First - find where I said she "got what was coming to her." Or words precisely to that effect.
Second - find anywhere I have said Muslims coming here should not try to integrate or become "oriented" or words to that effect.
Third - find where I have rationalised Sharia Law used against a non muslim.
First -
...she was in another country and wasn't quite aware of the risks of some of her actions.
Naming a teddy Muhammad is a 'risk'? That puts the blame on
her! Sounds very much like 'got what was coming' to me. After all, did
you get told about teddies?
On the second point, you appear to be saying that Gillian Gibbons should have known the customs in someone else's country, whilst also seeming to reckon that the likes certain pushy Muslims should be allowed to hold the axe of Damocles over our heads - for having an 'incompatible' culture.
And they do:
The Amboy Times: The List of Things That Offend Muslims
You've
never, as I can recall, criticised Islamic groups with links to terrorism or even 'mere' extremism:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...away-damning-government-research-paper-3.html
And thirdly, again,
What was done to Gillian Gibbons wasn't clever however she was in another country and wasn't quite aware of the risks of some of her actions.
Not wicked, barbaric, backward or brutal. Just 'wasn't clever'.
Sharia rules in the Sudan. And as for Beth Din, huge numbers of Jews don't want it imposed regardless of its clash with the native culture.
Survey: 61 percent of British Muslims want Sharia courts - Jihad Watch
theblogprof: Sharia: Muslim Policeman in Britain doesn't have to protect a Jew
And when you consider ordure like Sharia banks, halal slaughterhouses, calls for Muslim toilets and Muslims insisting the burkini even be worn by non-Muslims, it's all a sickening, creeping process.
The Jews don't want to impose themselves!
A lot of the aid in Sudan is for the oppressed Christians and Animists - the Muslims do not see them as human often and so unworthy of financial aid.
Religion of Peace, did they say?
No proof so this is mere speculation or baseless personal opinion yet again.
Where does the money come from to pay for the largesse? AFRICAN TAXPAYERS.
Where does any replacement money come from to fill the gap, money supposedly for their dirt-poor? WESTERN TAXPAYERS.
What's not to understand?
('Course, it's all whitey's fault, in the developed world, that Africans starve:
'Ooo, the wich nations have BETWAYED Afwica', say berks. )
Have previously explained and shown in your own links where the lie you believe is.
As Spitting Image once sang, 'it's better to give publicly than pay through higher tax'. When you put money in the tin (or in the shop till) you do it because you know you like to help someone somewhere. When the money is snatched in tax, people have no say where it goes or why it should be stumped-up.
You've shown that the lying is with yourself ... You show absolutely similar thinking on many issues ... hate and ignorance.
And here we go again with the fleckle and playground calls.
Cooky projects including kids being put into employment as child labour and women's groups in low caste rural areas with zero industry.
Cooky projects like their needless space and nuclear arms programmes. Like the African dictators, the Indian Government divert their taxpayers' cash into these things and then expect us to pay for the poor they neglected.
So in that respect, we fund the Indian 'space race' - just as we in the West were giving it up!
And I suppose telling them to prioritise their spending to save us money is out of order, is it? (Well yes, actually, because that's just
'hate and ignowance'!)