I don't need or want to have a civilized discussion with a fuckwit. I'll happily insult you for denying that women in certain countries can't be being mutilated when they absolutely are, just because you believe it not possible in an Islamic culture.

Your logic is risible. Are you going to claim that Christmas isn't Christian, because the winter solstice predates it? Are you really so dumb as to not know that religions absorb ideas, modify them, and imbue them with religious authority?

If Islam had no association with FGM, then it would not be necessary for amazing people like Ruediger Nehberg to work tirelessly to get imams to issue fatwas saying FGM is insupportable in Islam.
https://www.target-nehberg.de/...

Qaradawi's previous views:
http://www.onislam.net/english...

You really are an insufferable prick.

And if you really want to be polite about Islam, then don't use the term "AD". And if you're going to use the term AD, then at least use it properly: AD500, not 500AD. And get your fucking dates right. You presumably meant 2000BCE, or else your statement loses internal coherence.

Fuck off and go home.

That is a spectacularly half-baked justification. The Hamas charter is not some remote document. It was written about 30 years ago. It is hardly at odds with Hamas thinking.

Everything about this situation is contested. Your picture of Ahmed Jabari as a peacemaker belies what is, to put it mildly, a more complex picture. He orchestrated not only the release of Gilad Shalit, but his capture as well. At the time of his death, there had been a very large escalation in rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel, which is at least as plausible a factor as to his targeting as his role in peacemaking.

The charter remains of importance because it is wildly unlikely to be modified in the foreseeable future, and it won't be modified because it is supported in its current state, and in its current state it calls for the destruction of Israel. Not all of Hamas may be irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel, but a large part is.

And I for one couldn't give a hairy fuck about Frank Luntz, and am not one of his clients.

You're being rude and disrespectful to the women who are cut who don't happen to conform to your preconceived stereotypes, by having the temerity to live in Iraq, Turkey or Iran. Get over yourself and accept that you don't know shit about this subject, and stop arguing with numbers for no reason other than "it doesn't feel right to me".

I know Egypt is in Africa, not being a gibbering fuckwit and all. It is not part of 'black' Africa, however, and you had said "Since thousands of years this is a practice of african tribes" and "The masters, the slave owners, the conquerers adopt a 'black' custom?" and various other comments which made it very clear that you thought FGM only happened in 'black' African countries such as Niger and not countries such as Egypt. I mentioned a range of countries that did not conform to your prejudices, including Egypt (an example of an Arab and Islamic nation in which FGM was very prevalent), but also including India and Pakistan (as non-African countries). So take your nitpick and shove it up your complacent fat arse, where it can be best friends with your head.

Your point about it not being a religious thing is a fucking stupid point. Islam is not monolithic. FGM is associated with many varieties of Islam, not least because many varieties of Islam are really quite big on the control and particularly the sexual control of women. The misogyny may well predate the local growth of Islamic thought in each local culture, but Islam has been an important mechanism for the protection and expansion of FGM practices in many countries. That is why cut women in many countries seek to get imams to say that the practice is unIslamic, and it is why Yusuf Al Qaradawi's tacit support for FGM is enormously dangerous.

Do you have some kind of vested interest in trying to deny the existence of FGM in countries outside Africa? Or are you just an idiot incapable of accepting that you know fuckall about this subject and your idiotic preconceptions are rendering you incapable of hearing the truth about what women go through in countries outside Africa?

Wait a minute. You have in-depth context and knowledge, and yet you deliberately choose to quote from the Torah as though it's an equivalent document to the Hamas charter? Yet you go on to talk about other people's propaganda? That is not exactly a principled stand now, is it? It makes you seem fairly duplicitous.

There are indeed some elements within Hamas that are pragmatic, and some of them have been killed for their pragmatism (and not only by the Israelis, either). But they are not exactly a dominant force within the movement, which overall is still ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel.

I really cannot for the life of me understand why someone who clearly knows about this conflict would quote Torah as an equivalent to the Hamas charter. It makes no sense. You were obviously going to be called on it.

Do you really not understand the difference between a foundational legal text for an armed movement and a religious text for a faith?

Here, let's spell it out for you: a foundational legal text sets the policy of the armed movement. In the case of Hamas, the policy is to work towards the destruction of Israel. A religious text does not set the policy of the country or countries of the faith's adherents. So the State of Israel does not have a policy of destruction of Amalek even though it's in the Torah. Not least because there aren't any Amalekites.

Do you also have trouble distinguishing your arse from your elbow?

That's a very, erm, special version of history you appear to have masturbated on to the page there. As though the Wannsee conference never happened.

Any time you want to go fuck yourself, feel free.

Denialist twat.

You're rather missing the point. The peak frequency of attacks on the UK by the IRA was never remotely comparable to the peak frequency of attacks on Israel by Hamas. The pressure on the UK government would have been completely different had the frequency been as high. It would have been much more difficult to achieve peace.

You really are being dumb about this, you know.

You are insisting that FGM be characterised as an "African" issue, when it is not.

If you were to actually listen to women who have been cut, rather than theorise some crap about FGM not "even [being] possible" in "islamic / persian / kurdish" societies, you would find out that FGM is a common barbarism in places outside 'black' Africa.

Rates are above 95% in Egypt.
http://www.theguardian.com/glo...
It happens in Brunei and Malaysia, and many other countries as well.

Here are some testimonies from Indian and Pakistani women who have been mutilated. Please do them the courtesy of reading what they say and shutting the fuck up about a subject on which you are obviously very ignorant.

http://orchidproject.org/2011/...

"Neither are the Kurds ... particular [sic] anti-female"
What a pile of absolute steaming kack.

Tell that to Bahnaz Mahmod. Oh wait, you can't, because she was strangled by her family in an "honour killing".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...

There is a serious problem of anti-women violence in Kurdish communities. This includes FGM, and there is plenty of evidence gathered by brave Kurds about how, when and where it happens.

See for example:
http://www.stopfgmkurdistan.or...

It really doesn't take long to avail yourself of facts, you know, even where they don't fit with your approved model of the world.

Run that by me again, would you?

"I'm sorry, little baby that I helped create, and for whom I feel some sense of obligation because I'm a human being and not a fuckwitted prick, but my real dumbassed misreading of Adam Smith and rage against the ladeeyz means I won't provide for your future."

Seriously? What kind of man (as opposed to scummy arsehole) doesn't want to help pay for their child? Their own flesh-and-blood?

Mis-spelling dyslexic as you angrily insult someone -- priceless humour, thank you!

Except that Brianna Wu didn't say "every man" in her article. Pillock.

Gosh, you'd better tell them to give their patent application a new title. You could suggest "Aircraft with a cockpit including a viewing surface for piloting which is at least partially virtual". Oh, wait...

Black cabs can sometimes be cheaper than AddLee, whose fares depend on crossing postcode boundaries. But I agree in general with your hierarchy.