sandinista!

i like how soffiya already answered you, what she said makes sense, but i wanted to also add that what is so frustrating about your posts on this topic is the dictatorial stance you take. you don't get to decide for anyone and everyone just what their clothes mean to them. only the individual has the right to do that. women have every right to use clothes or the very lack of them in any manner they choose, not what you choose. what you have deemed is a right reason for wearing clothes is not binding on anyone. there are as many acceptable reasons for why women wear clothes as there are for why not. a mandinka woman in west africa may not cover her breasts because for her it's socially and culturally the norm not to. in a las vegas strip club, there are women who don't cover their breasts either, for the specific reason of making money off of this display of their bodies. both are equally valid reasons to not wear clothes, regardless of how anyone may feel about their motivations for doing so.

yes, someone finally gets it. finally something to disrupt the monotony of madame cleo's "well that's not really modesty then" diatribe. i could not care less what random man i see on the street's sexual urges are, or what i should be doing to stop them. random man on the street is none of my damn business and all responsibility for behaving properly rests on him regardless of what myself or any other woman is wearing.
that being said, i'm merely selective about who i grant the privilege of laying eyes on certain parts of myself. i am empowered by that same selectivity, and no one sees anything i don't want them to. it's a position no less empowering than those who choose to bare whatever they want in front of anyone and everyone. they do what they want, and i do what i want, for whatever reasons we want.

yes, someone finally gets it. finally something to disrupt the monotony of madame cleo's "well that's not really modesty then" diatribe. i could not care less what random man i see on the street's sexual urges are, or what i should be doing to stop them. random man on the street is none of my damn business and all responsibility for behaving properly rests on him regardless of what myself or any other woman is wearing.
that being said, i'm merely selective about who i grant the privilege of laying eyes on certain parts of myself. i am empowered by that same selectivity, and no one sees anything i don't want them to. it's a position no less empowering than those who choose to bare whatever they want in front of anyone and everyone. they do what they want, and i do what i want, for whatever reasons we want.

yes, someone finally gets it. finally something to disrupt the monotony of madame cleo's "well that's not really modesty then" diatribe. i could not care less what random man i see on the street's sexual urges are, or what i should be doing to stop them. random man on the street is none of my damn business and all responsibility for behaving properly rests on him regardless of what myself or any other woman is wearing.
that being said, i'm merely selective about who i grant the privilege of laying eyes on certain parts of myself. i am empowered by that same selectivity, and no one sees anything i don't want them to. it's a position no less empowering than those who choose to bare whatever they want in front of anyone and everyone. they do what they want, and i do what i want, for whatever reasons we want.

anyone that considers that a factor has quite firmly parked themselves in tinfoil hat wearing crazyville. it's about as valid a contribution as monkeys smearing their own feces on the walls of their pen at the zoo.

she should have to? one would hope that anyone attempting to discuss the topic here would at least have some background knowledge. what she's talking about is pretty rudimentary in re. to this conflict.
but for those who need it spelled out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
i realize that a good number of posters in this thread don't recognize arabs as even being human beings to begin with, but even in that case, the bombing of the king david hotel, which killed several british nurses and secretaries is of note.

no less defensible than someone defending themselves from an armed carjacker or mugger.
what is indefensible is the 4 holes idf terrorists put into the head of this american citizen, named furkan dogan.
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

anyone that considers that a factor has quite firmly parked themselves in tinfoil hat wearing crazyville. it's about as valid a contribution as monkeys smearing their own feces on the walls of their pen at the zoo.

well ** them for doing that, but it doesn't provide a scintilla of justification for the continued collective punishment of every gazan man woman and child. or justify massacring people trying to deliver 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid to them.

in cuckoo, israel is the perpetual victim no matter what shite they pull, fantasyland it isn't. some deputy foreign minister in israel even pulled the al qaeda card from his #######, claiming they were somehow involved with the flotilla.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

it's two blocks away. two NYC blocks. it's not AT ground zero, like people keep insinuating. there are businesses in this area, etc. if someone buys a turkey sandwich from a deli two blocks away, are they being insensitive to what happened at ground zero? like, #######, how can someone think about food when they are two blocks away from where the world trade center was? get real. available real estate in manhattan is not an infinite resource. the building suits their needs, is a price they can afford, and they're well within their rights to establish their center there. anyone and everyone but the most backward of bigoted troglodytes can grasp this concept. for a reasonable, rational person, there is no legitimate debate here, whatsoever. regardless of what certain people's feelings are, as stated in the article, there is no reason for rational, reasonable people to legitimize those feelings. if my child were murdered by someone of another ethnicity, religion, etc. there would still be nothing rational about me holding that crime against an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it.

not quite.
U.S. to Confront, Not Board, North Korean Ships
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 16, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will order the Navy to hail and request permission to inspect North Korean ships at sea suspected of carrying arms or nuclear technology, but will not board them by force, senior administration officials said Monday.
The new effort to intercept North Korean ships, and track them to their next port, where Washington will press for the inspections they refused at sea, is part of what the officials described as “vigorous enforcement” of the United Nations Security Council resolution approved Friday.
The planned American action stops just short of the forced inspections that North Korea has said that it would regard as an act of war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/asia/17korea.html
there's really no such thing as self-defense when one's perpetrating a criminal act. if i attempt to rob someone and the would-be victim pulls a gun on me and uses it, i can't really whine about their show of force, can i?
the flailing about for various justifications for boarding the ship would be almost comical, if it weren't so tragically hideous that 19 people are now dead. everything from netanyahu claiming "self defense" to deputy foreign minister danny ayalon claiming the ship was somehow connected to "al qaeda". i wonder how far up his fat ####### he had to reach to come up with that kind of shite.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-i-regret-gaza-flotilla-deaths-but-israeli-troops-had-right-to-self-defense-1.293187

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

not quite.
U.S. to Confront, Not Board, North Korean Ships
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 16, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will order the Navy to hail and request permission to inspect North Korean ships at sea suspected of carrying arms or nuclear technology, but will not board them by force, senior administration officials said Monday.
The new effort to intercept North Korean ships, and track them to their next port, where Washington will press for the inspections they refused at sea, is part of what the officials described as “vigorous enforcement” of the United Nations Security Council resolution approved Friday.
The planned American action stops just short of the forced inspections that North Korea has said that it would regard as an act of war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/asia/17korea.html
there's really no such thing as self-defense when one's perpetrating a criminal act. if i attempt to rob someone and the would-be victim pulls a gun on me and uses it, i can't really whine about their show of force, can i?
the flailing about for various justifications for boarding the ship would be almost comical, if it weren't so tragically hideous that 19 people are now dead. everything from netanyahu claiming "self defense" to deputy foreign minister danny ayalon claiming the ship was somehow connected to "al qaeda". i wonder how far up his fat ####### he had to reach to come up with that kind of shite.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-i-regret-gaza-flotilla-deaths-but-israeli-troops-had-right-to-self-defense-1.293187

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

the ship was in international waters at the time. the soldiers boarding that ship had no more right to be there than common pirates.

it's two blocks away. two NYC blocks. it's not AT ground zero, like people keep insinuating. there are businesses in this area, etc. if someone buys a turkey sandwich from a deli two blocks away, are they being insensitive to what happened at ground zero? like, #######, how can someone think about food when they are two blocks away from where the world trade center was? get real. available real estate in manhattan is not an infinite resource. the building suits their needs, is a price they can afford, and they're well within their rights to establish their center there. anyone and everyone but the most backward of bigoted troglodytes can grasp this concept. for a reasonable, rational person, there is no legitimate debate here, whatsoever. regardless of what certain people's feelings are, as stated in the article, there is no reason for rational, reasonable people to legitimize those feelings. if my child were murdered by someone of another ethnicity, religion, etc. there would still be nothing rational about me holding that crime against an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it.

it's two blocks away. two NYC blocks. it's not AT ground zero, like people keep insinuating. there are businesses in this area, etc. if someone buys a turkey sandwich from a deli two blocks away, are they being insensitive to what happened at ground zero? like, #######, how can someone think about food when they are two blocks away from where the world trade center was? get real. available real estate in manhattan is not an infinite resource. the building suits their needs, is a price they can afford, and they're well within their rights to establish their center there. anyone and everyone but the most backward of bigoted troglodytes can grasp this concept. for a reasonable, rational person, there is no legitimate debate here, whatsoever. regardless of what certain people's feelings are, as stated in the article, there is no reason for rational, reasonable people to legitimize those feelings. if my child were murdered by someone of another ethnicity, religion, etc. there would still be nothing rational about me holding that crime against an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it.

it could have been worse-pedro guzman was a mentally ill us citizen who was deported to mexico and spent 85 days in tijuana, eating out of garbage cans and sleeping on the street. when his mother alerted ice to their mistake, she filed a lawsuit to try and get the same government that wrongly deported him to mexico to help find him, but she lost. i guess there's no accountability for a federal agency that gets mentally ill people who read and write at a 2nd grade level to sign off on deportation paperwork, despite him telling the police when he was booked that he was a us citizen.