Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (187454)	4/30/2004 8:31:51 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572807

Have you read "Reading Lolita in Tehran." No I didn't. I tend to steer away from stories of personal agony. while you say it is a "different way of life," it is not one young girls who get married off appreciate Legal marrying age being 13 does not mean all girls are forced to marry on their 13th birthday, I imagine. Personally, I would not want to be married at 13 (nor at 25, it turned out) because I had things to do - schools to go to, places to visit, parties to attend :-) For a girl living on a farm, whose whole life is going to be about that farm and that village, teenage marriage might not be hell. How about the 12 year old girls in UK who get pregnant and have their kids - is it the zenith of western civilization, the thing that sets them apart from Iran, that they are NOT married but have a kid while they are still kids themselves? This picture would disgust a ME person, just like teenage marriage is disgusting to you: news.bbc.co.uk The situation in US leaves much to hope for, if you are really against teenage motherhood: "Around 13% of all US births are to teenage mothers. This figure rises to almost 33% for girls who have had less than 10 to 12 years of schooling." UK is particularly concerned with girls in early teens not only getting pregnant, but having the babies. Is that better than being married at that age? I am not so sure. Both are equally undesirable, speaking for myself. globaleye.org.uk I wasn't talking separate countries, I was talking about a situation where the PA overruns Israel and takes over, what do you expect the fate of Israeli jews would be then, same as the rest of the middle east? Maybe then you SHOULD be talking about separate countries. In this (highly unlikely) scenario, maybe they would want to kick Israeli Jews out. These people could then ask the US to give them some land from within the US, and accuse the local people they deplace as being anti-Semite. Or maybe Palestinians could reserve some refugee camps for them, you know, have a taste of what they have been living through. The question is hardly worth the debate, since you know and I know and so does everyone else that US will never let anyone fight Israel and win. The PA goal is to vanquish Israel, if successful you see a better life for everyone? Not for the Israelis perhaps. Probably a better life for the Palestinians, though. I am not saying I want PA "to vanquish Israel". I am only saying Palestinians have the right to live free from oppression just like Israelis. And sorry but no amount of "it's their leaders' fault" is changing the fact that it is Israel oppressing Palestinians and stealing the land they live on settlement by settlement. a good place for people such as yourself to live. For jewish people? Me? No thanks. Whereas I probably could, it would not be very pleasant after Monte-Carlo. For Jewish Israelis it wouldn't be very nice either, I imagine. This hypothetical situation is not much different from when Israel was established with the open aim of a country "as Jewish as England is English". Can you imagine how welcome the Muslim natives felt?