ISIS's 'do and don't' list.
It's, erm, interesting. Of course, it reveals the utter disconnect leftists and progressives have regarding ISIS.
They'd rather engage in shallow interpretations of history (Crooooosades!) and moral and intellectual relativism much like the outgoing President in The White House.
"...After Islamic State conquered villages in northern Iraq, it spelled out in minute detail the rules of its self-proclaimed caliphate, from beard length to alms to guidelines for taking women as sex slaves.
Islamic State documents and posters, obtained in villages captured by Iraqi forces, highlight a tight and comprehensive system of rule by the militants, who went to great lengths to explain their extremist philosophy."
"...A pink and red pamphlet includes 32 questions and answers on how to deal with female captives.
A senior Islamic State cleric has the authority to distribute female captives among its fighters, it said.
"Non-Muslim women can be taken as concubines," according to the leaflet.
Militants can own two sisters as concubines but only have sex with one.
"Pre-pubescent girls can be taken as concubines. You cannot have penetrative sex but you can still enjoy them," the leaflet added."
Definitely not fit for Chrystia Freeland's default generic progressive stance. By me bringing this up, apparently makes me hostile to multiculturalism and Muslims as a whole. You can't separate the two. No siree.
I bet you, though, she thinks it's possible to criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic.
Nor do feminists actually care about those women. Much easier to act like a bunch of crazed loons bitching about all the men under their beds ready to rape them. See Jezebel for this sort of nutty thinking. I mean, to actually defend the cause with any meaningful intellectualism is hard, man! I'm just a girl teehee!
Sigh. Idiots are gonna idiot though. Like the idiot academic who claimed Mohammed was a feminist. No names here. I don't want to give them notoriety. Just watch it here (about half-way through if you so desire to see a rebuttal).
It's, erm, interesting. Of course, it reveals the utter disconnect leftists and progressives have regarding ISIS.
They'd rather engage in shallow interpretations of history (Crooooosades!) and moral and intellectual relativism much like the outgoing President in The White House.
"...After Islamic State conquered villages in northern Iraq, it spelled out in minute detail the rules of its self-proclaimed caliphate, from beard length to alms to guidelines for taking women as sex slaves.
Islamic State documents and posters, obtained in villages captured by Iraqi forces, highlight a tight and comprehensive system of rule by the militants, who went to great lengths to explain their extremist philosophy."
"...A pink and red pamphlet includes 32 questions and answers on how to deal with female captives.
A senior Islamic State cleric has the authority to distribute female captives among its fighters, it said.
"Non-Muslim women can be taken as concubines," according to the leaflet.
Militants can own two sisters as concubines but only have sex with one.
"Pre-pubescent girls can be taken as concubines. You cannot have penetrative sex but you can still enjoy them," the leaflet added."
Definitely not fit for Chrystia Freeland's default generic progressive stance. By me bringing this up, apparently makes me hostile to multiculturalism and Muslims as a whole. You can't separate the two. No siree.
I bet you, though, she thinks it's possible to criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic.
Nor do feminists actually care about those women. Much easier to act like a bunch of crazed loons bitching about all the men under their beds ready to rape them. See Jezebel for this sort of nutty thinking. I mean, to actually defend the cause with any meaningful intellectualism is hard, man! I'm just a girl teehee!
Sigh. Idiots are gonna idiot though. Like the idiot academic who claimed Mohammed was a feminist. No names here. I don't want to give them notoriety. Just watch it here (about half-way through if you so desire to see a rebuttal).
They're putting the lions and zebras together in the same confines somehow hoping that, by their constantly being in the same space together for an extended amount of time, they both will eventually develop some degree of comradery toward one another.
ReplyDelete...then being shocked, dismayed and appalled when one of the lions attack and chows down on one of the zebras.