - especially in Europe, where certain countries seem to be surrendering to Islam...

funny your canidate for president and the current "house worker" who occupies 1600 penn ave are surrendering in Iraq.....i would have thought that you would be all for it.

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Very troubling development - especially in Europe, where certain countries seem to be surrendering to Islam...

funny your canidate for president and the current "house worker" who occupies 1600 penn ave are surrendering in Iraq.....i would have thought that you would be all for it.

How are they surrendering?

dbackjon wrote:

citdog wrote:
funny your canidate for president and the current "house worker" who occupies 1600 penn ave are surrendering in Iraq.....i would have thought that you would be all for it.

How are they surrendering?

what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
How are they surrendering?

what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

And how would you achieve victory? We won the military battle. At some point, unless you want to permanently station American Troops there, we have to end the occupation.


What are we accomplishing there now?

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
How are they surrendering?

what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

Hell, you've had 7 years to conquer a bunch of camel jockeys....might want ot stick to protecting your quad, you fokking soft creampuff.....took our grandaddy's 4 years to conquer the world.. ..

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
How are they surrendering?

what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

What a klown. It ain't even a war, snotnose, acc. to your azzhole friend who started it!

dbackjon wrote:

citdog wrote:
what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

And how would you achieve victory? We won the military battle. At some point, unless you want to permanently station American Troops there, we have to end the occupation.


What are we accomplishing there now?

as one of the worlds great captains i will tell you how you win...

SEE KOREA......that's what we are in for...and it's a good thing.....a Combat Division in a permanent base in that country is a given IMHO.

i would prefer "the late united states" end the occupation of the Confederate States first

And how many troops do you think would be needed to occupy Iraq, Korean style?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

citdog wrote:
what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

What a klown. It ain't even a war, snotnose, acc. to your azzhole friend who started it!

and you would know....with all your experience in fighting them...the first time you even HEARD a shot fired in anger you would begin shitting your pants and crying for you mother

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
And how would you achieve victory? We won the military battle. At some point, unless you want to permanently station American Troops there, we have to end the occupation.


What are we accomplishing there now?

as one of the worlds great captains

You just lost every ounce of credibility you had left there citdog. FUCK.

dbackjon wrote:And how many troops do you think would be needed to occupy Iraq, Korean style?

it could be done with as little as 25,000 Combat Arms with the Combat Service Support component of about the same number.

grizzaholic wrote:

citdog wrote:
as one of the worlds great captains

You just lost every ounce of credibility you had left there citdog. [*]f**k.

sense of humor much?

Yeah, you dick, I am the world's greatest captain.

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:And how many troops do you think would be needed to occupy Iraq, Korean style?

it could be done with as little as 25,000 Combat Arms with the Combat Service Support component of about the same number.

He's planning on leaving 50k....which is a draw down of troops.....which pretty much blows a hole in your theory....(no wonder we're in a quagmire...these El Dic fokkers can't even count).....

Appaholic wrote:

citdog wrote:
it could be done with as little as 25,000 Combat Arms with the Combat Service Support component of about the same number.

He's planning on leaving 50k....which is a draw down of troops.....which pretty much blows a hole in your theory....(no wonder we're in a quagmire...these El Dic fokkers can't even count).....

14 is an easy number to count up to......

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
How are they surrendering?

what do you call bringing troops out of a war without a victory?

The Confederacy.

dbackjon wrote:Pakistan recently gave in to the pressure of Islamist militants. Indeed to buy off peace, Pakistani authorities allowed the imposition of Sharia (Islamic law) in the Swat valley.

How long the cease-fire will last is anyone's guess. But in any case, Pakistan has allowed a precedent that could extend to other provinces; in fact the Swat valley is only about 100 miles away from Islamabad, the capital. But Sharia is not just making inroads in Pakistan but actually creeping in the West and in particular in Europe.

Isn't this the same failed theory that was applied to Hitler?