Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
First of all I question your so called opinions on who to blame for all the deficit spending. However, I'll fore-go arguing with you over which president or which political party is to blame or praise. I'll simply answer the question you asked truthfully. Bush should not be praised for Obama's order to kill Bin Laden. Obama's decision was gutsy, decisive and correct. Thankfully, no U.S. forces were killed in the raid. However, all that military might, power, technology and capability was placed in Obama's hands, BECAUSE President Bush put it there! Obama certainly wouldn't have sent all those forces in there, he and his party has been calling to pull all of our resources out of there. But had Bush not acted just as decisively to go to war, as Obama did to kill Bin Laden, Obama would not have had the military might to pull off the operation in the first place! So give credit where credit is due. Obama did a great job in killing Bin Laden. Bush also did a great job in building up the United States military and special ops forces to give Obama the tools he needed to make this happen.
2 :
Well he would get the job done bush wanted saddam hussein and he didn't know where bin laden was or didn't wanna go after him this proves bush's loss now obama's gain as you are seeing now.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In the early 1960s, de jure segregation (segregation by law) was enforced by the South under what were called Jim Crow laws. Separate waiting rooms, rest rooms, water fountains, etc., were provided at places, like bus stations, where blacks and whites shared the same facility. After Civil rights legislation overturned the Jim Crow laws and required integration of places open to the public, especially schools, George Wallace ran in 1968 as a third-party candidate (American Independent) under the slogan "Segregation Forever," capturing the electoral votes of five southern states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968). The Nixon team, impressed by Wallace's success in the "Deep South," elaborated the Southern Strategy: rather than endorse segregation, this strategy seized the label "conservative," which argued that the country must be desegregated, but that a conservative interpretation of the Constitution required that the states desegregate themselves, with no interference from the federal government. "Conservative" sounds much more respectable than "racist." Now segregationists became conservatives, alleging that the federal government had no legal role to play in enforcing desegregation. Those who disagreed were called "liberal." Just as Southern whites hated the thought of their children attending school with black children, they also hated "liberals," whom they viewed as the [epithet withheld] who were forcing integration on them. Since then, "conservative" has come to the ideological rescue of people who cast all blame on non-white European-descended groups. These groups became scapegoats: they get better jobs riding on the wave of Affirmative Action; "illegals" displace whites from good jobs; they grow in numbers, taking over control of the country. "Conservative" whites support candidates who they are led to believe will "take back" control of their county. "Liberals" are nonplussed by "conservatives" who fail to understand that it is the powerful monied special interests that are taking over our economy and our government. These "liberals" cannot understand why "conservatives," who are losing personal income, jobs, and even pensions to the powerful, corporatist forces vote against their own interest in order to support those corporatist forces. Yet, the power of seething, unending prejudices is sufficient to seek its own satisfaction even when the result is harmful to those who harbor such prejudices. Obama is the incarnation of all hated "liberals" to tens of millions of "conservatives." To credit him with anything is too distasteful to swallow--and doing so may enhance the horror of his reelection. Here is where we can see how intelligent many prejudiced people are. Fighting against reality is tough. But they have the creativity and imagination required to demonize anyone whom they deem to be their enemy. Hence, they revel in lies about Obama's birth certificate, about his being a Muslim, about his mendacity as our president. They perpetuate any story, true or not, that will undermine the credit Obama could get from his success in killing bin Laden. Thus, when reminded that it was Clinton who had this country once more running surpluses, and that it was GWB who reversed the trend, leading us into a tailspin of debt in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest few, provide taxpayer subidies for the wealthiest few, and deregulate speculative entities like banks, insurance companies, hedge funds so that they could invest other people's savings and investments in deals that fell apart and left millions with no pension and no job, "conservatives" answer that we have no revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Where is all this wasted spending going? Many say foreign aid (about 1% of the entire budget); almost all agree on "welfare," meaning "giveaways" to blacks, Hispanics, and other people who, no matter how needy, are leeching from hard-working people (whites) so that they can live lazy lives of leisure. "Conservatives" have exaggerated ideas about how much is actually spent on welfare, while they ignore the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. In short, you are asking a reasonable question for which there is a reasonable answer. The problem is that tens of millions of "conservatives" will accept the truth only if it validates their anger, frustrations, resentments, and hate.
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In the early 1960s, de jure segregation (segregation by law) was enforced by the South under what were called Jim Crow laws. Separate waiting rooms, rest rooms, water fountains, etc., were provided at places, like bus stations, where blacks and whites shared the same facility. After Civil rights legislation overturned the Jim Crow laws and required integration of places open to the public, especially schools, George Wallace ran in 1968 as a third-party candidate (American Independent) under the slogan "Segregation Forever," capturing the electoral votes of five southern states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968). The Nixon team, impressed by Wallace's success in the "Deep South," elaborated the Southern Strategy: rather than endorse segregation, this strategy seized the label "conservative," which argued that the country must be desegregated, but that a conservative interpretation of the Constitution required that the states desegregate themselves, with no interference from the federal government. "Conservative" sounds much more respectable than "racist." Now segregationists became conservatives, alleging that the federal government had no legal role to play in enforcing desegregation. Those who disagreed were called "liberal." Just as Southern whites hated the thought of their children attending school with black children, they also hated "liberals," whom they viewed as the [epithet withheld] who were forcing integration on them. Since then, "conservative" has come to the ideological rescue of people who cast all blame on non-white European-descended groups. These groups became scapegoats: they get better jobs riding on the wave of Affirmative Action; "illegals" displace whites from good jobs; they grow in numbers, taking over control of the country. "Conservative" whites support candidates who they are led to believe will "take back" control of their county. "Liberals" are nonplussed by "conservatives" who fail to understand that it is the powerful monied special interests that are taking over our economy and our government. These "liberals" cannot understand why "conservatives," who are losing personal income, jobs, and even pensions to the powerful, corporatist forces vote against their own interest in order to support those corporatist forces. Yet, the power of seething, unending prejudices is sufficient to seek its own satisfaction even when the result is harmful to those who harbor such prejudices. Obama is the incarnation of all hated "liberals" to tens of millions of "conservatives." To credit him with anything is too distasteful to swallow--and doing so may enhance the horror of his reelection. Here is where we can see how intelligent many prejudiced people are. Fighting against reality is tough. But they have the creativity and imagination required to demonize anyone whom they deem to be their enemy. Hence, they revel in lies about Obama's birth certificate, about his being a Muslim, about his mendacity as our president. They perpetuate any story, true or not, that will undermine the credit Obama could get from his success in killing bin Laden. Thus, when reminded that it was Clinton who had this country once more running surpluses, and that it was GWB who reversed the trend, leading us into a tailspin of debt in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest few, provide taxpayer subidies for the wealthiest few, and deregulate speculative entities like banks, insurance companies, hedge funds so that they could invest other people's savings and investments in deals that fell apart and left millions with no pension and no job, "conservatives" answer that we have no revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Where is all this wasted spending going? Many say foreign aid (about 1% of the entire budget); almost all agree on "welfare," meaning "giveaways" to blacks, Hispanics, and other people who, no matter how needy, are leeching from hard-working people (whites) so that they can live lazy lives of leisure. "Conservatives" have exaggerated ideas about how much is actually spent on welfare, while they ignore the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. In short, you are asking a reasonable question for which there is a reasonable answer. The problem is that tens of millions of "conservatives" will accept the truth only if it validates their anger, frustrations, resentments, and hate.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
What would happen if the oil in the Middle East finishes?
What would happen if the oil in the Middle East finishes?
Most Middle Eastern countries do not have taxes because the government is already making money by selling oil. When the US starts using its oil, will it become tax-free? What about terrorism? do you think the rate will go up or down? would the world go into wars with countries like Saudi Arabia? (assuming that they are not at war now because Saudi is the main exporter of oil and without it's oil.. well, no one would be getting around) Note: I asked this question in Politics & Government > Other - Politics & Government, but I didnt get a lot of answers so I ask here again jdlaplant: No, I am not American. I'm actually Arabic and I want to know what other people think. And technically speaking, Saudi Arabia's oil may not finish soon.. or it might not even finish for a long time. But it WILL finish. My question is: what will happen then? jeepndd: Not really. I dont know if the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East.. But they're smart not to be using it. Because the oil in the Middle East WILL finish, and when it does, guess who will be making all the money that the Arabs are getting now? Mr. Bitter: Saudi will never go back to the Dark Age, because it has a HUGE Muslim attraction...
Current Events - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I concern about when Israelis bombers fly high, my gas price goes high.
2 :
it sure would be quiet ,,almost like 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded
3 :
Obsession with the Middle East would decrease.
4 :
The world would not be so terrified to call the Islamic world on their blatant disregard for human rights and common decency.
5 :
Well by the time it runs out we will be totally dependant on renewable Fuel, like water or corn or even solar power.
6 :
i think america would still have taxes. they might decrease but it is another way our government can make money. it would also be better if we had our own oil because then america wouldn't be so dependent.
7 :
Googleje: Dude, I have to know if you are American. Your an idiot but I still have to know. Oil will never dry up in the middle east.
8 :
we would just find another country to exploit...
9 :
We could ignore all the Madness and cruelty of the region just like we do with all those African atrocities. Saudi Arabia could go broke and return to the Dark Age style tribal warfare it was in before British geologists found oil there in 1930's. The only downside is that without oil our entire modern civilization grinds to a halt.
10 :
Even if it ever did dry up the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East. It's simply maddening that we don't take advantage of it.
Most Middle Eastern countries do not have taxes because the government is already making money by selling oil. When the US starts using its oil, will it become tax-free? What about terrorism? do you think the rate will go up or down? would the world go into wars with countries like Saudi Arabia? (assuming that they are not at war now because Saudi is the main exporter of oil and without it's oil.. well, no one would be getting around) Note: I asked this question in Politics & Government > Other - Politics & Government, but I didnt get a lot of answers so I ask here again jdlaplant: No, I am not American. I'm actually Arabic and I want to know what other people think. And technically speaking, Saudi Arabia's oil may not finish soon.. or it might not even finish for a long time. But it WILL finish. My question is: what will happen then? jeepndd: Not really. I dont know if the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East.. But they're smart not to be using it. Because the oil in the Middle East WILL finish, and when it does, guess who will be making all the money that the Arabs are getting now? Mr. Bitter: Saudi will never go back to the Dark Age, because it has a HUGE Muslim attraction...
Current Events - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I concern about when Israelis bombers fly high, my gas price goes high.
2 :
it sure would be quiet ,,almost like 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded
3 :
Obsession with the Middle East would decrease.
4 :
The world would not be so terrified to call the Islamic world on their blatant disregard for human rights and common decency.
5 :
Well by the time it runs out we will be totally dependant on renewable Fuel, like water or corn or even solar power.
6 :
i think america would still have taxes. they might decrease but it is another way our government can make money. it would also be better if we had our own oil because then america wouldn't be so dependent.
7 :
Googleje: Dude, I have to know if you are American. Your an idiot but I still have to know. Oil will never dry up in the middle east.
8 :
we would just find another country to exploit...
9 :
We could ignore all the Madness and cruelty of the region just like we do with all those African atrocities. Saudi Arabia could go broke and return to the Dark Age style tribal warfare it was in before British geologists found oil there in 1930's. The only downside is that without oil our entire modern civilization grinds to a halt.
10 :
Even if it ever did dry up the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East. It's simply maddening that we don't take advantage of it.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
The right would never praise a liberal for anything, including ridding the world of a mass murderer.
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
The right would never praise a liberal for anything, including ridding the world of a mass murderer.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Was Obama's Campaign Promise to "Maintain a Substantially Similar Policy on Israel" also an inconvenient lie?
Was Obama's Campaign Promise to "Maintain a Substantially Similar Policy on Israel" also an inconvenient lie?
Charles Freeman, Obama's now failed appointee to National Intelligence Council, lashes out at American jews who he claims lobbied against him but there is little evidence of serious lobbying -- just a handful of people pointing out his ties to the Saudi's who funded his Pro-Palestinian think tank and his shameful record on China. When you read the following excerpt from today's Washington Post, remember, this is the guy that Obama wanted to give access to all 14 US intelligence organizations -- making him one of the most informed men in the world and a man we would need to be able to trust with our most secret information. Whether you support or oppose Israel, this does not reveal a man who can be trusted with our national security. The Washington Post: "Referring to what he called "the Israel Lobby," he added: "The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views." One result of this, he said, is "the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." Freeman's angry rhetoric notwithstanding, the controversy surrounding the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia was broader than just Middle East politics. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair's choice of Freeman prompted a storm of complaints about his recent commercial connections to China and questions about whether he was too forgiving of that nation's leaders. But most of the online attention focused on Freeman's work for the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money, and his past critical statements about Israel. The latter included a 2005 speech he gave to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, where he referred to Israel's "high-handed and self-defeating policies" stemming from the "occupation and settlement of Arab lands," which he called "inherently violent." Only a few Jewish organizations came out publicly against Freeman's appointment, but a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with members of Congress, their staffs and the media." For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said. Bamaman, Assuming Obama agrees with you, maybe he should have said this when he was running for his.
Elections - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Obama's entire campaign was a lie
2 :
Obama is the Kenyan version of Pinnochio.
3 :
Obama does not like Israel, that is a fact. It's why our government is now giving $900 million to "rebuild the gaza strip" and Hillary is running around trying to figure out how the money will not land in the hands of Hamas. Yeah right... They know it will end up in their hands. Remember though, Obama said we shouldn't worry about countries like Iran, syria and venezuela because they are "tiny countries". He later backed off on that statement when he realized how stupid it sounded. Yeah, we'll see how tiny Iran is when they have a nuke...and use it.
4 :
The Israeli lobbyist have way too much power in Washington.As long as we blindly support their terrorist activities,there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Charles Freeman, Obama's now failed appointee to National Intelligence Council, lashes out at American jews who he claims lobbied against him but there is little evidence of serious lobbying -- just a handful of people pointing out his ties to the Saudi's who funded his Pro-Palestinian think tank and his shameful record on China. When you read the following excerpt from today's Washington Post, remember, this is the guy that Obama wanted to give access to all 14 US intelligence organizations -- making him one of the most informed men in the world and a man we would need to be able to trust with our most secret information. Whether you support or oppose Israel, this does not reveal a man who can be trusted with our national security. The Washington Post: "Referring to what he called "the Israel Lobby," he added: "The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views." One result of this, he said, is "the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." Freeman's angry rhetoric notwithstanding, the controversy surrounding the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia was broader than just Middle East politics. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair's choice of Freeman prompted a storm of complaints about his recent commercial connections to China and questions about whether he was too forgiving of that nation's leaders. But most of the online attention focused on Freeman's work for the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money, and his past critical statements about Israel. The latter included a 2005 speech he gave to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, where he referred to Israel's "high-handed and self-defeating policies" stemming from the "occupation and settlement of Arab lands," which he called "inherently violent." Only a few Jewish organizations came out publicly against Freeman's appointment, but a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with members of Congress, their staffs and the media." For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said. Bamaman, Assuming Obama agrees with you, maybe he should have said this when he was running for his.
Elections - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Obama's entire campaign was a lie
2 :
Obama is the Kenyan version of Pinnochio.
3 :
Obama does not like Israel, that is a fact. It's why our government is now giving $900 million to "rebuild the gaza strip" and Hillary is running around trying to figure out how the money will not land in the hands of Hamas. Yeah right... They know it will end up in their hands. Remember though, Obama said we shouldn't worry about countries like Iran, syria and venezuela because they are "tiny countries". He later backed off on that statement when he realized how stupid it sounded. Yeah, we'll see how tiny Iran is when they have a nuke...and use it.
4 :
The Israeli lobbyist have way too much power in Washington.As long as we blindly support their terrorist activities,there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
I know about a cover up of a serious case of swine flu in the UK. How do I tell the press?
I know about a cover up of a serious case of swine flu in the UK. How do I tell the press?
My uncle works at the boarding school where the outbreak's happened. It's an international school with rich kids from places like Saudi Arabia, India, China and Japan. For a few months now the school has housed 20+ cases, (students and teachers), of confirmed swine flu. The heads of departments who aren't sick, including my uncle, have decided to hush the whole thing up so they can continue receiving fees until the summer holidays. Because of this, parents have already begun flying their sick kids back home, unaware that they could be introducing swine flu into their countries. The sick people at the school are being treated by nurses who have been paid to keep the outbreak quiet. I've left the details out for obvious reasons, but I know the name and location of the school, and some rough details of the timeline of the outbreak. The only problem is, I have no evidence, apart from my mum, great aunt, and grandmother's testimony. They heard this from my uncle first hand. Do I have enough to tell the press? I don't mean the tabloid media, I mean the proper newspapers. I don't want to make any money, I'm just scared about what will happen if nobody finds out about this. If someone dies I don't want that on my conscience. But I mean, how do you actually tell the press something? Do you just ring up the newspaper or something? Plus, I'm only 17, does that mean I'll need an adult to back me up?
Other - News & Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
no adult needed: dailymail.co.uk they hate the government: theyll spread it, but youll need alot of evidence
My uncle works at the boarding school where the outbreak's happened. It's an international school with rich kids from places like Saudi Arabia, India, China and Japan. For a few months now the school has housed 20+ cases, (students and teachers), of confirmed swine flu. The heads of departments who aren't sick, including my uncle, have decided to hush the whole thing up so they can continue receiving fees until the summer holidays. Because of this, parents have already begun flying their sick kids back home, unaware that they could be introducing swine flu into their countries. The sick people at the school are being treated by nurses who have been paid to keep the outbreak quiet. I've left the details out for obvious reasons, but I know the name and location of the school, and some rough details of the timeline of the outbreak. The only problem is, I have no evidence, apart from my mum, great aunt, and grandmother's testimony. They heard this from my uncle first hand. Do I have enough to tell the press? I don't mean the tabloid media, I mean the proper newspapers. I don't want to make any money, I'm just scared about what will happen if nobody finds out about this. If someone dies I don't want that on my conscience. But I mean, how do you actually tell the press something? Do you just ring up the newspaper or something? Plus, I'm only 17, does that mean I'll need an adult to back me up?
Other - News & Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
no adult needed: dailymail.co.uk they hate the government: theyll spread it, but youll need alot of evidence
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
question about muslim islamic women woman who follow Shariah Law ?
question about muslim islamic women woman who follow Shariah Law ?
This is a follow up question from an earlier one: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArKZME7AZy_cvigDDCJ7hIXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080915135302AA3Fwb1 SITUATION: 1. I am a New York State Department of Motor Vehicle's Certified Driving Instructor. a. I am forty-two b. have held this job at a driving school in Brooklyn for three years c. I have had my own license since 1982 and have a lot of experience driving d. I was an insurance investigator for seven years e. I was a police officer for seven years f. I was an executive chauffeuruffeur for three years 2. I am a native born American of Celtic ancestory who can trace his family back to Brooklyn and Tompkins County, NY for two hundred years. 3. I make my money giving driving lessons and only get paid by the lesson. I usually average thirty lessons a week but need to average fifty. 4. My students are please with my service. Regardless of gender or demographic I behave the same way. I only discuss the students driving during the lesson. No other concern at all is ever discussed. I never inititate physical contact ever. Even with men and even a handshake. I wait until it is offered. Most people request me after having one lesson. 5. Many Muslim women come to our school for lessons. Some will accept me as an instructor with no issues. In fact there is on student, a very observant muslim teenage girl who's uncle is a well known buisness man in the area who has no issue with me teaching his niece. However, some flat out refuse to have a male instructor. The women instructors at the school left. The owner is a female. She acquieces to instruct these women yet she would prefer not to. There is an arab owned school that has a female instructor. The rumor is she is not properly certified and regardless she can not handle to job so the muslim women dislike her. There is a male instructor who teaches with some woman as a chaperone but he has a bad reputation because he gets to emotional and can not handle to job. PROBLEM: I would like to teach these women to drive without them violating Shariah Law. In general, most religeons make allowances and exceptions for pretty much everything except blashphemy of the diety. Moreover, these women are not hard core (for lack of a better word) they wear head scarves but not the Burkha's with a slit for the eyes. And they are driving in the first place whereas in places like Saudi Arabia they can not. It seems as if the intent behind the islamic prohibition on unmarried men and women being alone together is to avoid one thing leading to another it turning into some type of sexual encounter. On a certain level I can understand that because in other situations when I was left alone with a female (not working this job) one thing leads to another...and in this job I have had women start touvhing me, flirting or even ask me out. MY PROPOSED SOLUTION: Having a chaperone is not a viable option since she would have to get paid and the student charged more. What if the school organized the lessons so that I would never be alone with one woman. They would set up a three hour group lesson with three women. It would build team spirit and cammraderie and all that and reinforce the lessons through observation. I would stagger the lessons so each student drove for twenty minutes then observed for forty minutes. Would such a situation be compliant with Shariah Law ? If you can please suppport your answer with any relevant sections of the Quaran. Further, in Brooklyn, name up to five major (by # of adherents) sects of islam and the name and address of the leader(s). SUMMARY: Driving is regulated by state dmv's and is separate from any religeon. However, driving schools are private buisnesses and private buisnesses have to take cultural and social considerations into play. Part of the culture of America is our ingenuity and inability to give up so I am going to figure out how to make the above work and approach the proper religeous authorities to write a letter on my behalf which will certify me to provide this service to islamic women. PLEASE COMMENT ON MY IDEA POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOLTIONS PLEASE POST THEM. THANK YOU. Thank you and peace to all.
Religion & Spirituality - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
How about just making them take off the beekeeper outfit and take the class like everyone else has to. This is the United States, not Saudi Arabia.
2 :
As admirable as your intentions are....they may be against the law. If you specify "Islamic Woman" as you did above, you're discriminating against "sex" & "religion"......(men & women in general and Islamic men specifically and certainly other religious affiliations).
3 :
It seems to me, though admittedly I'm not muslim and do not know the rules, that the student could bring a chaperone with them (a relative or whatever). That chaperone would then not have to be paid. They could just sit in the back seat. If they were already licensed to drive they could not be accused of getting free driving lessons either, as they'd not need them. Tiki...I don't think it would violate the law if anyone who felt uncomfortable alone (for whatever reason) was allowed an already licensed chaperone.
4 :
Well, of course it is ok. The ones who oppose this are backwards people that blow everything, religious or non-religious out of proprotion. Islam well permits things which are otherwise even HARAM to be done as necessary for survival. I don't see the harm in them taking driving lessons from a man,
5 :
Sorry dude, but user "walls of jericho" said it all in a nut shell. This is still America. Do you think that if you a non-muslim (American) lived in a muslim land like Saudi Arabia, would they allow your wife to drive. Nope!
6 :
maxf736's idea is great.... have them bring a family member along too. our driver's ed was exactly as you're stating, with 2 or 3 kids at once, observed for 1/3 of the time, and we were usually out for around 3 hours. but, it wasn't for religious reasons, it was becuase there was 30 kids in the class, and one instructor. that way he could be done with exams in less than two weeks. ;) good luck, and good for you for caring how these girls feel. ;) BB )O( STB
7 :
Your solution is viable though having them bring a family member along would work well too. This question is based on travel to and from the hajj pilgrimage but I think that hadeeths may be extended to your situation. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544964&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar
8 :
Actually its based on the fact that .. a muslim woman shouldnt be alone with a non mehrum (out of family) man .. So the easiest solution is to ask them to bring someone along who can sit in the car with them .. u can put them on the backseat and blindfold them if u want :P but thats the only obvious solution. A group of women together .. i dont think it would make a difference :) Another thing u Could do is have a woman join u (as in be partners) .. u can instruct the male memebers .. and she can instruct the females :) Edit: I agree with Maxf736
9 :
A group lesson would be fine. A Muslim woman is not allowed to be left ALONE with a man who isn't a direct family member. A woman driving isn't haram , they aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia for different reasons. The Burkha isn't a must, the head scarf is. PS: thanks for the 10 points
10 :
Hats off to you 4 being so considerate of people's feelings..........i really wish i cud give u the correct solution but cant......... since my knowledge of the matter is limited and ........Islam doesnt allow wishful additions or subtractions in the religion............i hope & pray that u find the perfect solution soon ...............may ppl like u increase in the world....and.....may u find guidance & rewards 4m Almighty........Ameen.
11 :
You know how Niqab came to Islam. One day Umer, the second Khalifah saw Prophet Mohammed's wives Shitting and Farting.He found the stench unbearable.He went and complained to Prophet Mohammed.The result---niqab.
This is a follow up question from an earlier one: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArKZME7AZy_cvigDDCJ7hIXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080915135302AA3Fwb1 SITUATION: 1. I am a New York State Department of Motor Vehicle's Certified Driving Instructor. a. I am forty-two b. have held this job at a driving school in Brooklyn for three years c. I have had my own license since 1982 and have a lot of experience driving d. I was an insurance investigator for seven years e. I was a police officer for seven years f. I was an executive chauffeuruffeur for three years 2. I am a native born American of Celtic ancestory who can trace his family back to Brooklyn and Tompkins County, NY for two hundred years. 3. I make my money giving driving lessons and only get paid by the lesson. I usually average thirty lessons a week but need to average fifty. 4. My students are please with my service. Regardless of gender or demographic I behave the same way. I only discuss the students driving during the lesson. No other concern at all is ever discussed. I never inititate physical contact ever. Even with men and even a handshake. I wait until it is offered. Most people request me after having one lesson. 5. Many Muslim women come to our school for lessons. Some will accept me as an instructor with no issues. In fact there is on student, a very observant muslim teenage girl who's uncle is a well known buisness man in the area who has no issue with me teaching his niece. However, some flat out refuse to have a male instructor. The women instructors at the school left. The owner is a female. She acquieces to instruct these women yet she would prefer not to. There is an arab owned school that has a female instructor. The rumor is she is not properly certified and regardless she can not handle to job so the muslim women dislike her. There is a male instructor who teaches with some woman as a chaperone but he has a bad reputation because he gets to emotional and can not handle to job. PROBLEM: I would like to teach these women to drive without them violating Shariah Law. In general, most religeons make allowances and exceptions for pretty much everything except blashphemy of the diety. Moreover, these women are not hard core (for lack of a better word) they wear head scarves but not the Burkha's with a slit for the eyes. And they are driving in the first place whereas in places like Saudi Arabia they can not. It seems as if the intent behind the islamic prohibition on unmarried men and women being alone together is to avoid one thing leading to another it turning into some type of sexual encounter. On a certain level I can understand that because in other situations when I was left alone with a female (not working this job) one thing leads to another...and in this job I have had women start touvhing me, flirting or even ask me out. MY PROPOSED SOLUTION: Having a chaperone is not a viable option since she would have to get paid and the student charged more. What if the school organized the lessons so that I would never be alone with one woman. They would set up a three hour group lesson with three women. It would build team spirit and cammraderie and all that and reinforce the lessons through observation. I would stagger the lessons so each student drove for twenty minutes then observed for forty minutes. Would such a situation be compliant with Shariah Law ? If you can please suppport your answer with any relevant sections of the Quaran. Further, in Brooklyn, name up to five major (by # of adherents) sects of islam and the name and address of the leader(s). SUMMARY: Driving is regulated by state dmv's and is separate from any religeon. However, driving schools are private buisnesses and private buisnesses have to take cultural and social considerations into play. Part of the culture of America is our ingenuity and inability to give up so I am going to figure out how to make the above work and approach the proper religeous authorities to write a letter on my behalf which will certify me to provide this service to islamic women. PLEASE COMMENT ON MY IDEA POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOLTIONS PLEASE POST THEM. THANK YOU. Thank you and peace to all.
Religion & Spirituality - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
How about just making them take off the beekeeper outfit and take the class like everyone else has to. This is the United States, not Saudi Arabia.
2 :
As admirable as your intentions are....they may be against the law. If you specify "Islamic Woman" as you did above, you're discriminating against "sex" & "religion"......(men & women in general and Islamic men specifically and certainly other religious affiliations).
3 :
It seems to me, though admittedly I'm not muslim and do not know the rules, that the student could bring a chaperone with them (a relative or whatever). That chaperone would then not have to be paid. They could just sit in the back seat. If they were already licensed to drive they could not be accused of getting free driving lessons either, as they'd not need them. Tiki...I don't think it would violate the law if anyone who felt uncomfortable alone (for whatever reason) was allowed an already licensed chaperone.
4 :
Well, of course it is ok. The ones who oppose this are backwards people that blow everything, religious or non-religious out of proprotion. Islam well permits things which are otherwise even HARAM to be done as necessary for survival. I don't see the harm in them taking driving lessons from a man,
5 :
Sorry dude, but user "walls of jericho" said it all in a nut shell. This is still America. Do you think that if you a non-muslim (American) lived in a muslim land like Saudi Arabia, would they allow your wife to drive. Nope!
6 :
maxf736's idea is great.... have them bring a family member along too. our driver's ed was exactly as you're stating, with 2 or 3 kids at once, observed for 1/3 of the time, and we were usually out for around 3 hours. but, it wasn't for religious reasons, it was becuase there was 30 kids in the class, and one instructor. that way he could be done with exams in less than two weeks. ;) good luck, and good for you for caring how these girls feel. ;) BB )O( STB
7 :
Your solution is viable though having them bring a family member along would work well too. This question is based on travel to and from the hajj pilgrimage but I think that hadeeths may be extended to your situation. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544964&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar
8 :
Actually its based on the fact that .. a muslim woman shouldnt be alone with a non mehrum (out of family) man .. So the easiest solution is to ask them to bring someone along who can sit in the car with them .. u can put them on the backseat and blindfold them if u want :P but thats the only obvious solution. A group of women together .. i dont think it would make a difference :) Another thing u Could do is have a woman join u (as in be partners) .. u can instruct the male memebers .. and she can instruct the females :) Edit: I agree with Maxf736
9 :
A group lesson would be fine. A Muslim woman is not allowed to be left ALONE with a man who isn't a direct family member. A woman driving isn't haram , they aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia for different reasons. The Burkha isn't a must, the head scarf is. PS: thanks for the 10 points
10 :
Hats off to you 4 being so considerate of people's feelings..........i really wish i cud give u the correct solution but cant......... since my knowledge of the matter is limited and ........Islam doesnt allow wishful additions or subtractions in the religion............i hope & pray that u find the perfect solution soon ...............may ppl like u increase in the world....and.....may u find guidance & rewards 4m Almighty........Ameen.
11 :
You know how Niqab came to Islam. One day Umer, the second Khalifah saw Prophet Mohammed's wives Shitting and Farting.He found the stench unbearable.He went and complained to Prophet Mohammed.The result---niqab.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)