[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Well they admire a Paedophile so no.

Marriage and consummation of marriage at an early age was a common practice in bedouin society in those days. bearing mind in mind it was 620 AD. The followers of Islam will claim that the consummation of the marriage was not carried out by actual intercourse but a form of foreplay.

If you want to shout about underage marriage go check out our own Good King Richard (II) and his marriage to Isabelle of France , oldest daughter of King Charles VI, was not quite seven years old when she married Richard II as his second wife in 1396. After his death 3 years later she was then ordered by King Henry IV to marry his son (the future Henry V), she refused. That was some 770 years later.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Marriage and consummation of marriage at an early age was a common practice in bedouin society in those days. bearing mind in mind it was 620 AD. The followers of Islam will claim that the consummation of the marriage was not carried out by actual intercourse but a form of foreplay.

If you want to shout about underage marriage go check out our own Good King Richard (II) and his marriage to Isabelle of France , oldest daughter of King Charles VI, was not quite seven years old when she married Richard II as his second wife in 1396. After his death 3 years later she was then ordered by King Henry IV to marry his son (the future Henry V), she refused. That was some 770 years later.

They married when she was 6 and had sex at 9. Richard was just a king of England, Muhammed is the founder of the fastest growing religion.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

They married when she was 6 and had sex at 9. Richard was just a king of England, Muhammed is the founder of the fastest growing religion.

Yeah Just a King of England, Isabelle was daughter of King Charles VI, he was just the king of France. So thats two of the most powerful leaders in the known world at the time. In those days marriages between royalty would have been sanctioned by the church.

So thats basically christianity agreeing with Richard marrying a child too. 750+ years after old Mohammed, religious leader of initially a few bedouin tribes followed a common practice among his people. And married a young girl in order to confirm she was a virgin and as such pure and worthy of bearing his line.

Social customs and beliefs change through time, wasnt so long ago slavery was ok and small children worked in factories.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah Just a King of England, Isabelle was daughter of King Charles VI, he was just the king of France. So thats two of the most powerful leaders in the known world at the time. In those days marriages between royalty would have been sanctioned by the church.

So thats basically christianity agreeing with Richard marrying a child too. 750+ years after old Mohammed, religious leader of initially a few bedouin tribes followed a common practice among his people. And married a young girl in order to confirm she was a virgin and as such pure and worthy of bearing his line.

Social customs and beliefs change through time, wasnt so long ago slavery was ok and small children worked in factories.

Might have been ok then, but why should we accept them and what they got upto now?

[arista]

New Labour funds them
on ch4 now

[cupid stunt]

Originally Posted by arista

New Labour funds them
on ch4 now

those scum bags are even in the goverment now WE HAVE NO CHANCE UNLESS WE STAND N FIGHT KICK THEM BACK OUT

[dan-uk]

sorry i will NEVER be a muslim

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by dan-uk

sorry i will NEVER be a muslim

Me neither me knees will flare up with all that bloody kneeling.

[Shasown]

Yep thats true. However Islam like Judaism and Christianity is also a son of Abraham. Shame they all cant find the common ground instead of the differences. World would be a far better place.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yep thats true. However Islam like Judaism and Christianity is also a son of Abraham. Shame they all cant find the common ground instead of the differences. World would be a far better place.

Would be better if none existed at all.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Would be better if none existed at all.

Wouldnt like to make a comment either way on that, one thing is for certain, without it the world would be a totally different place.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Wouldnt like to make a comment either way on that, one thing is for certain, without it the world would be a totally different place.

It's sad today though religion is still able to control alot of weak minded people

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

It's sad today though religion is still able to control alot of weak minded people

Thats one way of looking at it, however a lot of religious people would take umbrage at that. Nothing wrong with a belief in the meaning of life. So long as you dont follow blindly.

[Shasown]

Wasnt it an atheist led the Jonestown lot?

And the Waco seige, lots of outside observers have stated the overuse of force by the FBI and ATF etc. I recall Bill Hicks and some of his entourage claiming witness to it.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Wasnt it an atheist led the Jonestown lot?

And the Waco seige, lots of outside observers have stated the overuse of force by the FBI and ATF etc. I recall Bill Hicks and some of his entourage claiming witness to it.

Nah it was Jim Jones the preacher. Yeah, the FBI ****ed up with the Waco thing. Was really no need for it at all.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Nah it was Jim Jones the preacher. Yeah, the FBI ****ed up with the Waco thing. Was really no need for it at all.

Yeah but didnt Jones state a few times he was an atheist and a socialist, after the press got on his case. He was more interested in a communist(as in socialist as opposed to communal) paradise than a religious one.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah but didnt Jones state a few times he was an atheist and a socialist, after the press got on his case. He was more interested in a communist(as in socialist as opposed to communal) paradise than a religious one.

Well we know he was not religious. He liked the power. But in the end, it was not even him killed them all, it was his own followers that gave the drink to the babies. Pretty crazy eh, such control of those people.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Well we know he was not religious. He liked the power. But in the end, it was not even him killed them all, it was his own followers that gave the drink to the babies. Pretty crazy eh, such control of those people.

Did it not have something to do with the murder of a senator or congressman and some of his followers who wanted to go back home to the US?

[Shasown]

Must admit whenever i have been unarmed or outgunned, I have tended to so what the other people with guns have said.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Must admit whenever i have been unarmed or outgunned, I have tended to so what the other people with guns have said.

When have you come across a situation with guns?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

When have you come across a situation with guns?

Worked with and without them many times in the forces and since in a security role.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Worked with and without them many times in the forces and since in a security role.

Ahhhh right nice. I guess we can't really judge people until we're in their situation. You ever watched any of the series Most Evil?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Ahhhh right nice. I guess we can't really judge people until we're in their situation. You ever watched any of the series Most Evil?

The show that profiles murders etc, yeah seen a few of them, not all.

Interesting stuff. Cant say i would like to have to do his job, getting into the mind of serial killers etc, cant be good for your own mental health.

[Shasown]

Yeah I suppose it is a failing in society in some ways the killer becomes more important that the victim.

However, it could also be a simple act of memory, take for example the name Peter Sutcliffe, it would have appeared many times after his arrest and during his trial, whereas remembering the names of his victims, both murder victims and numerous victims of his attacks would be asking too much of the memory.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah I suppose it is a failing in society in some ways the killer becomes more important that the victim.

However, it could also be a simple act of memory, take for example the name Peter Sutcliffe, it would have appeared many times after his arrest and during his trial, whereas remembering the names of his victims, both murder victims and numerous victims of his attacks would be asking too much of the memory.

Yeah true man. But that is the thing, they were just faces to him and they become faces to us. We have been hardened to these kind of things with the moors murders and that, but what he did was still pretty shocking. And the level of violence involved. He wasn't even a sex killer really either.