Okay, valid point. And if I'm wrong here on some of the points that I've made, then I'd hope you at least understand the principle I was pointing to here; That Liberals cannot claim a monopoly on pacifism and that they have just as much blood on their hands as their Conservative opponents.

Rob Ford`s oral sex statements was one of the funniest things I`ve heard in a long time :cool: This guy is a class act loool

Apophis, what's wrong with you? What gave you such strange viewpoints? I know several divorced women who work part-time or full-time jobs while at the same time raising their little kids. It's not like they're struggling to survive, but yes having a husband in their life would make things much easier. But they don't "need" anyone.

When did I ever say that divorce is a good thing? Stop putting words in my mouth and actually pay attention to what I wrote here. Divorce happens, whether you like it or not. And it's unreasonable to assume that the divorcee is gonna stay single for the rest of his/her life. Especially if the divorce happened when they were still in their 20's. And regarding "unreasonable expectations"....I highly doubt that a woman who's gone through a marriage, childbirth, and then divorce would have "unreasonable expectations" on any future husband. She's not some 19 year old girl who wants the non-existent perfect man. She's a grown woman who's life experiences taught her more than you'd ever know. I have news for you buddy: People mature over the years. Some mature faster than others

We use the definitions available to us, to categorize politicians who lived 100 years ago. If for a second, I thought that Wilson shared the same ideologies of those like GW Bush, I would have said that. But Wilson was a Progressive and so was Roosevelt. They were very different than their small-government counterpart Calvin Coolidge. The difference is that the Democrats started to shore up their base by appealing to minorities after the 1960's, while the Republicans switched their rhetoric and started to appeal to the South. But Wilson, Roosevelt, and especially Johnson have a lot more in common with today's Democrats than the Republicans.

The definitions of the words might have changed, but the people still remain the same. When I mean Liberal, I'm referencing the Progressives. I'm referring to those Big-Government types who want to force their values on others through legislation. John Locke's definition of what a "Liberal" is, is most definitely referring to the Libertarians that exist in America today. He was a "Liberal", but a Liberal in the 1700's and 1800's is not the same as a Liberal nowadays

Safferz, I'm aware of all this. But the Liberals I'm referring to are the same Liberals who are running the Obama Administration today, who opposed GW Bush in the 2000's, who were running Johnson's Administration in the 1960's, who were running Roosevelt's administration in the 1930's, and who were running Wilson's administration in the 1910's. Yes, the Republicans and the Democrats "switched sides" in the 1960's with regards to civil rights, but the Democrats still didn't change their economic policies and much of their ideology. THAT'S who I was referring to. When I refer to "Liberals", I refer to the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, the same racist Roosevelt who opposed the anti-lynching legislation back in 1936. When I refer to Liberals, I refer to the likes of Woodrow Wilson, the same racist Wilson who re-segregated the Federal Government and set Blacks back by at least 50 years. THAT'S who I'm talking about Safferz. And this is entirely ideological, as I easily just referenced the entire abortion debate revolving around the definition of "life" itself, and does a woman have a right to kill another human being even if that human is residing in her body. Don't dismiss the other side as being unworthy of having a discussion with, as this is something typical with Liberal Arrogance. They assume everyone who opposes them isn't worthy of being considered a decent human being, and this is easily evidenced by their attitude against anyone who opposes the "Violence Against Women Act of 1993". If you oppose that law, you're automatically asked the question "Oh so you support violence against women?" Brothers, do not allow these Liberals to own the discussion. They're framing arguments in their own terms and labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a bigot. I've seen the way they treat men such as John Stossel, Thomas Sowell and others. And lastly, the Korean War was a battle which the United States DID not have to participate in, but the arrogance of Truman and his General MacArthur resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The same can be said about Vietnam, Johnson had NO RIGHT to escalate American involvement in the war, and anyone who has even a LITTLE knowledge about the Vietnam War would conclude that the entire war was escalated by Johnson and his Defense Secretary McNamara. WW1 looked like it would end in a stalemate, and there was no real reason for the US to ever get involved in that conflict either

I would rather be shot with AIDS-coated bullets before I allow a Missionary to set foot in my homeland. I will never allow it, and Angelina Jolie already has more than enough children to take care of. Didn't she already adopt like 7 or 8 different children? She's not doing young Somali orphans a favor when she's adopting them and converting them to her religion. It's a disgrace. And I agree, we are totally at fault for our own predicament. Our own backward mentality. Not just our tribalism, but the way we look at orphans, widows, divorcees and others. I see 45 year old Somali men from the diaspora flying back home to Mogadishu and marrying some pretty 20 year old Somali woman while their wives and children are left behind. Sooner or later, they end up divorcing this young Somali woman and marry another one. They all want that "fresh" young woman from a good family, and it's almost as if they're competing with each other in how many virgins they can "deflower". It's disgusting. I myself would have no issue with adopting a Somali child, and I think every single Somali family in the diaspora should play a role in sponsoring these orphans and caring for them.

Yeah exactly, actually I would have far more respect for a man who raises children who aren't genetically related to him, than I would for a man who raises his own kids. I see this is a great opportunity, where the man can mold these children into his image. He can safeguard them from harm, and a lot of Somali kids nowadays end up being corrupted because they don't have a father-figure in their lives. And if the man wants, he can have 2 or 3 more children with his wife, if he's so interested in spreading his DNA loool

Safferz;986154 wrote: Wrong on four counts, absurdly so (WWI and WWII being "started by" America in particular, lmao!). Go read a history book. Well, WW2 is debatable, and there's a lot of issue against Roosevelt for "provoking" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor back in 1941. But that's a discussion for another day But WW1 was clearly started by Wilson. America had no business in the conflict, the war looked like it would become a stalemate, but the War Commission of 1916 started a propaganda campaign to lure the American public into the war. And America did end up joining WW1 in 1917. And America lost over 100 000 men because of that decision. There are entire books written about this Safferz!

guleed_ali;986132 wrote: That's all I need to know! May Allah guide you.... because at this point this is the only duaa' I can make for you as a non-believer! Fellow sol'ers take note Raam is the person you don't want to be! Bro, he's not only an Atheist, he is an Islamophobe, and his arguments look like it was copied/pasted straight from Ayaan Hirsi or any other Islamophobe's mouth. He doesn't reference anything he says, and he makes the silly claim that "Islam is as Muslims do", which is the type of statement which would get you laughed out of any mosque or Islamic Conference. And BTW Raamsade, there was no "fatwa" against Mickey Mouse. To even claim such a thing proves that you bought into their crap, and to this day I still couldn't find any evidence of this fatwa even existing. You don't even know what a Fatwa is

Safferz;985975 wrote: Sure -- cutting/eliminating funding to women's organizations/health/rape crisis centers , opposing reproductive rights such as birth control and abortion even for rape victims and women who will die without it , attempting to redefine rape ( also this ), opposing violence against women litigation , opposing equal pay legislation , among other things. And those are just a few of the more obvious instances, I didn't even mention things like attempts to cut a number of low income food programs and aid as well as employment services, senior care, Head Start, etc, all of which would have the indirect effect of hitting women and children the hardest. But let's stay on topic, I'm sure you're already well aware of this. Safferz, did you ever think that the reasons the Republicans oppose these legislations is because either they're 1, Ideologically opposed to it and 2. Because they think it to be ineffective and 3. Because it is unnecessary What exactly is the point of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993? It's such a ****** law, as it defines "violence" against women as something subjective, depending on how the woman "feels". So if a man yell at his wife, annoys his wife or even simply ignores his wife (again, I don't recommend any of this type of behavior) he can be termed as being abusive and be kicked out of his own home, have his wages garnished, and be treated like a 2nd class citizen. Violence against ANYONE is illegal in America, so there's no point to this ****** and draconian law. I'd assume you would know better than that. Equal pay legislation has been in force since the 1960's, and it's long been illegal for an Employer to pay a man more money simply because he's a man. Not only is it illegal, it makes little economic sense, since any company would want to maximize their profits (and paying a man more money goes against that objective) And the entire abortion debate makes it look like Republicans are "against women's bodies", when the entire debate should be re-focused on the definition of LIFE itself. What is life? When is someone considered to be alive? Is it when a woman is 1 month pregnant or 9 months pregnant? Or is it after the baby is already born? Do not try and smear those who oppose you with the bigotry line, as this is a very valid disagreement and it's what this debate is actually about. The definition of life. And if that fetus is considered to "alive", then it would be murder to kill the fetus. Similar to how Scott Peterson was charged with a DOUBLE-homicide because he killed his pregnant wife, which is a little hypocritical since Liberals don't even consider the fetus to be truly "alive".

Apophis;985971 wrote: Also let's hear of Obama, the liberal hypocrite, who attacked Libya, almost attacked Syria, was behind the Egyptian coup and whose drones hover the globe like vultures ( something which has expanded under the democrats). Yes, the liberals are indeed responsible for as much death and destruction, if not more, as the right. But your inability to admit this plain fact is understandable, you're among them and have imbibed the ideology fully (something I, too, was guilty of until a few months ago; the cure is critical thinking and an open mind). America had 4 major wars in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. ALL of those wars were started by Democrats (Liberals) WW1 was started by Woodrow Wilson, a friggin Democrat. WW2 was started by Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat. The Korean War was started by Harry Truman, a DEMOCRAT. The Vietnam War was started by Lyndon Johnson, again....ANOTHER Democrat. That's 4/4. Yet people still believe that the Liberals are for peace. It's nothing but propaganda.

Haatu;985925 wrote: The ayah that was posted was very clear. These groups whatever they may call themselves have problems with the religion itself and will do everything they can to destroy it. "Women rights" and other nonsence are simply ploys used. Yeah exactly. In the 13th century, the European Christians also used to bash Islam, but they made all sorts of other claims against our religion that aren't used nowadays. The people in the 13th century weren't attacking Islam from a "feminist" standpoint, but they attacked our religion regardless. Times might change, the types of criticisms might change, but the war is still the same. They might claim Islam is against women's justice in 2013, but in 200 years they'll claim something different.

And think about the great ajaar you'll receive from Allah if you help raise these young children into responsible and well-mannered adults. Think about the benefits that society can gain when you have these young children raised by a father-figure. And when these children grow up, they'll think of you as their "real" father. DNA doesn't mean anything. And more than anything, the problem our young women face is that in our community, we tend to look at divorcees as "used up" or something like that, and this is awful for our community. Everyone wants that "pure" untouched woman who's never been in a previous relationship.

Classified;986089 wrote: In this post-modern era we're in, 90% of the time, a divorcee will divorce again and again and again. Doctorkenney , your cousin is about to take the risk of joining the 90%. If he's willing to continue with it, I'd suggest, you should tell him to ask the girl of what she thinks about him having a second wife simultaneously, while he's married to her [the divorcee]. Not really, we don't know why this woman was even divorced in the first place! It could have been something that was totally not under her control! A woman (or man) can be perfectly well-adjusted and have great character, and still end up being divorced. It happens every single day. Think about some of your relatives who've ended up divorced over the years.

Well that seems to be everyone's problem with this engagement. Personally, I see no problem with it. The children are very young, and you can raise the children as if they're your own kids. Before long, they'll see you as their "real" father, and you can be a real role-model for these children as they grow up. And who says the new husband can't have more children with the wife? He can still pop out 2 or 3 more kids that are genetically "his" You can't refer to children as another man's "litter", as they're human beings, and they're placed in these circumstances through no fault of their own. And it's not like he's marrying a woman who's much older than him with many children. She's a young, beautiful woman. She has 2 extremely young kids who don't know anything, and I see this as a great opportunity (she's a catch) And I'd also like to mention that the father of these kids plays no role in their lives. He is virtually non-existent. I don't like the stigma associated with marrying single mothers. In Islam, we see children as a blessing, not as a burden. And if you do marry a single mother, you'll already have a family prepared :cool: It's all about compatibility, and nothing else.

I'm asking this question because my cousin is interested in marrying this Somali lady, who was divorced 2 years ago, and there seems to be some uproar in the family against this marriage. There's especially an issue because she has two young children who are 3 and 5 years old. My cousin has never been married, never been in any sort of relationship, he's well-educated and a practicing Muslim. He has all the qualities that women would want in a potential spouse. And he's fallen for this woman due to her charming personality and her good looks. She herself is also well-educated. She's 1 year younger than he is (27 years old) When he first told me about his interest in this lady, I was 100% in favor for it, and I still am. She's absolutely fantastic. But many of the people are opposed to this, and they think it's "unfair" for the man to be with a woman who was divorced with kids, while he himself has never been in a relationship What do you think? How do I go about convincing the others to go ahead with this engagement?

Safferz;985336 wrote: Is this not in violation of international human rights law? Were Somali refugees in Kenya consulted before drafting the agreement? What does "voluntary repatriation" even mean, and how will it be implemented? I'm interested to know what resettlement and reintegration plan will be in place to prevent the refugees in Kenya from becoming internally displaced people... I'm not sure whether the conditions in Somalia can even accommodate large scale returns. I completely agree, Somalia is far from ready from accepting these refugees just yet. We've still got our own house to clean up first. We can't even keep Mogadishu peaceful let alone handle 500 000 internally displaced people.

This is one of the most hilarious news stories I've ever come across! The Mayor of Toronto is a crack head. It really doesn't get any funnier than that.

LOOOOL the irony is too much

What does this have to do with Somalis!? All the complaints the cadaan Westerners have against marriage don't apply to us Somali men! In fact, I think Somali men are one of the luckiest races of men when it comes to finding a woman! There's no reason for any of us to boycott marriage. We're totally fine. Let the cadaan Westerners worry about their own problems when it comes to relationships

And the Somali region has within itself a large portion of land known as the "O". A simple google search would do the trick And I actually don't care whether you sympathize with me or not. You represent everything that's wrong with the Somali mentality. You remind me of one of those diaspora Somalis who return home, buy an ill-fitting suit, and then get a comfortable Government job "managing" their country while in reality they're running it into the ground and making it worse. If you live in the West, please stay there. Don't approach East Africa.

Saalax;983801 wrote: The truth is not tribalism. They are the ones carrying "O" a clan name for a rebel organization in a region inhabited by several Somalis, don't accuse other people of tribalism. It's called "O" because that's the name of the region. That's what we refer to as Eastern Ethiopia. What a ridiculous and idiotic thing to say. Just listen to yourself speak. At least admit you're a tribalist. Admit that you hate all Somalis that don't share your exact tribal affiliation. I sincerely hope you don't reproduce.

Saalax;983791 wrote: I doubt it. ONLF can't even liberate one single village in its entire existence. Get rid of that disgusting tribalism buddy. You're not doing yourself (or your nation) a favor here. You should be standing in solidarity with your brothers instead of mocking them.