Iraqi jihadists order genital mutilation of all women

[tude dog]

FourPart;1460793 wrote: If you think about it, Christians are technically Jewish. Christ was Jewish & was accordingly circumcised. By rights Christians are just Jews who follow the teachings of one particular Jew.

I am not opposed to anyone undergoing such mutilation when it be of their own choice, or (as in my own case) by medical necessity, but to force it upon an infant, or anyone who has no choice in the matter, be it because of personal choice for their progeny, culture or religion is simply barbaric & should be banned - as in Germany, Denmark & Sweden (at least, they did impose a ban - don't know if it's still in effect though).


Parents force all kinds of things on their infants/children. That is why they are called PARENTS.

Barbaric or not, have yet to see a health problem.

[Bruv]

AnneBoleyn;1460696 wrote: My disgust knows no bounds.

Geneva (AFP) - "Jihadists in Iraq have ordered that all women between the ages of 11 and 46 must undergo female genital mutilation, which could affect up to four million women and girls in the war-ravaged country, a UN official said Thursday."

To read more, if your digestive tract can stand it, go to:

Iraqi jihadists order genital mutilation of all women


The length and depth of argument in this thread kind of proves the reasoning of an alleged order from jihadists that have no popular following to enforce that order anyway.......still..... the mere suggestion has worked it's magic.

It has had the power................to raise the hackles of middle America, Britain and everywhere else it was reported against the demon Islamists.......stoking us up......wonder what for?

Meanwhile in a side street in your town....... nobody is watching there.

[Chloe_88]

Bruv;1460802 wrote: The length and depth of argument in this thread kind of proves the reasoning of an alleged order from jihadists that have no popular following to enforce that order anyway.......still..... the mere suggestion has worked it's magic.

It has had the power................to raise the hackles of middle America, Britain and everywhere else it was reported against the demon Islamists.......stoking us up......wonder what for?

Meanwhile in a side street in your town....... nobody is watching there.


I see what you mean, but i'm glad in holland you will get a max 12 year prison sentence for FGM. Regular checks are done on girls as well.

[Bruv]

Chloe_88;1460803 wrote: I see what you mean, but i'm glad in holland you will get a max 12 year prison sentence for FGM. Regular checks are done on girls as well.


So what if the jihadists had issued the same order for Holland......nobody would have given it any credence.

[Chloe_88]

Bruv;1460805 wrote: So what if the jihadists had issued the same order for Holland......nobody would have given it any credence.


I think if that would have been the case, action would have been taken.. more checks etc.

But I don't know if they would, that just what I think would happen

[tude dog]

FourPart;1460799 wrote: If all Jews were circumcised that might be the case, but if there are different sects of Jews (which I admit I was not aware of) that do not follow the rite of circumcision, then the clause becomes false.


Being a male Jew is more than a birthright. The RITUAL of circumcision must be performed.

[Chloe_88]

tude dog;1460808 wrote: Being a male Jew is more than a birthright. The RITUAL of circumcision must be performed.


I thought the only way to be a true jew is if you where born from a true jewish mother????

Is that correct?

[Bruv]

tude dog;1460808 wrote: Being a male Jew is more than a birthright. The RITUAL of circumcision must be performed.


I wanted you to explain what you meant by that.

Then I remembered who I was speaking to......you don't expound..... you compound.

[LarsMac]

High Threshold;1460786 wrote: Really? Africa is a large continent. Much of sub Saharan middle Africa practices both male and female circumcision. It is part or their rites of passage to becoming men and woman.


Well, due to this discussion, I have learned a great deal more than I ever really wanted to on the subject.

I still do not see how the two can be viewed together. The female version, as I read it, seems in extreme cases to be terribly close to the male version of making one a eunuch.

While Male circumcision is hardly in the same realm. I do however object to either being forced on any person against their will.

And while there is some Biblical/Qur'anic "justification" for the male variety, there is no such justification for the procedure on females.



So, no, I still do not have the same concern for the "victims" of male circumcision as I would for the females.

Call me sexist if you like.

[LarsMac]

Chloe_88;1460809 wrote: I thought the only way to be a true jew is if you where born from a true jewish mother????

Is that correct?


That is a good start.

[Chloe_88]

LarsMac;1460811 wrote: Well, due to this discussion, I have learned a great deal more than I ever really wanted to on the subject.

I still do not see how the two can be viewed together. The female version, as I read it, seems in extreme cases to be terribly close to the male version of making one a eunuch.

While Male circumcision is hardly in the same realm. I do however object to either being forced on any person against their will.

And while there is some Biblical/Qur'anic "justification" for the male variety, there is no such justification for the procedure on females.



So, no, I still do not have the same concern for the "victims" of male circumcision as I would for the females.

Call me sexist if you like.


I think that was a good post!

[Týr]

tude dog;1460801 wrote: Barbaric or not, have yet to see a health problem.
Here you go, this is peer-reviewed, from a US government department, and recent.

Circumcisions for medical reaso... [Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2012 Jul-Sep] - PubMed - NCBI

based on data from the Brazilian public health system [...] From 1992 to 2010 there were 63 deaths associated with circumcisions (mortality rate of 0.013%).

I'd be interested to know whether anyone publishes equivalent US national statistics. Going by my previous forays into US national statistics it seems doubtful but if anyone finds them, again from a peer-reviewed US government department source as opposed to someone online beating a drum, I'd be interested to see it.

[tude dog]

Chloe_88;1460809 wrote: I thought the only way to be a true jew is if you where born from a true jewish mother????

Is that correct?






Who Is a Jew?

[gmc]

posted by larsmac

I still do not see how the two can be viewed together. The female version, as I read it, seems in extreme cases to be terribly close to the male version of making one a eunuch.


When one os made a eunuch the testicles are removed but the penis remains for passing water and it is till possible to get an erection just not produce any children.

Full female genital mutilation - the equivalent done to a male would be the removal of everything leaving only a hole to pass water. To have sex the opening has to be widened and since everything has been rmoved there is no sensation of pleasure for the woman. To complicate matters where do you think the baby comes out?

There is no justification for it except the religious one that women are guilty of original sin nothing so any pleasure the sex act brings then is sinful and they are nothing more than baby making machines that should serve man. Just think of the hatred that lies behind the act. That we turn a blind eye it in this country is appalling.

genesis 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.




Koran/bible same roots same mysogyny same insanity.

[LarsMac]

gmc;1460830 wrote: posted by larsmac



When one os made a eunuch the testicles are removed but the penis remains for passing water and it is till possible to get an erection just not produce any children.

Full female genital mutilation - the equivalent done to a male would be the removal of everything leaving only a hole to pass water. To have sex the opening has to be widened and since everything has been rmoved there is no sensation of pleasure for the woman. To complicate matters where do you think the baby comes out?

There is no justification for it except the religious one that women are guilty of original sin nothing so any pleasure the sex act brings then is sinful and they are nothing more than baby making machines that should serve man. Just think of the hatred that lies behind the act. That we turn a blind eye it in this country is appalling.

genesis 3:16



Koran/bible same roots same mysogyny same insanity.


On, that at least, we are in full agreement.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1460793 wrote: If you think about it, Christians are technically Jewish. Christ was Jewish & was accordingly circumcised. By rights Christians are just Jews who follow the teachings of one particular Jew.


From Jesus' own standpoint I think you are probably right. He was a Jewish prophet like so many others. The question that nobody seems able to answer is, just how much did Jesus actually say/preach and how much was ad hoc, made up by Jews who got tired of waiting for the "real" Messiah to arrive. The point is this: Jesus did not fulfil the criteria of Messiah, as put down by Judaic philosophy. So, either he never claimed to be the Messiah or (if he did) he was not a very good Jew. A very bad one, in fact.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1460780 wrote: I am not one of those blind patriots that you seem to detest.

I am painfully aware of many of my nations misdeeds, and less than honorable actions. (pretty much like every other gummint of the last several millennia)

But I am finding your continuous anti-everything-American rants a bit tiresome.


We should have started several decades ago thinking of ourselves as citizens of Planet Earth, and not slavishly promoting national interests and goals!

My anti-american rants are anti-american precisely because America is the largest and most dangerous empire in the world today; and the one that has forced the rest of the world to adopt neoliberal economic policies and globalization. Globalization is one of the major...though rarely mentioned causes of increased exploitation and consumption of resources. Now that rising economic powers in the rest of the world (such as the BRICS) appear to be fed up with the IMF and wants to disengage their economies from Dollaraucracy, they...or perhaps one of them...may be the next empire to deal with when the American Empire collapses. But, until then, the American Empire gets the criticism it deserves.

I can't help notice that you devote your attention to criticizing the motivations of the person, and never actually addressing any points raised! Although I am finding that typical here since I've been back on FG, so you're not alone in this. Every thread here now seems to be focused on personal trivia or sniping trolling insults, and I don't find much interest in actually learning something new. Maybe that's why so many longtime active members seem to have vanished, and there's not much happening here except for a sniping, carping little sewing circle of same five or six frequent posters. And none of them are people I am interested in talking to anyway....so, it looks like coming back here was a mistake, and it's time to find a forum that more closely matches my interests.

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1460834 wrote: ….. anti-american rants are anti-american precisely because America is the largest and most dangerous empire in the world today .............. the American Empire gets the criticism it deserves.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1460834 wrote: We should have started several decades ago thinking of ourselves as citizens of Planet Earth, and not slavishly promoting national interests and goals!

My anti-american rants are anti-american precisely because America is the largest and most dangerous empire in the world today; and the one that has forced the rest of the world to adopt neoliberal economic policies and globalization. Globalization is one of the major...though rarely mentioned causes of increased exploitation and consumption of resources. Now that rising economic powers in the rest of the world (such as the BRICS) appear to be fed up with the IMF and wants to disengage their economies from Dollaraucracy, they...or perhaps one of them...may be the next empire to deal with when the American Empire collapses. But, until then, the American Empire gets the criticism it deserves.

I can't help notice that you devote your attention to criticizing the motivations of the person, and never actually addressing any points raised! Although I am finding that typical here since I've been back on FG, so you're not alone in this. Every thread here now seems to be focused on personal trivia or sniping trolling insults, and I don't find much interest in actually learning something new. Maybe that's why so many longtime active members seem to have vanished, and there's not much happening here except for a sniping, carping little sewing circle of same five or six frequent posters. And none of them are people I am interested in talking to anyway....so, it looks like coming back here was a mistake, and it's time to find a forum that more closely matches my interests.


Well, I am sorry you feel that way. I don't think I have ever devoted my time to criticizing your motivation. I think I have been mostly questioning your sources, and asking for clarification on some of your claims.

I personally do enjoy some of your posts, they are often very reasoned and give one pause to think, but then there are a lot that seem to be wild claims from dodgy sources to see if you can get a fight going from "Patriotic Americans" who think America can do no wrong.

I don't know any of those around here.

If you just want a fight, you might try "City-Data.com" They have a lot that going on there.

As for the first line, I certainly agree about the "Citizens of Earth" but since we all started out on the nationalist notion back before the concept of Earth Citizenship was ever formed, it will take a long time to get there. People seem to like their nations. Look at all the trouble the EU is having. French still like being French, Brits like being Brittain, Germans want to still be German, and nobody wants to give up their own country.

The only place where national pride is difficult is on the lands were the national borders were drawn up by the European invaders.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1460837 wrote: Well, I am sorry you feel that way. I don't think I have ever devoted my time to criticizing your motivation. I think I have been mostly questioning your sources, and asking for clarification on some of your claims.

I personally do enjoy some of your posts, they are often very reasoned and give one pause to think, but then there are a lot that seem to be wild claims from dodgy sources to see if you can get a fight going from "Patriotic Americans" who think America can do no wrong.

I don't know any of those around here.

If you just want a fight, you might try "City-Data.com" They have a lot that going on there.
Thanks for the tip! Seems like a busy place. But, from a quick glance, I don't see a lot of what you call "fighting" going on - just debates of issues with contrary points of view and supporting evidences...which is what debate should be in the first place.

I've noticed from you and others, that having a strong opinion and a different point of view on FG is taken as a personal attack or "getting angry" which is the charge you've directed at me several times already because I have some strong opinions on certain subjects. That doesn't mean that I treat the subject and the writer as one and the same.

As for the first line, I certainly agree about the "Citizens of Earth" but since we all started out on the nationalist notion back before the concept of Earth Citizenship was ever formed, it will take a long time to get there. People seem to like their nations. Look at all the trouble the EU is having. French still like being French, Brits like being Brittain, Germans want to still be German, and nobody wants to give up their own country.

The only place where national pride is difficult is on the lands were the national borders were drawn up by the European invaders.


Nationalism and it's emotional packaging - "patriotism" are outgrowths of tribalism, as nations began growing larger and absorbing different tribal groups...and trying to keep them united. Just as so many times in the past, the only thing that leaders find to provide unity is to find foreign and domestic enemies to rally the nation to hate. After the long debacle of the Vietnam War, a lot of people thought these were lessons that had been learned...but after a generation or so, the lessons are forgotten!

What's most dangerous now, is that the U.S. and allies have gone beyond a policy of quietly encircling and entrapping the former Soviet Union and China, to deliberately trying to provoke wars to grab remaining natural resources. Forty years ago, it would have been unthinkable to risk provoking WWIII and engage the Soviet Union in direct attack. But today, most of our sycophantic media doesn't even mention the fact that Russia still has thousands of nuclear warheads...and China has at least dozens of nukes, while U.S. military and policy planners bring open war right up to Russia's borders.

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1460830 wrote: posted by larsmac



When one os made a eunuch the testicles are removed but the penis remains for passing water and it is till possible to get an erection just not produce any children.

Full female genital mutilation - the equivalent done to a male would be the removal of everything leaving only a hole to pass water. To have sex the opening has to be widened and since everything has been rmoved there is no sensation of pleasure for the woman. To complicate matters where do you think the baby comes out?

There is no justification for it except the religious one that women are guilty of original sin nothing so any pleasure the sex act brings then is sinful and they are nothing more than baby making machines that should serve man. Just think of the hatred that lies behind the act. That we turn a blind eye it in this country is appalling.

genesis 3:16



Koran/bible same roots same mysogyny same insanity.


This story about ISIS demanding FGM whether true or false, misses two key points that we should have learned from the first "regime change" debacles:

1.if ISIS is ordering FGM, there's not a damn thing the U.S. and Iraqi Government will do about it, because Iraq is permanently destroyed as a functioning state. The only thing that will end ISIS is the Sunni tribes within those ISIS-controlled regions throwing them off. And that can only happen after they are confident that there will be no more outside interference and double-crosses from the U.S. and its Shia-dominated Baghdad government. After being betrayed after doing the dirty work to eliminate "al Qaeda-in-Iraq" the last time, that will be a tough one to pull off to mobilize them to regard ISIS as a worse enemy than the Maliki Government and their corrupt forces.

2. I don't think it's even been mentioned yet, that FGM is not even an Islamic practice; but instead is one that goes back to something done by the upper classes in ancient Egypt, and later adopted down the Nile River becoming common practice in Somalia and Ethiopia especially. If ISIS wants to adopt this practice, it is one more thing that other Muslims can clearly recognize as un-Islamic....just like threatening and carrying out beheadings of those Shias, Christians and Muslim sects who refuse to convert to their brand of Sunni Islam.

As long as they can enforce terror, they will be able to rule; but they will either implode when divisions within the group become significant or other Sunni tribal groups will take them out AFTER they are confident that they will not have government imposed from the outside again.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1460847 wrote: ...

I've noticed from you and others, that having a strong opinion and a different point of view on FG is taken as a personal attack or "getting angry" which is the charge you've directed at me several times already because I have some strong opinions on certain subjects. That doesn't mean that I treat the subject and the writer as one and the same.




Well, until now, I have taken nothing you have said personal. You are certainly welcome to your "Strong opinion". Again, all I have ever done is question your sources. That seems to be what you are calling personal attack. Well, that, and I have suggested a few times that perhaps blaming the US for everything might be a little short-sighted. I suppose you might take that as a personal attack, if you like. But I am also entitled to my opinions, am I not? And my opinion is based upon more than the latest rantings of the "alternative media"

[Bruv]

It hardly matters that FGM is or is not an Islamic practice, it is accepted by many to be a requirement of their faith, the same as Christmas and Easter are originally pagan they are celebrated worldwide as Christian festivals.

[High Threshold]

LarsMac;1460852 wrote: Well, until now, I have taken nothing you have said personal. You are certainly welcome to your "Strong opinion". Again, all I have ever done is question your sources. That seems to be what you are calling personal attack. Well, that, and I have suggested a few times that perhaps blaming the US for everything might be a little short-sighted. I suppose you might take that as a personal attack, if you like. But I am also entitled to my opinions, am I not? And my opinion is based upon more than the latest rantings of the "alternative media"


"I have taken nothing you have said personal" and "perhaps blaming the US for everything might be a little short-sighted". These 2 quotes seem to contradict one another. Considering the response I will now get, I will probably regret having pointed this out.

FIRST: You have made the point of mentioning that his criticism of the U.S. irks you (no "quote"). But if you don't mind the perpetual criticism of Al Qaida (for example) why would one not assume you take American criticism personally? After all, it's one that irks you, not the other.

SECOND: Neither he, nor anyone else, blames the U.S. for everything. Saying someone does is another sign of taking it personally.

So now you can prove me right. Make me regret saying it.

[LarsMac]

High Threshold;1460856 wrote: "I have taken nothing you have said personal" and "perhaps blaming the US for everything might be a little short-sighted". These 2 quotes seem to contradict one another. Considering the response I will now get, I will probably regret having pointed this out.


I don't see how they are contradictory. They actually have little to do with each other.

I would make the second statement even had he been blaming everything on the UK, or on Russia, or the CIA, or the Roman Empire, or the juxtaposition of the Jupiter and the Moon. Every ill in the world he has laid at the feet of the US as if the US Empire was all consuming entity who controls the actions of every living soul on the Earth. The Great Satan, as a certain former Islamic Cleric once called it. I hardly take that personal. I am merely a cog in the wheel of this vast machine that has consumed the Universe. And I do suggest that is a bit short-sighted approach, and it ignores the machinations of a great number of rather clever people over the last couple of centuries. It also leaves us with no plan to truly identify a problem and work towards a resolution.

Finding someone to blame for the ills of civilization is easy. Fixing the problems is hard.



High Threshold;1460856 wrote:

FIRST: You have made the point of mentioning that his criticism of the U.S. irks you (no "quote"). But if you don't mind the perpetual criticism of Al Qaida (for example) why would one not assume you take American criticism personally? After all, it's one that irks you, not the other.




Why would you assume that I must take criticism of America Personally? What I said was that I find it tiresome. (as in boring, non-productive, a waste of time, etc.)

High Threshold;1460856 wrote:

SECOND: Neither he, nor anyone else, blames the U.S. for everything. Saying someone does is another sign of taking it personally.

So now you can prove me right. Make me regret saying it.[QUOTE=High Threshold;1460856]



Well, I could go back through all of his posts, and show that at nearly ever point, (the economy, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, The Ukraine, etc.) It was all the fault of the US. However I would find that rather tiresome and a waste of both of our time. Go read for yourself. Find me one place where he laid the blame on anyone besides US entities.

[AnneBoleyn]

Týr;1460752 wrote: With reference to the opening post, does anyone remember the Iraq Incubators story? Here it is at the Christian Science Monitor: When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators - CSMonitor.com

I suggest that in any conflict zone where the US considers it has an interest, the filthy lies will invariably snatch news space from genuine discussion.

AnneBoleyn: My disgust knows no bounds.

C.S.Monitor: More than 10 years later, I can still recall my brother Sean's face. It was bright red. Furious. Not one given to fits of temper, Sean was in an uproar. He was a father, and he had just heard that Iraqi soldiers had taken scores of babies out of incubators in Kuwait City and left them to die. The Iraqis had shipped the incubators back to Baghdad. A pacifist by nature, my brother was not in a peaceful mood that day. "We've got to go and get Saddam Hussein. Now," he said passionately.

How you can bring yourself to believe such blatant twaddle I really don't know. I suspect it's because you simply want it to be true. I know people who even now think the Iraq Incubators story was true. They'd invested so much in believing the story that they can't face the prospect of accepting they were deliberately and cynically duped by a lie designed to swing public opinion.

The fact that you can see the story being discussed endlessly on television as though it were true doesn't make it true. Brand that notion into your forehead.

When will people finally accept responsibility for their own gullible weakness when it comes to stories like this.


You SUSPECT GULLIBLE WEAKNESS. Until you can learn to speak to me with a modicum of respect, civility, I have no interest in answering you John. BRAND THAT NOTION INTO YOUR FOREHEAD.

[AnneBoleyn]

Chloe_88;1460778 wrote: Having any body part changed/sliced off/mutilated under pressure/force is wrong.

I feel female and male circumcision are being compared here.

But i'm very sorry, you cannot compare male circumcision to cutting off a womans clitoris, sometimes even the inner and outer labia and then stiched up with only a sometimes very small opening left.

I didn't read the article in the OP, hoax or real it doesn't really matter, female circumcision still happens all the time.


You are correct Chloe, there is no comparison. As for the circumcised Christian men out there, I have always wondered WHY their parents felt it necessary to adhere to this practice. If they are still living, I urge you angry men to find out WHY & vow not to have it done to your own sons.

[AnneBoleyn]

High Threshold;1460784 wrote: And the reason you left out the main part of my post is ....... ?

And NO, it is customary for women to perform female circumcision on girls.


This is true. It's the slaves working for their Massa.

[AnneBoleyn]

FourPart;1460793 wrote: If you think about it, Christians are technically Jewish. Christ was Jewish & was accordingly circumcised. By rights Christians are just Jews who follow the teachings of one particular Jew.

I am not opposed to anyone undergoing such mutilation when it be of their own choice, or (as in my own case) by medical necessity, but to force it upon an infant, or anyone who has no choice in the matter, be it because of personal choice for their progeny, culture or religion is simply barbaric & should be banned - as in Germany, Denmark & Sweden (at least, they did impose a ban - don't know if it's still in effect though).


The way it has evolved, Christians are NOT Jewish. They have convinced themselves they are operating under a NEW Covenant with God.

[AnneBoleyn]

Here's how I always based the question "Who is a Jew?" It's the ones wearing the yellow Star of David in Hitler's camps. Whether atheist, uncircumcised, half jew or whatever, if the Nazi's designated you a Jew worthy of Death, if Jew-Haters across the globe basically agree with this definition, then you are, in the Eyes of the World, a Jew. How you view yourself is important only to yourself.

[High Threshold]

LarsMac;1460859 wrote: I don't see how they are contradictory. They actually have little to do with each other.


Only if your following statement is true ...

"I would make the second statement even had he been blaming everything on the UK, or on Russia, or the CIA, or the Roman Empire, or the juxtaposition of the Jupiter and the Moon." But just between the 2 of us, I wouldn't blame you one bit if you let the part about the juxtaposition of the Jupiter and the Moon slide past you. I have proof that is the reason why Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are so expensive in Sweden.

LarsMac;1460859 wrote: Every ill in the world he has laid at the feet of the US ...


Really??? It is very odd then that you name these ...

"the economy, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, The Ukraine, etc." Other than the "etc." I'd say you've chosen very well those subjects that the U.S. MOST CERTAINLY look to have their hands deeply in the kitchen! I think that you should post a short list of the "etc" instead, if you want to highlight ill-blame. Just trying to be helpful.





LarsMac;1460859 wrote: Why would you assume that I must take criticism of America Personally?


I never said "must". But I do say, describing someone's criticism of the U.S. as "anti-American" smells rather strongly of "taking something personally". Naturally, if I can be turned to believe that such criticism IS on an "anti" scale then I'll have to agree with you. But I think we need to look at your "etc" list for that to have any chance of happening.

LarsMac;1460859 wrote: What I said was that I find it tiresome. (as in boring, non-productive, a waste of time, etc.)


I can understand that!

[LarsMac]

AnneBoleyn;1460863 wrote: You are correct Chloe, there is no comparison. As for the circumcised Christian men out there, I have always wondered WHY their parents felt it necessary to adhere to this practice. If they are still living, I urge you angry men to find out WHY & vow not to have it done to your own sons.


Having a few minutes to entertain my curiosity on the subject this morning, I found this:

Circumcision in the USA

I don't think it answers the question, really, and in fact, I now have even more questions on the subject.

I know that when I asked my father about it, once, he said that it was a customary practice for hygienic purposes.

I cannot honestly say that I feel the least bit violated over it, though.

[AnneBoleyn]

There's also the point that boys all want to look the same as the other boys. I know an Italian man, in his forties, who was always ashamed in gym of Not being circumcised as he was teased by the other boys. He married an Italian woman, she felt it was healthier for women for a man to be circumcised, & he, remembering his shame, agreed. I think that's nuts.

Born a Jew, I have always been against circumcision, just for 'natural' reasons. I did not attend the religious circumcisions of my nephews, done at home with a mohel. My husband was not circumcised & he wanted his son, our son, to look like him. He had no problem with me on that. My father? That's another story!!!!!!!

[High Threshold]

AnneBoleyn;1460864 wrote: .... It's the slaves working for their Massa.


No, it is not like that at all.

Men and women have specific rolls, responsibilities, and even power in traditional African culture. It is often the women who have full control in the family, the men destined to do the hunting (or minding cattle) and "staying out of the way". True, the headman is male, but he has to listen to the dominant women (woman) of each ethnic tribe and take their wishes and advice very seriously.

Women in these tribes look forward to their daughters being circumcised as it signifies womanhood. If you have spent any time in the Eastern European countries and the Caucasus you may have spied very few woman, girl, or child without a pierced earring. Girls in most cultures round the world look forward with pride when they get their first menstruation and a bra. These events are all linked, including tribal African facial scars and both male and female circumcision.

[Týr]

AnneBoleyn;1460862 wrote: You SUSPECT GULLIBLE WEAKNESS. Until you can learn to speak to me with a modicum of respect, civility, I have no interest in answering you John. BRAND THAT NOTION INTO YOUR FOREHEAD.


And meanwhile your disgust with these damned Muslims knows no bounds, despite the story being blatantly fabricated to persuade you and a hundred million other Americans that your disgust should know no bounds. It is, you understand, the US electorate whose collective mind needs swaying, that's why the lie exists, to fool you into experiencing a disgust which knows no bounds. And you don't regard yourself as gullible for swallowing the lies, one after another?

Go on, tell me it might be true after all. Like the Iraqi Incubator story.

[LarsMac]

Týr;1460873 wrote: And meanwhile your disgust with these damned Muslims knows no bounds, despite the story being blatantly fabricated to persuade you and a hundred million other Americans that your disgust should know no bounds. It is, you understand, the US electorate whose collective mind needs swaying, that's why the lie exists, to fool you into experiencing a disgust which knows no bounds. And you don't regard yourself as gullible for swallowing the lies, one after another?

Go on, tell me it might be true after all. Like the Iraqi Incubator story.


Perhaps her disgust is with the mindset of people who are constantly trying to manipulate people with such ridiculous notions.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1460852 wrote: Well, until now, I have taken nothing you have said personal. You are certainly welcome to your "Strong opinion". Again, all I have ever done is question your sources.
And, where are your sources?

That seems to be what you are calling personal attack. Well, that, and I have suggested a few times that perhaps blaming the US for everything might be a little short-sighted.
WHY?

That's what I am asking, and getting no clear answer for. My position is simply that the most dominant world power...something that American leaders brag about and don't deny, I might add, has the overwhelming economic&military power to control global events. The U.S. has thousands of military bases and trade missions all over the world, which enforce U.S. corporate interests abroad. And the reason why the world is in the state it is in today, rather than dealing with: overpopulation and excessive exploitation of the environment, is because the U.S. policy planners decided to set up a global trading scheme that directly attacks efforts to localize production and promote self-sufficiency.

The civil wars, military coups, and wars that have gone out of control (like Iraq), are a direct result of U.S. actions...so, why shouldn't the U.S. receive the vast majority of blame for the way the world is today? The United States under a different...more thoughtful regime, had the power to address the existential threats to human survival that were identified more than 40 years ago. But, rather than put policies in place to deal with these problems, they plotted a course that has exacerbated these harms and are speeding up the process towards human extinction within a few more generations.

I suppose you might take that as a personal attack, if you like. But I am also entitled to my opinions, am I not? And my opinion is based upon more than the latest rantings of the "alternative media"
Opinions should be informed by evidence; where is the contrary evidence that U.S. actions and policies - domestic and foreign, have benefited the world? Specifically, how have they made the world safer from nuclear annihilation, economic collapse and environmental collapse?

[LarsMac]

High Threshold;1460867 wrote: Only if your following statement is true ...

"I would make the second statement even had he been blaming everything on the UK, or on Russia, or the CIA, or the Roman Empire, or the juxtaposition of the Jupiter and the Moon." But just between the 2 of us, I wouldn't blame you one bit if you let the part about the juxtaposition of the Jupiter and the Moon slide past you. I have proof that is the reason why Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are so expensive in Sweden.




AhAH!! I have always suspected it was so.

High Threshold;1460867 wrote:

Really??? It is very odd then that you name these ...

"the economy, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, The Ukraine, etc." Other than the "etc." I'd say you've chosen very well those subjects that the U.S. MOST CERTAINLY look to have their hands deeply in the kitchen! I think that you should post a short list of the "etc" instead, if you want to highlight ill-blame. Just trying to be helpful.




I don't think it was so odd, since those are the subjects which were so discussed, and for which our friend laid the blame squarely on the US.

The "etc." was for just in case I missed a subject to which it applies.

High Threshold;1460867 wrote:

I never said "must". But I do say, describing someone's criticism of the U.S. as "anti-American" smells rather strongly of "taking something personally". Naturally, if I can be turned to believe that such criticism IS on an "anti" scale then I'll have to agree with you. But I think we need to look at your "etc" list for that to have any chance of happening.




I remember when I was younger, whatever ill was befalling us at any giving time, one of the neighbors would always say something to the effect of "it's the Damned Russians" as if the Soviet Union had caused the drought, or too much rain, or the early snowfall, or the late heat wave, or the price of gasoline going up. or the price of Cotton falling, just at harvest time.

I would label his sentiment to be "Anti-Russian".

I wonder, now, if this fellow is still blaming everything on the Russians.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1460868 wrote: Having a few minutes to entertain my curiosity on the subject this morning, I found this:

Circumcision in the USA

I don't think it answers the question, really, and in fact, I now have even more questions on the subject.

I know that when I asked my father about it, once, he said that it was a customary practice for hygienic purposes.

I cannot honestly say that I feel the least bit violated over it, though.


When I first came across the female genital mutilation (FGM) issue a few years ago; one of my great annoyances....and most of the forum members on the political forum at the time...was that the FGM subject could not be raised without some idiot coming along with the "what about male circumcision" argument! Your source seems to be another one of these online anti-circumcision hysteria sites that have sprouted up in recent years.

Even though this story on ISIS has been revealed to be a fraud (that should have been obvious when they denied it...since they don't deny beheading infidels etc.) FGM does exist, and ranges from snipping along the labia to make female genitalia smoother to clitorectomies...intended to reduce female sexual arousal...they are still more serious and invasive than the standard, secular infant circumcision done to infant boys here.

I had heard claims that circumcision reduces sexual arousal in men...but I can't find anything in the way of clinical evidence to support the claim. There is clear evidence that there is some reduction in STD's - from HIV, HPV, herpes, syphilis and genital warts...but it's only a matter of shifting the percentages. It's a significant reduction in risk to medical professionals, but does not eliminate the risks. Also, there is some evidence that urinary tract infections and cancers... but the benefits may be marginal. What also seems to be marginal, are the claims that there are risks connected with circumcision.

All I can say, is that I was circumcised, and both of my sons were circumcised. My wife and I decided to go by the advice of her doctor, and as best we could check at the time, the benefits outweighed any possible harms. But, again, this all has nothing to do with the effort to bring FGM to an end, and if anything, harms the efforts because it serves as one more noisy, unnecessary distraction from a very serious issue.

[High Threshold]

LarsMac;1460876 wrote: I don't think it was so odd, since those are the subjects which were so discussed, and for which our friend laid the blame squarely on the US.


You don't understand that I agree the U.S. is responsible for those situations? I mean, the U.S. is deeply involved there. It's not like I'm blaming them for the drought, or too much rain, or the early snowfall, or the late heat wave, or the price of gasoline going up. or the price of Cotton falling, just at harvest time. Well, the price of gasoline going up is certainly their doing but the rest of it ......... no, I don't think so.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1460878 wrote: When I first came across the female genital mutilation (FGM) issue a few years ago; one of my great annoyances....and most of the forum members on the political forum at the time...was that the FGM subject could not be raised without some idiot coming along with the "what about male circumcision" argument! Your source seems to be another one of these online anti-circumcision hysteria sites that have sprouted up in recent years.

Even though this story on ISIS has been revealed to be a fraud (that should have been obvious when they denied it...since they don't deny beheading infidels etc.) FGM does exist, and ranges from snipping along the labia to make female genitalia smoother to clitorectomies...intended to reduce female sexual arousal...they are still more serious and invasive than the standard, secular infant circumcision done to infant boys here.

I had heard claims that circumcision reduces sexual arousal in men...but I can't find anything in the way of clinical evidence to support the claim. There is clear evidence that there is some reduction in STD's - from HIV, HPV, herpes, syphilis and genital warts...but it's only a matter of shifting the percentages. It's a significant reduction in risk to medical professionals, but does not eliminate the risks. Also, there is some evidence that urinary tract infections and cancers... but the benefits may be marginal. What also seems to be marginal, are the claims that there are risks connected with circumcision.

All I can say, is that I was circumcised, and both of my sons were circumcised. My wife and I decided to go by the advice of her doctor, and as best we could check at the time, the benefits outweighed any possible harms. But, again, this all has nothing to do with the effort to bring FGM to an end, and if anything, harms the efforts because it serves as one more noisy, unnecessary distraction from a very serious issue.


I can only agree.

[AnneBoleyn]

LarsMac;1460874 wrote: Perhaps her disgust is with the mindset of people who are constantly trying to manipulate people with such ridiculous notions.


Yes, but also my disgust is for female genital mutilation.

[AnneBoleyn]

Týr;1460873 wrote: And meanwhile your disgust with these damned Muslims knows no bounds, despite the story being blatantly fabricated to persuade you and a hundred million other Americans that your disgust should know no bounds. It is, you understand, the US electorate whose collective mind needs swaying, that's why the lie exists, to fool you into experiencing a disgust which knows no bounds. And you don't regard yourself as gullible for swallowing the lies, one after another?

Go on, tell me it might be true after all. Like the Iraqi Incubator story.


If in 'these damned Muslims' meaning ISIS, or any man who treats women poorly, damn right. Otherwise, I live amongst thousands of Muslims & none of them has disgusted me yet. I was in the minority in my neighborhood of supporting their right to build a new Mosque.

Not everyone votes the same, you idiot. I've had to 'suffer' many social & economic burdens for sticking to my conscience.

Actually, I reprinted the story for a personal reason. Oscar has legitimately shamed me for not starting threads. I think she has a point, that I have not contributed enough to this board, for Bryn, your unfortunate brother. The story held my interest, I did say I hope it was not true, not for Muslim men, but for Muslim women.

As it is, if it is blantantly fabricated, time will tell. The source was the U.N.

UN: Islamic State Orders Women To Undergo Genital Mutilation - TIME

As it is, as Lars said, my disgust is also with you. You behave shamefully, you behave aggressively, you behave stupidly.

This whole Middle-Eastern thing has brought out the ugliness of certain people (mostly white non-Jewish males), & you are certainly one. Not very Zen, are you?

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1460878 wrote: When I first came across the female genital mutilation (FGM) issue a few years ago; one of my great annoyances....and most of the forum members on the political forum at the time...was that the FGM subject could not be raised without some idiot coming along with the "what about male circumcision" argument!


"Idiot", you say?

recovering conservative;1460878 wrote: Even though this story on ISIS has been revealed to be a fraud (that should have been obvious when they denied it...since they don't deny beheading infidels etc.) FGM does exist, and ranges from snipping along the labia to make female genitalia smoother to clitorectomies...intended to reduce female sexual arousal...they are still more serious and invasive than the standard, secular infant circumcision done to infant boys here.


Well, if the basis for this thread has been determined to be a lie, wouldn't that make the "idiot's" line of thought all the more relevant? Not such an "idiot" after all, I say.

recovering conservative;1460878 wrote: I had heard claims that circumcision reduces sexual arousal in men...but I can't find anything in the way of clinical evidence to support the claim.


Without a foreskin the penis builds tougher skins cells "just there": Friction in conjunction with motion, exposure to elements, and all of that. But there is an inverse factor to consider. It deals with arousal versus stamina, but I don't think I want to explain that right now.

recovering conservative;1460878 wrote: There is clear evidence that there is some reduction in STD's - from HIV, HPV, herpes, syphilis and genital warts...


This "clear evidence" has been proven false. Doctors hoping to supplement their income finally being called to task. Nothing new. "9 out of 10 doctors, yada, yada, yada ........ cigarette smoking not harmful ........ sugar not making you fat ......."

recovering conservative;1460878 wrote: ... I was circumcised, and both of my sons were circumcised. My wife and I decided to go by the advice of her doctor, and as best we could check at the time, the benefits outweighed any possible harms.


I'd like to hear the long version of this story. It must be a hoot and a barrel of laughs! :wah:

[AnneBoleyn]

High Threshold;1460870 wrote: No, it is not like that at all.

Men and women have specific rolls, responsibilities, and even power in traditional African culture. It is often the women who have full control in the family, the men destined to do the hunting (or minding cattle) and "staying out of the way". True, the headman is male, but he has to listen to the dominant women (woman) of each ethnic tribe and take their wishes and advice very seriously.

Women in these tribes look forward to their daughters being circumcised as it signifies womanhood. If you have spent any time in the Eastern European countries and the Caucasus you may have spied very few woman, girl, or child without a pierced earring. Girls in most cultures round the world look forward with pride when they get their first menstruation and a bra. These events are all linked, including tribal African facial scars and both male and female circumcision.


Well, gosh, that sounds so serene & romantic. Bring back Tribalism for peaceful living. And what if a member doesn't go along with some rules? You describe this as primitive peoples living in harmony with nature. You're waxing poetic. They are wrong in their practices, IMO, they have been brainwashed by non-experience of other ideas. "Look forward with pride". Yet, homosexuals in Africa can be considered mentally ill. People are killed for witchcraft. It's funny, I bet a lot of these folks have cell-phones! Oh, where is Margaret Mead when we need her most!

As Humans, our society is changing--FAST.

[FourPart]

AnneBoleyn;1460863 wrote: You are correct Chloe, there is no comparison. As for the circumcised Christian men out there, I have always wondered WHY their parents felt it necessary to adhere to this practice. If they are still living, I urge you angry men to find out WHY & vow not to have it done to your own sons.
Apparently it was made commonplace in America by Dr Kellogg (of Cornflake fame) who,amongst his other sexual hang ups believed that circumcision would stop the men in his asylums from masturbating, and being a respected psychiatrist of the time, people believed him & had their sons circumcised pre-emptively.

Apparently in the UK, especially with the upper classes / nobility, it goes back to their supposedly being directly descendants of David's Line.

[High Threshold]

AnneBoleyn;1460885 wrote: Well, gosh, that sounds so serene & romantic.


You think so? I don't. It's all just a matter of evolution and nature. Isolated tribes of humans are windows to our own past. If our primitive cousins are the lower extreme of humanity then we are at the opposite extreme and we are no better able to enjoy life or even find a better purpose in it. :yh_sad



AnneBoleyn;1460885 wrote: They are wrong in their practices ....


Oh. You're the one who decides that, are you? I must write a letter to the UN advising them to rid the world of all psychiatrists and judges. We only need you to judge the world with a simple sweep of your hand. :-6

AnneBoleyn;1460885 wrote: And what if a member doesn't go along with some rules?


I don't know. What happens if you “J Walk” or fail to put coins into a silly machine adjacent to your automobile or pay a “luxury tax” for something that you've already paid for? What happens to a practising Jew who refuses to have his boys circumcised or a conscript who refuses to go to war? What about failing to place your hand over your heart when they raise your flag, or refusing to stand when your president walks in the room? Gosh. I have so many questions for you - but so little time and space. :-1

I have a good idea! Let's ask those primitive Africans what they think about all of that! Naw, the damned heathens would probably just say, "They are wrong in their practices!" What do they know, huh?! :yh_tongue

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1460889 wrote: ..... Dr Kellogg (of Cornflake fame) ..... people believed him & had their sons circumcised pre-emptively.


Oh, my Lord! :yh_rotfl

[High Threshold]

It's a sad state of affairs. Who killed the labia? It comes as no surprise ... it's the Americans again. Here's my personal view.

Playboy magazine was at the forefront of general-use “Girlie” publications. They began photographing women in full bodied swimsuits, BUT WOW exposing their bare legs!!! Whew! Playboy pushed the limits further and further until they hit a brick wall: Pubic hair and labia. Both had to go if Playboy wanted to publicize women completely dis-robed. So off they came!

The common woman, it seems, gets her beauty inspiration from magazines so now it's a full shave and an elective labiaectomy . Too bad! There's nothing quite as exciting as the untampered female body.

[AnneBoleyn]

Originally Posted by AnneBoleyn

Well, gosh, that sounds so serene & romantic.

I was just being sarcastic (sigh)

Originally Posted by AnneBoleyn

They are wrong in their practices ....

I said IMO! No need to involve the U.N.!

HT: "I have a good idea! Let's ask those primitive Africans what they think about all of that! Naw, the damned heathens would probably just say, "They are wrong in their practices!" What do they know, huh?!"

What do any of us know except how to bloviate & think we're right? Human Being, Planet Earth--my personal motto. What fools we mortals be.